FREQUENT MBTA RIDERS UPSET OVER NEW FAIR INCREASES

[Originally posted to the EC Reporter on March 28, 2016]

With the recent announcement of fare increases and the end of late night service for the MBTA, the main thought on people’s minds is… why?

“I wish it wasn’t happening. I don’t know what they’re doing with that funding, especially ending late night service,” says Taylor, a 28-year-old Bostonian who works in the archival department at Harvard Library. “Where is that [money] going, you know? I’m not happy about it.”

With the price of a CharlieCard increasing from $2.10 to $2.25 and a CharlieTicket from $2.65 to $2.75, the MBTA is set to collect nearly $43 million in revenue this year. There will also be an increase in monthly pass costs, including a $1 increase for seniors and $4 for students. While the MBTA will be making bank on these changes, it seems the public are going to be breaking the bank.

Charry Hughes, a teacher at Leominster High School, feels the changes are going to be particularly hard on students. “That’s way too high for students,” she says. “Just way too much for kids.”

Meredith Munn, a 28-year-old health care advocacy worker, agrees. “[The city] should cut students a break. They’re going to have to start taking out student loans just to pay their transportation passes. That’s really sad!”

Munn takes the T many times every day and feels for those who will be most affected by the changes. She says, “I work [at a place where] everyone takes the train or the bus to get to where they need to go. I technically can afford a fare increase, but I know a lot of other people can’t. I think if it continues to go up like this, it’s going to become unaffordable really fast.”

While talk of the changes has been circulating, many of the specifics are unknown by the public. For many, this fare increase came without warning. “For me, it’s kind of like once you go and buy your ticket you find out,” says Jessica Sanieoff, a 26-year-old optometric technician who takes the T at least three times per week. “There’s been no advanced warning or anything when they raise the prices.”

For those that do know about the changes, they certainly haven’t been welcomed. “I actually did the math: Commuting five days a week every month is something like $125, and that’s not even going anywhere on the weekends,” says twenty five-year-old Taylor of her daily commute from Mission Hill to Harvard Square for work. “That’s already so much.”

Whether the grievances of the public will affect future decisions made by the MBTA is unknown. For now, riders can expect to see these changes put in place on July 1 of this year.

KEEPING AN EYE ON THE YOUTH VOTE AFTER RESULTS OF SUPER TUESDAY

[Originally posted to the EC Reporter on March 6, 2016]

For Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the results of this past Tuesday’s primary elections were certainly “Super.” Clinton took  1,121 of the delegates’ votes over Sander’s 479, while Trump earned 378 compared to Cruz’s 295 and Rubio’s 123. These numbers place Clinton and Trump comfortably in the lead against their opponents. However, if you look at the age breakdown of these results, a lot more can be said about their perspective wins.

In Massachusetts in particular, exit polls show interesting results in relation to the age of voters. On the Democratic side, Clinton was more popular among voters age 30 and above, particularly in the 65 and older crowd where she took 59% of the vote. On the Republican side, Trump commanded the vote of the 45 and older crowd, with 53% voting in his favor. Where Clinton and Trump both failed to succeed was within the youth vote.

Felicia Sullivan, a Senior Researcher for The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts University, focuses on the importance of the youth vote in her research. She said, “The youth are the most diverse group of young people in the U.S., maybe in history.” She also noted that the 18- to 24-year-old age bracket is one of the most powerful groups in demographic history and has been gaining strength at the polls in recent years. She’s not wrong.

Some 1.8 million youth voters turned up at the polls this Super Tuesday, but surprisingly, did not back the front-runners. Trump did not see much support from youth voters, especially in states such as Arkansas, Virginia, and Texas, who chose Cruz or Rubio instead. Similarly, Sanders dominated the 18-24 crowd over Clinton, earning 80% of the youth vote in Vermont and Oklahoma (two states he won) and 71% of the vote in Massachusetts.

While this did not seem to have too much of an effect on the overall outcome of Super Tuesday, the trends of youth voters are certainly something to be watched. Sullivan and her fellow researchers at CIRCLE are trying to counter the misconception that millennials are “slackers, entitled, and not really involved in elections.” She believes that with proper education and information, the youth could have an extremely powerful impact on future elections.

As more primaries happen across the country in the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see how the candidates continue to fair within the youth demographic. Had even more 18- to 24-year-old voters shown up at the polls on Tuesday, the current results of this race may have looked vastly different.

WHY THE GOP CANNOT ALLOW DONALD TRUMP TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

[Originally posted to the EC Reporter on February 22, 2016]

After two back-to-back primary wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the possibility of Donald Trump receiving the Republican nomination in the 2016 Presidential Election is becoming more of a reality. The GOP should be terrified.

Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committee member from Mississippi, issued a warning to Republicans who are waiting idly by to see how the primaries turn out. He predicted that Trump’s nomination would mean a loss in the presidential race and a threat to the party’s hold on the Senate.

“After Trump has won in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Republicans are crazy and about to blow the White House if we don’t rally to stop him,” Mr. Barbour said. “It’s certainly time that we have to consolidate the race.”

It is hard to believe that Trump prevailed in South Carolina after a week of set backs and downright horrific comments. In the days before the primary, Trump was booed during a Republican debate and publicly criticized by Pope Francis. He also praised Saddam Hussein because he “killed terrorists“ and declared that he feels torture “works”.

Statements like these have not been uncommon during Trump’s campaign. A favorite remark of anti-Trump campaigners, and one that certainly calls into question Trump’s sanity, is his comment from an Iowa campaign rally earlier this month about his ability to murder someone and still be liked. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” he said.

What’s baffling is that there might be a shred of truth behind that statement. Many Americans seem to be blindly following this man who, frankly, talks more about himself and his reputation than about what he can truly do for the country. “People are not going to die on the streets of any city or of any place if I’m president,” Trump has said. “And every time I say it, I get standing ovations from Republicans. … We have to take care of people.” That sounds great, but what does Trump actually intend to do to prevent people from dying on the streets? And how is he going to take care of them? These are the questions the GOP should be asking as they stand by, barely doing a thing to stop him.

Luckily, someone is actually attempting to do something. Marlene Ricketts, wife of billionaire T.D. Ameritrade founder J. Joe Rickets, has contributed money to a political action committee geared toward tearing down trump. New campaign-finance reports show that she has invested $3 million into Our Principles PAC, a super PAC that targeted Trump with negative ads, voter guides, and mailers  before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

The GOP should be taking note. If they want to have any chance at minimizing Trump’s ability to take the nomination, they have to develop a stronger strategy. As Stuart Stevens, top political strategist to Mitt Romney in 2012, said, “No one is running a modern, focused, coordinated campaign against the front-runner as if they want to win.”

This needs to change or the country might be stuck with a president who likes the word “I” more than he likes America.

BAKER PASSIONATE ABOUT ENDING OPIOID ABUSE, DISCUSSES LEGISLATION

[Originally posted to the EC Reporter on January 31, 2016]

The room fell silent during the State of the Commonwealth Address on Jan. 21, as Governor Charlie Baker began to discuss the growing epidemic of opioid and heroin abuse in the state of Massachusetts. In an outwardly more solemn tone than the rest of his speech, Gov. Baker described the situation unfolding throughout the state with great emotion.

“This is a real human tragedy.  Moms, dads, brothers, sisters and friends all tell hauntingly similar stories. It starts small, fill this prescription or try this pill. But once someone gets too close to the flame, everything changes. It becomes the only thing that matters… Prescribers in Massachusetts – and across this country – are far too casual about the addictive consequences of these medications.”

Getting your hands on these opioids is far too easy as well. As stated in a story inWBUR’s CommonHealth, heroin can cost less than a pack of cigarettes in some cases. One overdose patient at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston even described her access to heroin on the streets as “ridiculously easy.”

Reportedly ending the lives of four people per day in the state of Massachusetts, the issue of opioid abuse is one that Gov. Baker hopes to make significant progress on in the coming months.

The governor looks to propose legislation that will establish better abuse prevention and education resources, hoping to protect children, especially, from this problem.

“Parents, teachers and coaches don’t know enough about opioids to protect their kids. And kids are mostly completely in the dark about what’s at stake when someone says: try this. We’re close on legislation to enhance prevention and education efforts, to build on our intervention work, and to strengthen our treatment and recovery programs.”

This legislation would also reportedly strengthen a prescription monitoring programthat would limit practitioners from prescribing more than a 72-hour supply of opioids to first-time patients.

While some members of the medical community are concerned about this proposal, Gov. Baker remains steadfast and passionate about following through with this legislation.

“Breaking the back of this beast will take time, creativity and a willingness to be disruptive. We must be thoughtful. We must be bold. Let’s get this done, and let’s not rest until we do.”