Bangor Daily News, Aug. 9

With the decline of the stock market, low interest rates and rising taxes and medical costs, many Maine seniors are feeling financially pinched. A growing number are turning to a fairly new financial product, the reverse mortgage, to use the equity in their home to pay bills they would otherwise struggle to afford. Bangor, in fact, led the nation in the rate of growth of reverse mortgage in the past nine months, according to the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association. …

For some, reverse mortgages can be a financial godsend allowing them to stay in their homes while using the equity to borrow money to pay bills and otherwise improve their lives. The beauty of a reverse mortgage is that the money does not have to be paid back until the borrower moves or dies.

Basically, the bank gets its cut, plus interest, when the house is sold, either by the homeowner or an heir. Borrowers can take a lump-sum payment or fixed monthly payments or a line of credit. A problem, however, is that some people take out reverse mortgages too early – you must be at least 62 to get one – outlive the life of the loan and then find themselves without any equity in their house, usually their only significant asset. Reverse mortgages also do not work well in areas where property values are dropping.

It is telling that federal law requires those seeking reverse mortgages to first meet with a government-approved counselor. Would-be borrowers should keep in mind that they will have to pay appraisal and closing costs as well as other service fees, which in some areas can run as high as $10,000. No local banks offer reverse mortgages, which instead are offered by national lending corporations. …

With the rapid rise in reverse mortgages, especially in Bangor, state lawmakers would be wise to look into them to ensure that Maine citizens are being fully apprised of their benefits and downsides. …

Continue to build reserve
The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La., Aug. 12

With the continuing fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and new terrorist bombings in cities around the globe, it is clear that the crisis that began on Sept. 11, 2001, is still with us.

The overriding issue: national security.

One of the best ways that the United States can protect itself against sudden economic shocks is to provide for an adequate emergency supply of oil in the United States.

We hope that the U.S. government continues with its efforts, now subject to some misplaced criticism in Washington, to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. …

The Bush administration wants to raise that slowly up to 700 million barrels.

That’s still not a lot, considering that the United States consumes about 20 million barrels a day, but it would cushion our economy should a serious disruption of imports occur. …

Require a balanced budget
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, Aug. 10

Republican president and a Republican-majority Congress prepare to hand the nation the largest federal budget deficit in history, it’s easy to forget that just nine years ago, this party roared back into power with something called the “Contract With America.”

And what was the very first item promised in the contract? A constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.

The amendment passed in the House in 1995 but failed in the Senate by one vote. When Congress and President Clinton succeeded in balancing the budget in 1998, the amendment no longer seemed necessary.

But the era of fiscal prudence was short-lived, ending in 2001. Now the federal government is on a credit binge unmatched in the nation’s history. This year, the federal deficit is projected to be $455 billion, far higher than the previous record of $290 billion, set in 1992. Next year, projections see a deficit of $475 billion. This will be added to the national debt, which already is nearly $7 trillion.

A constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget is looking like an idea whose time has come. Again.

Don’t blur the lines
Helsingin Sanomat, Helsinki, Finland, Aug. 10

Some 200 nuclear scientists and U.S. Defense Department officials have met in Nebraska to talk about adapting the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the post-Cold War era.

The United States’ idea is to sharpen the nuclear deterrent by building what it calls “more useful” weapons where people are not the primary target. Instead, they want to go after targets like stockpiled weapons of mass destruction with bunker-busting bombs.

U.S. President George W. Bush has asked Congress to continue funding “bunker buster” nuclear bombs, some of which will have 10 times the destructive force of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. …

To blur the line between ordinary and nuclear weapons does not make the post-Cold War world any safer. If nuclear weapons become commonplace, they will be attractive to decision-makers around the world.