Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:
The Albany Times-Union on an attempt to limit the use of disposable plastic bags in New York City.
Jan. 30
Unless the state Legislature and Gov. Cuomo decide to interfere, New York City will be rolling out a smart program on Feb. 15 aimed at changing the habits of its 8.4 million residents regarding the use of disposable plastic bags.
The measure would require stores in the five boroughs to charge a nickel for each non-reusable plastic and paper bag. The goal is to make a significant dent in the tons of bags dumped into city landfills every day and the thousands that get away, blowing down the street like tumbleweeds, getting caught in trees, blocking storm drains and choking animals.
The 5-cent charge is the part that has many concerned that it will amount to a draconian tax on the people who already have trouble affording the food that goes in the bags. That was a big reason the New York City Council was so divided last year when it passed the ordinance 28-20.
Many communities in Westchester and Suffolk counties, and hundreds across the U.S., have similar rules, aimed at encouraging shoppers to make the transition to reusable plastic or cloth bags. In New York City, exceptions allow use of plastic when packing meat or fish, so to not contaminate reusable bags.
While the “carbon footprint” left from producing a much heavier, reusable tote is much higher than that of a single disposable plastic bag, the savings quickly multiply, as do the benefits to the environment.
Having failed to block it at the City Council level, the opponents appealed to state legislators and convinced Sen. Simcha Felder, the Brooklyn Democrat who caucuses with the Republican majority, to stop the law from taking effect. His tactic is a bill, that has since been passed by the Senate, prohibiting any New York municipality of a million or more residents - which is only New York City - from enacting such a law.
We’ve seen the error of hidebound state legislatures stifling local initiative before. The Senate’s action, in that sense, is akin to the hypocrisy in North Carolina after its largest city, Charlotte, adopted a law affirming that transgender people could use the public rest room that fits their gender identify. The state Legislature there quickly passed a law blocking any such local laws. Now, after economic boycotts and other pressures, including the ouster in November of their Republican governor, they are trying to untangle the awkward situation.
Those who stand against New York City’s disposable plastic bag law, with assistance from a bag industry trade group, are pressing the Democratic leadership of the state Assembly to pass a companion bill to Sen. Felder’s and send it on to the governor for his signature.
It’s become a political hot potato, with Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie of the Bronx and Gov. Andrew Cuomo not saying whether they support or override the New York City Council.
They should stand aside and let the new law take effect. If it works the way supporters hope, a statewide bill on plastic bags should come next.
____
Online:
https://bit.ly/2kkeSeP
The Auburn Citizen on two clean water proposals under consideration in New York.
Jan. 29
In the first few weeks of 2017, elected officials in Albany have put forth what appear to be bold proposals for dealing with clean water challenges around the state.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is touting a clean water infrastructure bill that would authorize spending up to $2 billion over the next five years to address issues in municipalities around the state.
The state Senate has come out with its own proposal, a $5 billion clean water bond act to deal with similar issues outlined in the governor’s bill. Because it’s a state bond act, the Senate’s measure would require voter approval in the November general election.
It’s not clear if the proposal from the Senate, controlled by Republicans, is meant as an alternative to the Democratic governor’s proposal. The Senate officially unveiled its measure after Cuomo announced his, but the Senate’s was driven by a task force that conducted hearings last year and issued a report at the start of this year.
Our hope is that both of these plans can be moved forward and put into law, a position that’s significantly influenced by the major scare involving blue-green algae in the treated drinking water for more than half of the Cayuga County population last year. Our community experienced an unfortunate reminder of just how precious clean water is to daily life, and as the algae threat promises to grow here and places all around the globe, we need elected leaders to commit substantial resources to tackling the problem.
That brings us back to these two proposals. Together, they’d amount to $7 billion to take on clean water issues in this state. That sounds like a lot of money but consider this troubling statistic: The state Department of Health has pegged the estimated cost of fixing or replacing faulty drinking water infrastrucutre in New York state at $38.7 billion, along with another $36.2 billion for wastewater systems. And those estimates were made in 2008, when blue-green algae in public drinking water systems wasn’t on the radar.
In other words, we have a huge challenge in this state when it comes to clean water. We’re encouraged to see the executive branch and the Senate come forward with a much-needed funding plan, and we’d encourage the state Assembly to also get on board.
Ultimately, these billions of dollars can help prevent even far greater costs in the future if we allow our drinking water to be compromised.
____
Online:
https://bit.ly/2jw48FC
The (Gloversville) Leader-Herald on the United State renegotiating a better Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Jan. 30
Among the first actions President Donald Trump took last Monday was to officially kill U.S. participation in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. No doubt free-trade advocates will condemn the new chief executive for that.
But all Trump did was to, in effect, sign the TPP’s death certificate. It was already dead for all practical purposes.
The TPP was in the category of international agreements that must be approved by Congress. That was not going to happen.
You may remember the TPP was an issue during the presidential election last year. It was stalled in the Senate even then.
Both Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, said they opposed the plan (though, while secretary of state, Clinton had called it “the gold standard” of trade deals).
Many economists remind us the U.S. cannot be prosperous without a substantial amount of international trade. They are right.
Provisions in the TPP were so onerous that it might have benefited the other 11 nations involved, but it would have been bad for Americans.
All trade agreements are not created equal. Though Congress probably would have killed the TPP on its own, Trump was right to end the discussion. Now, perhaps, U.S. officials can negotiate a better deal.
____
Online:
https://bit.ly/2kMGYvI
The (Rochester) Democrat & Chronicle on the two opposing sides of the sanctuary city debate.
Jan. 28
On Wednesday, Donald Trump issued an executive order that will, more than anything else, prove how difficult it is to get things done when you are president of the United States compared to being president of a corporation.
Not that either job is an easy one, but Trump will undoubtedly run into more setbacks than he is accustomed to. He must learn to respond to these with greater transparency and grace than he has demonstrated to date, and US citizens must also be careful not to let political rhetoric - from both sides of the aisles - further divide us.
Trump’s executive order threatens to pull federal funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which he defines as municipalities that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. That is a federal law that stops state and local governments from prohibiting the sharing an individual’s immigration status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
That seems to make a lot of sense. If someone does not have permission to be in the U.S., and commits a crime, it is difficult to argue that he or she deserves protection from state and local governments who have decided to flaunt the federal law.
But, Trump’s definition of sanctuary jurisdictions does not match the language used by places like Rochester, which has called itself a sanctuary city for about three decades. And, with a few additional tweaks suggested by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, it will seem like even more of an apples to oranges comparison.
Rochester and most sanctuary cities have just decided to leave the business of immigration control to federal authorities. The resolution directs city employees to “to exclude refugee status as a consideration in their daily activities and routine dealings with the public.”
It is kind of like a “don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy. So when the feds start pressing for information about immigrants, Rochester simply won’t have any to offer up.
The designation is important to many people in Rochester whose moral compasses point to compassion for others who, more likely than not, have faced hardship and struggle. They have turned to the land of liberty - “send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door” - and Rochester to find something better for themselves and their families.
So, when Trump speaks loudly and forcefully about cracking down on immigrants who are criminals, and places like Rochester defiantly dig in their heels to protect those at the margins of society, both are making statements that reflect their priorities.
They are instigating public debate, and drawing passionate responses. At best, this helps lead to a more informed citizenry, one that is reading news reports and commentary, learning about how the law works and gaining insight into the lives of immigrants. At worst, it is simply a lot of words that serve to divide, but do nothing to advance social policy, reduce crime or improve anyone’s life.
When Trump runs into problems pulling significant federal funding from places that call themselves “sanctuaries” - which he most likely will - he should acknowledge it and move on to more productive actions. And U.S. citizens should not let ourselves get sidetracked by a political argument of little consequence when there are so many more important issues to address.
____
Online:
https://on.rocne.ws/2kLiXJH
Newsday on the merit of President Trump’s nominee for education secretary.
Jan. 27
Hidebound, outdated and often failing, our nation’s education system needs changes - tweaks in some cases and overhauls in others. Inexperienced, ideologically dogmatic and seemingly unconcerned with results or evidence, Betsy DeVos, the nominee for secretary for education, is the wrong person to lead those changes.
DeVos, 59 and a lifelong Michigan resident, has donated, along with her family, more than $125 million to conservative political causes, often related to education reform. She twice served as the chair of the Michigan Republican Party, and has been a primary leader of revamping schools in Detroit for two decades.
The hallmark of change in the Motor City has been an out-of-control expansion of often for-profit charters. Regulations do not demand these schools be run by competent or even law-abiding leaders in order to open or stay in business. Some have been founded by felons. Many are run by poor educators. After 20 years of DeVos’ increasing influence, Detroit has by far the worst-performing schools of any major U.S. city.
DeVos’ opponents, the American Federation of Teachers and New York’s teachers unions, cry that she is a billionaire who never worked in or attended a public school and never sent her children to one. This is troubling. But far more disqualifying are her attempts to paint a public education system that has given millions of students the tools to succeed as a “dead end,” doomed forever because “government sucks.”
Public charter schools are a crucial part of the nation’s educational future. They serve as laboratories for innovation and as alternatives to a “one size fits all” system. But without rigorous vetting and oversight, both of which DeVos and her allies have fought bitterly in Michigan, charter schools are invitations to disaster for students and communities. Where public schools get poor results, extremely limited voucher programs with strict guidelines could make sense to help low-income students pay for private school tuition. Voucher programs are hard to design without causing damage, partly because they take money from public schools and tend to leave the most expensive-to-teach kids, students achieving below grade level or those with special needs, in the public systems. But where public schools are horrid, and proven private or parochial schools can provide great educations at fair prices, the option shouldn’t be dismissed.
But what DeVos has championed is a much broader system of public dollars following students to private schools, a view that supports tax money paying the tuition of families who send their children even without the vouchers. That would greatly undermine public education as a whole, leaving public schools with the most difficult-to-educate students and private schools with the money and the easiest-to-teach kids. And it’s not what taxpayer dollars are for.
DeVos is not wrong to back school reform. Many of her opponents are mistaken in fighting so hard against excellent charters and other innovations, and for the perpetuation of a system that often fails kids. But DeVos’ ideas, where they’ve been tried, have failed. Her vision is mistaken. Her experience is nil. And confirming her as secretary of education on Tuesday could be a disaster.
____
Online:
https://nwsdy.li/2kLk2RD
Please read our comment policy before commenting.