Messenger by St. Albans Messenger

Editorial comment & Letters to the Editor

Opinions

Monday, April 15, 2013

Submit letters: Editor, St. Albans Messenger, 281, N. Main St., St. Albans, Vt. 05478. Fax: 802-527-1948; emerson@samessenger.com

When gridlock is a good thing W

ith the release of the president’s budget, Washington again has descended into partisan squabbling. There is pervasive concern in the United States about the basic functioning of democracy. Congress is viewed less favorably than ever, and revulsion runs deep at political figures seemingly unable to reach agreement on measures to reduce future budget deficits. Pundits and politicians alike condemn “gridlock.” Angry movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the tea party are active on the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum. Meanwhile, profound changes are redefining the global order. Emerging economies, led by China, are converging toward the West. Beyond the current economic downturn lies the even more serious challenge of the rise of technologies, which may increase average productivity but which also displace large numbers of workers. The combination of an aging population and the rising costs of health care and education will put pressure on future budgets. Anyone who has worked in a political position in Washington has had ample experience with great frustration. Almost everyone in U.S. politics feels that much is essential yet infeasible in the current environment. Many yearn for a return to an imagined era when centrists in both parties negotiated bipartisan compromises that moved the country forward. Yet fears about the functioning of the federal government have been a recurring feature of the political landscape since Patrick Henry’s assertion in 1788 that the spirit of the revolution had been lost. It is sobering to contrast today’s concern about political paralysis with that which gripped Washington during the early 1960s. Then, the prevailing diagnosis was that a lack of cohesive and responsible parties for voters to choose from precluded clear mandates necessary for decisive action. While a flurry of legislation passed in 1964 to 1966 after a Democratic electoral landslide, Vietnam and Watergate followed, all leading to President Jimmy Carter’s declaration of a crisis of the national spirit. Despite today’s rose-tinted view, there was hardly high rapport in Washington during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. In American history, division and slow change has been the norm rather than the exception. While often frustrating, this has not always been a bad thing. There were probably too few checks and balances as the United States entered the Vietnam and Iraq wars. There should have been more checks and balances in place before the huge tax cuts of 1981, 2001 and 2003, or to avert the many unfunded entitlement expansions of the past few decades. Most experts would agree that it is a good thing that politics thwarted the effort to establish a guaranteed annual income in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the effort to establish a “single-payer” health-care system during the 1970s. The great mistake of the gridlock theorists is to suppose that progress comes from legislation, and that more legislation consistently represents more progress. While people think the nation is gripped by gridlock, consider what has happened in the past five years: Washington moved faster to contain a systemic financial crisis than any country facing such an episode has done in the past generation. Through all the fractiousness, enough change has taken place that, without further policy action, the ratio of debt to gross domestic product is expected to decline for the next five years. Beyond that, the outlook depends largely on health-care costs, but their growth has slowed to the rate of GDP growth for three years now, the first such slowdown in nearly half a century. At last, universal health care has been passed and is being implemented. Within a decade, it is likely that the United States no longer will be a net importer of fossil fuels. Financial regulation is not in a fully satisfactory place but has received its most substantial overhaul in 75 years. For the first time, most schools and teachers are being evaluated on objective metrics of performance. Same-sex marriage has become widely accepted. No comparable list can be put forth for Japan or countries in Western Europe. Yes, change comes rapidly to some authoritarian societies in Asia, but it may not endure, and it may not always be for the better. Anyone prone to pessimism about the United States would do well to ponder the alarm with which it viewed the Soviet Union after the launch of the Sputnik satellite or Japan’s economic rise in the 1980s and the early 1990s. One of America’s greatest strengths is its ability to defy its own prophecies of doom. None of this is to say that the United States does not face huge challenges. But these are not because of structural obstacles. They are about finding solutions to problems such as rising income inequality and climate change — issues for which we do not quite know the way forward. These are not problems of gridlock but of vision. Lawrence Summers is a professor and past president at Harvard University. He was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and economic adviser to President Obama from 2009 through 2010. Doonesbury

by Garry Trudeau

Letters two million small farmers have lost their land. A new view on Richford’s protest Some Most of the Mexican farm workers in Vermont come

fter reading the “Protesters Demand Higher Standards; discussion tonight” article published in the April 3rd St. Albans Messenger, we have realized our opinions, school, and story as a whole have been misrepresented. In the article, a student stated: “It feels like Mr. Perrigo and Jay Nichols, picked the students. They weren’t in the protest. They actually fought us about it...To us it feels like he chose the students that are going to benefit him, not the ones that are going to tell what actually happened and the whole entire reason why we were there.” These quotes were extremely inaccurate. First of all, we were chosen based on our student government positions which we hold because we were elected by our fellow classmates. Because we were not involved in the protesting, we felt that the story would be one-sided. Therefore we invited three protesters to join the series of interviews. We witnessed a peaceful protest, we are unaware of any “fighting”, and even the days following continued to be respectful. Before we were interviewed, we were given no instruction to say anything that would benefit the principal or the superintendent; we were only told to keep the name of the teacher anonymous. We were not intimidated by the interviewers, and we know that we provided both sides of the story. However, Jessie published the side of the story that would be a better selling point rather than provide the whole truth. On Tuesday April 2nd, we met with Jessie Forand, a journalist from the Messenger, where we discussed the changes and recent protest regarding the non-renewal of a teacher. When the article came out we were personally offended by the content and how it leads people to perceive Richford. We care about our school and community, which is why we agreed to take time out of our school day to provide both sides of the story. We were frustrated with Jessie after she told us that she would not let the article “bash Richford”. We feel that this is exactly what the story did! We all want the best for Richford’s future, and we intended to clear up any misunderstandings. Senior class president- Brianna Morse, Senior Class Vice president- Elle Purrier, Student Council PresidentMarley Pratt, Student Council Vice President- Kylie O’Brien, Protesters: Senior Melinda King, Junior Melissa Hango, and Junior Katie Gesser.

Sen. Norm McAllister does not speak for all our farmers

am struck by your choice of a headline: “McAllister votes against migrant licenses”. The good news is that 27 state senators voted in favor of S-38 that would provide access to state driver’s licenses for all inhabitants of Vermont. Perhaps the headline could have read: “Migrant Licenses Overwhelmingly Approved”. Among the 27 in favor was our other senator Don Collins. Thank you Senator Collins! Senator McAllister claims that it did not have any support from farmers. I do not doubt that there are farmers who oppose the legislation, but McAllister does not speak for ALL farmers. There are others who favor the legislation. To say that the migrant workers are “pretty mobile around the state” is nonsense. As part of our ministry, I have driven farm workers to medical and dental appointments precisely because of their lack of mobility. I have been on farms where the workers did not have enough for their next meal because they were dependent upon the farmer or someone else to do their grocery shopping. I have received a panicky call from a farm worker who needed to send money home to his family and had no way of getting to a Western Union to do so. Representative Dan Connors’ view that farmers consider the migrant farm workers an extension of their family also is true in some but not ALL cases. There are farmers who have been in arrears of salary payments to their workers. Also, as I noted above, there are farmers who are not available or choose not to do the normal errands that we all have, like going to the grocery store. For ten years I lived in Mexico and have seen firsthand the kind of poverty and living conditions that are the main driving force for migration. McAllister is concerned about following the rules. Who sets the rules and who benefits from the rules are also critical factors. The “rules” of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have devastated the Mexican rural economy. Large agribusinesses are now able to sell corn in Mexico below production costs in Mexico.

from the southern most states of Mexico which is no surprise, since these are traditionally the states for the cultivation of corn. Farm workers are here because like all of us they want to provide for their families. The “rules” for the trade agreements were not written by and for small farmers but rather with the interest of maximizing profits for transnational corporations. The dairy industry which is so critical to our Vermont economy and our cultural tradition relies on the labor of these workers. As we know, our dairy farmers are also struggling to survive in a global economy dominated by large corporations that monopolize markets. The struggle to provide for families within a global economy designed to generate wealth for a few rather than the well-being of all has brought Vermont dairy farmers and Mexican corn farmers together. These workers deserve the same rights as all others who labor on the land. We pray “give us this day our daily bread”. As Vermonters we depend upon migrant farm workers to contribute to our daily bread. Yet these same workers, without transportation to stores, can find themselves without food on the table. That is not right! That is why we need to provide workers with access to driver’s licenses. Pastor Kim Erno, Director Franklin Alliance for Rural Ministries

Freddy, bottom line is this: you may be good, but you are illegal

reddy, stop with the sob stories [Messenger letter to the editor this past weekend]. You attain all the rights and privileges of an American citizen when you enter this nation legally and climb all the steps required to be granted citizenship. You choose not to go that route. So, you are illegal. Demand till the sun goes down. You are illegal. You might be a good man. You might be a responsible man but you are still a very illegal man and not entitled to anything, bleeding hearts be damned. Go home and start the right way. But till than, stop the whining and be thankful you’re not on that slow train back to Mexico. Dave Burnor, Fairfield

Sen. McAllister deserves our thanks for vote on illegals

hanks are due to Senator Norm McAllister for having enough respect for the law and the political gumption to oppose giving Vermont drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. Thanks, however, are not due the Messenger for its biased avoidance of the word illegal. As we all know, legal aliens can obtain licenses. Steven Pike, Swanton

Why is my voice silenced?

disturbing culture of unaccountability exists in the Vermont General Assembly whereby seventeen Democratic senators, that constitutes a quorum, sequestered themselves in the basement of a building removed from the Statehouse to secretly discuss the Vermont state budget. This behavior violates the trust that Vermonters have given to legislators to conzduct open government and it violates two parts of the Vermont Constitution which require government transparency. They follow: Chapter 1, Article 6: That all power being originally inherent and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive ,are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them. Chapter 2, Section 8: The doors of the Statehouse in which the General Assembly of this commonwealth shall sit, shall be open for the admission of all persons who behave decently, except only when the welfare of the state may require them to be shut. I tried repeatedly to be permitted to speak about this issue at the last Franklin County legislative breakfast but was deliberately denied that opportunity by the moderator, Representative Carolyn Branagan even though some delegates urged her to let me speak and I did not the reveal the nature of my concerns ahead of time. Is this the way a citizen should be treated by a legislator? Bob Shea, Fairfax