January 22, 2014 – RI Future

January 22, 2014January 22, 2014

Honoring the Water video, Stopping the TTP

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

Check out this moving video about last nights vigil in Charlestown W. Va. They braved the snow after working 24/7 for 2 weeks on the relief effort with this UNITY Event.

They were supported by people all over the world, many of the pictures are posted here including several from Fossil Free RI/Sierra Club members.Check them out. They are very cool. Whose water? OurWater.

http://ourwaterwv.org/photos-from-vigils-around-the-country/

Even though the ban has been officially lifted, people are still showing up at hospitals with chemical burns. Their Governor Tomplin has not inspired confidence with answers like “you can drink the water if you want to” and “I am not a scientist.” Appalachian Water Watch is tracking where people are still smelling MCHM. “If you can still smell the chemical in your home, record your findings at http://appalachianwaterwatch.org/ or call at 1-855-7WATERS to have them help you upload your information to the website.” so if you have friends or family there let them know. W VA hub sarcastically adds “With the addition of PPH to MCHM and the five other acronyms in the spill, West Virginia water is now cleared for use in alphabet soup.”

The problem there isn’t “a few bad apples” (thought Freedom Industries owners are rotten to the core) as Charleston Mayor Jones (R) said, or that there were a few holes in the classification of chemicals that anti-EPA governor Tomplin (R) claims or that everyone is picking on the coal industry as Sen. Joe “the coal mannequin” Manchin (D) (pronounced mansion) claims. The problem is the rotten stink of corporate controlled government with the fossil fuel industry as a prime mover.

This comes at an important time when President Obama is trying to ram through the Trans-Pacific Partnership will legalize it for corporations to put profits before the public health.

Leaked TPP ‘Environment Chapter’ Shows ‘Corporate Agenda Wins

So “what happens in W Va doesn’t stay in W VA”; either we start cutting off the heads of these toxic dragons or we will all pay.

Our Senator Whitehouse’s committee is only working on the Boxer/Vitter Toxic substances law to patch the hole not inciting the coal industry and corruption that led to the EPA weakening in “Chemical Valley.” I hope that this changes or is in the works.

On a state level, we can’t even get storm water treatment passed- this is another one of the right wing governor from W. Virginia’s “concessions.” Imagine what one chemical spill on Rte 95 could do to the bay. If we can’t get this passed how many other ways is the public health being put at risk?

Let’s hope that a water disaster where 300,000 people water is “toxified” in one “accident” is enough to wake up our government, currently embalmed with corporate money, to wake up an start correcting the problem at the root.

January 22, 2014

‘Rhode to Work’ plan is decent politics but bad policy

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

In an effort to address Rhode Island’s unemployment rate, Senate leadership has announced a new workforce development plan, “Rhode to Work“, designed to address the skills gap. The skills gap is a labor market theory that posits that employers have job openings they can’t fill due to a lack of qualified applicants. This often goes hand-in-hand with rhetoric about building “tomorrow’s workforce” and our need to be competitive in the global economy.

There’s just one niggling little problem: there’s virtually no evidence that such a skills gap actually exists. Certainly not in Rhode Island, where six out of 10 of summer 2012’s job vacancies had either no education requirement or only a high school diploma or G.E.D.

I’ve talked about this before; specifically, UWM researcher Mark Price’s work debunking the skills gap in Milwaukee. Currently, for every 2 U.S. students who graduate with a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degree, only 1 gets a job; usually they cite that either they couldn’t find one or they could earn more in another industry. An article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Spectrum showed there were 11.4 million STEM-degree-holding workers employed in non-STEM fields in comparison to 277,000 STEM vacancies. Professor Peter Cappelli of the Wharton School’s Center for Human Resources concludes that there multiple issues at fault: refusal by employers to hire entry-level applicants, refusal by employers to provide on-the-job-training, overcomplicated job requirements, software that screens out potentially great matches for. For anecdotal evidence tied with data, there’s the manufacturing CEO who told New York Times writer Adam Davidson that he didn’t like workers with union experience and paid less than work in the fast food sector – not uncommon; Davidson says the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data shows that skilled jobs have fallen off and their wages have fallen as well.

Perhaps you’ve noticed a trend there. Virtually all of the hiring issues are on the employer-side of the equation, not the applicant-side. That’s pretty much what a study from Illinois found. The researchers there suggest that there are four main reasons for advocating for the existence of a skills gap: it scapegoats job-seekers rather than business, it could be caused by employers parroting other employers in their sector from low-unemployment states, it increases the labor supply driving down wages, and it transfers the costs of training onto the state and off of the employer’s books.

“Rhode to Work” offers virtually no evidence of an existence a genuine skills gap. Instead, it cites this article from WPRI that used only two anecdotal pieces of evidence from employers, and never once offered data that concurred with their conclusions. Similarly, this article from The Providence Journal‘s John Kostrzewa made the rounds a few weeks ago, offering only employer-anecdotal evidence. Responding to that article, the far-right Current/Anchor’s Justin Katz reached pretty much the same conclusion as the above study (once you get past the moralizing); this is an attempt to socialize job training costs.

Let’s pause and say that job training isn’t bad. It’s perfectly fine for workers to be retrained or to learn new skills. It’s just that we need to make a couple things clear. First, job-training should be paid for by employers, who will benefit from it. And second, it is not a cure for Rhode Island’s unemployment issues. Once again, ostriches.

Rhetorically though, “Rhode to Work” (despite the tiresome wordplay) is a perfectly fine piece of politics. It’s hard to be against it unless you want to be seen advocating for keeping people ignorant (because that’s basically what the “skills gap” talk posits: Rhode Islanders are too stupid to do the work that’s available). And it’s an easy rallying point for supporters of dismantling the public education system; the exact same rhetoric is used, that creepy “building the workforce of tomorrow” language that’s supposed to inspire us to have our kids buckle down real hard for the tests that will decide their future. Also, it mainly focuses on a future workforce, rather than the one we’ve got (you know, the one in need of help). It’s good politics to focus economic policies on the future workforce, because it means during future boom times you can take credit for that success.

That refusal to deal with the problem at hand a real shame, because as we’ve previously pointed out, very few of Rhode Island’s policies are actually targeted at Rhode Islanders who actually need assistance. Maybe we can look to the House for better solutions. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

January 22, 2014January 22, 2014

RIPDA hosts Drinking Liberally tonight

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

The monthly meet up at the Wild Colonial for liberals, lefties, progressives and anyone else thirsty for some political pals to share a pint with is being hosted tonight by the Progressive Democrats of Rhode Island.

This from the group’s Facebook invite (with directions):

Drink away the cold and get ready for what is bound to be a busy and exciting year with your friends at Providence Drinking Liberally! We’re happy to have the RI Progressive Democrats as co-hosts of this month’s event. RI PDA will be speaking about their current initiatives and action groups, and Regulate RI will be making a guest appearance to fill us in on the latest in marijuana reform. Join us and catch up with your favorite liberals while enjoying some free snacks courtesy of RI PDA!

January 22, 2014January 23, 2014

Reverend Amy Frenze on Reproductive Justice

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

At the launch of the Rhode Island Coalition for Reproductive Justice event at the State House, Reverend Amy Frenze, Pastor at Hope Congregational Church, explains reproductive justice and a secular government’s responsibility to the varied and sundry religious beliefs regarding the issue.

Here’s a clip from her speech:

Reverend Frenze’s full talk can be seen here.

Learn more on reproductive justice, from:

January 22, 2014January 23, 2014

Why is reproductive and sexual freedom important to you?

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

By Martha S.

Martha is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Southern New England STARS in Hartford, Connecticut. She is a senior in high school and has plans to study business and political science in college in order to prepare for a full-time job of making the world a better place.

The 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision reminds us it is important to remember the work that led to that landmark case, and the people who have worked tirelessly since then to keep abortion safe, legal and accessible. It’s also important to recognize we have a long way to go before the promise of Roe is fully realized. More than half the states have imposed new restrictions on abortion in the last three years, most aimed not at outlawing the procedure, but at making it almost impossible to get. In North Dakota, all abortions after six weeks are banned¹. In Oklahoma, 96 percent of all counties do not have an abortion provider². Many women* are not able to get abortions because of the restrictions and lack of abortion providers.

Abortions are only a small part of the reproductive and sexual freedom that has been challenged in the United States. Every day, women face legal and societal pressures to conform on reproductive and sexual issues. Women are forced to fit into a skewed version of society’s standard of sexuality, even when these standards are often contradictory. A woman who chooses not to have sex is considered a “prude,” and a woman who has too much sex (it’s not clear by whose measure) is considered a “slut.” Everywhere they turn, women are asked to conform to society’s pressures and there are social consequences for those who do not.

The anniversary of the Roe v. Wade case brings up questions not only about abortion rights, but human rights and social pressures. In what other ways are women not allowed their reproductive and sexual freedoms? While sometimes it is obvious, like not having the means to get an abortion, other times it is not so obvious. The oppression of reproductive and sexual freedoms can come from the inability to pay for birth control, or from the increasingly-popular belief that people who have been “friend-zoned” deserve sex because they have worked hard enough for it. Just as there are contradictory views on how women should behave, there are contradictory views on what it means to have reproductive and sexual freedoms. When I ask my friends for short quotes about what reproductive and sexual freedom meant to them, they have very different answers.

Reproductive and sexual freedom is important to me because it represents a concept that doesn’t deserve to become entangled in complicated legislation and political jargon. Ignoring societal boundaries and divisions, it unites human beings through one of life’s most simple and essential liberties: the right to control your own life, the only one you’ll ever know.

-Lucas M.

Sexual and reproductive rights are important to me because women have been silenced and controlled for too long. No man should make any decision for a woman about her body.

-Jasmine J.

Sex is one of the fundamental universals of the human condition. By promoting a culture in which individuals are afforded the right and responsibility to make informed personal decisions about sex, we promote our own humanity, and replace arbitrary taboos, shamed silence, and repression, with openness, communication, and liberation.

-Liam M.

Despite giving radically different answers, my friends’ ideas shared a common theme: choice. Of course, everyone mentions choice, because that’s the definition of freedom. However, our society and legislature creates bundles of pressures and dead-end, wrong-turn, no-way-through decisions and presents them to us as “choice.” Women can choose to have lots of sex, or they can choose to save themselves for marriage. They can choose to drive hundreds of miles and sleep in their cars to have an abortion, or they can choose to carry a child that they’re not ready to raise. They can choose to climb the corporate ladder, or choose to stay at home with their children, knowing that they will be criticized for either choice.

Unfortunately, the reality of our current situation is that “choices” are often contradictory or confusing. Even when they are clear, they might be blocked by societal pressures. So, to me, we have not achieved true reproductive and sexual freedom until everyone has the ability to make decisions about one’s body without pressures or fear of disapproval. I don’t claim to know exactly what this means, or how we will attempt to achieve this. Everyone’s ideas of reproductive and sexual freedom are different, and possibly contradictory. The idea is complicated, convoluted, and full of bad decisions and back-tracking. However, in order to get anywhere, we need to start somewhere, and the ability to control whether or not to have a child seems like a good place to start.

It’s hard for young people to get clear and accurate information on sex, sexuality, reproductive health and STIs. Planned Parenthood of Southern New England’s peer education program, Students Teaching About Responsible Sexuality, addresses this critical issue by recruiting and training young people to provide information and resources to their peers.

Martha is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Southern New England STARS group in Hartford, Connecticut. She is a senior in high school and plans to study business and political science in college in order to prepare for a full-time job of making the world a better place.

________________________________________________________________________

*When I use the word “woman,” I also intend to include males who could need an abortion or feel the same pressures that biological women feel.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/us-abortion-map/

2. http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abortion-19-states-with-toughest-laws/3/

January 22, 2014

The Murphy Effect: Why I was wrong About Carcieri

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

When I was younger and more naive, I wrote a post on these humble pages blaming Don Carcieri for our state’s sudden turn to right-wing politics, austerity, and high unemployment. I called it “The Carcieri Effect.” I got quite a bit of flack for writing that. As critics pointed out, the governor does not have a whole lot of power in Rhode Island, and the real power lies with the General Assembly, especially the House of Representatives. To a great extent, my critics argued, it was the Democrats in the state legislature who pushed those policies.

They were right, and I was wrong.

What originally led me to think Carcieri was responsible was that 2003, the year he took office, was the year when we turned the corner and began to fall behind. That really is true. But something else happened in 2003, something far more important.

Bill Murphy became House Speaker.

A conservative Democrat from West Warwick, Murphy was the man who proposed the tax cuts for the rich and got them passed. Carcieri may have played a role, but he was not the main factor.

As Steven Stycos wrote in the Phoenix at the time:

Murphy’s election, combined with the victory of Republican Governor Donald Carcieri and the 2000 ascension of state Senator William Irons (D-East Providence) to Senate majority leader (and soon to the newly created position of Senate president) gives Rhode Island its most conservative state leadership in more than a decade.

It was not the Carcieri Effect. It was the Murphy Effect.

January 22, 2014January 22, 2014

Dis-funding the Arts

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

NOTE: This article has been slightly revised based on new information received.

Please pardon me if I lead with a shockingly “artistic” word that wouldn’t be printed in a family newspaper…

What the fuck is the State of Rhode Island doing by removing the sales tax on “the arts” and then proposing to borrow $35 million to fund the arts? And why the hell is the Governor proposing to shift the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts and the RI Film and TV office into the made-over EDC, now called the Rhode Island Commerce Department?

In case you missed it, let me give you a brief recap. During the last legislative session, the government freed citizens from the onerous burden of kicking in 7% extra on purchases of paintings, sculptures and so on. Since the whole state is now tax free, you won’t have to travel to the former tax havens of Newport, Tiverton, and Little Compton or lesser-known parts of Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket or Warwick to get a deal on a stainless steel mobile or a portrait of your great Aunt. (See http://www.arts.ri.gov/special/districts/)

Children look at art at the RISD Museum — You mean we don’t have to pay sales tax if we buy it?! I’ll take two!

Pop Quiz

How much sales tax have you spent in the last decade on the arts?
Would paying no sales tax have made any difference in your purchases?
Would you have bought more or less “art”?

So why eliminate sales tax?

The idea is that Rhode Island would become an art buying tourist destination, drawing thousands of wealthy patrons from around the globe to spend their millions here. Yes, we’ll lose the 7%, but we’d gain so much more in hotel and restaurant revenue.

Theoretically lucky artists, maids and waiters will dance in the streets filling their buckets from the rain of money showered upon them by all those wolves and wolverines of Wall Street looking to wallpaper their apartments in Dubai. I’m not going to hold my breath.

But, in the meantime, if we’re not generating revenue from the arts, where will we get state funding for the arts?

More loans from banks!

We’re going to borrow it. Yes, just like we pay for our bridges and roads, Rhode Islander’s are going to be asked to pay extra for years to come for the art that we use today.

Maybe if the $35 million was going to actually pay for new works of art, that might be interesting (as well as profitable for folk like myself), but it’s not. According to the Providence Journal, $30 million of that will be funding for “public and non-profit cultural and performance centers” like Trinity Rep. The last $5 million will go to fund historical sites and cultural centers. I like Trinity. I like historical sites. That’s not arts funding.

The Governor also proposed an additional $1 million for art to come from the general revenue fund.

Will this million go to make more art? Will it go to bring more art to children in public schools?

According to RISCA, the answer is, nope.

“This $1 million in new funding does not provide additional resources for grants to artists, arts organizations or schools. The Governor recommended a hold-even budget of $590,000 in state funds in our discretionary grant category.”
—RISCA Website (http://www.arts.ri.gov/blogs/?p=11952)

Who will benefit?

Under this proposal, the former EDC, now called the Rhode Island Commerce Department, will become the administrator for the $35 million. RISCA and Film will move into the Commerce Offices and “collaborate.” (Editor’s note: here’s how Randall Rosenbaum, executive director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts described their proposed new relationship on Twitter today and here’s how he describe it in a blog post recently.)

According to the Governor, this will “synergize and enliven the state’s creative apparatus.” Furthermore, Chafee said, “the Commerce Corporation will be a valuable tool for organizing customized programs for the arts: design shops, historical sites, intellectual property producers, all of which drive so much of our economy.”

We’ve seen how great the EDC has been at disbursing creative funds that generate jobs so far (See 38 Studios). I can only imagine how much better the arts will be when fully “synergized”

To recap the entire process as proposed:

No revenue generated for the State by sales tax on “Art.”
$35 million more in debt acquired by the State.
Money for established organizations, tourism and historical sites buried in a bill for “arts.”
The responsibility for administration of a that $35 million bond is under the aegis of the Department of Commerce.
An unfunded promise of $1 million for the arts that doesn’t go to support art, artists or arts in education

So, who really wins?

Anyone who buys buy expensive art and pays no sales tax (see: rich people)
Banks that get more income from bonds (see: rich people)
The Department of Commerce — whatever that is.
But you and me? Naaah.

Who loses?

Artists, who continue to struggle to make a living with possibility of real government support.
Children who spend more time working on mindless tests and only get a taste of “art” as an extension of “business.”
Taxpayers who pay extra money for loans.
The entire State of Rhode Island, because art that serves business is called advertising and art that serves government is called propaganda.

What can we do?

Do call Your Senator, Rep and the Governor. Tell your friends.
Don’t vote for a bond issue to fund the arts. Don’t vote for representatives and senators who claim to support the arts but undermine it. Don’t vote for a Gubernatorial candidate who won’t make a real commitment to support the arts. Don’t vote for anyone who tells you that the business of art is commerce and business.

Oh, and instead of making a campaign contribution this month. Go out and spend a few dollars or a hundred dollars or even $1,000 on art made in Rhode Island. I can promise you that every dollar you spend will be appreciated and recycled within the community. And you’ll have something cool to hang on the wall, or read.

And maybe donate an extra 7% to a charity. Rich people might not be able to afford it, but you can.

January 22, 2014January 22, 2014

Oops, I was wrong about the People’s Pledge’s viability!

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

So back in October 2013, just after Angel Taveras called on Gina Raimondo to sign the People’s Pledge, I pretty much wrote it off as not happening. (After I asked for it to happen in September)

Quick up-to-speed: a People’s Pledge is a way to workaround the results of the Citizens United ruling. Candidates agree that if outside interests spend money during the campaign, whoever is the beneficiary of the outside spending will donate half of the cost of the ad to the aggrieved candidate’s choice of charity. This does two things: one, it tells outside groups to back off, because their help will do more harm than good. Two, it makes a candidate donate to charity, which always looks good.

So, long story short, on the 4-year anniversary of Citizens’ United Raimondo backtracked from her campaign’s initially tepid reception of the idea to make a pretty unequivocal statement that a People’s Pledge was needed for the gubernatorial primary. Common Cause RI Executive Director John Marion threw this post up here on RI Future.

Now we could (and will) wildly speculate as to why Raimondo decided to back the Pledge. Maybe the polling for it is good. Maybe it’s an attempt to cloak herself in the Elizabeth Warren mantle. Maybe it’s her significant fundraising lead. Maybe it’s a little of column A, a little of column B, and a little of column C. Whatever. It’s a good thing.

As Common Cause MA points out, the Pledge reduces dark money spending, increases the influence of small donors, and decreases the amount of negative advertising. I wrote a post about a month before the Taveras campaign announced its call for a People’s Pledge, and one of my main points was that we need to avoid bloody primaries. Now, that’s just my partisan progressive Democrat stance, a harsh primary depresses Democratic turnout, and when Dems don’t vote, Republicans win.

Common Cause RI understandably isn’t concerned at all with that, they’re more about the disclosure issues, right of the public to know, that sort of good government thing. They’re hopeful soon-to-announce Clay Pell will also endorse the Pledge, and then the campaigns can get down to brass tacks and sort this out.

I’m hopeful (again). That Pell might refuse seems a bit weird, and would raise more questions than would be good for his fledgling campaign.

So that’s where the Democratic primary stands.

How about the Republicans? Oh dear.