When President Obama imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, his primary concern was safety. When a U.S. District judge in Louisiana overturned that ban Tuesday, his chief concern was jobs, and a failure by the government to prove that shutting down the floating rigs would protect workers or the environment.

So who was right? To some extent, both. But the president is more right. His focus on preventing another devastating accident is appropriate, and his administration's decisions should not be second-guessed by the federal judiciary — at least when the facts are as uncertain as they are in this case.

The drilling moratorium imposed late last month does seem to be generating economic hardship in Louisiana. Although it affects only 33 floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (while about 3,600 standing structures can continue to operate), some idled rigs are likely to be sent to other parts of the world, leading to a permanent loss of jobs. In the face of this harm, Judge Martin Feldman argued, the government presented little evidence of danger that these rigs would suffer the same failure that caused the disastrous BP spill. Moreover, the government's choice of 500 feet as the threshold for its definition of "deep-water" drilling, and its failure to consider alternatives to a complete ban, show that the moratorium was "arbitrary and capricious," the judge ruled.

That's one way of looking at it. But because we don't yet know for sure what caused the BP spill — and probably won't until multiple investigations are completed — it's impossible to determine whether other floating rigs are susceptible to the same risk. Definitions of what constitutes deep-water drilling vary among experts, and 500 feet is as good a threshold as any. And there are no alternatives that could reduce the risk as much as a moratorium; anything less would raise the possibility of another catastrophe.

What the case comes down to is deciding an appropriate response in the face of massive uncertainty. If Obama is wrong, and there is no particular risk from the other floating platforms, an estimated 11,000 Louisianans might lose their jobs for nothing. If Feldman is wrong, another spill could occur that would further ravage the environment of Louisiana and surrounding states, perhaps for decades, devastating their tourism and fishing industries and costing many thousands more jobs.

We'd rather err on the side of caution. So should the justices of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case will next be heard.

— Los Angeles Times• • •A gargantuan bill that would continue unemployment pay at 99 weeks and dole out extraordinary Medicaid subsidies is stuck in the Senate. The sticking point is the amount House Resolution 4213 adds to the national debt.The main fight has been over the $24 billion extraordinary federal subsidy for Medicaid. The House left off this piece, keeping the federal support of Medicaid at its normal level. Senate Democrats added the $24 billion back, then could not get 60 votes. In the last few days, the bill's supporters have been trying to negotiate a smaller package that could pass.It is our belief that public spending needs to be reset, so that the cost of government matches the private sector's ability to pay. The House had it right in cutting the $24 billion.We also are skeptical of keeping unemployment benefits at 99 weeks. It is time that benefits for new claimants have a shorter horizon, though not as short as the normal limit of 26 weeks.Those are just two pieces of HR 4213, a bill known as the "American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." It does close some loopholes, such as a way lawyers and lobbyists can use S corporations to avoid Social Security tax. But mainly the bill keeps old benefits flowing. Some of these we strongly support, such as the deductions for sales taxes and college tuition.Others may be good, bad or ugly: spending for summer youth jobs; tax credits for hybrid trucks, home energy improvements, biodiesel, railroad track maintenance, mine rescue-team expenses, restaurant buildings and even motor sports entertainment complexes; tax breaks for investments in lower Manhattan and the Hurricane Katrina zone; investments in Indian reservations, the District of Columbia and American Samoa; tax breaks for timber companies organized as real estate investment trusts.Imagine having one vote, yes or no, on all these things. No wonder the government spends so much.

— Seattle Times.