The Boston Globe - 02.09.2019

A10 Editorial The Boston Globe MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2019

I

n 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral col-

lege vote to win the presidency, but lost the

popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots. It

made him the sorest winner in the land, and

sent him on a years-long search for excuses.

Today, New Hampshire — where he lost to Hillary

Clinton by only 2,736 votes — bears the brunt of his

wounded ego. As he heads into the 2020 election cycle,

Trump is reviving false claims that he lost in 2016 only

because of voting fraud in that state.

The president’s conduct is worse than just petulant.

He’s stoking the kind of conspiracy theories that sabo-

tage faith in democracy, deepen political polarization,

and lead to unrest or worse.

“There’s just no telling what people will do when

they’re incited. We’ve never been in a situation like

this, where there’s so much dry kindling across the

landscape and we’ve got someone all too willing to

light the match,” Fergus Cullen, a former New Hamp-

shire GOP chairman and Trump critic, told The Wash-

ington Post.

Sound far-fetched? Earlier this year, the FBI said

“conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists” consti-

tuted a security threat. It’s pretty easy to imagine that

people wrongly ledby the presidentto believe that elec-

tions are being rigged could be prone to extreme acts.

There are also fears that undermining confidence in

the New Hampshire vote could threaten the Granite

State’s standing as the first-in-the-nation presidential

primary, the Post reported. A tacit agreement by both

parties keeps New Hampshire first in line.

But if Republicans lose faith in the integrity of the

vote in New Hampshire — or, under partisan pressure

to comply with Trump’s alternate facts, pretend to — it

could weaken support for the state’s privileged status.

The controversy stems from a figment of Trump’s

imagination: his notion that thousands of Massachu-

setts residents boarded buses and crossed the state line

to cast illegal votes in New Hampshire. Following up

on his accusation, PolitiFact New Hampshire — a fact-

checking enterprise working in partnership with the

Concord Monitor and PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-

winning website of the Tampa Bay Times — debunked

it as a “reckless claim with zero evidence” and rated it

“Pants on Fire.”

After subsequent state-led investigations, that de-

bunking holds. Responding to Trump’s words during

an Aug. 15 Manchester rally, the New Hampshire sec-

retary of state’s office said there was no evidence of

“widespread, organized efforts” to carry out voter

fraud in the state. While deputy secretary of state Da-

vid Scanlan acknowledged some isolated, individual

circumstances, he said there was “nothing on the scale

of illegal voters on buses coming into New Hampshire.”

State Republicans, including Governor Chris Su-

nunu, have gently distanced themselves from the presi-

dent’s claims. But he and his party ought to be speak-

ing up for New Hampshire a lot louder than they have.

The state has taken pride for decades in the special na-

ture of politics in the state, where retail campaigning is

the rule.

The president’s groundless, ego-driven attacks on

the state’s integrity will only breed cynicism and dis-

trust, and it’s up to the state and its leaders to defend

the institutions of democracy that have made it fa-

mous.

Trump’s dangerous vote-fraud claims in N.H.

Opinion

BOSTONGLOBE.COM/OPINION

By Jennifer C. Braceras

I

n a case that is bound to have

ripple effects for years to come,

a state court judge in Oklaho-

ma last week held that Johnson

& Johnson must pay half a bil-

lion dollars to the state government as

penance for manufacturing and mar-

ketingprescriptionpainmedication.

Many are hailing the judgment as a

proper comeuppance for the pharma-

ceutical industry. But the Oklahoma

verdict will do little to address the opi-

oid crisis and much to undermine the

rule of law.

In ordering Johnson & Johnson to

pony up $572 million, Judge Thad

Balkman said that the money would

help to “abate” the opioid crisis in

Oklahoma. But Johnson & Johnson did

not cause Oklahoma’s drug problem.

And Balkman’s verdict will not solve it.

What it will do is punish a private

company for developing and marketing

a legal product. And not just any legal

product: a medicine approved and reg-

ulated by the Food and Drug Adminis-

tration that has provided needed relief

to millions of patients.

So how will the state of Oklahoma

spend its $572 million windfall? Mil-

lions will, inevitably, go to the trial law-

yers who assisted the state with its

case. Much more will probably help

subsidize the pet projects of Oklahoma

politicians.

That’s exactly what happened with

the tobacco lawsuits in the 1990s,

which ultimately were settled for bil-

lions of dollars. The states spent only a

fraction of the tobacco money on

smoking prevention.

The diversion of tobacco money is

well-documented. According to the

Government Accountability Office,

from 2000 to 2005, states spent almost

$20 billion on budget shortfalls, state

debt, and “general purposes.” During

this same time period, another $6.4 bil-

lion of the tobacco settlement pay-

ments went to infrastructure projects

and educational programs unrelated to

tobacco prevention, such as preschool

programs, special education, and after-

school programs.

The New York Times reported that

Alabama used tobacco money to fund

boot camps for juvenile delinquents, al-

ternative schools, metal detectors, and

surveillance cameras for public schools.

New York used tobacco money to put in

a sprinkler system at a public golf

course. Virginia installed fiber-optic

lines for broadband cable in rural re-

gions of the state.

These are just a few of the projects

brought to you, courtesy of Philip Mor-

ris.

In the Oklahoma opioid case, it is al-

ready clear that the major winners are

the trial lawyers who assisted the state.

Before the trial, Oklahoma settled with

Purdue Pharma. Private attorneys

reaped a mighty $60 million from the

settlement. Their payout from the John-

son & Johnson verdict will likely be

even greater.

In the wake of the Oklahoma ver-

dict, several major drug companies re-

portedly are considering settlements to

end the litigation nationwide. But while

a settlement might end one industry’s

nightmare, it will kick-start additional

frivolous suits against others.

Eventually, the government will run

out of opioid money. (Government al-

ways runs out of other people’s money.)

And when it does, it could come for the

makers of other legal products that

have potentially negative health effects

when misused.

Alcohol producers, the fast food in-

dustry, energy companies, and the auto-

mobile industry are all at risk. Even the

tech industry, now blamed for the rise

in depression and mental health issues

among teens, is not immune.

The tobacco companies were easy

villains — after all, they sell cancer-

causing products with no apparent ben-

efit (other than the enjoyment of the

smoker). And while the pharmaceutical

industry creates medically beneficial

products, it is nevertheless widely un-

popular with the public today.

It is not clear which industry will be

next. What is clear, however, is that

when the trial lawyers come for it, the

negative legal precedent will already

have been set by a state court judge in

Oklahoma.

Jennifer C. Braceras is director of the

Center for Law & Liberty at the

Independent Women’s Forum.

After opioid penalty,

few industries are safe

By Beth Akers

E

arlier this year on the presi-

dentialcampaigntrail,Senator

Elizabeth Warren of Massa-

chusetts laid out her higher ed-

ucation platform, including a

student loan jubilee and free college. In the

Medium article announcing her vision, she

claimedthat“theresult[ofrisingcollege

costs] is a huge student loan debt burden

that’s crushing millions of families and act-

ing as an anchor on our economy.”

Soon after, Senator Bernie Sanders of

Vermont followed with a generous plan of

his own, echoing the alarm conveyed by

Warren. He explained: “[My plan] forgives

all student debt and ends the absurdity of

sentencing an entire generation to a life-

time of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a col-

lege education.”

These presidential hopefuls are promis-

ing to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to

bail out a generation of young people

drowning in debt. A worthy aim — if it were

true.

The reality is that the underlying prem-

ise is entirely overblown. Millennials are

facing plenty of difficulties, but a wide-

spread student debt crisis isn’t one of them.

First, 66 percent of millennials have no

student debt at all. That’s because they ha-

ven’t gone to college or because they man-

aged to get through without having to bor-

row. Those who argue that student debt is

crippling an entire generation completely

overlook this fact.

Second, those who do have student debt

tend to have modest burdens relative to

their income. Typical four-year-degree

graduates will borrow a total of $28,500.

That can be paid back with monthly pay-

ments of less than $200, which is a relative-

ly small share (4 percent) of the median

monthly earnings for these graduates

($4,762).

Third, eye-catching six figures of student

debt we often read about in the newspaper

are surprisingly unusual. Only 6 percent of

borrowers have more than $100,000 in

debt. And they tend to be people who have

high earning power thanks to a graduate or

professional degree. That’s why default

rates are lowest among borrowers with the

highest levels of debt. It’s actually the bor-

rowers with small balances who struggle

the most with repayment because they’ve

often dropped out of school and don’t have

the extra earning power that comes with a

degree.

Of course, not everyone with a high bal-

ance lands in a high-paying job. Perhaps

these are the folks who need a bailout. But

policy makers have already taken care of

them with repayment plans that ensure af-

fordable monthly payments and forgive

debts that are ultimately unaffordable after

10 or 20 years.

Unfortunately, many borrowers aren’t

aware that these options exist and will

needlessly default on their loans. That’s one

consequence of the overheated rhetoric on

student debt: Borrowers who can’t afford

their payments on the standard repayment

plan wrongly believe they are stuck.

Policy makers should be realistic about

the burden student loans are putting on our

nation’s young people. Rather than the

blunt approach of forgiving all student

debt, they might explore innovative policies

to address a very different set of challenges.

A smart platform for higher education

would shore up the existing safety nets for

student borrowers and ensure that borrow-

ers know they exist and how to use them.

Many of these programs are far too confus-

ing, frustrating borrowers and keeping

them from accessing the resources they

need. Beyond educating borrowers about a

convoluted system, we need to streamline

our lending program. We should eliminate

the variety of lending programs in opera-

tion today and replace them with a single

loan program. Doing so will help students

understand what they’re borrowing while

they’re in school, which will help them

make smart choices on where to enroll and

how much to spend and will pressure

schools to keep price in line with value.

Most millennials aren’t drowning in stu-

dent debt — but some are. Rather than ra-

tionalize tremendous expenditures of tax-

payer dollars on politically popular policies

like free college and student loan jubilees,

our leaders should be focusing on those

who truly need help. There’s plenty of work

to be done.

Beth Akers is a senior fellow at the

Manhattan Institute.

Actually, most

millennials aren’t

drowning in college debt

ADOBE

Editorial

Ratherthanthebluntapproachofforgivingall

studentdebt,policymakersmightexploreinnovative

policiestoaddressaverydifferentsetofchallenges.

SUE OGROCKI/AP

Terri White, Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance

Abuse Services commissioner, answers question following the Oklahoma

opioid judgment on Aug. 26 in Norman, Okla.