That’s the position of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, who visited Beacon Hill Monday in opposition to transfer tax and rent control bills.

“Rent control tries to attack a symptom of our lack of building. And that’s not the way to fix the issue. We need to build more housing,” said Justin Davidson, the association’s government affairs director, according to State House News.

“If we build enough housing, if people have the options of where to live and what type of home to live in, we don’t need rent control,” Davidson said.

That’s long been an issue in the Bay State, particularly in Greater Boston. Rents are high, home prices astronomical, and so begins the exodus to the suburbs and beyond in hopes of staying ahead of exorbitant costs. Sometimes that trek leads out of state.

Our population outpaces our housing stock, and estimates from the D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center reveal that the number of single-family housing permit approvals dropped by nearly half between the 2000s and the 2010s.

As Axios reported, housing stock increased during the last decade by just under 136,000, putting it behind the estimated 167,000 new households during that same period, according to data from the American Community Survey.

We want people to come to Massachusetts, to put down roots, work and thrive. That’s not an easy task if there aren’t enough homes to keep pace with newcomers. New builds in the city that “set aside” affordable units aren’t nearly enough.

And while elected officials in Boston are seeking to ease the pain by capping rent increases, that doesn’t do anything to increase the options for renters. It also doesn’t freeze the costs of upkeep and maintenance on apartment buildings which landlords would still have to cover, just with lower revenue.

The Realtors group pointed to increased state funding for rental voucher programs as a way to handle the problem without invoking rent control, and supports a tax-deductible savings program to help people bank away up to $5,000 per year to put toward their first property.

Helping people save for a home through a tax-deductible program is an enormous leg up in the process of buying a house, especially for young would-be homeowners who want to raise a family here.

The Realtors Association opposes transfer tax and rent control bills that many housing advocates are promoting as possible solutions, and Davidson also lumped the transfer tax into a category of “harmful policies.”

“You’ve worked with buyers that know that they can’t just come up with a few thousand extra dollars to close the deal,” Davidson said, adding that transfer fees are “exclusionary.”

If Massachusetts wants to be an affordable place to live and maintain and grow its population, then increasing the housing stock is vital.

If you build it, they will come – and stay.

The main culprits? A small group of domestic sugar processors, sugar cane growers in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, and sugar beet producers in a handful of mostly northern states. Lining the pockets of this wealthy, politically connected pressure group costs U.S. consumers at least $2.4 billion at the grocery store each year.

Someday, the price-gouging must stop, and reformers have high hopes for the 2023 Farm Bill — the federal farm and food policy legislation that comes up for renewal every five years. Voters are justifiably angry about the high cost of food, and no doubt would support eliminating a hidden tax that assaults bedrock principles of capitalism and fair trade.

But change will only happen over the objections of politicians (like Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio) who’ve taken six-figure campaign contributions from Big Sugar. So have many other politicians on both sides of the aisle.

For decades, the sugar lobby has splashed out megabuck donations to perpetuate its government-sponsored rip-off.

The current version of the U.S. sugar program, established in 1981, directs the Agriculture Department to guarantee higher prices for farmers by limiting supplies through production quotas, while restricting and taxing imports. A “loan” program funnels payments to domestic processors, who can pay back the funds in sugar. The government also buys any “surplus” that might weigh on prices and directs it to another politically favored group: companies that turn sugar into ethanol fuel.

This system is a tour de force of anticompetitive corporate welfare and the fact that it’s still being used to stiff consumers shows the power of single-minded lobbying.

The 2008 and 2018 farm bills arguably made the program even worse for shoppers and food manufacturers. Some companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi, long ago reformulated many of their U.S. products with corn syrup to sidestep the sugar gouging. That’s why many consumers prefer Mexican Coke.

Consumers would benefit from letting a freer market prevail, and the industry would get more competitive, as it did in Australia, which ended sugar subsidies years ago and still produces huge quantities at world-market prices.

The leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees overseeing the 2023 Farm Bill are thought to be less beholden to the sugar cartel than some of their predecessors, and less caught up in distracting disputes over immigration policy. Food manufacturers make up a strong constituency, operating in every state, and they’re expected to seek changes to the program that would allow more imports and bring prices down.

They might not care, however, if Congress finds new ways to pay off its sugar daddies, at taxpayer expense. We urge the political forces gathering for the Farm Bill to make 2023 the year that Big Sugar finally gets told “No!”

Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service

Should the government help foot the bill?

When Medicare’s prescription-drug program was created two decades ago, it was prohibited by law from covering weight-loss drugs, which were seen as largely cosmetic. Congress also worried about health risks after several popular diet pills were taken off the market. The obesity narrative has shifted in recent years to reduce stigma, and newer drugs appear to be safer.

The American Medical Association recognized obesity as a disease in 2013.

One result is that pressure is now mounting on Congress to allow Medicare to cover weight-loss drugs, such as Novo Nordisk A/S’s Wegovy. Expanding coverage would open up a huge, lucrative market that some analysts estimate will reach $150 billion a year globally, rivaling cancer treatments. Even at $900 or more a month out of pocket, demand has been surging — to the extent that Novo recently paused its ads for Wegovy to alleviate potential shortages.

That high price has become a sticking point for insurers. Weight-loss drugs are lifelong medications. And even as more competitors enter the market, manufacturers have little incentive to reduce prices. Market share is guarded by intermediaries who get bigger fees for more expensive branded drugs — perversely driving prices up. A typical employer’s drug spending could rise by more than 50% if just half of eligible employees took Wegovy, according to one estimate. For Medicare, covering semaglutide for every eligible beneficiary could cost $268 billion a year, almost doubling the total Part D budget and surpassing total excess health-care spending associated with obesity for people of all ages.

The potential for wider savings remains unclear. It’s possible that private insurers and employers will bear the brunt of costs — thereby raising premiums — while Medicare ultimately benefits from lower spending on other obesity-related conditions. A second challenge is the lack of research on long-term health effects, particularly for older adults.

Further study is clearly needed, and measures that encourage healthy eating and exercise should remain core to obesity prevention. But given the scale of potential health benefits, some coverage is a good idea. Lower prices, meanwhile, may not be far off: Semaglutide should be eligible for Medicare’s drug price negotiations, which would take effect by 2027. An oral version of the drug, which has delivered promising results, could also be cheaper to produce than the current injectable.

A prudent first step, then, would be offering coverage to a subset of Medicare beneficiaries — for example, adopting qualifications similar to those for bariatric surgery.

While the current high costs and unknown long-term health effects are good reason to proceed with care, the potential for life-changing treatment of a deadly disease should be welcomed as a significant milestone.

Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service

The families pointed out that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals. Trump, who was playing in the tournament with his son Eric, merely rubbed salt into their wounds by saying, falsely, that “nobody has gotten to the bottom of 9/11.” Also playing that cozy day in Bedminster: the chief banker to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

U.S. intelligence concluded that MBS ordered the torture and killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. The Saudis have long denied it.

Despite protests from families of 9/11 victims, the LIV golf league grew more successful, buoyed in part by the game’s surge in popularity during the COVID-19 crisis. Golfers from all over the world were offered obscene sums of upfront money (or appearance fees) to participate, and the Professional Golfers’ Association went on the attack to protect its turf.

By 2022, the PGA was denying permission for players to participate and threatening disciplinary action if they did, even as its golfers said they were independent contractors who preferred some of the LIV tournament rules that they saw as more empowering, and lucrative, for players even beyond the top tier. And before LIV came along, the players said, the PGA routinely had issued waivers.

All just business, you might say. But Jay Monahan, the head of the PGA, didn’t hesitate to lambaste the Saudi human rights record and support outraged 9/11 families.

About a year ago, at the Canadian Open, Monahan said: “I have two families that are close to me that lost loved ones,” adding, “My heart goes out to them, and I would ask that any player that has left, or that would ever consider leaving, have you ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour?”

“Life is all about meaning and purpose,” Monahan said, “and we’re an organization with meaning and purpose.”

What hypocrisy. On Tuesday, in news that stunned the golf world, the PGA Tour and LIV Golf announced they had agreed to a merger, ending their costly rivalry in favor of a complex structure of assured mutual profitability. Monahan, reportedly will get to run the new operation as chief executive, while Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, will be chairman.

Unsurprisingly, the 9/11 families were furious at the merger.

“The PGA and Monahan appear to have become just more paid Saudi shills,” Terry Strada, the chair of 9/11 Families United, said in a statement, “taking billions of dollars to cleanse the Saudi reputation so that Americans and the world will forget how the Kingdom spent their billions of dollars before 9/11 to fund terrorism, spread their vitriolic hatred of Americans, and finance al Qaeda and the murder of our loved ones.”

What a sad week for healthy competition, American sport and the beautiful game of golf. Not to mention ethical consistency. Is this what golf’s leadership really wants to teach the next generation of players and fans?

Chicago Triubune/Tribune News Service

Something is wrong with this picture.

Climate czar Kerry sees the world through Green-tinted glasses.

“We very much hope to be able to find the pathway to a breakthrough that could make a huge difference,” Kerry told CNBC’s Tania Bryer at the January World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

That was right before a Chinese spy balloon wafted over the U.S. As NBC News reported, that balloon was able to gather intelligence from several sensitive American military sites, despite the Biden administration’s efforts to block it from doing so, according to two current senior U.S. officials and one former senior administration official.

That didn’t deter Kerry from mulling a visit to China to for a climate chat. He said last month that China invited him to visit “in the near term” for talks on averting a global climate change crisis even as diplomatic relations between the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters remain tense.

The United States and China must work together to address climate change, Kerry said in an interview with Reuters. There are issues that need to be clarified before a sit-down Kerry said.

Issues like spying on America?

Nope. China first must issue its plan to reduce methane emissions and advance in the transition away from coal.

Now Politico is reporting that China is in talks with Cuba to establish a foothold there to spy on the United States, two senior U.S. officials said.

The officials, granted anonymity to discuss an extremely sensitive intelligence matter, said China was in direct conversations with Cuba to set up a base on the island nation just 100 miles from the United States. It would allow Beijing to collect signals intelligence on southeastern portions of America, home to many military facilities and major industries. Evidence of the negotiations came to light in recent weeks, the officials said.

There are clearly problems with compartmentalizing climate change from politics. If Kerry makes inroads with China over carbon emissions, does that diminish the gravity of efforts to spy on the U.S.?

As Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (staff and budget unknown, good luck asking) Kerry answers to no one but President Biden. He flies above the nuts-and-bolts work of the State Department.

The world, however, isn’t black and white. Nor is it Green and carbon. The same China that might be considering, maybe, to reduce its coal imprint is the same one that’s eager to eavesdrop on America from the Cuban coast.

If anything, this latest move indicates that China will do what it wants. The only thing we can control is our response.

“It is a disaster for the Biden administration. It shows that what they’re trying, their policies are not working at all, the aggression of China continues,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Politico. “Here they’re flying over to China, maybe as we speak, to grovel to Beijing. Meanwhile, Beijing is basically giving us the middle finger.”

Kerry needs to look at the big picture.

“We continue to work with the advisory committee toward specific legislative language that would protect families from rent gouging and displacement as our city continues to grow,” a Wu spokesman said in a January statement. “We look forward to receiving additional stakeholder feedback before filing a proposal with the city council.”

So where was all that stakeholder feedback when Wu and Boston Public Schools Superintendent Mary Skipper announced a “generational change” regarding John D. O’Bryant School of Mathematics and Science and Madison Park High School this week?

As the Herald reported, the O’Bryant would move from the Roxbury campus it has shared for nearly four decades with Madison Park Technical Vocational High School to the now-closed West Roxbury Education Complex. This would let both schools expand, Wu explained.

On the drawing board, a “state-of-the-art” STEM facility for grades 7-12 at the new O’Bryant campus. Vocational offerings at Madison Park would expand and allow seventh- and eighth-grade students to study there as well.

“The proposals that we’re putting out, they’re very big,” Wu said. “We’re talking about generational change at a scale that we haven’t seen in quite some time in our district. That can feel daunting.”

Expanding educational opportunities is good. So is letting parents, students, teachers and neighborhood leaders weigh in on such major “generational change.”

The mayor said these changes are partly driven by the feedback of students and staff at O’Bryant and Madison Park, who said the space constraints have, “in many ways, held the schools back.”

Did the students and staff propose that O’Bryant students now commute to West Roxbury as part of that feedback?

It’s not as if the move to West Roxbury is a win-win on costs. The site was closed for safety reasons, and officials noted it will need a complete gut renovation, “down to the studs,” to accommodate the influx of new students.

There were no other buildings suitable for this move that wouldn’t require gutting first? Nothing closer to the neighborhood in which the O’Bryant has been a part of for decades?

The mayor said $18 million has been proposed in the city’s capital budget for project design, which will help to determine how much it will cost to renovate the West Roxbury facility. So we don’t yet have a price tag for this move?

There’s been pushback. City Councilor-at-Large Erin Murphy said in a statement Tuesday “Boston and BPS have plenty of buildings and sites to choose from that would not radically disrupt the O’Bryant’s long-standing connections to the neighborhoods, families and businesses that make it thrive.”

Yes, major change can be daunting – all the more reason that stakeholders affected by it have their voices heard.

Rape kits were performed on the victims in the 2007 and 2008 cases and the DNA collected linked to one genetic profile. No suspect, however, was identified.

That’s often the case when suspects aren’t convicted offenders, who have their DNA collected and sent to CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System. That computer software program enables police to search for DNA matches when working a case.

Without a suspect, these cases, like so many, remained unsolved, until Boston police revisited them last year, according to Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Lynn Feigenbaum, using newer “forensic investigative genetic genealogy” tools.

Thanks to this breakthrough, DNA from a suspect’s family can serve as a tool for identification, via genetic information added to genealogy databases that users opt to make public.

The last link: FBI agents followed Nilo to a corporate event where they obtained utensils and a drinking glass allegedly used by him.

Such investigative tools and innovations are vital to solving crimes and ultimately providing justice for victims, but they’re only effective if the work is put in.

Massachusetts has had a troubled history with processing of rape kits, with thousands untested for years. Finally, laws passed in 2018 and  2021 mandated speedy processing of untested kits. The backlog dwindled from nearly 6,000 to about 2,500 as of December, according to NBC Boston.

But Massachusetts was hardly alone – North Carolina’s inventory of untested rape kits is 16,223, according to early March numbers posted on the N.C. Department of Justice’s data dashboard. Other states are wading through their own backlogs.

Part of fighting crime is bringing perpetrators to justice, and that can’t happen if all the forensic evidence isn’t brought to bear. It’s unfathomable that thousand of rape and assault victims are still waiting for the system to work for them.

In February, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act, which provides state and local law enforcement agencies with resources to complete DNA evidence testing and analysis.

The Debbie Smith Act was signed into law in 2004, and named for the Virginia woman who didn’t see justice for years after DNA evidence was collected.

These efforts – from  Massachusetts working to end our backlog, to actions such as the Debbie Smith Act to fund timely DNA evidence testing – are all laudable. But they shouldn’t be necessary.

Crime victims shouldn’t have to hope for legislative action for their cases to be solved. Funding and personnel for crime scene forensic analysis should be as rudimentary for law enforcement agencies as issuing firearms to officers.

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

He decided not to run.

It’s not that he doesn’t have the goods, Sununu remains popular in N.H. because he’s a sharp, concise thinker who gets things done. He has a 61% job approval rating and just won re-election to a fourth term. In a contest not overshadowed by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, he’d be a standout.

But 2024 is all about the rematch, and it’s a smart politician who knows not to waste his energy, time, money and the voters’ patience.

Remember the full-on scrum that was the Democratic candidate lineup in 2020? The debate stage looked like a chorus line, until one by one, the hopefuls dropped out. Whether it was lack of funds or poor polling numbers, they just couldn’t go the distance, leaving supporters to switch lanes when their candidate left the field.

We don’t need a repeat of that, yet it seems we’re getting it from the Republican side. And while Ron DeSantis is drawing a fair bit of oxygen as a Trump contender, all roads are likely to lead to Trump and Biden trading barbs right up until election day.

Sununu’s decision was also informed by Trump’s re-election campaign.

“Every candidate needs to understand the responsibility of getting out and getting out quickly if it’s not working. And I can be more candid about that as the governor of the first-in-the-nation primary [state], in calling candidates out,” Sununu said Monday on CNN. “There are 12 people in the race. I don’t think all 12 of them firmly believe that they can be president, I think a lot of them just want to audition to be in the Cabinet or vice president. And at this time, there’s no place for that.”

“We’ve taken the last six months to really kind of look at things where everything is and I’ve made the decision not to run for president,” Sununu told Dana Bash.

As Politico reported, Sununu’s not clearing the way for Trump. He told Bash that by not getting into the race he can have “a little more of an unleashed voice” in telling candidates to get out of the race so Trump isn’t renominated.

Sununu doesn’t think Trump could win another general election.

“Right now, Donald Trump’s cost us from the U.S. Senate to governorships to school board seats. His message cost the Republican Party dearly across the country,” Sununu said on CNN. “He can’t win in November of ‘24.”

There are many people who would disagree with that. But as pundits and analysts have said for months, it’s all about Trump right now, and Biden is seen as the guy Democrats want to take him down.

Other candidates can vie for a piece of the pie, but a sliver or two is the best they can hope for. If your name isn’t Trump or Biden, this campaign will be exhausting and costly, for the party as well as the candidates.

Those on the team of Trump opponents would be wise to follow Sununu’s lead. There will be other election cycles, ones not dominated by redressing the past, in which policy nuances and ideas can the focus of campaign stops.

Just not this one.

A handful of Democrats and Republicans in the lower chamber announced they would introduce the Dignity Act, which The Washington Post described as “the most robust immigration proposal to date this Congress.”

Notably, the six main co-sponsors — three Republican, three Democrat — are Hispanic members of Congress who represent border states. The primary authors are Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., and Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas.

“We’re not each pursuing the perfect as we see it,” Rep. Salazar said. “We are pursuing a compromise that is real, that is common sense.”

As such, the legislation has something for everyone to hate. It includes beefed-up border security, anathema to progressives, and a pathway to legal status for those in the country illegally, a thorn for conservative border hawks.

Under the proposal, Congress would add more Border Patrol agents “as well as additional surveillance technology and border fencing,” The Wall Street Journal reported. At the same time, the bill would allow those who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years to pay a $5,000 fine over seven years to gain protection against deportation. At that point, they could pay another $5,000 fine and gain permanent resident status or start the process of citizenship.

The bill also creates processing centers and “humanitarian campuses” for those awaiting adjudication of their status. Employers — including those in the agriculture business — would face stricter E-Verify requirements regarding their workers, the Journal notes. The Dignity Act would boost the number of visas and green cards available to meet demand and create a new year-round visa program for farmworkers — while also more quickly deporting those who aren’t granted asylum.

“Holding out for the perfect will make the situation worse,” Rep. Escobar said. “I have an ideal vision as well. But if I sit on my hands until I’m able to execute on that ideal vision, then the situation will only grow more and more challenging.”

GOP leaders have vowed not to take up immigration reform until passing a border security law. But all these issues are intertwined. There’s nothing politically compromising about House Republicans using the Dignity Act as a starting point for serious talks on this contentious issue, showing voters that they’re willing to substantively address pressing problems even if nobody gets everything they want.

The Dignity Act deserves a fair hearing.

Las Vegas Journal-Review/Tribune News Service

Murthy’s “Social Media and Youth Mental Health” report should be mandatory reading for legislators, researchers, parents and yes, teenagers themselves. It stresses the pervasiveness of social media within the adolescent world, noting that up to 95% of teens ages 13 to 17 report using a social media platform. An even more disturbing statistic: nearly 40% of children between 8 and 12 use social media.

Murthy doesn’t portray social media as some terrible toxin that must be subdued. In fact, he stresses its benefits as a conduit for connection with peers and friends who share interests and identities. It also can provide an avenue for self-expression, and at times even illuminate. Teens report that social media keeps them tethered to what’s happening in their friends’ lives, and makes them feel as if they have people they can turn to during rough patches, Murthy says.

But as the report points out, the downside of social media’s impact on teens is very real and worrisome.

Social media platforms are built to maximize user engagement through a variety of tools, including “likes,” push notifications and algorithms that turn user data into recommendations on which content to view. We all get bombarded by social media’s tricks of the trade, of course, but Murthy’s concern is that the audience includes teens and their developing brains.

Murthy cites data that should raise red flags for parents. A survey done this year by the research group Common Sense found that a third of girls between 11 and 15 said they felt addicted to a social media platform. Nearly one in three teens report being on their screens until midnight or later. And, one survey of eighth and 10th graders found that they spent an average of 3.5 hours a day on social media, and that 1 in 7 teens participating in that survey were on social media for seven or more hours a day.

Murthy lays out a series of common sense remedies that we wholeheartedly endorse. To begin with, the people who run Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and other social media platforms must step up and take responsibility for the impact that their products and services have on teens and children, and must enable independent assessments of that impact.

Lawmakers should establish and enforce age-appropriate health and safety standards that protect children from harmful content and limit the use of features aimed mostly at maximizing screen time and engagement.

Crucially, Murthy has recommendations for parents and teens: Create a “family media plan” that establishes boundaries for social media use at home. Have meaningful discussions with teens about how they spend their time online, who they are connecting with, and what their privacy settings are. That’s parenting 101, of course — stronger engagement with your children almost always leads to healthier, happier kids.

Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service

Those facts were lost on the graduating students who booed and hurled obscenities at Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav during the May 21 commencement ceremony.

Members of the Writers Guild of America picketed outside Nickerson Field, and it was the union’s strike that fueled the debacle.

If the intent was to bring about an end to the strike with a favorable outcome for writers, it was a pointless display. If the desired effect, however, was to engage in disruption for disruption’s sake, then the sorry show was a hit.

An angry Robert Brown, retiring president of Boston University, called out the alums for “cancel culture.” As the Herald reported, Brown slammed the students  “who were appallingly coarse and deliberately abusive to Mr. Zaslav.”

“Our students were not picking a fight,” Brown wrote in a post on BU’s website Wednesday. “They were attempting to implement the cancel culture that has become all too prevalent on university campuses.

“The hundreds of virtually identical protest emails we received in my office in advance of Commencement came with an explicit ‘cancel’ hashtag, indicating an aim to prevent Mr. Zaslav from speaking,” Brown added.

Brown is right about this being a fresh example of cancel culture, but it’s also the latest stunt in the growing trend of disruption theater.

Like the “awareness raisers” who throw food at museum masterpieces to fight climate change, or slash tires of vehicles they deem bad for the planet, or anti-whatever demonstrators snarling traffic to a gathering crowd and cameras, the message is the same: look at me.

All those students and parents who wanted to appreciate and enjoy the milestone that is a graduation ceremony – too bad for them.

Disruption is the both the ends and the means, it’s a politically charged offshoot of a TikTok challenge. Instead of licking tubs of ice cream and putting it back in store freezers, they’re chaining themselves to barrels or smearing paint on the glass surrounding a Degas sculpture.

None of these acts will ease climate change or end the writers strike, but that’s lost on the attention-seekers who engage in them. Real progress in the labor dispute between the Writers Guild of America labor union and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers will be made at the negotiating table, not at Nickerson Field. The disruptive action in this case, the strike itself, was called as a bid to spur negotiations. Their silent keyboards speak louder than those who shout expletives at a studio CEO.

President Brown echoed campus leaders from around the country who’ve witnessed cancel culture invading the halls of learning.  “The attempt to silence a speaker with obscene shouts is a resort to gain power, not reason, and antithetical to the mission and purposes of a university,” he wrote.

It speaks to a pathetic  paradigm in higher education: freedom of speech is sacred, unless we don’t like what you say. Cue the shouting.

The university system, Meehan said,  is sailing into some “very strong headwinds,” with lower birth rates affecting enrolment, more competition for students, and people questioning whether a college degree is worth the money.

The USS UMass, however, is in danger of running aground even in calm waters, thanks to its overloaded cargo hold.

As the State House News reported, salary and fringe benefits constitute 60% of UMass’s expenses in fiscal 2024, an increase of $186 million compared to the fiscal 2023 projection. A Boston Herald deep dive in to state payrolls revealed that most of the state’s top earners are employed by UMass. One chancellor took home over $1 million. A year.

No wonder people are questioning whether they should take on the financial burden of a college education – knowing that a good chunk of their tuition is going to line the pockets of highly-paid college administrators does take the shine off a prospective diploma.

It’s this lower supply of students battling the higher demand of salary costs that threatens to scuttle the UMass yacht. Their solution?

“Addressing these challenges will require active management and continued advocacy for a change to the cost-sharing arrangement with the commonwealth,” said.Joe Skrzek, assistant budget director at UMass.

A “change to the cost-changing arrangement” is a nice way of saying “give us more money.”

Skrzek crunched the numbers: Overall enrollment at UMass is slated to decrease by 0.3% in fiscal 2024, capping a three-year downward trend,  said. That’s fueled by a 1% drop in undergraduate students and a 2% drop in in-state students — though the percentage of graduate, out-of-state and international students is projected to rise, as well as those pursuing continuing education.

If less revenue is coming in, why not, as we have pointed out often, trim the fat?

According to Meehan,  UMass has managed to save more than $100 million through procurement strategies to prepare for the looming hurdles.

That’s a good start – but that still leaves the problem of administrative bloat. It’s not the rank-and-file employees who slog through the day-to-day running of the university system, or who try to whip up enthusiasm for Chaucer among undergrads. It’s the top tier that won the paycheck lottery.

“We’ll continue to focus on financial accountability and work toward maximizing cost-saving initiatives through shared services to help offset some of the budget challenges that we’ve discussed and keep the university financially strong,” Skrzek said.

And of course, appealing to Beacon Hill to pump up the budget.

We’re still waiting for the Supreme Court to make its decision on President Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt. If that doesn’t go through, prospective college students will have to take a long hard look at what they’re paying for.

It doesn’t look like smooth sailing.

T riders have followed – and endured – the beleaguered transit agency’s torturous saga of accidents, derailments, delays, special panels, probes and scathing safety reports. We need to trust that actions are being taken in a timely manner and the T is pulling up its collective socks.

Shutting down subway lines for repairs was one such move, and while it put a kink in many commutes, it was a visible testament to the agency taking steps to improve safety.

However, the MBTA has always had a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as Federal Transit Administration Chief Safety Officer Joe DeLorenzo learned first hand.

As the Herald reported, DeLorenzo wrote to MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng that the agency’s work plan, intended to address right-of-way violations that led to five near-misses and left one employee seriously injured over a one-month period, as “insufficient.”

“MBTA’s submitted work plan includes efforts to develop a long-term plan to strengthen protections for workers and contractors on the rail transit system, including items with completion dates into late 2023 and into 2024,” DeLorenzo wrote earlier this month.

“Given the immediate risk to worker safety on the ROW, FTA requires direct and focused actions.”

DeLorenzo told MBTA officials to submit a new version of the work plan by June 5 with safety improvements that would take effect within 60 days.

MBTA officials said last month that the near-misses were largely brought on by a breakdown in safety communication between construction workers, their supervisors, and subway dispatchers in the operations control center.

As the State House News reported, MBTA spokesperson Lisa Battiston said Tuesday that the agency’s first submission for an action plan to address right-of-way safety hazards “included both immediate and longer term actions to complete.”

“The FTA has directed the MBTA to focus the workplan on the immediate actions only,” Battiston said.

Granted, the T has a lot on its plate. There’s a plethora of operational issues amid a worker shortage and a drop in revenue. And as DeLorenzo pointed out in a separate letter, focusing on safety staffing will “help alleviate the capacity challenges the MBTA is facing,” and enable it to better address the safety issues identified in last year’s federal investigation.

Still, it’s rare that a month goes by without news of a train problem, station accident, or news that something that should have been done, wasn’t.

On the bright side, thank goodness the FTA has stepped in and is holding the T accountable. Passengers can’t ride promises, and apologies only go so far.

The T needs to get up to speed – on many fronts – stat.

There’s a sense of relief that debt default has been avoided, at least if the deal gets enough votes in Congress before June 5, and rancor on the part of progressives who begrudge Republicans any victory in terms of budget cuts, and Republicans opposed to raising the debt ceiling. But there is already one winner to emerge from the fracas: the American taxpayer.

Part of the reasoning behind the GOP’s move to make raising the debt ceiling contingent on budget cuts is the Democratic mindset in full force since Biden took office: taxpayers are ATMs. The administration’s trillion-dollar-plus spending spree helped fuel inflation, with the promise that there would be budget issues down the line as the bills come due to pay for all those programs and policies.

Republicans may not have been able to tap the brakes as hard as they wished, but they did manage to swerve around one big fiscal pothole: student loan payments.

It made sense to hit pause on student loan payments during the pandemic, widespread shutdowns put millions out of work as businesses closed. Borrowers haven’t had to make payments since March 2020. Yet even as the country opened up and mandates were lifted, Biden kept hitting the snooze button, extending the pause nine times, according to The Hill.

The country didn’t just get back to work, we’ve got a labor shortage. Those who did return to their jobs, or taken new ones, have had to make payments on their credit cards, car loans and whatever other financial obligations they have.

Yet still student borrowers have been spared from having to pay back what they borrowed.

That non-payment doesn’t come cheap.

“The pause is gone within 60 days of this being signed. So that is another victory because that brings in $5 billion each month to the American public,” McCarthy told anchor Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.”

“What the president did, he went unconstitutionally and said he was going to waive certain people part of their debt for student loan(s), but then he paused everybody’s student loan. So everybody who borrowed a student loan within 60 days of the signing is going to have to pay that back,” McCarthy said.

“The Supreme Court is taking up that case. But if the Supreme Court came back and said that was unconstitutional, the president could still say he’s pausing, not waiving it. But now that this is in law, the Supreme Court decision will have to be upheld, that they would have to pay,” he added.

The notion that you pay back what you owe, and work for a living, is anathema to the left.

One part of the deal that’s particularly vexing to progressives: food and healthcare programs would now come with work requirements.

The deal is not ideal, but it does make some inroads in treating taxpayers as more than just walking wallets.

There’s a sense of relief that debt default has been avoided, at least if the deal gets enough votes in Congress before June 5, and rancor on the part of progressives who begrudge Republicans any victory in terms of budget cuts, and Republicans opposed to raising the debt ceiling. But there is already one winner to emerge from the fracas: the American taxpayer.

Part of the reasoning behind the GOP’s move to make raising the debt ceiling contingent on budget cuts is the Democratic mindset in full force since Biden took office: taxpayers are ATMs. The administration’s trillion-dollar-plus spending spree helped fuel inflation, with the promise that there would be budget issues down the line as the bills come due to pay for all those programs and policies.

Republicans may not have been able to tap the brakes as hard as they wished, but they did manage to swerve around one big fiscal pothole: student loan payments.

It made sense to hit pause on student loan payments during the pandemic, widespread shutdowns put millions out of work as businesses closed. Borrowers haven’t had to make payments since March 2020. Yet even as the country opened up and mandates were lifted, Biden kept hitting the snooze button, extending the pause nine times, according to The Hill.

The country didn’t just get back to work, we’ve got a labor shortage. Those who did return to their jobs, or taken new ones, have had to make payments on their credit cards, car loans and whatever other financial obligations they have.

Yet still student borrowers have been spared from having to pay back what they borrowed.

That non-payment doesn’t come cheap.

“The pause is gone within 60 days of this being signed. So that is another victory because that brings in $5 billion each month to the American public,” McCarthy told anchor Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.”

“What the president did, he went unconstitutionally and said he was going to waive certain people part of their debt for student loan(s), but then he paused everybody’s student loan. So everybody who borrowed a student loan within 60 days of the signing is going to have to pay that back,” McCarthy said.

“The Supreme Court is taking up that case. But if the Supreme Court came back and said that was unconstitutional, the president could still say he’s pausing, not waiving it. But now that this is in law, the Supreme Court decision will have to be upheld, that they would have to pay,” he added.

The notion that you pay back what you owe, and work for a living, is anathema to the left.

One part of the deal that’s particularly vexing to progressives: food and healthcare programs would now come with work requirements.

The deal is not ideal, but it does make some inroads in treating taxpayers as more than just walking wallets.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that IRS officials hope to get into the tax preparation business, in direct competition with TurboTax and firms such as H&R Block. The goal is to create a “Direct File” system on the agency’s website that would be free to those who use it.

“This is a service that I think the government ought to provide,” Kitty Richards, a progressive tax expert and former Treasury official, told the Journal. “It’s problematic that we instead provide it through these private corporations that prey on people and extract profits from taxpayers that are just fulfilling that civic duty.”

Yet most of these private outfits already do simple tax returns for free. It’s also worth noting that the IRS has a dismal record of customer service, particularly when taxpayers attempt to reach the agency by phone. And those lucky enough to get through and reach a live human being often get conflicting or inaccurate information, according to watchdog groups.

Besides, do we really want a system in which the IRS automatically completes taxpayer forms and then later serves as a potential auditor?

In fact, as Reason’s Joe Lancaster points out, the agency for 20 years has offered Free File, which lets taxpayers use existing private software to file online at no charge. Yet only about 3% of eligible taxpayers use the system. That doesn’t bode well for the success of a more robust IRS tax preparation service.

If those such as Richards want to put for-profit tax preparers out of business, there’s an easy way to start: Simplify the tax code. Yet that’s not likely to be palatable to either progressive Democrats or H&R Block and the rest, all of whom benefit from a vast tax apparatus that has evolved into more a force for social engineering and behavioral modification than a means of collecting enough revenue to run the government.

The Trump tax reform took a small step toward simplification by raising the standard deduction high enough that most filers no longer itemize. But the tax laws remain maddeningly complex for even experts in the field. “As a result,” Lancaster notes, “fully complying with the rules while taking advantage of every credit and deduction one is eligible for tends to require paying an expert.”

The IRS has enough problems without getting directly into the tax preparation business. And those worried about lower- and middle-income taxpayers experiencing difficulty navigating the system in order to do their “civic duty” have a solution right in front of them: Make it less complicated for them to do so.

 Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service

Take, for example, migrants admitted under humanitarian parole. Under current policy, they can’t work until they go through a backlogged authorization process that can last a year or more. With few other options, migrants barred from working legally may turn to under-the-table work or government relief programs, costing taxpayers money, straining local and state budgets, and fostering dependencies that run counter to the history of US immigration. Meanwhile, US companies are struggling to find workers, with 1.6 open jobs per available unemployed worker.

President Biden can solve this problem by taking executive action to allow these migrants, who have been legally admitted into the country, to work legal jobs immediately — just as tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who have arrived in the US since 2021 have been able to. The rationale is the same: People admitted into the country by US authorities should not be denied the chance to work, which only hurts taxpayers, companies and the broader economy.

Democratic mayors around the country, who are some of Biden’s strongest allies, have been frustrated by the administration’s failure to offer them much help as thousands of migrants arrive in their cities with little means of legally supporting themselves.
“To deny people the ability to work legally,” said New York City Mayor Eric Adams, “sets them up for failure.”

Granting work authorization to those here on humanitarian parole isn’t the only step the administration can take. A variety of options are available, including expanding the list of countries eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Critics will argue that this strategy could encourage more migrants to come to the border. But more powerful incentives — especially the shelter that cities like New York are required to provide — already exist, as do opportunities to work in the underground economy. Moving legally admitted migrants into on-the-books jobs would help the federal government keep track of their whereabouts while also ensuring that they pay their fair share of taxes.

To be sure, this is an imperfect solution. But so long as Congress refuses to fix a badly broken immigration system — including by increasing visas for the kinds of workers US companies need, from agricultural to high-tech — migrants will continue coming in large numbers, and it will be up to the White House, in partnership with cities and states, to make the best of the situation.
Voters in both parties agree that work is at the heart of the immigration experience. The White House should not stand in the way of upholding a tradition that has brought the nation so many benefits.

Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service

On May 19, the secret FISA court publicly released an opinion which found that the agency had no factual basis to comb through reports compiled under a law intended to combat foreign espionage in search of dirt on Jan. 6 protesters and those who took to the streets after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

“The revelations were contained in a heavily redacted opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which said the violations were significant,” The Wall Street Journal reported. The agency claimed to be operating under the authority of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Act, which is “supposed to be limited to targeting foreign nationals located abroad who are believed to be agents of a foreign power or members of an international terrorist group.”

The information gathered, however, often includes data on American citizens who, for instance, may communicate with those abroad. To access that information in most cases, the FBI needs to obtain a warrant.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called the revelations “shocking.” A top ACLU official argued that such “unlawful searches undermine our core constitutional rights and threaten the bedrock of our democracy.”

They’re right, of course. But where have they been for the past seven years? The Durham report reveals an FBI so steeped in politics that it violated its own standards to embark on a full-blown investigation of the Trump White House on the basis of a bogus dossier with little basis in reality. The agency also misled the FISA court to obtain wiretaps. In all, the FBI “failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.”

Sound familiar?

FBI officials maintain that all these errors — made during the Trump investigation or while illegally snooping under Section 702 — have been addressed and “corrective” action has been taken. It would be nice to believe so.

But it’s clear that Congress should pay closer attention to what’s going on at FBI headquarters. And if lawmakers decide to reauthorize Section 702, which expires this year, more rigorous safeguards must be implemented to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens.

Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune news Service

Though they’ve yet to reach a deal on the debt ceiling, House lawmakers are leaving Washington for the long Memorial Day weekend.

Sorry, but this isn’t the time to kick back and watch a parade.

The deadline to avoid a debt default is a week away, and as The Hill reported, negotiators say they’re getting closer to making a deal.

Close is not good enough – certainly not good enough to warrant a break.

“Still working through thorny issues, but there’s goodwill on all sides,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a key ally of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and negotiator in spending talks with the White House, told The Hill on Thursday.

“It’s just tougher issues that remain,” he added.

All the more reason to work through the weekend. Because resolving those  “tougher issues that remain” are what’s keeping Americans anxious, wondering if their Social Security check, military paycheck, veterans benefits and/or funding for Medicare and Medicaid will come through.

To say nothing of how the markets would react to a default, imperiling 401(k) accounts across the board.

If anyone needed a prime example of lawmakers out of touch with their constituents, this is it.

Democrats have criticized House GOP leaders for giving the thumb’s up to the scheduled recess with the fiscal deadline looming.

“It’s just the weirdest thing to be going home in the middle of an impending disaster,” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) told The Hill.

Neither side of the aisle comes out smelling of roses – we wouldn’t be in this mess if Democrats hadn’t gone on a spending spree under Joe Biden’s watch.

House GOP leaders said Wednesday that members should be prepared to return to the Capitol to vote on legislation to raise the debt limit with 24 hours notice. A better idea – stay in town, keep working, make a deal.

Of course, the longer this debacle is drawn out, the more Democrats get to sling mud on Republicans for daring to link budget cuts with raising the debt ceiling. “The sky’s the limit” is a poor fiscal plan.

Heading into the recess, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) accused Republicans of threatening to tank the economy because they think it might hurt Biden and the Democrats politically.

Democrats “are unified in working to avoid a dangerous default, which is what extreme MAGA Republicans are clearly determined to bring about,” Jeffries said, “because they have concluded that if they crash the economy, it will benefit them politically.”

Another odious result of this ill-timed recess: pols get to return to their home states and bloviate about how they are thisclose to a deal, if only those other guys would get on board.

The American people don’t need this – not the debit crisis, not the polarized factions on the Hill, and definitely not the unending blame game played for political clout.

We can only hope that a vacationing DC pol runs into a veteran during Memorial Day festivities and is asked the question: “what’s going to happen to my benefits check in a week?”

The state Legislature’s closed-door dealings are an open secret, as its actions reveal lawmakers prefer doing the people’s business as far away from the people as possible.

This storied secrecy prompted Auditor Diana DiZoglio to launch the first audit of the state Legislature in over a century.

“We hope this will increase transparency, accountability and equity in an area of state government that has been completely ignored. Historically, the Legislature has been a closed-door operation, where committee votes have been hidden from the general public, and legislation has been voted on in the dark of night,” DiZoglio said in a statement.

DiZoglio isn’t alone in aiming a slingshot at Goliath. This week Gloucester state Sen. Bruce Tarr offered an amendment to the upper chamber’s fiscal 2024 spending plan in a bid to increase transparency by requiring every one of the state’s at least 42 public adjacent agencies to post their payroll on the state Comptroller’s website, the Herald reported.

“We speak frequently in this chamber, and rightly so, about the need for increased transparency and one of the areas where transparency is particularly important is around government spending,” he said.

It’s a straightforward ask – as these agencies receive public funding, taxpayers should know where their money is being spent.

Tarr noted that every other government employee in the Commonwealth had their pay information listed on the Comptroller’s website already and so the amendment, if approved, would not be breaking new ground.

“The quasi-public entities have, in many cases, very highly compensated individuals and many of them still do not share that information with the comptroller’s office,” he said.

There’s the rub – if taxpayers learned that their hard-earned money was paying for lofty salaries, the response would not be joyful. The bloated payroll of UMass administrators has few fans in the Bay State.

“This is a matter of consistency, it is a matter of fairness, it is a matter of eliminating an area of secrecy in one field of discussion where we have, in so many cases, eliminated that secrecy, and it’s only fair that we do so here again,” he said.

Them’s fighting words on Beacon Hill, though no one fought with the lawmaker. No one had anything to say against Tarr’s amendment.

Lawmakers simply tanked the idea by voice vote seconds after Tarr pleaded his case.

This may seem like a victory for the status quo, in one sense it is. But Tarr’s amendment, along with DiZoglio’s bid for an audit, point to a welcome resistance to business as usual. Transparency is a topic that should be raised during every re-election campaign for sitting lawmakers, and for newcomers alike, in town halls, debates and meet-and-greets with the candidates.

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

We deserve better from the leaders on Beacon Hill.

It’s glaring how one-sided the state Legislature has become — and that’s bad news for everyone no matter what party you register under. Some decisions, especially on taxes and expenditures, beg for balance.

How can that happen when the House has 132 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 unenrolled rep?

On the state Senate side, the 37-to-3 split is stark.

That’s why a special election for a seat expected to open up in June when state Sen. Anne Gobi (D-Spencer) leaves the Legislature is so pivotal.

This is a perfect opportunity for newly elected MassGOP Chair Amy Carnevale to push for a strong Republican candidate and back that person. The party needs to start small and get behind voters who are growing frustrated with Beacon Hill’s elitist attitude.

A recent report from the Pioneer Institute should alarm all of us who care deeply about Massachusetts. Learning that high-income residents have been fleeing the state for years should be enough to wake us all up.

Massachusetts is the fourth worst state in the country when it comes to out-migration, behind only California, New York and Illinois, the report told us. That nugget was based on IRS data, not some partisan hired gun. (Yes, the IRS is not the most trustworthy agency, but when it comes to this factoid it’s believable.)

Remote work and “other states cutting taxes” are to blame, Pioneer stated.

If a few lucky people can work from home anywhere they please, who can blame them if they opt for Las Vegas — if that’s your thing — or a hillside in Montana. The rest of us have to make it work right here in Massachusetts.

So we urge voters in Gobi’s district to send a message to the House and Senate. Elect a Republican — or at least an independent — who will block the bias that runs rampant under the dome.

Gobi is doing all she can saying a Democrat in her seat is a swell idea. You’d expect that from a member of the Legislature who votes in lockstep with the rest of the gang.

That’s not what this state, and her district, needs. There’s no guarantee the economy is going to suddenly brighten and turn the Bay State into a sea of shiny new electric cars we can all afford. Hiking taxes and blocking any rebates doesn’t need to be the go-to default here, too.

Soft on crime is not the path to success. Businesses need to feel as if they are welcome and Democrats don’t need to run in packs without anyone calling them out for their blind loyalty to the bosses.

It’s time for the MassGOP to do what it’s designed to accomplish — back a strong local candidate, hit the streets and fill up mailboxes and roll out retail politics and put logic back in the State House.

The city of Gardner, the city of Worcester, Ward 7 Precincts 2, 4, 5, 6, Ward 9 Precincts 3, and 4, and the towns of Barre, Brookfield, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Holden, Hubbardston, Leicester, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, Paxton, Phillipston, Princeton, Rutland, Spencer, Sterling, Templeton, West Brookfield and Westminster and the town of Ware can show Boston change can start anywhere.

Both the Massachusetts Comptroller’s Office and Herald payroll records list Rollins as collecting checks as Suffolk District Attorney, Massport legal counsel and a contract worker for the state Housing Finance Agency.

She resigned last week as U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, where she earned $183,500. She avoided any disciplinary action from the Department of Justice if she left promptly. The DOJ pointed to pension rules that state if, like Rollins, you leave before becoming eligible for retirement, “you can ask that your retirement contributions be returned to you in a lump sum payment.”

Seems like her best option.

The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) leaves no doubt Rollins was headed for trouble. The 93 U.S. Attorneys in the nation are held to lofty expectations making last week’s blockbuster dual reports on how Rachael Rollins did business at the U.S. District Court in Boston all the more glaring.

Rollins was entrusted with one of the most sensitive jobs in government. As district attorney and U.S. attorney, she could make or break someone. Her top salary as Suffolk DA, records show, was $191,000 in 2021. She was highly paid because you want professionals in that seat of power. But she turned out to be a mere politician.

As the dust settles on this scandal, it is clear Rollins had no other choice but to resign. The DOJ came after her with a vengeance. The next step was her case landing with the Office of Professional Responsibility — and it appears it wouldn’t end well for Rollins.

“OPR is responsible for ensuring that (DOJ) attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency,” the office states.

The office was established in the wake of the Watergate scandal and has a history of cracking down on rogue federal prosecutors. It makes perfectly clear exactly what is expected of any federal attorney — let alone the head of a department.

Rollins never should have been given the U.S. Attorney’s job. President Biden was filling this seat with a DA already under scrutiny for being hot-tempered and vindictive. He put a political pawn in a cherished job that has now embarrassed Massachusetts.

The White House needs to strengthen its “designated political lead” in Massachusetts. Quickly. That is a person, or persons, who the party holding the Oval Office is advised to listen to as U.S. Senators submit an applicant for the U.S. Attorney’s post.

The Bay State is blue, and we’re paying for it today. The lack of balance is already exposed on Beacon Hill where the state Legislature Dominated by progressive Democrats looks for every opportunity to make life difficult for businesses and taxpayers.

Enough is enough. The Rachael Rollins affair should make everyone sick. Sick of the one-party rule where checks and balances are too easily dismissed.

It’s a good idea at a terrible time. NATO members are rightly wary of discussing such an escalation while the war is raging. Yet Ukraine’s eventual membership should remain a strategic goal: It would safeguard the country’s independence, bolster the stability of Europe as a whole, and deter Vladimir Putin from ever again attempting to seize control of his neighbor.

In 2008, NATO member states made a nonbinding pledge to eventually admit Ukraine and Georgia, both former Soviet republics vulnerable to Russian pressure. However, the alliance refrained from offering either country a so-called Membership Action Plan, a necessary step toward formal acceptance. Officials have since downplayed Kyiv’s prospects out of fear of provoking Putin, who insists that the mere possibility of Ukraine’s membership poses an existential threat. In a last-ditch effort to forestall a Russian invasion last January, US President Joe Biden went so far as to declare that the prospect was “not very likely” in the near future.

That Putin went ahead anyway demonstrates the folly of attempting to placate him. If anything, the war shows that NATO’s doctrine of mutual defense — under which an attack against one member is considered an attack on all — is the strongest deterrent against Russian aggression. For all its brutality in Ukraine, Russia has avoided hostile actions against countries like Poland and the Baltic states, knowing they would trigger a NATO response. After Finland and Sweden submitted a joint membership bid in response to Russia’s invasion, Putin warned of unspecified consequences if NATO went forward. Yet once the alliance formally admitted Finland last month, the Kremlin said only that it would be “watching closely.”

Ukrainian membership would surely be unsettling to Moscow. But NATO should base its decisions on its own interests — not Russia’s. Eventually admitting Ukraine would make it easier to deliver military support and share intelligence.

That said, the process shouldn’t be rushed. Admitting Ukraine while it’s still fighting to liberate territory would be both impractical and dangerous, potentially drawing NATO into direct military conflict with Russia. But failing to address the issue would be equally shortsighted. Biden and his counterparts should instead use the Vilnius summit to reiterate their intention to admit Ukraine once the situation stabilizes and the government in Kyiv meets the conditions of membership.

Putin might respond by ruling out peace negotiations and intensifying attacks, but his military can’t sustain such operations indefinitely. So long as Ukraine’s status remains ambiguous, however, there’s nothing to stop Putin from agreeing to freeze the conflict, rebuilding his forces, and resuming his assault at a later date.

Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service

Earlier this month, Democrats in New York passed a budget limiting the use of natural gas in new construction. Natural gas hookups won’t be allowed in most construction projects, including homes. That means no natural gas appliances, such as stoves and dryers. Buildings will have to install electric heating. There are some exceptions, including for restaurants, hospitals and large industrial buildings.

New York passed this intrusive law over concerns about global warming. Climate alarmists are concerned about the methane in natural gas. The conventional wisdom is that it’s a much greater contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide in the short term. But if this were the case, you might expect New York politicians to inform the public how much this effort will reduce global temperatures.

Instead, you’re not even supposed to notice this is happening.

Recall that in January, U.S. Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. suggested his agency could ban gas stoves. Such an idea is unpopular and well out of the mainstream. Republicans noticed and harshly criticized the proposal.

Democrats and the national mainstream media responded as if their concerns were a hoax or wild conspiracy theory.

“What the right’s gas stove freakout was really about,” a Politico headline read. An MSNBC opinion piece contended, “Republicans have found their new dumb culture war.”

“Republicans mocked over outraged claims government ‘coming for’ gas stoves,” Newsweek wrote.

“Nobody is taking away your gas stove,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted in early February. “Shameless and desperate MAGA Republicans are showing us they will cook up any distraction to divert from real issues the American people want solved.”

Perhaps Sen. Schumer should spend more time in his home state. New York City passed a ban on gas heat and stoves in 2021. It’s one of dozens of cities and counties that have enacted similar laws. Massachusetts passed a law last year allowing some communities in a pilot program to ban fossil fuel hookups for new construction and major renovations.

On Monday, Democratic attorneys general in 10 states and Washington, D.C., sent a letter to that same Consumer Product Safety Commission. They applauded the agency for collecting information on the “hazards posed by gas stoves and potential pathways for mitigating those hazards.” In other words, they’re coming for your gas stove, they just don’t want you to find out about it until it’s too late.

If Democrats want to ban gas stoves — and many obviously do — why not stop lying about it? You can’t have a healthy civic debate when one side is allowed to pretend its opponents are conspiracy theorists for noticing what’s actually being said.

Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service

The logic behind the plan is straightforward: To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, the US needs to slash pollution from cars and trucks. Getting more electric vehicles on the road will help. But without supporting policies, EVs are unlikely to cut carbon emissions as much as advocates envision. Policymakers owe the public an honest accounting of costs and benefits.

Worldwide, EVs account for 13% of new car sales, up from 0.2% a decade ago. Their market share in the US has nearly doubled over the last year, to 5.8%. Biden’s new regulations aim to accelerate the transition, by lowering the cap on carbon emissions for new vehicles by 56% between 2026 and 2032. For automakers to meet the tougher standards, 67% of their sales would have to come from zero-emission EVs. The administration projects that this will reduce the US’s carbon footprint by 7.3 billion tons by 2055, the equivalent of eliminating four years’ worth of transportation-related emissions.

Such goals are laudable, but as things stand it’s doubtful that the US can achieve them. Generous subsidies have juiced demand for EVs, but maintaining them will be costly. The average price of a new EV is still $12,000 higher than that of a gas guzzler. Experts project that it may reach parity as early as this year, but even then, Americans are unlikely to abandon their gas-powered cars if the battery-charging infrastructure remains inadequate. Note too that EV buyers don’t typically stop driving their other cars: Current EV owners have an average of 2.7 vehicles, compared to 2.1 among all households, and two-thirds use their gas-powered vehicles more often.

Other factors will also complicate the transition. The auto industry’s rapid shift to EVs at the expense of new and more efficient gas-powered models might cause some consumers to keep driving dirtier vehicles longer than they otherwise would. Electric vehicles also create carbon footprints of their own, once one accounts for the mineral extraction needed to assemble their batteries and the electricity needed to power them. That’s to say nothing of the supply-chain challenges: At the moment, production of numerous vital components is largely controlled by China.

Policymakers need to speed the buildout of charging stations and promote domestic extraction of critical minerals. No less important, cheaper fuel-efficient alternatives and rival zero-emission technologies should be allowed to compete with EVs on level terms. The government can also incentivize low-carbon transportation more effectively — by extending tax credits to gas-powered hybrids

Fighting climate change requires a comprehensive and coherent strategy. EVs are part of the answer, but only part. Much hard work remains to be done.

Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service

She told the Boston Chamber of Commerce in 2021 “I knew this was not going to be easy, and that the work we’re doing here in Boston is scary to some people to some who are deeply invested in the status quo because the system works well for them.”

In the end, the disgraced former Attorney General for Massachusetts proved she was deeply invested in making the system work for her – ethics be damned.

Rollins has gone from rising star to the poster girl for hubris in less than a week and the dust is still settling after a Department of Justice report concluded she improperly used her position by influencing the Suffolk DA’s race by leaking non-public information and broke agency rules by attending a Democratic fundraiser last summer, as the Herald reported.

The report calls her out for attempting to tip the scales in last year’s Suffolk District Attorney’s race — in which Boston Globe ran pre-primary stories leaked by Rollins damaging to then-candidate Kevin Hayden who was facing off with City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, who the document identifies as her preferred candidate.

Rollins not only damaged the public’s trust and her own career, but her misdeeds will outshine any positives in her legacy.

Rollins made history as the first woman to hold the office of Suffolk County D.A., and the first woman of color to serve as a Massachusetts D.A. These achievements inspired women and people of color as hallmarks of progress and personal success. For progressives, Rollins career arc was especially admirable.

She became the first Black woman to serve as the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts, garnering accolades from Democratic heavy-hitters who touted her as a champion of public safety and criminal justice reform.

In a narrative known all-too-well by women and people of color who’ve attained high-profile positions, Rollins paid a price for her success. She faced death threats following her being sworn in to office. As CNN reported, violent and racist threats escalated shortly after the Senate narrowly voted to confirm Rollins to the post.

Under her watch as AG,  eight people were indicted in July of last year for their alleged roles in laundering tens of millions of dollars’ worth of drug trafficking proceeds. Rollins’ office was racking up impressive wins, especially with the October arrests of nearly two dozen people on drug trafficking charges.

Then the rot set in. We may never know just when Rollins decided to embrace the notion that rules didn’t apply to her, but as the DOJ report makes clear, she did.

All the history-making “firsts,” the notable prosecutions and position as a person who inspires will forever be a footnote to her legacy of misdeeds.

She’s not the only one feeling the fallout – Rollins is doing no favors for her high-profile hype team, particularly Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.

They sure picked a winner.

McGonagle introduced legislation that would impose an up to two-and-a-half year prison sentence and $5,000 fine for assault and battery upon a public transit worker who is engaged in their work, as the Herald reported.

Assaults are not new, McGonagle said, and they range from spitting, punching, to flinging bodily fluids on MBTA operators.

“And these drivers are left defenseless,” he said. “… The men and women who come to work every day to support themselves and their families should not have to put themselves at risk for unnecessary violent behavior.”

Massachusetts is not alone in this – Metro workers in Washington, D.C. have also been subject to attacks. But there, Capitol Hill  lawmakers took notice, of this and other crimes in the district. It’s where they live and work, they want a safe community.

House Republicans have been critical about crime in the District, and the House voted earlier this year to block D.C.’s revised criminal code from being enacted, as The Hill reported.

D.C.’s Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser testified this week in front of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee about crime and safety in D.C. and the management of the city,. She’s proposed legislation that will increase penalties for crimes that victimize Metro and other public transportation workers.

“This is about making sure we have the tools we need to build a safer, stronger D.C. and protect the overwhelming majority of people in our city who are doing the right thing and who just want to be able to enjoy our beautiful city and our fantastic neighborhoods.” Bowser said in a statement.

No talk of addressing the root causes of crime, or somehow increasing public safety by going soft on criminals.

It shouldn’t take scrutiny from members of Congress to ensure a city – and those who keep people moving through the city – are safe from harm.

Nobody should feel threatened, verbally or physically, while they are at work, noted McGonagle.

Workers should get redress even if their trains aren’t making a stop at Capitol South Station.

Billy Berardino, vice president of the Boston Carmen’s Union, said there were 24 assaults on MBTA employees in February ranging from stabbings, physical assaults, punching, spitting, and having urine, feces, or hot coffee thrown on them.

“This legislation is needed to serve as a deterrent to those who think it’s okay to attack a transit worker,” he said. “This is a tool for prosecutors to use to fully prosecute those that attack transit workers.”

This is especially important as the MBTA struggles with a shortage of workers. Being vulnerable to attacks by passengers is a hard sell to prospective employees.

Increasing penalties for crimes is anathema for progressive lawmakers. It’s vital, however, to ensure a safe working environment for those who literally keep our city – and state – running.

If he or she had not, Biden would be heading to Asia with the current fiscal crisis in his rear-view.

As it is, the G7 summit in Japan is still on the agenda, but as The Hill reported, the White House on Tuesday left open the possibility that Biden could cut short the weeklong trip as debt talks remain at a standstill.

National Security spokesman John Kirby confirmed that Biden will leave as planned on Wednesday, “We’re re-evaluating the rest of the trip now.”

Now Congress knows how East Palestine, Ohio must have felt as Biden put anywhere-but-there on his itinerary after a fiery train crash rocked the town.

“It’s difficult for me to tell you exactly what to anticipate at this point,” Kirby said. “Given where we are right now, it’s also incredibly prudent and responsible for the president to take a look at the rest of the trip.”

We’re sorry, but you don’t get points for taking the bare minimum of responsibility as the country stares down a fiscal crisis.

While the raise-the-ceiling or make-cuts-then-we’ll talk debate rages, it may seem abstract to those outside the Beltway. But a default could have very real repercussions.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told lawmakers this week that the Pentagon “won’t, in some cases, be able to pay our troops with any degree of predictability,” should a default come to pass.

That’s something Biden should keep in mind as he returns the salute of military personnel when boarding Air Force One,

Veterans could also see late benefits checks, and national security could take a hit.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley said such an event could also “embolden China and increase risk to the United States.”

As a default looms as early as June 1, the Biden administration and the GOP are at loggerheads.  Congressional Republicans demand cuts in exchange for lifting the ceiling. The White House insists that the limit should be raised now, with spending cuts negotiated separately.

None of which is easing the worries of service members and veterans wondering if June’s checks will come through.

Is this any time for a week-long trip away? Biden apparently thought a jaunt to Japan, then Papua New Guinea followed by Sydney was a good idea, but the damage control is in full froth.

Kirby said that he can only speak to Biden’s plans at the G7 taking place this weekend and that the White House is “working through, thinking through” what the rest of the president’s trip could look like.

“If the trip gets truncated or changed or modified in any way it should be nothing more than a statement of the president putting his priorities where they need to be,” Kirby said.

Of course, the White House couldn’t resist a partisan dig. “We wouldn’t even be having this discussion about the effect of the debt ceiling debate on the trip if Congress would do its job and raise the debt ceiling, the way it’s always done,” said Kirby.

We wouldn’t be in this mess if the Biden Administration hadn’t gone on a multi-trillion dollar spending spree. Apparently, that was just traveling money.

That doesn’t help the state, but it does underscore that the relentless push for a millionaires tax and other hikes on high-earners is ultimately undermining the goal of “fair share” proponents: boosting revenue to pay for Massachusetts programs.

The Pioneer Institute crunched 2021 data from the IRS, and its analysis revealed that net out-migration from Massachusetts is speeding up and is greatest among affluent residents who pay the most in state taxes. Between 2019 and 2021, Massachusetts rose from ninth to fourth among all states in net out-migration of wealth, behind only California, New York, and Illinois.

We were warned. In the runup last year to the passage of the Millionaires Tax, opponents outlined the consequences: David Tuerck with the Beacon Hill Institute produced financial predictions.

Tuerck said the tax hike would “kill” 9,000 jobs in the first year and cause up to 4,000 high-earning Massachusetts families to relocate.

State Rep. Nicholas Boldyga, R-Southwick, said top earners in Massachusetts “are going to flee the state in droves” to avoid the tax, leaving the commonwealth “in a much worse position.”

State Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica, said “the reality is that Massachusetts is flush with cash,” arguing Massachusetts has no need to raise taxes on the wealthy with so much green flowing in already.

“We’re already hemorrhaging people to the South,” said Lucas Noble, a small business owner from North Andover. “To states that have beautiful weather and are tax-free. Why make that worse?”

That’s the hallmark of a progressive agenda: Gin up a problem, pass legislation, and make matters worse for everyone.

“Net out-migration has nearly quintupled and the largest spike in departures occurred in 2020 and 2021, as remote work took hold and most other states were cutting taxes,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios, who coauthored “Tax Reality Sets In” with Mary Connaughton and Eileen McAnneny. “Massachusetts’ inattention to tax and competitiveness policies is leading to a tsunami of departures.”

One myth of the millionaires tax is that those who worked hard for their success would be just fine with having cash-grabbers have another go at their wallets.

Massachusetts, however, doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

According to the data, 43 states enacted some form of tax relief in 2021 and 2022, While Massachusetts contemplated and ultimately raised income taxes during that time, 21 states reduced them.

Thanks to a boost from the remote model, individuals can work from anywhere, say a state with lower taxes, while still holding a Bay State job.

“If you build it, they will come,” as “Field of Dreams” famously noted. Here, if you overtax them, they will leave.

Now what’s Massachusetts going to do to stem the exodus of people and all that revenue?

Or maybe not.

Last week, the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the nation’s “report card” — released the results of standardized tests given last year to eighth graders across the country on civics and history. Turn away if you seek to avoid depressing news.

Just 13% of students met proficiency standards in history, meaning “they could explain major themes, periods, events, people, ideas and turning points in the country’s history,” according to The Wall Street Journal. About 20% reached proficiency in civics.

In other words, only a small percentage of American kids poised to enter high school probably would be able to identify more than two errors in this essay’s lead sentence, if they could identify any of the obvious mistakes at all.

The scores were the most miserable on record for a test that has been in existence for decades. In fact, students scored worse on these two subjects than in any other areas, including reading and math. “These data are a national concern,” Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, told reporters. “The health of our democracy depends on informed and engaged citizens.”

Various interests pointed fingers in an effort to place blame for this dismal development. The pandemic was an obvious culprit, and no doubt didn’t help. James Grossman of the American Historical Society cited “the falling quality of history and civics lessons taught in American schools, which has been fueled by political acrimony,” the Journal reported.

Fair enough. But acrimonious battles over curricula involving politically controversial issues such as race are meaningless to kids when they lack the basic facts upon which to build a foundation that supports critical thinking and leads to the examination of more complex — and even contentious — subject matter. The great failure of this nation’s public school system is that students aren’t learning even elementary skills when it comes to reading and mathematics or even the simplest of facts in terms of history and civics.

The current push to ensure students are exposed to a more complete and robust view of this nation’s history — warts and all — is wise and worthwhile. Yet it makes little sense if kids don’t first develop a grasp of the fundamentals before moving on to more challenging subject matter.

Las Vegas Review-Journal./Tribune News Service