Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from Brand-new England newspapers:
The Day (Conn.), June 23, 2016
Democrats should continue to keep the heat on the Republican majority in Congress. They have the backing of the public in calling for moderate reforms to improve federal gun-control rules.
In pressing the issue, the Democrats can expose Republican majorities in the House and Senate that are more concerned about keeping pro-gun hardliners in the party’s base happy, and the campaign cash from the National Rifle Association rolling in, than they are about reducing gun violence.
Put another way, one party wants to take small steps toward keeping guns out of the hands of potential homegrown terrorists, while the other party is more worried about the Second Amendment rights of these individuals.
Connecticut’s representatives in the House and Senate have been front and center in pressing the issue. Connecticut representatives in the House led the walkout on another moment of silence, this one for the victims of the mass shooting in Orlando in which 49 nightclub patrons were murdered. The point was clear. Such gestures are empty in light of the unwillingness to do anything about gun violence.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut then used his 15-hour filibuster to stress Republicans to allow a vote in the Senate. Though the gun-control measures failed to gain approval, having a vote was progress and talks continue.
The latest protest came in the form of an around-the-clock sit-in on the House floor by the Democratic minority as they pressed for a gun-control vote in that chamber.
The Democrats want the law changed to ban gun sales to individuals on the government’s no-fly and other terrorism watch lists. And they want to expand federal background checks, now required of licensed dealers, to include Internet sales and gun-show transactions.
A recent Gallup Poll found 71 percent of the public agrees with banning gun sales to people on the federal no-fly list, while a poll last year showed 86 percent support for making background checks universal.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., dismissed the move by the Democrats as a stunt. That’s fair, but it proved effective in focusing the public’s attention and becoming a social media sensation.
At 3:15 in the morning Thursday, as Americans slept, the Republicans turned tail. They recessed the session prematurely, not to return until July 5. On Thursday afternoon the Democrats ended their sit-in — for now.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/28UWyBx
The Portland Press Herald (Maine), June 23, 2016
Three years after the federal school lunch program underwent its first major overhaul in three decades, students are eating healthier and wasting less food. For a country awash in obesity, that’s a meaningful step toward helping the youngest generation live longer and healthier lives than their predecessors, once an American birthright that has actually been lost in a storm of salty, sugary, processed foods.
More must be done to incorporate what we know about nutrition and quality of life into school meals, where lots of students, particularly those from low-income families, receive much of their sustenance. But it is clear that the improvements made as part of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act have schools going in the right direction.
The first year of the Brand-new guidelines, passed in 2010 but implemented in 2012, brought criticism from some school lunch directors who said they were seeing more of the new, healthier foods end up in the trash rather than students’ stomachs.
But lots of studies now show that not to be the case. Requirements that every student choose a fruit or vegetable with each meal have significantly increased the amount of fruit eaten by students. Fewer kids are choosing vegetables, but those who do are eating more of them. Overall, fruit and vegetable consumption are up, and food waste is significantly down.
In short, the 32 million students who have school meals every day are eating foods of higher nutritional quality. They are getting more lean protein, whole grains and fiber, and as the preparation and presentation of these foods improve, they are throwing away less of what’s on their plate.
Through these improved meals, students are getting more of the nutrients they need to live full lives. And because they eat them every day, they are developing the tastes and habits needed to make nutrition a permanent part of their lives.
It cannot be overstated how importance that change is. In the U.S., 40 percent of women and 35 percent of men are now obese, up from 16 percent of adults in the early 1980s. Twenty-one percent of adolescents are obese.
As a result, stroke, chronic liver disease, heart disease and diabetes are rampant. If nothing is done, today’s children will live less healthy lives, and possibly shorter ones, than their parents, despite the vast improvement in what is know about living well. All the medical advancements made over the last 30 years are no match for the prevailing American diet.
The improvement in school meals, where low-income students get up to half of their calories, shows there is hope. Schools must continue to improve the quality and taste of meals. Maine schools should take advantage of the boom in local agriculture to serve students healthy, tasty meals (some, including Portland, already have). They also should continue to push students to try Brand-new things — a luxury poor students don’t have at home.
And Congress needs to continue to guard the community eligibility provision, which makes it simple for schools to offer meals to more students. Despite its unquestionable success, the provision, much like food stamps, has actually its detractors.
Good nutrition is the foundation for successful, happy, healthy lives. Under the Brand-new guidelines, schools are doing better than ever at providing that nutrition, and we shouldn’t take a step back now.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/28U4C6I
The (Springfield) Republican (Mass.), June 24, 2016
On Friday, as the dust was just beginning to settle across a Europe that would be dramatically changed by the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the 28-member European Union, some began to push for still more disintegration.
In Holland, Geert Wilders, a right-wing leader, tweeted: “Hurrah for the British! Now it is our turn. Time for a Dutch referendum!” In France, Marine Le Pen, head of the National Front, an anti-EU party, called for a referendum there.
No one knows exactly how the U.K.’s move will play out. All that’s certain is uncertainty. Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation, but said he’d be sticking around for a bit an an effort to right the ship of state.
In Brussels, the capital of the union, bureaucrats had no plans at all. Amazingly, they’ve not even sketched out a view of how best to proceed if the British move to depart had been successful.
It’s important to remember that the dream of a united Europe began in the aftermath of two world wars that left so much of the continent destroyed. Coming together — economically and politically — would, it was hoped, make great wars a part of history. Europe would solve its problems at conference tables, not on the battlefield.
That’s still the dream, but it’s all of a sudden a whole lot more complex.
In Scotland, where voters two years ago rejected a move to split from the United Kingdom, there was an immediate push on Friday to have another go at it. The move would strip Scotland from the U.K. but keep it in the EU.
And leaders in Northern Ireland were talking up similar plans.
The pieces of this puzzle won’t likely soon all be falling into place.
Who will step up to fill the void that will be left by Great Britain’s departure from the union? Germany, of course, is the most likely candidate, though those with particularly long memories (or a knowledge of European history) are often not a little wary of an ascendant Germany.
There is simply no way to know what Europe will look like tomorrow. Or two years out.
Don’t throw away those old maps just yet, as they may soon enough be valuable historic artifacts.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/28YJH4B
The (Nashua) Telegraph (N.H.), June 22, 2016
Regardless of how you feel about the gun votes that were taken in Washington this week — and Republicans and Democrats both put proposals on the table they knew would be scorned by the other edge — an underlying problem is the U.S. Senate itself and its rule that requires 60 votes to bring a bill to an actual vote.
The Senate is sometimes referred to as “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.”
It would be far more accurate to call it “The World’s Most Obstructionist Body,” because without the assent of 60 senators, no bill can come up for a vote. What senators voted on this week was not an actual bill, but whether to cut off debate and take a vote. They failed because the system is designed to promote failure.
There is no law that says senators need 60 votes to cut off debate and take a vote. It’s a silly Senate rule that senators could change if they wanted to. They could require only a simple majority to cut off debate. If they did, some of the issues ailing this country might finally be addressed.
That 60-vote rule, as much as anything, is responsible for the gridlock in Washington that has actually given rise to widespread public disaffection. And make no mistake, both sides have abused it at various times.
During this Brand-new Hampshire U.S. Senate campaign you’re going to hear a lot more talk from Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Gov. Maggie Hassan about opioids, guns, the middle class, the economy, special interests and, well, the list goes on ad infinitum.
But where they stand on those issues doesn’t much matter if bills to address them never get voted on in the first place.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/29460my
The Providence Journal (R.I.), June 23, 2016
Once again, Rhode Island has actually emerged as an outlier state that is unfriendly to business. And the Raimondo administration put its seal of approval on it.
It has actually to do with the recent Verizon strike. Unable to reach agreement on a Brand-new contract, more than 30,000 Verizon workers across 10 states chose to walk off the job, and stay off the job, because they wanted to publicize their struggle and put themselves in a better position to bargain.
Of the 10 states where Verizon workers chose to strike, just one — you guessed it, Rhode Island — has actually decided those workers should receive unemployment benefits.
Scott Jensen, director of the state’s Department of Labor and Training, who answers to Gov. Gina Raimondo, said the employees are eligible because the conflict between the workers and their employer, rather than being a strike, was a lockout. Since the strikers acted, not the company, that ruling seems bizarre.
Mr. Jensen refused to elaborate, however, citing supposed rules on confidentiality. When asked what rules would prevent the public from learning about a costly decision done in its name by a bureaucrat, a DLT flack pointed to a state law that says employment records “shall not be published or be open to public inspection.”
This retreat from accountability seems mind-boggling, to say the least, in a case that involves not one employee but a large group — a decision that could have a substantial impact on the state’s unemployment insurance fund, which other Rhode Island employers also pay to maintain. Certainly the public deserves a full explanation for why the benefits were approved.
Not surprisingly, Verizon disagrees with the decision and is challenging it in court. The challenge certainly seems to be in the public’s interest.
“Everyone knows that the employees were on strike — their picket signs said so,” said Verizon spokesman Richard Young. “However, the director of Labor and Training determined that the employees were not on strike. He said that they were locked out, and granted benefits. This is contrary to the facts and Rhode Island law.”
Mr. Young also said that “more than 1,600 employees personally decided to return to work” during the strike, including some from Rhode Island. That they did so argues versus the preposterous suggestion that this was a lockout.
Governor Raimondo, when asked about the decision, said her primary concern is that it is based on the law and legal precedents that apply. But she and Mr. Jensen should explain to Rhode Islanders why the state is paying unemployment benefits to workers who chose to go on strike. Ms. Raimondo, elected on a pledge to welcome businesses and rebuild the state’s economy, should also explain why she thinks this is the right decision when it sends precisely the wrong message to private employers — you know, the job creators the state claims it wants to lure and keep here.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/2946DfZ
The Rutland Herald (Vt.), June 25, 2016
The consequences of the British vote to exit from the European Union will now be more than theoretical. Soon we will know whether pro-union forces were right in warning that economic and political decline would follow.
The problem is that in Europe and America the public and the politicians often learn the wrong lessons from economic catastrophe, applying the wrong solutions and making the problem worse.
Already, the British pound and stock markets around the world had plummeted. Conceivably, these were only short-term reactions. But if economic turmoil leads to recession and widespread layoffs, working people will once again bear the brunt of misguided policies that had promised them an improvement in their prospects.
It has actually happened before. Austerity policies in the United States and Europe following the Great Recession of 2008 led to a slower recovery, widespread poverty and growing inequality. The Obama economic program was hamstrung from the start by a conservative Congress preoccupied with the theoretical problem of debt instead of the actual problem of stagnation. In Europe austerities policies made things even worse.
But the wrong lesson was learned from that deadlock. In the United States, a tea party backlash blamed the government, when in fact it was the hobbling of government by conservative ideologues that prolonged the misery. Where is the large infrastructure program that would put millions of people to work while carrying out needed improvements to roads, bridges and other vital projects? Those jobs have not materialized because Republicans oppose “big government.”
The classic question was posed by a book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” which asked why poor, working-class Americans in places such as Kansas continually voted versus their own self-interest. Governments, as in Kansas, cut benefits that would help poor, working class people get a leg up — education, child care, health care — while slashing taxes for the wealthy. Kansas, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, offers evidence of the failure of these policies.
The question is whether the people will draw the correct lessons from the failure of conservative economics or whether they will hold to the notion that taxes must be cut at all costs (while gay rights must be scorned). At some point, working people will have to demand that government raise the money for services that lift people out of poverty — education chief among them — and set aside the cultural issues that conservatives have used as a diversion from the class warfare currently being waged by the wealthy versus the poor.
If Europe sinks into unemployment and recession as a result of Brexit, there will be a fresh batch of evidence to consider. The movement to leave the European Union has actually been fueled by the same sort of xenophobia and racism that Donald Trump seeks to exploit in the United States. If British workers are left holding the bag, then they could well turn more radically to the right, seeking enemies to blame.
As for Trump, on Friday he turned up in Scotland, where he owns a golf course, proclaiming that the falling British pound was good because it would enable more golfers to come to his Scottish resort. As usual, he could see no further than his narrow self-interest.
Scotland, meanwhile, is now considering disunion from the United Kingdom because Scots want to continue as part of the European Union. The Brexit question is also said to have stirred up sectarian passions in Northern Ireland, where violence is not far from the surface. Right-wing demagogues throughout Europe were celebrating the Brexit vote, which put Trump in the company of a dubious crowd, including Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen.
European leaders will be searching for ways to hold the European Union together before the forces of disunion and economic nationalism grow too threatening. The immigration problem remains a potent cause of disunion, which is one reason Putin has actually chosen to help prolong the war in Syria.
President Barack Obama had counseled versus Brexit. He understood a united and prosperous Europe was in the interest of the United States. That he may be proven right by the dire events likely to follow is probably of little consolation to him.
—
Online:
http://bit.ly/28UYHNC
No comments:
Post a Comment