Dear Rhode Island, try Hope


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

HopeIs it possible to restore hope to Rhode Island?

The state’s economy is stagnant. The government is shadowed by reports of corruption. The physical landscape is only just showing signs of
what lies beneath the greying piles of snow and ice, and revealing an infrastructure pockmarked by craters in the roads and residual grit and slime from salt and sand trucks that dominate the narrow roads. Has the last year of blame and struggle and polarization and polar vortex broken the spirit of our small and weary state? Or does Rhode Island have what it takes to rekindle the dying embers of hope?

It is so much easier to be cynical than to be hopeful. Cynicism is immediately gratifying and triggers a feeling of superiority. It also hedges one’s emotional wager. If one proclaims expectations of only the worst, one is rarely disappointed. Rhode Islanders have become cynical. All too often, when sifting through the opinion section of a local news source, one reads a commentary on an instance of corruption, written with the air of “Expect nothing less in Rhode Island,” and “Of course so and so did such and such. That’s Rhode Island for you. And nothing will ever change.” It is not long before even those who have demonstrated intentions and actions that are altruistic, honest attempts at being good and true are labeled as foolish, false, and doomed.

This dark cloud is not without merit. The chicken and egg debate of cause versus symptom aside, Little Rhody has more than its share of stains on our white collar. Most recently, the light shed on Gordon Fox’s poor moral and legal decisions has forced the deep-rooted shoots of contempt to grow upward through the frozen ground and the mountains of snow blanketing the state. This comes on the heels of a state representative copping to tens of thousands of dollars in misappropriated campaign finances, a twice-convicted felon running for a third term as the capital city’s mayor, vicious primary and general election cycles, the timeline of the 38 Studios fiasco … the list goes on and on.

Some readers will remember the 1980s. The eighties were also a time of economic decline; of manufacturing abandoning the state for elsewhere and recession teetering on the brink of depression. In 1982, there was an ad that ran on television for Rhode Island: The Biggest Little State in the Union. Some may remember the jingle and the miniature hot-air balloons rising in front of the State House. It was a dedicated campaign to try and instill pride in Rhode Island. It was schlocky. It was self-contradictory. But it was hopeful. The most interesting feature of the ad campaign was that it only ran in Rhode Island. It was not a national tourism commercial. It was an attempt to remind Rhode Islanders how great Rhode Island is. Or, at the very least, remind them to laugh at themselves and spend some Rhode Island dollars in Rhode Island, on Rhode Island-made goods.

This is not to suggest a repeat of the ‘Biggest Little State’ campaign. However, even self-deprecating humor is more productive and less poisonous than angry contempt. Moreover, pure sneering negativity, of the sort spreading like a virus through the social media networks that connect people to sources of news, and subsequent spite, faster than ever before, passes down through generations and hurts the chances of anything ever changing. Repeating the idea that nothing ever changes in Rhode Island, reinforces the probability that nothing ever changes. It is the textbook example of the self-fulfilling prophesy. By passing down a misanthropic and forlorn image of Rhode Island through generations, cynicism is dooming the state.

The economy is not Rhode Island.

The government is not Rhode Island.

The potholes are not Rhode Island.

The people are Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island state flag does not bear the motto “money.” The license plates (nope, none of them) are embossed with the phrase “the know-a-guy state.” The Ocean State flies a flag with the state motto: Hope. Should the state change the flag, change the license plates, or should the state – the people of Rhode Island – change their prevailing sentiment from one of resignation to the worst case scenarios, to one that assumes the overwhelming power of the ocean and floods the population with hope?

A population filled with hope is a population that can attract success, retain success, and create success. While Rhode Islanders most certainly disagree on their definitions of success, most can agree that what Rhode Island is currently experiencing could be better. Yet, the rhetoric reported by so many says it simply cannot. A people who can hope are a people who can also dream, innovate, and change the course of their own history.

 “another tradition to politics, a tradition (of politics) that stretched from the days of the country’s founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done.” Barack ObamaThe Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

 

Rhode Islanders have a right to be upset with politics, the economy, the weather, and each other. But so too do citizens have a choice to either wallow in self-indulgent blame and acceptance of powerlessness, or seize hold of a collective hope for an environment in which generations to come can thrive and proudly call home. Whether one supports the President or detests him, his point in the quoted passage with regard to having a stake in one another is what can give Rhode Islanders hope. What binds us together as citizens of this smallest of states is greater than what drives us apart. There will always be strife, disagreement, crime, and disappointment in Rhode Island. Yet, just as the state’s collective history has built its character, it is how people react to such adversity that reveals character.

Let our character be bound together not by defeatism, but by hope.

Senate Economic Summit focuses on education, workforce development


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

Senate_ChmbrThe state Senate’s annual Economic Summit this year focuses on “connecting workforce and higher education,” and is being held Wednsday, 5 to 7:30pm, at Rhode Island College, says a State House press release.

“Business leaders have spoken of the difficulty finding workers with the skills needed to fill job vacancies,” the press release says, “and the Senate has made improving the education and workforce development systems to address the skills gap a priority.”

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed and Rhode Island College President Nancy Carriulo will open the forum with remarks. “The forum will include a panel discussion among business leaders, including John Muggeridge, vice president of public affairs for Fidelity Investments, Michal Ryan, vice president of government affairs for National Grid, and William McCourt, executive director of the Rhode Island Manufacturers Association,” says the press release.

There will also be two keynote addresses from “nationally renowned leaders in higher education” Joshua Wyner, of the Aspen Institute, and Cheryl Orr Dixon, former senior vice president and chief of staff for Complete College America.

Wyner, according to a bio provided by the State House, has worked on the “Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, which strives to reward and shine a spotlight on community colleges that deliver exceptional student results and stimulate replication of successful campus practices, and the New College Leadership Project, which works to strengthen efforts to recruit and professionally develop college presidents who are driven by – and capable of – substantially improving student success.”

Dixon’s bio says she “has more than 25 years of experience in public policy, advocacy and leading initiatives to improve college preparation, access and success.” She has a singular mission, according to her bio: “to work with states to significantly increase the number of Americans with college degrees and to close attainment gaps for underrepresented populations.”

The Summit is open to the public, in room 110 of Alger Hall at RIC, 5:00-7:30pm, Wednesday, March 11.

RhodeMapRI and preventing future Fergusons


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
Ferguson, (from Wikipedia)
Ferguson, (from Wikipedia)

A new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) by Richard Rothstein titled The Making of Ferguson: Public Policies at the Root of its Troubles puts some of the recent brouhaha over RhodeMap RI into keen perspective. We all know the story of the police murder of Mike Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO, the high profile demonstrations from the black community in response, and the heavy handed, militarized police reaction. The US Department of Justice released a shocking report of systemic racism and economic exploitation of the black citizens of Ferguson, but the report from the EPI provides insight into how a racially segregated, predominantly low income African-American community like Ferguson can develop in the first place.

Rothstein begins by blaming racial prejudice and racist public policy. “No doubt, private prejudice and suburbanites’ desire for homogenous affluent environments contributed to segregation in St. Louis and other metropolitan areas. But these explanations are too partial, and too conveniently excuse public policy from responsibility. A more powerful cause of metropolitan segregation in St. Louis and nationwide has been the explicit intents of federal, state, and local governments to create racially segregated metropolises.”

It’s important to understand that the policies Rothstein exposes in his report are not located only in the immediate area of St. Louis, these policies existed across the nation, and even where such policies no longer officially exist, their effects can still be felt today. These policies, according to Rothstein, include:

  • Government subsidies for white suburban developments that excluded blacks, depriving African Americans of the 20th century home-equity driven wealth gains reaped by whites;
  • Denial of adequate municipal services in ghettos, leading to slum conditions in black neighborhoods that reinforced whites’ conviction that “blacks” and “slums” were synonymous;
  • Boundary, annexation, spot zoning, and municipal incorporation policies designed to remove African Americans from residence near white neighborhoods, or to prevent them from establishing residence near white neighborhoods;
  • Urban renewal and redevelopment programs to shift ghetto locations, in the guise of cleaning up those slums.

ri-logoRhodeMap RI was developed with an understanding of many of the problems Rothstein cites. The public review draft of RhodeMap has a section at the end concentrating on social equity that explicitly called on the plan to “implement a new economic model based on equity, fairness, and opportunity.” It is this part of the plan, the part that seeks to undo the kind of problems that plague communities of color like Ferguson, that seems to most bother RhodeMap opponents.

Rothstein takes a shot at offering possible solutions towards the end of his report, writing, “Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide.” For instance, governments might “require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a ‘fair share’ of its region’s low-income and minority populations…”

Rhode Island has something of a fair share law (as part of the Rhode Island Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004 and Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act (Rhode Island General Laws 45-53)) which sets a 10% goal for each of the state’s cities and town to meet—the goal being that 10% of the units in a town are “affordable.”

Most of the pushback against RhodeMap comes from communities that have very little affordable rental housing and are predominantly White. Legislation to undermine existing laws requiring cities and towns to plan for affordable housing is part of that pushback , such as House Bill 5643, which would “eliminate the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans” or House Bill 5644 which “would remove the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans and would provide an opt-out provision regarding any provision in the state guide plan regarding affordable housing and any related land use provisions” are naked attempts to keep affordable housing, and those who need it, out of their communities.

The legislators who are introducing and supporting the bills are all Republicans, or in one case an “Independent” representing primarily suburban and rural communities like Richmond (Note: part of Rep. Justin Price’s district), West Greenwich (part of Rep. Sherry Robert’s district) Coventry, Hopkinton, Charlestown, Portsmouth, Exeter and East Greenwich. Note that Richmond and West Greenwich have made “no progress” and East Greenwich has made “no significant progress” in meeting the 10% goal.

Undoing the damage of decades of racist housing policy and preventing future Fergusons requires a plan. RhodeMap RI isn’t quite that plan, it’s more a collection of guidelines to help communities develop a plan, but it’s a good step in the right direction. Those opposed to RhodeMap like to put on their “free market” hats and declare that any government intervention into housing is some sort of fascist violation of property rights. However, racially segregated housing is the product of just the kind of government sponsored social engineering that RhodeMap opponents complain of, and many of those opponents have also waged fights to prevent construction of affordable rental units in places such as Barrington and East Greenwich.

To be consistent these defenders of the free market should be calling for a repeal of all zoning restrictions in their communities, but of course they will not. Instead, they will zealously guard the status quo by defending zoning laws that the prevent construction of low income housing too close to their safe suburban enclaves. Opponents of RhodeMap object to being called racists, but when their claims of defending property rights are not equally applied to property owners who want to build affordable housing on their land, what else are we to think?

Patreon

Hold elected officials to a higher, not lower, standard


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

gordonfoxLast week I discussed Gordon Fox’s guilty plea for bribery, fraud, and filing a false tax return with students in my introductory sociology class at the men’s medium prison. Their reactions were immediate and articulate: one indignantly remarked that he himself had stolen a great deal less money than the former speaker, and yet was serving a longer prison term. Where, he wanted to know, was the justice in that?

“You might expect stealing from a guy like me,” he said, baring his arms covered with tattoos. But Gordon Fox had an extra responsibility to behave ethically, as an elected representative who specifically undertook to safeguard the common good.

Much data has shown that rule of law applies differently to different groups of people. One need only read the New York Times’ coverage of Ferguson, or Michelle Alexander’s award-winning book, should one need convincing. While this is deplorable everywhere it occurs, my student’s point was straightforward: that those who we elect to care for the collective should be held to a higher standard of behavior, not a lower one.

Rhode Island has been the laughingstock of the country for well over a century for our unwillingness confront political corruption. If there was any doubt as to the need for reinstating the state ethics commission’s authority (famously dismantled in 2009), one might think such doubt would be assuaged by this most recent display of selfishness and disregard for Rhode Islanders, our tax dollars, and our intelligence.

We need more than Governor Raimondo’s milquetoast pro-forma comment that, “the situation is unacceptable” or current Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s lackluster statement that he is “disappointed.” We need meaningful action from our leadership. Revisiting the ethics commission would be a good start. A real campaign finance bill would also help. We need for everyday Rhode Islanders to do more than wring their hands and go back to work.

More than that though, our leadership must understand—not just claim to understand—that holding public office is a privilege. Like being a parent or a teacher, it means the onus is always on you to be the “good guy.” You are never off the hook.

Former Speaker Fox should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. His behavior is an insult to all of us who work hard to make Rhode Island a good home and a good example.

Raimondo supports a $10.10 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
Gina Raimondo
Gina Raimondo

Governor Gina Raimondo announced her support of bills in the General Assembly that would raise the minimum wage in Rhode Island to $10.10 an hour at a press conference held at the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 328 on Silver Spring St. in Providence. The location was chosen because Raimondo’s grandfather helped found the union 77 years ago.

Raimondo pledged to support the bills introduced in the Rhode Island House by Representative David Bennett and in the Rhode Island Senate by Senator Erin Lynch.

“Nobody who works full time should have to live in poverty,” she said, even as she acknowledge that raising the wage to $10.10 won’t be enough. That’s why her budget, to be introduced on Thursday, will be “focused on creating more family-supporting jobs.”

ROC tee 2Activists from the Restaurant Opportunity Center (ROC United RI) were present at the press conference and encouraged by the Governor’s support, but “they are also arguing for an increase in the wage of tipped workers who have worked without an increase in base pay for more than two decades,” according to their literature.

In an apparent nod to their concerns, Raimondo has tasked the new head of the RI Department of Labor and Training, Scott Jensen, to head up an investigation into “tipped minimum wage enforcement” and review restaurant labor law compliance after the present legislative session ends.

Deborah Norman
Deborah Norman

RI AFL-CIO President George Nee said that “we have to keep the momentum going” on raising the minimum wage, citing the “tremendous problem with income inequality.”

Deborah Norman, owner of the restaurants Rue De L’Espoir and Rue Bis said that “as a business owner I support an increase in the minimum wage to at least $10.10. It would not hurt my business in any way,” a very different message from that presented by the Rhode Island Restaurant Hospitality Association at a recent House Labor Committee hearing held to discuss Representative Bennett’s bill.

Patreon

Private sector debt dynamics don’t explain RI economic slide


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

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

The central contention of the real Democratic movement in Rhode Island is probably this: Since the right-wing Democrats rose to power under Bill Murphy in 2003, their bad economic policies have driven our economy into the ground. But one niggling alternate possibly has always bothered me. It’s boring and wonkish. It’s also easily checked by looking at the data. And it turns out it’s wrong.

To understand what I’m talking about, we need a little background into the theory of the 2008 economic crisis that’s become broadly accepted, especially among economists affiliated with the Democratic Party.* (Republican economists have some alternate theories, most of which I find pretty kooky.) The basic story is that 2008 was an old-school private sector debt crisis. Private sector debt had risen much higher than public sector debt. (The exact figure depends a lot on how you count.) Most of the debt had piled up in the business sector, especially the banking sector, but there was still an awful lot of debt in the hands of ordinary American families, mostly in the form of mortgages.  It was a lot of debt.

Since World War 2, one of the main drivers of aggregate demand in the economy had been an accelerating accumulation of private sector debt. In the 1908s, as public policy grew more conservative, this debt accumulation began to accelerate even faster, supported by an expanding housing bubble.

Unfortunately, the private sector can’t accumulate infinite amounts of debt forever.

When the housing bubble partially popped, households realized their debt loads were too high, and they began paying them down. Instead of spending that money on consumer goods, they paid down debt. This resulted in a massive crash in aggregate demand and a big economic crisis. To make things worse, the federal government hadn’t been providing enough stimulus to support growth, and the economy had been relying on private sector debt to prop it up. So the recovery was pretty slow as the private sector continued to pay down its debt without much help from the government. Now that the private sector has started going into debt again, we’re seeing growth pick up a bit.

Anyway, this is important because it explains why a lot of states had particularly bad experiences in the crash. States like Nevada and California (and to a lesser extent Florida and Arizona) had abnormally high debt loads, and their residents paid down an abnormally large amount of debt. They wound up with abnormally bad crashes.

The textbook case is Nevada. In Nevada, households reduced debt by the most of any state, with the average resident paying down $26,300 from the end of 2008 to the end of 2013. For comparison, the US average was $6,100. Naturally, Nevada’s crash was especially severe, arguably the worst in the country. Now that Nevada’s household debt load has come down to about the US average, and Nevada residents have stopped paying down debt abnormally fast, the state economy is doing a lot better.

Private sector debt, then, can have a big effect on state economies. So I’d always wondered: could Rhode Island have had an abnormally bad crash not just because of right-wing policies but also because of an abnormally high private sector debt load?

When a recent Boston Fed paper mentioned state-level debt statistics, I wrote to the author, Mary Burke, and she helpfully pointed me to a dataset maintained by the New York Fed. Apparently, the New York Fed has been keeping statistics on state-by-state household debt, with the full data series starting in 2004 (before then, they didn’t track student loan debt). Now, they don’t necessarily count all household debt, but they do count mortgage, auto, credit card, and student loan debt, which together cover the vast majority of household debt.

For the purposes of this piece, I’m going to treat the sum of those four sources as total household debt, which isn’t 100% correct but comes close. There’s one other niggle about this dataset. It only counts state by state statistics in the forth quarter of each year, so when I cite years, I’m not talking about a yearly average. The 2014 forth quarter numbers aren’t out yet, so the latest data come from more than a year ago and don’t really capture the recent return to household debt accumulation.

UnindexedDebt copySo does Rhode Island have an unusually high debt load? And did we have to pay down an unusually large amount? No and no. In fact, Rhode Island’s peak debt of $48,200 was virtually identical to the national average of 48,100. We reduced debt by only $5,500, which is a little less than the $6,100 national average. So debt cannot explain our abnormally bad crash.

IndexedDebt copy

What debt can partially explain is the relatively good performances of our neighboring states. Massachusetts and Connecticut have quite high debt loads, but that at least partially reflects their high per capita income. And relative to the 2008 peak debt, the other states in our region reduced their debt loads a lot less than Rhode Island. This helps explain why our region is doing better than the country as a whole. And it helps explain why we lag behind our neighbors.

But it does not explain why we lag the nation. For that, we really need another explanation. And the right-wing economic policies of the conservative Murphy machine fit the data best.

*The extent to which this theory is fully accepted among Democratic economists is a bit complex.  Although it started in a school of thought somewhat to the left of the mainstream, most prominent Democratic macroeconomists have adopted some version of it.  The basis of this theory was developed to explain the Great Depression by Hyman Minsky, probably the most important founder of the post-Keynesian school of macroeconomic thought.  (Minsky has a bit of a Rhode Island connection.  He taught at Brown for a while, and he married a Rhode Islander.)  It was later fleshed out by other post-Keynesians, who predicted that the ever increasing private debt would lead to a crash.  Broadly speaking, the post-Keynesian movement represents the ideological space to the left of the neo-Keynesians and to the right of the socialists, Marxists, and radicals.  Although it’s fully contained within the free market tradition, it tends to generate a lot of scorn from neoclassical economists.  Since the crash, however, post-Keynesians have been gaining prominence within the Democratic Party’s policy universe.  For instance, prominent post-Keynesian economist Stephanie Kelton was recently appointed the chief Democratic economist for the Senate Budget Committee.  Some post-Keynesian ideas remain the subject of fierce debate, but the private sector debt theory of the 2008 collapse has been adopted by more mainstream economists, including Gauti Eggertsson, who is probably the most famous macroeconomist in Rhode Island.

NBC10 Wingmen: How do we rid RI of corruption?


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

Both former Rep. Jon Brien and I agree Gordon Fox was wrong to take a bribe and loot his campaign account. Where we disagree is how we can avoid further indiscretions.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

More on Gordon Fox’s arrest here.

brien plain wingmen

Legislators say it’s time to tax and regulate marijuana


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_1345
Jared Moffat

Representative Scott Slater introduced a bill (H5777) in the RI House of Representatives yesterday to tax and regulate marijuana. Senator Josh Miller introduced identical legislation in the RI Senate. Speaking at a press conference yesterday, both legislators were optimistic that this might be the year the legislation passes.

Though a pair of cranks attempted to hijack the press conference by insisting that the speakers use the word “cannabis” instead of “marijuana,” Jared Moffat, executive director of Regulate Rhode Island, a coalition of groups in support of marijuana regulation, showed remarkable poise and kept the presentation on track.

Representative Slater said that Colorado, the first state to tax and regulate marijuana, “has one of the fastest going economies in the country.” Money spent on legal marijuana products is money denied to organized crime, says Slater, who asked, “Do we allow criminals to control the market? Or do we want the sales to be regulated and taxed?”

Senator Miller cited justice, public safety and revenue issues as reasons for a growth in support for the idea. Many more groups have joined the call for regulation, and the governor, the Senate president and the speaker of the House have all said that they are open to considering such an idea.

DSC_1351
Dr. James Crowley

Dan Harrop, the recent Republican candidate for mayor of Providence, was to speak at the press conference, but an auto accident, in which Harrop was unharmed, prevented his attendance. Instead Dr. James Crowley spoke about the current laws regarding marijuana prohibition as being “fundamentally wrong, and a tremendous waste of resources.”

Crowley also spoke of the “first mover advantage.” The first state in New England to tax and regulate marijuana, Crowley maintains, will have early and sustainable marketing advantages that should last even as other states follow suit. Massachusetts activists have already managed to get legislation onto the ballot, and Rhode Island has “a small window of opportunity” if we want to be first, and reap the financial rewards.

Senator Miller says that a majority of Rhode Islanders are in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana, saying, “I think this is the year to do that.”

Patreon

Activists march 28 miles from Burrillville to PVD to protest fracked gas pipeline


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

BvillePVD2Burrillville, RI — On Wednesday a group of activists embarked on a three day, 28 mile march from Burrillville to Providence to raise awareness about the proposed expansion to the ‘Algonquin’ natural gas pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an initial construction permit for the project on Tuesday, but opponents of the project have vowed to keep up the fight.

The march kicked off at the site of a gas compressor station on Wallum Lake road in Burrillville. The compressor station, which pressurizes gas along the 1,000 mile pipeline, would nearly double in capacity as part of the expansion sought by Spectra Energy. Activists are concerned about the climate change implications of the project, and the impacts that local residents living near the pipeline route would face.

“The compressor station expansion in Burrillville alone would add the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 14,000 cars a year and substantially increase the pollutants pumped into the air this community breathes. This pipeline expansion must be stopped,” said Pia Ward, a member of FANG (Fighting Against Natural Gas), the group that organized the march.

fight-backFellow FANG member Nick Katkevich said the goal of the march was to carry the voices of those most impacted by the Spectra expansion to decision makers in Providence. “It’s time Rhode Island’s elected leaders listen to the voices of those living along this pipeline route rather than fuel executives who are focused solely on profit.”

The group will march about eight miles a day and will travel south through Pascoag and then head towards Providence on Route 44. The march will make stops in Chepachet and Greenville before arriving in Providence Friday afternoon where several events and actions are planned.

Among the marchers are several Rhode Island residents along with activists from Massachusetts, Connecticut and from as far away as New York and Nebraska.
Jimmy Betts of Omaha, Nebraska, has joined the march. Jimmy walked across the country in 2014 for climate action. “Burrillville is not alone in the fight for clean air, water, and community sovereignty. We must broaden the conversation with other communities engaged in these struggles. They may appear local, but they have sweeping global impacts. We can only win this together.”

Members of the community are encouraged to walk a day, an hour, or even a few blocks as they are able. It is recommended to dress warmly. Vehicles will be available for those unable to walk, or who cannot walk long distances. Supporters can also join the marchers upon their arrival in Providence by meeting at 2pm outside of the State House.

Both National Grid and the Rhode Island congressional delegation have argued that the pipeline expansion is necessary to suppress gas price spikes during winter months, but as the region suffers through the coldest weather in nearly a century, gas prices have remained steady. Organizers of the march point to liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals proposed for Maine and Canada as the real reason behind the pipeline expansion.

“This pipeline expansion isn’t about lowering domestic prices, it’s about a fossil fuel corporation trying to make the most profit possible – all while hurting communities, contributing to global climate change and blocking the development of cleaner energy sources” reflected Ward.

Subsidized parking as substitute for justice


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The Next City takes on gentrification–by proposing subsidized housing? Nope. Subsidized parking.

Over and over, I have had many frustrating conversations with people who don’t understand how egalitarian policies and land-use/transportation fit together, to the point that I’ve been working on a piece to parse apart the details. Just as I was on my fourth or fifth draft, a perfect example of people having all the right impulses in all the wrong places fell right into my lap like a ripe apple.

Exhibit A: Seattle advocates want to fix poverty by complaining about development and subsidizing parking. Face palm! According to The Next City, a Philadelphia-based urbanist blog, the proposal would:

1) Honor all requests for low-income restricted parking zone; 2) Charge no more than five dollars per year for low-income restricted parking permits; and 3) Allow restricted parking zone permits for registered nonprofits located within a restricted parking zone.

The Next City goes on to say:

On its face, Sen. Jayapal’s revision reads like a NIMBYish cry to protect her constituents’ parking as transit expands and density increases.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! But then The Next City says:

In reality, it is part of a broader effort to protect some of Seattle’s most diverse and lowest-income communities from the high risks of displacement that rode into the neighborhood on light rail.

Um, no.

A tri-cornered hat

There are three basic progressive policy choices on any given issue, but the three do not always overlap. It’s important to understand the differences between them, because shooting from the hip without clarity sends you all over the map.

  1. Leave people alone. This is like the null hypothesis. There are lots of times when we should do something, but having a policy choice that says “do nothing” reminds us to think clearly about what we’re trying to accomplish, and whether we’re overstepping our bounds and creating a new problem out of whole cloth.
  2. Set a policy that equalizes people’s position. This is a huge one. There’s no end to the moral and practical reasons we should want to eliminate the unnatural wealth gap that exists in this country.
  3. Set a policy that incentivizes people’s behavior. Of course, fighting inequality relies on incentives, but the best poverty fighting does that and leaves everything else alone. So this category sums up policies that incentivize other things; examples include pay-as-you-throw trash collection, tolls and congestion pricing, and fines for not shoveling one’s sidewalk.

These three policy goals are not the same! Don’t tell me that pay-as-you-throw trash collection means that creating more trash costs more, and is therefore regressive. That would be the case if we fail to have option #2 in our policy array, because then very unequal people would be paying market prices without any counterbalance to ensure they stay within reach of one another. And for sure, our country doesn’t do very well with #2. But Fixing the lack of equality with #1 or #3 doesn’t work. It just creates a mess.

Let’s break it down

Leave it alone: Gentrification, which I will define here as the displacement of poor people from a neighborhood when wealthier people move in, mostly doesn’t exist. So at the outset, I bristle at the article because it misdiagnoses a positive thing as a problem.

A very wide-ranging study of 1,100 U.S. Census tracts from 1970 to the present shows that most high poverty census tracts stayed that way, that we actually gained some high poverty Census tracts, and that those Census tracts that did get new investment mostly maintained the same number of low income people, while simply gaining higher income people alongside them (that mix, the study found, actually ameliorated poverty, while in the most isolated Census tracts, poor people’s lives got worse). Although not concerned by gentrification per se, the study concluded that poverty remains a serious, wrenching problem that should actively confronted by government. Daniel Kay Hertz does a really great breakdown of the information in the context of Chicago, and This Old City has some great, specific data on housing prices in Philadelphia (the data pre-date the study). The point is, the model we have that says we have to jump in to stop gentrification is mostly wrong.

If your neighborhood is popular, that’s a good thing. But you should make sure there’s enough housing to allow everyone to enjoy that. And in a lot of cases that means leaving things alone.

Equalize people: The same study on gentrification that concluded that housing development should be allowed to happen, even encouraged, in gentrifying areas also concluded that deep, centralized, isolating poverty remains a problem in the U.S. It won’t be news to anyone here that poverty is, in fact, growing. So while under #1. we talked about how to leave something alone that’s not a problem, under #2 we should focus on how to change something that is a dire problem.

Some of the best programs that equalize people included the 1950s consensus to have an income tax system that decreased the income and wealth gap in the U.S. by creating an effective maximum wage, a proposed program for a guaranteed minimum income or its cousin the Earned Income Tax Credit. Other examples include the Estate Tax, which at the federal and state level has always been a way to equalize the inherited wealth gap. What’s perfect about these programs is they very squarely take on the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but they stay hands off about exactly what it is that people do with the money beyond that. But that brings us to #3. . .

Incentivize behavior: In general, it’s good to let people have choices, but sometimes there is a society-wide reason for pushing people to make a particular decision. You would hope that one of the behaviors that cities would want to encourage would be driving less, and in fact, Seattle is a city that has made huge strides in that direction, moving from above 50% of urban core trips by single-occupant drivers to just around 30% in just a short time. But a program of subsidizing parking, though intended to accomplish the goals under #2, is actually a really bad conflation with #3. It incentivizes behavior: the wrong behavior.

These three categories fit together. You want to leave alone development–i.e., gentrification–and in fact, where housing prices have risen to the point of pushing low income residents out, it has been because zoning or other policies have gotten in the way of housing growth. You do want to take from the rich and give to the poor, but not in a way that interferes with that. And you absolutely want to push people away from cars, so your incentives shouldn’t nudge people towards them.

We get these three all mixed up. We don’t leave housing development alone. We put all sorts of constraints on it, from not allowing federally-backed lending for apartments, to zoning against density and for parking, to spending more than half of our road money on road expansion in order to encourage sprawl. We certainly don’t effectively deal with poverty. The top income tax rate used to be 90%, and the point of that was to create a disincentive against ridiculous executive salaries, simply and elegantly, and instead incentivize reinvestment into middle income jobs and capital improvements. And everything, everything we can think of goes into making driving easier. Alongside the pittance of money for walking, biking, and transit, we throw huge subsidies towards parking fees, new garages, wider roads, cheaper oil–and all of it, we say, is because we want to keep the American Dream alive.

The results are summed up pretty well by Angie Schmitt:

And, of course, any policy that mixes things up this way has the potential to help some poor people along with many middle class people, and leave some poor people completely out in the cold.

It’s so frustrating when you’re explaining to someone how to fix transportation or land use policy and that person responds by placing those goals at odds with equity. There couldn’t be anything further from the truth. If we could straighten out the differences between different policy options, we could have clearer conversations about the huge range of problems that face us.

~~~~

PARCC as a high stakes test will spell disaster


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

dont test me bro

It is heartening to see a robust discussion on the imminent use of the PARCC test in Rhode Island’s public schools, but the state Department of Education seems to have made up its mind before the test has even gotten off the ground. It is already actively encouraging school districts to use the PARCC to penalize students as early as next year.

Before having any chance to meaningfully examine how this untried test is working, or to determine whether, like the NECAP, it will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on poor and minority children, English Language Learners and students with disabilities, Commissioner Deborah Gist has already advised school districts they may “use PARCC results as a component in determining students’ grades” beginning as early as the upcoming 2015-16 school year. The Commissioner, with the backing of the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, has also encouraged school districts to consider using the PARCC as a high stakes graduation requirement for the Class of 2017.

In light of this push by RIDE, the biggest concern isn’t necessarily whether testing should be delayed for a year or even whether children should be able to opt out – it is whether the test results should be used punitively against students rather than as a supportive accountability tool to help them and their schools succeed. RIDE likes to claim its goal is the latter, but as we know from the NECAP debacle, it operates more like the former.

RIDE’s desire to punish kids by allowing the test to be used in this high stakes fashion so quickly is extremely troubling, especially since education officials know full well the importance of time in getting a new test like this off the ground. Last August, before changing course, the Commissioner gave good reasons why PARCC should be used as a high stakes test beginning in 2020, not 2017. As she noted then:

“We need to make sure that everyone has adequate time to prepare for the implementation.  That means students having adequate support and time, families and teachers and school and district leaders need adequate time to make the changes to their support and interventions for individual students.”

By instead giving school districts the option to use the test results against students a year from now, RIDE is actually doing everything it can to make sure students are not fully prepared. To make matters worse, the local implementation of such testing places pressures on students of particular school districts who embrace PARCC in this fashion, while protecting students who happen to live in more skeptical school districts.

We all want students to succeed, but this approach spells disaster and will inevitably lead to a repeat of the fiasco surrounding the NECAP. Opting out of the PARCC test means little if students face a reduction in grades or denial of a diploma in a few years for failing to take it. Nor is it fair if students who opt in find their grades lowered because of their scores on the test. Whether one agrees or disagrees that PARCC can be a useful support tool, parents and others concerned about punitive standardized testing should be demanding first and foremost that this test not be used for high stakes graduation or grading decisions in the way that RIDE is, sadly, so hastily determined to use it.

Don’t be fooled again…


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
Gordon Fox frequently got weepy during the 2012 election campaign, too. Mostly when talking about how proud he was to represent Mt. Hope.
Gordon Fox frequently got weepy during the 2012 election campaign, too. Mostly when talking about how proud he was to represent Mt. Hope.

Gordon Fox is guilty, and I’m not surprised. I’m the guy who ran against the former Rhode Island speaker of the House in 2012. From the first days of our campaign, I pointed to the corruption that seems endemic in Rhode Island’s political structure.

At the time, nobody seemed to believe me. They denied it was happening. They made excuses. They said that it was just the way things are.

Many politicians who are still in office turned out to support Fox. They campaigned for him. They walked with him. They stood in front of the polls on Election Day and told voters to vote for him. They felt at the time that the status quo was better than advocating change.

The media were also complicit. During the campaign, I was faulted again and again for not being a serious politician. I was belittled for keeping my campaign grassroots and not raising a war chest. They dismissed the pay-to-play connections we drew between campaign contributions from the auto body industry and votes cast.

Our very own RI Future said that Fox was “by no means a dark force or a dirty politician. … On the contrary, he’s a good man trying to succeed in an often cutthroat business.”  RIPR’s Scott MacKay bluntly opined, “…anyone who believes that Binder can get nearly as much done for the capital city as Fox,  arguably the state’s most powerful politician, must believe that elephants can fly.” The pigs started flying when Fox resigned in March of 2013.

And nothing much has changed. Campaigns are still decided, by and large, by who raises the most money. Campaign contributions buy political influence in Rhode Island. Licenses are granted, tax breaks are given and issues are decided when you give contributions to the right politicians.

During the 2012 campaign, Gordon Fox lied. He lied to the press. He lied to the voters. Now he’s admitted his guilt.

He’s confessed to stealing more than $100,000 from his campaign fund, filing fraudulent tax returns, and taking a bribe for a liquor license. If you or I were charged with these offences, we would be facing decades in federal prison. Instead, he’s copped a plea in exchange for three years — one year per charge. It doesn’t seem sufficient.

In Rhode Island, voters have a bad habit of keeping people around who don’t deserve it. We brush away fault and blame, and shrug because “It’s the ways the system works.”

The system still doesn’t work for citizens and taxpayers. Since being anointed as speaker, Nicholas Mattiello has collected more than $100,000 in campaign contributions, even though he ran unopposed in the last election. Do those dollars really buy nothing?

When will this change? How will this change?

The General Assembly could police itself. It could eject members who accept campaign contributions that influence their votes. It could end the practice of late night back room deals. It could enact ethics and campaign finance reform.

We could create a smaller full-time legislature that pays members a living wage so they don’t have to be wealthy or take bribes to survive.

Will they? Probably not.

The next election is in 20 months. We need citizens to start running today for these jobs on the promise of these changes. It’s time to stop voting for the devil we know and instead look for people who are honest and true.

During a televised debate, Gordon Fox accused me of telling tall tales. I didn’t. He was the liar.

 Keep that in mind the next time you see an “amateur” taking on a pro.

– Mark Binder, Providence, March 2015

See Fox Lie…

Fox stole from the public and from special interests


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

George Nee talks with House Speaker Gordon Fox. (Photo by Bob Plain)Former House Speaker Gordon Fox admits he took a bribe and used campaign cash for personal purposes.

In the first transgression, he stole from the citizens of Providence to get rich quick. In the other, he stole from State House special interests because he wasn’t. One of these is a political sin of the highest order. The other is not good, but not nearly as bad.

Selling your vote is among the worst crimes a public official can commit. Fox says he did this in 2008 as a member of the Providence Board of Licensing when he accepted $50,000 in exchange for supporting a liquor license application to a Federal Hill restaurant. In doing so, he stole from the his hometown the right to a fair hearing. He robbed Providence of democracy. Opponents of the liquor license application may well have reason to re-visit the issue, but they are by no means the only victims.

For $50,000, Gordon Fox crushed the notion that everyone has an equal chance in the Ocean State. He cemented the belief that Rhode Island is a pay-to-play state, undoubtedly the single biggest stumbling block to enticing people to live and do commerce here. Anytime a public official places a higher value on their own finances than on democracy society is the victim, and this is especially true with blatant bribery.

Conversely, when Fox spent $108,000 from his campaign accounts on personal expenses, he stole more from politics than from society. Elected officials should never lie, and we’ve got a lot of reasons to doubt Fox’s sincerity, but I’m not as mad at him for this one.

The reason any House speaker has $100,000 in a campaign account to abscond with is because special interests gave it to them hoping it will serve as a quid pro quo for political favor. The line between this legal activity and a bribe is blurry at best, and good government scholars disagree exactly where it falls. Only the explicit request for action separates campaign contributions from bribes. But both diminish democracy, and the idea that we all have an equal shot. Money corrodes democracy, as an illegal bribe and as a perfectly-legal campaign donation.

Other than for his personal use and his own reelection, Fox spent his campaign cash on lavish dinners for legislators, targeting political adversaries and helping political friends. Current Speaker Nick Mattiello does this too. This is why the General Assembly, here and in other states, as well as Congress, generally serve powerful special interests first and the average citizen second. Because the average citizen can only offer their vote and their support, and this commodity is entirely less fungible than cold hard cash on hand.

Don’t believe me? Consider the political insider take on Fox’s transgressions, according to RIPR blogger Scott MacKay: “…in Rhode Island political circles, the biggest rule he broke was the iron, if unofficial, Statehouse cliché: Don’t take a dime while you are serving in the General Assembly. Then cash in for as much as you can make later. By living above his means as a lawmaker (fancy house and late-model Audis in driveway), Fox ruined his chances of getting rich as a lobbyist when his tenure as speaker was over.”

Instead of becoming a wealthy lobbyist, I hope Gordon Fox is able to find redemption by becoming an advocate against the actions he took to build personal wealth and political power. He owes Rhode Island at least that much.

Working for tips in 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

NYC-Diner-ToGo-Cheeseburger-DeluxeAt the State House hearing for the wage theft bill and for the bill to raise the minimum wage we heard a lot from members and leaders of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association. At the wage theft bill hearing the room was packed with restaurant owners pleading poverty and assuring legislators that their waitstaff are well cared for, and even loved.

Most of the restaurant owners were from the kind of high end, casual fine dining establishments where stories of well paid waitstaff might actually be something akin to the truth. But as Mike Araujo, of ROC United RI pointed out, “The average tipped worker does not make $20 an hour.”

“We are not all high end restaurants,” he said. “We are mostly Denny’s, we are mostly diner service. So to say that ‘my people do well’ or ‘I love my people’ might be true, but we have to love all the people who work in the industry.”

In Rhode Island, servers are supposed to make $2.89 an hour, plus tips. By law, if a server doesn’t make enough in tips to reach $9 an hour, the restaurant is supposed to make up the difference.

In general there are two kinds of restaurants; corporate chains like Denny’s or Chili’s, and owner operated diners and restaurants. The chain restaurants are governed in large part by strict rules and regulations that come from the top. These restaurants are national or multinational in nature and don’t often run afoul of local laws. They operate in California, where there is no tipped minimum wage, as well as in New England, where Rhode Island has the lowest tipped minimum wage. The tipped minimum wage is $7.25 in Connecticut and $3 in Massachusetts. New York just raised theirs to $7.50.

Non-chain restaurants have more leeway in paying their employees, because they can often pay under the table. There is no corporate chain of command tracking every cent that comes in and goes out of the store. This isn’t to say that all owner operators violate the law, but the practice is common enough that some servers I’ve spoken to have told me that they have never worked in a restaurant that didn’t pay some or all of its employees at least partly under the table.

I recently spoke to two servers at two different restaurants about the tipped minimum wage and their experiences working as servers in Rhode Island. One server works at a chain restaurant here in Providence, the other works at an owner operated restaurant in Warwick. Both spoke to me under the condition of anonymity, so as to not suffer any blowback at work. Some details of their stories have been obscured as well, to avoid identifying them accidentally.

Debbie is a single mom working at an owner operated restaurant. She has three kids. She’s worked for tips all her life. “This is how we survive,” she said. “We do all right. I’m pretty good at what I do most of the time.”

Chris is in her mid-fifties and has been working for tips as a server for over 30 years. She works for a well known corporate chain restaurant. “When I first started waitressing [the tipped minimum wage] was $1.50 or $1.59, so it’s gone up, but not for 20 years. It’s crazy.”

John's Diner by John Baeder
John’s Diner by John Baeder

The experiences of the women are similar, and they make about the same amount of money, but there are big differences between working at an owner operated restaurant and working for a corporate chain.

“We make all our money on tips,” says Debbie, “At the end of the week I get a paycheck, and it’s usually nothing, or a dollar, because of taxes. We get taxed on our tips and we get taxed on the $2.89.”

Chris has the same experience in her corporate store. “Some of my co-workers have a pile of $2 and $3 checks. Why bother cashing them? Or if they do, they cash them once a year for $80.”

Both work hard. “I work my ass off in here six days a week,” says Debbie, “I work like 45, 50 hours a week.” Chris works Monday through Friday. They both work the day shift.

I ask them about overtime.

“I probably shouldn’t say this,” says Debbie, “but the owner pays me for 40 hours and then I get the rest in cash. Time and a half has never happened. Every restaurant I’ve ever worked at that’s how it always was. You get paid for 40 hours and then everything else is overtime, not on a paycheck. Time and a half on $2.89 is meaningless anyway, because we’re talking about less than $4.50. It’s not like my tips are going to be time and a half.”

Chris sees this as a problem. “Corporate restaurants have to do the right thing,” she says, “But these [owner operated] restaurants, they can get away with not paying $2.89 or overtime.”

She said she knows someone who was injured and couldn’t collect disability because “so much of her work was off the books she didn’t qualify. I have friends that are working at some of these little places that aren’t making out. One girl got laid off and was told, ‘You can’t collect. You were working under the table.’ How are you suppose to deal with that?”

Working at an owner operated restaurant can bring other problems as well. “We don’t get time and half for holidays, we don’t get paid vacations,” says Debbie, “If I take a vacation I lose out. I pay for the vacation and I don’t get paid to work. My kids are like, ‘You don’t even get time off,’ and I’m like no, I don’t.

“You don’t get sick pay, you don’t get- I can’t even call in sick! There’s no one else to work. I open the store. Who’s going to answer the phone at 5 o’clock in the morning? If I’m sick, you’re not going to answer your phone, you know? You’re going to be sleeping.”

The recent snow has interfered with their pay as well. “It’s difficult sometimes, on a slow snow day, sure,” says Chris, “We didn’t get any customer tips until almost one in the afternoon and we’re thinking, ‘We’re not going to get anybody today.’”

So when it’s slow like that, does the restaurant make up the money as the law requires?

“They’re supposed to punch you in [with more money] when you make less than minimum,” says Chris, “but they average the week.”

Debbie agrees, telling me, “We don’t ever not make minimum wage, so the restaurant never has to make it up. On any given day we might not make any money, but the restaurant is allowed to average it out over the week.”

Debbie is worried about raising the tipped minimum wage. She worries that, “if they raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour people aren’t going to tip us, and if we made only $9 an hour we wouldn’t make what we would just living off tips. We make more than that in tips.”

Chris isn’t convinced. “People don’t know what we make. In the restaurant people are telling me, ‘I didn’t know you made this! I saw on the news they’re trying to raise your rates. I didn’t know you made only $2.89.’ If they already thought you were making more and they’re tipping you whatever they do, why would they lower it when you actually make that amount?”

Debbie has an ‘aha’ moment. “Yeah, you’re right. If you don’t know what I make, and you’re assuming that I’m making minimum wage when you tip me, then why would you not tip me?”

I point out that the minimum wage in Connecticut for tipped workers is $7.25, and nobody seems to be tipping less there.

“Really?” says Debbie, surprised, “I didn’t know they made more in Connecticut. Damn. It’s like right there.”

Chris isn’t surprised. She knows people who went to Connecticut to make more money. “A couple of girls who live on the line transferred to Connecticut, but I live too far,” she says. Transferring wasn’t hard, because the corporate restaurant chain has units in every state.

Both servers mentioned that working at a higher end restaurant in Providence might bring in more money. “I would have loved to have gone to Federal Hill,” says Chris, “but I don’t see myself, at my age, going there, working at some fancy restaurant.”

But both women also had heard stories that worried them.

“I had a friend who worked at a nice, upscale restaurant in Providence,” said Debbie, “and she worked Friday and Saturday night and made a lot of money, but for every good shift you got there you had to take a crappy shift on a Tuesday afternoon or something. On a Monday-Tuesday lunch, she might make $3. But she still had to pay to park, and she had to pay for her gas because she doesn’t live in Providence. So she’d drive to Providence, pay to park, drive home and leave negative basically.”

“One girl I know applied at a very nice place on Federal Hill as a cocktail waitress,” says Chris, “She didn’t take the job because they told her you don’t make a pay, you just work for tips and all of you pool your tips at the end of the night.”

So they don’t pay the cocktail waitresses anything?

Chris nodded. “She never took the job. I told her that’s not right. She was asked, ‘You want taxes taken out? You want to go through all of that?’

“I have friends who worked on Federal Hill. A lot of them get paid under the table. The [owners] should have to do the right thing, but that’s what they don’t want to do. Corporate restaurants have to pay you the right wages. They have so many restaurants, and they pay different amounts everywhere they’re set up, but you’d think the corporate restaurants would want these other restaurants to pay employees on the books so that they could compete better.”

So, I ask, are you two living the high life?

“I see people working to get $15 an hour at McDonald’s but we don’t make that,” Debbie says, shaking her head. “Every so often we may make that, but not all the time.”

“I don’t live the high life, God no,” says Chris.

Patreon

Common Cause: Gordon Fox arrest shows we need an ethics bill, auditing


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
Gordon Fox on WPRI Newsmakers.
Gordon Fox on WPRI Newsmakers.

In the wake of corruption charges against former House Speaker Gordon Fox, Common Cause Rhode Island is calling on the General Assembly to allow the ethics commission to oversee legislators, which currently it does not, and to impose audits on campaign accounts.

“We know there are several simple, immediate actions that can be taken to help hold our public officials more accountable,” Marion said.

Marion noted that in 2003 Fox was fined $10,000 by the state ethics commission for taking on GTech as a lawyer as he was working on a bill to move the business to Providence as a legislator. A 2009 state Supreme Court decision famously exempted legislators from being investigated by the ethics commission, and Common Cause has been advocating to restore their power over legislators ever since.

“When legislators feel there are no repercussions for the smaller stuff, the bigger stuff will eventually take over,” Marion said.

There could be political reasons the House won’t take up the ethics bill this session. Its sponsor is Rep. Mike Marcello, of Smithfield, who challenged Rep. Nick Mattiello as speaker. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Ed O’Neill, and independent from North Smithfield, Lincoln. The bill would put the question to the voters of Rhode Island.

Marion also said Fox’s plea today should inspire legislators to require some sort of campaign finance auditing. “Whether random or a percentage, we’ll look at other states and see what they do,” Marion said. “I do know other states routinely look at them.”

Gordon Fox to plead guilty to bribery, campaign fund misappropriation


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

gordonfox Former House Speaker Gordon Fox is facing three years in jail after agreeing to plead guilty to campaign finance fraud and accepting a bribe, state and federal officials announced this morning. The announcement seems the culmination of the investigation into Fox, a powerful Providence Democrat, that was marked by the high-profile raid of his State House office last year.

“When the search warrants in this case were executed nearly a year ago, there was talk about the State House being ‘the People’s House.’  I agree completely. The People’s House should be occupied by elected officials who hold office to serve the people, not themselves,” said US Attorney Peter Neronha in a statement. “As federal and state prosecutors, and federal and state law enforcement officials, we represent the people of the United States and the people of Rhode Island.  And we will go anywhere – anywhere – we can lawfully go to obtain the evidence we need to protect their interests.”

Fox, who was said to be the most powerful politician in the state, is accused of using campaign funds for personal expenses. Court documents show he transferred $108,000 from campaign accounts to personal accounts and spent the money at stores such as TJ Maxx, Tiffany’s, Walmart, or on mortgage and car payments.

“Often the balances in Fox’s personal accounts, including his law office account, were insufficient to cover his and his partner’s monthly expenses,” according to court documents. “The amounts that Fox transferred were typically utilized in one week, often days, to pay various bills.”

Court indicate money was transferred from campaign accounts starting in 2008 through 2014.

Fox is also accused of accepting a $50,000 bribe for help obtaining a liquor license in 2008 when he served on the Providence Board of Licenses, an accusation Attorney General Peter Kilmartin said came to light after the raid of Fox’s office.

“During the investigation, when the evidence of the bribery was discovered, the state possessed the prosecutorial tools necessary to move forward with this charge,” Kilmartin said in a press release. “It was that need and the state’s ability to move forward which helped secure a just resolution today.”

According to court documents, Fox will agree not to use as a defense the fact that the alleged bribe is beyond its statute of limitations.

Fox was first elected to office in 1992. In 2010, he was elected speaker of the House. He was the first openly gay house speaker in the country.

Obama’s budget addresses issues of interest to seniors


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 isisPresident Obama released his 141 page ‘policy and wish list” when he unveiled his politically ambitious FY 2016 budget on Feb 2, not having to worry about running for president in the upcoming 2016 presidential election cycle.

Yes, even inside the Washington Beltway a picture is truly worth a thousand words. Gone is the budget’s plain blue cover replaced by a black and white photo of the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, an image that projects one of the President’s spending priorities of rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure to create jobs and improve the transportation system.

The $4 trillion presidential budget, a political campaign document outlaying his policies and priorities, would cancel automatic sequestration cuts to domestic and military programs over a 10 year period. According to the New York Times, Obama’s budget proposal would add $6 trillion to the national debt, and the single-year deficit would rise to $687 billion by 2025.

Obama’s FY 2016 budget puts more funding into education, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, increased defense spending, along with providing tax relief for America’s middle class while increasing the taxes for corporate America and the wealthy. Political insiders say that Obama’s budget, one that gives to the middle class and assesses higher taxes from corporate America and the wealthy, sets the issues to be surely debated in the upcoming presidential election. .

A Look at Aging Priorities

In a Feb. 3 blog post, Nora Super, executive director of the upcoming White House Conference on Aging, details how the recently released budget proposal will “ensure that older Americans enjoy not only longer but healthier lives.”

As to retirement security, Super notes that the Obama Administration strongly opposes any legislative measures that would privatize the nation’s Social Security program, or slash benefits for future generations or reduce basic benefits to current beneficiaries. Super says that half the nation’s workforce, that’s about 78 million, does not have a retirement savings plan at work. “Fewer than 10 percent of those without plans at work contribute to a plan of their own. The President’s FY 2016 Budget expands retirement opportunities for all Americans to help families save and give them better choices to reach a secure retirement,” she says.

According to Super, Obama’s Budget proposal supports healthy aging by strengthening the Medicare program by “aligning payments with the costs of providing care, along with encouraging health care providers to deliver better care and better outcomes for their patients, and improving access to care for beneficiaries.”

To put the brakes to rising prescription drug costs, Super notes that the President’s Budget proposes to close the Medicare Part D donut hole for brand drugs by 2017, rather than 2020, by increasing discounts from the pharmaceutical industry. The Budget proposal also gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services new authority to negotiate with drug manufacturers on prices for high cost drugs and biologics covered under the Part D program.

Linking nutrition to healthy aging, Super says that Obama’s Budget provides “over $874 million for Nutrition Services programs, a $60 million increase over the 2015 enacted level, allowing States to provide 208 million meals to over 2 million older Americans nation-wide, helping to halt the decline in service levels for the first time since 2010.” Also, Obama’s budget ratchets up funding for supportive housing for very low-income elderly households, including frail elderly, to give these individuals access to human services, she adds. .

Protecting older persons from elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation, Super blogs that the President’s budget proposal includes $25 million in discretionary resources for Elder Justice Act programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act. “Funding will “improve detection and reporting of elder abuse; grants to States to pilot a new reporting system; and funding to support a coordinated Federal research portfolio to better understand and prevent the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable adults,” she says.

Here’s Super’s take on the Obama budgetary blueprint: “Taken together, these and other initiatives in the Budget will help to change the aging landscape in America to reflect new realities and new opportunities for older Americans, and they will support the dignity, independence, and quality of life of older Americans at a time when we’re seeing a huge surge in the number of older adults.”

In a released statement, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond gives thumbs to the president’s efforts to “lower the cost of prescription drugs, promote better care, reward improved outcomes and make health care programs more efficient and less wasteful.” She also expresses her nonprofit group’s support for the President’s budgetary priorities to “create opportunities for the middle class” and his goal “to make saving for retirement easier.”

But, LeaMond expresses concerns that higher premiums, deductibles and copays might shift costs to older Americans. “As the federal deficit continues shrinking, we must find responsible solutions for strengthening critical programs and improving the retirement and overall economic security of current and future generations. We must also look for savings throughout the entire health care system, as the rising cost of health care threatens people of all ages,” she says.

In his statement, President/CEO Max Richtman, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agrees with LeaMond’s concerns of higher premiums, deductible’s and co pays, too. “While some tout increasing means testing in Medicare as a way to insure ‘rich’ seniors pay their share, the truth is, the middle-class will take this hit as well,” he predicts.

Political pundits say that Obama’s 2016 budget was dead-on arrival at Capitol Hill the day it was released at the beginning of February. In the shadow of the upcoming 50th Anniversary of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act, as well as the 80th Anniversary of Social Security, GOP leadership in both chambers of Congress must work with the Democratic President to hammer out a bipartisan compromise. Putting budgetary proposals that strengthens the nation’s programs and services for older Americans on the chopping block for purely political reasons is not acceptable, especially to a nation that opposes political gridlock.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.

The Providence WetSox


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

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

The first thing that popped into my head when I heard that there were plans to move the Pawsox to downtown Providence near the river was, “Didn’t anybody check out that CRMC/URI flood map?”

And apparently nobody did. I’ve seen articles in the paper. I’ve even tweeted reporters. Nobody’s asking the question, “Is this stadium going to be built on stilts?”

Here’s my mock-up of the location of the stadium cobbled together from the rough info we’ve received, plus an overlay of the flood zone maps.

rough-flood

This map assumes sea level rises and storm surges. It doesn’t have potential hurricane or the 100 year flood levels.

So, here’s the pitch question…

“What are the new Sox owner’s plans to deal with or mitigate flooding during and after construction of a proposed stadium?”

Disclosures: I love baseball. I love Providence. I like the Pawsox. I don’t like public subsidies of businesses that will make millions and return little in the way of revenue and long-term growth/momentum to a city. Oh, and I’m not a GIS mapper…

Marijuana tax and regulate bill introduced Thursday


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 and regulate“Prohibiting the cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults has proven to be ineffective, unfair, and costly policy for the state of Rhode Island,” reads the Senate version of a bill that would tax and regulate marijuana in Rhode Island. The House version will be introduced at an event Thursday, 3:15 at the State House.

If passed, the legislation – sponsored in the Senate by Josh Miller of Cranston, and in the House by Scott Slater of Providence – could make Rhode Island the first state legislature to legalize marijuana. Colorado and Washington both legalized pot in 2014 through a referendum, as did Alaska this winter. Vermont is expected to legalize next year and Washington DC recently did so.

Rhode Island leaders have taken a wait-and-see attitude. But the allure of new tax revenue – a report last year estimated the state could generate $20 to $80 million – and the potential new businesses has been hard to ignore. It’s also a social justice issue as ACLU and NAACP leaders have pointed out that minority populations are disproportionately targeted by marijuana arrests and incarcerations.

“Representative Slater and Senator Miller are introducing a well-crafted, well-researched bill that would end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition in our state,” said Jared Moffat, of Regulate RI, the group advocating for passage of the bill. He said it “includes commonsense public health provisions, such as requiring opaque packing for all marijuana products, limiting edible products to one serving of THC, restricting advertising, and mandating the inclusion of safety inserts with important information about responsible consumption with each marijuana product sold.”

The bill would exempt anyone in Rhode Island from being prosecuted under state drugs laws if they possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It would also allow people to grow indoors one mature marijuana plant.

“Smoking marijuana shall be prohibited in all public places,” says the Senate version of the bill, and it would carry a $250 fine for smoking pot in an indoor public place and a $150 fine for smoking pot at an outdoor public place.

Unless given approval from the state Department of Health, it will still be illegal to sell marijuana. Applying for this approval could cost $5,000, according to the bill, and there will be a $10,000 annual permit to sell marijuana. There is no state limit on the number of businesses that could sell marijuana and the Department of Business Regulation is instructed by the bill to consider at least two. Marijuana retailers would have to include a warning label with their product.

There would be two taxes on legal marijuana; a $50 per ounce excise tax – some 40 percent of which would go to drug and alcohol treatment and prevention while another 10 percent would go to law enforcement – and a 10 percent sales tax.

Climate activists disrupt Whitehouse speech at Yale


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

Nick-JimmieOften called a “climate champion” by his defenders, Rhode Island’s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse faced criticism in New Haven, Connecticut on Saturday for his strong support of fracked methane gas.

During Whitehouse’s keynote address at Yale University’s “New Directions in Environmental Law” conference, members of the Connecticut-based climate justice collective Capitalism vs. the Climate interrupted Whitehouse with an action they called a “laugh riot.”

Each time the Senator suggested he was a climate champion, the demonstrators roared with hearty laughter.

“It’s a joke that Senator Whitehouse is an environmentalist,” said a protester when asked by an audience member what they found so funny. “He needs to stop supporting Spectra’s fracked gas pipeline expansion. He’s not a climate champion. He’s a climate clown.”

Activists then walked to the stage and held a banner reading “Fracked Gas Kills” in front of the Senator. Asked to leave by police, the protesters left the auditorium chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho, ha ha, ha ha!”

Apparently, after Yale campus police had cleared the room of laughing rioters, Senator Whitehouse joked that he was glad that open debate was alive and well at Yale.  Police-moderated debate in the time of free speech zones! There you have it.

Prior to the senator’s speech, about 30 demonstrators from 350-Connecticut and Capitalism vs. the Climate protested outside the conference in opposition to his support of fracking.  Capitalism vs the Climate quoted several examples illustrate Senator Whitehouse’s record as a fracking champion:

  • Spectra Energy’s website lists Senator Whitehouse as a supporter of their so-called “Algonquin” pipeline expansion in the Northeast states.
  • Senator Whitehouse praised fracking as a “blessing” in a 2014 interview: “I think it’s been an economic and environmental blessing to have gas as a bridge.”
  • Senator Whitehouse’s third largest campaign contributor in 2012 was Goldberg, Lindsay & Co., an investment firm that owns several natural gas distribution and pipeline companies. Goldberg, Lindsay & Co. also contributed $20,000 to the Senator’s “OCEANSPAC” that distributes money to candidates who support “ocean and environmental issues.”

Indeed, Senator Whitehouse —in the dedicated company of the other environmentalists of our congressional delegation— has consistently supported fracked gas a bridge fuel.

Early in January, I wrote to Lynsey Gaudioso, the `New Directions’ conference chair, to convey my dismay that Senator Whitehouse would be an honoree and keynote speaker at the conference.  Not that I ever received a reply, or expected to, but one of my arguments was:

A plaintiff in one of the suits brought by Our Children’s Trust sued the federal government “for making decisions that threaten our right to a safe and healthy planet.”  This right is enshrined in public trust law and demands that government act as a trustee in the management of essential natural assets. Building more fossil fuel infrastructure will delay developing a green power sector, while fracked gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. In other words, the policies Senator Whitehouse supports clash with his duty to protect the common good.

Regarding this last point, Bill Moyers recently interviewed Mary Christina Wood.  She argued that it is the responsibility of government to hold in trust the health of earth’s environment for present and future generations:

If this nation relies on a stable climate system, and the very habitability of this nation and all of the liberties of young people and their survival interests are at stake, the courts need to force the agencies and the legislatures to simply do their job.

Instead, our legislators support policies that are manifestly inconsistent with their fiduciary duties as trustees of Nature’s Trust.  In addition, the executive is in bed with the “stakeholders” it should be overseeing.  As a case in point, just think of the agency whose “oversight” was responsible of BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. Yes, that’s the famous Mineral Management Service of an ethics scandal, involving sex, drugs and graft.  Finally, we have a complicit judiciary that fails to enforce the general requirement that legislative trustees avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Oh, oops, I forgot; a $20,000 donation is free speech!


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