Editorials from around New England

Editorials from around New England:

CONNECTICUT

Protest put sports in proper perspective

The Connecticut Post

Nov. 27

On this much, everyone can agree. When it comes to the halftime protest at the 2019 Harvard-Yale football game, the protesters chose their time and venue well.

Students and other activists drew widespread attention on Nov. 23 for marching onto the field at halftime of The Game, the annual Harvard-Yale football showcase, refusing to leave and delaying resumption of the contest. That turned out to be important from an athletic standpoint as Yale stormed back from a first-half deficit to send the game into an eventual double overtime.

With no lights at Yale Bowl and late fall days getting shorter, there was a real risk the game could be called for darkness. But Yale managed to pull through in what has been called one of the best games in the long history of the rivalry.

Still, there was outrage from many corners. How dare these protesters get in the way of a sacred tradition? Don’t they know there was an Ivy League title at stake? Have they no sense of history?

But all the bile thrown at the protesters overlooks a vital point. Whatever the history of Harvard vs. Yale, it is, after all, a football game. It’s an important one, no question, and something that players and fans look forward to and may reminisce about for decades. Still, it’s not something on which lives depend.

Climate change is something on which lives depend. The goals of the protest included calling on the universities to divest their enormous endowments from fossil fuels companies, as well as companies that hold Puerto Rican debt. These are worthy goals and the schools should take the demands seriously. Sometimes it takes a protest that is guaranteed to draw attention to gain traction on important issues.

Clearly, it’s not enough. Yale and Harvard could do everything the protesters ask and climate change would continue inexorably. But global problems demand global solutions, and everything matters. Without forcing change anywhere, the situation truly does become hopeless.

The reactions to Saturday’s events weren’t all angry. Many people supported the protesters, both their cause and their means. A number of players from both schools spoke positively about the sit-in, and they, more than anyone, would have a right to complain about their moment being overshadowed. But they understood that, as important as athletics can seem given how many people base their lives around such contests, there are some things that matter more.

Yale and Harvard have seen some athletics successes over the years, Yale most recently with its NCAA champion hockey team. They have been football rivals for more than a century. Even considering they are two of the premier academic institutions in America, their on-field clashes will always generate interest, from fans and general observers alike.

And there’s nothing to top The Game. Organizers knew the eyes of thousands at the stadium would be on them and millions more both nationally and internationally. They planned carefully and properly judged the stakes involved, for both football and their cause. They executed their plan to perfection, and deserve to be recognized for doing some good in the world.

Online: https://bit.ly/2R4smeA

___

MAINE

Time to rethink system for defending Maine’s poor

CentralMaine.com

Nov. 26

The Bill of Rights mandates that anyone charged with a crime deserves a speedy and public trial before an impartial jury “and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

In 49 states, that means a public defenders office, where lawyers employed by the government advocate on behalf of people who cannot afford to defend themselves. In Maine, it means something else.

Here, indigent defense is supplied by the state through private attorneys who are assigned to cases by judges and paid an hourly rate well below what most of them would charge a paying client. It’s easy for lawyers to qualify to receive court appointments, and once on the list, they receive next to no supervision or evaluation.

It’s easy to see why. The Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services, with a staff of just three people, has to oversee nearly 600 attorneys, handling cases in 47 courthouses presided over by approximately 90 justices, judges and magistrates. The office is also responsible for paying the appointed lawyers’ bills, including those from a significant number of lawyers who bill for more than eight hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks a year. That has led to allegations of overbilling, which are difficult to evaluate because of the agency’s lack of resources.

It’s time to rethink Maine’s method of delivering this constitutionally mandated service, and lawmakers are expected to take up the issue when they return to Augusta in January. A study by the nonprofit Sixth Amendment Center, commissioned by the Legislature in 2018, gave them plenty to work with. The study found a number of faults and made recommendations, perhaps none as important as adequately funding the system, increasing the hourly rate paid to lawyers so they can give their clients the attention they deserve, and increasing resources for the commission, so it can better oversee the lawyers assigned to cases.

But a good place for lawmakers to start is with a question: Why is Maine the only state that uses this system?

According to the Sixth Amendment Center, other states moved to public defender agencies for two reasons: cost and quality.

It’s easier to predict and control costs with a department that has a budget than when the state is paying invoices from outside lawyers, which can come in at any time. And it’s possible to train and supervise employees in a way that can’t be done with outside contractors. Maine’s system creates an incentive for court-appointed lawyers to race through cases, taking on more work than they can reasonably expect to do well.

What is it about Maine that makes us less interested in managing the cost and quality of a service that we are required to provide?

Replacing Maine’s system with a public defenders office is not the only reform that lawmakers can consider.

But the only option that should be off the table is the option of doing nothing. As long as there are such serious flaws in the indigent defense system, justice can’t be done.

Online: https://bit.ly/2qWu72T

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Mixed bag in state’s opioid report

Newburyport Daily News

Nov. 27

The latest data from the state Department of Public Health on overdose deaths is hardly cause for celebration.

The fact that 1,460 people are confirmed to have died, or were suspected of dying, from opioid-related overdoses during the first nine months of the year is noteworthy because it’s about 100 fewer cases than reported in the first nine months of 2018.

But 1,460 is still a grossly large number - more than five overdose deaths per day, on average. It puts the state on track to end the year with about 1,950 deaths from overdoses, which would be fewer than the 2,095 recorded at the deadliest point of this crisis, in 2016.

Then one considers that each of those 1,460 deaths is an individual tragedy affecting families, friends and neighbors, and the depth of loss dulls any glimmer of good news.

Still, there is good news.

That things are improving at all is due in large part to a focused effort to expand the availability of overdose-reversing drugs. While the state estimates overdose deaths, we don’t know how many non-fatal overdoses happened in the first nine months of the year. That’s to say, we don’t know how many times a shot of naloxone brought someone back from the edge.

We do know that the drugs at play in overdose cases are more potent, more often. During the first six months of this year, fentanyl was present in 93% of overdose-related deaths - a four point increase from 2018. Were it not for more widely available supplies of naloxone, for first-responders and family members of addicts, the crisis doubtless would be more fatal than it is.

And that’s just one factor. A Department of Public Health press release on Monday noted the impact of other strategies in blunting the overall crisis, including more behavioral and medication-based treatment programs, more recovery programs and more treatment beds. The state has been pouring resources into preventing and treating substance abuse - $246 million in the latest budget alone, according to the press release. “Today’s report affirms that our multi-pronged approach to the opioid epidemic is making a difference,” Gov. Charlie Baker said in the statement.

The numbers truly worth cheering are signaled further upstream in the cycle of opioid addiction, where state intervention really does seem to be making a significant difference. That’s in monitoring opioid prescriptions - the well-meaning pain management that has started many an addiction.

In July, August and September of this year, providers searched the state’s prescription monitoring database 2.2 million times. That represented a 10% increase in queries from the previous three-month period. Providers are referring to the database more often, using the tool to research how often patients are given what kind of drugs, and in what quantity. Apparently providers armed with this knowledge are writing fewer prescriptions as a result.

The July through September period saw about 500,000 prescriptions for Schedule II opioids, which include oxycodone and prescription fentanyl, written across the state. That was 40% fewer than the 842,000 prescriptions written in the first three months of 2015. The number has been in steady decline over that period.

Prescriptions for painkillers may not be an exact predictor of opioid use and abuse, but they are related. Prescription drugs were found in about 13% of the cases of opioid-related overdose deaths in the April through June period of this year - a rate that’s held steady for the past couple of years, according to the Department of Public Health.

The bottom line is that measures of the state’s opioid problem are a mixed bag. As Beacon Hill, cities and towns, and service providers pour ever more resources into this crisis, we are seeing tangible results. Yet far too many people are still succumbing to this deadly disease.

The drumbeat of tragedy may be slowing - but it’s not stopping.

Online: https://bit.ly/2XXt4fj

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Silence amid the crumbling infrastructure

Concord Monitor

Nov. 24

Last week, less than two days after concrete falling off an overhead bridge closed the Everett Turnpike in Nashua, the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president gathered to debate in Atlanta, Ga.

The events aren’t linked, of course, but concrete is falling, asphalt cracking, culverts clogging, steel corroding, traffic crawling, airport lines growing, flight delays showing, water pipes leaking, sewer lines failing and maintenance workers flailing all over America.

The nation’s infrastructure routinely receives poor to near-failing grades. Yet “infrastructure” was barely mentioned during the lackluster debate. Its moderators asked not one question about an issue that affects every American every day, an issue that costs the public hundreds of billions of dollars annually in wasted time, money and damage to public health.

Meanwhile, the president’s oft-promised plan to fund the rebuilding of the nation’s roads, schools, water systems and the like has, three years into his administration, failed to materialize. Acts that would increase funding to repair critical systems remain stuck in the sulfurous miasma enveloping Washington.

Occasionally, a little money does escape. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen recently announced a $12 million federal grant to replace a pair of bridges over the Connecticut River that connect Hinsdale, N.H., with Brattleboro, Vt. The grant, which will defray the $40 million cost of the bridge project, is part of what U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said is a $900 million infrastructure investment by the Trump administration. The need is far greater.

In its most recent report card the American Society of Civil Engineers pegged the investment required to make up for deferred maintenance at roughly $4.5 trillion. The report gave the nation’s infrastructure a grade of “D,” New Hampshire a “C-minus.”

Much of America’s infrastructure has exceeded its design life span or been rendered obsolete by increased population and other factors. More than 200,000 of the nation’s exfoliating bridges are a half-century or more old, many of its dams much older.

The average age of New Hampshire’s dams is 92. Few structures were designed to cope with the heavier rainfalls and more ferocious weather caused by climate change, so just bringing them up to snuff won’t be enough.

Some of the presidential contenders, namely former vice president Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, have put forth reasonably solid plans to attack the infrastructure problem, coupled with tax proposals to pay for them. No plan, however, is likely to become a reality until long after the next presidential election.

The rest of the world, with Asian nations in the lead, is moving ahead with high-speed rail, cheap and near-universal cell phone and internet service, efficient public transportation systems, modernized ports and airports.

The bill to make up for decades of deferred maintenance is a debt that should not burden coming generations. It should be paid now by the generation that let the infrastructure fall into disrepair.

We don’t expect the next resident of the Oval Office to be “President Pothole.” We do expect that whoever holds that office will put people to work and boost the economy by making roads and bridges safe, water unquestionably clean, utility services reliable and communities able to meet the threats posed by a warming planet.

And this must be done while transitioning away from a fossil fuel economy.

Next time they gather, each presidential candidate should be asked exactly how he or she would go about doing that.

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

___

RHODE ISLAND

Another billionaire seeks presidency

Providence Journal

Nov. 28

One of the more interesting developments in the 2020 presidential race is the belated entry of 77-year-old billionaire Michael Bloomberg into the Democratic primary.

His perception of the weakness of the Democratic field drove the businessman and former New York mayor to reluctantly join the fight.

“Right now Donald Trump is winning, he is winning that election. It’s very tough for people who don’t live in New York or California to understand that, but that is what’s happening,” campaign manager Kevin Sheekey told CNN.

Just last March, Mr. Bloomberg ruled out a run.

“At some point you’ve got to say, look, I would be 79 years old when I took office. People say, ‘Well, Ronald Reagan was 80 when he left.’ Yeah, when he was 80 they carried him out ga-ga,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“To start a four-year job - maybe an eight-year job - at age 79 may not be the smartest thing to do,” he said, adding that he “couldn’t see a path” to winning the party’s nomination.

The dire threat of a second term for Mr. Trump - who will be 74 in January 2021 - has evidently led Mr. Bloomberg to rethink that opinion.

“We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions,” he stated on Sunday. “He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.”

Among his big fans is Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, who admires his “centrist” approach to governing, working both sides of the aisle. In 2010, she called him her “political idol.”

Democrats have to take some care next year to choose a nominee who could appeal to swing voters. Former President Barack Obama recently warned the Democratic candidates not to go too far left. Certainly, Mr. Bloomberg would seem to be more moderate than self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, whose “Medicare for All” and wealth-tax plans have come under heavy criticism as impractical.

Those who hope to see him prevail note that, on the scale of billionaires, Mr. Bloomberg was much more successful than Mr. Trump, with a net worth estimated at $53 billion to the president’s comparatively paltry $3.1 billion. The former mayor plans to use his money for an onslaught of political ads.

But in some party circles, his success could be a drawback. Mr. Sanders, who has been blasting billionaires throughout his campaign, this week excoriated Mr. Bloomberg’s “arrogance” in thinking he could win because of his money.

Others believe the billionaire’s strategy of ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire to focus on bigger-delegate states is fraught with peril. Another New York mayor bombed with a similar approach in 2008: Republican Rudy Giuliani.

The New York Post, meanwhile, excoriated Mr. Bloomberg’s company, Bloomberg News, for announcing it would back off from doing investigative reporting on Democrats, as well as Mr. Bloomberg, to be fair to his competitors - though it would keep on investigating Mr. Trump. “What’s the new slogan - fair but unbalanced? Democracy thrives on bias?” the Post asked.

Whatever happens, we hope Mr. Bloomberg’s entry in the race will strengthen the Democratic Party so that its nominee is better able to take on President Trump next November.

Online: https://bit.ly/34yr7Z8

___

VERMONT

The right student debt tools for the right time

Rutland Herald

Nov. 25

Student debt is a crippling issue for America.

Don’t take our word for it. Ask any person who has been to college in the last two decades. The struggle is real, and it is holding back many young Americans from being able to succeed, or even get a career off the ground.

You can also just ask Sen. Bernie Sanders.

As a presidential candidate, Vermont’s own has offered legislation that is the most ambitious plan yet to address the nation’s student loan debt. It would cancel $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Sanders’ plan will have no eligibility criteria and will be available to the nation’s approximately 45 million student loan borrowers of both federal and private loans.

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders proposed making college tuition-free and debt-free. In 2016, he introduced legislation - the College For All Act - that would make public colleges tuition-free for students.

Sanders believes that: Four-year public colleges and community colleges should be free - including tuition and fees - for everyone; federal student loan interest rates should be lower, and the federal government should not make a profit on student loans; and student loan refinancing should be revamped to help save money for more borrowers.

That’s one approach (and probably not the most realistic one). But the U.S. Education Department has another tool it thinks will help.

It will provide a website with published data allowing students to compare salary and debt levels for specific college programs rather than for entire institutions only.

The information was made public last week on the agency’s updated College Scorecard website, which was created under the Obama administration to help students evaluate which colleges provide the best value. The update is seen as a milestone in the department’s efforts to shine a light on programs that leave students with heavy debt and low incomes.

Previously, students could use the online tool to compare salary and debt averages for entire schools, benchmarks that the Education Department now says are “fairly meaningless.” Students today can sort through specific majors within a school and see how they stack up against one another, or against programs at other schools, and see which ones lead to the highest salaries or the lowest debt.

The website allows students to search for a specific school or to browse by field of study or degree type. It offers information on schools from Ivy League universities to vocational schools and certificate programs.

The website identifies more than 100 programs in which the median debt was more than four times greater than the median salary, including some film, drama and visual arts programs at prestigious schools such as Columbia University and New York University.

There are drawbacks.

The earnings data are available for only 20% of the 200,000 programs listed in the department’s database, while others are hidden for privacy reasons because they had few students. The earnings figures were measured a year after graduation and reflect students who received federal loans or Pell grants only. They do not count students with no earnings.

Still, the effort is commendable.

Advocacy groups and scholars who have long awaited better data on college outcomes signaled this week that the data (and the website) is a step in the right direction.

Chiefs for Change, a nonprofit that represents city and state education leaders, said the site gives students important input when deciding what to do after high school.

“With information about average debt and earnings, students will have a better sense of the potential return on their investment in higher education,” Mike Magee, the organization’s CEO, said in a statement.

President Donald Trump supported the College Scorecard expansion in an executive order, declaring that middle-class American families were “getting ripped off” because they don’t have enough information about college outcomes. He said colleges were “making a fortune” at their expense, building “tremendous endowments.”

Researchers are beginning to dig into the new data on the site, and many expect discussions about which types of schools are helping students and which aren’t.

Knowledge is power, and the power to make the right decision about what career to pursue is more important than ever. These are the kinds of tools American families truly need.

Online: https://bit.ly/2R2Q3UM