NO JOBS, NO RECOVERY It may seem counterintuitive, but with the government reporting stronger-than-expected economic growth at the end of last year, now is the time to think about renewed recession -- and to act to avoid it. The economy grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. But well over half of that growth came from large adjustments to business inventories that are unlikely to be repeated on a similar scale in the months to come. As such, they are evidence that the sick economy is recovering, not that it is healthy. Another chunk of growth was due to government stimulus spending, which will wane in 2010. Much of the recent upsurge in business purchases of equipment and software was likely due to a rush to take advantage of an investment tax break before it expired in December. So, what does it take to translate an incipient recovery into a sustained expansion? In a word: jobs. Employment leads to income and to spending. As sales deplete inventories, businesses restock, which creates more jobs and so on in an upward spiral. Unfortunately, with the economy already some 10 million jobs short, there is no job growth on the horizon robust enough to set that upward spiral in motion. And because the economy is already in such a deep hole, a second leg down would mean ever worsening hardship. The House has already passed a bill that is a good starting point for creating jobs. But the Senate is sitting on its version, with Republicans and a handful of Democrats arguing that deficit reduction is more important than jobs. In the medium term, the deficit is a serious problem. But right now there is no way to sustain a recovery unless millions of jobs are created soon -- and the private sector alone cannot do that. In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that he, too, was worried about the deficit. And as a sign of good faith, he committed to cuts in federal discretionary spending starting in the upcoming budget. The Senate can show its good faith now by passing a jobs bill, ideally this week. A good final bill would combine the Obama administration's call for tax credits for hiring and incentives for small-business lending with sound features from the House and Senate versions. It would contain the House's vital provisions for extending unemployment benefits and providing more aid to states. Without such aid, states will have to make even deeper budget cuts -- laying off large numbers of their own work forces and forcing their private sector contractors to do the same. A final bill should also include provisions from the House and the Senate to create infrastructure jobs and public service jobs. And it should adopt the Senate's plan to create jobs that foster energy efficiency. Obama said he wanted a jobs bill on his desk 'without delay.' Getting a good bill passed will be a crucial test of his ability to lead lawmakers, including members of his own party, where America needs them to go. IT HAPPENED IN OUR BACKYARD We sympathized with the concerns about security and inconvenience raised by the Justice Department's plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described 9/11 mastermind, at a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan, a short walk from ground zero. But caving in to political pressure and agreeing to move the trial, as The Times reported the Obama administration has decided to do, was the wrong move. New York was the right place for this trial. This is where the attack occurred, and New Yorkers should have been proud to see justice done here. The U.S. District Court in Manhattan has a long, successful record of trying terrorists, including the ones responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. President Barack Obama was right to move Mohammed and four other high-profile terrorism suspects out of the jurisdiction of military tribunals. President George W. Bush's decision to hold prisoners outside the law and then attempt to try them in rigged military courts was legally wrong, and hugely damaging to American values and this country's global image. Mayor Michael Bloomberg first supported the president's decision to hold the trial in New York, but reversed field after looking at the costs of what could be a very long process. Local business leaders protested, as did politicians with a variety of motives -- none really sound and some profoundly cynical. Obama should have worked with the mayor to develop a security plan, one that limited local disruption. The federal government should have paid any additional cost. It will have to do that wherever the trial is held. The trial must remain within the federal court system. Obama should not put it in a makeshift court on a military base and definitely should not give in to demands from the right to return Mohammed (and the four other prisoners) to the tribunals. Trying mass murderers in a criminal court is not 'soft on terrorism.' The federal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned many terrorists. The tribunals have not held a single trial, and may never have one that Americans can be proud of. For some Republicans, this is really about keeping Guantanamo open. Others just want to block whatever Obama wants. Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, has a particularly insidious bill that would obstruct justice by stopping the government from spending money on federal court trials for terrorists. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that holding the trial in New York 'would only heighten media and public attention.' That one baffled us. This trial would draw attention if it were held atop Pikes Peak. And isn't the idea of a public trial a bedrock principle of American justice? Holding the trial in New York would be inconvenient. Democracy makes demands on its citizens. It is inconvenient to serve on a jury, too. This was just not-in-my-backyard-ism. Nearly 10 years after 9/11, it is sad if this country cannot freely conduct its business in Lower Manhattan. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE SEC There were predictable howls after the Securities and Exchange Commission told publicly held companies they should warn investors of any potential effects from climate change on their bottom lines. Rep. Joe Barton, among the most reliable of the oil, gas and coal industries' many friends in Congress, complained that the commission's time would be better spent on 'investor protection' rather than imposing new burdens on corporations and promoting the 'social agendas' of environmental groups. Investor protection is exactly what the commission had in mind when it decided, by a 3-2 party-line vote, to add global warming to the list of material issues -- plant closing, the sale of assets -- that companies may have to discuss in their financial filings. Mary Schapiro, the chairman, said the commission was not adding new 'legal requirements' but simply offering guidance to help companies decide when and whether to discuss the potential impact of global warming on their operations and earnings. It makes good sense to us that companies should disclose whether a new law or international treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions is likely to require new investments or increase operating costs. A climate change law could also help companies that produce renewable fuels or environmentally friendly technologies, like wind turbines. That, too, should trigger disclosure. The commission, which took pains to say that it was not expressing an opinion on whether the world's climate was changing, has long required companies to reveal financial or legal impacts from other environmental challenges -- potential liabilities under the Superfund law or the Clean Water Act, for instance. It has also been petitioned by investor groups and environmentalists to add climate change to the list of those challenges. At the same time, ordinary stockholders and state insurance regulators have begun expressing increasing alarm about the potential cost of unchecked climate change for American businesses. The S.E.C. action is simply one more incentive for investors and managers to better understand the risks -- and the opportunities -- out there for publicly traded businesses. SUPER BOWL CENSORSHIP The commercials during the Super Bowl, a showcase for the best (or worst) in TV advertising, often generate buzz and sometimes outrage. This year, viewers will see one ad that has already triggered a heated debate about abortion and censorship. The 30-second spot, financed by the conservative religious group Focus on the Family, is said to recount the pregnancy of Pam Tebow, mother of the college football star Tim Tebow. After falling ill during a mission to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child, who became the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner. The National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other voices for protecting women's reproductive freedom have called on CBS to yank it. Their protest is puzzling and dismaying. A letter sent to CBS by the Women's Media Center and other groups argues that the commercial 'uses one family's story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk' -- a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening. Others argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl. The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices. CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates. After the network screens ads for accuracy and taste, viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich. 