Editorials from around New England

Editorials from around New England:

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Cape Cod Times

May 17

In a move that likely surprised no one, the president last week upheld yet another misguided campaign promise and pulled the United States out of a multinational accord designed to serve as a check on Iran’s nuclear armament ambitions. Trump’s move immediately set in motion a series of events that will prove just as difficult to control and to predict as an unstable nuclear reaction. We can only hope that the end result is not nearly so catastrophic.

Throughout his campaign, Trump did little to hide his intense distaste for every initiative put in place by his predecessor. Almost from the moment of his inauguration, he has worked diligently to erase every element of the previous administration, with varying degrees of success. Long a critic of what he suggested was President Obama’s overuse of executive orders, he promptly signed a series of his own to roll back the previous president’s work. He then defied not only Obama, but most of the rest of the world, pulling the United States out of the Paris climate change accord.

Real legislative change has proven more problematic, however, as was evidenced by his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which fell flat after he could neither muster a long-promised improved health care plan, nor the votes from Republican lawmakers to support the decommissioning of the Affordable Care Act.

Undaunted, Trump has continued to chip away at Obama’s legacy, targeting what many considered to be his signature foreign policy accomplishment: the 2015 Iranian nuclear accord. Arguably Obama’s crowning achievement of international diplomacy, the deal won the backing of Germany, France, Britain, China and was designed to contain Iran’s nuclear program through a combination of carrots and sticks. In return for the U.S. rolling back its devastating economic sanctions, which had wreaked havoc on the Iranian economy, the Muslim nation agreed to stop developing its nuclear weapons program and allow foreign inspectors into the country.

From the start, neoconservatives railed against the agreement, believing it favored Iran at the expense of American security. Obama obviously understood the political perils of the accord; the agreement was never ratified by Congress, but was rather held in place by a regular review by the president, who essentially had to re-approve it every six months.

And this element would ultimately prove to be the deal’s fatal flaw; unlike a treaty, which is considerably more difficult to unravel, anything for which the president has the sole power to approve or disapprove is an inherently fragile arrangement. Obama’s inability to prompt positive congressional action meant that the agreement would forever hold on by a political thread.

Trump and the ever-increasing number of hawks in his administration have argued that the deal was ill-conceived from the outset; that it allowed Iran to continue its uranium enrichment program virtually unchecked and that it would, in a matter of years, develop an atomic weapon, although none could produce incontrovertible truth that such deception was actually taking place.

Fellow geopolitical alarmists, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, kept up a steady drumbeat of fear. Although, to be fair, Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel over the years, making Israeli fears of a nuclearized Iran something more than an existential worry.

But there were no indications that the accord was not accomplishing its goals. Leaders from Germany, Britain, and France lobbied Trump directly and indirectly to tread with caution, asking him to hold off on scuttling the pact. But in the end, Trump’s desire to feed his base what they wanted took precedence over common sense; instead of developing another deal to take its place, he instead scrapped not only the accord, but any ability of the United States to function as a reliable player in the region.

In addition to abdicating America’s role in the region, by ending this country’s involvement in the agreement, Trump has placed numerous American companies at financial risk. His actions immediately invalidated billions of dollars’ worth of deals struck between U.S. corporations and Iran. The sanctions could also jeopardize billions of dollars in agreements with European companies, as the sanctions prohibit American companies from working with entities that continue to work with Iran.

And none of this takes into account what effect the reimposition of sanctions may have on the fragile Iranian economy. A defiant Iranian leadership has suggested that it may again start up its nuclear program. One thing we do know is that financial instability almost always leads to political instability, and if there is anything that this region of the world does not need it is additional political troubles.

In announcing the end of the accord, Trump basically hung his entire argument on the notion that Iran has lied in the past and therefore could not be trusted to ever tell the truth again. Now he has given Iran and the rest of the world every opportunity to make the same argument about the United States.

Online: https://bit.ly/2IrSi0V

___

CONNECTICUT

The Day

May 16

Talk of returning the iconic clock tower to Ocean Beach Park seems to resurface every few years, if not like clockwork, at least with predictable regularity.

And so it is again.

Former City Clerk Clark van der Lyke and businessman Jeff Suntup are forming a committee to raise the funds and find sponsorships to develop plans for a new tower and get it constructed.

The last serious bid to do so took place in 2012. As was the case back then, we express support for the effort while acknowledging the challenges.

Back then the nonprofit group Save Ocean Beach, which has done so much for New London’s biggest attraction, was pursuing the goal of returning the centrally located tower to its place high above the boardwalk. SOB’s experience should be tapped in this latest effort.

The city erected the 100-foot steel-frame tower, with its four clock faces, as part of reconstruction that followed the 1938 Hurricane. It stood until 1988, when it came crashing down during a botched attempt to lower it by crane for maintenance work.

Until its demise, the instructions, “I’ll meet you at the clock tower,” were an Ocean Beach tradition.

Still to be determined is whether the base that served as the foundation for the old tower still has the integrity to support a new one. That would save a lot of money. Also in question is whether it should be a reproduction or include some concessions to modernity. Inclusion of a cellular antenna array could defray costs.

Some are cringing over the suggestion that instead of mechanical clock faces - more costly and susceptible to operational problems - digital screens could display a traditional clock face look and perhaps push ads to raise revenue.

Planners should keep an open mind.

We repeat a suggestion we made in 2012. Create a contest to come up with a design that is true to the spirit of the original tower but with touches that give a new tower its own identity. Extra points for an economical design.

Once again, we endorse the goal to again have a tower serving as the signpost signaling that this is New London’s Ocean Beach Park, a special place.

Online: https://bit.ly/2wW7k9R

___

RHODE ISLAND

The Providence Journal

May 16

Is it any wonder that many developers don’t want to waste their time and money trying to invest in Rhode Island? Is it any wonder that Rhode Island’s economy is consequently feebler than it should be, leaving its residents with less money in their pockets and fewer opportunities to get ahead?

A New York developer named Jason Fane has come forward with an exciting plan to build the tallest building in Rhode Island, luxury apartments in downtown Providence that would energize the city, providing much-needed housing and flooding the area with consumers and taxpayers.

Rather than embrace this project, what did the insiders do?

The members of the City Planning Commission - ignoring the advice of their planning professionals - rejected a brighter future for the city (and the state) by a 5 to 2 margin.

Brilliant!

It is now up to the City Council to decide whether to ignore the commission’s recommendation and let the project move forward. Those who want a robust economic future for Rhode Island have to hope it does.

Unfortunately, Tuesday’s commission ruling was parochialism at its worst.

The ruling put the narrow interests of a small set ahead of the common good.

It was steeped in hypocrisy. Many of the most vocal opponents of the project have glaring conflicts, since they do not want more housing units on the market competing with their projects.

Some of those complaining about taxpayer subsidies for the project have received subsidies themselves - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It reflected gross indifference to the apartment crunch in Rhode Island. We need units!

It ignored the wise counsel of Friedrich St. Florian, the celebrated architect who literally changed the city with his idea of opening up the Providence River. “You have to break the rules because we have to move forward,” he told the commission.

Sorry, there will be no rule-breaking or moving forward.

Imagine if this group had been reviewing plans for the Prudential Tower in Boston, completed in 1964. At 749 feet tall, it was much higher than any other building in the Back Bay. Now, of course, it is an iconic part of that thriving city’s beautiful skyline.

We’ve all heard the arguments of the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone): “Yes, we need cranes in the sky … but not that big, bold proposal. Yes, we want more development … but not that development … not near me … not anything dramatic that would offend my delicate architectural sensibilities … build it somewhere else.”

Let us hope that Mr. Fane will persist after sinking an enormous amount of money into his proposal. The state will be very fortunate indeed if other developers somehow overlook the response to Mr. Fane, which argues strongly that they would be wise to steer clear of Rhode Island’s notorious negativity and insider politics.

Meanwhile, where are the Rhode Island leaders who should be carrying Mr. St. Florian’s banner - of thinking boldly and looking to the future?

Online: https://bit.ly/2KwREf7

___

VERMONT

The Burlington Free Press

May 11

For the second consecutive year, Gov. Phil Scott managed to complicate the closing weeks of the Legislature with late-session bids to push through cost-saving measures for public schools.

Behind the governor’s proposals was the very explicit threat to veto the budget backed by the Democratic majority, calling, “the effort to pass a budget they know we will not support - and that I will veto - an unnecessary waste of time and resources.”

Dropping a deal-breaker on the Legislature as lawmakers are preparing to wrap up the session threatens to become an annual rite of spring for this administration.

Scott’s plan was long on rhetoric and short on real-world specifics. The timing left little room for careful consideration of policies that could have far-reaching consequences.

The governor’s actions point to a pattern of inefficient - and ineffective - governance.

This year, the governor wanted lawmakers to adopt his plan to control education costs by increasing the ratio of students to staff members, and using $58 million in one-time money to head off a property tax increase this year.

The plan was announced just a week after the introduction of a proposal to penalized school districts that failed to meet a mandated student-to-teacher ratio failed to gain traction.

The administration anticipated paying back the $58 million from future savings, but analysis by the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office raised questions about plan.

The analysis contended that the governor’s plan was, as the Free Press reported, “based on dubious assumptions and pointed out ’major technical errors’ in the administration’s long-term projections.”

In the words of the Joint Fiscal Office, “Savings are critical to this proposal, but are built on assumptions with little to make them likely or achievable.”

For the Scott administration, numbers that fail to make the governor’s plan workable in the real world or determining the impact the proposal would have in the classroom were details that can be worked out later. The priority was to spend that money before there’s a credible repayment plan.

As Jason Gibbs, the governor’s chief of staff, said, “… first, they have to agree that they share our goal of avoiding a $58 million property tax increase this year …”

Regardless of the merits of an effort to hold down property taxes, Scott’s plan was handicapped from the administration’s seeming inability to present in a timely manner big ticket policy items that are fully formed.

The governor’s real failure was his inability to lead and sustain a thoughtful debate, and choosing instead the brinkmanship of a veto threat and the deadline pressure of encroaching adjournment.

Online: https://bfpne.ws/2wUp05p

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Concord Monitor

May 17

“Americans are being held hostage and terrorized by the fringes. That’s what’s going on here. It’s not like 50 percent of Americans thinks one thing and 50 percent thinks another thing. No, 15 percent on each side are effectively controlling the conversation and 70 percent of us don’t hate each other.”

The person speaking is Arthur Brooks, president of the “center-right” American Enterprise Institute, in an interview with Politico Magazine this week. We recommend that you read his entire conversation with Politico senior political correspondent Tim Alberta, but in the meantime we thought we would highlight some of his observations and offer our own.

Brooks’s math regarding the fringes seems pretty accurate - and the fringe dwellers certainly are vocal. If you were to use only Twitter and online comments to assess the nation’s political divide, you would quickly reach the conclusion that America was made up of two warring factions. But the real silent majority is the 70 percent that Brooks is referring to - the people who don’t reflexively hate those with whom they disagree politically. The math tells us that some voted for Donald Trump and some voted for Hillary Clinton.

“The fringe picked up the football and ran off with it,” Brooks said. “But there’s going to be a backlash. If I have anything to say about it, there’s going to be a backlash of people who say that your radical, hateful views, and I’m no liberal, but I don’t hate liberals. I refuse to hate liberals. Refuse. I think there’s a lot of Americans that want to join me in that.”

That is our sense, too. The vast majority of people we hear from at the newspaper or encounter out in the world, Republicans and Democrats alike, shake their head at all the vitriol. Sure, they have their beliefs about how the country should be run and by whom, but there’s not much interest in the kind of political scapegoating that is the bread and butter of the fringes and party mouthpieces. Those who make up the 70 percent believe their side, whatever side that may be, has the better product - and that’s where they gently place their faith.

“It turns out it’s easier in the political process when people are suffering a lot to say somebody came and got your stuff,” Brooks said. “Whether it’s immigrants or whether it’s trading partners or whether it’s bankers or whatever.”

It is easier, and that’s why it’s embraced by populists on the left and right. When times are tough, few people would be fired up to vote for a candidate who sincerely says, “This problem is complicated and will require hard, honest work on both sides of the aisle” when they hear, “These are the people responsible for your problems.”

“I’m way more bullish on politicians than I ever was before,” Brooks said. “They’re not perfect; they’re guys like you and me. They have to make hard decisions, they have to choose between impossible alternatives all day long. ’I got this s—- alternative, I’ve got this s—- alternative.’ Then you pick the least s—- alternative and then you get yelled at for choosing a s—- alternative. It’s a really hard job.”

Our appreciation for politicians has grown over time as well. Most of the ones we have met are genuinely interested in being public servants, and very few fit the negative party stereotypes they are saddled with. Unfortunately, the hyper-partisanship of their own party leaders isn’t much help in that regard. In press release after press release, op-ed after op-ed, political scapegoating wins the day. Meanwhile, the fringes dig in deeper.

With fingers crossed, we leave the final word to Brooks: “The Republican and Democratic Party at the federal level are struggling to find their way. There are issues with the presidency that we haven’t seen in a while. But this country is just rock-solid. It’s going to be okay.”

Online: https://bit.ly/2IKSjwf

___

MAINE

Bangor Daily News

May 16

It is understandable that Maine’s cash-strapped county jails are turning to video visits for their inmates. Such visits require less staff oversight and, sheriffs argue, cut down on contraband being smuggled into jails.

There are downsides, however, such as more discipline problems within jails, and researchers have found that switching from in-person to video visitation does not reduce contraband smuggling.

Against this backdrop, Maine lawmakers passed a bill in March to preserve in-person visits for most county jail inmates. LD 1414 allowed for restrictions on such visits for safety and security reasons.

Gov. Paul LePage vetoed the bill. Although his concerns about “micromanagement” of county jails are well placed, they are trumped by the value of in-person visits for inmates and their families.

But lawmakers failed to override the veto.

Although this means in-person visits won’t be required by law, Maine’s jails should not abandon them.

Freed from the “micromanagement” LePage disdained, county jails will continue to set their own policies regarding visits, both video and in-person. These policies should be guided by research into what works best for inmates and their families, as well as jail staff and the communities to which inmates will return.

“Visits provide the real, tangible, physical evidence of love and support,” Peter Lehman told lawmakers last year. “It means a great deal when friends and family step up and travel and spend time supporting their loved one.”

Lehman, who spent five years in prison, spoke of how in-person visits allowed him to maintain a relationship with his daughter, a bond that remains strong today.

Like Lehman, almost every inmate in the state’s jails will one day be released and go back to living in their communities. Whether they have support from family and friends is a major predictor of whether they will improve their lives or return to jail. Research shows that one of the best ways to maintain needed support and connections, and to reduce recidivism, is to allow inmates to remain in close contact with their families, including through in-person visits.

“Family contact is one of the surest ways to reduce the likelihood that an individual will reoffend after release,” a report from the Prison Policy Initiative concluded.

“When (prisoners) have that contact with the outside family, they actually behave better here at the facility,” the report quoted an Indiana prison official as saying.

More contact is clearly better, and video visitation is better than no contact at all, the report notes. Maine jails have successfully used video visits to allow prisoners to remain in contact with family members who live far from the facility.

But video visits have their drawbacks, the report noted, including the reality that a video visit just isn’t the same as personal contact, that it can be expensive for families (jails charge visitors for the video visits, sometimes as much as $1 a minute) and that the use of video visitation often means the end of traditional visits at a correctional facility.

A review in Texas found that after video visitation replaced in-person visits, the amount of contraband in the Travis County Jail increased, as did disciplinary problems and inmate violence.

In 2015, Texas lawmakers passed legislation similar to LD 1414, requiring county jails to offer inmates two 20-minute in-person visits per month.

This all points to the fact that video visitation should be an enhancement to, not a replacement for, in-person visits. This should guide Maine jails if and when they adjust their visitation policies and procedures.

Online: https://bit.ly/2GxryWG