Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New England newspapers:
The Day (Conn.), Oct. 3, 2016
Release your federal income tax returns, Mr. Trump. The American public deserves to know what you have been up to if they are to seriously consider electing you president.
Allowing public inspection of the returns was the right thing to do before. All presidential candidates in the modern era have done so. But given the news that came out over the weekend, it is now vitally important you do so.
Anonymously mailed some of Donald Trump’s past tax records, The New York Times reported over the weekend that a series of business disasters in the 1990s, including mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos and his calamitous decision to purchase the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, allowed Trump to declare a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns.
What is the significance of that? Well, according to tax experts The Times consulted with, it likely meant he avoided paying a dime in personal income taxes for 18 years. Not bad for a guy living a lavish lifestyle and flying around in his own plane.
Trump has complained that the Internal Revenue Service is always auditing his returns. No wonder, if his tax attorneys are pushing the envelope in terms of tax avoidance. The public deserves to learn exactly how this all worked. Trump’s explanation that he can’t release returns that are being audited is an empty excuse. There is no prohibition against releasing returns subject to an audit.
So what if he avoided paying taxes, say Trump’s defenders. Don’t all of us try to pay the lowest tax we can?
But all of us are not running for president. Voters deserve to know how someone used the outrageous tax loopholes available to commercial real estate developers to continue living the good life even as blue-collar contractors went unpaid because of Trump affiliates going bankrupt.
These tax rules are win-win for real estate speculators, like Trump, allowing them to use partnerships and limited liability companies to insulate their personal wealth, yet using the losses to cancel out income on their personal returns.
So doesn’t this make Trump the perfect guy to fix the problem?
Arguably, except that his tax plans would not close a single loophole that benefits him and businessmen like him. Indeed, it would improve their lot in life, lowering the tax rate to 15 percent for the LLCs and partnerships.
If Trump truly wants to do some practical vetting, he will release his tax returns as every presidential candidate has done for 40 years so that voters can vet his suitability to administer the most powerful position in the world.
What about his opponent’s tax returns?
As noted previously, Bill and Hillary Clinton released their joint tax returns for 2015, as the couple has done going back to 1977. They made $10.6 million in adjusted gross income, down from $28 million in 2014. They paid an effective rate of 34 percent last year, about the same as a year before and about 8 percent higher than the average in their income bracket. They gave about 10 percent of their income to charity.
Clinton’s vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, released his returns. The Virginia senator and his wife, Anne Holton, Virginia’s secretary of education until she stepped down in July, reported income of $313,441 for 2015. They paid a federal effective tax rate of 20.3 percent.
So did Trump’s VP pick, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. He and his wife, Karen, reported bringing in $113,026 in adjusted gross income in 2015, with most of it coming from Pence’s income as governor. They paid $8,956 in federal income taxes, giving them an effective income tax rate of 8 percent, keeping their rate low through a variety of tax breaks and losses they claimed.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal income tax system remains largely progressive, with the Top 1 percent paying an effective tax rate of 34 percent, the middle-income paying a rate of about 14 percent and the lowest income quintile about 3 percent.
Yet there are problems that leave the system open to abuse, as The Times’ reporting illustrates. In evaluating who might be motivated to close the loopholes - or not - voters have the right to assess the tax returns of presidential candidates.
Once again we urge Mr. Trump to turn over his tax-return documents going back at least several years.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2dmrdbG
The Portland Press Herald (Maine), Oct. 7, 2016
Along with guns and flashlights, doses of the overdose-reversal medication Narcan recently became standard equipment for all Portland patrol officers. The greater availability of the medication represents a step forward for efforts to curb the death toll from Maine’s drug epidemic - but it’s also an acknowledgment of our failure as a society to prevent and treat addiction.
Law enforcement officers in Maine have been allowed to carry and use Narcan since 2014, when the Legislature passed an emergency bill expanding access to the medication. Officers in Kennebec County, Bangor, Westbrook and Skowhegan all carry the antidote and have been trained to give it.
Until now, Portland has opted to have only Fire Department emergency crews administer Narcan. But drug overdose reports are showing no sign of tapering off: Twenty-one people have died of overdoses in Portland so far this year, and police have responded to about 200 overdose calls. So we agree with Chief Michael Sauschuck that it makes sense to start having police officers deliver the remedy if they arrive before the paramedics do.
But at the same news conference last Friday where Sauschuck announced the move, calling Narcan “a miracle drug that saves lives,” he said something else worth listening to: “I’m not happy that our officers will be carrying this drug. I’m not happy in the sense that that means that from a societal standpoint, we’re not doing enough regarding treatment and prevention and even enforcement in certain regards.”
The chief is right to be frustrated. His officers are taking on the responsibility of saving lives because too many other people have allowed the crisis to continue and escalate.
The amount of money the state spends to prevent and treat addiction fell 6.6 percent between fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Gov. LePage has repeatedly rejected Medicaid expansion funds that would help more Mainers with substance use disorders access treatment. He also sees no reason to boost reimbursement rates for methadone clinics. And this summer, he refused to sign a 46-state pact that prioritizes saving the lives of those with addiction issues over prosecuting them.
As a result, people are winding up in emergency departments or dying before they can get treatment. Maine saw 272 fatal drug overdoses last year; there were another 189 in the first six months of this year, putting the state on track to surpass 2014’s record toll of 208 deaths.
First responders across Maine are doing their part to address the state’s addiction epidemic. It’s not clear when policymakers will fulfill their responsibility: making sure Mainers get the help they need before they’re unconscious, on the ground, waiting for someone with a miracle drug.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2dAOvA3
Boston Herald (Mass.), Oct. 6, 2016
Where is it written in the Democratic playbook that rude works? Or that endless repetition of anti-Trump talking points during a seemingly endless vice presidential debate would be a winning strategy?
Democrat Tim Kaine played the perfect little soldier in the service of his presidential running mate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night. Surely he was following the orders of a host of debate-prep gurus as he sputtered and repeatedly interrupted Republican Mike Pence, who was the very image of grace under fire.
Kaine bellowed his way through a litany of alleged Trumpisms - “he started his campaign with a speech where he called Mexicans rapists and criminals,” Kaine insisted. It was a charge Kaine would make as often as he could in the course of the evening - a charge even Washington Post fact-checkers noted went well beyond the actual Trump quote, which referred to “illegal” immigrants and was qualified even by the bombastic Trump by the word “many.”
But why let facts get in the way of a good attack, and Kaine was on a roll - or at least he thought he was.
Long about the time Kaine interrupted even Pence’s personal remembrance of seeing the smoke rising from the Pentagon on 9/11 to inject that, well, he was in Virginia, most thinking viewers were throwing popcorn at the screen. Really, this is a grown-up?
Now it is a truism that no one really votes on the basis of who the vice presidential candidate is. But surely Mike Pence reminded voters of what the Republican Party has always stood for - especially on foreign policy.
“You know, there’s an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates,” Pence said. “And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East.
“And all the while, all we do is fold our arms and say we’re not having talks anymore,” he added. “To answer your question, we just need American strength.”
Now if only Donald Trump could articulate a foreign policy with that kind of clarity - and boldness.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2cYZ8Lm
Concord Monitor (N.H.), Oct. 6, 2016
New Hampshire has largely been spared the turmoil that has been sweeping communities each time a black or brown man is killed in a confrontation with law enforcement.
Police here, we believe, are better trained and the state’s minorities are few. That doesn’t mean that driving while black never happens or that racism can’t be found, but it isn’t on the surface.
That makes it harder to talk about, so we thank Merrimack Valley football player Samuel Alicea, who has now taken a knee before three football games when the national anthem is played. Alicea’s courageous protest reminds us that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are, though the law of the land, aspirational documents. We must constantly ask ourselves, as a society, whether we are living up to words like “all men are created equal,” that obstacles are not placed in the path of some seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Alicea’s actions have the support of his principal and the district’s superintendent, as they should, and the young man has earned respect from many in the community, even among some who are pained by what they perceive as disrespect for the flag. The greater pain comes with the realization that Alicea’s protest is justified
Caroletta Alicea, a state representative, a Merrimack Valley school board member and Samuel’s grandmother, has suffered the insults and slights endured by all people of color. Like her grandson, she is patient and brave, having marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and willing to suffer discomfort to foster understanding.
Working with Merrimack Valley Superintendent Mark McLean, Caroletta Alicea is planning a school-district-wide meeting to discuss racial equality.
It is a discussion that should be held in every school district, and in every church and home.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2cYZuSr
The Providence Journal (R.I.), Oct. 7, 2016
Why did a small majority of Colombians vote “no” last weekend to a plan for peace? They concluded it would be nothing more than a faux peace.
For some time, the general consensus had been that voters in a referendum would strongly approve the Colombian government’s deal to end a bloody civil war with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.
FARC is a left-wing guerrilla outfit that has been terrorizing the people of Colombia for more than 50 years. The group’s total membership has never been properly determined. It is believed to have around 10,000 to 15,000 members. A 2005 Human Rights Watch report, however, estimated than 20 percent to 30 percent are minors who were forced to join.
Steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology and revolutionary socialism, this group has always claimed to support the agrarian community, workers and the poor. Its actions, however, have been violent and bloodthirsty, harming the people it claims to want to help.
FARC is hell-bent on employing terror to achieve its goals. The United Nations estimates that FARC and a smaller guerrilla outfit, ELN, have caused 12 percent of the country’s civilian deaths during the protracted military engagement.
Meanwhile, FARC has reportedly earned significant amounts of ransom money by kidnapping people. It has also extorted funds from businesses, robbed banks, and produced and taxed illegal drugs, among other things.
This has enabled it to acquire $60 million to $100 million annually, according to some reports.
In 2008, millions of Colombians went to the streets to demonstrate against this Marxist-Leninist terrorist group.
And last weekend, a slim majority of 50.2 percent of voters rejected the so-called plebiscite for peace. They clearly didn’t trust the arrangement made by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and FARC after four years of negotiations.
The changing political dynamic in Colombia (and other Latin American countries) may have also played a significant role. Leftist ideology appears to be fading in Latin America.
Conservative Álvaro Uribe, a former two-term president who had committed himself to vanquishing FARC, had campaigned passionately against the deal, warning that it represented giving in to terrorists. The guerrillas, he argued, would not go to prison, FARC would gain seats in Congress, and the deal would effectively legalize narcotrafficking. Thus, the election’s outcome was a clear victory for Mr. Uribe and a rejection of the establishment government.
But what’s next for the country?
Colombia, strongly allied to the United States, is enjoying rapid economic growth, with the fourth largest GDP in Latin America. It has gradually shifted from an agrarian economy to such industries as shipbuilding, electronics and mining.
Unfortunately, its people have continued to struggle with murder, corruption, extortion and kidnapping, in part because of the government’s battle with guerrilla outfits like FARC.
Colombia’s biggest problem, though, is the illegal drug trade. Several drug cartels control a fantastically lucrative market with an iron fist. For decades, this country was the world’s leading producer of coca, which is used to make cocaine. (Peru now holds this unenviable distinction.) Other drugs, including marijuana and heroin, are commonly produced here.
These long-standing problems still have to be dealt with in Colombia, with or without a peace treaty.
At this point, there’s no peace in sight - and the future remains a series of question marks. Certainly, those who voted “no” want to see the country vanquish the FARC thugs, rather than reward them with a share of power and trust them to end their violence.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2dN1L2l
Rutland Herald (Vt.), Oct. 5, 2016
Democrats are betting that in the event Donald Trump loses the election they will be able to brand his supporters within the Republican Party with a Scarlet T for a generation to come.
That’s why Republicans have been so nervous about voicing support for Trump, sometimes going so far as to renounce him altogether. The responses of three candidates in Vermont show the dilemma faced by Republicans and the advantage enjoyed by Democrats.
In a recent conversation, Deborah Bucknam was confronted with the question of whether she supported Trump. She is a lawyer from St. Johnsbury and the Republican candidate for attorney general. Her instant response was to say, “No comment.” Then she added, “I’m going to be a coward.”
She had nothing bad to say about Trump and nothing good. She herself recognized that this response was less than courageous. It is not a position in which any candidate likes to find herself. But in this extraordinary year, most Republicans have found the conduct and words of their standard bearer to be indefensible. So they mostly have taken a pass on trying to defend him.
Bucknam is in a bind. She acknowledges that one reason she is running is that T.J. Donovan, her Democratic opponent and the overwhelming favorite, should not run unopposed. For the sake of the party, somebody had to be the good soldier, and she decided she would step forward.
Also as a loyal Republican, she knows Trump was the winner of the Vermont Republican primary, so he has a following among at least some of the voters who may vote for her. It will be hard enough for Bucknam, an untested candidate, to gather a following without alienating her natural constituency by denouncing Trump. At the same time, she knows most Vermonters are likely to find Trump repellent on many grounds, and she doesn’t want to alienate them either. Yet if the Democrats are right, her refusal to stand up against Trump will tar her forever.
Phil Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has been firmer in his rejection of Trump. He has said he will not vote for Trump, though unlike former President George H.W. Bush, he has not gone so far as to say he would vote for Hillary Clinton. The presence of Trump on the ticket appears to be deeply troubling to Scott, which annoyed Republicans on the right during the primary. At least Scott has preserved his dignity.
Democrats are in a far stronger position. When she was asked about Trump, Sue Minter, the Democratic candidate for governor, denounced him in clear and emphatic terms. She said his campaign was founded on “racism, hatred and division,” and that the nation needed strong leaders to counter the destructive trends touched off by the Trump campaign. Clearly, she intended to be one of those leaders.
She quickly directed her conversation to the efforts to settle Syrian refugees in Rutland, and she congratulated Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras for his courage in launching the resettlement effort. She described her own family’s experiencing hosting a refugee family from Russia several years ago at their home in Waterbury.
Thus, she not only condemned Trump and his racism-soaked campaign, she presented herself as a kind of anti-Trump, willing to speak up where Republicans have become mute.
It is a matter of speculation at this point what kind of crack-up the national Republican Party will undergo following a Trump defeat. One can imagine that establishment figures such as House Speaker Paul Ryan would hope to wall off the extremists who have gained such a destructive hold on the party, but Ryan has learned he must tread carefully for fear of alienating a significant part of his caucus.
In Vermont, the Trumpian right has seldom been strong enough to gain control of the party. Moderates such as Scott and Douglas have generally had the upper hand. This year, they are being tested. And they don’t much like it.
Online:
https://bit.ly/2dUYBeU
Please read our comment policy before commenting.