Let’s be a better society than one that murders horrible criminals


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

BostonSuspect2Though it is by no means certain that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be executed if convicted of crimes relating to the Boston Marathon bombing last year, the Justice Department confirmed yesterday that the United States would seek the death penalty.

According to the New York Times:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who had the final say on whether to authorize prosecutors to seek the death penalty, has said he personally opposes capital punishment. But he has authorized its use many times.

“The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision,” Mr. Holder said in a statement released by the Justice Department.

Mr. Holder has said he opposes the death penalty because the legal system is imperfect and he worries that innocent people might be put to death.

The trouble with opposing the death penalty is that there is little public sympathy for the kinds of villains that commit the terrible crimes the death penalty is reserved for. The crimes Tsarnaev is accused of beggar description. He and his brother allegedly terrorized a city, maimed and injured hundreds, and killed four people, including a child. Calling him a monster would be easy, it is much harder to call him a human being.

The arguments for executing Tsarnaev boil down, I believe, to one: It feels right, and is emotionally satisfying. A simple case like this allows us to give vent to our most God-inspired Old Testament style inclinations.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…

(Exodus 21:24)

John DePetro wants Tsarnaev dead. He howls for a retributive justice that seems completely out of place with his holier-than-thou declarations of fealty to the Catholic Church, whose savior recommended “turning the other cheek” and ultimately faced the death penalty himself. Does John DePetro think Jesus would be in favor of executing Tsarnaev?

I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.

(Matthew 25:40)

The Bible can always be mined to find support for whatever anyone is trying to prove at any given time of course, so those who would impose the death penalty need to come up with secular and rational (as opposed to reasons grounded in sectarian religion or emotionality) to carry the day.

Executing prisoners is not cheaper than imprisoning them for life, it is more expensive. This idea places ts a dollar value on human life that should give us all pause. Making it cheaper to execute criminals might encourage our society to execute more criminals. Why put a person in jail for thirty years if we can execute them and save money? Why put a person in jail for ten years or even one year if execution saves money?

Economic concerns cannot prevail when considering justice, especially not in a country as rich as ours. We are not in a lifeboat conserving scarce resources and debating about who should be thrown overboard. We have the means to incarcerate Tsarnaev for life, where he can do no harm.

I sometimes think about Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for the terrible Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. His execution in June 2001 prevented him from witnessing the change in our country following the September 11 attacks, or the collapse of the racist anti-government movement he saw himself as part of when he committed his crimes. McVeigh never learned how pointless his actions were. We, as a society, were never given a chance to show that our way was better, because we took our vengeance on McVeigh and traded mercy and compassion for a moment of emotional gratification.

I think we can be better than that, and move beyond the death penalty altogether.

How to make college affordable: Pay It Forward, Pay It Back coming to RI?


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

oregon_pay_it_forwardAlmost unnoticed by RI media (save for education reporter Linda Borg in The Journal) is H7201, which would create a “Pay It Forward, Pay It Back” pilot program for funding tuition to colleges. The idea has found traction in the lefty blogosphere (notably by Matt Bruenig of Demos’ PolicyShop) and has been piloted by the State of Oregon. It’s relatively simple. The state sets up an initial pool of money to fund tuition for students at a select higher education institution in the state. That pool covers the costs of their tuition for their time in college. When the students graduate, they then pay back a proportion of their income over a set number of years.

This whole style of paying for college called “income-based repayment (IBR)”. Pay It Forward, Pay It Back gets around the typical student debt relief problem that ultimately subsidizes the educations of the well-off. It’s no secret that wealthier people are far more likely to gain a college education, and they disproportionately make up college graduates. Any broad-based tax that reduced student debt burdens would ultimately have poor people paying for the wealthy to receive higher education, furthering the achievement gaps between the wealthy and the poor.

Pay It Forward, Pay It Back neatly defeats this problem. If you make a lot of money after you graduate, your repayments will basically subsidize the costs of students who didn’t make much. Those repayments happen for a set number of years, long enough that even if you start off paying just a few hundred in your first year out, within in a few years you could be paying thousands.

Theoretically, if this program succeeds, the State of Rhode Island could guarantee every single child who is born in the state a college degree, assuming they get accepted.

Are there problems with this bill? Yes, for one thing, it requires that students graduate within four years for a bachelor’s or two years for an associate’s; while saying nothing about those who drop-out. This may be because it is simply a pilot, but drop-outs and those who take five years (perhaps because of a double major) could simply make payments for less or more time, respectively.

It’s also couched in the “workforce development” language of the skills gap, which is big on Smith Hill right now, even though the gap is fictitious. Another problem is that instead of being for all degrees, it will only be for select courses of study in an attempt to provide workers to state employers; so future English majors don’t expect to reap the benefits any time soon. Presumably education degrees won’t be targeted, despite our rhetoric to have better-trained teachers.

But how you sell the bill is less importance than its existence. Hopefully a Sub A will expand this bill to be far more ambitious with a focus on the students rather than their potential employers who may not even hire these people when they graduate.

The lead sponsor is Speaker Gordon Fox himself, and the press release also credits Rep. Joseph McNamara as House Health, Education and Welfare Committee Chairman. For those saying there’s no ambition in Rhode Island or a dearth of leadership, this is a bill which should give you hope.

Common Core will change the game for the worse


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
NEA-RI President Larry Purtill (Photo courtesy of Pat Crowley)
NEA-RI President Larry Purtill (Photo courtesy of Pat Crowley)

The Common Core State Standards were hailed as the next game changer in education. Unfortunately, the way it is going, they may ruin the game, not just change it.

Students, especially in urban areas, are extremely mobile – and certainly educated adults are – so what is wrong with having a common set of standards whether you are in South Kingstown, RI or Tacoma, Washington? Set realistic standards, let local educators decide the best way to meet those standards, and trust teachers to be creative and motivational in helping students reach them.

Instead of widespread support, opposition grows over concerns, and rightly so. Parents across the country, including Rhode Island, are pushing back, in the belief we are dumbing down education. (A description I very much dislike but understand their meaning.) The goal now is to teach to a future test, PARCC, and the concern is growing that creative teaching and learning will disappear.

We have already seen cuts in programs across the country as the test becomes more important than anything else. It is supposed to guarantee that students are college and work ready. Obviously these are worthwhile ultimate goals, but what about the entire education experience: arts, music, sports, history, etc.? Parents have a reason to be nervous.

Educators are angry, not necessarily about the standards but about how they are being implemented much too quickly. Anecdotal evidence abounds about the confusion and wasted hours preparing for Common Core and PARCC. Teachers recently spent three months working on lessons and tests to only be given a new set of rules which required them to do much of the work over.

There is a constant stream here and around the country of “clarifying” documents changing what teachers had already spent hours developing. Confusion abounds. Elementary educators are preparing lesson plans the night before to teach to a new curriculum the next day because of rapid changes and lack of advance information.

Some states have started to slow down and put off implementation and testing until the change is complete and everyone is on the same page. This cannot be about testing companies making millions and corporations trying to control curriculum and education. It should be about high expectations where resources are available to reach them, and an education system that provides every student with the preparation to be what he/she wants, whether doctor, teacher, firefighter or poet.

Narrowing curriculum for a test and doing only half a job of it welcomes failure. If students and teachers are going to be evaluated with this system, it needs to be done correctly. Conservatives and local politicians are opposed as well, although I might disagree with some of their motives. The bottom line is that local control and decision-making have been removed

I started off by saying that we should set standards but trust our teachers to develop how we get there. To prove my point, all the so-called experts (most who have never taught) point to the success of Finland. Its secret? Teachers are trusted to do their jobs – and guess what, it works! Common Core and PARCC are edicts from on high and the truth is local educators are left scrambling without support and resources.

The cost to implement PARCC will be staggering. The commissioner says we will be ready, but local school officials tell me a different story. Think about this: Los Angeles intends to spend $1 billion on iPads for the Common Core Technology Project, to help prepare for the standards. The tests will be online so I assume they will be used for that as well. Where is this money coming from and at the expense of what other programs? I am all for students using technology but with all this profit at stake you can easily see why the technology industry is behind this movement.

Supporters of quick implementation say it is just the usual suspects who are complaining, but they shouldn’t ignore parents, teachers and administrators who voice serious issues and concerns.

“The Common Core standards emphasize critical thinking and reasoning. It is time for public officials to demonstrate critical thinking and stop the rush to implementation and do some serious field-testing. It is time to fix the standards that don’t work in real classrooms with real students.” (From CNN Opinion by Diane Ravitch, 11/25/2013.)

Calling something a game changer is just one of the many phrases the ed reformers like to throw around. It sounds hip and important, but if you really want to be a game changer you would set high attainable standards and give educators the resources and trust needed to get there, not rush through something half-baked because corporations and test companies want it.

This is not a game – these are real classrooms with real students, and when parents, teachers and administrators, i.e. those directly involved, say there are problems, it might be time to listen, learn and act.

Then and only then will Common Core have a chance, and not be just another fad for which we spent billions and did nothing to close the achievement gap. It seems an easy choice. For once, let us as a society act on the side of students and educators and not the side of power and money.

The State of Education, in Deborah Gist’s own words


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

I missed Deborah Gist’s speech at the State House tonight (read RI Future alum Dan McGowan’s coverage on WPRI here), but I did put the text of her speech into Wordle and it spit out this pretty neat word cloud of her remarks:

gist speech narrowHere are a few words you won’t see in the above graphic depiction of her speech, which I think belong in any talk about the state of education in Rhode Island:

  • achievement gap
  • NECAP
  • Common Core
  • 27 percent

A few other observations:

  • “Students” was the most prominent word, along with “Rhode Island”
  • “STEM” seem to have the same prominence as “learning”
  • “Technology” seems to have a greater prominence than “teachers”

I’d love to hear from our readers in the comments about what observations you all have about her speech, or this depiction of it.

Oxfam Report: Half of world’s wealth controlled by 1%


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

oxfam richJust a week before the 44th annual gathering of the global elite at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Oxford, England-based Oxfam International released a scathing report claiming that global wealth rests in the hands of just a few very rich people.

According to the report released on Jan. 20, co-authored by Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva, Head of Research, Oxfam Great Britain and Nicholas Galasso, Research and Policy Advisor, Oxfam America, 85 of the wealthiest people own the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population.

Widening Income Gap Between Wealthy and Poor

Oxfam’s 31 page report, “Working for the Few,” warns that almost half of the world’s wealth concentrated in just one percent of the population, is a real threat to inclusive political and economic systems, and compounds other economic inequalities – such as those between women and men. The authors say, left unchecked, political institutions are undermined and governments overwhelmingly serve the interests of economic elites – to the detriment of the poor and middle class.

Today the gap between the rich and poor has become wider, with the wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounting to $110 trillion, adds the report, around 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population. In the United States, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

“Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, the cascade of privilege and of disadvantage will continue down the generations,” warns Oxfam’s Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima, in her statement announcing the release of her group’s report. She leads the world-wide development organization comprised of 17 organizations working in 90 countries to find solutions to poverty and related injustice around the world.

Byanyima, a grass-roots activist, human rights advocate and a world recognized expert on women’s rights, who plans to attend the Davos meeting, observes, “It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world’s population owns no more than tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage.”

“We cannot hope to win the fight against poverty without tackling inequality. Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,” says Bryanyima.

Bryanyima adds, “In developed and developing countries alike, we are increasingly living in a world where the lowest tax rates, the best health and education and the opportunity to influence are being given not just to the rich but also to their children.”

“Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, the cascade of privilege and of disadvantage will continue down the generations,” states Bryanyima, noting that “We will soon live in a world where equality of opportunity is just a dream.”

Specific policies have widened the income gap between the rich and poor over the last decades, including financial deregulation, tax havens and secrecy, anti-competitive business practice, lower tax rates on high incomes and investments and cuts or underinvestment in public services for the majority. For instance, since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 of the 30 countries for which data are available. In these places the rich not only get more money but also pay less tax on it.

Oxfam’s report calls on those gathered at this week’s World Economic Forum to take tackle inequity by cracking down on financial secrecy and tax dodging, including investing in universal education and healthcare; demand a living wage in all companies, and agreeing a global goal to end extreme inequality in every country.

Inequity in Our Back Yard, Too

Commenting on Oxfam’s report release, Robert B. Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton who now serves as Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, notes that inequality in the United State is not “that far off” from other countries. “Here, the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together. We’re getting close to a tipping point where inequality undermines our economy (because the vast middle class doesn’t have the purchasing power to keep the economy going), hurts our democracy (because a handful of extremely rich individuals can control politics), and causes most people to feel the dice are loaded against them, he says.

Reich’s award-winning documentary “Inequality for All” — now out on iTunes, DVD, and On Demand — explains the roots of inequality, in the U.S. and around the world. For details, go to http://www.inequalityforall.com.

Kate Brewster, Executive Director of Rhode Island’s The Economic Progress Institute, notes that Oxfam’s report puts the growing problem of inequality on the world stage. “As the experts point out, inequality is not inevitable, but a man made problem that can be tackled with policies that reward everyone for hard work, not just a few,” she says.

“Rhode Island has not escaped this disturbing trend,” states Brewster. According to a report issued by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Ocean State experienced the 9th largest increase in income inequality in the country between the late 1970s and mid-2000s. During this time the income of the top fifth rose by 99 percent while the bottom fifth grew by only 12 percent, she says.

Legislative Fixes to Reduce Income Gap

Brewster says there are two “two concrete policies” that the Rhode Island General Assembly could enact this legislative session that would immediately boost the income of low-income Rhode Islanders and begin to reverse this trend, specifically increasing the state’s minimum wage and increasing the refund available through the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit. “The latter would not only boost the income of low-wage workers but also bring more equity to a tax structure that has provided significant tax breaks to wealthy individuals and businesses for years,” she says.

Advocate Susan Sweet, a former state official and lobbyist for nonprofit groups, notes that while Rhode Island and the nation don’t have an overwhelming majority of citizens suffering the worst extremes of poverty such as starvation, homelessness and societal abandonment that exists in some other countries, we have our share. We also have a large and expanding underclass of counter culture and underground economy that serves to hurt the cohesiveness of society,” says the Rumford resident.

Sweet worries about the income gap between the poor and wealthy that will happen in years to come because of state policies. “The state took millions away from retired people who are receiving an average of $25,000 a year in their state pension and are in their seventies on average. The state gambled on the Studio 38 boondoggle, sold these risky bonds to unknown parties, and want to pay these gambling debts back to the investors because they have a ‘moral obligation’ to do so. Where is the moral obligation to those who performed their responsibilities by working for the state for many years with the promise of a secure retirement?” she says.

And what does she expect to see coming out of the General Assembly? “This year we will hear rhetoric to raise the absurdly low minimum wage in the nation and in the state, but not enough to give workers a decent living wage; we will hear promises to improve education, while students that have tried to achieve under great odds will be denied high school diplomas while the educational infrastructure remains in place and unchanging; we will be assured that the key to R.I.’s unyielding high unemployment rate has been found – again; and we will continue on the path of inequality.”

Oak Hill resident, Lisa Roseman Beade, an academic tutor who is been active in Progressive causes, says the U.S. has the widest income gap of any developing nation. “’Trickle down economics’ has turned into “vacuum upwards economics”. We need fair wages and fair and equitable taxation rates to circulate the money. That’s what puts people to work and will reduce the widening income gap between the nation’s wealthy and poor. Instead, workers, who have been breaking the bar in productivity year after year, now receive only 1 percent of the record breaking profits.”

Beade calls for keeping corporate dollars out of politics and supports the creation of a single payer healthcare system that would make healthcare a civil right.

She believes that change will only come when “we all stop the scape-goating teachers and workers and public employees and demand that we all have good wages, good benefits and good pensions and by restoring state levels to those pre-1998. If lower taxes create jobs, and taxes have never been lower…where are the jobs?”

“A vibrant, safe and livable community with good community services can only come if everyone earns enough and everyone pays their fair share of taxes. Let’s make paying taxes patriotic again,” says Beade.

A Final Note…

It’s time to hammer out a comprehensive legislative fix to reducing the wide income gap between the Ocean State’s wealthy and poor. Let those declared candidates for Governor come out with detailed briefing papers, unveiling their comprehensive approach to enable Rhode Islanders to finally make a living wage. That is tell the voters how you will close the income gap between the state’s have and have nots. Let the debate begin.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a writer who covers aging, health care, medical issues and Rhode Island’s political scene.

EPA’s McCarthy says Obama may use executive order to regulate CO2


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

Obama SOTU 14 Since President Obama’s State of the Union lacked details on he was going to address the accelerating climate change problems while touting his “all-of-the above” energy policy that was buoyed up by domestic “fracking” of oil and gas and the need to Fast Track trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership that “protect the environment (the opposite of what leaked documents indicated)”, I was not excited when he later said “if congress won’t act, then I will.”

However, when I (along with 15,000 people) got on a conference call last night with EPA Director Gina McCarthy, I was pleasantly surprised to hear her say that Obama was serious about using executive orders to strengthen the EPA, indicating that he had already issued one when he asked when-not if- she would be ready to start regulating Greenhouse Gas emissions.

RIPTA Eco pass  Gina also said there will be “creative funding sources” in the pipeline to help do things like expand mass transit, “one of the most important sources that receives too little attention” along with smart sustainable solutions like biomass waste facilities that capture methane at dump sites.

The call was sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund, who McCarthy said will help make the argument that “addressing Climate Change is the key to controlling the the new economy,” an approach that RI St. Rep. Art “Climate Change Solutions Guy” Handy is trying to take with the new Climate Change Bill in RI.

In an important notice to the Rhode Island State House, when McCarthy was asked “where to start,” she said “the first thing is to look up your states, cities and towns Climate Change Plan.” She used her hometown Boston as an example and said “you will be amazed what you find in there.”

This underscores the need for Rhode Island to get a Climate Change Bill passed this year, one that has targets like Sierra Club’s Fossil Free by 2030 that reflect the realities of the challenge; regulators have more power when state and municipalities have laws with targets and a plan of action that the EPA can help by enforcing Federal standards.

Word cloud_sotu_2014_word_cloud_605  McCarthy said that to be successful, environmental groups will have to invest time and money into spreading the word on the benefits of making necessary changes sooner than later.

Also, that water pollution and air pollution are just plain bad for everyone everywhere, and carbon pollution, which is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, can be addressed at the source by replacing them with renewable technologies as quickly as possible.

The EDF website shows a media campaign being developed for a Valentines Day launch that will include television advertising.

McCarthy said, “now, that like in the ’70’s when real legislation was passed¦it’s all about the grassroots” – the EPA has a lot of tools for this on their website but it is up to activists to get this information out.

West-Virginia-chemical-spill   Another concern was chemical pollution, and Gina stated that the West Virginia’s Freedom Industries spill demonstrates how weak Toxic Chemical regulations are and the dangers it presents to public health.

This is one tragedy that could have been avoided but there are many more happening every day and disasters in waiting. She urged the immediate passage of the Toxic Chemical Safety Improvement Act- now reintroduced by Barbara Boxer in the Senate.

Tying this together with Climate Change, was for activists to emphasis the health benefits of C02 standards, green energy and a green energy lifestyle, something the American Lung Association has worked on for a long time.

“Climate change is the biggest challenge we face in terms of public health. In addition to the benefits of reducing CO2, It causes ozone depletion which makes the air harder to breath” McCarthy noted, going on to say that this “is a economic issue as well as it disproportionally hurts the poor and people of color.”

“A green energy lifestyle is better because cleaner air and water is better.” Even small things like urban community gardens can be big things. In DC McCarthy said she went to one that was put in an abandoned lot in a poor urban area and now “the people have fresh food and a connection to the land.”

sotu_solar 5 fold increase   This will take new technology is new jobs – “Green is all about jobs that will keep the economy and our communities sustainable (it is a win-win).”

Peter Galvin from the RI Sierra Club commented “ we have known this for a long time, action on this now could open the door to making this an election issue which will reinforce the growing renewable/sustainable businesses that are happening now.

She mentioned that caring about how what we do effects other countries is an olive branch from a foreign policy perspective and advised “to go easy one China bashing-1/3 of one region of China has a cap & trade policy working well,” and pollution is a big issue there.

In closing McCarthy reiterated- “power plants are not the only source (of green house gasses)…addressing transportation is a key issue adding  “keep people excited about building a green sustainable economy.”

Gina ended by thanking the grass roots activists that were already working for this, don’t wait for politicians to act, and remember “we are all in this together.”

This sheds a different light on Obama’s statements in the State of the Union-”Climate change is a fact…And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

When he made a commitment to protecting our pristine wilderness areas and reiterated his commitment to have the Environmental Protection Agency implement those carbon pollution limits was he “showing his cards” to environmental groups like EDF, Natural Resources Defense Council Obama (Reaffirms Commitment to Climate Action in State of the Union http://huff.to/1egu16w) and Sierra Club?

As Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director, stated in his response:

“As the president put it…we must act on the climate crisis ‘before it’s too late.’ We couldn’t agree more. The Sierra Club thanks President Obama for his strong words in his State of the Union address, and we applaud his vow to prioritize innovative climate solutions, including investments in jobs-producing solar and wind energy as well as a focus on energy and fuel efficiency. These are critical steps forward in the fight against climate disruption, but that progress would be rolled back by more destructive oil drilling and gas fracking, and the burning of toxic tar sands.

This opening directive to the EPA to get busy regulating CO2 is an encouraging sign, but there is still work to do on Obama’s over all approach.

Note: In a poll by Generation Progress, Millennial’s rated addressing Climate Change with Green Jobs 2nd in their concerns, tied with Healthcare. First was “creating a Fair Economy” and 4th was student debt.

8 Actions Young Americans Want To Hear President Obama Discuss In …

Melleneal responces to SOTU

Ken Block, ideological stringency and the People’s Pledge


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
Ken Block

I read with interest Ken Block’s rejection of the People’s Pledge on the following basis:

“I support comprehensive campaign-finance reform,” Block said. “But I won’t do it piecemeal.” And a People’s Pledge wouldn’t address the disadvantage he’d face against incumbents such as Raimondo, “who has spent three full years as treasurer raising money for this race,” he said.

Ken BlockSomething similar to “I won’t do it piecemeal” is a common refrain I hear among supporters of change or reform; most notably among left-wing opponents of the ACA (it didn’t go far enough!). I have no desire to rehash that particular battle, but suffice it to say, we have to deal in political realities, not political desires.

It’s a weird thing for a Republican candidate to oppose the People’s Pledge on the grounds of it doesn’t do enough to address the problem. Republicans of the Citizen’s United-era have been generally anti-campaign-finance reform. And if Block is keeping his previous position of “moderate,” a People’s Pledge would be in line with the model New England “moderate” Republican Scott Brown.

The argument that the Pledge is piecemeal is particularly flimsy. Citzen’s United has made the goals of the campaign-finance reform movement relatively unachievable; the striking down of McCain-Feingold’s section of unlimited corporate and union spending has made so-called “dark money” an increasing reality in all campaigns. And the People’s Pledge is proven to work at reducing that dark money spending.

Ideological stringency can be well and good. Refusing to support something over a matter of principle can be quite admirable. Opposing things as not going far enough when they would be ineffective or damaging is sensible. But this is neither of those cases. The Pledge notably advances the campaign-finance reform movement’s goals while providing proof to skeptical citizens that reform has an impact. Furthermore, while Block’s support of reform is proven and well-known, his ability to get it passed is non-existent. Democratic efforts, notably those under Rep. Chris Blazejewski, have been far more successful (unsurprisingly), though they often run into First Amendment issues and sometimes work indiscriminately when a targeted approach is called for.

One factor gone unsung in this is that the People’s Pledge has been a defining issue of the Democratic primary campaign, I think largely because the campaign-finance reform movement in the Democratic Party is far greater than that in the Republican Party (which is next to non-existent as far as I know). Block’s refusal to support it keeps him from supporting a “Democratic” issue, but also gives him space to keep up his usual attack line of the “ineffectiveness” of Democratic policies. However, it also provides the opening for Block’s primary opponent Allan Fung from having to take a stand on the Pledge one way or the other until the general election (should he beat Block, which seems likely).

As a final thought, Block’s criticism of Raimondo rings hollow. After all, what are we to believe Block was doing for the last three years, not preparing to run for governor?

How a stink tank manipulates the apparatus of scholarship


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 few years ago, the Ocean State Policy Research Institute put out a very funny study that tried to use IRS migration data to demonstrate how high taxes were going to cost Rhode Island millions of lost dollars when people were driven from the state. The document had lots of footnotes, so it looked like a study, but the authors hadn’t noticed the IRS data they cited was about the movement of people, not money. That is, the OSPRI report only proved the authors hadn’t read the technical report on the IRS data before sending out the press releases.

OSPRI is gone now, joining the Education Partnership, ripolicyanalysis.org, the Citizens Foundation, and many more in that angry Valhalla of conservative Rhode Island think tanks. But don’t despair!  The RI Center for Freedom, Prosperity, Motherhood and Apple Pie (CFPMAP) is here to fill this terrible void. As I’ve written, researchers at CFPMAP are behind the ongoing discussion, such as it is, of the sales tax decrease.

When you go read the supporting documentation behind the CFPMAP claims about the economic impacts of the sales tax decrease, you find they use an economic modeling tool they call RI-STAMP.

ooh!  impressive, isn't it?
Equation 7 from the STAMP technical report. This is not a presentation intended to elucidate, but to obscure, how the model works.

The RI-STAMP model is based on the STAMP model, developed by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. Beacon Hill has done us all the service of publishing a lovely technical report on the model, filled with dense and intentionally impressive equations like the one here, which might distract the unwary from sentences like these:

“The savings rates for households at each income level were adjusted based on professional judgement [sic]…” [p.15]

“The trade data for the state are not particularly reliable; we have used our judgement [sic]…” [p.21]

“As with export demand we have used our judgement [sic], combined with BEA data, to arrive at sensible estimates [for import demand].” [p.21]

“Information on flows between the state and the rest of the world is difficult to piece together, and is an area where considerable professional judgment is required.” [p.11]

“We used professional judgment in determining the proper elasticities for each household group.”[p.16]

This last one was an estimate of how likely poor people are to avoid work if welfare payments increase. They described this professional judgment:

“The participation rate for low‐income households is assumed to be highly sensitive to the level of transfer payments, but relatively insensitive to changes in taxes or the [wa]ge rate. On the other hand, high‐income households are assumed to respond substantially to changes in the taxes and wage rates they face.”

In other words, a rise or fall in wages has a large impact on the behavior of high-income households, but a much lower impact on the behavior of low-income households. The latter are, however, assumed to be quite sensitive to the level of welfare payments. This is, shall we say, a debatable proposition, even in the economics literature. As are the other propositions on which they exercised their “judgment.”

There are also questionable assumptions about how federal dollars are spent in Rhode Island, whether all sellers of labor and capital can find buyers (unemployed much?), the extent to which businesses who have profit here also have owners here, and much more. One can go on at some length, but why bother?  The model is, like most models (including the ones I use), a collection of predictions developed from the assumptions of the researchers who put it together. Dependence on assumptions is nothing extraordinary. It’s burying those assumptions under a collection of poorly-explained and almost parodic equations that is nothing more than intellectual bullying.

The performance of a model like this can be tuned on past events. We’ve had lots of tax cuts these guys could have practiced on. Did their model say tax collections went up despite the tax cuts of 1997-2002, 2001, 2005, or 2007-2011?  If so, they don’t say. If the model can properly model those past realities, then you’ll potentially have something useful to predict future ones. Without that, all the fancy equations in the world can’t sell your results.

Hide the bias

The RI CFPMAP writers praise “dynamic” modeling of tax policy changes over “static” models because the former takes into account secondary effects of the tax change. In theory, they are quite right. Any change in tax policy typically has lots of secondary effects, and a competent modeler at least has to keep them in mind, and take them into account if they’re big enough. The kinds of dynamic tax models at issue here have been used widely in California since a law mandated them from 1996-2000. The record there was pretty mixed. A report by Jon Vasche, the director of Economics and Taxation in their state legislative research agency, pointed out these models didn’t do away with debate, and their results were “very sensitive to their underlying assumptions.”

And that’s the key: dynamic models are often just a convenient way to hide researcher biases behind technical snowdrifts few reporters can or will wade through. Issues like how many people move due to changes in tax rates or the sensitivity of investment decisions to economic conditions are the subject of ongoing research and debate. Hiding those issues allows model owners to assume the results they believe will be true without admitting that’s what they’re doing. It’s more elaborate to be sure, but no different from the butcher blocking your view of his thumb on the scale. Beacon Hill built a model that assumes the existence of a tax-cut fairy, and shockingly, the CFPMAP guys have found that model to show a sales tax cut would create an economic boom for Rhode Island. Who would have thought it?

In his landmark 1963 speech about the common strains among conservative movements in the US, historian Richard Hofstadter pointed out that certain elements of the right wing in America dote on the “apparatus of scholarship” even while they seemed to miss the point. Like the footnotes in that old OSPRI report, the CFPMAP authors use the apparatus of scholarship to mask partisan assumptions in the guise of documentation. Unfortunately, it’s not enough just to have footnotes and equations; it matters what they say.

Reports like these are little more than snares for gullible reporters. The strategy usually works: the snares get set, reporters step in them, and presto, the findings appear in news headlines and on talk shows. And then there are legislative commissions and hearings and pretty soon what seems like a crazy idea seems normal, and that’s the point.

Beyond the problem of defending our state against another bad idea, the real issue is that there is a moral dimension to lobbying. This is not a game. What happens up at the State House really matters. It is hardly unheard of for lives to be ruined and people to die because of bad decisions made there. Advocates, it seems to me, have a heavy responsibility to tread lightly on uncertain ice — someone might actually take their advice. The sales tax proposal on offer here invites us to stroll confidently out on that ice with nothing more than the CFPMAP’s word to say it will be safe. The question isn’t just would you take this advice, but with sourcing as thin and deliberately obfuscatory as this, would you feel good about giving it?

Anti-Depetro group gets 14 politicians to boycott advertising on WPRO


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

depetroInitially the campaign targeting shock jock John DePetro focused on one advertiser. But now the group has organized at least 14 high-level politicians who say they won’t spend their campaign dollars on WPRO until DePetro is off the air.

“We’ve appealed to WPRO and Cumulus Media’s sense of decency in requesting that they sever their relationship with a man who degrades women by calling them whores, but it appears the only way to achieve a permanent solution is to further demonstrate just how bad this individual is for business,” said labor leader Maureen Martin, who has been the public face of For Our Daughters, the group that is trying to get DePetro off the air. “We expect others candidates and businesses will join them as our campaign grows in strength and numbers every day.”

In September, DePetro called two female labor activists whores on his WPRO morning radio show. Additionally, he’s made untrue and unfair accusations about many Democrats and left-leaning community and political groups. He was fired from a radio station in Boston for calling a gubernatorial candidate a “fat lesbian.” He and WPRO are bieng sued by a WPRO employee for sexual harassment. His wife took blame for a ratings scandal in which someone from his home address faked industry reporting forms.

Even before this campaign DePetro was widely disliked, untrusted  and often even ostracized among the political class in Rhode Island, as well among almost all of his coworkers at WPRO, but station management maintains that he still draws listeners.

Here’s the list of candidates (and one PAC) who said they will not advertise with WPRO:

  • US Senator Jack Reed
  • US Rep. Jim Langevin
  • US Rep. David Cicilline
  • Providence Mayor and Gubernatorial Candidate Angel Taveras
  • Gubernatorial Candidate Clay Pell
  • Secretary of State and Lt. Governor Candidate Ralph Mollis
  • Secretary of State Candidate Guillaume de Ramel
  • Secretary of State Candidate Nellie Gorbea
  • General Treasurer Candidate Seth Magaziner
  • General Treasurer Candidate Frank Caprio
  • Providence Mayoral Candidate Brett Smiley
  • Providence City Council President and Mayoral Candidate Michael Solomon
  • Providence Mayoral Candidate Jorge Elorza
  • Providence Mayoral Candidate Lorne Adrain
  • American LeadHerShip PAC Chair Kate Coyne-McCoy

Malcus Mills of DARE: Just Cause bill would protect RIers instead of big banks


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

just cause“Just Cause” legislation “is a response to the foreclosure crisis that would keep tenants in their homes,” Malcus Mill, a DARE activist, told me yesterday in a phone interview. “See, when the bank takes over a home, when they foreclose on a home, they are usually asking the tenants to leave and a lot of the time that puts the tenant in danger of being homeless.”

The bill was considered last session, but was left on the cutting room floor after lobbyists had what Mills called “a poison pill” inserted into the bill. This session, Mills, DARE and others are planning a full-court press to pass the bill to protect Rhode Islanders instead of big banks.

Listen to our conversation:

Brown alumni say school handled Ray Kelly protest poorly


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

ray kelly protestA group of Brown graduates have sent a letter to the university expressing their disappointment with the way the school reacted to students and community members protesting NYC top cop Ray Kelly in October. The architect of New York City’s controversial stop and frisk policy, Kelly was shouted down at a Brown presentation in October and the University reacted by admonishing the protesters.

“We are impressed and inspired by the actions of the students who protested Commissioner Kelly’s speech,” says the letter. “We agree that the university must promote open discourse, but we also believe that peaceful protest and, yes, even disruptive protest, are bedrock expressions of free speech. We urge you not to limit the protections of speech to polite discourse.”

The Ray Kelly protest not only divided the Brown community, but also the progressive left in Rhode Island. For example, Bob Walsh head of the state’s most influential teachers’ union castigated the protest on Facebook calling it an ineffective tactic, while Aaron Regunberg, head of the state’s most influential student union, defended the direct action saying such a tactic was the only way to get the community’s attention.

Andrew Tillit-Saks wrote this compelling op/ed about the reaction to the protest.

Here’s the letter the alumni group sent to their school:

Dear President Paxson and Professor Anthony Bogues:

We, the undersigned alumni of Brown University, write to you to express our serious concern about the manner in which the University is addressing the events surrounding New York Police Department (“NYPD”) Commissioner Ray Kelly’s speech. We have reviewed the video footage of the event, as well as ensuing news coverage, and we believe that the students who protested Commissioner Kelly – both inside of and outside of the event – behaved admirably in denouncing Commissioner Kelly’s actions and in calling out injustice.

Brown University has a long and proud history of student protests. During the Vietnam War, students walked out on a lecture by General Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while others protested by shouting at General Wheeler. When the University invited Henry Kissinger to speak during Commencement in 1969 and awarded him an honorary degree, students stood up during Kissinger’s speech and turned their backs on him. In 1981, students picketed a speech by William Casey, director of the Central Intelligence Agency; during Casey’s lecture, numerous students stood up and disrupted Casey’s speech by reciting Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky. In these and countless other moments, Brown students have used peaceful protest and direct action to challenge injustice. We are proud to be a part of an institution that has such a strong and inspiring history of student protest.

In President Paxson’s November 6, 2013 letter to the Brown community, she wrote: “Brown’s core value of promoting the free and open exchange of ideas is bedrock to our capacity to fulfill our mission as a university. This value applies not only when ideas are agreeable and aligned with our own. Protecting the right to free expression and promoting open discourse is even more essential when ideas are divergent, abhorrent or even hurtful.”

We agree that the university must promote open discourse, but we also believe that peaceful protest and, yes, even disruptive protest, are bedrock expressions of free speech. We urge you not to limit the protections of speech to polite discourse. Rather, we urge Professor Bogues, as well as the other members of the disciplinary committee that has been convened, to understand that the freedom of expression encompasses a much broader range of speech: heated discussion, chants and protests, intemperate remarks, and speech that makes many of us uncomfortable.

Protecting the freedom of expression is a messy endeavor, but we hope that you and the disciplinary committee do not undermine the role of protest and direct action in Brown’s intellectual community.

We are impressed and inspired by the actions of the students who protested Commissioner Kelly’s speech. The Taubman Center had invited Kelly to deliver the Noah Krieger ’93 Memorial Lecture. We note that, in inviting Kelly to give a named lecture at a preeminent university, the Taubman Center lent Kelly legitimacy, prestige, and the opportunity to burnish his troubled public image. Kelly presided over countless violations of civil rights during his tenure as NYPD Commissioner – including the stop-and-frisk program, the unlawful detention of protestors at the 2004 Republican National Convention, the surveillance of mosques and Muslim citizens, among others.

We support the students’ actions and we hope that the Committee will not discipline them for their use of peaceful protest to challenge injustice. Instead, we urge you to support students who take a stand against institutional racism and structural violence.

Sincerely,

Cristina Gallo ‘02
Molly Thomas-Jensen ‘02
Sharif Corinaldi ‘00
Keren Wheeler ‘00
Peter Asen ‘04
Martha Oatis ‘03
Damali Campbell ‘01
Annabelle Heckler ‘08
Amber Knighten ‘02
Seth Leibson ‘05
Sara Nolan ‘01
Riana Good ‘03
Abena Asare ‘02
Melissa Sontag Broudo ‘01.5
Kaizar Campwala ‘02
Anne Lessy ‘13
Rocket Caleshu ‘06
Ida Moen Johnson ‘05
Sam Musher ‘01
Molly Geidel ‘03
Rebecca Rast ‘13.5
Martha Patten ‘02
Alexa Engelman ‘03.5
Alisa Gallo ‘93
Karen Pittelman ‘97
Marisa Hernández-Stern ‘05
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández ‘02
Maria Walker ‘02
Matthew Palevsky ‘07
Emma Clippinger ‘09
Ariel Werner ‘09
Rachel Judge ‘07
Robert Smith III ‘09
Nicholas Chung ‘09
Sheila Thomas ‘70
Chloe Holzman ‘02
Bruktaweit Addis ‘11
Janet Santos ‘02, ‘07 M.A.
Nicholas Werle ‘10
Jonathan Allmaier ‘02
Michael Enriquez ‘11
Darshan Patel ‘09
Caroline Young ‘05.5
Alison Klayman ‘06
Amy Joyce ‘01.5
Alex Werth ‘09

Providence Student Union says the state is using kids as lab rats for testing policy


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

DSC06659Mining a tradition that stretches back to Athenian democracy and probably much earlier, members of the Providence Student Union (PSU) engaged in political theater to protest the “the ill-conceived experiment” of “Rhode Island’s new high-stakes testing graduation requirement” yesterday in the State House rotunda.

The event was timed to occur two days before the release of the NECAP results which will reveal which students will not be earning a diploma and graduating this year.

In “Operation: Guinea Pig” students dressed as guinea pigs and lab rats because, as PSU member Jose Serrano said, “that is how we are being treated.” Serrano continued, “The Department of Education hypothesized that high-stakes testing alone, without the extra resources our schools need, would solve our education problems. But this was an unproven gamble, which is becoming clearer with every exemption and waiver and backtrack that RIDE releases. This crazy experiment is playing with our futures, and we are here to say this needs to stop!”

State Representative Teresa Tanzi also spoke at the event, urging her fellow legislators to pass bills that would change the NECAP from a requirement for graduation to a diagnostic tool, or put aside the NECAP requirement pending a five year study of its efficacy. “I have spent time in five different schools in my community,” said Tanzi, “The themes that appeared through all of these hours of conversations have been stark. Learning has taken a back seat to test preparation, the culture of the classroom has changed dramatically, and the quality of education suffers.”

Rounding out the speakers was PSU member Sam Foer who lead the students and their supporters in chants of “High stakes testing is not right! That is why we have to fight!” after telling legislators, “You have the final say: do you support treating students like nothing more than guinea pigs in an experiment, or do you want to put an end to this gamble with our lives? We leave it up to you.”

DSC06655

DSC06656

DSC06657

DSC06660

DSC06662

DSC06668

DSC06670

DSC06671

DSC06675

DSC06676

DSC06680

DSC06683

DSC06692

DSC06693

Analysis: Right wing stink tank sells sales tax snake oil to Rhode Island


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

tax-cut-fairyThe ongoing discussion of eliminating the sales tax proves the enduring value of telling people what they want to hear.

Don Carcieri, for his whole term, told people that government could be cheaper, but really all he did was insist it be so and ignore the evidence when it turned out not to work quite the way he’d hoped. Does anyone remember the “big audit”? It was done early in his administration, but all the findings about places where increased investment would help our state were deep-sixed and the other results were insignificant enough that the whole project was considered a minor embarrassment and mostly forgotten.

The most recent success along these lines is the RI Center for Freedom, Prosperity, Motherhood, and Apple Pie who have enjoyed an astonishing level of success in keeping under discussion their claim that Rhode Island would profit by eliminating or slashing its sales tax. There’s a legislative commission that keeps meeting and they put out an unending stream of press releases that occasionally get reprinted.

So here I am, feeding into exactly that need for attention they crave, but let’s be clear: this is a stupid idea, supported by fantasy projections and a misunderstanding of the real world.

I see from their most recent press release that they claim a reduction of the sales tax to 3% would produce secondary effects worth much more than the revenue lost: over 13,000 new jobs, hundreds of millions in new revenue to the state and cities and towns, and so on.  They call these “dynamic projections” presumably because everyone knows that something that is “dynamic” must be good. They do say that state revenue might be down by a bit, but made up by city and town revenue. (An aside is important here: we often see claims like theirs that Rhode Island’s sales tax is the highest in the country. This is false, or misleading at best. In most states, county governments are supported by sales taxes, and there are places in 31 states — including Texas, Arizona, and most of the South — with a higher sales tax than ours.)

But let’s look at these “results” of theirs.  They claim, for example, that their model predicts $79 million in new sales tax revenue. This is a 20% boost in sales. Do you believe that lowering the cost of a $100 item from $107 to $103 will produce a 20% increase in sales of that item? That is, they predict that a 3.7% savings will produce a 20% increase in sales. Do people out there with retail experience think this is remotely likely? Presumably people will spend a little more when there are savings, but seriously? Perhaps they imagine hordes of Swansea residents will drive through Seekonk to do their shopping in Warwick in order to save a few percent on their purchases?

The CFPMAP report goes on to imagine that the resulting 20% increase in retail sales in Rhode Island will be responsible for $208 million in income tax revenue. Backing this out, that means they imagine the 20% increase in sales will be responsible for around $4 billion in income for the state. This is almost a 10% increase in the economic output of the entire state. Do you believe this will be the result of a sales tax cut? They are only (only!) projecting an increase in taxable retail sales of $2.5 billion, so the other money presumably comes from the tax cut fairy. The 13,000 new jobs they suggest would appear don’t even account for a quarter of the increase in income they project. The rest is because everyone else would get a raise, or more hours. Would you expect a raise if the sales tax is cut?

One could go on, into their hidden assumption that all these new hires and raises happen instantaneously upon the announcement of the newly lowered tax, or into their projections that newly-prosperous Rhode Islanders would buy 32% more cigarettes and 25% more liquor (also immediately), thereby swelling the revenues from those taxes, but why bother?  The proposal is ridiculous, supported by projections that will take in only the gullible and those who really wish to be taken in.

And there’s the issue, really. Lincoln Almond and Don Carcieri owe their success to the desire of people to believe their claims that government could be cheaper. They were not brave politicians, taking on the fearful power of special interests. They were guys who were propelled into high position by promising people what they wanted to hear and maintaining that it was possible long after events had proven them wrong. Theirs was no kind of courage. Political courage is what we have seen in Governor Chafee, who has consistently presented us with tax and budget proposals that worked against his interest in re-election — and that have been consistently overridden by legislative leaders more interested in theirs. Let us only hope that they are able and willing to see through this latest sales tax claptrap.

Laid off Newport Patch editor Olga Enger speaks out, plans new hyperlocal site


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

patchA high number of Patch editors from Rhode Island and around the country were laid off today. While the corporate-owned community news websites aren’t informing the community about the changes, the people that built and kept the sites vibrant, who are now without a paycheck, are.

We spoke with Olga Enger, the former editor of Newport Patch who says she is going to start a locally-owned hyperlocal site to serve the community and she already has a Facebook page.

Listen to our conversation:

WATCH: David Cicilline Gives an Awesome Speech

cicillineAmerica faces a hunger crisis.  Every day, more and more Americans go to bed hungry.  Yet Democrats in Congress have reached a deal with the Republicans to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps, by $8 billion over the next decade.

Fortunately, Rhode Island has a Congressman who fights for struggling families.  Along with Connecticut progressive Rosa DeLauro, David Cicilline took to the floor to give a truly moving, passionate speech.  Here’s the video:

This is the second time in the past few months that Cicilline has stood up for Rhode Island values, saying no when the Democratic leadership pushes policies that will hurt the 99%.  Progressives in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, who have to deal with a much more conservative leadership team, should draw inspiration from his courage.

When it comes to stopping cuts to nutrition programs, our Senators also deserve huge credit for being the only two Democrats to vote against the original Senate Farm Bill, which would have cut nutrition programs by $4 billion over the next decade.  It hasn’t gotten much coverage here in Rhode Island, but our delegation has been leading the fight against the right’s hunger agenda.

Today, both Cicilline and Langevin voted against these cuts.  They were joined by a majority of the House Democratic caucus.  Now, the bill goes to the Senate, where progressives are lucky to have Senators Reed and Whitehouse fighting for us.

 

Not needed: crank economic opinions on the Minimum Wage


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

DSC_8172Arguments against raising the minimum wage are tedious, immoral and wrong.

Writing about the need for a substantive raise in the minimum wage to alleviate the crushing poverty of the working poor opens the floodgates to conservative and libertarian cranks who argue, against all reason and compassion, that minimum wage laws should be abolished. Tearing quotes from their dog eared copies of Rothbard and Mises, two economists who never met a real-world constraint on their precious theories that they can’t talk themselves around in an assault of dense, senseless prose, Libertarian and free-market conservatives (as if there is a real difference) barrage the Internet with drivel.

Entering into discussions with people who advance economic models over economic reality is like jumping into choppy waters to rescue a drowning victim: If you are not extremely careful you will be dragged below the waves and drowned yourself.

After I wrote a piece on this blog taking Republican gubernatorial candidates Alan Fung and Ken Block to task for opposing an increase in minimum wage, I was hit with this objection from frequent commenter “jgardner”:

The minimum wage has never been, nor will ever be, a job creator, but will always be a job destroyer.

First, I never said raising the minimum wage would directly create jobs, but I did cautiously assert that providing the working poor with more money would have the effect of stimulating the economy, because poor people spend their money. More importantly, however, is the the second contention, stated without any proof as though delivered from God to Moses: The minimum wage is a job destroyer. From this I am to then conclude that abolishing the minimum wage would create more jobs. Perhaps. But these jobs would only be paying slave wages that keep the working poor working and poor.

As explained way back in 2009 by economics professor Bill Mitchell:

The winds of change strengthened in the recent OECD Employment Outlook entitled Boosting Jobs and Incomes, which is based on a comprehensive econometric analysis of employment outcomes across 20 OECD countries between 1983 and 2003. The sample includes those who have adopted the Jobs Study as a policy template and those who have resisted labour market deregulation. The report provides an assessment of the Jobs Study strategy to date and reveals significant shifts in the OECD position. OECD (2006) finds that:

-There is no significant correlation between unemployment and employment protection legislation;

-The level of the minimum wage has no significant direct impact on unemployment; and

-Highly centralized wage bargaining significantly reduces unemployment.

Having to finally concede that there is no real world evidence for his contention and instead a wealth of evidence against his position (though in truth no concession was made, the issue was simply sidestepped), “jgardner” pulled out his trump card:

If the minimum wage could lift people out of poverty with no adverse effects for anyone, why not raise the minimum wage to $25/hr?

One might as well ask why, if one beer relaxes you, why not drink twenty-five beers. The answer is because doing that will kill you. When answering such objections, no matter how nicely you try to put things, you feel like you are talking to a petulant child: “A little of something can be good for you, but a lot of something can hurt you. That’s why you can’t eat all your Halloween candy in one night.”

Here’s a nice way to say it, from the Social Democracy blog:

There is another objection that has been going the rounds (mostly on libertarian blogs): if we make the minimum wage $9, then why not $900? That objection is, quite frankly, brainless.

The minimum wage is a floor concept: the floor is roughly the poverty line (or slightly above it). That is where you set it, and not well above it.

Not even Post Keynesians deny that excessive wage increases can feed into cost push inflation – wages being a big factor in input costs. But a rise from, say, $7.25 to $9 is quite small. In the real world, whole swathes of the market have corporations and businesses that actively set prices and control them by price administration. They leave prices unchanged for significant periods of time, even when mild to moderate demand changes happen, or even when mild price increases affect their factor input costs.

I’ve been hard on “jgardner” because he was brave enough to put his opinions out there, and I would like to believe he’s a decent person. But like so many otherwise decent people who believe terrible things because of their religion, “jgardner” seems similarly trapped by his economic beliefs. Ultimately, shouldn’t all this back and forth economic theorizing should be secondary to other, more pertinent concerns? People right now are working full time at two or more jobs and being forced to subsist below the poverty line. This situation is plainly immoral and monstrous.

Moral arguments for raising the minimum wage include lifting people and families out of poverty, paying people an honest salary for an honest days work, moving away from the economic paradigm that suggests unemployment is voluntary and that workers are “shirkers” and reducing in some small way the vast economic inequality that threatens to destabilize our democracy.

A decent society, made up of decent people, does not let unemployed people starve, it does not plunge families into homelessness and it does not encourage businesses to pay slave wages for hard work.

Economic theories that do not fit in with observations made in the real world need to be modified or discarded. Science is not a process of inventing a set of ideal rules that support pre-existing prejudices. It is a process of suggesting possible rules, and then testing them against reality through experimentation and observation. In this way Libertarian economists such as Mises and Rothbard catastrophically fail as scientists. I should add here that as bad as Libertarian economic theory is, even mainstream economics needs a scientific wake-up call. (See: “Economics needs a scientific revolution” by physicist Jean-Philippe Brouchard.)

Inviting Libertarian economic views into serious economic and political policy discussions is as useless and counterproductive as inviting the views of Trofim Lysenko into a modern genetics conference or inviting Erich von Däniken to give a talk at an ancient history seminar.

The damage done to human wellbeing by corrupt economic theory far surpasses the damage down to our society by the teaching of creationism in schools, anti-vaccination conspiracy claptrap, the anti-birth control advocacy of the Catholic Church and Islamic terrorism combined. It is time to grow up, abandon the religion of economic idealism, and start living in the real world of testable economic hypotheses and scientific economic rigor with the intention to abolish poverty once and for all.

RIF Radio: Special State of Union edition with Jack Reed, Jim Langevin and David Cicillne


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


Wednesday Jan 29
North Kingstown, RI – Good morning Futurists. This is Bob Plain, editor and publisher of the RI Future blog podcasting to you from The Hideaway on the banks of the Mattatuxet River behind the Shady Lea Mill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

We’ve got a special post State of the Union podcast for you today, complete with extended conversations with most of our congressional delegation about President Obama’s speech last night. Unfortunately we weren’t able to catch up with Senator Whitehouse,  but we did speak with Senator Reed and Congressmen Langevin and Cicilline.

Pell announces run for governor


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
Clay Pell announces candidacy for governor at RI Convention Center.
Clay Pell announces candidacy for governor at RI Convention Center.

In a 25-minute speech to a standing-room-only crowd at the RI Convention Center this morning, Clay Pell, grandson of the US Senator, announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for governor.

“I have the values, the skills, and the experience to lead our state to a better future,” said Pell, saying his aim was to, “bring a fresh perspective and new approach to government, to put an end to cronyism and insider politics, and to make the economy work for all Rhode Islanders again.”

Among the 100+ attendees were a handful of state legislators and representatives of several unions, in addition to a large contingent of Providence media. Sharing the dais with Pell were Johnston mayor Joseph Polisena, Victor Capellan, Deputy Supt. of Transformation at Central Falls high school, grandmother Nuala Pell, and his wife, Michelle Kwan, now a senior advisor to the State Department.

Nuala Pell said of her grandson, “Clay, in many ways, is defined by how much he cares.” Kwan introduced the candidate, saying, “We share the same devotion to public service,” and praising his “quiet courage.”

Early in his speech, Pell spoke about the values passed on to him by his family. From his grandfather, he learned “You don’t need to be the loudest voice. You just need to speak for those without a voice at all.” From his father, he learned “to dream and never to fear.” He talked of the difficult times when his father’s businesses were driven to bankruptcy during the S&L crisis, and his difficult battle with cancer. “He never gave up,” said Pell, “And his values brought me here today.”

Pell spoke about the challenges facing the state: challenges of economy (“50,000 Rhode Islanders are looking for work,” he said, “and thousands more will report to their second or third job of the day.” Too many, he said, have been “squeezed out of the middle class.”), government (“Businesses are burdened with process, and state government is often seen more as an impediment than a partner.”) and confidence (“A loss of hope that the next generation will be able to build a career or family here, and a loss of faith in the ability of our government to lead.”)

Rhode Islanders, he said, “no longer feel invested in.”

Pell promised a “comprehensive approach” using the “big picture strategy that Rhode Island needs now,” and laid out several policy priorities, first of which was economic growth and job creation. He stressed the importance of investing in education (including affordable higher education and a strong school-to-work pipeline) and infrastructure (ports, bridges, the I195 corridor, and parking and transit terminals at the Garrahy complex and the train station.)

And while he called for a focus on science, technology, engineering and math, he said that must be paired with languages, physical education, and the arts, “areas that are too often pushed out and forgotten in public education today, but they are essential to the growth of our students.”

To help create new jobs to keep students in Rhode Island when they graduate, Pell proposed a $10 million loan fund, “where small businesses and entrepreneurs can access grants or loans ranging from $2,500 to $25,000”

In what appeared to be a swipe at the EDC’s 38 Studios debacle, Pell said, “Four hundred grants of $25,000 is a much better investment of taxpayer money than spending $12.5 million dollars bailing out someone else’s mistake.”

Pell promised to reverse the decline in direct aid to cities and towns, which he said had fallen by more than 70% in the last five years. “I pledge to renew the state’s commitment,” he said, “so they can support the schools our students deserve and provide the property tax relief our taxpayers need.”

Finally, he said, “as someone coming to politics from public service,” he promised an “accessible and transparent” government that would serve “all Rhode Islanders, not just the chosen few.”

Clay Pell talks with local media after announcement.
Clay Pell talks with local media after announcement.

“That’s why,” he said, “I will not accept contributions from PACs or state lobbyists. I want to send a clear signal to Rhode Islanders that my office as governor will be open to everyone, not just the best connected and the most powerful. That is my pledge to the people of Rhode Island. And that will be my first step in restoring faith in state government.”

The event closed (played out by Springsteen’s “We Take Care of Our Own” booming over the big speakers) with Pell taking questions from reporters for at least another twenty minutes, looking calm and unruffled at the center of his first local media scrum.

Poll: majority of Rhode Islanders support marijuana legalization


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

rhodeislandmarijuanaA majority of Rhode Islanders said the state should legalize marijuana, according to a poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling earlier this month January.

Respondents were asked: “In 2012, two states — Colorado and Washington — changed their laws to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol, for legal use by adults age 21 and older. Would you support or oppose changing Rhode Island law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol, so stores would be licensed to sell marijuana to adults 21 and older?”

53 percent said yes and 41 percent said no. 58 percent of men surveyed thought marijuana should be legal and 46 percent of the women asked thought so. 60 percent of Demcrats who responded to the poll questions thought pot should be made legal and 45 percent of the Republicans did too.

Click on the poll results here.

“Rhode Islanders realize that it’s past time we stop funneling all of the proceeds from marijuana sales to criminals,” said Jared Moffat, executive director of Regulate Rhode Island. “We need to put marijuana in the hands of responsible businesses, creating hundreds of legitimate jobs and tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.”

The General Assembly is expected to again debate a bill that would legalize and tax marijuana in the Ocean State. Advocates say the move would save the state tens of millions of dollars in costs to prosecute minor drug offenses and the tax revenue would far surpass that and become a new source of economic activity for the struggling state.

But politicians have been reluctant to push for legalization this year, fearing it could be used against them during the upcoming campaign.

“A clear majority of Rhode Islanders realize that marijuana is safer than alcohol and does not contribute to violent and reckless behavior,” said Robert Capecchi, deputy director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. “We should not be wasting limited law enforcement resources to punish adults who choose to use the less harmful substance. Prohibition is a terribly misguided policy. It is time to make marijuana legal and regulate it like alcohol.”

Clay Pell clears first hurdle: crafts excellent announcement


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

Clay Pell has already proven he knows how to run for governor, extending his announcement over not just days but weeks. Here’s the highly-produced video from his highly-produced announcement:

Pell has attracted some powerful political support so far. He’s been all but endorsed by Bob Walsh of the NEA-RI and Sam Bell of the RI Progressive Democrats, as well as hiring well-liked and respected pr flack Bill Fisher. And in the interviews he’s granted so far (Fisher tells me a sit-down with RI Future is imminent) he’s been pretty pitch-perfect as far as progressive messaging.

clay pellBut then, the very idea that the 31-year-old grandson of legend can employ the best talent and instantly become a viable candidate for governor despite never having held a local office (or even a local job?) before is somewhat of an affront to progressive values.

But I come to his campaign with an open mind and wearing my biases on my sleeve … and look forward to meeting him. If he’s anything like his grandfather, and he certainly wants Rhode Island to think that he is, he’s probably going to do some pretty amazing things.


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