Sometimes the most important questions are the ones that don’t get asked, even by reporters, whose job it is to ask that next question.

Usually this failure to ask is more inadvertent than deliberate, and nothing in today’s post should be interpreted as criticism of any reporter. The first example, in fact, comes from a good story by reporter John Briggs on the front page of last Monday’s Burlington Free Press headlined, “Frustration grows over downtown scene.”

The story was about how panhandlers in and around Burlington’s Church Street Marketplace are harassing passers-by and angering store and restaurant owners who want those passers-by to shop and eat at their establishments.

No one has been hurt, but, Briggs wrote, merchants say the situation has become “unpleasant…and may seem threatening to potential shoppers and tourists.”

If anything, Briggs exercised excessive journalistic caution in attributing that conclusion to the merchants. The panhandling, often aggressive and vulgar, simply is unpleasant, and might well seem threatening, especially to women, children,  the frail or the elderly.

As a result, city officials are considering various steps, including passage of laws against blocking the sidewalks. The city council has already passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking in or near parks or recreation areas.

The story did an especially good job in dealing with the political and sociological tensions surrounding the dispute. The panhandlers, many if not most of them drug addicts, homeless, unemployed and perhaps unemployable, have their defenders and advocates who claim the business owners, and the council members working with them (merchants vote; street people do not) are indifferent to the plight of the poor and dispossessed.

Quite possible. And those poor and dispossessed are their fellow citizens whose humanity need not be belittled. But the needs of the non-poor, non-dispossessed should also be taken into account. Forget the merchants for a minute, who obviously have an economic self-interest here, and just consider all the folks – just regular folks, not particularly rich or poor or influential or even important (except in the sense that everyone is important )– who are walking along the sidewalks to shop, eat, sightsee or just meander.

They ought to be able to do this without being assailed by assertive drifters who clog the sidewalk and shout obscenities. This is not a free speech issue. Anyone has the right to set up a soapbox in the park outside City Hall and proclaim the most unpopular opinion imaginable. To the passer-by offended by that opinion, the only response – or at least the only American response – is: Who cares? Be offended. It’s the price for living in a free society.

But sidewalks are, as their name suggests, for walking, and those using them as they were intended to be used have a reasonable expectation that they will be neither impeded nor insulted. Regular folks have rights, too.

Reporter Briggs also did a good job pointing out that the problem had gotten worse because of the recession and because the local agencies that help addicts, the mentally ill and the homeless were stretched to their capacities and beyond. But now comes the question not asked:

Isn’t this what happens when the state cuts its social service budget?

At this point, that question can’t be answered definitively. It would take a great deal of research to make a direct connection between those budget cuts and the increase in the number of troubled panhandlers in downtown Burlington.

But for the last two years, the Legislature, prodded by Gov. Jim Douglas, has cut the budget of the Human Services Agency to hold down taxes and to maintain spending on schools, transportation, and other functions. They did this despite warnings from, among others, law enforcement officials (including Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling) that the result would be more troubled or homeless people on city streets, creating problems that would have to be dealt with by local governments.

These cops seem to have had a point.

The other question wasn’t asked up at Morses Line.

This was last month, in another perfectly good Free Press story, this one by Matt Sutkoski, about the dispute between the Rainville family and the Department of Homeland Security’s effort (apparently about to be abandoned) to take part of the family’s farmland to expand a little-used border crossing station.

Among the sources quoted was a spokesman for the government agency who explained that no major improvements to the facility at Morses Line had been made for 70 years, and that the crossing station  “fails to provide the tools we need to guard against the threats to our national security.”

The question which should have been asked there was: Our What?

Because officials at DHS and its various sub-agencies have been throwing around that “national security” explanation almost every time there’s any debate about Canadian border policies. But the examples they give are invariably about attempted drug smuggling or foreigners trying to sneak into the U.S. to get a job or find a relative.

Stopping those activities is part of DHS’s job. But they have nothing to do with “national security.” The nation’s security is not threatened by a pot (or even heroin) peddler or an illegal farm worker. “National security” deals with threats to…well, the security of the nation, from foreign powers or – these days – from terrorists.

Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist seems to have entered the United States from Canada, and there is little reason to think a terrorist could get into Canada any more easily than he or she could come directly to the U.S.

“There’s lot of misunderstanding on the relationship between borders and terrorism,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Since 2001, Alden said, “there have been about 25 terrorist plots inside the US, involving 58 individuals. Thirty were US-born citizens, 11 were naturalized citizens, one had dual citizenship. Nine were legal immigrants or visa holders. Only six were here illegally and maybe one more, from the Middle East.”

Furthermore, he said, “illegally” meant only that they had overstayed their visas, not that they had snuck across a border.

“For the vast majority of incidents, the border was completely irrelevant,” he said.

There’s no guarantee that someday a terrorist won’t try to sneak over the border from Canada, as Ahmed Ressam, the so-called “Millennium Bomber” tried to do in 1999. He was caught at a border crossing station in Washington State. But that was before September 11, 2001. Since then, Canadian authorities have tightened their surveillance of refugee applicants, which was Ressam’s status at the time.

But like other anti-terrorism experts, Alden said that far more important than watching the Canadian border was working cooperatively with Canadian intelligence agencies.

“The level of intelligence  sharing with Canadian authorities is the best we have with any country,” he said. “It’s a very , very close and cooperative one. The US and Canada are trying to do the same things to keep these people out of North America altogether. They use similar systems to try to screen overseas passengers.”

If, as now seems likely, the Morses Line border station is closed, something will be lost; there will be less coming and going across the border for both business and social reasons.

That’s too bad. It has nothing to do with national security.