38 Studios isn’t the only matter of public policy that Gov. Chafee and Treasurer Gina Raimondo disagree about. There’s also the governor’s hotly-debated municipal pension reform proposal that Raimondo has given the cold shoulder to publicly.
While she said much of her work has been behind the scenes, and with municipal finance directors rather than mayors, twice Raimondo dodged the question when I asked her on Friday if she endorsed the governor’s pension proposal. On my third try, she said:
“Here’s what I would say: I certainly endorse the concept of giving municipalities more tools to help them do their work. This particular legislation is making its way through the legislative process, and this is like a legal hornets’ nest. The General Assembly, they are going to have to figure out the legal issues and the language to try and do that.”
Chafee, for his part, wishes Raimondo would have use her pension cred to help his municipal reform efforts this session. In fact, he told me he wanted her to fight harder for them during last year’s special session devoted to pension reform.
“We had a special session, with total focus on pension reform,” he said. “What are we waiting for? It’s time we get some energy behind this important area moving the state forward.”
Legislative leadership didn’t want the municipal reforms in the landmark reform bill last year. Chafee fought for it to be included and Raimondo not so much.
When pressed, she said the it won’t withstand a court challenge.
“Listen, if we could have figured out a constitutional, financially sound way to pass a statute that reformed these independent pension plans last year we would have done it. I wish we could have, I really do but there is no solution like that.”
She added, “We have to respect collective bargaining.”
It’s a fair point, and one that organized labor certainly agrees with. Pat Crowley of the NEA-RI has described the governor’s municipal package as, “Wisconsin heavy, not even Wisconsin light.” The bill would freeze annual raises for communities with underfunded pension plans, lower disability pensions and prevent cities and towns from offering more generous benefits than the state plan.
But details aside, with both municipal and statewide pension reform efforts, inevitable lawsuits will hinge on whether or not a contract has been broken, and if so if a financial catastrophe can be averted by doing so. A ruling last fall said that state workers have an implied contract with the state.
“That was a summary judgment so it remains to be seen,” said Raimondo. “We’ll see where it goes.”
Another theory is that Raimondo doesn’t want to anger municipal unions, which could prove critical if she runs for governor in 2014.
She vehemently ruled out politics playing into her decision not to endorse the governor’s municipal package, saying, “No, of course not. That’s not how I think about it.”
But she wasn’t so adamant when I asked her if she was, in fact, thinking of running for governor.
“Never rule anything out,” she said, “but I’m not thinking about it.”
Meanwhile, the next governor won’t be chosen for another two years and the first lawsuits over pension reform won’t be filed until the July or perhaps January, depending on when the reforms first affect workers and retirees.
But it’s the final few days of the legislative session and Chafee’s municipal aid package, including the municipal pension reform proposal, rests in the hands of the House Finance Committee. The Committee heard the bills earlier in the session and held them for further study. It would need to vote them out in the coming days in order for them to take effect this year.
Gina “Money Rules Everything Around Me” Raimondo will definitely run for Governor. That’s a sure bet. And Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal will have her back. Was she working for Bain at the same time Romney was running it? It’s a good question.
But I digress. We’re on a progressive blog here, right?
So Bob, could we stop calling pension elimination, “pension reform.”
You don’t reform something by ending it. You eliminate it. Which is the Raimondo plan. 401(a) instead of pension. That’s what they got over at the statehouse.
Just because there’s a tiny 1% annuity plan tacked on does not mean that this is a hybrid system. It is not. But if that worries you maybe it’s a massive pension reduction. Or a public retirement austerity plan. And all state employees will be far less secure in retirement for it. But that’s the whole point. Take money promised to them and use it to fill budget holes, theoretically saving taxpayers money in potential future tax increases.
Whether to eliminate pensions is a debatable topic. But using the euphemism ”reform” is disingenuous at best. You’re taking John Hazen-White’s words and using them on purpose. It would be akin to a progressive blog calling the estate tax “the death tax” or calling someone pro-choice, “anti-life.” The left shouldn’t pick up right wing talking points. That’s for the right to do.
EcoRI has some good progressive news on the pension fund and its investments in shady places. www.ecori.org/green-business/2012/1/26/where-are-ri-revenues-being-invested-not-locally.html
That’s how progressive financial reporting is done. What I see here at RI Future is almost right-wing propaganda.
Municipal Aid = Slash Public Sector Salaries and Pensions
Pension Reform = Eliminate Pensions and Offer Worst Public Retirement Plan in the Nation
Municipal Tools = Taking money away from grandpa who taught history for 35 years
Will RI Future be left wing on economic issues, or only on social issues?
It’s a good question. I’ve seen hints of both the left and the right here. But if this is to be a progressive engine of the state it has to shape the language we use to discuss issues, not just abide by the Bankers’ Euphemisms.
Remember, we’re the only “bondholder first” state. Rhode Island, a wholly-owned subsidiary of some rich jerk down 95 in Greenwich. He’s probably got a small “summer cottage” out in Anawan Cliffs too.
RhodyT, I personally think we’re lucky to have a progressive news org that is respected by the mainstream as actual journalism rather than dismissed by the majority as the vanity press of a fringe perspective – a press of limited political value despite worthy or even prescient aims.
You raise an interesting issue about the way we label policies and positions, and I am not unsympathetic to your desire to avoid ideological collusion.
But that is not happening here. RIFuture has the rare opportunity to educate a moderate public about progressive perspectives, but it cannot succeed if it deviates immediately from the common terms in public usage. If it does deviate, it will reduce a complex problem to a false dilemma of opposing, unbridgeable rallying cries. Truth might be on the side of the terms you prefer, but before they come into viable usage, folks need to listen to or look at the news source first.
Just a few days ago RI Future called the ProJo on its seemingly random use of sarcastic or ironic quote marks in an otherwise straight up news story. The very fact that RI Future called the ProJo out on a subtlety of usage suggests we are not in the hands of a naive analyst here. By all means be on the watch. But at the same time maybe we should be aware of the clout and potential change agency wielded by an old-school, street-smart journalist.
Thank you, Cheryl. I’ve always respected your work, and I’m glad you took the time to respond.
But I still believe that there is a fundamental difference between defined benefit and define contribution retirement plans.
One cannot reform a cup of water by turning it to wine. One must remove the water then fill it with wine.
These two things are qualitatively different. In this instance reform means to transmute, which is not a common use of the word.
And the terms that are used commonly in public usage was decided by those who framed the debate with an active and stated goal of ending the defined contribution plan. It is not as if a neutral party concocted the terms.
In any other state these actions would be taken by Republicans. And Democrats could frame the debate separately from them. But since we have one party, often things get framed only one way. In this case, it’s not the progressive way. And the ProJo, being owned by the right-wing A.H. Belo Corp, in which our Governor and Treasurer are invested, gets to define mainstream.
In this state, our Speaker and Treasurer (and occasionally Governor) are far right wing for Democrats on economic matters. They are actively for a flat-tax for upper income earners. They are openly against a more progressive income tax structure. They expand excise taxes on overvalued $500 beater cars whilst they tax yachts at 0%. They pass bondholder first laws. They let cities get “Flanderized,” to borrow a term from Buddy. They starve higher education and municipal budgets and take from public workers in the process.
In the last year alone, merit pay was ended, longevity pay was ended, years of furloughs finally came to an end, the pension was ended, and health premium shares shot up 20%. From what I hear, state workers can only now ever receive a raise if they leave their job and find another.
And now the Governor is grandstanding about URI’s professors’ raises.
These are not progressives framing the debate.
And if we lose the frame of a debate, we will lose the debate. Our state’s economy will only suffer further under austerity. I was simply hoping for a sane voice amongst the howling wolves, who are never quite satiated.
I do see your point. One cannot be too extreme with journalism and be taken seriously. Yet one does not have to abide by perverse euphemisms either. RI Future will have to choose.
I have no illusions that the organization will be swayed by a simple internet comment. But framing matters. It is worth carefully considering at the very least. And I hope the blog authors here do consider it.
Framing does matter. I cannot disagree ! And I am thinking there is a fine, focused piece to be written on the topic you have raised: something that takes several current terms or phrases and explicitly re-frames them in light of actual actions or consequences. You make an excellent start in your original comment. An extension of it into, perhaps, an honest lexicon of current catchphrases, would be original and illuminating. Go for it Rhody Townie.
Well said, thanks!!!
Well said, Rhody Towny, thanks!!!
And the loss of twenty years or more of COLAs, what did it buy us?
Peace in our time?
Guess again.
The fact that George Nee was on that hapless EDC committee just gripes me no end.
And it also points up a simple cultural fact: That guy has much more in common with the State House than he does with the average mook who pays his union dues.
Everything is on automatic pilot. Except for Gina, who is on the phone…
[...] MSNBC (perhaps after reading the WSJ) also lumped together Ohio, Rhode Island and Michigan this afternoon in a report on states where labor wars are raging. Forbes’ Josh Barro argued back in March these strange bedfellow prove fiscal “necessity has trumped political coalitions.” Union activists here have described Chafee’s municipal bills as “Wisconsin heavy.” [...]