The wage gap for older women, in Rhode Island and nationally


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

equal-payFollowing on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last week, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing to put a Congressional spotlight on the alarming increase of older Americans becoming impoverished.  The GAO policy analysts concluded that a growing number of the nation’s elderly, especially women and minorities, could fall into poverty due to lower incomes associated with declining marriage rates and the higher living expenses that individuals bear.

As many as 48 percent of older Americans live in or on the edge of poverty.

“While many gains have been made over the years to reduce poverty, too many seniors still can’t afford basic necessities such as food, shelter and medicines,” said Aging Committee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Policy experts told Senate lawmakers on Wednesday that millions of seniors have been spared from abject poverty thanks to federal programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, and food stamps.  The testimony contrasted with the picture painted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) earlier this week, who produced a report that labeled the federal government’s five-decade long war on poverty a failure.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Patricia Neuman, a senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, stressed the importance of federal anti-poverty programs.

“Between 1966 and 2011, the share of seniors living in poverty fell from more than 28 percent to about 9 percent, with the steepest drop occurring in the decade immediately following the start of the Medicare program,” said Neuman.  “The introduction of Medicare, coupled with Social Security, played a key role in lifting seniors out of poverty.”

Neuman’s remarks were echoed by Joan Entmacher of the National Women’s Law Center, who credited food stamps, unemployment insurance and Meals on Wheels, along with Social Security, for dramatically reducing poverty among seniors.

The report was highly critical of many programs designed to help the poor and elderly saying they contribute to the “poverty trap.”  Ryan and other House lawmakers have long proposed capping federal spending and turning Medicaid, food stamps and a host of other programs for the poor into state block grants.

Older Women and Pension Benefits

GAO’s Barbara Bovbjerg also brought her views to the Senate Select Committee on Aging hearing. Managing Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,  she testified that the trends in marriage, work, and pension benefits have impacted the retirement incomes of older Americans.

Over the last five decades the composition of the American household has changed dramatically, stated Bovbjerg, noting that the proportion of unmarried individuals has increased steadily as couples have chosen to marry at ever-later ages and as divorce rates have risen.

“This is important because Social Security is not only available to workers but also to spouses and survivors.  The decline in marriage and the concomitant rise in single parenthood have been more pronounced among low-income, less educated individuals and some minorities,” she says.

As marriage and workforce patterns changed, so has the nation’s retirement system, adds Bovbjerg.  Since 1990, employers have increasingly turned away from traditional defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, she says, this ultimately shifting risk to individual employees and making it more likely they will receive lump sum benefits rather than annuities.

These trends have affected retirement incomes, especially for women and minorities, says Bovbjerg, that is fewer women today receive Social Security spousal and survivor benefits than in the past; most qualify for benefits on their own work history. While this shift may be positive, especially for those women with higher incomes, unmarried elderly women with low levels of lifetime earnings are expected to get less from Social Security than any other demographic group.

According to Bovbjerg, these trends have also affected household savings Married households are more likely to have retirement savings, but the majority of single-headed households have none. Obviously, single parents in particular tend to have fewer resources available to save for retirement during their working years.  With Defined Contribution pension plans becoming the norm for most, and with significant numbers not having these benefits, older Americans may well have to rely increasingly on Social Security as their primary or perhaps only source of retirement income.

Inside the Ocean State

Although the GAO report findings acknowledge a gender-based wage gap that pushes older woman into poverty, Maureen Maigret, policy consultant for the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island and Coordinator of the Rhode Island Older Woman’s Policy Group, observes that this inequity has been around since the 1970s when she chaired a legislative commission studying pay equity. “Progress in closing the gender wage gap has stagnated since 2000 with the wage ratio hovering around 76.5 percent,” she said.

GAO’s recent findings on gender based differences in poverty rates are consistent with what Maigret found researching the issue for the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island in 2010.  She found that some of the differences in the Ocean State can be attributed to the fact that older women are far less likely to be married than older men.  Almost three times as many older women are widowed when compared to men.

Maigret says that her research revealed that older women in Rhode Island are also less likely to live in family households and almost twice as likely as older men to live alone. Of those older women living alone or with non family members an estimated one out of five was living in poverty. For Rhode Island older women in non-family households living alone, estimated median income in 2009 was 85% that of male non-family householders living alone ($18,375 vs. $21,540).

Finally, Maigret’s report findings indicate that aound 11.3 percent of older Rhode Island women were living below the federal poverty level as compared to 7.3 percent of older men in the state. Older women’s average Social Security benefit was almost 30 percent less than that of older men and their earnings were only 58 percent that of older men’s earnings.

There is no getting around peoples’ fears about outliving their savings becoming a reality if they live long enough,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “One thing that the latest statistics reveals [including the GAO report] is the critical role Social Security plays when it comes to the ability of many seniors to meet monthly expenses. Social Security keeps about 38 percent of  Rhode Islanders age 65 and older out of poverty, according to a new study from the AARP Public Policy Institute.”

“Nationally, figures jump off the page,” Connell added. “Without Social Security benefits, 44.4 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line; all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 9.1 percent do, she says, noting that these benefits lift 15.3 million elderly Americans — including 9.0 million women — above the poverty line.”

“Just over 50 percent of Rhode Islanders age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half of their family income—and nearly 24 percent rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their family income” states Connell.

“Seniors trying to meet the increasing cost of utilities, prescription drugs and groceries would be desperate without monthly Social Security benefits they worked hard for and planned on. As buying power decreases, protecting Social Security becomes more important than ever. Older people know this; younger people should be aware of it and become more active in saving for retirement. Members of Congress need to remain aware of this as well,” adds Connell.

Kate Brewster, Executive Director of Rhode Island’s The Economic Progress Institute, agrees with Maigret that older women in Rhode Island are already at greater risk of poverty and economic security than older men.

“This [GAO] report highlights several trends that make it increasingly important to improve women’s earnings today so that they are economically secure in retirement.  Among the ‘policy to-do list’ is shrinking the wage gap, eliminating occupational segregation, and raising the minimum wage. State and federal proposals to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 would benefit more women than men, demonstrating the importance of this debate to women’s economic security today and tomorrow.”

House Speaker Gordon Fox is proud that the General Assembly in the last two legislation sessions voted to raise minimum wage to its current level of $8 per hour.  That puts Rhode Island at the same level as neighboring Massachusetts, and we far surpass the federal minimum wage of $7.25, he said.  He says he will carefully consider legislation that has been introduced to once again boost the minimum wage.

“Bridging this gap is not only the right thing to do to ensure that women are on the same financial footing as men, but it also makes economic sense”, says Rep. David N. Cicilline.

At the federal level, the Democratic Congressman has supported the ‘When Women Succeed, America Succeeds’ economic agenda that would address issues like the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, and access to quality and affordable child care. “Tackling these issues is a step toward helping women save and earn a secure retirement, but we also have to ensure individuals have a safety net so they can live with dignity in their retirement years,” says Cicilline.

With Republican Congressman Ryan in a GOP-controlled House, captured by the Tea Party, leading the charge to dismantle the federal government’s 50 year war on poverty, the casualties of this ideological skirmish if he succeeds will be America’s seniors.  Cutting the safety net that these programs created will make economic insecurity in your older years a very common occurrence.
Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket writer who covers aging, health care and medical issues.  He can be contacted at hweissri@aol.com.

The faux-liberal feedback loop created by Brookings and Gina 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
Progressives don't cheer on pension cuts like this and a progressive think tank wouldn't suggest a Democrat spearhead a conservative initiative like pension cuts.
Progressives don’t cheer on pension cuts like this and a progressive think tank wouldn’t suggest a Democrat spearhead a conservative initiative like pension cuts.

A recently released Brookings Institution blueprint on how to cut public pension plans offered this advice: “having a Democrat lead the effort goes a long way towards countering the charge that reforms are merely a conservative attack on labor.”

Shortly thereafter Gina Raimondo – the living, breathing (and campaigning!) prototype for the Brown Center at Brookings’ wisdom – sent out a fundraising email bragging about the accolade. But instead of just tooting her own horn, she also slipped in a not-insignificant exaggeration about the think tank report.

“Just the other day, a progressive think-tank heralded Gina’s leadership on solving the pension crisis as a national model,” wrote her campaign manager Eric Hyers.

Brookings is not a progressive think tank. It doesn’t pretend to be, and isn’t regarded as such.

Neil Lewis, a veteran New York Times reporter, described Brookings as being “liberal-centrist.” And the progressive blog FireDogLake was :

“The Brookings Institute was once a bastion of liberal thought … Now, though, it has become the Alan Colmes of think-tanks, fake liberals who meekly accept conservative mythology on every major point, but says we should at least think of the misery we are causing.”

And the Center for Media and Democracy, the even farther left-leaning think tank that mainly goes after ALEC and other Koch brother initiatives, had a similar take on Brookings. Its wiki SourceWatch.org described Brookings history as America’s oldest think tank.

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Brookings, according to SourceWatch, gets major funding from conservative interests.

I asked on Twitter how people would describe Brookings, and here are some of the responses I got:

and

When I asked if anyone thought Brookings was a progressive think tank, responses ranged from:

to:

.

Why does Gina Raimondo hold such a minority opinion about Brookings? I sent an email to Hyers yesterday and he did not respond yet. So I will offer my theory:

It’s a time-tested political tradition in Rhode Island to claim to be somewhere to the left of one’s actual politics. It’s why the General Assembly is dominated by one political party but not one political ideology. It probably has something to do with why Barrington millionaire Ken Block launched his political career as a “Moderate.” And it’s probably why Justin Katz, who I think is the most unabashedly conservative voice in Rhode Island, thought to tweet this earlier this week:

I was surprised Katz wasn’t proud to claim the mantle of most conservative person in Rhode Island.

And then I remembered that Gina Raimondo rebranded herself as a progressive to run for governor. And how many conservatives in the state legislature have confessed privately that they run as Democrats because it is the easiest way to win an election.  And how often conservative pundits blame our economic problems on 60 years of Democrats in power rather than the largely right-wing agenda the current crop of ruling Democrats at the State House have implemented during the past decade (tax cuts for the rich, shrink government and austerity for social services).

And in the future, I’ll recall how the Brookings Institution is advising the world – using Rhode Island as its example – that “having a Democrat lead the effort goes a long way towards countering the charge that reforms are merely a conservative attack.” And that those are the types of organizations that Gina Raimondo would describe as being progressive.

For an actual progressives take on pension politics, read Sam Bell’s post on what Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said about pension cuts and wealth transfers to hedge fund managers.

Elizabeth Warren slams pension cuts, hedge fund investments


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

elizabeth warrenIn a recent interview on New England Cable News, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was asked about Illinois’s pension cuts, which were much milder than Rhode Island’s more draconian version.*  (The key bit starts at 11:35.)  She did not mince her words.  Calling pensions “a promise,” Senator Warren made it clear how she felt about breaking that promise:

The idea to come in and say, “Oops!  We’re really sorry about that, but we’re going to have to cut the pension,” I just think is fundamentally the wrong approach.

Warren went on to excoriate pension fund managers for hedge fund investments, warning that many pension funds made a “big mistake…when they invested in one of the big hedge funds that it turned out fooled them about how much that investment was going to be worth and ended up taking a bunch of money from them.”

Often we hear Raimondo apologists pretend that slashing pensions or dumping retirees’ money into hedge funds is the progressive thing to do.  Fortunately, we have Elizabeth Warren to destroy those arguments with her signature passion, poise, and (presidential) gravitas.

*Illinois has a similar conservative Democrat problem to Rhode Island, albeit on a much smaller scale.  Perhaps the most famous example of this is when Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan attended a fundraiser for John Boehner.   Interestingly, when Raimondo’s husband was on its board, the corporate charter school outside money group Stand for Children worked very hard to elect conservative Democrats in Illinois.

Why the pension settlement was a good deal for future taxpayers


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

raimondo fist pumpFuture generations studying Rhode Island at the turn of the 21st Century will be embarrassed when they get to the part on pension politics.

Those were the days, they will note, when economic growth hit a bump in the road and some of the richest people in society launched a very expensive, targeted and secretive campaign to take from the people who work for the people.

Those future historians will see that the ultimate losers in this “landmark reform” were the only ones who played by the rules and paid their fair share. There’s just so much inherently wrong with that, and history never judges such circumstances kindly – even though they probably all seemed to be the best course of action in the present tense.

And, of course they will see a Wall Street millionaire who made her foray into politics to accomplish this taking. And they will see that she used a Wall Street billionaire’s dark money to do it. And they will see, in the short term at least, that the taking didn’t end up as savings but rather a transfer of wealth to other Wall Street millionaires and billionaires.

But those future historians studying Rhode Island will also see a society that tied itself in all sorts of logical knots to pull this off.

They will see that we calculated the costs of pensions much differently than any other public spending item. Imagine what the “unfunded liability” would be for even a single school or for corporate tax subsidies to CVS alone!

They will see that the same labor leaders who were fighting against pension cuts were also begging to repeal the tax cuts given to Rhode Island’s richest residents while pensions were being underfunded. They will see that as we were cutting pensions, we were also ensuring that Wall Street bondholders would always get paid before said pensioners.

And those future historians will see that the biggest newspaper and radio station in the state engaged in a borderline misinformation campaign through their wildly one-sided opinion and analysis of the situation.

And those future historians will see that a “haircut or a beheading” was a mantra in Rhode Island.

And to that end I am glad the state workers, public school teachers and retirees – who were so clearly treated like an oppressed class of people throughout the era of pension political football (even if they did manage to swing a decent deal for themselves back when everyone thought growth was infinite) -took back even just a small slice of their dignity when they state shied away from being taken to court for its “landmark pension reforms.”

To my mind, $230 million is small price to pay for Rhode Island’s reputation as a decent society. It means for the rest of history we get to answer, “Not us, we settled out of court instead” when asked: “Hey isn’t Rhode Island the state the ruthlessly screwed over its teachers and plow drivers like a bunch of fist-wagging Wall Street barbarians searching for public sector blood?”

Is a pension compromise imminent?


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Gina Raimondo, Linc Chafee and Allan Fung at the unveiling of the Truth in Numbers report.
Gina Raimondo, Linc Chafee and Allan Fung at the unveiling of the Truth in Numbers report.

An alternative proposal to Rhode Island’s nationally-recognized and highly controversial pension reforms of 2011 may soon be made public, according to Scott MacKay of RIPR, who reports that the mediator between organized labor and the executive branch will hold a press conference on Wednesday to update the rest of the state.

“This development suggests a settlement has been struck in the dispute,” writes MacKay.

And that suggests that pension politics are about to suck all or most of the political oxygen out of the Ocean State again.

And no special session this time around, legislators could be considering a new set of pension reforms as they mull all other potential new legislation.

A settlement proposal now would also potentially set the stage in the campaign for governor – with one Democrat, Angel Taveras, who started at the negotiating table when approaching pension cuts and another, Gina Raimondo, whose claim to fame to shepherding cuts through the General Assembly that labor had vowed to fight in court.

The three most-egregious aspects of the reforms for organized labor was the length of the COLA suspension, the increase in the retirement age for first responders and the percent of pension that was moved from a defined benefit to a defined contribution-type plan.

Let us know in the comments what you think – if anything – a compromise proposal should look like.

Out-of-state progressive left still skeptical of 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
Click on image for original story by David Sitora.
Click on the image for original story by David Sirota.

Another national journalist took another shot at Rhode Island’s most hotly-debated politician: Gina Raimondo.

Syndicated progressive columnist David Sirota connects dots between Raimondo’s Wall Street campaign supporters and Rhode Island’s inability to afford to make good on pension promises while almost simultaneously cutting taxes for the rich and increasing subsidies for corporations.

It’s an accurate picture of what the last decade or so of economic policy in the Ocean State can look like when not mired in the details the local media microscope provides Rhode Island. We’ve cut taxes for the winners and we’ve cut services for the losers. We broke financial commitments to workers and we made new ones to corporations.

“So who is the real Gina Raimondo?,” Sirota asks. “Is she the politician whose pension schemes aim to protect corporate welfare subsidies while converting retiree money into Wall Street fees? Or is she the defender of pensioners against the plutocrats?”

Many on the left – and in particular the pro-labor left – feel her campaign is co-opting the progressive label for a very different agenda. At the very least she’s using the term more broadly than it has been used in the past and pro-union progressives have good reason to both take umbrage and be skeptical of her political positioning as a lefty. Organized labor is the anchor of support for the entire progressive left in Rhode Island, so it’s something of an offense to trample all over the flagship then claim to be a member of the fleet.

I’d really like for her to address the issues and allegations raised in Sirota’s latest indictment of her. I think that’s how anyone campaigning as a progressive should handle such a damning indictment of progressive credentials from a well-respected progressive writer.

Providence pension — fiscal scolds out in force


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
From a YouTube video made by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn.
From a YouTube video made by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn.

I spent a little time recently with the new report on Providence’s municipal pension plan, and then I read an article on golocalprov that wanted me to panic about it, quoting the usual chorus of scolds who want us to defund public services.  Then I went back and read the report some more and I still don’t see why this report isn’t considered good news.  It should be.

The report does point out that Providence has a funding ratio of around 32%, and this is low enough to be worrisome.  But it also points out that the unfunded liability of the plan has fallen 8% as a result of Mayor Taveras’s pension reforms.  The unfunded liability now stands at $830 million, down from $900 million a couple of years ago.  Since the plan has assets of just a bit under $400 million, this seems scary, but it’s important to understand exactly what this number represents.  It is the money you’d have to invest now in order to pay off all the debts of the plan in the future.  In order to make a calculation like this, you have to make a lot of assumptions about the future: how long people will live, what the inflation rate will be, and what the investment returns are likely to be.

Critics in the golocal story claim that the investment return assumptions are high at 8.25%.  The critics are wrong for a couple of reasons.  First, it is important that this assumption be consistent with reality, but it is as important for it to be consistent with the other assumptions made.  As for reality, over the long term, and accounting for inflation (which this number does), this actually is not a terrible guess.  There are reasons to think that over the next few decades this is high, but over the last few, it’s been decent.

RI Future contributor Tom Sgouros recently wrote this book about fixing the banking system. Click on the image for more information.
RI Future contributor Tom Sgouros recently wrote this book about fixing the banking system. Click on the image for more information.

As for the other assumptions, critics who think this rate should be lowered, are generally not also suggesting that the inflation rate be lowered on the other side of the ledger, too.  That is, this 8.25% investment assumption incorporates assumptions about the inflation rate in the future, but so do assumptions about the plan’s cost — i.e. the pension checks — 40 years from now.  A big part of the reason we’re looking at low investment returns over the near term is because of low interest rates and low inflation.  Lowering the investment assumptions should mean lowering the cost inflation assumptions, too, and yet, the Buffets, and Moody’s who demand more realistic investment assumptions are usually silent about those adjustments.  Pension plans are not all about investments; there’s a reason why they are run by actuaries and not investment managers.

Another reason why we should be suspect of calls to lower the rate of return is that the scolds don’t generally account for the risk of overfunding a pension plan.  Every dollar that goes into the pension fund is a dollar not spent on educating children or plowing city streets.  It is far better to run the fund at a level modestly below 100% than it is to achieve or surpass that goal.  I will never understand how people who rail against government waste will nonetheless insist that we put more money into a pension plan than is strictly necessary.  To me, that seems the very definition of waste, but that’s the 21st century for you, I guess.

So what else is in the report?  There’s a payment schedule that shows that although the payments to the plan are indeed going to go up in the short term, as a fraction of the city payroll, they go up very little, and this includes money put toward the unfunded liability.  I see that last year, the income from the fund, plus the city’s payments, plus the contributions from current employees, was about $7 million short of the checks the system paid out.  Red ink sounds bad, but these are calculations that involve repaying the investment losses of a couple of years ago.  When you look at the actual flows of actual dollars, the system is well in the black over this past year.

The truth is that the payment schedule shown in the report is very optimistic, and  the city could fall far behind that funding schedule (perhaps if the return assumption is too high, for example) and still make all the payments to retirees it anticipates.  Remember, some of that unfunded liability won’t be paid until the youngest current city employee dies, say around 2075 or 2080, but the schedule in the report anticipates paying off the entire debt by 2040.  The golocal story makes it sound like  a 30-year amortization schedule is something unusual, though it is completely routine in the industry except for the plans that use a longer term.

What people routinely forget is to keep their eyes on the ball.  The goal is not to satisfy some Olympian ideal of pension perfection as defined by Wall Street, the goal is to make all the promised payments at the lowest cost possible.  The conventional wisdom of pension accounting ignores this goal, and imagines somehow that the city’s responsibility to its retirees so far trumps its responsibility to the children in its schools or the snow on its streets that overfunding the pension system is the only way to go.  If Providence only makes it to 80% funding in 2040, short of the goal of 100%, pension checks will still be mailed out in 2041, just as they have been mailed out this year, when the funding ratio was so much smaller.  If Providence were to short the pension payments and use that to improve the city’s economy, the pension plan might be more expensive in the future, but the city might be better able to accommodate the expense, too.  There is balance necessary and the scolds who insist everything be pre-funded are no better than the past mayors who skipped payments.

The bottom line here is that Providence’s pension plan is a source of concern and requires careful consideration and monitoring over the next few years, but there is no reason to panic over these numbers.  The pension reform seems to have helped substantially, and there is ample reason to think it will continue to help.  Does that sound like cause for panic?

The making of a Wall Street Democrat


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

hedge fund timelineRaimondomania has turned into Raimondomageddon.

The quarterback of pension politics was revered by the right in 2012, winning praise from the Manhattan Institute, ALEC and the Wall Street Journal among others. But 2013 has been a political lynching from the left – with Ted Siedle, Matt Taibbi, David Sirota and more all calling her signature accomplishment a wealth transfer to Wall Street.

To help keep track of all the out-of-town media attention, I made this timeline. It’s still a work in progress, so let me know if I’ve omitted any in the comments below and I’ll update as warranted. The tool on the right controls the view of the timeline.

Providence pioneered gun divestment in RI


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

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

Far be it for RI Future to give Gina Raimondo credit for an initiative pioneered in Providence but that’s exactly what I did yesterday when I applauded her for suggesting the state divest from guns. The State Investment Commission did vote to stop investing in a company that sells guns yesterday, but the Capital City voted to divest from guns back on March 18.

“The City Council has a moral responsibility to ensure that no public money is being used in the manufacture of weapons that are endangering public safety,” said the resolution passed by the Council. “Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Providence City Councîl does hereby urge the Providence Boaïd of Investment Commissioners to continue its review of the pension investments to determine whether or not its portfolio includes equity firms that have holdings in companies that manufaeîure assauìî weapons and divest from any such firms.”

PVD Gun Divestment

 

Divest pension funds from guns, but don’t stop there


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

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

gina linc pensionDivesting from dangerous weapons is a step in the right direction, and I applaud Gina Raimondo’s effort to make our pension fund more socially responsible. This blog doesn’t often have opportunity to agree with the hedge fund-loving general treasurer, but I certainly hope the State Investment Commission takes her advice and takes our money out of a company that distributes guns.

I’d also encourage Raimondo and the others who control Rhode Island’s $7 billion nest egg to look hard for other opportunities to be more socially responsible with our money. This would be a pension reform progressives would be proud to support, and would be better for our economy than cutting COLAs or enriching hedge fund managers.

Divestment, or socially responsible investing, is already a movement in Rhode Island. The Providence City Council recently voted to make its investment portfolio better match its values (what that will look like still remains to be seen) and Brown Divest Coal has long advocated for the Ivy League endowment to take its money out of companies that harm the environment.

Here’s hoping Seth Magaziner’s political ambitions will help shine a bright light on why socially responsible investing is a better bet for Main Street. High finance can be community-minded. And the more it is, the more profitable being community-minded will become.

RI should divest from hedge AND index funds


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

mike downeyBoth J. Michaels raise good points about how the public sector should manage its financial investments in Ed Fitzpatrick’s great column this morning for which he writes the perfect lede about Rhode Island’s game of pension football:

“It was the best of investment strategies. It was the worst of investment strategies.”

Thankfully, there may be a third way that could take the best of both while skimming away the parts nobody likes.

J. Michael Downey makes the point that General Treasurer Gina Raimondo’s big bet on hedge funds serves as a wealth transfer from local retirees to Wall Street investors. “Instead of promoting retirement security for all Rhode Islanders, the changes have apparently enriched wealthy hedge fund managers,” he told Fitzpatrick.

Meanwhile, J. Michael Costello, “one of the longest-serving members of the State Investment Commission and managing partner of Endurance Wealth Management,” according to the ProJo, defended hedge funds saying, “we have a very underfunded pension system that has to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of what comes in every year. As a result, you need to be careful with the various market fluctuations, so the motivation is to use these types of funds that traditionally hedge against significant downside events.”

If only there were a way to protect against downside events without transferring wealth to otherwise disinterested economic actors … Oh wait, there is!

Rhode Island should consider divesting from both index and hedge funds and invest instead in local and/or sustainable funds. There is certainly a way to structure a fund that hedges against the S&P 500 while boosting the (not-yet-indexed?) Ocean State 250.

It’s also well worth noting on this blog that Raimondo has defended the investment and denounced the fees – and I hope to get to compliment her efforts one day at transferring the wealth back from Wall Street to Main Street.

Hedge funds: Wall Street snake oil


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

why managed fundsIn 2012 powerful right wing special interests predicted Gina Raimondo’s pension cuts would serve as a model for the rest of the country. They have, but perhaps not the way the Manhattan Institute, Michael Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal editorial board had hoped.

Instead, a diverse coalition is coalescing to call attention to the often hidden dangers of hedge funds.

Rolling Stone magazine, Forbes.com, the Institute for America’s Future, labor unions and this scrappy independent blog have all made strong arguments for why and how what Raimondo called “Truth in Numbers” was actually a politically calculated wealth transfer from Rhode Island public sector retirees to Wall Street billionaires.

But, whether you believe hedge funds are a silver bullet to beat the stock market or high finance snake oil, the same debate on their effectiveness is happening in the world of private sector investment as is happening in the Ocean State’s public sector investment. Mom and pop money managers and the mainstream media are serving up credible economic evidence that safer, traditional investments are more profitable in the long run.

A PBS Frontline investigation from April, 2013 called The Retirement Gamble reported on a hypothetical example eerily similar to Rhode Island’s pension investment.

In short, fees matter. So what can you do? You aren’t going to find a fund that invests your money for free, but experts say you can come close by buying index funds. Their fees can be a tenth of what the average mutual funds charges. And over time, in bull and bear markets, on average, index funds perform better than their more expensive actively managed fund cousins. This is no secret to anyone who is paying attention.

So why aren’t our trusted financial advisers and those ads telling us to buy index funds? Why do some 401(k) plans not even offer them on their menus?

It’s because even though an index fund might be a better option for you and me, a broker operating under a suitability standard has no incentive to sell it to us. He or she will make higher commissions from options that have higher fees.

And here’s an infographic that also illustrates the hedge fund myth.

moneymanager_infographic

Tough day for Raimondo backer, Social Security slasher Pete Peterson


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

Fix the Debt is the preeminent group whose mission is to slash Social Security and Medicare.  Its founder,  Pete Peterson, is among the many finance elites who are are bankrolling Gina Raimondo’s political career.  She hopes that you’ll not discover this, or will divine some path by which to rationalize it away.

Prior to becoming the foremost proponent of the undermining of retirement security for American seniors, Peterson founded a private equity firm and was Treasury Secretary. He’s now one of the 150 wealthiest Americans!

FTD ventured out into the Twitterverse this week, and received the greeting it deserves — an old fashioned trolling, in what’s surely unusual fashion for a gentleman of such rarified standing.

fix the debt trolled

Seidle report: Raimondo should be investigated


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

enron pension

Gina Raimondo should be investigated, according to AFSCME’s much-awaited Ted Seidle report for the “sinister pall of secrecy regarding fundamental investment information … orchestrated by state officials and aided by key investment services providers, punctuated by periodic self-serving misrepresentations regarding such investment matters to the general public.”

It says: “In our opinion, based upon our knowledge of pension investment operations, an investigation by state or federal securities regulators would reveal intentional withholding of material information and misrepresentations regarding state pension costs, as opposed to a lack of knowledge about the exponential growth and magnitude of the fees.”

READ THE ENTIRE REPORT HERE
or the Providence Journal coverage here.

It also unearths new evidence that shows why  the over-arching non-disclose agreements Rhode Island entered into with its hedge fund advisers is inherently risky for public sector funds.

The absolute discretion ERSRI has granted to certain managers amounts to a license to steal from the state pension.

Since the managers may completely change their investment strategies at any time, there is no way ERSRI can ensure that the hedge funds are providing any diversification whatsoever—contrary to representations by the Treasurer. For example, all the hedge fund managers could invest in a single asset class, say cash, or a single stock, say Enron, at an inopportune time.

The above outrageous nondisclosure policies detailed in the hedge fund offering documents cause these investments to be, at a minimum, inherently impermissible for a public pension, such as ERSRI, if not illegal.

However, given that public pension investments in alternative investments have doubled in recent years (now amounting to 24 percent of portfolios) and billions in public pension assets across the country are currently at risk from such hedge fund schemes, the need for an immediate, focused response by securities regulators and law enforcement is compelling.

And it casts doubt that the suspended COLA will ever be reconstituted.

In summary, the likelihood that any meaningful COLA will ever be paid in the future under the new statutory scheme is remote—a fact which has not been shared with workers and retirees.

In conclusion, ERSRI’s total investment expenses may already, or in the near future, amount to a staggering almost $100 million annually— an amount far in excess of the $5 million cost of conservatively indexing or passively managing the Fund’s assets.

Report: Pew, Arnold working together to slash pensions

raimondo fist pumpA new report singles out Rhode Island for favoring pension cuts over eliminating tax expenditures. It also suggests John Arnold, the former Enron investor who largely bankrolled Engage RI, and the Pew Charitable Trust, the supposedly non-partisan organization the General Assembly and Gina Raimondo had explain pension math and actuarial science to elected officials and members of the public and press, are working together to convince governments to transfer wealth from pensioners to Wall Street.

David Sirota wrote a report for the liberal think tank Institute for America’s Future called “The Plot Against Pensions: The Pew-Arnold campaign to undermine America’s retirement security – and leave taxpayers with the bill.” You can also read his synopsis published earlier this week here.

“Pew’s Public Sector Retirement Systems Project and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation are working in tandem on public pension policy to manufacture the perception of crisis and press for cuts to guaranteed retirement income,” the report says. It largely echoes the perspective exposed by Matt Taibbi and Ted Seidle – that pension cuts were driven by Wall Street interests – Governing magazine offers a somewhat favorable analysis of the report.

Sirota also adds to the debate the allegation that Arnold and the Pew Center are working together. This is significant to Rhode Island because both Arnold and the Pew Center were central players in Rhode Island’s pension legislation. Arnold funded the Engage RI, a 501c4 that refused to name its donors and spent millions lobbying for pension cuts. The Pew Center was brought in by the General Assembly and Gina Raimondo in a non-partisan capacity to educate law makers and the public.

According to Sirota:

…at the same time one branch of Pew was rightly sounding this moderate non-ideological alarm to shore up retirement security, and Pew’s Economic Development Tax Incentives Project was warning of states’ wasteful tax subsidies, a more political branch of the organization was working in tandem with controversial Enron billionaire John Arnold to begin championing an ideologically driven plan to make the retirement problem far worse.

This Pew-Arnold partnership began informally in 2011 and 2012 when both organizations marshaled resources to try to set the stage for retirement benefit cuts in California, Florida, Rhode Island and Kansas. With legislative success in three of those four states, Pew and Arnold created a formal partnership in late 2012 that targeted another three states, Arizona, Kentucky and Montana. This formal partnership continues today, with the organizations issuing joint reports and conducting joint legislative briefings advocating cuts to guaranteed retirement income.

Sirota also alleges that pension cuts served a political interest beyond just pension politics. He writes that pension cuts are being offered up to distract emphasis from tax expenditures, or tax breaks generally given to powerful companies and other corporate interests.

The goals of the plot against pensions are both straightforward and deceptive. On the surface, the primary objective is to convert traditional defined-benefit pension funds that guarantee retirement income into riskier, costlier schemes that reduce benefits and income guarantees, and subject taxpayers and millions of workers’ retirement funds to Enron’s casino-style economics.
At the same time, waging a high-profile fight for such an objective also simultaneously helps achieve the conservative movement’s larger goal of protecting profligate corporate subsidies.
Perhaps the most famous illustration of the pervasiveness of this deceptive argument comes from Detroit, Michigan. When the city recently declared bankruptcy, much of the media and political narrative around the fiasco simply assumed that public pension liabilities are the problem. Few noted that both Detroit and the state of Michigan have for years been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on wasteful corporate subsidies.
But as outrageous as the blame-the-pensioners mythology from Detroit is, it is the same misleading mythology that is now driving public policy in states across America. In Rhode Island, the state government slashed guaranteed pension benefits while handing $75 million to a retired professional baseball player for his failed video game scheme.

The report contains a special section on Rhode Island, and how it ignored tax expenditures while focusing on pension cuts.

Though Rhode Island faces a $7 billion pension shortfall over 30 years, that’s nothing compared to what it gives away to corporations and the wealthy.
As The New York Times reports, the state spends $300 million in annual tax expenditures – or more than $9 billion over 30 years. Those include the infamous expenditure that gave Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling a whopping $75 million worth of taxpayer monies to finance his failed video game scheme.
Additionally, Rhode Island’s tax system is famously regressive, allowing the wealthiest 1 percent of its population to pay a tax rate half that of the poorest 20 percent. So the state clearly has plenty of ways to reform tax rates and end subsidies as a way to raise the revenue it owes to its public pension funds.
Here’s the New York Times article Sirota references that says Rhode Island gives away “$356 million per year on incentive programs.” This is more than most nearby states, I wrote when the Times piece was published. According to the Economic Progress Institute in Rhode Island, the state gave away $1.7 billion in tax expenditures in 2009.  The state’s annual pension contribution has been slashed “from roughly $400 million to $242 million, according to Raimondo’s office,” WPRI reported this week.

Gina could hurt Democrats in general election


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-indyBrown’s recent gubernatorial poll has received a lot of attention.  The dubious primary results, which show Raimondo beating Taveras in a Democratic primary where most voters aren’t Democrats, have been widely mocked.  (For comparison, a Taveras internal by a reputable pollster put Taveras up 19 points.)  The general election portion, however, is significantly more plausible, although nearly a quarter of registered Democrats are mysteriously missing.

One nugget from Brown’s poll is especially interesting.  Even though the poll shows Raimondo winning the primary, Taveras still fares better than Raimondo in the general.  Raimondo beats Fung by only 1.7 points.  In a state as blue as Rhode Island, that’s a horrendous margin for a Democrat.

Of course, in the topsy-turvy world of Rhode Island politics, where Democrats are often just as conservative as Republicans, this makes perfect sense.  Because Raimondo is so far to the right, many Taveras voters hate her, and they simply won’t vote for her in the general.  In particular, workers whose pensions she helped cut will find it especially hard to vote for Raimondo.  Fung may get a lot of spite votes.

Raimondo’s problems go far beyond the handful of Democrats who will actually vote for a Republican.  The real concern is all the Democratic base voters who will stay home.  Many of these voters might reluctantly tell a pollster they would vote for Raimondo, but if it is raining, if it was a long day at work, if there is something good on TV, it would be hard for them to take an hour out of their day to vote for a candidate they dislike.

Even this is painting too rosy a picture for Raimondo. If she makes it to the general, she will enter it after a bruising primary drowning in a deluge of negative ads.  Having faced no opposition in the Republican primary, Fung will be flush with cash and ready to pounce.  If Raimondo is really only two points up before the mud has started flying, it is very hard to see her emerging the final victor.

Many observers believe this is a good poll for Raimondo, but if it were real, it would pose a very serious threat. When a deeply flawed candidate leads in the primary, threatening what should be an easy general election victory, that’s the rare recipe for the national party establishment to get involved in the primary.  Raimondo had better hope the Brown poll is wrong.  If more polls like this one emerge, expect electability to be a major argument against her candidacy.

Op/ed writers pick up ‘political football’ fumble


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

wallstmainstForget the football analogies, maybe Ed Achorn was writing this morning’s misleading Providence Journal editorial while his beloved Boston Red Sox were getting goose-egged by Detroit (his most reviled municipality) last night?

Like Gina Raimondo did in 2011, the Sox crushed the ball against Tampa Bay. But last night the hirsute home team looked more like the Gina Raimondo of 2013, swinging and missing against more major league pitching. Raimondo’s only hit since being at-bat against the likes of Ted Seidle and Matt Taibbi has been to label the recent influx of high-and-tight, hard-hitting, anti-Wall Street journalism as “political football.”

I posted about political football Wednesday morning and both ProJo op/Eds (Fitzpatrick and Achorn) followed suit this weekend. It was an obvious great line right from the get-go. Interestingly, the Providence Journal news coverage led with the quote in print and the online version ended with it.

Ed Fitzpatrick looked at how the national narrative about Raimondo has gone from protagonist to “Wall Street Raimondo.” (we like to call Raimondo a Wall Street Democrat). I wrote that I thought it hypocritical that Raimondo used pensions as a political football when it was to her advantage and dismissed them when it did not.

Conversely, Ed Achorn wrote that people in unions are against good. And those who support their interests are childish. And failing to cut pensions would have been akin to “murdering” the private sector. (I am not making this up, you can read it for yourself here!!) It begins:

Frank Caprio, the last Democratic nominee for Rhode Island governor, made his mark by pledging to stand up to the special interests and fight for the common good. Public-employee unions did not like that very much, and turned on him with a vengeance in 2010, tearing down Mr. Caprio while dragging Lincoln Chafee into the governor’s office.

But wait, it gets even more ridiculous. Those who don’t agree are just being childish:

It would be nice to make politically powerful groups happier with more generous retirement benefits, but grownups realize the state has only so much to spend on government. There are other areas that cry out for funding; notably education, roads and bridges, and programs to help the neediest among us.

I would agree that education, infrastructure and ending poverty are more important that pensions, and so would every single retiree. Where we disagree is whether these are either/or propositions. Well, Rhode Island’s paper of record’s official editorial voice actually wants you to believe that cutting pensions was necessary to save capitalism!

Murdering the goose that lays the golden eggs — the private sector — would have hurt public employees vastly more than making some reasonable changes in the system. Reform was a question of math, not politics.

Well Rhode Island, if you thought the Ed Achorn era as op/ed editor was bad, wait till we get a healthy dose of the Ed Achorn era minus Froma Harrop. The ProJo really needs to send Achorn to the showers and bring in someone from the bullpen who isn’t scuffing the ball.

On pensions, political hypocrisy worse than football


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

raimondo pension pol quote“It is time to stop using pensions as a political football,” said the person who has used pensions as a political football more and more successfully than perhaps any other human being this century.

While many loath Gina Raimondo’s vociferous Wall Street-over-Main Street approach to finance and politics, there’s also her sheer hypocrisy to dislike too. After riding the pension political football to millions of dollars in donations, reams of positive publicity and praise from some of the most pro-Wall Street people, political organizations and news outlets in the nation, she all of a sudden thinks we should change the topic.

Who can blame her. Even fellow Wall Street Democrats such as Frank Caprio, who works for an investment firm and considered running as a Republican, are critiquing her hedge fund heavy approach to pension investment.

On the other hand, changing the truth isn’t the same as changing the subject. Raimondo also told the Providence Journal:

“If the General Assembly had not passed the reform legislation, it is likely that some cities and towns would have gone bankrupt and that down the road pensions would have to be severely cut.”

I don’t believe state pension cuts saved any cities (and certainly no towns!) from filing for bankruptcy. Gene Emery?

Pensioners pay more taxes than hedge fund managers


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

Taibbi cartoonRegardless of whether you worship at the church of Rolling Stone or the Manhattan Institute, Matt Taibbi brings up a very good point about transferring wealth from local public sector retirees to hedge fund managers in his second critique of Rhode Island pension cuts.

Not only are states like Rhode Island paying millions in fees to outrageously expensive money managers, but those millions will be taxed at a rate far below what the teachers and police and sanitation workers who are being forced to swallow cuts in those states pay on their dwindling incomes. This is thanks in large part to a tax loophole preserved for years by cowardly Wall Street-supplicating politicians hailing, as Henn correctly notes, from both parties, Republican and Democrat.

Sam Bell, of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, tackles the part about Taibbi going soft on Democrats here:

Most out of state pundits forget this, but the legislature that so gleefully passed the pension cuts is the same legislature that passed a voter ID law.  These are the people who gave us a D+ rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America–the worst of any solid blue state.  It was these so-called Democrats who pushed through the steep 2006 tax cuts for the rich that blew up the budget in the first place.  The top four leaders of the Democratic caucus in our state legislature–House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed, House Majority Leader Nick Mattiello, and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio–have each taken thousands of dollars from the NRA.  And I believe those contributions were illegal.  (The Board of Elections is still deliberating on my complaint.)

Taibbi is still missing the real story


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

taibbi democracy nowI want to thank Matt Taibbi.  Unlike many national journalists, he admits when he goes far too easy on Rhode Island Democrats.  On Friday, he published a new article acknowledging Raimondo’s party affiliation and tying her to the national trend of conservative Democrats in the Wall St. camp.  If you ignore a glaring and egregious spelling error, it’s a great piece.  Taibbi ends with my favorite line, “Readers, if I’m missing something, please let me know.”

That’s an invitation I can’t turn down.

There is still much that bothers me about Taibbi’s approach of going soft on Rhode Island Democrats.  I wish, for instance, that he wouldn’t use the deceptive right-wing phrasing “pension reform” to describe the pension cuts.  But I have a much more foundational critique.  He is missing the bigger story–what has happened to the General Assembly.

Raimondo, as Taibbi rightly notes, is very similar to a number of conservative Democrats around the country with strong ties to the finance industry.  But this sort of pro-finance attitude is a fairly common feature of the modern Democratic party.  Sadly, the conservatism of General Assembly Democrats takes on an entirely different character.

Most out of state pundits forget this, but the legislature that so gleefully passed the pension cuts is the same legislature that passed a voter ID law.  These are the people who gave us a D+ rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America–the worst of any solid blue state.  It was these so-called Democrats who pushed through the steep 2006 tax cuts for the rich that blew up the budget in the first place.  The top four leaders of the Democratic caucus in our state legislature–House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed, House Majority Leader Nick Mattiello, and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio–have each taken thousands of dollars from the NRA.  And I believe those contributions were illegal.  (The Board of Elections is still deliberating on my complaint.)

Down the line, the policies the General Assembly’s leadership has enacted have not been the policies of ordinary Wall St. conservative Democrats.  They have been the policies of Republicans.

As Ann Clanton famously put it when she was Executive Director if the Rhode Island Republican Party, “We have a lot of Democrats who we know are Republican but run as a Democrat–basically so they can win.”

Raimondo is not as extreme.  When leadership wanted to skip a pension payment during the recent budget battle, Raimondo and some of the more moderate conservatives in the House balked.  I don’t know how true this is, but she does claim that she opposed one of the more odious components of the pension cuts.

On social issues, Raimondo makes a cleaner break from the extremists in the General Assembly.  She is pro-choice.  Unlike the leaders of the General Assembly, she is not an NRA Democrat.  Although she never issued a full divestment statement, she did pressure a distributor to stop distributing assault weapons, and she did send out a press release saying she would look into divestment.  (Full disclosure: I led an unsuccessful calling campaign to try to get her to issue a formal divestment statement.)

Let me be clear.  I am no fan of Raimondo.  I plan on voting against her in the primary.  But I understand that she is not as conservative as the nominally Democratic leadership in the General Assembly.

I trust Rhode Islanders to stand firm against the money tsunami and vote Raimondo out of politics this September.  In a gubernatorial race, there is enough press scrutiny that it is very hard for this sort of conservative to win.  But in tiny, low-turnout Democratic primaries for General Assembly seats, where politics has more to do with personal connections and money than issues, candidates far more conservative than Raimondo routinely win easily.  That’s the core problem Rhode Island faces.  And that’s the story I wish Matt Taibbi would cover.


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