Editorials from around New England

Editorials from around New England:

___

CONNECTICUT

The Day

Sept. 12

Former President Barack Obama came off the sidelines Friday to criticize the actions of his successor, President Donald Trump, and to bolster the chances that that his party, the Democrats, will take control of Congress in November.

Republicans and their defenders in the media reacted with shock, dismay and disappointment.

Give us a break.

Their argument is that Obama is violating some sacred precedent in which a former president is not supposed to speak ill of his successor.

“It was very disappointing to see President Obama break with the tradition of former presidents,” said Vice President Mike Pence, summoning up his most somber of deliveries.

This from a party who took the unprecedented action of keeping a Supreme Court seat open for a year to deny the duly elected president - Obama - the ability to make the appointment.

This in defense of a president who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, challenged Obama’s legitimacy with a conspiratorial theory that he was not a U.S. citizen. Who in office has not been satisfied with working to undo Obama’s policy achievements, but has personally criticized and attacked him about his relationship with Russia (Obama “didn’t have the energy or chemistry” to form a bond with Vladimir Putin, Trump tweeted), over the Iran deal, and even blaming the last president for Trump’s cancellation of a trip to London.

“Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for ’peanuts,’” he tweeted in January 2018.

Unlike other presidents, who at least try to present the image of being the leader of all Americans, Trump has continued with his campaign-style rallies, using his us-against-them rhetoric, with Obama a sometime foil.

Republicans are in the thinnest of glass houses in decrying Obama for a breach of protocol.

The former president kept quiet for most of Trump’s first two years in office, but it is election time and, as he said in Urbana, Illinois, “The stakes really are higher. The consequences of us sitting on the sidelines are more dire.”

Obama hit Trump for pressuring his FBI director to go after political opponents and protect his own party, for pursuing a politics of fear, and for the dysfunction in his White House. These are not small things.

So skip the hand-wringing and engage the debate.

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

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Cape Cod Times

Sept. 13

As school-aged children found their reluctant way back into classrooms last week, they likely had little idea that the bureaucracy that is the US Department of Education was looking out for their collective futures. Specifically, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was giving serious consideration to a new recommendation that would allow school districts to use federal funds to help purchase firearms and train school personnel in their use.

Of course, the federal government did not simultaneously announce any plans to increase school funding, meaning that the move to arm teachers would necessarily come at the expense of apparently less important things, such as computers, books and classroom supplies.

Once again proving that she has her finger on the pulse of public education, DeVos is weighing whether to allow school districts to tap funds from the federal Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants to pay for firearms. Supporters of the measure note that there is no wording within the legislation for the federal grant that prohibits such a move, although we would hazard a guess that there are a lot of things that are not expressly prohibited within the wording of the grant but which rational people would, thanks to common sense, simply understand without having to be told.

Not surprisingly, gun rights advocate practically fell over themselves as they rushed to support the measure. This, despite the fact that survey after survey shows that public school teachers overwhelming claim that they have no interest in brandishing a firearm at their place of work; that they, not surprisingly, have enough to focus on in their classrooms and would prefer not to have to even consider drawing a weapon on an intruder.

Furthermore, a significant majority of educators also argue that the only people who should have access to guns in a school setting are law enforcement officers, individuals who are trained not only in how to use a weapon, but also under specific circumstances, as in an active-shooter situation or one where hostages have been taken.

There are several routes that would help stop this madness before it can be fully realized. Many education advocates note that the Student Support and Academic Enrichment law contains wording that is far too vague, leaving it so open to interpretation that it can be used to support cockamamie ideas, such as the one now being floated by the Department of Education. Congress has the power to revisit that legislation and add language that would help limit the potential scope of madness.

In fact, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has been outspoken in his desire to pass meaningful gun control legislation since a 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, left 26 people dead, introduced an amendment to a spending bill to do just this. But there is little indication that the Senate, at least as it is currently composed, has sufficient backbone or moral fortitude to make such a move.

DeVos also has the option to allow the arming of teachers to happen passively; if she takes no definitive stand on the matter, a state or group of states could test the legal waters by using the money to purchase weapons and then wait and see if the DOE steps in to argue against it. Given the tenor of this White House when it comes to deregulation and the abdication of common sense, it is difficult to imagine DeVos doing much more than giving the move a tacit nod and then moving on with her day.

Students, teachers, parents, lawmakers and those with even an ounce of common sense, regardless of their stance on whether gun laws should be tightened or loosened, must therefore come together now to oppose this ludicrous and dangerous initiative before it moves forward. Our nation’s schools already struggle financially, and it should not require a lesson in logic or economics to understand that diverting money from underfunded programs to put guns in the hands of people who do not want them is utter nonsense.

Online: https://bit.ly/2NHSDy1

___

RHODE ISLAND

The Providence Journal

Sept. 13

Wednesday was a great day for Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, as she trounced primary challenger Matt Brown by a margin of more than 20 points, demonstrating she has strong support in the state’s powerful Democratic Party. That sets her up well for the general election on Nov. 6.

A series of setbacks during her administration - most notably the loss of the Pawtucket Red Sox and the UHIP computer fiasco - had led some of her supporters to fear Wednesday’s Democratic primary election might be tight, despite the governor’s enormous fundraising advantage.

That concern was magnified when, days before the election, the governor suddenly began running harshly negative advertisements about Mr. Brown. Lingering resentment by pensioners over her courageous role in pension reform as state treasurer also seemed to pose a threat.

But Ms. Raimondo breezed to victory, as voters rewarded her for the serious work she has done trying to turn the state around. In her address to supporters Wednesday night, the governor seemed at her best, warm and relaxed.

Her showing in the primary may indicate she is stronger than suggested by recent polls showing her running neck-and-neck with her Republican opponent in November, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung.

Mr. Fung won his primary convincingly, too, handily beating House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan. That is from a significantly smaller base, though, given the overwhelming power of Democrats in Rhode Island. For example, Mr. Fung in his robust GOP victory obtained fewer than half as many total votes as Mr. Brown did in his crushing Democratic defeat.

Wednesday’s results set up a rematch of the 2014 gubernatorial campaign between Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Fung. As last time around, there is a third candidate serving as a “spoiler” on the ballot: Joe Trillo this year, a quirky former state representative and independent Trump supporter who engages in various headline-grabbing stunts. We will see whether he hurts Mr. Fung as much as the late Robert Healey did in 2014.

Rhode Island voters tended to support the more moderate candidates for statewide posts. This was the case not only in the gubernatorial races, but in the hard-fought lieutenant governor’s battle, where Democratic incumbent Daniel McKee narrowly beat back state Rep. Aaron Regunberg.

Mr. Regunberg, strongly backed by the hard left of the party, might have used the position as a bully pulpit to advance ideas that would batter the state’s small businesses. Mr. McKee, the strong favorite in November, seems to understand that Rhode Island needs an economy and is inclined to support more centrist policies.

Wednesday’s results could be especially important to Rhode Island should Ms. Raimondo be re-elected and leave before her term is over to join a Democratic administration, in the event of President Trump’s defeat in 2020.

Legislative seats showed mixed results. The state Senate seems poised to lurch further left with the victory of progressive Sam Bell over longtime Providence Sen. Paul Jabour, but moderates prevailed in other battles, and no shake up of the House seems likely should House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello win election on Nov. 6.

All in all, Wednesday seemed a good day for Rhode Island if the state is looking toward a future with a stronger economy and greater opportunity for its people. For the most part, the voters seemed to reward experience and hard effort more than utopian promises.

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

___

MAINE

The Portland Press Herald

Sept. 13

There has been a lot of talk recently about what legal precedents are up for grabs and what is “settled law.”

But there hasn’t been much dispute when it comes to the money spent on politics: According to the Supreme Court, it’s free speech. That was first established in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, and it’s been restated and expanded multiple times since then, most notably in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, which found that even corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money on electioneering.

So, it’s surprising to see Sen. Susan Collins claim that a crowdfunding campaign designed to influence her vote on the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh amounts to a “bribe,” when it’s really the kind of political speech that wealthy donors have been practicing legally for decades.

Collins objects to the “Be a Hero” campaign started by Ady Barkanz, a national health care activist with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and local advocacy groups Maine People’s Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership. They have set up a fundraising website to support Collins’ still-undetermined opponent in the 2020 election - assuming that Collins votes to confirm Kavanaugh and plans to run for re-election. If either of those things don’t happen, the money would be returned to the donors.

This is not an attempt to buy Collins’ opposition to Kavanaugh, but it does give ordinary people an opportunity to get on the record saying that they plan to hold her accountable for this vote. It’s an opportunity that 36,000 people had taken by Tuesday, raising more than $1 million, with about three-quarters of the donations coming in the increment of $20.20, a numerical reminder of the upcoming election.

Collins’ office put out a statement calling this “quid pro quo fundraising” and “the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me.” If that’s so, it’s not just Kavanaugh’s critics who might be in legal trouble. Every billionaire who has dumped millions into a super PAC that buys issue ads calling on individual members of Congress to vote a certain way would stand on the same shaky ground. But it’s only the citizens group, not the billionaires, that is accused of breaking the law.

If the Koch brothers-affiliated Americans for Prosperity can spend “seven figures” to let senators know that they should support Kavanaugh if they want their support, or the Judicial Crisis Network, which is funded by unnamed donors, can budget $10 million for TV ads that warn of political consequences for a “no” vote, what’s wrong with named individuals making fully disclosed campaign contributions that deliver the opposite message?

All rights, including free speech, are limited. Some of Kavanaugh’s opponents appear to have gone far over the line in calls and messages to Collins’ office, which have included vulgar insults and threats of violence. That can’t happen. The organizers of the Kavanaugh opposition should denounce those tactics and make sure that the people they work with understand that threatening violence is a crime.

But as much as we would like to see stricter limits on political spending, conservatives have argued - and the courts have agreed - that it is constitutionally protected free speech. Unlike some other areas of controversy, it really is “settled law.”

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

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Concord Monitor

Sept. 13

Diversity was the big winner in Tuesday’s state primary, and the results prove that New Hampshire is not the insular, tradition-bound state some wrongly believe it to be.

Nowhere was that more evident than in the 1st Congressional District, where Democrat and current Executive Councilor Chris Pappas faces Republican Eddie Edwards, a former Hampton police chief and state liquor enforcement officer, in the race to replace Carol Shea-Porter. Pappas would become the state’s first openly gay member of Congress and Edwards its first African American representative.

The election also led to the unseating of Concord state Rep. Dick Patten by fellow Democrat Safiya Wazir. Wazir fled Taliban terrorists in her native Afghanistan, graduated from Concord High School, became an American citizen and now at age 27 seeks to represent residents of District 17 in the Legislature. If elected, she would be the first former refugee to hold public office in New Hampshire.

The results were also a testament to the popularity of former governors and current U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan and 2nd Congressional District Rep. Annie Kuster. The trio strongly backed five-term state senator Molly Kelly in her race against former Portsmouth mayor Steve Marchand to challenge incumbent Gov. Chris Sununu. Kelly won in a landslide. To his credit, Marchand, who campaigned hard for more than a year, was quick to call for party unity and announce his strong support of his opponent. Kelly was undaunted at the prospect of challenging Sununu, who is considered to be one of the nation’s most popular governors. “Do not underestimate me,” Kelly told Sununu in a speech to supporters. “I’ve been underestimated before.”

Voters across the state will face clear choices in November. The distinctions promise to be especially stark in the congressional races. Edwards and state Rep. Steve Negron, the Air Force veteran and businessman Republicans chose to run against Kuster, are strong supporters of President Trump. The Democrats they will run against are critics of the president.

Trump’s popularity has continued to fall among Democrats and independents, and given the president’s tempestuous personality and his administration’s recurring scandals, the so-called Trump effect could impact many of the nation’s upcoming elections.

The election outcome also once again demonstrated how skeptical New Hampshire voters are of candidates perceived as carpetbaggers, and of the influence of outside money and party heavyweights on state elections. Democratic congressional candidate Maura Sullivan, who had national backing and a great resume but limited tenure in the state, was easily defeated by Pappas, a vote reminiscent of the state’s 2014 rejection of former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown.

With two months to go, anything could happen. The electorate was engaged. Turnout was heavy. November will be interesting.

Online: https://bit.ly/2x9KI3k

___

VERMONT

The Times Argus

Sept. 13

While the news often feels dreadful these days, reports this week from the U.S. Census Bureau suggest strides are being made when it comes to lifting more Americans out of poverty.

The U.S. Census Bureau announced the real median household income increased by 1.8 percent between 2016 and 2017, while the official poverty rate decreased 0.4 percentage points. At the same time, the number of people without health insurance coverage and the uninsured rate were not statistically different from 2016.

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2017 was 12.3 percent, with 39.7 million people in poverty. The number of people in poverty in 2017 was not statistically different from the number in poverty in 2016. The 0.4 percentage-point decrease in the poverty rate from 2016 (12.7 percent) to 2017 represents the third consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 2.5 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 12.3 percent.

Poverty fell in 42 states last year, including Vermont. In Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Alaska and Puerto Rico, changes in poverty over this period were not statistically significant. Poverty increased in Delaware and West Virginia over this time period.

In 2017, there were 39.7 million people in poverty, not statistically different from the number in poverty in 2016. From 2016 to 2017, the number of people in poverty decreased for people in families; people living in the West; people living outside metropolitan statistical areas; all workers; workers who were employed less than full-time, year-round; people with a disability; people with a high school diploma but no college degree; and people with some college but no degree.

The poverty rate increased in two states, Delaware and West Virginia. Delaware saw its rate increase from 11.7 percent to 13.6 percent and the rate for West Virginia rose from 17.9 percent to 19.1 percent.

In six of these states (California, Texas, Michigan, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina), poverty declined in four of the five years. Eight out of the top 10 most populous states had at least three years of poverty declines between 2012 and 2017. No state saw poverty decline in all five years.

Likewise, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage for the entire 2017 calendar year was 8.8 percent, or 28.5 million, not statistically different from 2016 (8.8 percent or 28.1 million people). Between 2016 and 2017, the number of people with health insurance coverage increased by 2.3 million, up to 294.6 million.

These findings are contained in two reports: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017 and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2017.

In addition, in Vermont, the trend has been that the median income also continues to grow, albeit slightly. The median family income for Vermont was $74,805 in 2016. Compared to the median U.S. family income, Vermont median family income is $3,743 higher. The median per capita income for Vermont was $31,836 in 2016. Compared to the U.S. per capita income, Vermont per capita income is $708 higher. New state results are expected in the next week or so.

Median household income in the United States in 2017 was $61,372, an increase in real terms of 1.8 percent from the 2016 median income of $60,309. This is the third consecutive annual increase in median household income.

Nationally, in 2017, the real median earnings of men ($52,146) and women ($41,977) working full-time, year-round each decreased from their respective 2016 medians by 1.1 percent. The 2017 female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.805, not statistically different from the 2016 ratio. The difference between the 2016-2017 percentage change in median earnings for men and women working full-time, year-round was not statistically significant.

Around Vermont, community action councils and other groups aimed at helping to lift the poor out of poverty will tell you there is still plenty of work to be done. While the statistics show progress, the number of families coming through the doors looking for help (and the kinds of help they require) is even more challenging with budget crises at the state level, and federal funding nearly completely cut off to some programs.

The demand for services still far exceeds the supply, especially here in Vermont where we are further challenged by the four seasons (winter is especially brutal for housing and transportation needs) and the rural effects of our state.

The numbers soften some of the sharp edges of the news today, but Vermonters - our neighbors - continue to struggle. We will take progress when we can get it, but only additional funding and resources will have the continued effect that moves the needle of need.

Online: https://bit.ly/2OrflI8