Americans watched in alarm but not shock as Parliament was locked down after a “terrorist incident” in London on Wednesday, the anniversary of the deadly attack in Brussels. A refugee camp in Nigeria was also bombed on Wednesday — again — by five Boko Haram suicide bombers who’d slipped in the night before, alongside vendors of the charcoal that those who’ve come to the camp to escape Boko Haram need to cook their food. The day before, a car bomb killed 10 people in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia. And a few days before that, 42 Somali refugees were killed when a helicopter fired on their boat off the coast of Yemen.

The through-line of this bloody snapshot is Islamic terrorism. But the response, as laid out in President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint, is to pump an extra $54 billion into the best-funded military in the world while cutting investment in virtually everything else.

One of the most counterproductive cuts of all, however, is the plan to make our country safer by slashing such “soft power” staples as diplomacy and foreign aid.

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who spends just about full time advocating military action, knows how such cuts would work: It “would be a disaster. If you take soft power off the table, then you’re never going to win the war.”

Foreign aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget. And as Graham said, “Investing over there, even though we have needs here, makes us safer.”

That’s the strategic argument, but the moral imperative is even more compelling: We cannot walk away from the world amid what the United Nations is calling the most serious humanitarian crisis since 1945.

Twenty million people are at risk of starvation in four African countries: Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan, where a famine has been declared and a potential genocide has not. Millions have been forced to flee their homes in the country we helped midwife just six years ago, and tribal violence has created a hellscape of forced starvation, mass rapes and towns empty except for the starving animals that farmers had to leave behind.

“It’s time to prioritize the security and well-being of Americans,” the president said recently. But to do that, we cannot abandon a world in trouble.

—The Kansas City Star

Return to 2011, the bailout of the auto industry still fresh in minds. Barack Obama applied pressure as he looked for a show of appreciation from General Motors, Chrysler and carmakers indirectly affected by the rescue operation. Auto executives joined the then-president to announce a shared commitment to increase the average fuel-efficiency standard for new cars and light trucks to roughly 36 miles per gallon by 2025.

The improved efficiency not only would bring net savings for consumers. It promises to ease carbon emissions, transportation being responsible for one-third of this leading source of climate change. The effort has succeeded. In 2007, average fuel efficiency was 20.8 miles per gallon. Today, it is 25.1.

Unfortunately, auto executives now see an opening to ease the requirement moving forward. That is why President Donald Trump traveled to Detroit last week. He is ready to comply with the industry request.

Automakers argue that getting to the final goal in the next eight years amounts to a steep and costly technical challenge. They project an investment of $200 billion to meet the standards. They add that consumers also have made the job more difficult, lower gas prices resulting in more purchases of less-efficient SUVs and light trucks.

Because of the law and court rulings, the president isn’t in position to back away entirely from the higher efficiency standards. Even an easing would have harmful consequences. Barack Obama set up two paths for meeting this country’s part of the Paris Agreement for curbing global carbon emissions. Lower the standards, and compliance with theagreement is unlikely, diminishing the crucial role of American leadership.

Worth emphasis, too, is that $200 billion investment promises a solid return for consumers. Projections are the expense would add an average $875 to the sticker price of a car - and then deliver three times that amount in savings to those behind the wheel.

—Akron Beacon Journal