Editorials from around New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

The Poughkeepsie Journal on practical ways to improve voter turnout in New York.

March 21

It’s easy to dismiss a state assemblywoman’s wild notion that eligible voters should be slapped with a $10 fine if they fail to cast a ballot. The idea is patently ridiculous; the legislation has absolutely no chance of passing.

But credit Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan, for at least sparking a debate that this country - and particularly this state - desperately needs: How can we increase the anemic turnout at the polls?

New York tends to rank at the bottom in terms of voter turnout, and this year was no different. Just over 60 percent of eligible voters bothered to come to the polls - and this was during a heated presidential election. The numbers are actually much lower during so-called “off-year elections” when the presidency isn’t at stake. And the numbers sagged beyond that for primaries and when only local offices are up for grabs.

Democracy is in danger when so many people are this apathetic, but making voting compulsory isn’t the answer. Instead, state lawmakers have a range of sensible options at their disposal, and they should implement them at once. They include enabling people to register and vote on the same day and making it easier for them to change political parties. They include allowing people to register to vote when they are filling out other government documents. And they include expanding registration deadlines and voting hours.

There is, in fact, no shortage of good ideas. Glick’s proposal is getting panned by those on the left and the right, and no wonder: It’s an easy target. But once the grandstanding is over, lawmakers should buckle down and pass meaningful voting reforms. The state’s turnout numbers are abysmal. It’s embarrassing, quite frankly, but the state can take definitive steps to make vast and meaningful improvements.

____

Online:

https://pojonews.co/2njikr1

The Oneonta Daily Star on Republican U.S. Rep John Faso’s decision to join a majority of members in the House Budget Committee in advancing the American Health Care Act.

March 21

John Faso, who in November was elected to represent the 19th Congressional District, serves on the House Budget Committee.

Last week presented Faso, a Republican in his first term, with one of those legacy moments that go a long way toward defining what sort of congressman he will be.

At stake was a committee vote to advance the GOP’s extremely flawed health care bill intended to replace Obamacare. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had come out with its estimate that the bill would deprive 14 million Americans health insurance next year, and 24 million by 2026.

Included in the bill was defunding federal contributions to Planned Parenthood. Faso earlier this year had pledged that he would not vote to do that. The House plan also would raise premiums for older Americans, including many in Faso’s district.

Three Republicans on the committee stood up and voted against the measure.

John Faso was not one of them.

The bill passed in the committee, 19-17. Had Faso voted “no,” the bill would have been hung up in the committee and not advanced toward possible passage in the House.

It is the first - and a very strong - indication that Faso as a first-term congressman will be one of those “go along to get along” guys.

But then, what did we expect?

Days before the election, this newspaper declined to endorse Faso or his Democratic opponent, Zephyr Teachout. This is what we wrote:

“Clear away all the tumult and the shouting, and it all comes down to this: Faso would be a reliable vote in Congress for Paul Ryan and the Republicans, and Teachout would be the same for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.”

We have little doubt that our analysis of how Teachout would be voting had she won the election would be as right-on as that of Faso. Still, it is disappointing that Faso has put party interests ahead of those of his constituents, many of whom would suffer under legislation Faso has to know is bad for them.

Democrats are already publicizing statistics stating that more than 90,000 people in the 19th District would lose their health care coverage under the Republican plan and that a 60-year-old in the district who makes $30,000 a year would lose up to $900 in tax credits.

For his part, Faso is basically saying that there’s nothing to see here, folks, that is was just a procedural vote, and it didn’t really mean anything.

“Today I joined a majority of Budget Committee members to approve a procedural step for the American Health Care Act,” he said in a media release. . A ’no’ vote would have cut off discussion rather than advance positive changes to the underlying bill for the families and small businesses of the 19th District.

“The American Health Care Act now heads to a fourth committee and, likely, the floor of the House for a full vote. During this time I will continue to carefully review the legislation and gather input from constituents, providers, and insurers about how this reform plan will affect them. .”

Even if Faso ultimately decides to vote against the bill when it is scheduled to reach the full House of Representatives, it won’t matter nearly as much.

John Faso had his “profiles in courage” opportunity, and he has let it pass him by.

____

Online:

https://bit.ly/2mMhUWm

The Gloversville Leader-Herald on returning control of public schools to local officials.

March 21

One reason so many education bureaucrats and liberal politicians do not like new U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is clear: They fear she and her boss, President Donald Trump, will eliminate the control Washington has over schools throughout the nation.

Indeed, it may be the best thing DeVos could do in her position is to eliminate her own job.

In a speech to a conference of educators last week, DeVos said she favors more local control over public schools.

“Those closest to the problem are often best equipped to solve it,” she explained.

Precisely - providing DeVos understands how to restore local control.

Virtually every public school and school district in the United States is controlled by the federal DOE. Many Americans may wonder why on earth the discredited Common Core standards for school curriculum were adopted by their states. The answer is that the DOE pressed states to adopt Common Core.

Another concern, too many standardized tests, also can be traced to pressure from Washington.

Education bureaucrats can exert such pressure because they have the money. Few schools, especially those in states such as ours where so many students are from low- and moderate-income families, can afford to operate without federal money.

During recent years, the DOE’s financial whip has grown much bigger. The agency has about $43 billion in discretionary funds to spend on K-12 education each year. That is more than twice the agency’s K-12 budget in 2000.

Clearly, the best way to restore local control is to get that money out of Washington and into our schools without strings attached.

____

Online:

https://bit.ly/2nakOI1

The New York Post on easing school lunch restrictions.

March 19

America’s schoolchildren can hope for more edible lunches soon, as lobbyists for the nation’s school cafeteria programs are pushing for an easing of former first lady Michelle Obama’s dietary diktats.

Back in 2010, the then-Democratic Congress passed her Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, sharply restricting the meals served by lunch programs that get federal funds.

Now the School Nutrition Association is begging for “practical flexibility under federal nutrition standards,” specifically allowing for more salt and fewer whole grains.

Obama’s goal, healthier kids, was noble enough, but the mandates wound up slapping a whole lot of just plain unappetizing eats onto kids’ trays. And if they don’t eat the food, it doesn’t matter how healthy it is.

Nor is everything that’s been labeled “unhealthy” actually that bad: The scientific basis for the war on salt, in particular, now looks to be almost as misguided as the now-abandoned “food pyramid.”

As for the whole-grain rules, a policy paper from the association notes: “Schools are struggling with limited availability of specialty whole-grain items and meeting students’ regional and cultural preferences for certain refined grains, such as white rice, pasta, grits, bagels or tortillas.”

Total repeal of the 2010 law may go too far, but plainly a more practical balance is called for. It’s time to end the school food fight, once and for all.

____

Online:

https://nyp.st/2n5755f

The New York Times on the FBI probe into possible links between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton.

March 20

The acknowledgment by James Comey, the FBI director, that the bureau is investigating possible connections between President Trump’s campaign and Russia’s efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s chances is a breathtaking admission. While there has been a growing body of circumstantial evidence of such links, Comey’s public confirmation ought to mark a turning point in how inquiries into Russia’s role in the election should be handled.

The top priority now must be to ensure that the FBI’s investigation, which could result in criminal prosecutions, is shielded from meddling by the Trump administration, which has shown a proclivity to lie, mislead and obfuscate with startling audacity. Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said the bureau is conducting its investigation in an “open-minded, independent way” and vowed to “follow the facts wherever they lead.”

There is no reason to doubt Comey’s commitment. But it is far from certain that senior officials at the Department of Justice, who normally decide whether there is enough evidence to file criminal charges in politically sensitive cases, will be able to avoid White House interference. Before Monday’s hearing began, Trump issued a remarkable set of tweets calling the possibility of collusion with Russia “fake news” and urging Congress and the FBI to drop the matter and instead focus on finding who had been leaking information to the press.

These brazen warning shots from the president do enormous damage to public confidence in the FBI’s investigation. The credibility of the Justice Department in handling the Russian matter was already deeply compromised after Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrived in the job refusing to recuse himself from any investigation. He was forced to step aside only after it was revealed that, contrary to what he told senators under oath, he had met with the Russian ambassador to Washington twice during the campaign. Even with his recusal, it would still be his deputies and staff directing and managing any potential prosecution - which raises serious questions of conflict.

Mitigating this credibility crisis requires appointing an independent prosecutor, who would not take orders from the administration. If Trump’s assertion that there was no collusion between his campaign officials and the Russian government is true, he should want this matter to be fully investigated as quickly and as transparently as possible.

Appointing a special prosecutor would show that Sessions is willing to have an impartial examination of his actions as a surrogate for Trump last year - which he has assured the public were entirely appropriate.

The decision to bring in a special counsel may fall on Rod Rosenstein, a career federal prosecutor who has been nominated to be deputy attorney general. Lawmakers from both parties should strongly encourage him to make that sensible and necessary decision.

As the FBI investigation continues, a series of overlapping congressional inquiries into Russian activities to influence the election are advancing in a predictably muddled, partisan way. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are working to produce a detailed timeline showing all the reported contacts between people close to the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the campaign. Most Republicans want to keep the focus on leaks of classified information.

This matter requires a broader investigation run by a collaborative, bipartisan team of statesmen. The ideal format would be a select committee that has subpoena power and a mandate to issue a comprehensive report of its findings. The goal must be to make American political parties and democratic institutions less vulnerable to efforts to distort the electoral process as the Russians appear to have carried out. Failing to learn and heed the lessons of last year’s campaign would be an abdication of a shared responsibility to safeguard American democracy.

____

Online:

https://nyti.ms/2nOQPnn