Rest in Peace Milt Stanzler, Founder of RI ACLU


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Milt Stanzler. (Photo courtesy of the RI ACLU)

Rhode Island mourns the death of Milton Stanzler, a lawyer who founded the local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union in 1959. He was 92 years old. Current RI ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown said of Stanzler’s passing:

“With courage, wisdom and foresight, Milton Stanzler founded the Rhode Island ACLU in 1959. It was a period when censorship of plays, books and movies in the state was rampant, and an epic battle was being fought over legislative efforts to ban housing discrimination on the basis of race.

Thanks to his leadership, the Affiliate became an important force in the community on these and hundreds of other issues during his decades of involvement with the organization. His work as a volunteer attorney in dozens of important cases and his authorship of a history of the Rhode Island ACLU also leave a lasting legacy. We mourn his loss, but he will be fondly remembered for both his generosity of spirit and his lifelong commitment to the indivisibility of freedom.”

Stanzler is said to have appeared before the state Supreme Court some 50 times and “the United States Supreme Court decided several of his cases,” according to the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame. “He wrote most of the legislation that crowned the state’s first fair housing law.”

“Milton Stanzler stepped forward to confront the thorny issues of his day,” wrote the hall of fame of him when he was inducted. “We applaud his unstinting courage, integrity, and resolution to keep the land of Roger Williams free. He is part of an unbroken heritage of independent thinking and action that began with the colony’s establishment in 1636.”

He also helped to found the Trinity Repertory Company in 1962. According to Broadway World:

“In the spring of 1962, Milton Stanzler first proposed his vision of establishing a professional theater in Providence to friends Norman Tilles, Robert Kaplan and actress Barbara Orson. While the challenges facing the group were many, over the next year they pursued their common goal of making Milton’s dream a reality. They soon assembled of a core company of actors, hired then New York-based theater director Adrian Hall as their first artistic director, and in 1964, they opened the doors to the Trinity Square Playhouse’s first production, Brendan Behan’s The Hostage.”

A funeral will be held for him at will be held at Temple Beth-El on Friday, March 9, 2012, at 11:00am.

Rhode Islanders Rally for Tax Equity Bill


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Sen. Josh Miller and Rep. Maria Cimini, sponsors of a bill that would raise taxes on the richest 2 percent of Rhode Islanders.

Rhode Islanders for Tax Equity held court in the rotunda of the State House this afternoon, explaining why it’s good for the state’s economy – as well as a moral imperative in tough economic times – to raise taxes on the rich.

The bill would raise the income tax rate for those making more than $250,000 – the richest 2 percent of the state – from 5.99 percent to 9.99 percent, with the caveat that for every one percentage point the unemployment rate drops so too would the tax increase, and the group estimates it could bring in $118 million in new revenue for the ailing state coffers.

Obama tax plan clamps down on private equity

Reviewing reports of last week, I see that buried in the details of President Obama’s corporate tax reform proposal is a rare gem. To be clear, the overall package — basically a reduction of the nominal tax rate in exchange for giving up some of the more egregious loopholes — seems an ok deal. But there is a piece of idiocy in the corporate tax code that hasn’t been addressed seriously since Jimmy Carter failed to get it fixed in 1977. This is the tax advantage of debt over equity.

This sounds dull, but it has a story behind it that is far more revealing about “private equity” than any of the blather you’ve already read about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

Imagine, for a moment, Company A with a million dollars in profit and a hundred thousand investors, each of whom paid a hundred dollars for a share. The company takes that million, pays taxes on it, and distributes the remainder to the investors. Say they pay 10% of their profits in taxes (what’s left of the 35% rate, after all the loopholes, and not an unusual number). If the company distributes all its profit as dividends, each shareholder gets $9, a 9% annual return on their investment, which isn’t bad at all.

Now imagine a Company B that also earned a million dollars more than they spent. This one has a hundred thousand bondholders, each of whom loaned the company $100 at 10% annual interest. The company sends $10 to each bondholder, and so reports zero profit, thus zero taxes. The shareholders in B?  Who cares about them?

The structure of these two is pretty much the same: both companies sell their products, pay their expenses, and then distribute the money left over. But one calls those distribution payments “dividends” and the other calls them “debt service” and so the first company pays taxes, and the second does not.

What happens if the economy declines?  Company A will simply send out less money in dividends. Company B will go bankrupt if it can’t meet its debt payments.

Clear enough?  Now imagine some private equity vultures, I mean investors, notice that Company A has built up cash reserves of $10 million. They borrow $50 million to purchase Company A, which is now on the hook for $2.5 million per year. Since they’re only earning a million a year, they have to pay part of that debt service from their reserves, but they can do that for a few years. Also, they get to book a loss, which means they can ask the IRS to refund the taxes they paid for the previous two years. And since they can’t get enough back to make a profit, it’s very unlikely they will pay any taxes at all for a long time to come. They used to pay $100,000 in taxes every year, so over the life of the losses they’ll incur, taxpayers will subsidize the deal to the tune of over $2 million.

This is the point that lots of people don’t understand, or refuse to understand, about “private equity.”  They way those outfits make money is usually by using the tax rules to their advantage, not by increasing corporate efficiency or streamlining processes. A company with exploitable assets could be one with an underutilized factory or intellectual property, but it’s more likely just to be one that has cash in reserve or that paid a big tax bill in the last couple of years. “Assets” like these are much more easily quantified than property and you can estimate them via public documents, something you can’t do with factory outputs or licensing fees.

In other words, that wave of leveraged buyouts that began in the 1980s and ended — well it hasn’t really ended — was largely subsidized by you and me. When RJR Nabisco was bought in 1989 for $21 billion, taxpayers ultimately paid more than $5 billion to the purchasers. This was not the free market at work, it was the tax code encouraging buccaneers like the folks at KKR, Michael Milken, and Ivan Boesky, along with Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Without the tax advantage of debt over equity, very few of those leveraged buyouts could ever have happened.

Jimmy Carter’s economic team recognized the risk to American manufacturing represented by the tax preference for debt over equity, and addressing it was a central piece of his proposed 1977 overhaul of the tax code. But the change was opposed by business, and he dropped it. Ronald Reagan’s administration made a half-hearted attempt to fix it in 1984, but it went nowhere. Dan Rostenkowski, the longtime head of the House Ways and Means Committee, worked on a proposal in 1987, but it also died. George Bush, Sr., airily said, “I have no agenda on that. I’m always a little wary about the government trying to solve problems when, historically, the marketplace has been able to solve them,” and declined to do anything about the issue. Bill Clinton’s 1995 tax proposals contained a provision addressing the issue, but these were presented during the government shut down episode and did not make it into the final bill resolving that debacle.

So far as I know, that’s the last time there was a proposal on the congressional table to address what has been one of the most destructive tax policies on record. Over the past 30 years, our leaders, with only a few exceptions, have stood by as big finance has devastated our manufacturing sector, laid off hundreds of thousands of people, and done away with their well-paid jobs — and you and I paid for it. I know President Obama’s corporate tax proposal isn’t going to become law in this Congress, but fixing the tax code to eliminate the subsidy for leveraged corporate takeovers is important, and I’m glad someone has put it forward — again.

 

You’re Invited to See How Ballots Are Made


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In preparation for Rhode Island’s own version of Super Tuesday, Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis is inviting the public to a lottery Wed., March 7, at 5 p.m. in the State Room of the State House.

We will use equipment borrowed from the R.I. Lottery to determine the order in which the candidates for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations will appear on the state’s April 24 primary ballot.

In a scene familiar to Rhode Islanders who watch the state’s daily lottery numbers selected on TV, candidates will be assigned numbered, specially calibrated, white plastic balls. After each ball floats to the top of the machine, we will announce where the corresponding candidate’s name will appear on the ballot.

Barack Obama will compete with “Uncommitted” for the top spot on the Democratic presidential primary ballot. Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will compete with “Uncommitted” for ballot position on the Republican ballot.

We will also use the lottery machine to determine ballot position for the 119 Rhode Islanders who are running for the right to attend the Democratic or Republican National Convention as a delegate.

Proposal to Repeal Voter ID Law Discussed Today


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A bill to repeal the controversial new voter id law passed last session will be heard today by the House Judiciary Committee, said sponsor Charlene Lima, D- Cranston.

Lima said the law, which requires people to show a valid state id card before voting, “is a solution to a non-existing problem.”

“There is no widespread voter fraud with people impersonating people in Rhode Island,” she added. And because the id requirement will disenfranchise some from voting, Lima said the ill-considered law should be rescinded.

“It’s going to hurt the elderly, the disabled and minorities,” she said. “Those people that don’t tend to have an id.”

Lima also said the law will prove expensive to execute. “We need every dime we can get and we’re spending money on a solution to something that is not a problem.”

Lima said 28 of her colleagues have signed onto the bill. But, she added, “It’s probably same group of people who were against it in the first place.”

Stopping the Lobbyist Revolving Door


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

CBS News recently reported that between 1998 and 2006, 43% of members who retired from Congress later took jobs as federal lobbyists – according to Public Citizen, a watchdog organization, those individuals made an average annual salary of around $2 million. What’s more, the Center for Responsive Politics issued its own report that found a total of 370 former members now work in some capacity of the “influence-peddling” business.

With so many politicians now seeking to leverage their public service for private gain, is it any wonder that public confidence in Congress has sunk to an all-time low?

Last week, I appeared on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Show to discuss H.R. 3491, my legislation that would enact a lifetime ban on Members of Congress ever becoming lobbyists.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Under my proposal, violators would face up to $50,000 in fines and a year in prison. Although the law currently bars Senators from lobbying for two years after they retire, and Members of the House for a year, a lifetime ban would help ensure that those running for or serving in elected office do it for the right reasons.

With our country still struggling to get back on the right track, it’s never been more important for us to restore public confidence that Congress works for the people it represents, not for the special interests. That’s why Congress must pass sweeping reforms that put public service ahead of private benefits for elected officials.

This is a simple idea, but getting it done won’t be easy. The same special interests who fought tooth and nail against reforms to Wall Street and our health care system think they can make sure that Washington never changes – let’s show them they’re wrong one more time.

Could Rhode Island Build a State-Owned Bank?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
BND

A state-owned bank. Essentially, a Bank of Rhode Island. This is the proposal floated by ecoRI News’ Kyle Hence in a January article about how the state sends its revenues out of state, where they go to improve the economies of other regions in the country, and indeed, the world. All this despite the fact that the state claims to be placing them in “local banks.”

The local banks? Citizens Bank, BankRI, Bank of America, Sovereign Bank, Washington Trust, and Webster Bank. The intriguing idea is that by creating a state-owned bank, Rhode Island would amplify its spending power (since banks have a special ability to loan out nine dollars for every dollar placed in their coffers) while creating an institution that could assist with handing out loans where the standard corporate bank is unable or unwilling to enter the market.

Ellen Brown
Ms. Brown (image: Ellen Brown)

The greatest national proponent of the idea is Ellen Brown, a former Los Angeles civil litigation attorney, natural medicine advocate, and author of Web of Debt (her website is available here). Ms. Brown has written vociferously about the issue, advocating for a model based off the only state-owned bank in the United States, the Bank of North Dakota (Puerto Rico also owns its own bank, the Government Development Bank, created by New Dealer Rexford Tugwell). North Dakota has almost entirely avoided the economic recession, and is running a surplus.

The Bank of North Dakota (BND) is an anomaly in the U.S. financial system. Formed by the Nonpartisan League, a socialist-started faction of the Republican Party (yes, you read that right), its goal was to assist farmers in getting loans. Assisted by a state run mill (North Dakota Mill and Elevator, still in existence as the nation’s largest flour mill) as well as a prohibition against corporate ownership of farmland, North Dakotans have functioned with the BND for years. Its former governor and sitting U.S. Senator (Republican John Hoeven) is a former BND president.

BND essentially acts as the state’s coffers, instead of various national or multinational banks. As a result, it is not covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), because FDIC only insures up to $250,000, and the State of North Dakota deposits far more. This lack of FDIC coverage also means BND is outside of the regulatory burdens of the system. Because it didn’t do any subprime lending, BND was shielded from the subprime collapse. It also avoided credit default swaps and derivatives and all of the other various market instruments that we’ve heard so much about since the collapse.

This works largely because the bank is run by conservative bankers, who, according to their president, Eric Hardmeyer, follow “a Warren Buffett mentality–if we don’t understand it, we’re not going to jump into it.” The bank is also a partner to large banks, working instead to amplify the strength of credit unions.

Ms. Brown’s ideas of taking the North Dakota model have been an appealing idea in Great Recession America, especially as states faced high unemployment and reluctant lenders, problems still found in Rhode Island. Discussion of the idea seems to be largely cyclical, happening around this time each year. Multiple states have had legislation come up about it; and the Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan made it part of his campaign in 2010. Small business owners and farmers in Oregon have banded together for the idea.

But there’s a hitch. A study for the state of Massachusetts by the Boston Federal Reserve found that the situation of the BND just isn’t replicable in most states, nor does it do what most advocates say it does. North Dakota’s economic situation is largely due to its energy sector (based on oil) and agricultural sector. Traditionally, North Dakota has a lower unemployment rate than the nation at all times. Furthermore, South Dakota does too, and lacks any such bank; South Dakota’s economic situation is comparable to North Dakota’s. Even worse, North Dakota has an extremely volatile economy, since it is largely based on agricultural prices, causing average income to leap across the charts.

BND
Bank of North Dakota branch (image: Bank of North Dakota)

But BND never steps in to stabilize the state’s economy (again, it is a conservative institution). Furthermore, while BND is a non-competitor to other banks in North Dakota, this is largely due to the fact that it mostly handles the state accounts and buys loans issues by local credit unions. Since North Dakota has one of the largest proportions of credit unions in its banking industry (a reflection on the state’s rural nature), it is thus a great boon to the state’s economy. But highly urbanized and dense states like Rhode Island have less than 10% of our banks as credit unions. Thus, a Bank of Rhode Island would most likely be a direct competitor to banks in Rhode Island, and possibly cause a banking crisis with its creation as it pulled state deposits out of the other banks.

The issue is largely that the conditions of North Dakota cannot be replicated in Rhode Island. BND President Hardmeyer stresses that the bank is run by bankers, not economic development people. He also is very timid about suggesting for other states, since BND is aimed specifically at issues that North Dakota faces.

Indeed, the creation of a BRI would have to follow along similar lines as the formation of a currently unpopular financial institution, the Federal Reserve. U.S. Senator Nelson Aldrich, a Republican Senator who served Rhode Island from 1881 to 1911, had long been an opponent of a national bank before he toured those of Europe.* Convinced of its importance, he returned to the U.S. and designed what became the Federal Reserve with much input from the nation’s bankers.

A BRI would have to not be in competition with private banks, and wresting the state deposits from private hands would be the most important hurdle to overcome. Any partnership involved in creating it would have to involve bankers, economic priorities and niches where the existing banks aren’t reaching would have to be identified, and an understanding of the goals of such a bank would also need be reached.

The state certainly should step in to do what private business can’t accomplish. But improperly executed, a Bank of Rhode Island would be a disaster and discredit state intervention. As an issue, its importance is in highlighting where our economy isn’t functioning properly, a conversation necessary during these times.

__________________________________________

*Correction: An earlier version of this sentence said that Sen. Aldrich served from 1841-1915, which are in fact the years of his birth and death.

Rhode Islanders for Tax Equity Meets Today


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There’s a broad-based coalition building around a bill that would raise income taxes on the wealthiest Rhode Islanders. The coalition includes legislators, labor leaders, small business owners, parents, college students and a at least one mayor.

Pawtucket Mayor Don Grebian will join the other members of this coalition, called Rhode Islanders for Tax Equity, today at 3:30 at the State House for a press conference to answer questions about the new tax proposal that would raise income taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year.

“RITE is advocating for a tax policy that will take the burden off of the middle class and ensure the most privileged Rhode Islanders are paying their fair share,” said the group in a press release.

The group estimates the bill could yield $118 million in revenue for the state budget.

Rep. Maria Cimini, a Providence Democrat who sponsored the bill in the House, previously told RI Future: “We’ve really called on low and middle income Rhode Islanders to feel the pain of this recession. I don’t feel that we’ve called on upper income Rhode Islanders to feel that pain or share that sacrifice.”

Cimini will be at the event today, as will the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, Josh Miller, D- Cranston.

Cimini said the bill is different from other tax the rich proposals because the increase would drop commiserate with the state’s unemployment rate. In that way, it will serve as an incentive for the job creator class to actually create jobs.