Health care, medical costs and quick decisions


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

healthcareIt’s 7:00 in the evening. You, a Rhode Island resident, are at the mall in Attleboro. You’re out to dinner in Seekonk. You’re on vacation on the Cape. Suddenly, your teen-age child collapses, unconscious.

What do you do?

Do you call an ambulance? The child is unresponsive. His eyes are rolled back in their sockets. He appears to be breathing shallowly. I repeat: what do you do?

Do you call 911? Or do you try to assess whether the situation is dangerous, whether you should try to take him to the hospital yourself, or whether you should just take him home and call a doctor in the morning? Which do you choose? And no, you’re not a doctor, and no, you don’t even play one on TV.

Some would suggest we should choose the latter route. Or, if we decide to go the ambulance route, we should call several providers, trying to see who has the best price, then see if we can haggle it downward a bit. Or maybe ask if they’ll take a chicken as a discount. In the meantime, your child is still unconscious. But being the hyper-rational homo economicus that you are, you pull out the copy of the local yellow pages you always carry in case of situations like this, or you use your smart phone to search the web for the local services, and then you coolly work the market and see what sort of price you can get.

OK, you’ve done that, only to find that the best deal you can get is $2,999.99. Now, you have insurance, but it will only cover 80% of the charge after the deductible is satisfied, and only if the situation is deemed an emergency. Well, your kid is unconscious; does that, in and of itself constitute an emergency? Are you a doctor? No. Do you have a clue whether it’s truly an emergency? No. And, 20% of that ambulance bill still comes to $599.98, assuming that everything goes as planned, that your deductible has been met, and the insurance will actually cover the 80%.

So what do you do? Does this change your behavior?

And remember: you get your insurance through your employer, so it’s not like you can negotiate your own deal with the insurance company. And that’s a good thing.

And what if your checkbook balance is somewhere south of $800 at the moment, and you still have to make the car payment? That $599 will take a pretty good bite out of that. If you’re making RI median, your next check will come in somewhere between $1200 & $1300 (depending on deductions, etc). And remember, this is just the ambulance. If you do go to the ER, there will be a plethora of other charges: for tests, x-rays, CAT scans/MRIs, physician services, and so on.

One thing that’s important to remember is that something like an ambulance, or an ER, has to be staffed and prepared at all times. An ER will probably use its facilities on a fairly constant basis, so there isn’t a lot of down time. That is not necessarily true for an ambulance. Maintaining and staffing that ambulance 24/7 costs money. Now, if you depend on paying for the ambulance by billing the people who use it, a significant part of the bill will be for maintaining that service when it’s not in use. So that means the price has to be a lot higher than just the cost of that particular run. A lot higher.

Now, we could subsidize the ambulance service as a common good; but that means taxes have to go up to pay for that. Since people who decide the level of taxes probably don’t have to worry about a couple of grand if they need an ambulance, they won’t see the point of having to pay taxes all the time to support an ambulance service that they may never need. Let the people who need it pay for it. Sounds ever-so-sensible. So the poor schnooks who do have to worry about having to pay a couple of grand for an ambulance will pay for all that down time out of their pocket.

But that’s fair, isn’t it? If you make the bad choice and get sick, well, hey, you made that choice. No one put a gun to your head and made your kid pass lose consciousness.

So you go that route. You kid goes to the ER, gets half-a-dozen tests, and, thank the Lord, appears to be fine. So you all go about your business for another month or so. And then the bills (note the plural: bills) start to come in. The first is for the ER, and that’s around $4,500. But your insurance works as planned, so your only responsible for $900 (which is 20% of the total). Then there are the bills for the MRI, the blood tests, physician services, yadda yadda yadda. These clock in at another $1,500, so you only have to pay $300. So we’re over a grand already.

Then the ambulance bill comes. Oh, that was out of network. So sorry! You’re not covered!

So now you’re faced with the whole $2,999.99.

And the whole episode cost something like $9000 (Well, technically, $8,999.99, using the figures I’ve presented).

Now, how would you have acted when your kid collapsed? Would you have rationally balanced a potential bill of about $4,300 against some unknown ailment with unknowable consequences? Would you have considered the hole this was going to blow in your budget and said, “well, I have no idea what’s wrong with my kid, but maybe it’s not a big deal?” Or do you go the ambulance/ER route with no clue what it’s going to cost?

Would you have done anything differently?

The conservative counterpunch to the March on Washington


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

Crowds surrounding the Reflecting Pool, during...I like to believe that more Americans believe in the concept of equal justice today than in 1963.  The 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington will evoke different thoughts from different people, some with nostalgia, others with disdain.  My point isn’t to take a historical narrative, as others can provide that quite well.  What is important for America to realize today is that the struggle for equal civil and human rights continues in 2013.

A new video, “Our Turn to Dream,” expertly explains the current situation of low-income people, particularly Black and Latino Americans, facing what can only be considered a police state.  Pastor Kenny Glasgow, founder of The Ordinary People Society (T.O.P.S.), started working towards rebuilding his own community in Dothan, Alabama; but then realized that this issue looks the same nationwide.

Here are a few myths that need to be debunked:

  1. Racism is over.  Most people will acknowledge that racism is a cultural phenomenon dating back hundreds, even thousands, of years.  They will acknowledge that slavery could not have worked without the skin color; that Manifest Destiny (i.e. seizing all the land from sea to sea) would not have worked without designating the residents as “savages.” Yet we don’t want to believe racism is still at play in 2013.  It was all the way up to 1963, but it disappeared as soon as President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
  2. It’s a coincidence that the American system of mass incarceration also addresses the effects of poverty, unemployment, mental illness, and addiction by using prison cells.  We cage those of us who fall by the wayside or get caught up with a youthful indiscretion or a moment of uncontrolled emotion.  It is a myth that over-incarceration is some sort of mistake.  The flaws and results are not a mistake.  Anything of this magnitude is not a mistake.  Thus, we can’t just educate American politicians and believe that the mistake will be corrected.

People ask me “how can you say the criminal justice system is racist, that’s just hyperbole.”  I don’t want that person to catch a sound-byte and move on, believing or disbelieving.  I want them to ask for an explanation.  There are dots to connect regarding power and economics.  So check this out:

images-9Prison as System to Control ALL Americans

Wars have always been fought for multiple reasons.  There is generally some resources to seize, or strategic position to gain, but they also unite citizens against a common “other” enemy.  Wars also create profits for those who build the war machinery, and employ soldiers at low wages based on the ideology of “defending their country.”

Wars, and their residual effects, don’t always go so smoothly.  Black soldiers returned from WWII with a sense of entitlement and opportunity.  The G.I. Bill and the Civil Rights Movement vastly expanded a middle-class, right in the face of those who freely used the N-word.  Twenty years later, the Vietnam War took a very bad turn.  The war militarized young Black men, some of whom had a similar sense of entitlement and opportunity.  Meanwhile, President Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover infamously waged a covert domestic war against people struggling for equality here in America.

The “War on Drugs” was launched in 1972.  It was direct replacement of the Vietnam War.  This time the enemy wasn’t fascism or communism and we didn’t need to draft anyone or violate a sovereign nation to fight it.  The enemy lived in low-income urban communities, the same places these Black and Latino young men returned to after service in Vietnam.  Many had the physical, mental, and spiritual challenges of surviving war- and were now looking for jobs.

police-militarizationCity police forces began bulking up as federal dollars started to roll.  The cultural campaign of describing drugs as an evil scourge started to bloom.  And who would say our leaders are wrong?  The Civil Rights Movement had been appeased, infiltrated, arrested, and assassinated.  Peaceful assembly, free speech, and petitioning the government became scary.  Some of the survivors blinked, or looked the other way, or (most likely) never really saw it coming.  The master-stroke of the drug war was in full swing before long.

The drug war is genius.  It is bipartisan.  Industrial magnate Jay Gould once bragged that he could “pay half the working class to kill the other half.”  In the drug war, half the working class is paid to incarcerate the other half.  There are White prisoners and Black guards, yes.  But those exceptions do not stunt the fact that skin color is an essential element of the cultural messaging of the drug war.

louisiana-prisonMass Incarceration Evaporates Without Racism

It is understandable, if one believes drug users and drug sellers to be such an evil scourge, that we send police into the most concentrated areas of drug use.  Particularly if these perpetrators are young people; the younger we get them the longer we can punish them without paying for their geriatric care in prison.  And the earlier we can get these people off the streets.  Now imagine this group of concentrated drug users…

What did you imagine?  If you are seeing young Black men hanging out on a basketball court you are wrong.  The most concentrated area of drug use is in college dorms, frat houses, and similar apartments in such neighborhoods.

shutterstock_71425363Oh, but young White people are just going through an “experimental” phase.  I’ve never heard such a description of drug use by young Black and Latino people.  As someone who has been among drug users and sellers of both communities, I can tell you there are experimenters, steady users, and people who need help everywhere.  But you knew that.  The gut reaction is due to 40 years of cultural messaging by those in power.  Thank the 11 o’clock news, while you’re at it.

Serving Multiple Masters- Excess Labor

Self-Checkout_tAP110923050923_620x350Its not like America’s best economic minds have a better idea.  In our state-subsidized economic system (call it Capitalist, Socialist, or whatever), the tax-payer is the top customer and top employer, whether directly or indirectly.  Without manufacturing jobs, where do we send the labor?  One super-crane eliminates 100 dockworkers.  Even the checkout girl has been replaced with a machine.

Police, guards, and sheriffs require little training and education to be on the job.  Their existence has also massively expanded the jobs for judges and lawyers.  Furthermore, the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated are not counted amongst the “unemployed.”  They (or “we,” I should say) are written off as non-existent.  More importantly, we are not allowed to come home with a sense of entitlement and opportunity.  Even if some of us did, we are sometimes traumatized by our experience with no outlets through which to heal.

And Yet It Crumbles…

The Law of Diminishing Returns is the principle where something only works to a certain extent.  If you keep doing more of it, the thing starts getting worse.  Put two cooks in the kitchen and make twice the food.  Put four cooks in the kitchen and you start getting half the food.

The American governments can’t literally pay half the working class to lock up the other half.  Just like telecommunications have made it difficult to wage war against the “savage” foreigner, it is difficult to maintain the rhetoric that drugs are evil, a moral curse, or that children who commit crimes expose their inner evil, or that formerly incarcerated people are incapable of raising children and being good neighbors.

Fifty years after the March on Washington and some reports indicate we are more segregated than ever, with a greater class disparity than any country except India.  Yet all the private schools and gated communities cannot keep the tides of change at bay.  Tens of millions of Americans have been put in cages.  Each is part of a family and circle of friends.  With over 65 million Americans having a criminal record, and likely over 100 million people directly impacted by an over-criminalizing, super-sentencing criminal justice system costing billions of dollars every year… it is tough to keep the lie alive.  The lie is that this is all for your own good.

When the cure becomes worse than the disease, you have lost the confidence of your patient.  Americans want to redesign the solutions and reallocate the billions of dollars.  A movement is in place.  We can call it a Civil Rights Movement, a Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement, or anything else.  When the incarcerator begins expanding their industry to probation, parole, electronic monitoring, rehabilitation, and halfway houses: its because the rhetoric of cages has fallen on deaf ears and empty pockets.

Read the essential Unprison, here.

ALEC loves Raimondo


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

wall street democratThe pro-big business bill mill known as ALEC released a report this week that not only praises Gina Raimondo and local legislators for what they did to retirees in 2011, but also uses Raimondo’s Rhode Island model for why and how to downsize public sector pension plans.

The new ALEC overview even uses Raimondo’s emotionally compelling words as a visual graphic in its executive summary. Furthermore, the 45-page report is also the same exact game plan she used to sell the state on her plan.

“Legislators should move defined-benefit systems to properly designed alternatives, such as defined-contribution, cash balance, and hybrid plans,” suggests the summary. “They offer increased predictability for the employer and an increased likelihood for the employee that the money promised will actually be set aside.”

ALEC’s report is called “Keeping the Promise” and Raimondo’s legislation was called the “Rhode Island Retirement Security Act.” Both names imply that the effort is on behalf of the employee, but both ALEC and Raimondo are known for championing a much different demographic.

The crux of both is that a defined contribution plan, which is more management-friendly, is more sustainable than a defined benefit plan, which is more retiree-friendly. Rhode Island switched from a defined benefit plan to a hybrid plan.

Using the same pretense of being retiree-focused, the report also cites Central Falls fiscal problems as an example of why pension cuts can be needed.

More than anyone else, though, public retirees suffer from ill-funded plans. For example, in August 2011, the city of Central Falls, RI, filed for bankruptcy protection and went into receivership. As a result, some retirees saw their monthly payments cut in half.

It’s the second reference to financially-struggling cities benefiting from pension cuts. The first page of the executive summary says, “In the most extreme cases of fiscal distress induced by poorly managed pensions, some cities have had to go to court to seek bankruptcy protection and restructuring.”

National media briefly concerned itself with this same topic last summer when Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote a column saying Woonsocket’s budget problems were more closely related to conservative government-shrinking efforts than to pension obligations. Josh Barro, a conservative columnist who then worked for Bloomberg, quickly fired back that pensions are to blame.

This is at least the second ALEC report to laud Rhode Island for its pension cuts. “Perhaps the biggest pension reform success last year came from Rhode Island,” reads ALEC’s 2012 Rich State Poor State report.

Another local connection to the two ALEC reports: Jonathan Williams, a contributor to the local ALEC-aligned small government group the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, is listed in the acknowledgements of this year’s report and was a co-author of the previous report.

Something else worth noting: Last year (when Raimondo was still known as a “pragmatic progressive” rather than a “Wall Street Democrat”) only RI Future published a report on ALEC’s thoughts on Rhode Island’s pension cuts. This year, it was covered by at least two TV stations, one radio station and the Associated Press. At least three local reports used the word “praise” to describe what ALEC thinks of Rhode Island’s pension cuts. None of the reports call the changes to state’s pension system a “reform.”

Barrington affordable housing project lives


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
Credit Bill Rupp, Barrington Patch.
Credit Bill Rupp, Barrington Patch.

Good for the Barrington Planning Board for unanimously approving a controversial affording housing project.

I think.

“Multiple conditions” were placed on the project, according to the Providence Journal, including that at least 10 of the 40 units only have one bedroom. This condition would effectively limit the number of families with children that could live in the proposed Palmer Pointe development.

Barrington Patch reported that the applicants, the East Bay Community Development Corporation, will need to reassess the project. “Three representatives for EBCDC … were very pleased with the outcome, although [housing consultant Frank] Spinella said: ‘We need to determine whether it remains feasible with the conditions.'”

The proposed affordable housing project was controversial because an organized group in this upper-income suburb don’t think it’s fair that poor people get to live in subsidized housing in their community, and that the new development would increase traffic.

Barrington, nicknamed Borrington, has the highest real estate value, median income and NECAP scores in the state. It’s also been pretty good at keeping affordable housing projects out of town. State law requires there be 527 units of designated affordable housing but there are only 160.

Detroit’s bankruptcy is not a progressive problem


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

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

I got this great essay in my inbox last night by a fellow who’d like to be known as Earl Williams. It’s long and well-worth a read. The premise is that racial tensions in the late ’60’s early ’70’s contributed significantly to Detroit’s demise. It’s a sort-of response to the always-entertaining but never-very-convincing Travis Rowley’s Saturday missive how the left killed Detroit….

Personally, I lay a lot of the blame on NAFTA, the Clinton-era free trade agreement that promised economic growth but delivered depression for the Rust Belt and bigger bottom lines for corporations and CEOs. But Earl makes a good case that the problem started long before a globalized economy took its toll.

Also, please read this report I wrote in 2011 about Occupy Detroit’s efforts to pick up where the economy and then the public sector had failed

As the right wing dances gleefully on the fresh grave of the motor city, trading clever epithets to carve on the once great city’s tombstone, many economic truths lay buried beneath the soil in the motor city’s tomb. Already the comparison has been made to Rhode Island and whether the fate of our own, small state, can be divined by the default of the enormous debt owed by the industrial city once known as the Arsenal of Democracy.

The easy propaganda, eulogizing the economic demise of Detroit is that the socialist, liberal, welfare experiment has failed miserably and any economy that even slightly resembles Detroit’s will suffer the same cancerous fate. These voices will have one believe that unions killed Detroit; social welfare killed Detroit; taxes killed Detroit; pensions killed Detroit; etc. Furthermore, the example set forth by the city’s landslide into chapter 9 is quickly becoming rhetorical ammunition for the conservative argument against government employees’ retirement security, private and public sector unions and social safety-net programs for those below the poverty line.

These oversimplified condemnations of political philosophies are merely excellent distractions to factual history and the series of events that led to the critical condition in which Detroit currently finds itself. If by liberal failures, one actually means negative economic impact of race riots due to black disenfranchisement during the civil rights conflicts of the 1960s, then they are absolutely right.

In the summer of 1967, five days of race riots hit the city. Over the course of those days, 43 people died. There were 467 injured, including 167 Detroit police officers, 83 Detroit firefighters, 17 National Guard troops, 16 State Police officers and 3 U.S. Army soldiers. The economic ramifications proved to be a permanent and crippling injury. 2,509 stores looted or burned, 388 families rendered homeless or displaced and 412 buildings burned or damaged to the point of requiring demolition. The total monetary damage was estimated to be between $40 and $80 million. The aforementioned permanent damage was the flight of the emerging middle-class population from the city to the suburbs.

According to Coleman Young, Detroit’s first black mayor, “The heaviest casualty,however, was the city. Detroit’s losses went a hell of a lot deeper than the immediate toll of lives and buildings. The riot put Detroit on the fast track to economic desolation, mugging the city and making off with incalculable value in jobs, earnings taxes, corporate taxes, retail dollars, sales taxes, mortgages, interest, property taxes, development dollars, investment dollars, tourism dollars, and plain damn money.

The money was carried out in the pockets of the businesses and the white people who fled as fast as they could. The white exodus from Detroit had been prodigiously steady prior to the riot, totally twenty-two thousand in 1966, but afterwards it was frantic. In 1967, with less than half the year remaining after the summer explosion—the outward population migration reached sixty-seven thousand. In 1968 the figure hit eighty thousand, followed by forty-six thousand in 1969.

Since then, the city’s urban population has consistently declined. Demographically speaking, the least financially secure have been the population that remained, while the more financially contributory citizens have continued to avoid residency within the city limits. Less tax revenue and more financial insecurity has proved a recipe for unsustainable, fiscal liability. This is an easily arguable example of what is known as “the new Jim Crow.” So, a founding principle of the state of the city is a race based economic decline.

Perhaps, though, the liberal failures of which those who exploit the unfortunate bankruptcy of a city that helped to birth the backbone of America’s economic prowess. Detroit has also been a historically union city and necessarily so. In the 1920s, a Protestant minister trained at Yale Divinity School by the name of Reinhold Niebuhr, earned national attention by criticizing the auto industry in an era when Henry Ford was considered an American icon. He preached the Social Gospe, attacking what he considered the brutalization and insecurity of Ford workers. He became an outspoken critic of Ford and allowed union organizers to use his pulpit to expound their message of workers’ rights. Niebuhr attacked poor conditions created by the assembly lines and erratic employment practices.

The demonization of collective bargaining is a historically recent generational ideology. The mindset that one man builds his own kingdom by grasping his proverbial bootstraps and hoisting with all his might. Those who fail to prosper lack the fortitude by which to defy the gravity and, thereby, earn their meager places as the stepping-stones for the strong. However, the reality of the creation of the middle class, through which America has attained its precarious position at the top of the world’s economic food chain, was possible only with the rise of the labor unions. In fact, without the living wage set as a standard by the labor movement, those masses who provided the purchasing power for the very products that rolled off the assembly lines of the golden-era Detroit automobile plants would have been a commodity for those landed gentry who often fabricated the bootstrap mythology as their American heritage.

But, since the one percent progressively seized more and more power from the working class citizens, the history has been re-written to focus only on the small corner of corruption within the story of the labor movement in Detroit and elsewhere. This same agenda has conveniently ignored the corruption of the fabulously wealthy coalitions such as ALEC, and Wall Street and the Republican Party when stealing election rights, deregulating the banking industry to the point of economic collapse and starting multi-trillion dollar wars for profit.

And that brings the discussion of Detroit, full circle, to current conversation. As one outspoken and sensationalist holy man residing in the fantasy land United States of Glen Beckistan summarized, “Detroit’s demise hasn’t been good for either of the two parties that are often set against one another – taxpayers and unionized government employees – whenever government grows beyond its appropriate size and leftists begin to use state power to redistribute private wealth.”

Leftists begin to use state power to redistribute private wealth? Actually, one can take that particular point and dismantle it with a single proper noun: Mitt Romney. If, in fact, the situation in Detroit hasn’t been good for either party then why did the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee so enthusiastically endorse the bankruptcy of the auto industry – much of which was notoriously based in Detroit? Could it be that the fall of the industry that has been under Republican attack for decades would result in enormous profit for Romney and the company in which he held an enormous “blind trust” (come on now, really?) stake? One that yielded he and his wife upwards of $115 million? That seems to be a prime example of the polar opposite of redistribution of private wealth. In fact, that seems to be encouraging the hard earned wages of those working class Americans in pursuit of a middle class American dream to funnel into a financial wormhole with a small group of already overstuffed wallets open and waiting at the other end.

Detroit is not Central Falls. Detroit is not Providence and Detroit is certainly not the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. One can find comparisons between apples and oranges. Both are round. Both are fruit. One can find comparisons between the Tour de France and NASCAR. Both are races with wheeled vehicles. One can find comparisons between Humans and possums. Both are mammals separated by a surprisingly small percentage of DNA. However, legalities aside (states cannot declare bankruptcy by law), Detroit is not the canary in the coalmine for the future of the State of Rhode Island. And, as exemplified by its very unique history, is more than just an easily exploited cautionary tale for progressive political ideology.

Big win for Rhode Island’s lowest wage workers


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

Perhaps the best legislation to come out of the General assembly this year concerning Rhode Island’s economy is the increase to the minimum wage, which jumps up a quarter from $7.75 to $8. Said another way, working one hour at a local McDonald’s is now worth a full meal from the Extra Value Menu, with change left over for the meals tax!

While this may still leave employees woefully below the poverty level – before taxes working 40 hours a week at $8 an hour will net about $16,000 (assuming no vacation or sick days) – Rhode Island has been moving in the right (read: progressive) direction.  Just last year, legislators raised the minimum wage from $7.45 to $7.75. So over the last two years the new faces you see at WalMart and Dunkin’ Donuts will be an additional $4 a day – or almost $1000 a year. Maybe that’s a month’s rent.

Rhode Island now mandates businesses pay the lowest wage workers at least as much as they could earn in Massachusetts, though one can still do a quarter better in Connecticut where the minimum wage is $8.25. This, of course, is a completely useless comparison as virtually nobody who earns $16,000 a year can afford to move anywhere other than to the streets.

If you’re reading this post, there’s a good chance you don’t know anyone who works for the minimum wage; I don’t. Though they bag our groceries, serve us coffee and mow our lawns – but that guy may well be making less than minimum wage. Two-thirds of all minimum wage employees work for big business. And local favorites such as Dunkin Donuts, Panera Bread, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, The Outback, TJ Maxx and Kohls are all among the 50 largest minimum wage employers in the nation.

Kate Brewster of the Economic Progress Institute said some 72,000 Rhode Islanders would benefit from an increase to the federal minimum wage. That’s almost 10 percent of the whole state! They probably don’t spend much time at the State House or on the political blogs – they may not even vote – but they still have a great effect on our economy.

Thanks to everyone who expended their valuable political capital for this issue. And let’s help our congressional delegation advance this cause at the national level, where they are fighting for an increase to more than $10 an hour by 2015!

min wage

Fighting truancy with poverty


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
State House Dome from North Main Street

State House Dome from North Main StreetRep. Stephen Casey of Woonsocket has figured out a new way to punish the poor in Rhode Island.

He’s backing a bill that would kick parents off of government assistance programs if their children don’t have good attendance records at school. The bill only applies to welfare recipients, and not parents who receive tax breaks from the state. In other words, it targets poverty and exempts affluence.

Such legislation is becoming more commonplace in the General Assembly as class politics increases here in the Ocean State. Last year Rep. Doreen Costa introduced a bill that required social service recipients to be drug tested before receiving benefits but did not put similar conditions on those who get tax breaks from the state.

Advocates say the idea is to incentive better behavior. I think this line of reasoning ranges from being flawed logic to disingenuous debate. If poverty increases the likelihood of truancy or drug use, which it does, increasing poverty won’t decrease truancy or drug use.  If this worked, fire fighters would carry flame throwers instead of water hoses! Casey, a Woonsocket fire fighter, should know you don’t fight fire with fire.

Whatever the stated purpose of such legislation is, they function best at stigmatizing government assistance to the poor.

Truancy is an issue in Rhode Island. But divesting from the families of those who aren’t showing up for class won’t increase attendance. It will, on the other hand, make being poor a little bit more onerous on both the poor and by extension the rest of the economy as well.

Why Barrington doesn’t want affordable housing


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
Credit Bill Rupp, Barrington Patch. Click on the image to read his story.
Credit Bill Rupp, Barrington Patch. Click on the image to read his story.

When it comes to community, Barrington is by many measures Rhode Island’s standard for success. It boasts the best schools and the highest household median income. Crime is low, taxes are reasonable, real estate is valuable and amenities abound. Then how is it that this upper middle class suburban utopia epitomizes the state’s biggest economic issue and political problem?

Because Rhode Island’s most vexing social issue is that there are actually two extremely different worlds mashed into the relatively cozy cluster of towns in between Westerly and Woonsocket. There are the suburban enclaves, where life is pretty much like I just described Barrington. And then there are the urban areas, where life is pretty much the polar opposite of life in Barrington.

And here in the Ocean State, the haves seem to want little to do with the have-not neighbors. Classism can be easy to ignore, but we see it playing out prtty clearly as a group of Barrington residents are vociferously opposing an affordable housing project.

The group calls itself “Community Opposed to Detrimental Development and for Environmental Responsibility 02806” and claims its concerns are related to traffic congestion and the integrity of the town’s zoning rules. But this group’s name and many of their stated objections serve only to disguise what is really occurring in Rhode Island’s suburban standard bearer.

Similarly, I would submit that this is front page news today not because Barrington is woefully short of the state-mandated amount of affordable housing (which it is, by the way) or because some residents might need a sidewalk someday sooner rather than later. It’s news because it shows how rich people don’t want to share what they’ve got with poor people – and how they come up with fancy names and fake arguments to game the system so that they won’t have to.

Some 60 people showed up to a zoning board meeting last night to and more than 500 signed a petition opposing the project. I’ll bet the last time a public policy issue generated so much community involvement it involved the death of a teenager. Reporter Christine Dunn notes the group handed out literature at the meeting raising several objections including, she highlighted, “compatibility with the surrounding community.”

That’s the real story here.

All of those superlatives that I listed at the beginning of this post, all of the attributes that make people think Barrington must be the best place to own a home, would be diminished if more poor people lived there. NECAP scores and median income levels would decrease just as surely as crime and taxes would increase. So, who can blame Barrington for not wanting to let in any more of the poor?

The rest of the state, that’s who. While mixed income development might not be in the immediate self-interest of the suburbs (though I argue in this post that it is), it is far and away the better row to hoe for the state as a whole.

That’s why Rhode Island is lucky that in this particular instance state affordable housing mandates trump Barrington’s two unit-per-acre zoning rule. But there is still a path to victory for the opposition: they could appeal enough decisions to exhaust the resources of the applicant – it’s not at all unlikely that a citizens group from Barrington will be able to outspend a community housing agency. Even if and when the East Bay Community Development Corporation wins the right to build low income housing in Barrington, it knows for next time that it is much more expensive to do so here. The only other affordable housing project in Barrington went all the way to the state Supreme Court.

The best thing anyone can do for Rhode Island is to get the people in the cities and the people in the suburbs to understand that our destinies are inextricably connected, even if our lives aren’t on a daily basis. We all end up living with one another in the long run – whether we’re neighbors or not.

Businesses behaving badly


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

pyramid-of-capitalismIn past posts, I have explained actions that businesses–usually large corporations–have taken that are decidedly contrary to the interests of the general public. For this, commentors have claimed that I’m anti-business, that I’m using scare tactics, I’m just a socialist, or some combination thereof.

However, in the news over the past month or so we have seen two excellent examples of Business Behaving Badly. The first, of course, was the decision of MetLife to summarily fire all of its Life Administration employees here in RI and other parts of the Northeast and across the country, in order to move those jobs to North Carolina. MetLife is firing these people in order to pad its already high profits: $1.4 Bn for 2012. That seems to be contrary to the interests of the general public.

And yes, these people are being fired. There is no other word that accurately describes what is happening. Fired. For no fault of their own. Without cause. With no justification other than it better suits Met’s interests. A lot of these people have worked loyally for Met for periods often measured in decades. The reward for loyal service is to be fired.

How does that fit with the propaganda that the free market will take care of employees better than any government? Answer, it doesn’t. What it does do is illustrate to perfection how a corporation will take care of its own needs, regardless of the number of lives that are damaged in the process. It’s all about increasing the benefits that flow in a torrent to those already at the apex of the financial pyramid.

The second example is the explosion of the fertilizer plant in West, Texas. Now, from what I can gather, this plant was not part of some multinational corporation. A company like Met could have bought and sold it out of the spare change in the couch cushions. But it was a business, run for profit. One way of increasing profit is to cut corners on safety issues. Despite the fact that ammonium nitrate was the explosive of choice used by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing, those in charge of the fertilizer plant did not consider this a safety risk, Records indicate that the risk that concerned them most was the possibility of a leak of ammonia gas. This would be a bad thing, but not catastrophic.

So the company took no steps to mitigate the possible risk. Why not? Because they did not see the need, and taking steps would have cost money.

Now, it appears that no one in the town particularly blames the company, and the company was certainly not a rapacious corporation hell-bent on increasing profit. Still, the fact remains that no safety precautions were taken, and fifteen people are dead because of the lack of precautions.

The third example is the worst and most blatant of all: the collapse of the building in Bangladesh.

One thing we all hear about is the need for ‘common sense’. Doesn’t it seem that ‘common sense’ should include taking precautions to reduce the risk of a fire at a plant that stores large quantities of highly-explosive material? If you’re making dynamite, shouldn’t you build risk-mitigation into your plans? And ammonium nitrate, in the quantities on hand at the fertilizer plant is every bit as dangerous as dynamite. You can take Timothy McVeigh’s word on that. Doesn’t ‘common sense’ tell you to build a building so it won’t collapse?

It also appears that the fertilizer company may not have actually broken any laws. That also seems to be part of the problem. The plant is in Texas, and Texas prides itself on being a land of lax regulation. So fifteen people died so Texas could maintain its macho image of ‘hands-off’ conservatism. IOW, it’s more like Bangladesh, and less like the rest of the US that foolishly insists on standards. More, 68 people have died in mining accidents in the new millennium. The common thread of all these deaths is the lack of safety precautions. Why did the companies in question not take proper precautions? Because they cost money, and no one made them take the precautions.

In many ways, the impression is that the West Fertilizer Company was actually a fairly benign employer. In many ways, that only makes things worse. If this is how a well-intentioned company acts, how much worse are those actively looking for corners to cut?

This is how business will operate in an unregulated, or lightly-regulated market. Most businesses will be responsible, but there will always be a few who don’t. And when these businesses behave irresponsibly, and profit from this lack of concern, others will mimic that behavior and start cutting corners, too. And people will die. And it doesn’t have to be a business like mining, or fertilizer production with their built-in dangers; it could be the result of locked or nonexistent emergency exits, as happened in the Hamlet, NC chicken plant fire where 25 people died, or the even more horrific Triangle Shirtwaist fire, which killed over 140 people.

We are told that regulations in the US are too onerous. That they cost businesses money, and so jobs. We are told we need to lighten the regulatory burden on business, so that we can create jobs. IOW, we need to become more like Bangladesh, with its light (non-existent? Certainly not-enforced) regulations, no unions, and starvation wages for its employees.

You get what you pay for.

This is what happens when businesses are left to police themselves. Things are no different now than they were a century ago.

 

Jack Reed takes it to the banks and their regulators


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

Screenshot-ReedThere’s been a surprising dearth of coverage in the local press of Jack Reed’s exemplary work last week, as he stuck it to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) alongside Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren.  Here’s a .

Here’s the rub, from Dave Dayen at Salon:

The vast majority of borrowers – 3.4 million – will receive $1,000 or less. To pick a category at random, 234,000 borrowers had a loan modification approved, were kicked out of their homes anyway, and will receive for their trouble – for having their home effectively stolen – a whopping $300 (for comparison’s sake, the third-party consultants got $10,000 per review).

HuffPo notes Reed’s role here:

Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, regulators came the closest to acknowledging that the reviews, which resulted more than $2 billion in payments by the banks to consultants, were poorly conceived and supervised.

exity of the task,” said Daniel Stipano, a top lawyer at the OCC. He cited the number of financial institutions, consultants and homeowners involved and the difficulty in negotiating state law as among the challenges that reviewers and regulators had to negotiate.

Dave explains how this hearing and the OCC mortgage fraud settlement relate to the broader housing collapse.  Dave’s thrilled to see that the foreclosure fraud issue is FINALLY getting some play with the national press — with the tag-team effort by Reed, Warren, and Brown appearing — and even leading — on many national network news casts this week.

I have spent the better part of four years trying, with little success, to raise awareness aboutforeclosure fraud, the largest consumer fraud in the history of the United States.  In fact, there’s a whole little band of us writers and activists and foreclosure fighters. We have provided multitudes of evidence about fake documentsforged documentsillegal foreclosuresforeclosures on military members while they served overseasforeclosures on homes with no mortgagesbreaking and entering into the wrong homessuicides by foreclosure victims, and above all the complete lack of accountability for these crimes and abuses.

But instead of giving voice to thousands upon thousands of victims of illegal foreclosures, instead of documenting the banks’ criminal practices, maybe what we all should have done is simply let the Office of Comptroller of the Currency – part of the Treasury Department — and the Federal Reserve construct their own settlement with the banks. Then, when it utterly unraveled — as it has over the past couple of months — the unimaginable fraud heaped upon homeowners would get more attention than ever before, particularly from a frustrated and angry Congress led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

The OCC’s pathetic response to the housing crisis, its attempt to cover up its own corruption/ineptitude, and Warren’s star power make this the perfect moment to bear down on these issues.  Reed deserves praise for helping to lead the charge — let’s hope he keeps plowing forward.

2 Takes On Disability: Ken Block, ‘This American Life’


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

When the House Committee on Small Business takes up today it will hear from gubernatorial candidate-turned-foodstamp-fraud investigator Ken Block who will likely say something like, “Ultimately, our TDI program should resemble most other state’s plans in terms of cost and utilization.” as he tweeted last night.

But a must-listen “This American Life” episode this weekend makes a case for why Rhode Island’s disability insurance program should be unique. (Ed. note: this is the kind of journalism RI Future would like to do when we have more resources to play with!)

“It’s confusing, I have back pain,” says Planet Money reporter, Chana Joffe-Walt. “My editor has a herniated disk and works harder than anyone I know.”

Her piece is a very revealing look at how those who use their brains to earn a living cannot conceive of the difficulties of relying on your brawn to stay employed long term. I know this well. I worked as a farm hand in my 20’s and am tremendously grateful that my East Greenwich education allowed me to transition into the white collar economy.

But her story also says that disability is being used as a “quiet de facto welfare program.” (Something tells me Doreen Costa and Fox “News” are outraged!)

But economic realities and right wing outrage porn are so often mutually exclusive of one another.

“…if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you $16,000 a year … that probably won’t be full time and very likely won’t include health insurance, disability may be a better option,” says Joffe-Walt.

Like the rural areas of the South she reports on, many formerly middle class Rhode Islanders are on disability because a life of manual labor has left their bodies battered, and a globalized economy has taken away their job security.

Just like with Block’s efforts to root out food stamp fraud, his effort to reform disability might be well-intentioned. But well-intentioned isn’t the same as economically prudent. If it was government would be easy!

Before we make our TDI program look like other states, as Block suggests, we should investigate whether are situation is unique. After all, our economy is unique to other places so adopting ideas simply because other states are doing it will likely be a bad idea for our real-life economy AND the made-up CNBC rankings.

Editor’s note: It should have been made clearer that Block is testifying about temporary disability insurance and the This American Life story is about long term disability. The headline has been corrected.

Fox “News” And The War On Woonsocket’s Poor

If you didn’t know that local conservatives were going to take to Fox “News” to exploit Ken Block’s food stamp fraud report, I would like to bet you that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Then, maybe we can go double or nothing on whether or not the days will get longer until late June, when they will then get shorter for about the next six months.

The Providence Journal this morning reprised Dave Fisher’s post from Friday about Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine going on Fox “News” and blaming the city’s economic woes on the fact that one in three residents needs SNAP benefits.

The ProJo picked up on the similar themes as did Fisher’s post*: Fontaine inaccurately claimed that Block’s report uncovered “massive fraud” (or, me and Fontaine have an entirely different idea of what the word massive means) and that even the Fox anchor was surprised that Fontaine was blaming the poor for the city’s problems.

Unfortunately Fontaine wasn’t the only conservative using Block’s investigation to bash our poor on national television.

Rep. Doreen Costa, the voice of the tea party in the General Assembly, was on a Fox segment that included not-too subliminal messages of “‘Rhode’ to Economic Disaster” and “Who is ruining our economy?”

Costa, whose major legislative accomplishment is a failed bill that would mandate drug tests for welfare recipients, is no stranger to this form poor-bashing-as-political-shell-game. Here’s how it works:

Fox: “Why is Rhode Island suffering so much?”

Costa: “Well, I think Rhode Island is suffering so much because we don’t have any jobs here and because no business friendly legislation has been put in up at the State House…”

Fox: “Do people at least recognize that this is a problem or are you the lone ranger in this?”

Costa: “I don’t think people up at the State House even think this is an issue, they just want to keep giving out and giving out and giving out…”

Fox: “If you are trying to help these people, do you think they are trying to help themselves?

Costa: “That’s a good question. We just had a major report…”

There’s a lot in here that is either blatantly wrong or half-true to the point of being misinformation.

  • Rhode Island is suffering from a lack of jobs, but it’s not the kind of jobs that the myriad of business-friendly legislation at the State House addresses. In other words, putting the DEM under an economy czar isn’t going to get anyone off food stamps in Woonsocket, probably few – if any – Woonsocket residents lost their jobs when 38 Studios failed and I’d reckon that doing away with the sales tax would do far more damage than good, in the short and long term
  • So I get that very few people in politics care that the mayor of Woonsocket and the state Rep. from North Kingstown are spreading lies and half-truths about Rhode Islanders living in poverty on Fox, but what do Costa’s legislative colleagues think of her spreading lies about them. The idea that no one at the State House thinks about these issues is not in any way, shape or form true.
  • I like Doreen plenty but the idea that she is “trying to help these people” on SNAP benefits, as the Fox reporter said, is cartoonishly incorrect. She may be a member of the middle class – Costa sells advertising for WPRO – but her overarching philosophy of trying to shrink government down until it can be drowned in a bathtub is nothing but bad news for the working and middle class folks of Rhode Island and good news for the corporate elite.

To date, I think Fisher – WHO LIVES IN WOONSOCKET – has done the most interesting journalism on the Washington Post’s Woonsocket piece. He points out that while the city and the schools are going bankrupt and a third of the residents – and the local economy itself – is reliant on SNAP benefits, Woonsocket is also home of Rhode Island’s largest private sector employer, CVS, which gets more than $15 million in local and state tax breaks and pays its CEO $18 million a year.

There’s something to all that that I believe is the major reason Rhode Island finds itself in such bad economic shape.

I think conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressives all agree that the state’s struggles are pretty much concentrated in our urban areas. And I think everyone also agrees that the systemic poverty in Woonsocket, West Warwick, Central Falls, Pawtucket and Providence is terribly bad for Rhode Island (I think it’s the state’s biggest economic obstacle). Here’s where there is disagreement: do we want to continue with austerity measure and trickle down ec0nomics or do we want to try some bottom-up solutions.

I don’t think the couple dozen ACI inmates who may – or may not be – scamming the system will affect either our real-life economy or our made-up CNBC rankings one way or another.

Ken Block: Why Progressive RI Should Agree With Me


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

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

Ken BlockWhile I might not agree with where Ken Block invests his energy and determination, I certainly have a lot of respect for his energy and determination. Even after I compared him to PT Barnum and likened his SNAP fraud investigation to Anthony Gemma’s voter fraud investigation, he still took the time to write an essay for RI Future on why progressives should support his efforts.

But either before or after reading Ken’s thoughts, please read my editor’s note at the bottom of his piece, and Sam Howard’s excellent analysis about how and what we communicate about those who live in poverty.

Here’s Ken’s piece:

There are two fundamental truths when it comes to social service spending programs—1) even now, these government assistance programs are not fully meeting the needs of low-income Americans and 2) there will always be people who say the government spends too much on these efforts.

The recent Washington Post story highlighting the effect of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on the residents of Woonsocket was a powerful reminder not only of the impact of the program, but how it is leaves people struggling to make those benefits last.

The issue of targeting waste and fraud in these programs is one that makes some in the progressive community uncomfortable, because they fear that highlighting real-world abuses of welfare programs will give fodder to the forces that want to eliminate them. But let’s be honest: no degree of welfare reform, not even the most effective effort to stop waste and fraud in the system, will be enough to silence those who want government to stop funding social service efforts.

So is it best then for the progressive community to fight for state and federal expansion of programs like food stamps and housing assistance, while simply ignoring whether waste and fraud are limiting the effectiveness of those programs? I say no. If we truly believe that these programs provide lifelines to individuals and families who desperately need help to get by in today’s difficult economy, I would argue that while fighting to fully fund these programs, progressives also need to make sure that the people who need help the most are getting it.

If government isn’t moving to add additional funding to these programs, then the next best thing is making sure that waste and fraud isn’t taking money away from families in Woonsocket and other parts of the state who need it.

I have spoken to people who run Health and Human Services programs here in Rhode Island and in states across the country. They are good people who know how to get assistance dollars out the door and into the community. But they are not always as effective when it comes to making sure those dollars are creating the desired outcomes. So when I talk to them about the importance of program integrity, they get it and they realize it is a way to maximize their effectiveness and to make an even bigger difference in the lives of the people they are trying to help.

What is program integrity?

It’s a way to make the most of a limited pool of dollars. It’s a way to get the most bang for our social spending buck. And it’s a way to help make sure that people in need don’t get left out because assistance dollars are going to those who don’t deserve them.

Program integrity is the formal name given to efforts to ensure that spending in public assistance programs is consistent with the mission and rules of those programs. I believe that program integrity should be an issue that the progressive community backs whole-heartedly.

In SNAP, the key program integrity issue involves stopping unscrupulous retailers (most often small convenience store owners) who facilitate the conversion of food benefits in the SNAP program into cash. Like payday lenders who prey on those without access to the banking system, these people take a cut of the money for providing this service—often as much as 50% of the total benefit due to a recipient. The beneficiary is then able to use whatever cash is left for non-food items that SNAP would not pay for otherwise. An effective program can red flag retailers engaged in this practice and put an end to it, so that funds aren’t being channeled to retailers and so that the children of SNAP beneficiaries aren’t left going hungry because the funds the family was counting on went to pay for cigarettes, alcohol or other non-food items.

In programs like housing assistance, there are finite financial resources and a limited number of available housing units. Using program integrity here helps to ensure that the neediest citizens are not unfairly denied assistance. Section 8 housing can often have a waiting list of many years. If someone living in a subsidized housing unit is misrepresenting their financial situation and hanging onto the unit as a result, a needier family is being denied access. This is an issue of basic fairness and if the agency providing the benefits has the ability to make sure everyone is playing by the rules, they have an obligation to do so.

As with any effort that throws off a lot of data, there will be people who misconstrue and attempt to misuse program integrity data to undermine the mission or activities of the agency involved. But with or without data, those attacks will go on from those who are hell-bent to force the elimination of these necessary social service programs. But by gathering and acting on this data, program integrity initiatives produce a larger good—ensuring that taxpayer dollars targeted for social service programs provide the best possible results. And in the long run, improved results will effectively marginalize the empty noise made by those whose agenda does not involve producing positive outcomes in our communities.

I truly believe that government should always strive to measure the effectiveness of all programs and initiatives to determine if those programs are achieving their stated goals and operating efficiently. That holds true whether we are talking about evaluating economic development incentives, tax policy, social service spending programs or even something as unglamorous as DMV waiting lines or wait times for service at the Department of Labor and Training. To me, this analysis is a cornerstone of good governance and an indicator of government accountability to voters and taxpayers. And that’s something progressives should be proud to support.

 

And here’s my equally long editor’s note:

  • I firmly believe Ken Block’s efforts on this report was not the work of someone who would make a good governor. I think he is really smart and obviously hard-working, but, as Howard writes, it is “full of conjecture and insinuation that wouldn’t receive a passing grade in a college course.”
  • Holding such an opinion does not equate to supporting public sector fraud. In fact, many have suggested areas of government where both more fraud and more potential savings can be found. Scott MacKay suggested physician and health care industry fraud, for example.
  • I think the most common takeaway from this piece will be that the progressive left doesn’t value good government initiatives.
  • I think because of the way the mainstream media reported on Block’s SNAP investigation, the biggest effect of his efforts will be to further foster the false narrative that there is a widespread social services abuse among those who live in poverty (Again, see Sam Howard’s post).
  • I might be wrong, but it’s worth considering that I’m right. It is an indisputable fact that local Republicans and other fiscal conservatives are using the media swirl around his report to counter progressive proposals – see this video of Dave Fisher asking House Minority Leader Brain Newberry about tax equity.
  • If I’m right, it’s an example of how politicians and pundits have learned to manipulate the marketplace of ideas, which is still largely driven by print and broadcast journalism/journalists/pundits.
  • Ian Donnis and Scott MacKay are the best around at using the tools of unbiased journalism to get Rhode Island politicians on the record, and it is well worth listening to their probing interview with Block from last week.
  • However, it’s worth mentioning that MacKay, who dismissed Block’s report last week in this op/ed, tipped his hand in the interview: When Donnis asked Block if teaming up to form a “taxpayers” group with members of RISC and the tea party – probably two of the most conservative groups in the state – cast a shadow on his reputation as a “moderate,” you can actually hear MacKay laugh when Block responds by saying, “I became the president of a re-branded, move to the center organization…” (It happens at 6:55 here … perhaps MacKay coughed, but it is laughable to suggest that joining forces with Lisa Blais, Harriet Loyd and Donna Perry is an attempt to move to the center.)
  • So much of what Ken Block does reminds me of the famous Thomas Pynchon line from Gravity’s Rainbow: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
  • Only news in his post: Ken Block says it is more important to increase funding to SNAP than it is to investigate waste and/or fraud.

Outrage Porn 2: Ken Block Takes On SNAP Fraud


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

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

Ken BlockA SNAP expert examined the food assistance fraud report that software engineer and small government advocate Ken Block completed and said the results indicate Rhode Island is “doing a stellar job” mitigating misuse.

Progressive Providence Rep. Maria Cimini, who coordinates the SNAP outreach program at URI, said the national fraud rate for the program known as food stamps is between 1 and 3 percent. Block’s report indicates the fraud rate in Rhode Island is “one half of 1 percent,” she said.

“I read this and say we are doing a good job,” she said. “Unless his detailed report comes out very different, this is reason to be very excited.”

Cimini and others have questioned some of the assumptions the report makes. Cimini said that some conclusions are “ridiculous,” and that she was “disturbed by the implications” that there is a connection between SNAP recipients and illicit drug users (which of course you can read about on Anchor Rising).

She called attention to this paragraph (emphasis mine):

A smoker in the Simpatico office went to buy cigarettes that had an EBT certification and displayed odd characteristics of Food Stamp purchases. The shop rang her cigarettes up as food, indicating a likely tax evasion scam, as well as almost certain Food Stamp trafficking as well (the Simpatico employee did not have an EBT card)

“This statement does not indicate any fraud,” Cimini said.

The report assumes fraud when more than one person with the same address applies for SNAP benefits, but Cimini says Block is overlooking the fact that poor people sometimes share living space but not food expenses. She gave an example of a elderly parent who might live in an in-law apartment.

The report itself admits this claim is a stretch: “It is difficult to ascertain intent from the data, but it would be beneficial to clients to to overstate family size to the Food Stamp program…” (Ed. note: Block has been critical of RI Future for such communication techniques.)

Cimini was also critical of the way the media handled the story. “I think it is damaging that this was presented as uncovering fraud.”

Sam Howard recently wrote a well-received piece critical of WPRI for a story that made assumptions about how poor people spend government subsidies, calling it . Cimini made an interesting point about the media when we were talking about these two narratives: “Why can’t we ever say government is doing a good job.”

I asked her if she thought Block was acting in good faith with his report. She paused and said, “I think he probably was acting in good faith, but I think maybe some of the people he works with think everyone who gets assistance is fraudulent.”

Block recently teamed up with local tea party disciples and the remnants of RISC to form the RI Taxpayers group.

He also started a third party called the Moderate Party. But calling Ken Block moderate is like claiming California is in the midwest. (It’s only true if you consider Hawaii.)

The Jilted Spouse


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

Here’s a familiar story. A man and a woman get married when they’re young. Time passes, they age, they grow, and, before you know it, 25 years have passed. Then, one day, with no real warning, the man tells the wife that she’s too old. He’s dumping her for a younger woman who doesn’t have the wife’s expensive tastes. The wife protests, pleads, but to no avail. The husband has made up his mind. He’s leaving, selling the house, and moving out, more or less dumping the wife on the street. T0o bad.

This story is so cliche, so hackneyed, that selling it as a book or movie would be very difficult. However, it’s a story that I believe conservatives, libertarians, and–especially–capitalists love. It’s not just a story for them; it’s a paradigm, an ideal, an aspiration. They look for opportunities to do this, they lust over such opportunities to find a younger, less empowered, more pliable partner that can be browbeaten and coerced more easily than the stronger, more mature woman.

Of course, I’m not talking about marriage. It’s a parable, similar to the one told to King David after he’d arranged for the death of Bathsheba’s husband. The king became outraged, and then he was made to realize that he was the culprit.

The news just broke that yet another large, powerful corporation has decided to dump long-serving employees and replace them with younger, cheaper replacements in a warmer climate.

2o years, 3o years of service? Too bad. You’re out. We want younger, cheaper people somewhere that has a lower standard of living. Your loyalty? Who freaking cares?

When I have suggested that corporations behave in such a manner, I’ve been met with howls of protest from the corporate lackeys, who call me a hater, an anti-corporate socialist (somehow, the lowest form of life). When I provide examples, like the one above, I’m called a liar. And yet there are several hundred (the exact number is hard to pin down) families in RI and environs having grim dinner time conversations because the job that’s been there, to which they’ve given their youth and the best years of their life is being pulled out from under them. There was no warning. Just a hastily-assembled meeting or phone call.

And then there will be those howling that this is what companies have to do to take care of their shareholders. What a load of crap. Moves like this, generally, provide a quick bump in stock price, but have almost zero long-term positive effect on stock price. What they do impact are bonuses; the ones who made the “tough choices” are amply rewarded while those suffering the tough consequences are often left twisting in the wind.

And whatever happened to the employer’s loyalty to its employees? I believe that Econ 101 teaches that an employer will nurture its valuable employees because of the value they add. Funny, the people screaming that minimum wage increases will cost jobs because “that’s just Econ 101” must have been hungover and slept through class the day that employer loyalty was discussed. I keep going back to Henry Ford, but the dude was almost violently anti-communist, and this is why he decided to pay his good employees enough to keep them. He knew he was buying their loyalty, and paying them enough to be able to buy his product.

IOW, he took the long-term view, which today’s short-term managers almost never do. For most of today’s managers–and that’s all that CEOs are, for the most part: hired help, not the steely-eyed builders of a business as per the Ayn Rand fantasy world–are all well-schooled in the I’ll Be Gone school of management. This teaches: “loot the company, make your money, and leave before the chickens come home to roost.”

The other issue that conservatives claim is that people who lose their jobs are responsible. So tell me: how do several hundred people all screw up so badly as individually that they get fired collectively? How does that work? Outside of the Ayn Rand fantasy world? All of them? All at once?

No, their collective sin is that they’ve stayed too long. They’ve been loyal employees, through thick and thin, for better and for worse, in sickness (by coming to work instead of taking care of themselves) and in health, through good times and bad. So their collective reward is to be told that the company is moving south; of course, they’re welcome to apply for their old job, but they might end up with a pay cut.

This, so the company can pay people at the lower end of a lower scale, and, not coincidentally, get rid of older employees whose health has perhaps deteriorated–perhaps because they worked when they should have been home sick–and replace them with employees that are not only younger, but in better health. So they won’t cost so much in sick time or disability leave. And of course, the long-service employees will no longer be able to fund the pension that they were guaranteed when they signed on, limiting future pension liability. And of course, the new hires won’t get anything as archaic as pensions, even though the evidence against the efficacy of 401(k) programs is starting to mount. No, grind out your life working until the magic day you drop dead. And, btw, be so kind as to do that sooner rather than later. The corporate overlords thank you for your consideration.

So welcome to the working world, in this brave new millennium. Because this is exactly how things are, my friends. Welcome to the working world–just don’t expect to stay too long.

NK: Investing In Dog Park; Cutting Fire Budget


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
Unon members and residents packed a North Kingstown School Committee meeting.

Something is seriously wrong in North Kingstown.

Recall that the town is mired a bitter battle with its local fire fighters, trying to get them to work 24-hour shifts and take an average $5 an hour pay cut. And also remember that the school department fired every school custodians this summer only to hire them back at a lower wage with worse benefits. Like the firefighters face, the custodians took a $5 an hour pay cut.

In both instances, elected officials cried poverty. School Committee Chair Kimberly Ann Page even wrote that she feared having to choose between paying janitors a living wage and keeping the school heated.

But while schools struggle to stay warm and public sector employees are being denied a decent living, the dogs in North Kingstown are doing quite well. According to North Kingstown Patch:

At Monday night’s town council meeting, Town Manager Michael Embury proposed a possible location for NK’s first dog park. Though it’s not a priority, Embury says that many residents have expressed interest in having a dog park in town similar to those in South Kingstown and Newport.

Embury said he could have the department of public works director look into the cost creating a dog park at the location, including fencing and maintenance.

 

A town can’t have money to make a park just for dogs and not to pay its employees a living wage. It’s bad government, poor politics, atrocious economics and horrible humanity.

There’s no reason public sector employees should have to live in poverty, especially not if the taxpayers concerns include too much poop at local parks.

 


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