VERMONT
Rutland Herald, Feb. 2
Gun safety or gun control - these are two ways to phrase the issue that brought nearly 1,000 people to the State House on Tuesday evening to voice their views on legislation under consideration by lawmakers.
The issue has become more than a matter of public policy. It is also a cultural signifier, bearing weighty meaning about violence, gender, constitutional rights and the role of government in our lives. All of these concerns on both sides of the question were on display in the House chamber.
Lawmakers cannot hope to make the cultural divide go away. Mistrust and misunderstanding run deep. On one side, advocates are afraid that allowing the government a modest first step toward gun regulation will eventually lead to total gun confiscation. On the other side, advocates see that America is a blood- soaked place where modest regulation might save lives. They see gun rights advocates as indifferent to people’s safety, especially the safety of women.
Gun advocates say that guns keep people safe, a view that gun safety advocates scoff at.
The Legislature is not going to make peace between these two camps. That can only happen over the course of years as each side finds reason to set aside its hostility toward the other. Legislators, however, are probably not inclined to do nothing because by doing nothing they would align themselves with one side and against the other. Thus, to consider legislation in the first place arouses the suspicion and opposition of the gun rights crowd.
The main piece of legislation under consideration is limited in scope, and one hopes gun rights activists see that its supporters have a specific aim and do not view the bill as a Trojan horse to bring on broad confiscation of guns.
The bill would allow police to confiscate firearms when they are responding to an incident of domestic violence and to hold onto the weapons for a cooling off period of five days. The reason for this bill is no mystery. Women are most in danger when a male abuser has a weapon at hand in the immediate aftermath of police intervention.
This measure would be subject to constitutional challenge, and Sen. Dick Sears supports a bill that would require a judge to sign off on the seizure of the weapons. Women’s advocates note that even that short delay could prove fatal.
For the police to seize weapons at a scene of domestic violence is the equivalent of police ordering someone to drop his weapon. It is a way to defuse a scene of violence. Seizing the weapon temporarily makes the police action meaningful and not a charade.
It also puts the responsibility on the gun owner.
Gun owners speak of responsible gun ownership, and most practice it. Hunting is part of the way of life in Vermont, and no legislation for gun safety needs to disrespect the rights of hunters or gun collectors.
But someone guilty of domestic violence has abdicated his responsibility. As House Speaker Mitzi Johnson told reporters this week, “If you are afraid of losing your guns, then you need to make sure to get the help you need as an abuser and keep your temper in check.”
There is no denying that gender plays into the issue. A female House speaker is, essentially, telling men to get their act together. But she is not the only woman to take up this cause, and she is joined by many men. There is a reason: The leading cause of murder in Vermont is domestic violence, women are often the victims, and the presence of guns is a factor.
If gun defenders want gun control advocates to distinguish between responsible gun owners and the few criminally irresponsible ones, they ought to be willing to make the same distinction. Let all sides have the courage to look at that distinction, to treat the other side with respect, and to take this important step to protect the lives of women. There are other gun issues at play in Montpelier this year, such as an expanded background check. But Sears and the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to make the job of getting guns out of the hands of abusers a high priority.
Online: http://bit.ly/2EankqZ
___
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Portsmouth Herald, Feb. 1
For decades the General Sullivan Bridge ferried travelers over the Little Bay between Portsmouth and Dover. Standing proudly, it served as a lifeline between the coast and inland communities such as Dover and Rochester. It provided a gateway for tourists and residents alike to our White Mountains region.
But as time wears on all of us, so it did on this iconic structure, which was put into service in 1935. Retirement came in 1984 with the opening of the second Little Bay Bridge.
Unfortunately, decision makers along the way sidestepped the question of what to do with this rusting, elderly green giant, and now the costs of doing anything have skyrocketed.
The time has now come to answer the question of what to do as we near completion of the second bridge and concerns rise about the safe use of the General Sullivan as it continues to deteriorate.
Also pushing a decision are concerns of bike riders, whose numbers have grown in recent years and who must get from one side of the bay to the other during and after construction.
As discussions now stand, attention is being focused on either rehabilitating the General Sullivan or removing its iron structure and building a narrower pedestrian/bike bridge using the existing pilings.
Unfortunately, the cost for either of those plans is jaw-dropping.
The price of a complete restoration of the 1,500-foot structure is tagged at $43.9 million. The alternative, which includes using the concrete piling superstructure as the basis for a narrower bridge, is $32.6 million.
There is a third alternative we believe may better balance the needs of commuters and the state’s financial realities, albeit as a comparatively new consideration that as yet has no price tag. Aside from cost, it would also appear to satisfy the needs of pedestrians and bike riders. That alternative would be to eliminate the General Sullivan Bridge and add a bike/pedestrian path as another new lane to the southbound Little Bay Bridge.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for SABR, a 26-year-old advocacy group for bike riders, said that what ultimately happens with the old bridge is less of a concern to the group than making sure bicycle access is maintained through whatever construction ultimately occurs.
We understand that in order to move the process along, New Hampshire had to provide assurances to the federal government that the General Sullivan would remain in some way over Little Bay.
The General Sullivan is considered a historic landmark. It is one of the highest rated historic bridges in the state, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and identified under federal regulations as a highly valued Section 4(f) resource. As such, the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 protects significant publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and public and private historic sites.
But, to the best of our knowledge, Washington plans to provide nothing in the way of financial support to rebuild the General Sullivan either in whole or part as the costs of saving the rusting structure have escalated sharply from estimates as comparatively low as $26 million only four years ago.
Surely, we would like to see the General Sullivan continue to serve the region in some fashion. It is hard to imagine crossing Little Bay without seeing the old soldier standing at attention. Unfortunately, New Hampshire has a long list of red-listed bridges and roads in desperate need of repairs. Planners and the Legislature must look at needs instead of wants to keep all of our well-traveled roads and bridges safe.
Online: http://bit.ly/2ny2MPP
___
MAINE
Portland Press Herald, Feb. 2
There is an economic principle that’s usually attributed to Herbert Stein, who worked for the Nixon administration and The Wall Street Journal.
Stein’s law: If something can’t keep going forever, it won’t.
Maine’s lobster industry is near the peak of a historic boom, making it the state’s most lucrative fishery. In the last 30 years, lobster landings have increased from 20 million pounds a year to 130 million. No one expects the catch to keep growing forever. The question is not whether it will decline, but when.
Scientists from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, the University of Maine and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have applied computer modeling to that question and have proposed an answer. In a report issued last month, they identified 2014 as the peak of the lobster population and predicted a long, slow decline of 40 to 62 percent by 2030, with the catch returning to levels in line with what was seen in the 1990s.
The Maine Department of Marine Resources has disputed the study and questioned the value of its computer models. Since no one was able to predict the historic rise in the lobster population, Commissioner Patrick Keliher said, he doubts the ability of scientists to accurately predict their decline.
He’s right, but there is plenty of reason to take this report seriously and use it as a planning tool. There’s a lot we can’t know about the future, but what we know about what’s happening in the present supports the report’s predictions.
Carbon pollution created by human activity is making the planet warmer, and few places on Earth are warming faster than the Gulf of Maine. Water temperature plays a well-established if not completely understood role in lobster population growth. Maine lobster harvesters have documented the warming temperatures here, and have witnessed the species’ disappearance from even warmer waters like Long Island Sound and Massachusetts Bay, where they used to be plentiful.
The most prolific lobster fishing grounds in Maine waters have shifted north and east in a generation, from Casco Bay to Stonington. In another generation, it could move away from the coast of Maine entirely.
A 30-year decline in the harvest to the 2000 level should not be of concern to mid-career lobstermen, but it’s something they should think about if they imagine their children will take over the family business.
If the models are correct, fewer lobsters will mean less work for lobstermen, and more pressure on them to diversify their catch. The warmer water might not be all bad news: There are already species of fish being caught in Maine waters that had never been seen this far north, and they may become plentiful.
The study also documented how Maine lobstermen’s self-imposed conservation measures, like throwing back oversized lobsters and females with eggs, has contributed to the boom and will soften the decline. Global efforts by governments and industries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases could also affect ocean temperatures off Maine.
But while the industry is still enjoying this historic peak, it makes sense for the state to remember Stein’s law, and get serious about planning for what’s next.
This lobster boom can’t keep going forever, so it’s right to assume that it won’t.
Online: http://bit.ly/2s3NPJF
___
MASSACHUSETTS
The Lowell Sun, Jan. 30
Why did it take six years for Veterans Administration investigators to get to the bottom of a whistleblower’s complaint about fraud taking place at the Bedford facility?
It’s the latest outrage to surface at the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital
The hospital has been plagued by a string of poor administrative leaders (two have been mysteriously reassigned in recent years) and a culture that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.
It won’t end until the place is purged of its corruptive influences and a protective mindset that ignores wrongdoing.
The VA needs a strong, ethical, hands-on leader. Yet the search to hire a new permanent director recently fell apart when none of the 10 applicants were deemed suitable for the job.
VA Secretary David Shulkin has re-started the search, but it’s clear the public’s patience is wearing thin.
On Saturday, The Sun reported how a father and daughter employed at the VA in Bedford funneled at least $200,000 in VA funds to a family landscaping business. The scheme dates back to 2012. That’s when a whistleblower notified hospital administrators and other federal agencies about it but little happened. In fact, one investigation cleared the culprits of any wrongdoing, which allowed the scheme to continue.
Only through the whistleblower’s persistence did the Office of the Inspector General return to the case, dig deeper, and uncover the fraud.
As to the outcome, that’s even more frustrating.
One person, the former maintenance and grounds supervisor, was allowed to resign from his job; the other person, who worked in VA procurement, was demoted to a lesser job and pay grade.
No prison time or order to pay restitution? Your guess is as good as ours, but here’s what the Office of Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner wrote in his report to President Donald Trump:
“By allowing an employee who engaged in this conduct to remain with the agency, the VA demonstrates a shocking degree of indifference to government ethical standards, procurement regulations, and integrity.”
Kerner added, “I further encourage the VA to take appropriate measures to ensure that conduct like this does not occur in the future, and to suitably discipline employees who have committed serious wrongdoing.”
Easy for Kerner to say. For the past year, The Sun and the Boston Globe have reported one outrage after another, including patients openly purchasing or selling drugs at the VA; a nursing assistant playing a video game while a patient died in bed; three veterans’ overdose deaths while in hospital treatment facilities; and the suicide of a veteran who was turned away at VA mental-health walk-in clinic because employees did not believe his account of a recent suicide attempt.
No one has been disciplined in any of the above cases.
We can only hope the new VA director understands right from wrong and has zero tolerance for professional and criminal misconduct in his or her midst.
Online: http://bit.ly/2DUUU0F
___
CONNECTICUT
The Hartford Courant, Feb. 1
Tolls? Yes. Pay more gas tax? No way.
We pay enough at the pump.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy unveiled a plan to pay for the state’s rail, road and bridge needs on Wednesday, a plan that the legislature will certainly not swallow whole.
And it shouldn’t. Mr. Malloy’s plan is fine as a starting point for discussing how to solve this critical problem, but his proposed solutions give pause.
First on the list is the proposal to phase in another 7-cent tax per gallon at the pump, on top of the 25-cent tax we already pay the state, as well as the excise tax that’s passed on to the consumer, all of which results in one of the highest gas tax rates in the nation.
Even though such a tax hike would translate into less than an extra dollar a week for most drivers, it would hit lower-income folks harder, it’s an unreliable revenue source, and it bolsters the state’s high-tax reputation.
There are better ways to pay for our infrastructure.
Tolls, as the governor proposed, are one of them. While the proposed gas tax hike could generate $100 million by the time it’s fully phased in, tolls could add up to six to eight times as much.
And the beauty of tolls is that 30 percent of the revenue could be contributed by out-of-state drivers.
So-called value pricing could help ease traffic jams and encourage use of mass transit as well.
In a pinch, a driver could choose to use secondary roads to avoid highway tolls, and those who prefer the highway would pay a bit for their upkeep. That’s reasonable. It would be impossible to avoid the extra gas taxes at the pump.
Another proposal - to add $3 to the price of every new tire - makes some sense. Those who put more wear and tear on the roads put more wear and tear on their tires. But because such a tax would generate only about $8 million a year, one has to wonder if it’s worth the hassle - and the addition of one more hated tax.
But a dollar is a dollar no matter where it comes from. Somehow, the state has to pay for its infrastructure needs, and those needs run into the billions. They can’t be avoided or delayed any more.
Even though the transportation funding situation seems to have improved recently, the Special Transportation Fund could be empty by 2020. More than $4 billion of needed repairs and updates are on hold. Let go too long, and a deteriorating bridge somewhere could fail, like the Mianus River Bridge did in 1983.
Federal money can’t be counted on to solve all of the state’s problems, either.
Good infrastructure is a good investment. Minimizing traffic jams, getting more people into mass transportation and maximizing the flow of people - and money - into the state are all excellent goals.
But, while it would be nice to have the finest roads in the nation, the state must invest wisely in its infrastructure, keep costs down by avoiding penny-wise and pound-foolish road maintenance decisions, and keep the trains running.
As long as toll revenues are used only for transportation, it’s the most palatable solution, and a plurality of residents recently polled agree.
Better to make use of toll technology than to spread more pain to the pump.
Online: http://cour.at/2EyIcG8
___
RHODE ISLAND
The Providence Journal, Jan. 29
In the era of fake news, “clickbait,” and partisan hysteria, it is salutary to recall, every now and again, the power of real journalism. In fact, now is a better time to do so than most. That’s because serial sexual predator Larry Nassar, who for years abused young gymnasts when he was acting as their doctor, was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison on Wednesday. What brought about Nassar’s richly deserved, and long overdue downfall? A thorough investigation by The Indianapolis Star.
It’s no secret that journalism is a beleaguered field these days. The rise of the internet knocked out the traditional pillar that sustained local newspapers: classified ads. And print circulation, another key source of revenue, has fallen as many people have gone online to get their news. This has put tremendous pressure on the industry.
But the most disturbing trend for the future of the field is that digital advertising is essentially a digital duopoly: Facebook and Google command 73 percent of digital ad revenue, estimates Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group. And that number grows just about every quarter. The upshot? Newspapers (or indeed, just about anybody else with a news website) have not been able to make up for their falling print revenue with digital advertising.
Here, from a civics point of view, is the problem in a nutshell: the two internet giants don’t do the difficult (and expensive) work of journalism. Reporting is an arduous undertaking, whether it takes place in the mountains of Afghanistan, or behind a desk, spending hours going through obscure public records. But Google and Facebook now harvest the vast majority of the advertising that is supposed to sustain that journalism. It’s essentially parasitism: newspapers and other journalistic enterprises do all the work, while Silicon Valley sucks out the profits.
This cannot go on forever without immense damage to the public. Our system of self-government requires a robust journalistic apparatus to inform citizens of what is transpiring in their name and to keep public officials in check. That’s why a group of newspapers - about 2,000 of them - called the News Media Alliance wants Congress to grant a limited antitrust exemption to the industry. That way, newspapers could come together to negotiate new agreements with the likes of Facebook and Google.
This idea makes strong sense. In reality, the thousands of newspapers across the country aren’t competing with one another. In the old days, that might have been the case; nearly every city in the United States had more than one newspaper, and they fought one another for market share. These days, the number of cities with more than one daily is minuscule. Newspapers have a vested interest in coming together to negotiate a better deal with the internet giants. Their true competitors are Facebook and Google, not the regional newspaper located thousands of miles away. And the newspapers need to extract better terms.
We’re only just beginning to wrap our heads around the massive effect the internet has had on the way that Americans consume information. One thing is certain: Facebook and Google are essentially dominant. (They are responsible for roughly three quarters of referrals to news sites.) It’s a tricky problem. But it’s a worrying one. The only thing worse than “fake news” is “no news.” And unless newspapers are able to get their hands on more of the revenue that their work is actually producing, that could be the future we face.
Online: http://bit.ly/2DY7350
Please read our comment policy before commenting.