Editorials from around New England

Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New England newspapers:

The Bulletin (Conn.), Nov. 19, 2015

Last week’s terrorist attack on Paris was an apt demonstration of the cruelty and violence from which Syrians are fleeing en masse, seeking refuge in Western nations. Yet for leaders twisted by cynicism and bigotry, it’s being used to exploit Americans’ fears, turning them against compassion for innocent victims.

Numerous governors and presidential candidates, by and large Republicans, this week spoke out against the United States’ extremely conservative refugee intake program, in which less than 1,500 Syrians have entered the country since civil conflict erupted there in 2011; President Obama wants to increase the number to 10,000 over the next year.

Showing an unsurprising lack of perspective - and ignorance of the fact that their rhetoric only fuels the fires tended by the Islamic State - some leaders have proclaimed their states will not accept Syrians seeking asylum, questioning the federal government’s vetting process and stoking worries that terrorists could easily hide among the masses.

For one thing, governors lack the authority to close their borders; immigration is an exclusive function of the U.S. government. These leaders’ statements are symbolic, not practicable. Moreover, the existing vetting process takes as long as two years before a refugee is granted admission to the U.S., explaining in part why the nation has accepted so few Syrians relative to Western powers in Europe.

That is not to say there is no risk. It is possible that one of the suspects in the Paris attacks, which killed 129 people, was a Syrian refugee, though his status is disputed because of a falsified passport. It is of course possible that Islamic State operatives could defeat the U.S. vetting process, infiltrate the country and cause carnage here.

But the risk is hardly distinguishable from the risk posed by immigrants or visitors from other nations - the other suspects in the Paris tragedy were French or Belgian by nationality, and these people undoubtedly could have gained entry as tourists, and after considerably less processing than a refugee from Syria undergoes. And there is always the possibility that radicalized American citizens could conduct acts of terrorism here.

The U.S. should set a moral example that values careful compassion and condemns inflammatory rhetoric.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1X2PWGk

Portland Press Herald (Maine), Nov. 18, 2015

In April, Corinthian Colleges was fined $30 million by the federal government for allegedly lying about its graduates’ success. Last month, the Defense Department barred the University of Phoenix from recruiting on military bases. And on Monday, we learned that Education Management Corp. has agreed to pay over $80 million to settle claims of improper recruitment tactics.

But that puts Education Management on the hook for less than 1 percent of the federal student aid that the company is accused of fraudulently claiming. Meanwhile, thousands of former students there have to repay billions in federal loans that they were deceived into obtaining. Agreements like the one announced this week won’t go far to help the real victims unless they inflict real penalties, too.

Compared to their peers at public and nonprofit schools, those who attend for-profit colleges tend to be older and have lower incomes. So as they strive to better their life prospects through higher education, they’re a natural target for pitches by recruiters who, in the worst-case scenario, dupe students into borrowing lots of money by exaggerating job placement rates and future salaries.

Education Management, which operates over 100 campuses nationwide, is accused of securing $11 billion in federal student aid between 2003 and 2011 - nearly all of its revenue - by illegally paying recruiters to lure students and inflate enrollment numbers. (John McKernan, governor of Maine from 1987 to 1995, is a former Education Management CEO and board chairman; he later left the board.)

Under the recent settlement, the school agreed to forgive about $100 million in loans that it made to up to 80,000 former students. (The 244 in Maine will share $230,000.)

The Chronicle for Higher Education has pointed out, however, that a lot of others who used to attend Education Management schools are still expected to pay. They’re the ones who were pressured to enroll and took out federal loans to meet their expenses.

A 1993 law gives borrowers the right to have their debts canceled if they were defrauded into taking out federal student loans. But the U.S. Education Department hasn’t used this opportunity to fast-track relief for former Education Management students. Instead, students who believe they qualify for debt forgiveness because they were deceived have to submit claims to the federal government, said Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Federal law allows the U.S. government to press Education Management for the entire $11 billion that it fraudulently claimed. Instead, the company was allowed to deny any wrongdoing, while those who were victimized get pennies on the dollar at best - and have to fight for reparations at worst.

There’s a lesson in here, but those who are most in need of learning it aren’t paying attention.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1WYPWXX

Gloucester Times (Mass.), Nov. 18, 2015

France has shown impressive and inspiring resolve in its efforts to root out ISIS terrorists; truly it is “at war,” and it means to win.

But France also shows that it holds true to its core values of equality and freedom, and that is perhaps the most impressive quality of all.

The ISIS-planned bombings and shootings in Paris left France and its many allies around the world in shock. Terrorists methodically executed concert goers, cafe patrons and passersby in a bloody attack that was intended to terrify the population. But France responded bravely and decisively, in a manner familiar to those of us who felt the powerful message of “Boston Strong,” our rallying cry in the days following the Boston Marathon bombing.

French President Francois Hollande brought his country together in the hours after the attacks, pledging that France would wage a decisive war on ISIS. His nation’s military forces quickly made good on that threat, conducting airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria.

But France also faced a threat familiar to Bostonians - in the wake of the attack, the whereabouts of at least one of the terrorists was unknown, and the possibility of more terrorist attacks was high.

Yesterday, French military and police forces executed a raid on an apartment in a Paris suburb, killing two terrorists and capturing others. Some 5,000 bullets are said to have been fired in the exchange. One of the terrorists - a young woman - blew herself up with a bomb-laden vest. French authorities say the wreckage of the apartment shows evidence that they had stopped another round of attacks in its tracks. But the threat of more attacks remains, as the extent of the terrorist cells is unknown.

Hollande praised the resolve of his nation yesterday, and clearly laid out what this war with ISIS is all about.

“What the terrorists were targeting was what France represents. This is what was attacked on the night of November 13th,” he said. “These barbarians targeted France’s diversity. It was the youth of France who were targeted simply because they represent life.”

We know that to be true. We also know that France is paying a price for its willingness to join with the United States in its efforts to conduct air strikes on ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. France is an easier target for ISIS to strike, and in the eyes of ISIS, Paris represents the “worst” of Western values.

They hate us for our freedom of thought, speech and religion. They hate us for our love of fashion, art, music and other means of cultural expression. They hate us for our tolerance of human differences and sexuality. They hate us for seeing women as the equals of men.

All this that the West holds as fundamental, Islamic fanatics see as heresy and decadence. And the cure for heresy and decadence, in their reading of the Quran, is death.

And so France is continuing its war against ISIS, redoubling its efforts.

Yet interestingly, Hollande also pledged to honor his nation’s prior commitment to accept Syrian refugees - some 30,000 over the next two years. In the wake of terrorist attacks and facing uncertainty over the extent of future threats, France tries to hold true to its values. It feels it is stronger than the threats it faces. That is inspirational.

France has long worn its love of freedom and human rights on its sleeve. Its motto - “liberty, equality, fraternity” - are words that the French people embrace. The world looks to France right now to show its leadership in the war against terrorism, and so far it has been a strong leader.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1O8Ov3x

Concord Monitor (N.H.), Nov.17, 2015

When Hillary Clinton descended upon the State House to file her primary paperwork, a certain amount of pomp, circumstance and security was to be expected. As a former first lady, Clinton receives lifetime protection from the Secret Service - and as the Democratic front-runner, she deserves it twice over.

But Clinton’s heavy-handed security embarrassed her and her campaign. State Republicans reacted furiously to images of the Secret Service screening Secretary of State Bill Gardner. And the screeners outside the State House made casual attendance of Clinton’s post-filing rally impossible. Anyone who wanted to see the candidate had to stand in line for up to an hour before being corralled into a congested mass in front of the candidate. Those who tried to watch from nearby sidewalks were rudely pushed away.

State GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn was ready to pounce. “Secretary Clinton’s treatment of Secretary Gardner is embarrassing and is the latest example of the arrogant campaign that she is running in New Hampshire,” she said in a news release.

Put simply, Hillary Clinton cannot hope to run as a champion of the people when her security team makes it so difficult for people to see or interact with her. She can’t hope to ask for everyday voters’ support when those everyday voters are treated as threats by scowling muscle.

What a lost opportunity.

And what a chance for other Republicans to make fools of themselves on Facebook.

“When an authoritarian criminal cartel come’s ’a visitin’, this is what you get.”

“Hillary is the DIRT BAG.”

“She has NO ’standing’ for all of the Federal Security ’SHE’ demands!!!!!”

These vitriolic posts from current and former state representatives, collected by liberal blog Miscellany: Blue, suggests that GOP representatives could use some sensitivity training. Or given the maturity level of their responses, perhaps a time-out and a nap.

Whatever one thinks of Clinton’s political beliefs, she’s deserving of a modicum of respect. As a former first lady, senator from New York and U.S. secretary of state, she has built an impressive resume. If national polls are any indication, she will be the Democratic nominee.

A degree of protection is warranted. To suggest otherwise is to be either naive or blindly partisan.

But Clinton’s campaign has a say in how her team protects her and how her supporters are treated. It could have created a middle ground, one in which state fixtures like Gardner were respected while also offering reasonable security.

Last week’s farce suggests that those inside and outside the State House whose initials are not HRC were seen as bodies, nothing more. That’s a serious problem for a campaign that has been accused of existing in a bubble, cocooned from the problems of the average voter.

And while Hillary Clinton has often held others responsible for her tribulations, in this case she has no one to blame but herself.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1HXByTz

The Providence Journal (R.I.), Nov. 20, 2015

Americans are used to being warned by financial gurus about the perils of retiring too early. But increasingly, research shows that quitting work prematurely can be as bad for your health as for your wallet.

A massive study, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?,” has been following more than 100,000 people in 21 countries to weigh the effects of retirement on their well-being. Already, the evidence suggests that retiring earlier than the mean age in a given culture can lead to poorer overall health, as well as lower happiness levels. The research is being conducted by the Columbia Aging Center and the Institute of Public Policy at Diego Portales University, in Chile.

Although the sheer size of the study could wind up lending it special weight, its projected findings are nothing new. A variety of recent studies have linked work with mental acuity; in industrialized nations, they have found a strong correlation between early retirement and diminished cognitive function.

A British study reported in 2009 that working beyond normal retirement age appeared to stave off dementia. Tara Bahrampour of the Washington Post reports that, in 2013, an Italian study found that the risk of mental decline increased the longer one was in retirement.

(Perhaps Congress was thinking of this when it began raising the full retirement age for Social Security. Never mind the state of the program’s financial reserves; encouraging us to work longer is for our own good.)

Given the research findings, and the lamentable condition of too many Americans’ finances, should most of us keep working indefinitely? Apparently that need not be the case. The researchers at the Columbia Center suggest that retiring in one’s late 60s is probably optimal, though it can depend on what an individual’s peers are doing. It can also depend on whether the work is sufficiently challenging.

Experts on aging point not incidentally, and with growing urgency, to the staggering cost of dementia care, which can deplete family finances. As more and more Americans retire, the demand will increase, creating a strong societal reason to keep people working longer.

For individuals, especially those who have not yet saved enough, a good case can be made for staying on the job and delaying taking Social Security benefits. (Full retirement age is now 66, but waiting until age 70 maximizes the available payment.) A case can also be made, however, for ceasing to tax the earnings of those who take benefits early (right now, that is most of those eligible) but who still wish to work. Because of the tax, too many Americans simply quit. If the research is correct, we cannot rely on crossword puzzles to keep these people sharp.

Of course, the decision to continue working is not always up to the worker. Too many Americans are laid off, or nudged into premature retirement through incentive programs. The loss is not just to them but to the labor pool, which faces a shortage of skilled workers.

Most Americans fantasize about a time in which they will be free to kick back. But, as the research increasingly shows, there are plenty of good reasons not to rush it. Government policies and private hiring decisions alike should better reflect this newfound wisdom.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1QAkE5G

The Rutland Herald (Vt.), Nov. 17, 2015

In the Democratic debate on Nov. 14, Bernie Sanders showed that his principal strength as a candidate is also his principal weakness.

It fell to Sanders to make the first opening statement on an evening when everyone’s mind was filled with anxiety and sorrow about the attacks in Paris the evening before. Sanders responded to the moment with a perfunctory statement about ISIS and quickly turned his attention to what he wanted to talk about. “I’m running for president,” he said, “because as I go around this nation, I talk to a lot of people, and what I hear is people’s concerns that the economy we have is a rigged economy.”

It was reported that the Sanders campaign had resisted the decision by CBS to shift the emphasis of the debate away from domestic issues in order to address the violence in Paris. In a willful assertion of his own priorities, Sanders used his opening statement to issue the same, broken-record-like economic analysis that voters have heard a thousand times rather than take into account what was actually on voters’ minds.

Sanders’ economic analysis is his principal gift to the campaign. His emphasis on corporate domination and political corruption have called attention to economic injustices long neglected by politicians, parties and the media. His consistent and committed focus on those issues has won him a national following that has astonished many.

But leadership is about more than saying the same thing over and over again. His unwillingness or inability to seize the moment to show that he can lead the nation in a moment of crisis underscored the suspicion of many that his experience and his vision are too narrow for the presidency.

There was much to say about the attack in France and the threat of ISIS, about the war in Syria and the refugee crisis. But the candidates seemed as if they were tiptoeing through a minefield.

At the outset, Hillary Clinton seemed to be in a defensive crouch, waiting for the criticism she was sure would be coming her way. She had been President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. She had voted for the Iraq war. She would have to answer the charges that Obama’s policy - her policy - was weak on terrorism, or that her vote for the war had actually helped unleash the wave of terrorism now afflicting the world.

It took her awhile to hit her stride as she sought to enunciate a policy, like Obama’s, that threads the needle between overreaction and under-reaction. Repeatedly, she insisted that this was not America’s war, when what she meant to say was this was not primarily America’s war, that it is a war we are already engaged in but can’t prosecute alone.

Sanders did not inspire confidence that he was well versed in the complexities of the Middle East to the degree that Clinton is. He insisted that our allies and regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, needed to do their part. Clinton is aware of the complexities of the crisis because of her abundant experience dealing with its many challenges. It was clear she understood that America had a leadership role to play, but she didn’t want to be stampeded by the panicky Republican response into an overly belligerent or war-like posture.

Leadership is about more than hewing to talking points or pounding home one’s own ideas. It involves a sensitive understanding of the fears and anxieties of the American people and addressing them in a way that inspires trust. Without trust no leader can lead effectively. An unwillingness to go with the flow of the moment left Sanders talking to himself on Saturday.

As one reporter has written, Sanders has a reluctance to kiss babies and to engage the public at the grass-roots level. He’s on his own mission. His commitment to his mission has brought him far, but the presidency would not be handing him the script that he would like to recite.

___

Online:

https://ow.ly/UV7NT