RI Health Care Project Applauds the ACA Decision


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

The Rhode Island Health Coverage Project celebrates today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Today’s decision means that millions of Americans across the country and tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders will have access to affordable, high quality health coverage.

“We are fortunate to live in a state that is committed to improving the health of its residents,” said Linda Katz, Policy Director at The Economic Progress Institute speaking on behalf of the Health Coverage Project, a joint initiative with Rhode Island KIDS COUNT. “Today’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act ensures that our state will have the tools and resources to expand health insurance coverage to more people, promote primary care and develop a workforce to meet changing health care needs.”

Thousands of Rhode Islanders are already benefitting from the ACA. Over 7,500 young adults under age 26 are able to stay on their parents’ insurance plans. Approximately 15,000 seniors and people with disabilities who are insured through Medicare are receiving significant help paying for their prescriptions when they fall into the “donut hole.”

Preventive care is being promoted by the elimination of cost-sharing for certain services including wellness exams, mammograms and colonoscopies, benefitting all 130,000 Rhode Island Medicare beneficiaries and another 200,000 Rhode Islanders covered by private insurance.

Less than two years from now, 64,000 Rhode Islanders who are uninsured will have access to affordable health insurance and all of us will benefit from the consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act that will enable us to be better health care consumers.

Rhode Island has a strong track record of leadership on health coverage, through the nationally recognized RIte Care program and the state’s early actions to implement the ACA. We know our state will continue to be out in front in connecting Rhode Islanders to high quality, affordable health care.

The John Roberts Moment


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

Surprisingly nearly everyone – especially CNN – the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial aspect of President Obama’s historic health care reforms: the individual mandate. It’s incredibly good news for Obama, Democrats, progressives, Rhode Island (which is already well into the process of implementing it) all the uninsured and under-insured Americans (like me!), the country and its economy.

The hero today, though, is a conservative.

Even more surprising than the outcome is that Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee to the bench, broke ranks from his fellow conservatives and wrote the majority opinion that upheld the individual mandate. It’s being called the John Roberts Moment.

According to the New York Times, Roberts’ judgment was in part a recognition that the court has “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders.”

And ironic comment, given that the Roberts Court is best known for invalidating the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders!

But Roberts, more than the rest of the SCOTUS, was taken to task for exercising judicial activism and overturning precedent with the Citizens United decision. In fact, NPR quotes Rhode Island’s own Senator Sheldon Whitehouse admonishing the court for its lack of logic on Citizens United in an article largely critical of Roberts:

But critics of the court say it took a narrow question — whether a TV-on-demand documentary about Democrat Hillary Clinton could be shown in the weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential primaries — and answered it by vastly easing restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

“The court got way, way, way ahead of its skis here,” says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat. He has filed a friend of the court brief demanding that the high court reverse its Citizens United decision.

“It was a decision they were so eager to make, but now I think they’re embarrassed by the wild discrepancy between the world as they presumed it in their written decision and the world as we see it around us, post-Citizens United,” he says.

Maybe John Roberts realized that the winds were turning on his court’s quest to remake the country in the mold of the strict Constitutionalists?

It wouldn’t be the first time that Roberts allowed perception to dictate how the High Court determined a decision. Here’s a excerpt from Jeffrey Toobin’s New Yorker article about the Citizens United decision.

“Roberts didn’t mind spirited disagreement on the merits of any case, but Souter’s attack—an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court—could damage the Court’s credibility. So the Chief came up with a strategically ingenious maneuver. He would agree to withdraw Kennedy’s draft majority opinion and put Citizens United down for reargument, in the fall. For the second argument, the Court would write new Questions Presented, which frame a case before argument, and there would be no doubt about the stakes of the case. The proposal put the liberals in a box. They could no longer complain about being sandbagged, because the new Questions Presented would be unmistakably clear. But, as Roberts knew, the conservatives would go into the second argument already having five votes for the result they wanted. With no other choice (and no real hope of ever winning the case), the liberals agreed to the reargument.”

That’s not to say that Roberts allowed his court’s legacy to trump his reading of the law in this case, but just to point out that even Supreme Court justices play a little politics.

Legislature Wanted to Force Cities to Cut Taxes


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

June in Rhode Island means two things: ripe strawberries and gubernatorial vetos.

The silly way our legislature schedules things — with all important bills held until after the budget passes to ensure every legislator falls into line on that vote — means that hundreds of bills are passed in the last few days of the legislative session. This then means they all await the Governor’s signature after the session ends. And some of them get a veto instead.

My favorite veto so far this year was of a bill that would provide a tax break… at someone else’s expense. Sponsored by Representative John McCauley (D-Providence) in the House, and Senators Michael McCaffrey (D-Warwick) and Erin Lynch (D-Warwick) in the Senate, the bill would exempt from the property tax any new construction before it was issued a certificate of occupancy.

The collapse of the housing bubble has meant a real collapse in construction employment. Unemployment among construction workers is almost certainly much higher than the already way-too-high general rate lurking around 11%. It’s natural to think that the industry could use some help. But is it natural to demand that someone else provide it?

Essentially what this bill’s sponsors hoped would happen is to stimulate the construction industry by giving developers a break on property taxes collected by a city or town. One can applaud the motivation while still thinking that the concept is pretty weak.

First of all, it’s not at all clear that this would have a stimulative effect. How many developers are dissuaded from investing by the potential risk of having to pay taxes on property before it’s occupiable?  Might not the lack of buyers be a bigger disincentive?

Second, how dare these legislators pile on to the cities and towns? This is a bill that would actually take tax revenue away from many municipalities. Do they not read the news?  Are they not aware that we now have three cities in financial trouble, with more on the precipice?  In what way exactly would this help those cities?

To be honest, this is hardly that unusual. After all, it’s almost traditional in the General Assembly to ignore or hide the cost of tax cuts. I can’t think of a single substantial tax cut over the past 20 years that passed the Assembly with offsetting cuts to services. In fact, the tradition is not only to avoid paying for tax cuts, but to vote to phase them in over several years so the real costs are hidden during the budget year they are debated. This was true of the 1997 income tax cut, the 1997 car-tax cut, the 2006 flat-tax cut, and the 2001 capital gains cut, which didn’t even take effect until five years after it passed.

So does this mean unemployed construction workers are out of luck? Probably it does, but not because there is nothing to be done. They are out of luck because the people who can do something choose not to. The General Assembly leadership feels that keeping state revenue down is more important than helping cities and towns. Three years ago municipal budgets across the state were vandalized when the state withheld part of that fiscal year’s state aid payment. Then they did it again the next year, and the next. Between fiscal year 2008 and 2010, the state withheld what amounted to about 10% of Providence’s non-school budget, and millions more for each other municipality.

Admittedly, the state saw its own revenues plunge in 2008, as the income and sales taxes both skidded down in the recession, accelerated by big tax cuts for rich people during each of the years 2007-2011. But the recession and the cuts are over, and revenue in the current fiscal year looks like it will end well ahead of last year’s projections. You might think that would allow us to restore the tax cuts and thereby restore the municipal aid cuts of the previous years, but apparently not. Or you might think we could engage in some small local stimulus, perhaps by accelerating the scheduled repairs of our bridges, maintenance of state buildings, or maybe even re-hiring a few hundred teachers. Nope. Tax cuts are still the only thing on the menu at the state house.

So bravo for Governor Chafee. Bills like this deserve a veto and the legislators behind them deserve to be shamed.

Progress Report: SCOTUS on Obamacare, State House Campaign Roundup, High Finance Journalism


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

The nation, and Rhode Island for that matter, turns its attention to the Supreme Court this morning as the justices are expected to release their decision today on President Obama’s signature act as chief executive: health care reform. The New York Times says the landmark legislation affects “nearly every American from cradle to grave.”

Depending on what the Court does with regard to the individual mandate portion of the law, this could prove a pivotal ruling in the history of and future for the United States. Sound overly dramatic? It’s actually understated.

Way back in early April, we reported on how the SCOTUS’ ruling could affect the health care exchange here in RI.

An extremely important side narrative here is whether the High Court is seen as interpreting the law and the Constitution or, as has been increasingly the case with the Roberts Court, the justices are perceived to be operating as political rather than judicial actors. As bad as an unsustainable health care system is for the country, an politically-motivated Supreme Court is far, far worse.

…Stay tuned…

Thanks to Kathy Gregg and the Projo for the great round-up on the campaigns for seats in the state legislature this morning.

One of my favorite races to watch is Laura Pisaturo vs. Michael McCaffery for a seat representing Warwick in the state Senate. McCaffrey, the incumbent, has been a major impediment to marriage equality in the Ocean State. Pisaturo, the challenger, is a lawyer and a lesbian.

Also … RI Future contributor Mark Binder is challenging House Speaker Gordon Fox. Fox is a center-right Democrat and Binder a died-in-the-wool progressive.

Another very interesting contest pits two incumbents against each other in East Providence: Senate Finance Chairman Dan DaPonte has to defend his seat this year against Rep. Bob DaSilva … Here’s the meta-narrative for this race: DaSilva, a police officer who voted against pension cuts last year, is looking out for organized labor more than residents. DaPonte, a lawyer who sponsored the controversial but rarely discussed pay-bondholders-before-Rhode Islanders bill, is looking out for Wall Street more than residents.

By the way, what does it mean for Rhode Island that its political journalists report more on what Moody’s thinks of the state’s school funding formula than it does local cities and towns? I think it means we’ve become a little too focused on high finance and a little tone deaf to what’s actually happening here on the ground.

That said, Ian Donnis picks up on an interesting aspect of the state’s school funding formula through the Moody’s report: “The biggest single-year percentage increases in education aid are in Barrington, East Greenwich, Lincoln, Cranston, and New Shoreham. The biggest losers are Chariho, Portsmouth, Bristol-Warren, South Kingstown and Central Falls.”

And speaking of the world of high finance, the 1 percent meme has made its way into comic book culture, reports the Associated Press: “Whereas the so-called One Percent is blamed for having a majority of wealth at the expense of the other 99 percent, in Valiant Comics’ upcoming ‘Archer & Armstrong,’ it’s a secretive and sinister cabal of money managers and financiers willing to sacrifice more than jobs for profit – human lives, too – to steer the fate of the world for their own gain.”