Rhode Islands Future: Politics & Culture - Recommended Diaries

Liz Roberts v. Jim Langevin in 2010 Primary? (w/ poll)

uricigar — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:43:35 GMT

Judging by the reaction to the recent diary about Congressman Langevin, I'm not the only District 2'er who is unhappy with the Congressman. This has me thinking that somebody should come forward and challenge Langevin in a primary. I think that candidate should be Liz Roberts.

Think about it: Langevin is vulnerable. He won his primary against Jennifer Lawless in 2006 with only 61 percent of the vote. An unorganized, quixotic candidate such as Lawless shouldn't have gotten nearly that close. Langevin is also a below-average fundraiser. While Langevin might gear it up if he saw a real challenge coming, I have a hard time seeing him becoming a fundraising dynamo. Also, the right challenger might be able to draw a good deal of money from liberal and pro-choice groups to make up for his incumbent advantage.

Langevin deserves to be challenged. While I wouldn't describe him as a "DINO" (he has great records on the environment, labor, and guns), he's not a great Democrat. Obviously, he's anti-choice. He supports the silly flag burning amendment. His record on other civil liberty issues has been equally questionable. Also, he's just not a great representative. He ranks near the bottom of the caucus in Congressional power rankings, signifying that he's a weak legislator.

I think Liz Roberts is the right candidate here for a number of reasons. She offers a good contrast against him on the choice issue. She's a candidate who has won statewide office in the past. She was able to raise $650,000 for the 2006 Lt. Gov. race, versus Langevin raising $840,000. She would be a strong candidate, much stronger than Lawless.

I also select Roberts because I think her gubernatorial campaign is going to go nowhere. It's going to be a crowded field in 2010, and I think it will be a shame if (at least!) four talented Democratic candidates spend millions of dollars trying to kill each other in that campaign. As much as I would like to see Roberts succeed in her gubernatorial campaign, I can't see how that can happen. Ciccilline is going to be a strong candidate. Caprio is going to have the money. Lynch is going to have party support. Weygand could be an x-factor if Rhode Islanders decide they don't like any of these candidates by 2010.

Roberts has also made missteps. Paul Tencher didn't leave to pursue "other opportunities" because some great job was calling. The snowstorm damaged her. Her courageous comments on immigration were, unfortunately, not politically expedient and thus resulted in a week of negative coverage on talk radio. She's been criticized for her trip to Taiwan. I think you can gloss over those problems running against Langevin. I don't know that you can running in what is sure to be a beat-down primary for Governor.

Immigration agency plans new family detention centers

PDM — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:05:05 GMT

The Feds are building "family prisons". There will be ice cream, pony rides, and lots of games. Don't worry Mr. Frog, you only think the water is getting hot.

The federal government is accepting bids for up to three new family detention centers that would house as many as 600 men, women and children fighting deportation cases.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a call for proposals last month and set June 16 as the deadline. New facilities are being considered on both coasts and on the Southwestern border.
The proposal calls for minimal security facilities and refers to the centers as residential family shelters, but says the contractor should structure programs "designed to prevent escapes" and should provide a plan that "monitors resident movement and physically counts residents."

Roll Call! Part IV

TPublico — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:19:10 GMT

Sorry so late. I know I should have had this up earlier, but publishing the data turned out to be more of a headache than I thought... I should have learned my lesson when I first started this project. Believe me, it wasn't that I pick up the Xbox controller; it was just little quirks that would sometimes crop up along the way as I was building the site (a lot more cobwebs I needed to dust off than I thought), but I won't bore you with all that. So here's the shameless plug:

www.rirollcallvotes.com

It's still a work in progress and I hope to have more up and running soon, but any and all feedback is welcome here, or you can email me at the address I provided on the website if you prefer to keep the comments private. I hope to expand on the RI General Assembly voting records soon.
I only have the 2007 Session partially up and running (Votes by legislator), but I hope to finish the rest and the 2008 Session soon. You might notice that the titles of some bills are missing from the voting results of a search. One reason is that the titles are based on the titles of the final version of a bill. And because a bill can change drastically from when it's first introduced to its ultimate outcome, I chose not to match the final title versions to their previous bill versions because the meaning could have completely changed.

The other reason for the missing titles is because of my personal formatting. You'll probably notice that some bill numbers will have >R-C, X2, or SECT< at the end of the number. That was done on my part to help keep order in the tables.

• R-C = another vote on a bill after a reconsideration
• X2 = another vote on a bill where the bill number didn't change
ooooo Ex. -> 'H1 as amended' is voted in the House which then goes to the Senate, where it gets amended again which then sends it back to the House as 'H1 as amended' for a second vote, and then becomes 'H1 as amendedX2' in my format
• SECT = done when a bill is divisible

I should be able to fix that though so they match up. I guess that's it for now... I know I'm forgetting to mention something, but my brain is fried. There'll be a lot more I'll be adding to it soon (like I added 3 more states to the state-to-state legislature comparison), but I won't make the same mistake again and say exactly when that'll be. :)

Cicilline: Unfinished Business!

joeouellette — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:56:11 GMT

Jeopardizing our Public Safety

Let me begin by stating that I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I am not a union member nor have I ever been affiliated with one. I am an independent voter, property owner and seriously concerned citizen. The Mayor's proposed staffing cuts at our Fire Department will jeopardize the public safety of everyone who lives, works or plays in this City (Providence).

Mayor David Cicilline has done some great things for our City. I, for one, am happy with my shiny new garbage can and the recycling bins (especially the recycling bins). Also, the lead water pipes on my street have been replaced.

However, Handling the contract negotiations with the Firefighters Union (Local 799) is not one of his crowning achievements.

Now we understand the Mayor has been able to cut down the number of employees on the City Payroll. But making those same cuts in the Fire Dept is not something we're interested in supporting because it endangers the public safety. In reality, he should actually be boosting the number of firefighters.

Why?

The cuts will most likely effect the number of firefighters responding to an emergency. Currently nearly 1/2 of our Engines are staffed below the minimum standard set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The NFPA is widely recognized as the authoratative source on public safety. The NFPA standard is 4. Half of our Engines are at 3. Additionally, the 4th man reduces the number of firefighter injuries.

The Mayor has not released the the basis for his intended cuts. I understand there is a report out there. We paid for it. We want to see it. NOW.

There is a lot of new construction out there that has been completed or is in the process of being completed (Providence Place Mall, Luxury Condos, Hotels). We want 4 firefighters on those trucks (all of them!) when they arrive should any of this be threatened.

Our property taxes are high and they are going up this year. Shouldn't we expect a fully staffed Fire Dept to respond if any of our lives or property are threatened?

Campaign Promises and Wasted Tax Dollars

In closing, when he was running for office, David Cicilline made a campaign promise to the members of this union (Local 799) to end this contract dispute within 30 days of taking office in exchange for their support. In my opinion, this is a little bit like having a contractor come over to your house, do an estimate, take a deposit, and then never return to start the work. Wouldn't you be angry? We are.

Further, the Mayor has spent 1 million dollars fighting this arbritration ruling. Just because he has a political beef with the Union, doesn't mean he should be spending our tax dollars in this way. This is poor financial management.

Invitations

This is an open invitation to the Mayor and his supporters to discuss this issue. Perhaps the Mayor himself might join our discussion? That'd be interesting.

It is our intention to use this forum and others to address this issue.

Challenge Us?

Be Nice! If you are going to challenge our position, nicely state your reasons why and if possible provide some source documentation. We will do the same.

With Us?

Join our group by sending an email to provpublicsafety@gmail.com

Citizens for Providence Public Safety.

SAME OLD SONG & DANCE; CICILLINE & PROV FF's

tekpfd — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:30:34 GMT

Same Old Song and Dance

When did cronyism and political wheeling and dealing become so up-front and in-your-face in the Providence political scene? If this is the way of the future, many people will be longing for the time when Cianci was in office. At least back then a person wishing to manipulate the system had to do so behind the scenes. Allegedly, a bribe paid to a third party or the sudden support from a labor member would be required to be delivered prior to any payoff or political favors.

Ahhhh…the good old days!!

All those deals seem to be a thing of the past in Providence…or are they? I realize that Mayor Cicilline ran for his first term under the platform of “fair and honest government”. It seems to me that he forgot this plank of his platform as soon as he was sworn in as mayor. He broke just about every promise he made on the campaign trail within his first year in office. I can’t even begin to list them all, so let me concentrate on those broken promises and outright lies that I’ve lived with over the last 6 years as a firefighter in the City of Providence.

First of all he promised to sit down and talk to the firefighters as soon as he was in office - and promised that our contract issue would be resolved within the first months of his administration. Instead, he immediately hired John Simmons as his right hand man (at an outrageous and ever-growing sum of money). The mayor then put Mr. Simmons (who had a previous and unproductive relationship with the firefighter’s union) in charge of negotiating with Local799. The mayor refused to talk with us directly!

During the campaign, then candidate Cicilline signed a petition at our union hall demanding the abolishment of the residency bill – of course it should be stated that he was looking for our support at that time. One of the first things Mayor Cicilline did was push for the enforcement of the residency requirements, touting them as essential for the welfare of our city. When he was asked to explain his apparent about-face on the issue he stated that he was always a supporter of residency. When asked why he signed the petition demanding its abolishment he merely stated that he didn’t realize what he was signing!!!! Either he’s lying – or he’s not bright enough to run our capitol city.

The mayor states the welfare of the Providence citizen and taxpayer as his motivation for holding down the costs of running the fire department by not giving in to the firefighter’s demands. He can never address just what unreasonable demands the firefighters have put on the city. He can only speak in vague terms regarding expected higher costs for healthcare and pensions – these are facts of life for everyone, not just the City of Providence. Yet, for all his concern over the difference of a couple of percentage points in co-shares or in the salaries of the city ‘workers’, he’s begun a bidding war among the department heads and his administrative staff. As stated previously, Mr. Simmons is being paid an exorbitant salary! The present Chief of Police in Providence is being paid more than double the salary and perks as his predecessor. Now we hear that the ‘new’ Chief of the Providence Fire Department is being offered a contract that will guarantee that he will eventually make more than Esserman. I guess it’s good to be the chief!!

This type of behavior is typical for someone who delegates his responsibilities and has no idea of what it’s like to be one of the ‘workers’. I just can’t understand why this person would choose to run as a Democrat. Never mind, I have to take that back. He realizes that a Republican candidate would probably never be elected in the City of Providence. Seeing that he’s already demonstrated that principles are not part of his makeup, he may as well just call himself a Democrat - and then act any way he pleases.

I am surprised, however, that the members of Providence’s City Council seem to be falling right into place for the young mayor. Aren’t they all Democrats??!!?? I’m not talking about giving away the candy store to unreasonable demands of unions or labor, I’m just speaking of fair and equitable treatment of all city workers – not just the one’s who wear suits to work.

For instance, many people believed that the Class B retirement system was saturated with exaggerated disability pensions. Fact or myth, this was the perception. The proposed solution was to make the pension board operate under more stringent guidelines and guarantee fair and impartial treatment of each prospective retiree based solely on the merits of his/her individual case. Fair enough!

The results were reminiscent of the work of a union-buster from back in the thirties! A firefighter must first prove that his injury is 100% disabling him from performing his duties. That’s OK, but he must then show the exact incident at which it happened. That may sound easy, but it can be tricky. Take, for instance, the case of a firefighter with 7 years on the job who ripped up his knee at a fire (100% documented) and had surgery to enable him to return to work. The department carried him as IOD (injured on duty) until he was cleared by his doctor to return to work.

This firefighter returned to a fire company and did his job for an additional 10 years before he ripped up the same knee once again at a different fire scene. When his doctor told him that he couldn’t repair the knee well enough to allow him to return to work the firefighter filed for an Accidental Disability pension. He did this within a few months of the injury. An Accidental Disability pension is the type of pension that a firefighter receives if he is disabled ‘on-the-job’ and is forced to retire.

The pension board’s decision? The firefighter was not entitled to an Accidental Disability pension. He was only qualified, they said, for a Regular Disability pension. This meant that the firefighter and his doctors had proven to the board that he was, indeed, disabled. The firefighter and his doctors were unable, however, to prove that the firefighter’s injury was an ‘on-the-job’ injury.

The reason for this, though tragic for the firefighter, is really quite amusing. The City of Providence, during the hey days of suspected disability pension fraud, passed an ordinance that stated that a member of the Class B pension system (Providence Police and Fire) could not claim an injury which happened more than 18-months prior to his filing for the pension as a reason for his disability. Furthermore, this injury could not be brought up in any way on the member’s behalf during pension board meetings. In essence, it never happened.

How does this effect our firefighter you ask? Well, the pension board decided that it couldn’t award an Accidental Disability pension to a member for an on-the-job knee injury if the member had a prior history of knee problems. This wouldn’t be fair to the taxpayers, after all, as he already had a pre-existing medical condition prior to the fire which ultimately caused his disability!

It didn’t matter that his prior history was an older on-the-job injury. That injury never happened…as far as the pension board was concerned.

If this ordinance didn’t stack the deck against legitimate claims for disability pensions enough, the mayor had a referendum placed on the last election's city ballot giving him the authority to appoint two additional members to the pension board. This would assure that the majority of the board were city appointed designees who would vote as they were instructed.

The mayor has been in office for 6 years now and he has yet to negotiate a single contract with the city’s firefighters. After much stalling by the city, and much picketing by the firefighters, a neutral arbitrator finally settled three single year contracts between the two parties 2 years ago and an additional contract last year. What most citizens don’t realize is that as of this writing (May 9, 2008) Providence firefighters have been working with no contract, once again, for over 1,000 days! The two parties are, once again, forced to have a neutral arbitrator decide our contract.

This mayor says all the right things to the media and the citizens of Providence. Unfortunately for the citizens (and the workers) of Providence, it is actions and deeds which ultimately measure one’s worth. I’m afraid our mayor just doesn’t measure up in that column.

Tom Kenney

Obama's Abortion Error

stevec — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:47:50 GMT

In 2002, the United States Congress passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It basically states that any infant born alive at any state of development is considered a person and deserves immediate medical care. This includes infants who survive partial birth abortions. The legislation was spurred by testimony of members in the medical community where infants born alive after induced abortion were simply left to die. The bill passed 98-0 in the Senate.

A state version of the proposal in Illinois was brought to the GA in 2001 and failed to pass, in a large part thanks to Barack Obama. The reason was language in the bill that might be brought to challenge Roe v Wade. This language was rectified in the federal version of the bill. Obama claims he would've voted for the measure in the state legislature had the federal language been included. Obama's own website confirms this under their 'Know the Facts' section:

RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]
REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation.
The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

What he and his website fail to tell you is that the language used in the federal bill that helped it pass was proposed in the Illinois GA in 2003 as an ammendment on to the original state bill. The text of it is exactly the same as the federal version and can be seen here. The progress of the bill can be seen here, where Obama's committee kept it from being voted on.

There are many sides to the abortion issue. Some are for it, some are against it, some are for it just in cases of special circumstance (rape, incest), and some are against only partial birth abortion. In this case, it seems to be a fairly cut and dry issue. No child deserves to be left to die like the examples given in front of Congress. Yet Obama has defended his record on this issue by saying things to the effect that it was simply a procedural bill, and that doctors already practice what the bill calls for.

It makes you wonder, why the misrepresentation of facts (a.k.a. lies) by his camp? Is this the kind of voting record we want as a national presidential candidate? It may be a small piece of legislature, but the revelations of character, I feel, are too great to ignore.