Frances Fox Piven is a legend. Her work was instrumental in the creation of the welfare rights movement and the war on poverty.  Last night, Piven gave a talk entitled Strategic Voter Disenfranchisement: How Political Party Competition Shrinks the Electorate at the RI Center for Justice (in collaboration with the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown.)

With Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in the polls, said Piven, starting her talk, “I thought, I’ll talk about voter disenfranchisement, but I want to talk about that in the context of this election… I actually think this is an important election.

“The strangeness of this election. It’s really kind of amazing… Things are happening that can’t be explained by the truisms that political scientists repeat to each other.”

For instance, asked Piven, who has served on the board of the Democratic Socialists of America, how can Bernie Sanders get away with calling himself a socialist? What has changed?

For Piven, the answer is that America today is a land of broken promises. “People rise up when the promises that have been made… have been broken. Life is very uncertain and insecure. You’re earning less money, your pension may be at risk. There is soaring inequality. Some people are getting so rich.”

The system is rigged and not in our favor. A very few are very rich and the rest of us are doomed to live lives in poorer and meaner circumstances than our parents. Yet there is a counter to this, said Piven, and that counter is electoral democracy.

“Many activists are skeptical of electoral democracy,” said Piven, yet, “political institutions nevertheless create a realm of equality. At least in principle, everyone has one vote. Those votes, when aggregated, can depose rulers. You can kick the sons of bitches out!”

Since it is well known that “when electoral rights expand people do better,” said Piven, democracy becomes a threat to the status quo. Therefore, it behooves the rich and powerful to fight back. “The threat of democracy is met by manipulating electoral procedures.”

Some of the manipulations of electoral procedures were built into the country’s structure by the Founding Fathers, said Piven. The Senate, for instance, guarantees two Senators from every state, even if no one lives in the state. The Supreme Court is another example. The Court is only marginally influenced by voters, being nominated by the President to lifelong positions. “Walling off certain parts of the government and saying this part of the government is not exposed to the electorate” circumvents the power of democracy said Piven.

And of course the final way of challenging the power of electoral democracy is by “suppressing votes and voters.”

“In Political Science we have a ‘faith’ and one of the axioms is that competing parties expand voter engagement,” said Piven, but, “Competing parties exert themselves to make it hard for voters that may vote for their opponents. That’s just as logical, but you won’t find that in any textbooks, but it has happened in American history.

“At the turn of the 20th Century, immigrants became the constituency of the machine bosses. These machines traded voter allegiance and voter loyalty for favors. Businessmen had a problem with that arrangement because they wanted efficient services. [Political] machines are not good at providing the kinds of services that lead to business expansion. Municipal reform organizations were business organizations,” said Piven. The machines used voter registration, literacy tests, poll taxes and other methods of voter suppression to drive down immigrant voter turnout significantly.

And this is happening today, with voter suppression laws being enacted across the country.

“Every presidential election turns out to be the most expensive in history because of the concentration of wealth spilling over” into the political arena, said Piven. “There is no wall” between money and politics. “Inequalities outside the electoral arena spillover.” Today we conduct polls to see how voters are thinking but we also track political contributions. Dollars and votes seem to be equally important.

This money, and the voter suppression we are seeing in politics, is aimed squarely at the “new electorate.” This rising block of voters tend to be more progressive. Black voter turnout has increased, immigrant groups continue to expand, the youth vote jumped in 2008 and 2012 and there’s been a “shift in the women’s vote since 1980 and the Reagan elections,” said Piven.

Given the shift in voters, “Conservatives shouldn’t be able to get elected,” said Piven. But through the manipulation of voter eligibility, they do.

And it isn’t ending, said Piven. Right now there’s an effort underway to change the formula for representation from the number of members in the population to the number of active voters. This is a vicious circle, and it’s by design.

Taking away “our ability to influence government” is another broken promise.

“Broken Promises in the economy and politics probably accounts for the surge in movements over the last few years,” said Piven. “This was the beginning of a new movement era.”

She noted three in particular:

“First there was Occupy, the press mocked them at the beginning. Then everyone started using Occupy’s slogans and language. Then there was the Fight for $15. SEIU had a significant role in promoting $15 as the goal. They wanted to build the union. That didn’t happen. What happened instead was that a movement took off that has been affecting local politics,” and then of course there’s Black Lives Matter.

There are also movements on the right, but these are “not among low wage workers or immigrants. [These movements] are occurring among middle class people, a little older, above the median income. Donald Trump is speaking to those people and their imaginary past…” There are “strong currents of religious fundamentalism and macho culture, gun culture, imaginary pioneers… We’ve got to live with that.”

“Movements are not majorities,” said Piven, “movements are spearheads…

“Movements have played a key role in shaping the United States since the revolutionary period.” Piven mentioned three movements in particular that had gigantic political implications.

The abolitionists freed the slaves, FDR became a radical due to the rise of the labor movement, which brought social security, labor rights, welfare policy, and public housing policy, and the civil rights movement which finally did emancipate blacks, shattered Jim Crow in the South.

“The troubles caused by movements become troubles for politicians and governments,” said Piven, “Movements communicate issues politicians wanted to avoid – showing people they could become defiant and shut things down.”

Too often “activists dismiss elections but there’s an interplay,” said Piven, but, “movements nourish electoral politics. Sanders couldn’t have run without Occupy.”

“Movements made Sanders possible,” said Piven, wrapping up her talk, “I think Sanders could win the nomination. But I don’t know what will happen in a general election. It’s amazing. There’s no precedent…

“What really worries me is Sanders as President. He would be in the White House surrounded by politicians determined to block him at every move. Movements at that juncture will become very essential to a Sanders presidency because movements can shut things down. That is the kind of popular weapon that could be equal to the gridlock Sanders could be facing.”

In a press release late last month Fossil Free Rhode Island cited as reasons for filing a motion for intervention with the Board:

The construction of the proposed power plant —part of the energy policy of team Raimondo— would slow down the transition to renewable energy.

As a recent report of the PERI Institute of UMass in Amherst states: “New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will generate more jobs for a given amount of spending than maintaining or expanding each country’s existing fossil fuel sectors.”

“Natural” gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal and oil. Clearly, team Raimondo is wrong on all counts: physics, economics and morality.

In response to Invenergy’s objections to their Motions for Intervention Sister Mary Pendergast, Occupy Providence and Fossil Free Rhode Island argue that the company misconstrues the rules according to which the Board operates.

The activists also take Invenergy to task on its claim that they lack sufficient interest to justify intervention.  They remind the company of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which declared that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  They also remind Invenergy of the Endangerment Finding of 2009 of the Environmental Protection Agency that determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

In a landmark environmental case (Payne & Buttler v. Providence Gas Co., 1910) the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that citizens can sue corporations for damages caused by “deleterious and poisonous substances.”

If these facts, rulings and liabilities do not constitute a direct interest, nothing will.

Occupy Providence, in its rebuttal,  said:

Invenergy cannot credibly argue that Occupy Providence lacks sufficient interests to justify intervention in spite of the fact that “the proposed plant will produce greenhouse gases highly injurious to the 99% for the purpose of producing profits which will go almost entirely and certainly disproportionately to the 1%.”

Sister Mary Pendergast echoed the same sentiment and quoted from Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’:

26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access to clean and renewable energy.”

Two members of the Board serve at the pleasure of Governor Raimondo.  That does not bode well for the impartiality of the Board.  This is very troubling when it is clear that the Raimondo administration fails to understand the moral imperative to act on climate change.

Is there any ethical system under the Sun that holds that near-term profit is the ultimate standard?  It is certainly not what is meant by the Affirmation of Humanism that proclaims:

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Nor is it consistent with, as the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change puts it:

Re-focus their concerns from unethical profit from the environment, to that of preserving it and elevating the condition of the world’s poor.

Citizens of Rhode Island understand that intervention is fully justified and, in spite of Invenergys’ claim to the contrary, that the public interest is not adequately represented by a state government and its corporate allies who willfully act in violation of Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the supreme law of the State which establishes the duty to provide for the conservation of the State’s air, water and land.

Note added after original post: Also the RI Democrats of America (RIPDA) have filed a reply to Invenergy’s objection to their motion for intervention.  In their conclusion they write:

Invenergy’s desire to block RIPDA’s involvement should concern both the Board and the general public, as it suggests that Invenergy wishes to limit the discourse on this topic and stack the deck in its favor.

Artemis, a member of Occupy Providence, arrived at the Plaza between 7 and 8am with supplies donated by Bikers United Disaster Relief Teams. She had blankets, jackets, underwear, socks, Halloween candy, water and toiletries available to anyone who needed them. According to Artemis, two officers in a squad car watched her and her husband unpack the car and watched as her husband drive off before approaching her to tell her that she needed a permit.

When Artemis pointed out that religious groups are always in Kennedy Plaza or nearby Burnside Park doing such work, she was basically told that the rules are different for religious organizations.

Artemis told the officers that she had permission to do this kind of work in the past from Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Paré. The officers told her she would have to wait for the Commissioner to drive by and approve her efforts before she could proceed, and if she gave out any supplies before that, she would be arrested, said Artemis. So she waited.

Meanwhile, all the supplies she brought to distribute remained stored away in large plastic bins under the table, and she accepted donations from passersby for the possible purchase of a permit, though she had no idea how much a permit might be or what kind of permit would be required.

Shortly before noon Commissioner Paré showed up and after a brief, private discussion with Artemis and a hug, the commissioner approved the table and told Artemis that he would tell his officers that she had permission. He did not stay long enough to answer any questions from the press.

In response to the alleged harassment of the homeless population in and around Kennedy Plaza by Providence Police, Occupy Providence met in the People’s Park (aka Burnside Park) with members of the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project (RIHAP) to discuss what could be done going forward to stop the criminalization of homelessness going forward.

Organizer and Occupier Susan Walker pointed out that in the winter of 2012, Occupy Providence broke their occupation of Burnside Park after negotiating with City Hall for a Day Center for the homeless. “Where is the Day Center today?” she asked. Occupy Providence has long concerned itself with homelessness, so this event marked a return to the group’s roots.

John Freitas of RIHAP spoke about the harassment of the homeless downtown by the Providence Police Department. Freitas says that the only thing that kept the police from following through on their threats to arrest homeless and homeless advocates rallying downtown on Thursday was the presence of the media. Even then, the police made a big show of force, with two paddy wagons nearby, plastic riot cuffs visibly hanging from belts and at least one officer making a big show of videotaping the participants. Feitas says this is just intimidation.

Homeless advocate Kate Miechkowski said that if members of the homeless population speak publicly about the ongoing harassment, they know that they will be retaliated against. In fact, only one woman agreed to talk about being homeless on camera, and she mostly talked about the difficulty of navigating the rules of homeless shelters while trying to rebuild her life. She wouldn’t talk about any harassment she may have faced or allow her name to be used.

The Occupy protest lasted over two hours. In addition to holding signs and making plans to address the issue of homelessness going forward, Occupiers also managed to hand out more than 200 copies of the Homeless Bill of Rights to members of the homeless population and others. The Homeless Bill of Rights is RI state law 34-37.1-3, passed in 2012.

It reads:

Bill of Rights. – No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged solely because he or she is homeless. Such a person shall be granted the same rights and privileges as any other resident of this state. A person experiencing homelessness:

(1) Has the right to use and move freely in public spaces, including, but not limited to, public sidewalks, public parks, public transportation and public buildings, in the same manner as any other person, and without discrimination on the basis of his or her housing status;

(2) Has the right to equal treatment by all state and municipal agencies, without discrimination on the basis of housing status;

(3) Has the right not to face discrimination while seeking or maintaining employment due to his or her lack of permanent mailing address, or his or her mailing address being that of a shelter or social service provider;

(4) Has the right to emergency medical care free from discrimination based on his or her housing status;

(5) Has the right to vote, register to vote, and receive documentation necessary to prove identity for voting without discrimination due to his or her housing status;

(6) Has the right to protection from disclosure of his or her records and information provided to homeless shelters and service providers to state, municipal and private entities without appropriate legal authority; and the right to confidentiality of personal records and information in accordance with all limitations on disclosure established by the Federal Homeless Management Information Systems, the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the Federal Violence Against Women Act; and

(7) Has the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal property to the same extent as personal property in a permanent residence.

The eye catching paper maché wolf, which made its first public appearance at the People’s Climate March in New York City in September was brought by Pia Ward of FANG (Fighting Against Natural Gas.)

This year’s Black Friday Walmart protests were organized nationally by OUR Walmart (Organization United for Respect at Walmart), a group fighting for a $15 minimum wage and fair scheduling practices of the kind recently enacted into law as the Retail Workers Bill of Rights in San Francisco. The organization of Walmart workers in Rhode Island has been lagging as compared to efforts in some states.

Marcia Taylor entered the store and attempted to deliver a letter to the store manager. She tells her story in the video below.

If this kind of journalism is valuable to you, consider supporting Steve Ahlquist directly:

The response to Obama took place after the Gazan Solidarity Rally, which has been running weekly since Israel’s most recent military siege. As one peace event ended the next seamlessly began. In all about thirty people attended the two events.

The protesters spoke to passersby, handing out flyers that elucidated the similarities between the situation in Gaza under Israeli occupation and conditions in Ferguson, MS in the wake of the shooting death of Mike Brown, an unarmed black man. The list of demands made by the Providence protesters included stopping the war on Gaza, stopping police brutality in communities of color, ending all U.S. aid to Israel, ending U.S. military incursions in the Middle East, ending NSA spying on private citizens, and ending the militarization of the police.

“One reason for our choice of locale,” said Paul Hubbard, spokesperson for the Rhode Island Antiwar Committee, “is that President Obama will be fund-raising among the 1% at a secluded, ocean-front mansion in Newport. The other 99% of his constituents will probably be unable to catch even a glimpse of him, due to the blocked roads and high security surrounding his brief visit. This situation strikingly symbolizes the truth about which groups the U.S. government is really serving.”

Rallies like this seem small and inconsequential when stacked up against $32,000 fund raisers and the corporatization of the military and the militarization of the police, but such rallies offer up another way of thinking about the world and another way of being.

What is being offered is peace, and the courage to embrace it.

Poet and activist Jared Paul read his six-part, “Apartheid Then, Apartheid Now” which you can watch on video below:

However, Congressman Cicilline, whatever brand of patriotism has motivated you to oppose the NSA and its spying, for that patriotism you have my own honor in accord. I am with you.

I am quite unsure whether or not the rest of our delegation will do what you have bravely done: co-sponsor and support the USA Freedom Act in order to limit, and hopefully soon end, these flagrant abuses of power by the NSA and other surveillance programs.

For you, sir:

I will never forget, and will forever cherish, the day I witnessed our Congress, your Congress Mr. Cicilline, an edifice I had long given up on, rise up and strike against a beast that grew in darkness. You, our public servants so often estranged, had a special fire in you. I saw, perhaps for the first time in my adult memory, an unlikely coalition of fearful friends struggle to defend the dignity of their people. This was no fool’s errand; it spoke to the heart of what we need from you now. More than ever we need it, from all your fellows!

We may have missed by twelve votes then, but not this time. We have a better bill, and a more focused will to fight.

Remarkably I find myself with a renewed faith that, in the ever-darkening halls of public office, there may remain enough principled people to make these, the toughest of decisions: those that may cost us the cheap domain of comfort, and they, their own seats of power, all to alleviate the real suffering of another.

I am with you, sir, as nothing secures our common dignity but our willingness to be vulnerable. Together! May those who feel otherwise be banished to the safety of their small hearts and soulless thrones. We all suffer for our inaction, so thus let us bear the burden together, at once, and abolish these programs of suspicion, torture, and murder!

For the reader: please consider reaching out to our other delegates in Congress, Senators Reed and Whitehouse, and Representative Langevin, and to all who will listen. Implore them to fight back against this regime of unwarranted spying and data collection that threatens our privacy and self-respect as a society. Support the USA Freedom Act! Follow this issue and those most difficult to come. Dearest reader, we cannot afford to do otherwise, and so much more remains for us to bear.

In earnest, for his protection of our common liberty, let us thank Congressman Cicilline for his service.

Segal, a former RI state rep who ran for Congress in 2010, and Swartz together created Demand Progress, a progressive organization that fights for net neutrality and against domestic internet spying by the US government.

Today that organization is leading some of the biggest names on the web in a national day of action to draw attention to the NSA proactively searching everyone’s computer for evidence of wrongdoing. Occupy Providence helped organize the action at Kennedy Plaza at 1pm today.

“Today the greatest threat to a free Internet, and broader free society, is the National Security Agency’s mass spying regime,” Segal said in a press release. “If Aaron were alive he’d be on the front lines, fighting back against these practices that undermine our ability to engage with each other as genuinely free human beings.”

Demand Progress is joined by the ACLU, Upworthy, the Progressive Democrats of America, Reddit, Tumblr, Mozilla, Greenpeace and Amnesty International in sponsoring this day of action. And the National Journal reports that Google, Facebook, Twitter, AOL and Microsoft also joined the cause Monday.

According to National Journal:

“organizers are promising that banners will be prominently displayed on websites across the Internet urging users to engage in viral activity expressing their opposition to the NSA. Additionally, those banners will ask readers to flood the telephone lines and email in-boxes of congressional offices to voice their support of the Freedom Act, a bill in Congress that aims to restrict the government’s surveillance authority. It remains unclear to what extent Facebook, Google, and the others will participate, or whether they will host such banners on their individual sites [Ed note: no doodle today].

And if you don’t yet understand why you should care about the mass surveillance sweeps the NSA is doing to every American, watch this video:

The current 38 Studios bailout is unpopular, as the 38 Studios deal was from the beginning.  Although the petition against the bailout was put together by Occupy Providence, which has been protesting against the planned 38 Studios bailout for over a year, there are many other groups opposing the bailout across the political spectrum.  The libertarian-leaning Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights and Occupy Providence jointly sponsored a debate about the bailout (available on video).  Although many of the leading bailout advocates were invited to appear on the debate panel – Gov. Lincoln Chafee, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, the RI Economic Development Corporation, and Moody’s bond-rating agency – none chose to take part in this open debate, although they are frequently quoted in the media where they don’t have to confront the arguments of leading bailout opponents.  Now, even those who have sympathy for the bailout have been pointing out that the case for a bailout is problematic.

Rhode Islanders who oppose the bailout can sign the petition and, if they like, attend the State House petition delivery rally at 4:15 Monday.   The RI House will be voting soon on a budget that includes 38 Studios bailout money, but many state legislators are committed to voting against the budget until the bailout money is removed.  State House leaders traditionally try to finalize everything about the budget in one night’s marathon House session, and that session is scheduled for this Tuesday.   However, the 38 Studios bailout is unusually contentious and controversial, involving years of major expenses, and whatever happens in Tuesday’s session, there is a good chance that Rhode Islanders will be continuing to fight this bailout well past Tuesday.  The online petition will remain open for signatures during and after this year’s budget process.

In a nutshell, my opinion is unchanged: Rhode Island should not repay the bonds. We should also outlaw such bonds. They have a shady origin (complete with a Watergate character!) and have gone downhill since then. We should use the 38 Studios debacle to clean up state finances.

Background:
There are two basic types of bonds. General Obligation bonds are fully backed by the state, including the use of its taxing authority to cover the bonds, hence the risk of non-repayment is low. In Rhode Island’s case the voters have to approve the bonds via a referendum.

The second type are Revenue bonds, issued by non-state authorities. These bonds are not guaranteed by the state. Voter approval is not needed. They are higher risk.

The 38 Studios bonds are a hybrid of General Obligation and Revenue bonds: so-called “Moral Obligation” bonds. This category of bond was devised by John Mitchell (of Watergate infamy) specifically to avoid the need for voter approval. These bonds are Revenue bonds with an ill-defined unwritten assurance by the state that it will repay the bonds in the case of the borrowers default. The state is not legally required to cover the bonds, but is expected to. Voter approval is not needed, so they are easy to issue. The risk is low, but at the same time the interest rates and hence profits for the bondholders are high. This is a win-win situation for the bondholders and the bond insurer but a burden on the issuer.

Review and comments….
The following are paraphrased versions of some of what was said at both the hearing and the debate, not necessarily in time-order. There were no common participants. Text within brackets ([  ]) are my own comments.

 ….on the hearing….
The House Finance committee heard testimony on the 38 Studios’ bonds repayment issue from (only) Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn, both of Municipal Market Advisors. Only the committee and experts were allowed to participate. Overall the expert testimony was detailed but inconclusive.  Rhode Island’s situation is unique.  Fabian himself advised repayment, but concurred with a committee member that 20 experts would provide 20 different opinions. Actually Fabian had already talked to many experts; their opinions of the consequences of non-repayment went from: “little impact” to “catastrophic.”

Rhode Island’s market reputation and ability to sell bonds at competitive interest rates are currently good and have been getting better. Fabian’s main concern was that non-repayment would reverse these characteristics and the cost of future credit to the state would be substantially higher; these effects might last for many years. Fabian emphasized that the market and ratings agencies would consider anything other than full repayment a default. Another possible outcome of non-repayment, though unlikely, is that the market would make an example of Rhode Island, punish it, and severely reduce its ability to borrow.

The effect of non-repayment on future Rhode Island borrowing varies on the type of the bond to be issued. The interest rates of new moral obligation bonds are likely to be extremely high, possibly even making them unsellable. [To me, the latter is a plus.] However, the effect on the state’s general obligation bonds would be much less, perhaps an increase of 0.5% to 1% in interest for many years. [It also might be possible to refinance the bonds at a lower interest rate after their issue, reducing the negative fiscal impact of non-repayment.]

Fabian recommended that Rhode Island make its repayment decision carefully and slowly. This would reduce any negative results if it decides against full repayment. Also, an in-depth market study might help Rhode Island make its decision to repay or not. However, just conducting a study might make the market nervous; thus, negative repercussions could occur even before a study is completed and a repayment decision made.

When the 38 Studios’ bonds were issued an insurance policy was purchased providing for full payment of both the principal and interest by the insurer to the bondholders in the case of default. Many Rhode Islanders say that the insurance pay-out will keep Rhode Island from having to repay anything and the bondholders will lose nothing. However, the insurer will likely use all available means to keep from paying, including legal, political and media attacks. It might be messy, last a long time and result in a significant decline in Rhode Island’s reputation in the bond market. One way to avoid this mess would be to make a compromise with the insurer and only make a partial repayment. The insurer would likely be willing to work with the state to do so, and Rhode Island would suffer less.

….and on the debate.
The debate was moderated. The panel included academics, bond market experts, an independent policy advisor, and a citizen advocate who might be directly affected by the outcome. The audience was allowed to participate. On the whole, predictions of what would happen upon a non-repayment were less dire than at the hearing.

The debate covered a lot of the same ground as the hearing, but not all. An expert at the debate said that it is a strong possibility that future Rhode Island general obligation bonds’ costs (higher interest rates) would be much less than feared [including much less than those suggested at the hearing].  One additional point made was that although a partial repayment would be viewed as a default by the bond market, it would be viewed more favorably by the market than a full non-repayment, so could be viewed as a reasonable option for Rhode Island.

There was a consensus by the panel that what needs to be done is an in-depth study, including a solid cost/benefit, pros/cons analysis of the alternatives in order to make an informed decision. It was suggested that as part of the study the major bond market players should be asked what they would do if the bonds are repaid by the state or not. [This may be difficult. Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the bond raters, have so far declined to do so.][Note that such a study may be inconclusive, too, since there are so many factors involved, even some not yet even contemplated.]

Analysis:
After the hearing I knew more but was less certain what the result of any particular course of action would be. The debate helped, but not much more.

There is no history to guide us. The bond market is irrational, volatile and unpredictable, though traditionally less so than the stock market. Even the experts don’t know the likely consequences. All crystal balls are out of order.

“Moral Obligation” bonds are a fabrication of Wall Street, created to satisfy its greed. The Economic Development Corporation, not the state, issued such bonds for 38 Studios.  There was the usual kind-of-sort-of implication by EDC, the Assembly, and the governor (at that time), that the state would pay if 38 Studios defaulted, but with no actual obligation.  The only clearly stated legal obligation of the state is that the Governor must put a request for repayment into the proposed budget each year.  That’s it.  The state legislature is under absolutely no obligation to actually include it in the final budget.  Here is the key:  38 Studios was not described as a sound investment to either the prospective investors or the insurer, yet they signed on anyway. They gambled and lost. This is not Rhode Island’s responsibility, but in the vague, smoky-back-room fashion of “moral obligation” bonds, it might hurt our reputation for being a good bond issuer if we don’t obligingly, voluntarily make it our responsibility.

An issue that did not receive enough attention at either the hearing or the debate concerns the effects on low- or no- income Rhode Islanders of non-repayment. Both Rep. Ferri, a committee member at the hearing, and Ms. Heebner, citizen advocate at the debate, said that the General Assembly might not raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but instead would reduce human services. Those lowest on the economic ladder would suffer the consequences of the higher-ups’ bad decisions. While dumping on those least able to afford it is dishonorable, it is likely to happen, judging from the recent past.

Conclusions:
By all means, conduct an in-depth study, it might help. But don’t spend a lot on it.

No one can tell what the consequences of non-repayment would be. Even if we know the monetary consequences for certain, our decision could still go either way since it will (should) be based on more than what can be quantified by such a study. Let’s not base a decision solely on Wall Street or $$$, for a change. There is more to life. So let’s do the right things:

• Don’t repay the 38-Studio bonds.  We aren’t obligated to and we have other, real, obligations like human services, education and infrastructure that need the funds. The “sky-is-falling” predictions are overblown.
• Make moral obligation bonds illegal. Only allow pure general obligation and revenue bonds having clear language and unambiguous responsibilities of the parties involved. This change in state debt funding would be a silver lining to the ugly situation of the 38 Studios debacle.

We might even start a positive national trend: Fabian said that nationally moral-obligation bonds would cease to be issued if Rhode Island doesn’t repay.

PostScript: I have heard that the political reality is that the first payment ($2.5 million) will absolutely stay in the FY2014 budget. However, from my perspective, nothing is final until the Assembly session is actually adjourned for the year. Further, a final decision on one or more of the much larger remaining payments ($12.5 million) might be postponed until the 2014 Assembly session; there isn’t enough time to either conduct a deeper study and/or make a reasoned decision before the end of this session. This would also leave enough time in the off-session for such a study.