Samuel G. Howard – Page 5

June 18, 2013

Moody’s to Rhode Island: protect stupid investors

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

Moody’s (the Wall St. ratings agency) has downgraded the R.I. Economic Development Corporation bonds that funded 38 Studios; and has issued further warnings that the rest of Rhode Island’s bonds are under review, what WPRI’s Ted Nesi called a “sharp rebuke” to the state. The threat is loud and clear: fail to pay bondholders for 38 Studios, and we will damage your credit. In this way, it fulfills prophesies that Wall Street would look to make an example out of Rhode Island should the state not pay back the bondholders.

But the downgrade is nonsensical, and mainly continues to demonstrate why trusting ratings agencies remains a terrible idea in this post-economic crisis world. The New York Times‘ quantitative geek Nate Silver pointed this out when Standard & Poor downgraded the United States’ credit rating: ratings agencies are very bad at predicting what will happen, which is ostensibly what a rating should be. The credit rating on the 38 Studios bonds should’ve already reflected the likelihood that the state would default on that debt; if anyone had bothered to do due diligence, it would’ve been very clear to Moody’s that that was a real likelihood.

First, 38 Studios CEO Curt Schilling was unable to secure investment from private investors, making him dependent on this cash. Second, anyone analyzing what he was attempting (building a World of Warcraft-killer) would’ve absolutely known it wasn’t likely to work out (not unless Schilling was going to switch products once he secured the $75 million from the state, and he wasn’t). Third, the deal was highly unpopular with the people of Rhode Island, meaning that in the event of a 38 Studios collapse, there would be pressure on politicians not to pay. Fourth, the state is in recession, meaning there would be increased pressure not to pay. All of these risks should have been built into the rating when the bonds were issued and thus we shouldn’t be seeing a downgrade now (the greater risk was built into the bonds via greater interest payments).

Of course, though, a smart investor would’ve seen all this and refused to touch these bonds. But the ratings agencies aren’t for smart investors, they’re for stupid investors that are easily fleeced (see; subprime mortgage crisis ratings). Which is why stupid investors will be taken in by the likely downgrade of R.I.’s general obligation debt. From a pure facts on the ground position, a downgrade there doesn’t make sense. Let’s see what Moody’s is suggesting could downgrade our debt:

* Failure to honor its legal or moral obligations to bondholders

* Mounting combined debt and pension liability burdens with no plan to address them

*Deterioration of state’s reserve and balance sheet position

* Persistent economic weakness indicated by lack of employment recovery when the rest of the nation rebounds

*Increased liquidity pressure reflected in narrower cash margins, increased cash flow borrowing, or a shift toward tactics such as delayed vendor or other payments to gain short-term liquidity relief

*Continued significant reliance on one-time budget solutions, particularly deficit financing

*Resolution of pension litigation in employees’ favor

So, Moody’s doesn’t distinguish between moral obligation bonds and general obligation bonds, making it a very unsophisticated ratings agency indeed. No one, anywhere, has suggested not paying back our general obligations. Moody’s though, prefers to dupe investors by suggesting that’s an actual possibility.

The rest is basically jargon for typical Wall Street priorities: cut the budget, cut pensions, don’t run deficits. Got it. Don’t worry, our lawmakers are mostly with you, Moody’s. Oh also, our employment issues. Well, luckily for idiot investors, our employment rate has been steadily dropping. Of course, that’s partly because many people are leaving the workforce, but such semantics shouldn’t bother a wise and all-knowing credit ratings agency like Moody’s. After all, it’s the stats that matter.

The really sad problem with all of this is that even though ratings agencies are for idiots by idiots, there’s nothing we can do about it right now. Until such a time as a ratings agency for ratings agencies comes along, a vast herd of investors will treat what a ratings agency says as Very Important, even when a ratings agency is dead wrong. Moody’s colleagues at S&P figured their downgrade of Treasury bonds would raise rates, instead it sent the safest investment opportunity in the world to record lows as frightened investors poured money into the U.S. Treasury.

These investors took a risk on the 38 Studios bonds, a risk they should’ve understood. They gambled and they lost. Some Rhode Islanders have suggested that these gamblers shouldn’t pocket anything for their failure. Moody’s has decided that means that all of Rhode Island’s debt is possibly a riskier investment than it initially thought. Why? Perhaps it’s because Moody’s seeks not to honestly rate the credit worthiness of particular instruments, but to influence policy. In which case, they appear to be in a good position to do so.

June 15, 2013June 16, 2013

Not everything in US politics needs to be founder approved

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

The background of this post is that the General Assembly passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) for the second time since 2008 on Thursday, June 13, 2013 (then-Governor Donald Carcieri vetoed the legislation). I outlined my feelings about NPVIC last year when Senator Erin Lynch and Representative Raymond Gallison had bills out in the 2012 session. I don’t agree with Andrew Morse that electing the president by popular vote is a “crazy” idea; I think it’s maddening to elect our executive via the anti-democratic Electoral College.

I didn’t realize that the NPVIC was even introduced until I saw it was passed on Twitter, which shows how out of the loop I often am. One of the things that interested me were tweets by a Tea Party group, attributing Rep. Dennis Canario as claiming that NPVIC was unconstitutional, Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt as arguing RI would get more irrelevant, and that some legislator explained how the Electoral College works.

Let’s get the irrelevancy argument out of the way. The area surrounding Providence consistently ranks in the top 50 – 100 media markets, meaning you can reach a lot of voters really quickly. If every vote counts now, not just the ones that win you electoral votes, you have a good reason to focus on going to media markets like Providence. I can anticipate the counter-counterarguments, but since they distract from the main points, I won’t get into them here.

What I really want to address is the thing I see reflected in the attributed remarks from Canario (for the record, no, the NPVIC is not unconstitutional, the Constitution gives the states the power to apportion their electoral votes as they wish). This seems to me to be what historian William Hogeland has referred to as “hyperconstitutionalism” which I’m interpreting to be the idea that the Constitution is this sacrosanct document that every piece of legislation needs to have a ton of textual support from. That’s not what the Constitution is; it’s a document of compromise created by compromised men and further amended by other compromised men (mostly). It’s one that can be further amended.

Hand-in-hand in this is the apotheosis of the Founders, elevating to them to a status of “can do no wrong” regardless of the fact that they did a lot of wrong. A lot. Samuel Adams helped engineer a coup d’etat that overthrew the Pennsylvania government led by John Dickinson that resisted declaring independence; despite Dickinson’s pro-reconciliation government having won an election the same month as the coup; remember, this was the state that was hosting the Second Continental Congress that eventually wrote the Declaration of Independence (Dickinson opposed independence, but prior to that point was the leading luminary in the colonies of resistance to British oppression). Alexander Hamilton, his mentor/war profiteer Robert Morris, and their allies encouraged a later coup d’etat to get the Continental Congress to agree to pay bondholders after the war (Washington stopped it, but the Continental Congress still adopted Morris’ and Hamilton’s plans).

Government isn’t a static institution, it’s one that needs to continually change. Some Founders recognized that; it’s how you get the transformation from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. But many opposed even that change; Rhode Island notably did (it’s not an accident no Rhode Islanders were delegated to go to the Constitutional Convention). Our founders were revolutionaries, some were radicals even by today’s standards (Thomas Paine, notably). If you look at their document as a revolutionary document, then it shouldn’t be hard for you to consider other revolutionary changes as well.

If you think of their document as essentially a codified version of the British constitution (which is unwritten), with a few changes, then it becomes easier to support the idea of a static republic. But that’s still bad. Think of all the things that were considered inconceivable or dangerously radical in the Founders’ day: black people voting or holding office, women voting or holding office, Indians voting or holding office, open homosexuality, people without property holding elective office, people without a certain threshold of personal wealth voting, a standing military, income tax, presidential campaigns, political parties, a nonpartisan press, etc., etc. There are hundreds of things we take for granted that many of the Founders would’ve been horrified to learn about. Because on hundreds of issues, it turns out that late 18th Century people are probably not best people to guide our decision-making in the 21st Century.

The argument for the Electoral College is an inherently antidemocratic argument. Its proponents do not trust the American people to select their own chief executive. That is the heart of this issue. You either believe in democracy or you believe in 538 people (mostly political party insiders) getting together to cast their votes for the person they want (there is nothing beyond laws in 24 states that prevent electors from being unfaithful to the voters of their state).

It’s small wonder that a majority of Americans consistently support a national popular vote for president; it’s patently clear: the system is undemocratic. The Founders wanted it that way; Edmund Randolph opened the Constitutional Convention noting that “our chief danger arises from the democratic part of our constitutions.” Randolph and many of his contemporaries feared democracy, they fear “the People” in whose name they were assembling. And they were wrong. We shouldn’t look to people who feared democracy to inform what we do in our democracy. We are Americans, and we, the People, get to make those decisions today.

June 6, 2013June 6, 2013

Who Do We Pay?

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

With the House of Representatives bringing in its “neutral” expert on defaulting on the 38 Studios moral obligation bonds, the lingering question to me still remains. Why is it alright to unilaterally bail out on our pension obligations to state employees, but our “moral” obligations to bondholders who knew the risks must be honored at all costs?

That was the question posed to Gov. Lincoln Chafee a month ago by columnist (writing then for Bloomberg View) Josh Barro.* Chafee’s never answered that fundamental question, and Barro rightly excoriated the Governor for claiming to call for moderation when in fact he called for a more radical version of pension reform than what was enacted.

Discovering the answer to the question (why can we ignore pensioners but not bondholders) is not where the conversation around the interview with Chafee went, of course; WPRI’s Ted Nesi discussed it before turning instead to the idea of moral obligation bonds as essentially general obligation bonds. And ultimately, Reuter’s Felix Salmon jumped in with a bit of commentary that completely lost Barro’s thread, instead laughably painting Chafee as Machiavellian in his approach to bonds.

But the question still remains; why are we valuing capital more than labor here? These pensioners did their duty for the State, whether it was operating its government, hunting down its criminals, taking care of its people, or any of the other thousands of little things state employees do. In exchange, beyond the wages it paid them, the State promised as well to ensure they could take care of themselves in their retirement. Then, when it was unwilling to pay for it, the State reneged on this promise; now it’s facing a lawsuit.

The bondholders, on the other hand, provided the capital used to pay for 38 Studios, a game company that spent poorly, was bad at managing its money, failed to produce a profit, and ultimately left the State with a massive financial hole. The State is promising to pay them their money back, with interest.

The pensioners provided actual value to the State, the bondholders did not. A question for 2014 for any elected official that suggests we should pay back the 38 Studios bonds but voted for pension reform is to explain how the bonds are more valuable than our state workers’ labor.

The simple political reality is that bondholders have simply always been more powerful and dominant in state economic policy than its workers; going back at least to the era immediately following the Revolutionary War (a sobering thought as we approach Gaspee Days). Even though paying back the bonds will pull money out of Rhode Island’s economy, the bondholders will suggest that they can cost the State even more money by damaging its credit ratings. Sadly, these credit ratings are put out by the same agencies that said that subprime mortgages were a top-tier investment… leading to the collapse in the economy five years ago.

Ultimately, because it’s far easier to tabulate the value of capital rather than services rendered over a worker’s career, our credit ratings aren’t hurt when we spurn our obligations to pensioners. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re in the society that Ta-Nehisi Coates quotes Chris Hayes as suggesting we’re in, one “that applies the principle of accountability to the powerless and the principle of forgiveness to the powerful.”

P.S. It’s also worth noting the words we use to describe the two situations; we’re “defaulting” on our bonds, but merely “reforming” our pensions. Maybe people against paying back the 38 Studios bonds should use the phrase “bond reform.”

And for more on this topic, see RI Future posts by Mike McDonald (Gina’s moral obligation Wall St not RI, April 7) and Bob Walsh (Pension lawsuit primer, June 26, ’12)

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post referred to the “conservative columnist Josh Barro”. Today, Barro declared he’s not a conservative, and is currently a “neoliberal”.

June 5, 2013June 5, 2013

Bravery in a hard world

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

I came across a very good article by Maddy Myers, the former games critic for the defunct Boston Phoenix. Naturally, I found it when one of its subject, Anita Sarkeesian, a noted feminist games critic I’ve written about before, tweeted about it. Myers closes it out with this ending:

Anita Sarkeesian isn’t the only woman out there talking about videogames. She’s also not the only woman talking about feminism and videogames. But the list of women doing this remains quite short, and I wish it weren’t.

She’s not going to save the world, nor cover every nuance and facet perfectly, nor convince every last hater of the error of their ways. Not all by herself. There won’t be one magic publication that saves games journalism, nor one magic game that proves games are art, nor one magic feminist who convinces all of the misogynists. There will be many, many, many voices, and it will be a long, slow grind.

The only way to solve this scrutiny problem, I think, is to somehow get more women involved in this industry across all fronts, until the scrutiny that comes from being a minority begins to lessen, and until misogynists realize more definitively that they are the minority now.

But why on earth would any woman join, let alone stay, in a culture that vocally excludes her? Why would she not just go back to playing against the AI on her own, no longer bothering to frequent public videogame spaces? Why would she keep publishing articles, or keep making games, when so many people have yelled at her to get out, or else?

I don’t have a solution to this, other than to hope it will get better if we all just keep talking.

It reminds me a bit of the squabble I had with Justin Katz in my last post; when I criticized Katz’s argument that conservatives were staying home and living their lives in the manner that best represented their values rather than run for office and face the sort of political attacks that come with that ambition.

It reminds me also of a recent exchange I had on Twitter with a person who asked why there was no movement across Rhode Island for regionalization. When I suggest this person take up the cause themselves, they replied that they weren’t willing to lead like that, preferring to provide assistance from the background rather than face the opposition that would undoubtedly come. How then, I asked, can they expect someone else to lead such a movement if they won’t themselves? Good question, was the reply.

It also reminds me of the fearful nature of Occupy, distrustful of authority as it was. One of the things that makes masked anarchists such poor leaders is their inability to even show their faces. Like Katz’s conservatives hunkered in their homes, some in Occupy definitely sought to escape the reactions that people would have to them speaking their opinions.

Myers’ article, well worth reading, is a good response to fears of political attacks. Being a woman on the internet is hard. Shrill and petty as Rhode Island politics can occasionally be, rhetoric never stoops to the point where one candidate suggests that another should be raped and killed. And that’s par for the course for the hate directed at feminist game critics or usually any woman who speaks out against a culture of sexism (actually that might be subpar, most rhetoric is considerably worse and far more graphic).

Which is why it’s humbling to me to realize how powerful the women I know are, even if they’re just doing what they always do. Whether it’s the women from RI-NOW who hosted May’s Drinking Liberally introducing themselves, or past teachers who asked me to question basic assumptions about society to my own family. My mother faced down a death threat caused by her activism, and though I doubt my grandmother would classify herself as a feminist, much of her life is a testament to a woman who had to fight hard to keep her children fed and housed.

The point is this. Change rarely comes from a moment of mass epiphany, or through the leadership of an especially charismatic individual. It takes individual acts of bravery; black people defying segregation, women going to work, workers organizing, homosexual couples holding hands in public, etc., etc. This isn’t the kind of bravery that wins accolades, except in a few cases. It’s the kind of bravery that earns hatred and ire.

If you want to make a change, then that hatred and ire won’t stop you. If you truly believe you’re right, then righteousness must carry you forward.

May 25, 2013

Martyrs Wanted

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

Current-Anchor managing editor Justin Katz has a piece somewhat worth reading (the latter half of it is mostly an extended airing of his grievances about his own failed campaign for Tiverton school committee) titled “Whose Fault, RI?” In it, Katz examines the straits the Rhode Island Republican Party finds itself in. Ultimately, Katz settles on the usual villains keeping Republicans down; RI government, Democrats, unions, the media, and conservatives’ favorite punching bag, Rhode Islanders themselves. Katz neatly encapsulates the problem early on his piece, after suggesting conservatives are a “persecuted minority” (at least politically), by asking:

So, Rhode Island, why would people martyr the parts of their lives by which they mainly express their worldviews for a political lost cause that they can avoid or escape?

Aye, there’s the rub. Here’s the thing; though some of Katz’s rhetoric mimics that of those fighting for social change, his end conclusion demonstrates why the comfortable don’t make good agents of change. See, if you actually are suffering from the unfair exertion of power over you, you organize and fight back. That’s why unions exist. To organize their workplaces to prevent the unfair application of power.

Movements to defeat entrenched power systems have always required martyrs, martyrs who could’ve sat back in comfort and privilege and refused to fight. The sort of political attacks Katz met during his run for school committee is nothing in the face of what the union, civil rights, and LGBTQ movements suffered. And yet those movements all supplied people who willingly allowed their personal lives to suffer for the sake of a “lost cause.” If you truly believe in your principles, then you must stand up and suffer the slings and arrows of those who oppose you.

That Republicans can’t find people willing to stand up for their principles is an issue, and the blame for it should be placed solely at their feet. If the Republican Party isn’t offering their candidates support and encouragement, then they are fundamentally failing at being a political party. An organized party is necessary for victory; the Democrats not only are institutionally strong, but also organizationally strong as well. NGP VAN provides a wealth of data every election to candidates, as well as providing a great set of tools for campaigning. As far as I know, Republicans have no equivalent system, though they do understand that missing piece.

The dearth of candidates, especially in the voter-rich cities, hamstrings the Republicans in other ways. First, it appears to demonstrate that Republicans are not serious about their beliefs, certainly not serious enough to challenge the Democrats politically. Speaker Gordon Fox was actually challenged from the left, not the right, in 2012. In politics and society, there are few “wake up” moments where the majority of people come around to a point of view. Rather, it takes bold leadership and fearless advocacy for your positions to create change. If Republicans cower in their living rooms, then no one hears them or understands their point of view.

Second, it eliminates a ton of data-gathering about what a successful Republican candidate should look like. Consider that the two most successful RI GOP members are Alan Fung and Scott Avedesian. Both are mayors of cities, both aren’t given to the outsized rhetoric of the more fringe conservatives, and both could be viable contenders for the Governor’s office. The RI GOP already has an existing template for what makes a good Republican candidate. Its failure to foster candidates along that template is entirely its fault.

Let’s turn towards the anti-media narrative, the idea that the media fails to cover Republicans in a way that would be beneficial to them. This is probably true; media does have a bias. However, that bias isn’t necessarily liberal. What it often is is a bias of lack of knowledge. Issues-based campaigns learn this all the time; a journalist simply cannot become an expert on your issue overnight. Figuring out how to effectively communicate with journalists and news editors needs to be a part of the Republican Party’s job. However, scapegoating the media for one’s failures hampers effective communication and damages your ability to get your message across. Like it or not, even in the digital age, the media is the best way to communicate with a wide audience rapidly.

All movements that wished to undo the way of things, that wished to challenge power and succeed, have had to sacrifice. There have always been moments of self-doubt, of wondering whether the pain and suffering was worth it. But if you think that it’s just a “lost cause”, well… I’ll let actor and Republican Party member Jimmy Stewart play us out.

May 15, 2013May 15, 2013

Caprio’s road back to office reasonably hazardous

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

Frank Caprio is beginning what will be his second act in Rhode Island politics. It’s actually a reasonably admirable move; after a stinging defeat in the race for governor, Caprio readjusted his sights and aimed lower. In a political world which seems to be completely about climbing the ladder of positions, Caprio’s decision to stay level is an intriguing one.

RIPR’s Ian Donnis suggests that Caprio could be buoyed by a forgiving Rhode Island that’s for second chances. I don’t think this is particularly unique to Rhode Island; we don’t have to look very far to find examples of second chances. Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford recently found his way into the U.S. House of Representatives despite resigning his previous office in disgrace. Louisiana senator David Vitter frequented prostitutes and not only stayed in his seat, but won reelection. And Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon both lost races before winning the presidency. Second acts tend to be the nature of most democratic systems.

Caprio shouldn’t depend on forgiveness. “Shove it” is one of a few liabilities. His disaffiliation from the Democratic Party last November, combined with a quick tweet insulting President Obama, demonstrates he has a massive problem with the Democratic Party. Beyond that, he also met with the Republican National Committee during 2010. If he rejoins the Democratic Party to contest the position of treasurer then it’ll be clear he’s doing it solely for the electoral boon being a Democrat adds in Rhode Island. Frank Caprio was a terrible Democrat. Apologizing for “shove it” won’t change that.

Should he pursue office as a Democrat, it might be wise if he stayed away from WPRO’s John DePetro. It’s unlikely his support collapsed among WPRO listeners following “shove it.” Where it seems more likely to have collapsed is among Democratic voters who were already weak on him to begin with and were dismayed to see him turn the Rhode Island Democratic Party into a national laughingstock while providing fodder for America’s conservatives. Should Caprio reaffiliate with the Democratic Party, any potential Democratic opponent has to point out what a piss-poor job Caprio has done in serving Democratic interests or even just being a Democrat.

The other issue hampering Caprio’s likelihood of retaking the treasurer’s office is that he has a record as a treasurer. In the years since he left, Gina Raimondo raised the twin issues of the pension crisis and then pension reform. The political reality is that pension reform has been extremely popular. And part of the pro-reform camp’s argument has been that successive politicians kicked the can down the road instead of dealing with the problem before Raimondo dealt with it. Caprio has the grave misfortune to be the last person caught kicking that can. Any potential opponent will skewer Caprio with that point.

It’ll take more than a forgiving electorate to overcome such hurdles; it’ll take a serious effort by Caprio and his allies to make theses issue irrelevant. Luckily for them, they have a year before election season takes off. That’s a lot of time to prepare counters to all of the above.

Before this was published, but after I finished writing it, it appears that the Caprio camp (or at least a former campaign employee) is piloting a strategy to deal with the Raimondo issue. It looks like they’ll talk about the hedge fund issue.

May 13, 2013May 14, 2013

On the master lever, I am a hypocrite

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

On Monday morning, I argued that abolition of the single party option (SPO, better known as the so-called “master lever”) should fail, even though it’s good policy to abolish it. In it, I argue the opposite for what I’d argued about five months before: that regardless of the benefit abolition would accrue for proponents, it should be eliminated as a matter of good policy, and even as a matter of good politics for the establishment.

As Ken Block, the lead advocate for the abolition points out, that makes me a hypocrite. Block also points that I’m essentially advocating to keep voter confusion for the elderly, less educated and black until such a time as a larger reform can be passed so a better system can be created. Basically, even though we know the car of elections has a whole host of issues, I’m suggesting we don’t fix this one part now.

I can’t deny that this makes me hypocritical. The earlier post is right and the second post is wrong. But that doesn’t comfort me much.

Because now we’re in a discussion about tactics for long-term change. Winning a battle isn’t winning the war, and if your war is for greater representation in our democracy, then the master lever is a not particularly important battle and it absorbed far too many resources and far too much time. It’s a sideshow campaign; we know that early voting increases turnout. We know that first-past-the-post voting systems (where a candidate only needs a plurality to win) favor two-party systems with one or two exceptions in the world. And we know that Rhode Island’s electoral system is rigged (both presently and historically) to favor two parties, and usually the incumbent one at that. We also know that eliminating the master lever reduces the number of erroneously filled-out ballots. It’s not a sea-change issue.

It’s also an issue that, unfortunately, encompasses Ken Block.

And due to his advocacy it’s something that really can’t be divorced from him, and by extension, his political party. That’s probably why it’s pretty much dead at this point. Passing it would be a political win for the Moderate Party and they don’t even have an elected politician. The problem with Block is that he can’t recognize that his position as Moderate Party chair makes him a partisan (it’s literally is derived from a word for “defender of the party”). It means that everything he touches becomes tinged by politics. He says he’s a partisan “for non-ideologically based politics and governance” in which case he’s a partisan for unicorns. Politics without ideology is politics without politics. There is no such thing as a non-ideologically driven political actor and for Block to profess to be such an actor makes him either a liar or a fool.

Let’s get back to tactics, because talking about Block reminds me of a good comment Jason Becker made on Monday’s post; that it’s bad to throw out good policy because of the messenger. Block isn’t really the issue, he’s the quintessential do-gooder who does no good. I’m not worried about what happens when the master lever issue ends. Will that be it? We’ll hold a celebration, everyone will slap each other on the backs for a job well-done and they’ll all go home. Elections solved! Democracy free and fair!

A few people will make fewer mistakes. But the resources devoted to abolishing the master lever won’t return to advocate for the next issues in improving our elections. Higher turnout increases Democratic votes; so don’t expect the Moderates and Republicans to join in on anything that would do that. Campaign finance reform will help people who aren’t beholden to corporations or high-money players, so don’t expect businessmen concerned about “economic competitiveness” to start howling for that. This isn’t a bill in most of the advocates minds about helping the less educated, or elderly, or black. It’s a bill about breaking an institutional advantage for Democrats.

How do we know that? Because let’s look at the events that preceded John Marion’s piece in RI Future. The SPO abolition camp had never pointed to the seven-year-old study Marion cited until the Monday of the Boston Marathon. I applauded Marion for that piece at the time, because it rescued the SPO issue from Block’s poor shepherding of it.

When faced with the setback of the bill being held for further study, Block attacked Speaker Fox and Sen. Harold Metts as needing the SPO to win their races. And it stunk of politics. It reeked of political anger. Block had passed around erroneous ballots, but it wasn’t clear what that meant, whether they’d been scratched on purpose or whether they were the result of legitimate confusion. The problem with anonymous voting systems is you can’t ask people what they meant to do.

Marion saved the anti-SPO campaign from itself, in my view. I would never dream of speaking for him, because Common Cause is in it for the long haul and wants good government whether you’re Dem, GOP, Mod, Green, or Indy. Which is typical of an advocacy organization. When Marion writes, it’s from a place of deep expertise and understanding.

When I write, it’s from a place of passion, and often speculation. I warn readers about that pretty consistently. Push back, question me, etc. I enjoy the fight. I also enjoy watching the Moderate Party, because I enjoy watching fringe political movements. The Moderate Party is a fringe movement. It’s a fringe that claims to be in the center. But frankly, so what? Every fringe claims to be mainstream. There’s only one person in the Moderate Party who matters; Ken Block. Why does he want to abolish the SPO? He’s been quite forthcoming about it; potential Moderate Party candidates won’t run if the master lever bogeyman is out there. How was this issue not politicized and ideological?

Block’s mismanaged the master lever campaign. He made himself the face of it. And did he offer up a win to politicians? No. He didn’t bother. He didn’t bother doing the political part of politics. Contrast this with the marriage equality movement. Not only did the marriage equality forces offer up a real threat in the form of primary and general election challenges to anti-equality politicians, but they also offered support and publicity for pro-equality politicians. Marriage equality played a long-term game, they fought, and when they faced a setback they came back with a vengeance. And it worked.

Can Block offer this same combination of stick and carrot? No. He can’t even get more than a few people to stand up for their political beliefs (their ideology) and actually run. And he can’t offer politicians support, because none of them are Moderates; nor does Rhode Island have a system of electoral fusion to allow candidates to run under multiple party banners (another reform that could help). Instead, he’s focused on a paternalistic shame campaign targeting the House Speaker and Senate President. And the genuine mainstream responds to the fringe the way it generally does, with a shrug.

Some days I agree with Ken Block. I want SPO gone so more third parties can succeed. I want the Moderate Party developed so we can actually see it in action. And then I see what he does with any kind of press, and I hope he never has success because the Moderate Party under his leadership will try to save our social safety system by destroying it. That the Moderate Party in Rhode Island are just re-branded Rockefeller Republicans.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I would never profess to have a first-rate intelligence, but I can hold two opposing ideas in my mind. And I’m still functioning. Hypocrisy.

May 13, 2013May 13, 2013

Why master lever abolition should fail, for now

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

About a month ago, Common Cause RI Executive Director John Marion wrote a great piece here on RI Future explaining exactly why the single party option (aka the “master lever” or SPO) on Rhode Island’s voting ballots is a bad idea, citing a 2006 study by researchers at the Universities of Maryland and Rochester that demonstrated it produced confusion for voters over the age of 75, less educated voters, and black voters (the study was less confident in the assertion that SPO produces undervotes, where a person didn’t select a candidate for a race). It’s pretty clear that abolishing the single party option would end that confusion at the polls.

So why should the push to end this miserable state of affairs fail? Because it’s not about voter enfranchisement. Well, for Common Cause it is. If we really wanted voter enfranchisement, we’d talk about things like ending elections on a working Tuesday and moving them to the weekend or making Election Day a paid holiday. We’d see a push from the same forces howling about the “master lever” for early voting. Or automatic mail ballots. Or automatic voter registration. Perhaps they’d even being calling for campaign finance reform. Or instant run-off voting to end the first-past-the-post system that currently allows people who win only a third of the electorate to become governor. Or lowering the bar to become a political party.

Common Cause advocates for a lot of those things; but Common Cause isn’t necessarily making the headlines. We’ve seen Ken Block ask questions like “do we really want uninformed people voting?” Yes! The answer to that question is always an emphatic yes! Everyone should vote, and if you can’t get everyone, get most of the people. Right now, to win an election, you only have to win a plurality of a minority. We’re seeing pie-in-the-sky conservatives rally for this, even though it’s not going to solve their issue of being generally unelectable.

Abolishing a ballot option that causes voter confusion isn’t what makes good government. Good government is the kind of government that is responsive to people who don’t necessarily have the time to make the talk show circuits and write press releases. The master lever should be abolished when the issue is not just a vehicle for a single person to gain media coverage, but when it’s part of a full-scale overhaul of elections aimed at making this a government where all voices are heard.

May 11, 2013May 13, 2013

RI should be like Paradox Studios, not 38 Studios

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

You’ve probably never heard of Fredrik Wester or the studio he’s CEO of, Paradox Interactive. It operates mainly out of Sweden, a country slowly starting to exert more and more influence in pop culture. And, as Wester points out in this 26 minute talk entitled Using an Axe to Carve a Niche, Paradox Interactive makes games for nerds. Which is why it’s the leader in the grand strategy game market, and why it’s gone from six employees to around 255 across the world since Wester took over in 2004.

If this talk had come out in 2010 instead of 2013, it should’ve been required viewing for the EDC.

Everything about it is the counter example to the 38 Studios deal. Don’t make what the big studios are making, those require experience and resources you don’t have. Identify your market, identify your audience, and saturate it (Wester discusses wanting to sell his game to all of the subscribers of World War II Magazine). Avoid the typical marketing strategies; instead of an expensive 3D animated trailer, Paradox released one for their flagship Europa Universalis game suggesting “this game probably isn’t for you,” defying the customer to prove them wrong. Don’t leave a game incomplete.

In many ways, it’s the opposite strategy that the states here have been pursuing. Right now, we’re seeing strategies focused around “economic competitiveness.” But of course, the way to be competitive is to just throw gobs of cash at a company; witness North Carolina pulling in MetLife jobs with a $96 million payoff or our own success of attracting business with 38 Studios. Or how CVS demands money to stay in the state, even though it’s been very successful.

Rhode Island simply can’t compete with states like California, New York, or Texas. We can’t even compete with Massachusetts or Connecticut. But even though we’ve consistently failed trying to play this game, that’s what’s being pursued by our so-called leaders.

April 27, 2013April 29, 2013

What ‘Vikings’ Can Teach Us About Rhode Island Politics

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

viking boat — Innovation at work: Ragnar’s ship (via History Channel)

The History Channel’s “Vikings” dramatizes the various sagas, chronicles, and skaldic poems about the Viking raider Ragnar Lodbrok into a weekly television show. It’s also the History Channel’s first scripted drama. In one way it’s a dramatic departure from the conspiracy theory “documentaries” and reality television that currently dominate the History Channel’s lineup. But “Vikings” is also a return to the the roots of the History Channel, essentially a full length version of the dramatizations that take place between the informational programming about actual historical fact.

Like all good works of fiction, “Vikings” reveals some truths about our own conditions. Here’s how those truths apply to Rhode Island politics. Note: TONS OF SPOILERS AHEAD

1. A vision is necessary to win success, even if that vision defies convention. Innovation will occur to reach that vision. The first episode deals with Ragnar (Travis Fimmel) taking the initiative and sailing west. His liege, Earl Haraldson (Gabriel Byrne) has the Vikings raiding east, winning very little from the impoverished Baltic tribes. Ragnar secretly organizes an expedition west, picking up a few inventions along the way; a rudimentary compass to remain at the right latitude, a sunstone to figure out where the sun is during overcast days, and a longboat that can not only travel over the ocean but also upriver. The expedition lands at Lindisfarne in England and nets itself a tidy profit.

Rhode Island lacks that vision. Like Earl Haraldson, we’re content to work with what we know and in a conventional manner, even though its failure is pretty plain to see. Without that vision, don’t expect innovation to crop up any time soon.

Lagertha (Kathryn Winnick) raiding England. (via History Channel) — Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) raiding England. (via History Channel)

2. Just because it’s a man’s world doesn’t mean women aren’t going to kick ass. Ragnar’s wife Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) isn’t your typical mom with two kids. In the first episode she drives off two would-be rapists with an red-hot piece of iron and a meathook. Later on, she joins Ragnar in another raid on England, joining in the shieldwall that defeats a few Anglo-Saxon forces. There’s a couple other women who appear as extras in the background of most battle scenes as well. Later on, Lagertha does a great job mediating disputes while Ragnar is away in England.

Women in Rhode Island politics are kicking ass everyday. We’ve got Gina Raimondo, Elizabeth Roberts and Teresa Paiva Weed in positions of power, while clearly Donna Nesselbush just did a bang up job of getting marriage equality through the Senate. On the House side you’ve got Maria Cimini and Teresa Tanzi on the progressive wing, and no one can say the Tea Party’s Doreen Costa is a wilting lily. Yes, no woman has ever been Governor or represented Rhode Island in the U.S. Senate. Just proves there’s more asses left to kick. Sadly, a woman’s work is never done. Lagertha might well agree.

3. Religion plays a major role, and woe to those who forget that. There’s almost never an episode that goes by in “Vikings” without at least a minute or two devoted to talking about the Norse pantheon in some manner, including a weird reenactment of Ragnarok. Viking characters routinely wonder if Odin has forsaken them. Similarly, the court of Northumbria is divided about whether the vikings are a scourge sent by God to punish the Saxons for not being pious enough or a plague sent by the devil. They won’t agree to a peace until one of the vikings converts.

Whether it’s a prayer banner, Christmas tree, or it’s marriage equality, Rhode Island’s wars of religion are just as passionate as about any that appear on television (though less bloody). Death threats, mockery of God, and proselytizing about our “values” are all part of Rhode Island’s political debates. Religious figures consistently weigh in on the gamut issues. Religion plays a major part in our lives, whether we want it to or not.

Ragnar Lodbrok (Travis Fimmell) in combat. (via History Channel) — Ragnar Lodbrok (Travis Fimmel) in combat. (via History Channel)

4. If you take on leadership, you better win. About midway through the episodes so far, Ragnar challenges Earl Haraldson directly for power. It’s not an unexpected turn of events, since they’ve been more or less on a collision course from the opening moments. Haraldson moves quickly to knock out Ragnar, raiding Ragnar’s homestead, capturing his brother, and wounds Ragnar as well. Desperate and in hiding, Ragnar takes a gamble and challenges Haraldson to single combat. And in about the time of the average General Assembly session, Ragnar is Earl and Haraldson is off to dine in Valhalla.

Though Rhode Island politics has recently been devoid of the sudden overthrows that used to characterize succession from one leadership team to the other, we’ve seen plenty of people fail to succeed with such attempts. State legislators who too openly criticize leadership find themselves as isolated as Ragnar finds himself, but unfortunately they don’t get single combat as an option to solve their problems.

5. Just because you’re opposed to someone, doesn’t mean you can’t share a meal. Following his victory over Haraldson, Ragnar returns to Northumbria to get some more gold. As he goes raiding, he runs into King Aelle (Ivan Kaye) who’s determined to stop the vikings from taking his people’s stuff. After a disastrous defeat at the hands of Ragnar, Aelle eventually arranges a dinner to discuss terms of a truce and despite the deplorable manners of the vikings during the saying of grace and the meal itself, Ragnar and Aelle are able to share some lighthearted moments.

Rhode Island politics are often too small to carry on vitriolic grudges, and it’s the rare politician who won’t attend drinks, even if it’s with the other side. That’s the thing, even though there are strong stances and vehement positions, it’s the worst of us who aren’t willing to see the other side as human beings. The best of us accept our differences as the cost of living together.

King Horik (Donal Logue), left, takes part in the services at Uppsala. (via History Channel)

6. There’s always another position to get to. Ragnar is just a lowly fisherman who does part-time raiding at the beginning of the series. By the most recent episode, he’s an Earl, and now he’s working with King Horik of Denmark (played by Donal Logue). Whether his ambitions will make him vie for the kingship is unknown, but Danish history of the time often shows there were multiple kings in Denmark, and viking adventurers weren’t adverse to carving out kingships for themselves (a number of Danes ruled over England).

In Rhode Island politics, no matter how high you rise, you’re still in Rhode Island, which means there’s always another place to go for. Some of the most extreme examples of Raimondomania are discussions of her inhabiting the White House. But that kind of overblown expectation isn’t confined to Raimondo; some observers talked of Lincoln Chafee, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Jack Reed taking three of President Obama’s cabinet positions. All of them remain in place. It’s a reminder that even though the battles in Rhode Island are fierce, they fit into a larger environment. Just like Ragnar’s ambitions.

In all honesty, I don’t think there are any lessons about Rhode Island politics that aren’t self-evident. This is more me geeking out over Vikings, which recently wrapped its series on Sunday. Its last five episodes can be watched online.

April 26, 2013

RI state of mind and misleading headlines

“Rhode Island Most Miserable State” said numerous articles, as Gallup released its latest polling for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index on stress levels and enjoyment in various states. The problem with the headline is that it misrepresented the data Gallup provided, which can be seen here.

Sadly, The Providence Journal mistakenly reported that Rhode Island was not only the most miserable state, but under the headline “Rhode Islanders say they’re sad” mistakenly claimed “in Rhode Island, 80.4 percent of those asked said they did not enjoy themselves.” In actuality, 80.4% of Rhode Island claimed they’d experienced feelings of enjoyment that day before being polled. The online version, though the numbers are correct there (the online version chose the equally misleading headline of “Gallup poll: Little pleasure, lots of stress in Rhode Island”), claims Rhode Islanders described this state as “boring” and called Rhode Island residents “depressed”.

WPRO chose to play the survey with this tweet (and the story suggested Rhode Islanders move to Hawaii):

Yet another poll shows Rhode Islanders are miserable: bit.ly/14Pt9De #WPRO

— WPRO_Newsroom(@WPRO_newsroom) April 24, 2013

So here’s the thing, despite the agreement of WPRO and The Providence Journal, the data doesn’t back that conclusion up at all. That’s a falsity. The poll actually shows that about 4 out 5 Rhode Islanders experienced enjoyment “a lot of the day” before the poll, and that about 46.3% of Rhode Islanders also reported feeling stressed the day before. By no definition is that “miserable” or “boring” or “depressed”.

In comparison, Hawaii found roughly 9 out of 10 its residents had experienced enjoyment the day before and only 32.1% had experienced feelings of stress.

Does the survey show Rhode Island reports that it experienced the least enjoyment the day before the poll? Yes. But low-population states like Rhode Island and Hawaii had such small sample sizes that there’s 4 point margin of error, which does need to be considered, especially since this was a survey that was ranked based on fractions of a percent (so we’re about last, and Hawaii is about first). It’s also worth pointing out slightly less than 20% of Rhode Islanders failed to say they’d experienced positive feelings “a lot of the day”.

Only the worst cynic could describe that as “miserable” or suggest that Rhode Islanders think their state is boring, and Gallup, to its credit, never does. Gallup gives a very nuanced discussion about stress and enjoyment:

Rhode Island residents were the least likely to report feeling enjoyment the previous day, at 80.4%, although that is still high on an absolute basis. Residents in other high-stress states, Kentucky and West Virginia, were also among the least likely to experience enjoyment… Utah is unique in that it is routinely ranked among both the highest stress and highest enjoyment states, appearing among the top five in enjoyment in 2008, 2011, and 2012, suggesting a complex relationship between stress and other emotions.

Nationally, 84.9% of Americans reported feeling enjoyment “yesterday” in 2012. States with relatively lower enjoyment levels, below 84%, were primarily clustered in the Northeast and South, but also included Ohio. The states where enjoyment was higher than 86% were located mainly in the Midwest and West, including Hawaii and Alaska.

It’s important that we get these sorts of articles right, because when we place these under misleading headlines and give erroneous details or make wisecracks about these results in the article body, the public is being lied to. What we’re going to see is the people who consistently bash this state using these articles to prove their point of “Rhode Island sucks”, even though the study itself doesn’t support them. I can almost guarantee there will be a political mailer that cites The Journal article in 2014.

It’s really not surprising to me that given the 38 Studios collapse, Hurricane Sandy, continued high unemployment and the relentless slog of dreary headlines and editorials that less than half of Rhode Islanders feel stressed. What is great about this survey is that the average Rhode Island resident is a pretty upbeat person. There’s an obscene minority that really hates this state and doesn’t hesitate to tell us that, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of Rhode Islanders enjoy their lives. Even though Hawaiians experience 30.67% less stress than Rhode Island, they only experience 11.57% more enjoyment. As Rhode Islanders, we may occasionally feel stressed, but we know how to enjoy ourselves, too. Fuck yeah, Rhode Island.

April 24, 2013April 24, 2013

Cynicism warps view of Senate GOP’s SSM support

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

Last night a lengthy Twitter discussion erupted about the Senate Republican Caucus unanimously supporting marriage equality which is a first among legislative caucuses; according to the Human Rights Campaign. It was about as substantive as one can be with 140 characters, including people’s handles. Mainly, it sought to suss out the reason why the Senate GOP would back marriage equality so dramatically, enough to garner coverage in national press outlets.

In the interest of brevity, I’ll sum up my reading of the debate (with all the attendant failures of interpretation). One side suggested that the stance would harm the Republicans among social conservatives, who have formed a significant faction of the party for the last generation or so. Another group was of the opinion that the move undercut the Democratic Party among its socially liberal partisans; a stance highlighted by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dominic Ruggerio exercising his status as an ex officio member of the Senate Judiciary committee to help lessen the losing margin. Suffice it to say, with the Senate Democratic leadership so obviously opposed to marriage equality from the Judiciary chairman to the Senate President, why did Senate leadership allow themselves to be maneuvered into this position where they appear at odds with their own base while the Republicans look like brave heroes?

For one thing, the Senate Republicans have it far easier. The Dems have a 32-member caucus. The Republicans have a 5-member caucus. It is easier to reach consensus in a 5-person group than in a 32-person group. Helping is that the most conservative Senate Republicans lost to Democrats in the last election. Democrats, with a popular appeal that has widened over the last century, are naturally going to be more fractious.

Added to this is the intense scrutiny that Democratic Party legislators have faced since before the last election cycle. More than a few socially conservative Democrats were removed in primaries, while others retired. Those that made it through have faced a massive lobbying campaign from marriage equality supporters and also faced pressure from their counterparts in the House of Representatives.

However, our observers on Twitter were attempting to figure out the political calculus. And perhaps that’s what’s confounding about the situation; it’s not as simple as political repercussions. Perhaps all five Republican senators determined that it was the right thing to do.

Marriage equality is not a simple piece of feel-good legislation. It’s one infused with emotional, moral, and societal implications and arguments. It’s also a heavily religious battle, especially since a huge proportion of these state contracts are granted during an important religious ceremony. Hundreds of years of importance are being placed on this ceremony. On one hand, you have people who openly define their views as “traditional” and seek to prevent change. On the other, you have people who are genuinely in love, and whose sexual orientation has been persecuted for thousands of years. Homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder as recently as 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association; the World Health Organization took until 1990 to make the correction.

Sometimes, when the motivating factor is love, we cannot find a political reason for political action. Sometimes people act not on what will be best for them, but what they believe is right. This ability, to do the thing you think is right even when it may not be the best thing for you personally, is a lesson we attempt to teach our children. It might shock the worst cynics among us that as children our legislators may have absorbed that lesson. The Senate Republican caucus has done the right thing. Maybe it’s as simple as that.

April 11, 2013

Man Arrested After 27 Years of Solitude, Burglarly

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

This is incredible. Christopher Thomas Knight went into the Maine woods in about 1986, two years after graduating high school, and wasn’t seen for 27 years. In that time, he committed over 1000 burglaries, according to his and police estimates. Seems like all of it was basically to survive. In fact, a legend was built up about a hermit who was stealing from the people in the area Knight lived in.

Why he went into the wilderness? He doesn’t know. And neither do we. What his fate will be in the Maine judicial system is also unknown, though Knight has been extremely cooperative.

The details are interesting. He had a stack of money, some of it moldy, stored in case he needed to go buy something from a store. He didn’t use anything shiny, for fear it would attract attention. This means he hadn’t seen an image of himself for 27 years, except for his reflection in the water a few times. And he never built a fire, even in the cold Maine winters.

April 11, 2013April 11, 2013

State Bank Idea Is Back (As A Bill This Time)

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

public-banking-institute-map — Photo courtesy of Governing Magazine, circa 2012.

Kim Kalunian writes that Rep. Charlene Lima has introduced legislation, at the request of Keven McKenna, to create a state-owned bank in Rhode Island – a movement that is gaining traction across the country.

The bill states that the purpose of the bank would be “to protect the financial welfare and economic vitality of the citizens of Rhode Island, to obtain credit and support the functions of state government, to create jobs and improve the general welfare of the state of Rhode Island.” Anchor Rising’s Monique Chartier reacted predictably.

I’ve previously written about a Rhode Island state bank before, to the chagrin of state bank supporters. The example everyone points to is the Bank of North Dakota (BND), since that’s actually the only example. North Dakota is the only place where a state bank has been tried. But, as has been pointed out to me, Rhode Island of 2013 is a different place than North Dakota of 1919 (when the BND was founded, McKenna says 1908 in Kalunian’s article). And I think there’s something to be said for that.

The major thing to me, 1919 North Dakota’s state bank wasn’t hatched by a lawyer talking to their representative. North Dakota’s state bank was part of a platform created by socialists and populists within the North Dakota Republican Party, called the Nonpartisan League (this is why you need to watch political names). These were highly popular farmer socialists and populists, who managed to control both houses of the North Dakotan legislature and governor’s office and pushed through the creation of the bank as well as a state-run mill and grain elevator and a railroad, and also banned corporate farming. That deep-red North Dakota continues to hold onto most of these socialist legacies may prove that they’re red in more ways than one.

2013 Rhode Island contains no such socialist/populist movement, much less one that is politically organized enough to seize both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office. It also lacks a single dominant jobs sector like North Dakota’s agricultural economy of early 1900s. Virtually all of North Dakota’s economic structures put in place were to benefit farmers; the bank to provide credit, the mill and grain elevator to create a market for produce, and the railroad to get produce to market, plus a number of other laws like hail insurance or the ban on corporate farming.

The point is that all of these addressed a perceived need for North Dakotans. Read the history sections of the bank or the mill and elevator. It’s essentially “North Dakotans had a problem, and our business is how they solved it.” There are serious abuses in the banking system; robosigning, usurious payday lending, etc., but it’s not clear that a state bank is the necessary solution. Both bank and mill neglect to mention their political origins, nor the fact that following their creation, they were attacked by corporate forces for being experimental. They survived these assaults, but only by dint of the Great Depression making their need more apparent then ever.

So what about a state-run bank in RI?

The major function of a state-run bank would be to act as the state’s coffers; it would be where all our deposits are kept. Now, this probably would have a decent effect on our state’s economy, we’d no longer be financing foreign banks with state money, which is what we currently do. However, pulling our deposits out of those banks could have a disastrous effect on the banking system in Rhode Island. The other thing is to look at North Dakota; bankers punished North Dakota for establishing the state bank, purposefully causing trouble for state borrowing by driving up interest rates. Given that the banking system is perhaps more unaccountable today than it was in 1919, it’s highly conceivable Wall Street would react just as negatively in 2013. North Dakota spent many years in difficulty as its socialist and conservative Republican Party factions battled for control of the state and party.

Therefore, it might be more conceivable and less politically damaging to look at where there’s problems and gaps in the Rhode Island economy (a process itself which has been done numerous times with varying degrees of success), and think about establishing state-run enterprise there if no private enterprise currently exists. Yes, this would be risky. But Rhode Island is going to have to come to grips with the idea that its gambling revenue is going to decline in the coming years. Enterprise that pays profits into the state’s general fund could be a massive boon to the state government, especially if it lands upon an untapped market.

But for any of this to be politically viable, you’ll need a Nonpartisan League-type of organization; which would demonstrate far more cooperation and organization than any faction within any political party has ever shown in this state’s history. So, to establish a state-run enterprise in Rhode Island you’ll need at least two things: a (necessarily theoretical) model built on Rhode Island conditions and an organized political grouping with the muscle to make it a reality. It’s not impossible, it’s just implausible.

April 5, 2013April 8, 2013

Occupy Providence Featured In The Sociological Quarterly

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

Mike McCarthy Occupy Providence — Mike McCarthy leads an Occupy Providence march in 2011. (Photo by Bob Plain)

The Sociological Quarterly has an entire section devoted to the Occupy Movement in its Spring 2013 volume. You can read it for free at the Wiley Online Library.

While the whole section includes articles from the likes of former president of the American Sociological Association Frances Fox Piven and independent journalist Sarah Jaffe, and all of it is very interesting, Rhode Islanders will be more interested in the “Afterwards” part, specifically “Lessons from Occupy Providence” by Robert Wengronowitz. It’s a remarkable piece of transparency and openness you’re unlikely to see… well, from anyone; as former occupier Mike McCarthy tells the tale of how Occupy Providence eventually decamped from Burnside Park in the winter of 2011-2012 and discusses de facto leadership as an issue within a “leaderless” movement.

I’ve written already about my thoughts on the Occupy movement, so I’ll leave those aside and suggest you read some sociological writing.

April 2, 2013April 2, 2013

2014 Election: More Important Than You Think

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

state house november — The State House in November.

When the next gubernatorial inauguration takes place in January 2015, for preceding 30 years, a single Democratic governor will have reigned in Rhode Island for just 4 years and 2 days (barring any unforeseen circumstances leading to a Governor Elizabeth Roberts). Republicans will have ruled for 22 of those years. This is odd for a state that Gallup found to be “the most Democratic state” (tied with Hawaii).

There have been a number of things that could possibly have contributed to this. One is Rhode Island maintains a system of electing its Governor in the midterm election for U.S. President. The lower turnout means slightly fewer voters, and since the larger the turnout, the more the Democratic Party is favored, this pattern assists in electing more non-Democrats. The Party has also been hampered by lackluster gubernatorial candidates, culminating in Frank Caprio’s “shove it” comment in 2010. Finally, The New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog suggested that Rhode Island is “the most most elastic state”, meaning it has a large percentage of swing voters.

That FiveThirtyEight post has RIPR’s Scott MacKay positing that voters select Republicans to check the power of the Democrats in the General Assembly. It also quotes URI professor Maureen Moakley suggesting that we may see more independent candidates in the future instead of Republicans, due to the tarnishing of their brand both locally and nationally.

I’m neither a distinguished political observer nor a professor of political science, and it has been a few months since those observations were made, but I’m not in agreement with this (note: I’m not mocking either MacKay or Moakley, just warning you to read my thoughts skeptically). Considering that the Democrats have long held a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly, non-Democratic governors have been an ineffective check. And I do not think Rhode Islanders will be liable to select more independent governors after Lincoln Chafee’s administration ends.

My feeling is that the Democratic Party now has two strong candidates in the wings in Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras. At any point over the next year, either could join Ernie Almonte in the running. They’d instantly be the favorite. If both run, it becomes harder to parse, with Raimondo having the slight edge over Taveras at this moment in terms of polling and campaign cash reserves. In response to the threat of either of the state’s most popular politicians running as the Democratic nominee, the Republican Party is suggesting Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, or former U.S. Congressional District 1 candidate Brendan Doherty.

There’s a plausible path for a Republican candidate in a four-way race, assuming Chafee remains an independent (there’s been discussion of Chafee becoming a Democrat, but I don’t particularly think it’s likely, nor likely to help Chafee electorally) and assuming that the Moderate Party fields a candidate (which will probably be Ken Block).

If Rhode Island manages to vote in a Democratic governor, it may cause more changes than you’d think. The governor has been a relatively weak position for a long time. But it’s been a useful screen for unpopular policies, partly because our governors have been so good at being proponents of unpopular policies. Thus we can talk about the “Carcieri tax cuts” but ignore the very real criticism that they were passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Government power is rooted in the General Assembly. That it’s so diffuse and obscured is a notable feature of Rhode Island’s democracy; even within the General Assembly, the obvious power players aren’t always the ones calling the shots.

That might very well change with a Democrat in the governor’s chair. It seems unlikely that either a Governor Raimondo or Taveras will be content to take a back seat to the whims of the General Assembly. If the governor exerts more executive authority, what may take shape in Rhode Island may be more similar to the early days of the American Republic; with a pro-administration faction backing the governor and an anti-administration faction backing legislative power. These forces might very well meet in a constitutional convention (a possibility which shouldn’t be discounted) leading to a major fight over how the government should be structured (though it will likely be manifested in many small changes rather than large sweeping ones).

If the Democratic Party can come through this and figure out an accommodation for a Democratic governor, Democrats might finally secure presumptive control over the governor’s office. This will be boosted if economic conditions improve in Rhode Island during a Democratic administration. But if that happens, there may no longer be cover for the General Assembly.

March 28, 2013

Chafeeshambles

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

Gov. Lincoln Chafee finds himself in trouble with the media again, but this time it’s not for keeping vague documents a secret from them. It’s for suggesting that they might have something to do with his low approval rating (possibly by reporting on him). You can find the comments at the end of this part of ABC6’s “On the Record with Buddy Cianci” (starting at about 10:22). Chafee suggests that Rhode Island lacks a Walter Cronkite-figure to calm everyone down, and that though Cianci and RIPR’s Scott MacKay “do a good job” the rest of the media are looking for the pinata of the week. For some reason, the state news media reacted negatively when their coverage was unfavorably compared to that provided by a man convicted on RICO charges.

Notably, no one has contradicted Chafee by suggesting that MacKay does not do a good job.

It seems representative of Chafee’s puzzling approach to the media, which serves to both provoke and then fluster people. Departing Providence Phoenix editor David Scharfenberg says that Chafee’s team may be right if they feel that General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras get far superior press. But as Scharfenberg notes that “the governor’s funny combination of reserve and gaffery ensures that his accomplishments are both underplayed and overshadowed.” Scharfenberg has critiqued Chafee’s press strategy before, for example, around the “holiday tree” “controversy”. MacKay himself has commented on the Governor’s inept handling of the media circus over the Block Report.

What makes this most recent example of self-inflicted wounds notable is how easily avoidable it was. All Chafee had to do was point to Representative David Cicilline’s comeback despite the “wisdom” of the polls. This brings up the very legitimate critique that Rhode Island’s polling outcomes tend to be far removed from actual voting outcomes. The news media has to quiet down because the polls weren’t good predictors of the outcome in 2012, and everyone moves on.

That the Chafee team doesn’t have a good answer to the poor poll numbers is kind of startling. This is a pretty standard horserace question, and you ideally want one that doesn’t offend the media. But an answer that not only offends the media, but also makes them part of the story… well, it just so happens that the media is one of the media’s favorite subjects. So now you get a Providence Journal online poll which is practically guaranteed to not support the Governor’s position.

The other issue is that by invoking Cronkite and saying that the respect for office has eroded in the country, Chafee invokes a nostalgia for a mythical past. Yes, Cronkite was highly-watched in an era when there were only three networks. But calming? There were many disasters and social unrest that befell the country during his tenure, and Cronkite reported the news, rarely calming America. It’s not like he prevented a city from rioting by singing to them. As for respect for office… George Washington, whose ascendancy to “American God” status is so complete that the U.S. Capitol has a fresco entitled The Apotheosis of Washington, was burned in effigy during his tenure as president. Chafee has yet to be burned in effigy, though that is an admittedly low place to set the bar.

Perhaps if Governor Chafee had a “man of the people” air about him and was already popular, he could take an antagonistic tact with the media. Even under the best of circumstances, it is a risky choice, reliant on a way to bypass traditional media to speak directly to voters. Chafee, with his reserved patrician manner and habit of holding his cards close to his chest, is not well suited to chose this approach. He needs the media on his good side. After all, they’re the only ones who are going to get his message out there.

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Breakdown In RI GOP

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

In case you haven’t heard, the election for Rhode Island Republican chair has turned into a mess. And let’s remember, this wasn’t a paid position or even a position of much influence or power. After invalidating the 94-93 vote by the party’s central committee to make Warren Republican Town Committee chair Mark Smiley chair of the Rhode Island Republican Party, the missing voter has been found, and it was all a clerical error; this led Smiley’s opponent Dr. Dan Harrop (who last challenged David Cicilline for mayor of Providence) to challenge the result.

But then, of course, it got worse. After an anonymous email from a hitherto unknown (and probably non-existent) Republican faction blasted the Smiley loyalists as bigots, former state senator Beth Moura left a semi-cryptic anti-GOP message on Harrop’s Facebook timeline. And finally, over at WPRO, Kim Kalunian has all the reactions from various Republican Party factions as of the end of Tuesday, including my personal favorite line refuting accusations of bigotry:

“We have friends and members that are Hispanic or black,” [Raymond] McKay [president of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly] said.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Not a promising start to a position which is vaguely the de facto leader of the Rhode Island Republicans (at least in years without a Republican governor). Not a promising way for a chair who might need to “restore credibility” to the Republican Party in Rhode Island to win the position.

I don’t think the 94-93 split is as divisive as it seems. For one thing, the candidates don’t seem to be that distinguishable on issues (as even outgoing chair Mark Zaccaria said). Smiley supposedly is the conservative wing and Harrop is supposed the moderate wing. Another thing is that political parties’ central committees are rarely representative of the actual voters that make up a party; those feelings are more accurately gauged by the party primary for party purposes. 187 people probably do not represent all of Rhode Island’s roughly 80,000 registered Republicans. Central committees tend to be made up of the most active of the activists, not of the rank and file voters.

So while Republicans can probably put away any fear of a public defection of their moderate wing (it has been quietly defecting for years), this vote doesn’t bode well for their prospects. After all, if not a single General Assembly incumbent lost a seat in 2012 (the year 38 Studios collapsed), it seems unlikely that the GOP could make significant gains in the 2014 cycle (certainly not large enough to weaken Democratic control of the state). What this will do is create bad blood between party factions, and in a small state like Rhode Island, you need your party to at least be able to work together in a general election to share data, assist with voter registration and outreach, and cooperate during get-out-the-vote. If there’s too much tension, the lackluster effort the GOP already puts into those fields could be easily diminished.

Indeed, it seems likely that between General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras that the Democratic Party has two highly-popular and well-known figures to run for the state’s top office. The GOP’s top contenders seem to remain Cranston Mayor Allan Fung and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian. If the Democrats can seize the governor’s office, they might easily be able to hold it for the foreseeable future until the Republicans or another party finally emerge as a credible alternative.

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Celebrate Rhode Island, Support Calamari Bill

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

Sometimes, a state legislator has an idea that brings a smile to my face. And sometimes, that idea is ruthlessly mocked. So I think it’s high time I said something about H5654; better known as the “Calamari Bill” which makes Rhode Island-style calamari (the kind with pickled hot peppers) our state appetizer (as well as acknowledging that squid fishing is a major part of our economy).

First, let’s be clear about my biases:

I love Rhode Island.
Rhode Island-style calamari is delicious.

Now, a few sad-sacks have tried to turn this into some kind of demonstration of an out-of-touch Rhode Island legislature that’s more concerned with frivolous legislation than jobs building, something which the bill sponsor, Rep. Joseph McNamara (D – Cranston, Warwick), anticipated in his press release in February. Without knowing the details of how press releases from the State House work, I suppose I should note it could have been the RI Legislative Press Bureau that helped the representative make his case in the release. It’s easy to make fun of if you don’t have any catch shares, or are otherwise unconnected to the fishing industry.

I’ve already written about how our legislature can do more than one thing at a time. This seems to me an excellent bill. It promotes Rhode Island industry and tourism. Why eat Rhode Island calamari abroad when you can eat it in its birthplace? But it’s also a fun bill. They’re bringing in a chef to demonstrate how to prepare Rhode Island calamari the right way. This is a legislature that is notoriously thin-skinned and unable to openly laugh at its foibles. And they’re going to hear testimony from a chef, hopefully in digestible food form? That is government which takes itself just the right amount of serious.

Rep. McNamara is correct when he points out the following his press release: “So much of what we hear or read about Rhode Island is negative. We need to start promoting the good and wonderful things about our state.” Our calamari is a wonderful thing about our state. Too many members of our chattering and political classes have lost the ability to smile about our state. There’s too much negativity in the commentariat on our websites. We need to love our state, even when it fails. My state, wrong or right. If right then to defend it, if wrong then to amend it.

So yes, you can deride this as “feel-good” legislation. But frankly, do you want Rhode Island to feel bad all the time? And if you do, what’s wrong with you?

March 21, 2013March 21, 2013

The Value of Agency

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

A recent article in The Washington Post on the effects the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has on Woonsocket has once again placed the federal program in Rhode Island’s sights. Though the article is an indictment of our collapsed economy, a single part of the article focusing on the family’s finances seems to have caught the attention of both right and left. Here’s the offending part:

For the past three years, the Ortizes’ lives had unfolded in a series of exhausting, fractional decisions. Was it better to eat the string cheese now or to save it? To buy milk for $3.80 nearby or for $3.10 across town? Was it better to pay down the $600 they owed the landlord, or the $110 they owed for their cellphones, or the $75 they owed the tattoo parlor, or the $840 they owed the electric company?

And here’s Marc Comtois over at Anchor Rising:

They made some of the all too typical mistakes: teen pregnancy, move in together, have another child on their already low income and all exacerbated by a recession where the low-skilled are first and worst hit. Their economic ignorance and inability to prioritize is displayed by their $110 cell phone bill and tatoo parlor debt. That won’t help earn them much sympathy.

Yet, while they don’t seem to really “get it”–and I don’t want to give them a pass–society and the system certainly enable their naivete and ignorance. In today’s world, having a cell phone is simply a given–well nigh a “right” in the eyes of many–and spending money on tatoo’s is another norm, like getting your ears pierced used to be. That’s what you spend your cash, your “extra” money, on. Food comes from SNAP.

Here’s our own Dave Fisher, linking this story to the educational models of the state:

While I can certainly empathize with this couple, the fact that tattoos are an expense in a budget this small is patently ridiculous. Even for those with disposable income, body art should be considered a luxury.

Why do they not know this? Is this a failure of our education system, or a failure on their parents’ part? Is it just poor decision making?

In any case, the esoteric mathematics knowledge supposedly assessed by the NECAP has no relevance in their lives. Knowledge of simple Home Economics, on the other hand, may actually help this young family squirrel away some money and someday be able to wean themselves from the teat of federal assistance…

…And I’ve got some news for you, folks: When they fail, we — the royal we — have failed.

I like both writers, and on most issues they could not be further apart, but here you see them neatly align, almost parroting their arguments (though there are significant differences between the two). I’ll get to their arguments, but first I want to make a media point.

Post continues on next page (see “Pages” below “Related Posts”)

Pages: 1 2 3

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

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 … Page 11 Next page