Posted on

Out-fox Fox: vote ‘NO’ on the House budget bill


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

RI State House 4The state budgeting process has once again turned into a farce. This has been particularly true under Speaker Fox’s leadership. However, unlike previous years, the forced House rubber-stamping of the budget is in serious doubt. And that’s a good thing.

The 38 Studios’ bond repayment debacle seems to be the catalyst for the public’s and much of the House membership’s revulsion at the proposed FY2014 budget. But it’s not the only stinker in the budget. Among others, there is also the lack of an extension of family planning services to all low-income women. But the problem is much bigger than just the monetary impacts of the budget.

The House leadership has conducted a widespread pattern of bait-and-switching of many important bills put forward in good faith by the rank-and-file of the House. This is true even of bills that the leadership purported to support during the 2012 campaign. In particular the gun control bills that had widespread support have been gutted to the point of worthlessness. The NRA won. (Which reminds me: did you know that Speaker Fox received $2,200 from the NRA in political contributions during 2010-2012? Other House members also profited.)

The repeal of the Voter ID act was also sculpted behind the scenes by the leadership to be worse than what was in effect for the 2012 elections, a far cry from a repeal.

Now, despite what your feelings are about the above bills, pro or con, I think we can all safely agree on the farcical nature of the budget process in the House. From this year’s hit parade of what would otherwise be laughable elements of the process, we have the following[1]:

  1. The Governor’s budget of January was revised behind closed doors by just two or three legislators.
  2. The House Finance Committee only received an overview of the budget literally a few hours before the Committee met to vote on it.
  3. Even more ludicrous was that the Committee did not see the actual budget, with the all-important details, until just before the relevant part of the budget was discussed during the meeting. The poor staff were running continuously between the meeting room and the copier and back to keep up.
  4. At one point, for the final Section considered, the Appropriations’ section, which was also the longest (over a hundred pages), the staff couldn’t handle the volume and Chairman Melo had to pause the proceedings for some time until the Committee members got their copies.
  5. The fiscal staff spent about 5 minutes, plus-or-minus, of the two-hour-long meeting describing the Appropriations’ section and its changes.
  6. The main negative point brought up by committee members, especially Reps. Newberry and Ferri, was the presence of the 38 Studios bonds repayment in the budget.
  7. After all that, the clout of the House leadership truly became apparent. The vote was to pass the budget 12-0-2: all Democrats in favor, no committee member opposed, and two abstentions, both from Republicans (even they couldn’t say an outright ‘NO’).

The Speaker wants, and so far is, controlling everything that goes on in the House. But he cannot be trusted. See yesterday’s Nesi’s Notes for evidence of Speaker Fox’s lying about 38 Studios and what the House knew, or rather didn’t know, before voting for the relevant approval bill in 2010.

It’s time for Rhode Islanders to say “Enough is enough! Vote ‘NO’ on the budget!” Put yourselves back in charge. I’m making a Call for Action to anyone and everyone who has some time today. Come to the State House at about 1 PM and talk to your Representative before the debate and vote on the budget that starts at 2 PM. For those who’ve never been there, you first go through security on the side of the statehouse farthest from Providence Place, then go up the rotunda stairs (or the elevator) to the second floor. The House entrance is there. There are also visitor galleys on the third floor. Lastly, all House sessions are televised and shown in both real-time both on the web and on cable, and later-on on the web.

I know that’s a bad time for many of us, and perhaps that’s why it was scheduled then, two hours early, but this is a rare perhaps even once-in-a-lifetime moment when your voice can truly be heard and recognized.

If you can’t come in person, see if you can find time to call your Representative in the morning/afternoon/evening (they’ll probably be there for a while). See here to determine who your Representative is, and here to look up her/his phone number. Don’t know what they look like? Go here and click his/her name. Still need help? I’ll be around and do my best. I’ll be the guy with a sign on his back.

I hope to see you at the Capitol.

Keep the faith.

—-Gus Uht

[1] You can see the (long) session for yourself on Capitol Television; look for 6-18-2013, Parts 1 and 2. A shorter version of the highlights was given by Rep. Newberry on Newsmakers June 21.

Posted on

House Finance okays bond payments, but maybe not


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

occupy prov 38Part of the revised FY2014 budget passed by the House Finance committee last night includes the first payment ($2.5M) to cover the 38 Studios’ default. This payment will not actually be made until May, 2014.

However, future payments are not guaranteed, so quite possibly this might be the last payment made by Rhode Island. Perhaps the Assembly could even de-appropriate the May, 2014 payment earlier in next year’s session.

The proposed budget also includes $50K for a study of the consequences of non-repayment. This is both wise and affordable.

While many will lament Rhode Island paying anything, on the bright side  making the payment and conducting an in-depth study gives everyone a chance to think long and hard about what is best to do, and not to make a hasty decision. The committee’s actions should also help to assuage Moodys a bit; we’ll find out soon.

Posted on

Experts weigh in: Does RI repay 38 Studios’ bond


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

occupy prov 38Last week, on June 6th, both a debate and a separate hearing were held whose sole focus was the 38 Studios’ bonds’ situation. (Related posts: first, second.)

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.

 

Posted on

Move RI Beyond the Box: Stop Job Discrimination


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
Ban the Box legislation was heard this week at the State House. (Photo by Dave Fisher)

This past week, the House Labor committee heard from “Ban the Box” supporters, including a short film to illustrate the challenge of finding employment, and a new life, with a criminal past.

The film (available here) makes the case for House Bill H5507, known as “Ban the Box.” This piece of legislation removes that question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” from job applications and provides key protections against employment discrimination for people with records. The bill is sponsored by House Representatives Slater, Chippendale, Williams, Almeida, and Diaz.

The film features employers and job applicants who would be directly affected by the legislation. Additional interviewees include Michael Evora of the Rhode Island Human Rights Commission; AT Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections; Misty Wilson, Organizer at the community organization Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE)  as well as some of the bill’s sponsors. In the film, AT Wall calls employment opportunity “the key pillar” to success re-entry and Michael Evora says that Ban the Box is “one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.”

Opponents are uninformed, or hoping you are.

The Attorney General has been less-than-accurate in his depiction of the law and liability, by saying that it would be “unlawful,” under the legislation, for an employer to deny an applicant a job “based on his or her criminal record… [unless] there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and employment sought.”

“This act would open every employer in the State, both public and private, to civil liability in the hiring process that may actually have a chilling effect on new employment opportunities.”

There are three other reasons an applicant can be denied:

1.  A state or federal law prohibition (such as many school, health care, law enforcement, or CEO positions);

2.  Applicant is not bondable;

3.  “unreasonable risk to property, or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals, employees, or the general public.”

It is impossible to anticipate any specific judicial interpretation of these reasons, as facts of every case will vary.  However, one can safely assume that no RI governor has appointed any “anti-business” and  “pro-criminally convicted people” to the bench.  If so, I missed it.  The fear mongering, of scaring businesses to steer clear, is (a) missing the realities of a statewide economy, and (b) overlooking the fact that Connecticut and Massachusetts have similar laws.  This bill is also consistent with EEOC policy on the subject.

Many have overlooked that this law would only apply in scenarios where an applicant has already been offered a job, and then the employer wishes to revoke it based on a criminal record.  Clearly the applicant has shown some job-worthiness.  Considering most applicants will be people who never went to prison, or recently served small time for a small crime, it would be difficult for someone to “go straight” if years need to tick by… without crime and without a job.

Some have hypothesized that creating a few rules in the employment process violates the freedom of a business or organization to operate freely.  Yet this is a right that nobody alive ever enjoyed, as the tax code and regulatory agencies have long subjected businesses and organizations to codes and laws.  They have hypothesized that attorneys will file “frivolous” lawsuits, although this would open up such attorneys to sanctions under Rule 11 of the state and federal court rules.  Considering all the other avenues for “frivolous” lawsuits, there is no indication that this will now create a new windfall.  If one were to file, they might use the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, one of the few statutes that provide for attorneys fees.  The FCRA is currently in effect and there is no allegation of it being used frivolously.

A community must sink or swim together.

The love or hatred in one’s own heart is part of what makes us all human.  Most of our beliefs are developed over time, and impacted by our families, schools, neighborhood gossip, television, social media, government policy and more.  Policymakers, unlike private citizens, do not have the luxury of saying “I don’t care,” about a particular dilemma; nor are they allowed to have divisive beliefs.  Not, at least, if they are trying to develop and build the health of their entire districts.  Public policies such as drug prohibition, sending our youth off to war, or the refusal to provide a comprehensive mental health plan, have both intended and unforeseen consequences.  Among them is narrowing of employment opportunities after labeling people with a criminal record.

Opponents to the legislation tend to characterize the systematic discrimination and exclusion of people from the job market as fair and responsible.  The lifetime of punishments are placed on the shoulders of someone who broke the law, with little (if any) consideration to how long ago and how petty the offense(s) may have been.  It is an understandable position to take when placed in the context of America’s long struggle with discrimination.  Finally, perhaps, discrimination that everyone can agree upon?  Yet just like the ostracism of Black people, women, Latino, gay, and transgender people…most  Americans ultimately recognize everyone’s basic human dignity and right to a live in an inclusive society.

Over 100,000 ACI ID numbers in two decades.

When times get tough, such as during a serious lack of available jobs, it is tempting to fragment off and find a “Them” for an “Us” to rise up above.  This will not work.  We are too intertwined, too interdependent.  In the past 20 years, the Adult Correctional Institutions have assigned over 100,000 identification numbers, most of which went to Rhode Island residents.  Every one of them is more than a number.  And as an employer in the film points out, many will work harder than others because they have something to prove.

This film is part of a larger project documenting the effect of criminal records on employment and re-entry. The film is produced by a team of Providence-based artist and film-makers, Rachel Levenson, Emmett Fitzgerald, Adrian Randall, Jonah David, Victoria Ruiz and Casey Coleman. Numerous community members and organizers have contributed to the writing and production of the film.

Media requests can be made to Rachel Levenson at rachelannalevenson@gmail.com

Posted on

Quiet Conservatives by Banning Master Lever


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
Gromit from Wallace & Gromit pulls a lever (via animatedheroes.com)

Moderate Party chairman and possible gubernatorial candidate Ken Block is out with a new website, masterlever.org, which petitions the Governor and the General Assembly to eliminate the ability to vote solely based on party line (a.k.a., the “master lever”).

As a case study for why it should be banned, Mr. Block offers up the 9000+ Rhode Island voters who used the option to vote for the Moderates, despite only three candidates running under the Moderate banner (two Moderates ran in nonpartisan races).

I personally think this is a good idea, the option is archaic, and obviously damaging in nonpartisan contests (of course, I also oppose nonpartisan contests, but that’s beside the point). Yet there’s a cynic in me that has to guess what may come. I worry political leaders in the General Assembly might attempt to squash this merely to prevent the Moderate Party any sort of win. I think this is short-sighted. Let me offer the cynic’s perspective on why the lever should be banned.

Republicans have long advocated the elimination of the master lever, and in this case it’s no surprise to see virtually every local politician from the Grand Ol’ Party backing Mr. Block’s crusade. In fact, non-Democrats often point to the master lever as a reason why they can’t compete in this state.

So, it will be refreshing when the convenient cover of the master lever is eliminated. Perhaps non-Democrats will have to face the unpopularity of their policies for a change. More likely, they’ll rely more heavily on the “stupid Rhode Islanders” line that their candidates and supporters have been throwing around lately. I’m sure that will do wonders for their popularity.

General Assembly leaders should speedily remove the master lever, or at least mandate its placement at the very end of the ballot. Mr. Block rightly points out that his party gained 9000+ votes with the lever alone; votes which the Moderates might not necessarily have received had people had to vote race by race. It’s likely the top-ballot placement gave the Moderate Party the most exposure it got during the last cycle.

With the elimination of the master lever, perhaps non-Democrats will start focusing on issues that affect Rhode Islanders more than once every other year or so. They might consider following in the footsteps of former Sen. Bethany Moura and former Rep. Daniel Gordon; who both spent a great deal of their time fighting foreclosure in our state, much of it fraudulent in nature. I believe conservatives are supposed to care about protecting citizens’ property.

Posted on

Privatization of Higher Ed Violates State Constitution


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

As reported  here and here, the University of Rhode Island has spent close to $500,000 on repairs of its president’s tuition-funded home, which is among the fringe benefits that come with the president’s job, such as a car, an expense account, and club dues.

Excessive administrative spending is but one of many results of nationwide privatization of public education.  Particularly distressing in this context is the root cause of this development, namely the decline of the fraction of the URI budget that comes from the Rhode Island general revenue, a percentage that has dropped from 60% in the 1950s to less than 10% currently.

Privatization has resulted in an explosive increase in tuition.  As documented in Trends in College Pricing 2012, a College Board publication, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have increased by more than 350% since the early 1980s. Excessive spending on presidential perks, in particular at URI, typifies a litany of deplorable policy decisions that coddle university and college administrators at the expense of public education.  Recent examples are:

  • URI’s previous president got a 14 percent raise in 2008-09.
  • The previous president cashed in with a retirement incentive of 40 percent of the $183,000 “faculty” salary he earned after his resignation as president ot the university, a salary which happens to roughly 80 percent higher than full professor faculty salaries.
  •  URI’s current president started his tenure at a salary about 25 percent above what his predecessor ever made.
  • A study performed for the American Association of University Professors found that between 2004 and 2010 spending on instruction and academic support at URI declined by 10 percent; while spending on administration increased by 25 percent.

In spite of all of these excesses and skewed priorities, the almost defunct Board of Governors of Higher Education routinely justifies the tuition hikes and administrative bloat it authorizes by claiming concern for quality education.  Of course, the ultimate responsibility for the neglect of public education rests with the Rhode Island legislature.  The legislature and its serial enablers of the Board of Governors for Higher Education, which is tasked with oversight of public higher education, are duty bound to uphold the Rhode Island Constitution and pertinent statutes.  Their collective failure in this respect is monumental. As Sections I and IV of Article 12 of the Rhode Island Constitution state:

  • […] it shall be the duty of the general assembly to promote public schools and public libraries, and to adopt all means which it may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education and public library services.
  • The general assembly shall make all necessary provisions by law for carrying this article into effect. It shall not divert said money or fund from the aforesaid uses, nor borrow, appropriate, or use the same, or any part thereof, for any other purpose, under any pretence whatsoever.

 Title XVI [of the Rhode Island General Laws] adds:

  •  […] the purpose of continuing and maintaining the University of Rhode Island […] in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the pursuit and the professions of life […]

Privatization is sold as if it provides better services at a lower cost to the taxpayer, but the real costs to Rhode Island and its citizens are hidden.  In education, chief among those hidden costs are increased tuition and interest on student loans, which exclusively benefits moneylenders.  The examples listed above are just a small sample of the many symptoms that characterize a society unable to keep in check the predatory impulses of a small minority.

Posted on

Is A Marriage Equality Referendum Legal, or Necessary?


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

The word from RIPR’s Ian Donnis is that Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed expects a committee vote on same-sex marriage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But it’s never just that simple. The pressure on Senate Judiciary members will be enormous, but most of the members are reasonably solid in their positions on the issue.

Mr. Donnis suggests that it might be likely that an amendment will be attached to any marriage equality bill asking that it be brought before voters. This has been suggested by the Providence Phoenix‘s David Scharfenberg as a more palatable option for legislators than a pure floor vote; and much of Rhode Island’s media has been providing cover for such a position since marriage referendums passed in Maryland and Maine and recent polls showed a majority of Rhode Islanders supporting marriage equality (though virtually all local polls have been shown to be unreliable in Election Day votes).

You can see why a voter referendum would be fine for legislators, it neatly sidesteps responsibility one way or the other; the choice will be in the voters’ hands, legislators will merely be bringing the question to voters. But that neat sidestep is problematic; it elevates a change in state law to the position of a constitutional amendment or an issuing of a state bond, something which is both unnecessary and unheard of.

To understand that, we have to look at where marriage rests in law. It’s not in the Rhode Island Constitution. Yes, despite our Constitution explicitly stating that an “Almighty God” is responsible for creation in the “freedom of religion” section (irony) and explicitly denying a “right to abortion”, it lacks even the word “marriage” (though bills have attempted to change that in the past). Marriage is not a matter of importance for the Rhode Island Constitution.

Marriage lies in Title 15 of the Rhode Island General Laws. It is a pretty confusing set of laws, that appears (in my eyes) to be in need of serious revision. There are numerous sections that have been repealed (including all sections of Chapter 15-11 “Reciprocal Enforcement of Support”). Notably, Chapter 15-1 “Persons Eligible to Marry” only lists the persons men and women are forbidden to marry as kindred, such as your “daughter’s son’s wife” or your “wife’s daughter’s daughter” (if you’re male). Both sections fail to explicitly prevent same-sex marriage.

In no part of Title 15 is same-sex marriage explicitly banned (both in the written law, and in former Attorney General Patrick Lynch’s opinion from 2007). The list of ineligible people to marry for an individual is focused solely on kindred (though if you’re Jewish, guess what? Exception!); or is concerned with preventing the “mentally incompetent” from marrying. There is the new civil unions law, but that’s in Chapter 15-3.1 “Civil Unions”, and though it references the parts of Chapter 15-1 that say that men and women can’t marry their kindred of the opposite sex, it fails to mention those sections don’t mention same-sex kindred. The complete lack of mention of same-sex marriage, even in a negative sense, is astounding; especially if the presumptive law of the land is that same-sex marriage is illegal.

Proponents of “traditional marriage” (which is anything but “traditional”) might make the argument that someone like Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin would be forced to preside over marriages of same sex couples, despite their opposition to such marriages, if same-sex marriage were to ever become legal. This is patently false, and is as truthful as asserting that current law forces Bishop Tobin to marry Muslim couples or Jewish couples, or even Episcopalian couples.

Who gets to marry you? Yes, Section 15-3-5 of the General Laws empowers “every ordained clergy or elder in good standing” to “join persons in marriage”, but it also recognizes a host of clerks and justices (including “bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution”). Title 15 never mandates that any official must solemnize marriages. Furthermore, in the text of the law, at no point does it specify “join a man and a woman in marriage”; even the language here is neutral in regards to both the gender and sexual orientation of the people in the marriage ceremony.

Beneath all the pomp and circumstance, behind the dress, the priest, the church, the flowers, the cake, etc., etc., your marriage in the eyes of the State of Rhode Island comes down to a very simple ceremony: you, your future spouse, the official solemnizing your marriage, two witnesses; the endorsement of the marriage license by the official, and then the return of the marriage license to the appropriate clerk within 72 hours. That’s the legal requirement that the state has created. It has virtually nothing to do with religious figures, though they are free to play a part as they will.

Does that lessen the importance of marriage as a cultural and religious institution? Not an ounce. That final kiss performed in most ceremonies is as powerful in the eyes of God and your family and your community as ever, regardless of what the state says. The separation of church and state was to prevent the state from meddling in and poisoning religious affairs, if you believe Roger Williams. That separation should hold true here; the state of Rhode Island’s version of marriage not a sacred ritual, as is the Church’s; for the state it is a profane (in the “not sacred” sense) one, intended to bestow upon you a reward for choosing to bind yourself to another person. Our governments have recognized that two people living and working together is a thing that should be supported and strengthened.

Who’s to say that the merely because you’re binding yourself to someone of the same sex, that it’s not worth the same reward that opposite-sex couples get? Who’s to say that that commitment shouldn’t be recognized by the state? You might as well ban the LGBTQ community from getting fishing or driving licenses for all the legal sense this makes. But that would be absurd, only the extremely bigoted would vote to deny someone a state license based on sexual orientation. Only the most ridiculous legislator would vote to bring such legislation to the citizens of this state as a ballot question. And yet, this ridiculous situation is where some speculate we may find ourselves headed.

Such speculation and suggestion is bad, because it ignores the law in favor of political gamesmanship. And if we could ignore the law, this debate would not exist in the first place.

Posted on

RI – What Went Wrong, In Seven Installments


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

Sam Bell did such a good job putting together this series on what went wrong with Rhode Island’s economy over the past several years, I thought the least I could do is make it really easy for everyone to access.

Posted on

RI – What Went Wrong: Have We Learned Lessons?


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

What is so sad about the mess Rhode Island has fallen into is that it was completely avoidable.

Governor Carcieri did not have to launch a jihad against public sector employment. Nor was it necessary to hand massive tax breaks to the wealthy. Had we avoided those tax breaks, we wouldn’t have had to slash municipal aid and send property taxes through the roof. Had we not raised property taxes, we would have a stronger housing market, and had we not engaged in massive austerity, the rest of our economy would be doing better as well. If our unemployment insurance tax rate were less punitive, then fewer businesses would have gone under. None of this had to happen.

It seems that things are finally looking up for the Rhode Island economy. Unemployment is falling, despite a regional recession, and numerous other economic indicators are showing positive signs.

There remain many road blocks ahead for our economy, as we deal with the aftermath of 38 Studios, municipal budget disasters, and other legacies of the Carcieri era, so it is by no means clear that these positive trends will continue, but there is certainly more cause for optimism now than we have had for quite some time.

As Leonard Lardaro, an economist at URI, puts it, we’re “in a recovery the magnitude of which almost nobody in this state seems to fully comprehend.” But we should not take this as evidence that the economy of the Ocean State is suddenly being managed well. Rhode Island is a severely depressed economy with relatively strong fundamentals. If you don’t keep kicking it, it will recover, even if the transition is only from terrible to mediocre leadership.

Carcieri is gone, it is true. But the very conservative General Assembly was fully complicit in Carcieri’s blunders, earning them effusive praise from the Wall St. Journal. As Dan Lawlor puts it, “it is remarkable how much of his vision was enacted, sometimes excitedly, by the Democratic General Assembly and its leaders, specifically Gordon Fox and Theresa Paiva Weed.”

There is much truth to this.  Although it is hard to argue that pro-choice, pro-marriage Fox isn’t at least a moderate improvement over his predecessors, as House Majority Leader, he was a major proponent of the income tax cuts at the heart of Rhode Island’s problems.

After a bruising reelection battle, Fox made mild noises about potentially being more open to sensible tax reform, but given his past record, it is unclear whether anything will come of this.  Nominally a Democrat, Paiva Weed shares Fox’s rather extreme economic conservatism, but she does not share Fox’s more moderate social views.  Indeed, she is probably the primary obstacle to marriage equality passing in 2013.

Although Chafee is pushing for some distinctly insufficient reforms, they will probably mostly fail, and it is hard to imagine the General Assembly putting together anything remotely up to the task.

What must be done is actually quite straightforward.  We need a jobs bill and tax reform: We need to reverse Carcieri’s austerity by rehiring the teachers, firefighters, and policemen whose jobs he cut. We should also make new investments in critical areas, restoring our crumbling roads and bridges, creating bicycle infrastructure and commuter rail lines, expanding and improving URI, and building tons of medical schools to take advantage of the extreme demand for new doctors. We should begin paring back property taxes and fixing budgets by restoring aid to cities and towns and allowing them to levy local income taxes to offset property taxes.

To pay for all this, we should restore the pre-2006 income tax rates and create new brackets for the wealthy, with a top marginal rate of at least 13%. We also need to restructure the hugely regressive unemployment insurance tax as a simple and constant flat, low rate, a reform that could easily raise revenue while making the tax code much less regressive and much more business-friendly.

With the current conservatives in office, almost none of this will happen. But it is definitely worth fighting for.

Posted on

Rhode Island Republican Party On Life-Support


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
No Republicans Button
Apparently, Rhode Islanders don’t let Rhode Islanders vote Republican, either.

On Election Day 2012, there were 786 candidates for all offices across Rhode Island, from U.S. Senator to Town Sergeant. According to a list provided by the Secretary of State’s office, the make-up was such:

  • 301 Democrats
  • 209 Republicans
  • 116 Independents
  • 4 Moderates
  • 1 Libertarian (Independent)
  • 1 Vigilant Fox (Independent)
  • 154 candidates for nonpartisan offices

In evaluating partisan strength, we need to put aside the 154 nonpartisan candidates and the offices they ran for, merely because nonpartisan offices don’t identify party affiliation. Including the federal offices contested (not including the U.S. Presidency), there were 373 partisan officials elected in 2012 (not all offices are contested in a given election year, the total number of offices in this state is at least 505 and the 1992 Census of Governments by the US Census Bureau put the total number of elected offices at 1186).

How did the parties do? Well, of the 301 candidates put up by the Democrats, 244 of them were elected; a win rate of 81.06% per candidate. The Republicans? Of their 209 candidates, just 96 of them made it to elective office, a win rate of 45.93%. Political independents placed 33 candidates, winning 28.45% of the time. The Moderates (and everyone else) had a win rate of 0%.

Basically, with no organization behind them, political independents did about half as well as the Republicans, despite that party’s over-hyped “Strike Force”, their poorly-constructed/conceived “Rhode Island sucks” website, and chairman Mark Zaccaria’s “less-is-more” strategy (which I criticized back in June). Deep organizational/strategic thinking or cheap gimmicks?

The answer is clear from the results: Republicans in Rhode Island were crushed in 2012. With only 11 members in the General Assembly, it is no longer tenable to think of Rhode Island as having two major parties with minor parties like the Moderates and Greens. Instead, we need to think of Rhode Island has having a primary party, the Democratic Party; a secondary party, the Republican Party; and tertiary parties like the Moderates.

Despite the insight to the RI GOP’s issues provided here by Patrick Laverty (running inexperienced candidates for statewide office), he misses the deeper structural problem for Republicans: they’ve largely ceded much of the state to Democrats and independents (a problem exacerbated under Mr. Zaccaria’s time as chair). If you lived in all but one of Pawtucket’s six city council wards or House District 46, after you completed the federal office section of your ballot there wasn’t a single Republican anywhere down ticket.

Republicans may feel strong in towns like East Greenwich, West Greenwich, and Scituate (towns where the majority of voters voted straight Republican for President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative), but even in these towns, Democrats contested town-wide offices and majorities of voters voted for the occasional Democratic Assembly candidate (in East Greenwich, they picked Mark Schwager; West Greenwich went with Leo Raptakis and Lisa Tomasso; and Scituate returned Michael Marcello).

A strategic problem for the Republicans is that they don’t appear to have a plan to actually fix Rhode Island’s problems, and the only ideas they’ve expressed are an anathema to the majority of Rhode Island’s voters. Without an appealing plan or vision, Democrats will continue to accrue the state’s new talent and fresh blood in politics, while the Republicans will remain a party adrift and rudderless. The only question is whether the party will finally drown under a tide of blue, or find a way to reform and provide a serious challenge. It’s a project that will take decades.

 

CORRECTIONS: An earlier version of this article missed that there were four expressly partisan Moderate Party candidate. It also failed to give a justification for not counting nonpartisan offices. Thank you, Ted Nesi.

An earlier version also incorrectly referred to Rep. Michael Marcello as “Phil Marcello”.

Posted on

Speaking to the Speaker


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
State House Dome from North Main Street
State House Dome from North Main Street
The State House dome from North Main Street. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Winners in political races have it easy. They thank everyone and move forward. The Silver Medalists analyze what went wrong and fade into the shadows. Is it possible to write a post-election column as the loser and not sound self-serving, shrill or sour? I’m going to do my best.

From the beginning, this race was about the way that the legislature hasn’t been working effectively for the citizens, voters and taxpayers.

My analysis of the way the system functions is this:

  • On Election Day, 75 men and women are voted into the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
  • Shortly after that a number of them meet. They horse trade over issues and bills and power. Then they determine who will be the Speaker. You’re either on the team or you’re off.
  • In January, the 75 Reps vote on the Speaker and the Rules of the House. Currently, these rules give the Speaker the authority to set the agenda and move legislation on and off the floor at his or her discretion
  • And for the next two years, all of the Reps who are not part of the “Leadership” beg for scraps and line items. The true outsiders get nothing.

The system, as a voter in Mt. Hope said, isn’t broken. It works great for those in charge. But it doesn’t work so well for Rhode Island. We, the people, elected you to be our Representatives, not to give away your power.

The deals that representatives make are supposed to be in the best interest of the state as a whole, not the special interests and campaign donors. Payday lending rates of 260% annual interest are usurious and unjustifiable.  Votes on social issues, like Marriage Equality, ought to be held early every session rather than suppressed.

Our State’s business climate is not just dependent on tax rates, tax breaks and loan guarantees. Your business should not depend on the whim of a Speaker and the uninformed consent of the Legislature.

Our children should not be educated in a system that is overhauled in the middle of the night on a budget vote with no public debate, discussion or even planning. Children need more than institutions and buildings, they need books and materials. Students need more than testing, they need teachers who have the time and permission to teach them on their own terms.

I hope that my challenge to Gordon Fox reminds him, and every other Speaker who follows, that the power that they wield derives from the people.

You are not in charge. We are.

Posted on

Reforming the Legislature


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
State House Dome from North Main Street
State House Dome from North Main Street
The State House dome from North Main Street. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Ask 100 people about Rhode Island’s government and 105 will say it’s broken, and probably not fixable.

Phase 1: Attack the Assumptions

From day one, my campaign for House District 4 has been about challenging that truism. It was clear to me at the start that the Speaker of the House used his power to push through the 38 Studios Video Game disaster, and then denied any responsibility for the outcome.

The most powerful man in the state of Rhode Island beaten by an unknown independent? That would create an opportunity for a breath of fresh air. At the start of the campaign, many people questioned whether my attempt was even credible. Today, few doubt that it is. We’ve had our fair share of media publicity. The smiles on the faces of neighbors and strangers throughout the district when I knock on their doors and give my pitch are reassuring too.

Currently, it’s looking like a close race, so we’re pushing ahead our next plan…

Phase 2: Change the Rules

Politics abhors a power vacuum, and many have expressed fears that whoever comes post-Fox will be “worse.” Better the devil you know? That’s so old school. How about a new way of running the State government that actually works for the State?

The old system works like this. Thirty-eight representatives agree to elect one of their members a Speaker. Then they give all their power to the Speaker, do whatever he (or she) says, and beg for scraps.

Why? I realize that the existence of a Speaker is specified in the State’s Constitution, but the system seems to work well only for the leadership. And the special interests who contribute to campaigns and lobbyists.

It doesn’t seem to work very well for the citizens, voters and taxpayers of this state. It doesn’t seem to work very well for the individual legislators outside the circle of power. Arrangements are made in back rooms, deals are cut, and votes are delayed until the last minute so that no one really knows what is going on.

Today I am inviting and challenging the current and future reps to adopt a government reform proposal in caucus before electing the next Speaker of the House.

Members of the House can and must make it a priority to fix the structural problems that led to such controversial decisions as the 38 Studios deal and this year’s last minute mash-up of the Board of Regents and the Office of Higher Education.  We must adopt a drastic reform plan and secure a commitment from any candidate for Speaker to support the plan before committing our votes.

The starter elements for this plan include:

  • The proposal put forth by State Representative Spencer Dickinson to prohibit campaign fundraising during the legislative session. This will prevent the corrosive contributions before, during and after working on legislation that benefit the special interests.
  • Amending the House rules to prevent the House Finance Chair from introducing amendments to the budget without prior notice. This will prevent late night amendments, like the one that smashed together the Board of Regents and office of Higher Ed.
  • Requiring the General Assembly to comply with the 48-hour notice provision of the Open Meetings Law for both committee and floor actions, thus making our government truly open and public.

There are other ideas floating around: a deadline for bringing bills out of committee before the end of the session to prevent the onslaught of last-minute votes and give legislators time to actually read the bills; allotting time in the calendar for legislators to call for votes from the floor for bills, thus short-circuiting the dead-in-committee morass.

Putting the power of the legislator into the hands of one person doesn’t work for the State. It doesn’t work for the voters, and it costs taxpayers money.  Meaningful steps have to be taken to prevent the kind of scandals and abuses of power we have seen under Gordon Fox and his predecessors.  It’s time to move ahead.

We know that every candidate is getting the message that people are fed up with the kinds of deals and abuses that produced 38 Studios.  So let’s do something about it and make fixing state government a priority.

Legislators need to come together in caucus and say that there will be no vote for Speaker until a roadmap for government reform is in place and has the support of the woman or man elected speaker.

Every legislator who supports this roadmap to reform will be able to tell his or her constituents that ‘I stood up and fought to change the way business is done in the State House.’

Most important, these kinds of changes are wins for the people, the voters and the taxpayers.

The rules that we have haven’t been working. It’s time to change the rules.

Posted on

Eight Arguments in Mark Binder vs. Gordon Fox


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

The more you know, the more complicated things get. Since I’m of two minds in this, let me run through a few arguments and counterarguments I have in the battle between Gordon Fox and Mark Binder.

  • Removing Speaker Fox sends a message to state lawmakers that they can be held accountable for actions like 38 Studios. The primary reason that Speaker Fox is even vulnerable, that the media is even taking notice of his opponent, is 38 Studios. I’m not convinced about the answer Mr. Fox provided, which essentially boils down to that the Assembly knew that the funds would likely end up in the hands of Curt Schilling, but that they were reliant on the Economic Development Council to vet the loan. That is how the law works, but it still begs the question: why did no one (except the House Minority Leader Bob “No On Everything” Watson) vote against it? I think there’s more to that story (also, a number of Reps called in to the Dan Yorke Show to deny knowledge). In contrast to the House, everyone on the EDC board who voted for 38 Studios is no longer with the EDC.
  • Removing the Speaker will hand power over to the conservatives. Like it or not, Mr. Fox is probably the most progressive Speaker of the House ever in Rhode Island’s history. That he ascended to power in such turbulent times was merely an inconvenient turn of events. But losing Mr. Fox creates a massive challenge to the progressives and liberals in District 4: those likely to ascend will be to the right of the Speaker on far too many issues they care about. They’ll lose someone who knows the system, who has power in the system, and can (should he choose) push things forward. The loss of the Speaker is likely to ensure that marriage equality remains a distant dream unless advocates can find an alternative path.
  • “Learn from our mistakes” is not an argument for a 20-year legislator. More than once, Mr. Fox attempted to shut down the 38 Studios line of attack with a “you’re not proposing solutions” argument. But often the solutions Mr. Fox provides are in direct contrast to how he’s actually governed. Suggesting raising income taxes as a solution to property taxes at the Summit Neighborhood Association debate conveniently ignores that the General Assembly has cut income taxes on the highest income earners and then to balance against this loss of revenue, cut funding to cities and towns. This lead to higher property taxes! Furthermore, it contradicts statements made during last session that he would not consider raising the income tax, and the various bill that would’ve made the tax system more equitable were all quashed. Coming out in favor of a sunset provision for the Voter ID law begs the question: “why not have put it in in the first place?” Mr. Fox has been in the General Assembly since I was still in diapers. Veterans shouldn’t be making as many mistakes to learn from.
  • Mr. Binder sometimes doesn’t answer. Mr. Binder apparently didn’t have an answer to property taxes either, which misses the obvious progressive answer: property tax is regressive, and fails to take into account someone’s ability to pay, whereas if the General Assembly hadn’t cut the income tax in good times, we could’ve had money to spend and blunted the crisis to cities and towns which forced them to raise properties taxes.  Too often for my taste, in the Newsmakers debate, Mr. Binder simply said “abstain” or that he’d be a “freshman” legislator and thus didn’t yet have a position. He’s had quite a while to put together a platform. And part of being a candidate is having a platform. “I’m not a lawyer” is also a terrible answer.
  • Mr. Binder is unabashedly progressive. It was a simple “no” on the Voter ID law for Mr. Binder. His criticism of Mr. Fox is that he hasn’t done enough on marriage equality. He believes progressives need leadership in the House. He writes for RI Future here (something Mr. Fox’s spokesman Larry Berman attacked the site for, despite our progressive Speaker or someone in his office being perfectly capable of using a computer). And untethered from the compromises of the Democratic Party, Mr. Binder won’t have to make the sort of deals with his own beliefs when he votes for something; he can vote his principles. Mr. Fox has had to consistently compromise, whether to get things done or else to advance his own power.
  • But there’s no organization behind him. Alone, as an independent, Mr. Binder seems likely to get zero done. Politics is the art of the possible, not the idealistic. He also comes off as a bit smug sometimes (the third time he used “abstain” in the Newsmakers debate, I was shaking my head; and more than once the moderators had to pin him on an issue) in contrast to Mr. Fox, who is both impassioned and reasonably likeable (in person though, I found Mr. Binder to have a quiet righteousness). While being independent has given him more time to work against Mr. Fox in this campaign, it also makes him a liability. He lacks an organization like the Democratic Party behind him, which means that any gains he might have in being a critic of the status quo may evaporate the moment he leaves office.
  • Removing Speaker Fox changes nothing about the culture of the State House. Mr. Fox has become a convenient stand-in for all that is wrong with the General Assembly (I’ve clearly used him as such), but the truth is that though he no doubt is part of the institutional culture of the General Assembly, there are others who are worse and far more responsible. Some of these folks aren’t elected. There’s no guarantee that they won’t stick around, especially given as the General Assembly is to clean transitions these days. When an upstart comes in, they clean house. When a successor ascends, they often leave the status quo in place.
  • Is there a possibility Mr. Fox could lose the speakership anyway? By saying “everyone knew” Mr. Fox’s campaign inadvertently undid much of the work that legislators have done in insulating themselves from the issue, saying that they were in fact in the dark when it came to 38 Studios. Though his campaign has since walked back the remarks, it unleashed a wave of criticism from Democrats defeated in the primary and a couple of incumbents. While it can be chalked up to those on-the-outs taking the chance to complain, it highlights the underlying value of Mr. Binder’s campaign. Whether he wins or loses, Mr. Binder has exposed the fissures in the State House, and spurred talk of action. In this regard, his candidacy is a good thing.

This is probably the toughest electoral choice I’ve ever had to make, but I’m interested in learning more. The comments section is the perfect place for your response. I am I way off-base on these? Do you have others? Are progressives shooting themselves in the foot, or advancing their agenda if the elect Mark Binder? What about if they re-elect Gordon Fox?

After I wrote this, but while it was pending review, Mr. Binder canvassed my home.

Update: Scott MacKay of RIPR has another reason to ponder: does Providence’s position in the General Assembly weaken if Gordon Fox is removed?

Posted on

New Ideas? No Thank You


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

Earlier this month, the Rhode Island Foundation held a big conference that said it was intended to generate ideas for moving the state’s economy forward. Yesterday, I received a note about the “New Leaders,” a group purportedly about bringing new ideas to the management of our state.  (This is apparently a different group from the “New Leaders Council” though it’s hard to tell from the rhetoric.) The Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council put out a report last week about its new ideas for reforming the state’s economic development apparatus. All these new ideas!  Sounds great, no?  Well, in a word, no.

Wht’s the problem with new ideas, you might ask?  Isn’t our poor state in dire need of some?

Well, yes and no. There are a million ways to change the way government does business, and hundreds of thousands of them would make our state a better and more prosperous society. But of those million ideas, there are only a paltry few that won’t gore someone’s ox when transformed into actual policy changes.

Now I think there are plenty of oxen out there that we would do well to gore, repeatedly. For example, I happen to think that the state and all its cities and towns pay too much for the financial services they need and that there are plenty of more economical ways to get those services that would benefit our state’s economy, too. But there are bond counsels, investment advisers, bankers, and tax credit brokers out there who would likely disagree with me, some strenuously.

Or we could stand to tax the wealthy of our state a little bit more. These “job creators” have created precious few jobs in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks we’ve awarded them over the past 15 years. Or perhaps we could look into ways to discourage the kinds of suburban development that cost so much to service, or at least make the developers pay the true costs to our communities. Or how about just guaranteeing that children in our poor cities have the same opportunities in their public schools as the children in the rich suburbs? That’s not a new idea, but it’s a good one.

There are plenty more ideas like this, but rather a lot of them have the disadvantage of inconveniencing some folks at the top of the heap: bankers, lawyers, real estate developers, rich people.

Many of those same people have their own list of ideas, many entries in which are different from mine. They routinely present them in anodyne language, calling them “tools” for example, or “innovations,” or “new ideas.”  Unfortunately, they are often the same old oppression and exploitation, with a different label.

For example, you routinely hear that cities and towns need “tools” to control their costs. Well, yes, in a world where those cities and towns aren’t getting the state support they need to pay for state-required services, they obviously need to be relieved of the requirements or given more money. The Assembly’s refusal to face that choice honestly has already led to one bankrupt city and will likely lead to more before long. But the “tools” in this case are not as morally neutral as the word would suggest. Most of the components — cutting pay, cutting pensions, cutting jobs — are just ways to turn decent jobs into poor ones, and to lower the level of services we get. But calling the proposals “taking away pay and benefits from workers especially those in the poor cities” or “paying teachers less” doesn’t sell as well as “tools.” Admitting that these “tools” will exacerbate the difference of opportunity in our schools, putting the kids in the poor districts even farther behind the kids in the wealthy districts just isn’t as pleasant as looking at the nice effect the tools would have on budget numbers.

The sad truth is that the best ideas are likely to provoke conflict. Many good ideas already have. Rhode Island is not stuck in economic neutral because of a dearth of ideas. We are awash in good ideas, but people with power find many of them too threatening to consider seriously. Good ideas are not only worth fighting for, they usually require fighting for.

The title above is a bit of a joke; new ideas should always be welcome. We learn and improve our world by seriously considering them. But though it’s important to foster a climate where good new ideas are developed and can get a hearing, they are absolutely not the way forward for our economy.

What is?  The first step to overcome our economic malaise is not to come up with new ideas, but to insist that the old ones be evaluated honestly. Did tax cuts actually create new jobs?  Did developing all our open space make us more prosperous?  Did cutting education really help our economy?  Did ending welfare relieve pressures on the state budget?  Did cutting state aid to cities and towns actually cut overall taxes?

Straight and honest answers to these policy questions will be worth a million new ideas. Unfortunately for all of us, House leaders seem to be committed to never considering the merits of their tax policies, and Senate leaders seem committed to never considering the merits of their policies about local funding and property taxes. Few suburban town councils in the state seem willing to push back against developers seeking to build on whatever open space is left. Fear of admitting error drives our leaders harder than intellectual honesty.

Until we have leaders willing honestly to confront questions raised by policy — especially policies they championed — and consider their implications with an open mind, all the new ideas in the world won’t help us one bit.

Posted on

I Learned It By Watching You, Jon!


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

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

State Rep. Jon Brien blames his recent defeat on “outside influences” – my union among them – who were “spending a lot of money” against him. Here’s why he is partly right, partly wrong, and partly to blame.

Last week, I filed several independent expenditure reports with the RI Board of Elections on behalf of my organization, SEIU District 1199NE — the union representing nearly 4,000 private-sector health care workers throughout Rhode Island. The reports detailed our spending in support of four candidates in this past Tuesday’s primary elections.

Among them was an expenditure of $834.57 for a mailing sent to frequent primary voters in Woonsocket’s House District 50, critical of State Rep. Jon Brien’s sponsorship of legislation paving the way for the disastrous 38 Studios deal. This expense was so small that it wasn’t even required to be reported under the state’s new disclosure law. According to some reports, however, it may have had a big impact on the race — where Brien lost by 50 votes to first-time candidate and city firefighter Stephen Casey.

In my opinion, there were many reasons to vote against Rep. Brien. I don’t know the man personally, but most of his views are the exact opposite of mine (except perhaps for our mutual admiration for the roast beef sandwiches at the Beef Barn). He often seemed more focused on building his profile with business interests, ALEC and the right-leaning Washington think-tank crowd than with actually helping the people of Woonsocket.

For example, Brien did little to help during my union’s recent fight to restore $24 million in funding that had been cut from programs serving the developmentally disabled — despite the importance of agencies like Seven Hills of Rhode Island to many families in Northern RI. Meanwhile, he adamantly supported costly tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy – embracing the failed & disproven “trickle-down” theory of economic growth, depriving our state of revenue that could have more than restored the cuts to these vital services, and condemning direct care support staff to a life of poverty.

But the 38 Studios debacle (and the mindset that brought it into being) stood out as an event that deeply angered everyone across the state, regardless of their political leanings. Rep. Brien was one of three sponsors whose names appeared on the law that enabled the EDC to loan $75 million to Curt Schilling’s risky video game company, but left Rhode Islanders on the hook when it failed.1

Brien claimed that the wool had been pulled over his eyes, that he was sold a bill of goods, and that he didn’t know that all of the funds would be poured into one company – but it appears these excuses simply weren’t good enough for most voters, who decided it was time for a little Reckoning of their own.

There were other factors, of course – and you won’t find me claiming that one postcard could magically beat a 3-term State Representative from a political family with deep roots in the city. From what I’ve read, it appears that Stephen Casey related well to many voters. On election night, he told the Valley Breeze that he had knocked on over 900 doors. That’s the kind of hard work that wins elections – but it didn’t stop Rep. Brien from crying foul:

“I worked really hard and I think I represented the district well,” said Brien. “I think that the outside influences from out-of-town, spending a lot of money on these races, worked really hard to target certain people. That’s the nature of the beast. I was targeted by many of the labor unions from around the state.”

What Brien fails to mention (because his venom sac runneth over when it comes to workers’ organizations) is that my union was vastly outspent by a corporate-backed alliance that dropped just over $11,225 in a failed attempt to protect him. That’s more money than even Rep. Brien’s own campaign could raise and spend.

As Ted Nesi noted, this group — the 50CAN Action Fund2 — received $160,500 from Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire Mayor of New York City, and $50,000 from Jonathan Sackler, an heir & executive at Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin) in addition to $2,500 from one Rhode Islander, Angus Davis. So we have a situation where three wealthy individuals (but let’s be honest, it was mostly the non-Rhode Islanders3) spent more money on the outcome of one Woonsocket general assembly primary election than the nurses, CNAs, and other health care workers who belong to our union.

Unlike these donors, our members live and work in the Ocean State, and have a real stake in Rhode Island’s future. In House District 50, this group outspent us by nearly a 14-to-1 margin4 — so it seems to me that Rep. Brien’s real complaint should be that his rich independent benefactors weren’t particularly smart at directing their investments — an ultimate irony, of course, for these illustrious captains of finance.

But if it’s any solace to those who truly object to the interventions that my organization and others made in the recent election, let me say this: so do I.

Unfortunately for us all, the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision has opened the floodgates for unlimited spending by corporations, wealthy individuals, and unions – though most observers acknowledge that workers’ organizations don’t have pockets nearly as deep as the CEOs. Independent expenditures didn’t begin with “Citizens’ United,” but the decision has paved the way for untold sums of money to be dumped into our local, state, and federal elections.

If we abandon one of our most important founding principles as a country — a government of, by, and for the people — the very future of our democracy is at stake. For our part, SEIU believes that the Supreme Court decision should be immediately overturned, and that laws must be passed to ensure that the voices of ordinary Americans are not drowned out by the wealthy and corporations in our political process.

In the meantime, however, our members will not unilaterally disarm. We’ll be in the trenches, working to stop politicians who believe that corporations are people, and who are eager to do the bidding of the wealthiest 1% — those who are growing ever-richer while the standard of living for the vast majority of Americans continues to decline, and who seek to further dominate the political process, distort our democratic institutions, and turn our government into an auction house.

Our union believes that we need to build a movement of all Americans across political and party lines to make sure that the voices of ordinary people will be heard in our democracy, today and always. With that, I’ll offer two parting thoughts for Rep. Brien, if he is genuinely concerned about the influence of money in politics, and not just at the times when it doesn’t work out for him personally:

First, if ALEC still keeps you on their board after voters have shown you the door, maybe you can parlay your current misfortune into convincing the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, and the other CEOs and corporations to change ALEC’s position on unlimited corporate spending on elections.5 As John Nichols described it last year in the Nation:

[ALEC] has no problem with policies that increase the likelihood that the candidate with the most money and corporate support will prevail. Its 2009 Resolution Supporting Citizen Involvement in Elections bluntly “opposes all efforst to limit [citizen] involvement by limiting campaign contributions.” A resolution approved [in 2010] expresses support for the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Second, if that doesn’t work out (my prediction: it won’t), I’m willing to bet that Common Cause would let you join as a member and stand with them to work for fair elections and stronger rules governing the influence of money in politics.

Heck, if you are able to kiss and make up with their director, I’ll even pay the $40 for your membership! The only issue would be that Rhode Island’s ethics code prohibits gifts of more than $25 to a member of the general assembly.

So can you remind me: when is your last official day in office?

Footnotes:

(1) Now-retired State Rep. Bob Watson was the lone ‘NO’ vote on the deal – which you can either credit to his powers of legislative discerment, or to the fact that he was a constant contrarian on just about everything at the General Assembly, so eventually he was bound to really get one right!

(2) The group, which purports to stand for educational opportunities for poor children in urban schools, boggled many minds when it gave Brien an “A+” grade, given his intense opposition to our state’s DREAMers who simply wanted to be able to afford to go to college after they graduate high school, and whose only “offense” was being undocumented because they were brought here at a young age.

(3) Given their out-of-state base, it’s no wonder 50CAN got geographically confused with a couple of their mailers. If they had heard about Casey’s beer and dynamite fundraiser, we may have even seen an attack mailer accusing him of mixing alcohol with explosives.

(4) There were other unions that reported conducting Independent Expenditures in HD-50 – their reports showed $18,000 and $5,000 spread over 25 races (an averge of $920 per race). Even if twice the average had been spent going after Rep. Brien (I highly doubt it – voting history shows that this is a fairly low-turnout district), all of the union money combined against Rep. Brien still would have been four times less than the corporate money supporting him.

(5) You can read ALEC’s resolutions from both before and after the Citizens United decision, though you’ll have to filter through the cluttered layout of the critique (apologies, but those were the only versions I could find on-line – strangely enough, ALEC appears to have removed the originals from its own website).
Posted on

Projo Botches Facts in Editorial on Legislative Races


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

How can we trust their opinions if they can’t even get the basic facts right?

The Projo editorial board was so overzealous in its attempt to slam organized labor and the candidates that support them in an editorial on General Assembly campaigns today, it botched several facts.

Here’s the list I could come up with, if you can find any more please add them in the comments below:

  • House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo is actually running unopposed.  John Rossi never ended up filing all the required paperwork needed to get on the ballot.
  • Also related to Helio Melo. His last name is spelled “Melo” not “Melio” as the Projo wrote. (Though that would be a pretty fun name to say if it was Helio Melio!)
  • Speaking of spelling errors, they also misspelled Leo Medina’s name. The writer/writers could have simply referenced their own front page from last week for the correct spelling. It’s not like Medina isn’t a known quantity in newsrooms around Rhode Island as of late.
  • Robert Flaherty is not running for reelection this year. While the editorial doesn’t explicitly say he is running for office this year, it is an editorial advocating for which candidates voters should support this year. In the spirit of Politifacting, we rate this statement as half pants on fire because it seemed like a wanton effort to besmirch Flaherty’s name.
  • Update: an astute reader reminds me that, of course, John McCauley is not running for reelection either…

From my vantage point, it frequently seems as if the Projo editorial writers are more interested in trafficking in ideological talking points rather than informing its readers. As a fellow opinion writer, it’s important to do both … but the former doesn’t carry a lot of water until you can get the latter down pat.

Posted on

In Search of the Cleaner Campaign Contribution


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

Several years ago, when I ran my first political campaign against Patrick Kennedy, the first thing the reporter from the Providence Journal asked was, “How much money have you raised?”

I asked him why he wanted to know, and he told me the truth: You can measure fundraising. You can count the dollars. It dates back, he told me, to Watergate, when Ben Bradlee told Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money.”

At the time, Patrick Kennedy already had millions in the bank. So, I ignored the reporter, and got about 25% of the primary vote on a budget of less than $500. When the Federal Election Commission called to check on why I hadn’t filed any paperwork, I joked that I’d received more votes per dollar spent for National Office since 1864.

But if you’re a ‘serious’ candidate, conventional wisdom says, you need to raise and spend money.

The media still considers fundraising to be one of the best advance measurements of a campaign’s success. Before any votes are cast, the oracles of our society only have a few ways of predicting the future. They can throw the bones (political polls) or read the spoor (report on campaign finances). Of the two, campaign finances are, by and large, more reliable, because they have to be filed publicly, reporting who gave what and when, and where the money was spent.

(This, of course, assumes that you don’t accidentally forget to report in-kind contributions of beer and shrimp from corporations who are owned by tax credit brokers—as my adversary did…)

Last week, the Providence Journal ran a front page article with this headline:

Heavy investment in 2nd District

The piece was all about Michael Riley’s campaign against James Langevin.  According to the Journal, “…in at least one area — an ability to invest in his own campaign — Riley stands apart from the five others seeking Langevin’s seat.”

So far, Riley has “invested” more than $360,000 in his campaign. At first pass, I thought that this was a horrible and cynical headline, but the more I thought about it, the truer it seemed.

You see, candidates are allowed to “loan” money to their campaigns, and then repay themselves from the funds they raise. In fact, when I went into the State Board of Elections, for training on how to enter my own contribution to my campaign, I was advised to enter it as a loan, so I could be reimbursed later. “You don’t want to put in your money as a contribution,” I was told, “otherwise you can’t get it back.”

So, if Riley—or any other candidate—does a good job of fundraising, he or she will probably break even, or come out ahead by either winning the office or getting the publicity generated by the campaign.

I’ve since corrected this, marking my “loan” as repaid, and accepting a “contribution” from myself. I don’t think it’s fair to ask people to give more money than I’m willing to give. (Tip of the hat to Ken Block’s Op Ed, R.I.’s incumbent protection must go)

A Hope Chest, not a War Chest

I will spend the money you donate to the campaign on the campaign, and not accept any money with strings.

My goal is to spend the least amount of money possible to win. Personally, I’d rather not do any campaign fund raising. I’d rather ask you to convince ten or twenty of your voting neighbors to vote for me, and call it a day.

I don’t want a $250,000 “War Chest” to get a job that pays less than $15,000 a year. A small “Hope Chest” will do quite well, thank you.

The point of raising money for a political campaign is to get the word out. Days after I filed my candidacy I started getting letters and postcards from printers and tee shirt makers. I have received inquires from newspapers and magazines fishing for ads.

There are already some hard costs. The website and URL cost a little bit of money.  We bought some refreshments on the Fourth of July. Our current campaign flier is simple: blue cardstock with black type, printed locally at minimal cost. It says, “I’m running a grass roots neighborhood campaign, and I’d like your vote…” And we ordered some bumper stickers. (Let me know if you want one.)

My plan has been to knock on doors – but there are a lot of doors, even in our small neighborhood, and I have to earn a living and take care of my family too.

But then I drive around and start seeing the lawn signs…

So, yes, I’d like you to contribute to my campaign. I’ll spend the money on printing and advertising, on pizza for campaign volunteers, mailings and such.

At the end of the campaign, whatever is left over won’t be kept in a “War Chest” for future campaigns. We’re going to donate it to the following charities: The Friends of Rochambeau Library, Mt. Hope Learning Center, MLK PTO, and The Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence.

To make a contribution, please visit the http://markbinder.org/contribute/

Footnote: Can you fund raise without creating a web of obligation or broken promises?

I don’t know. I’m going to try. I’m running to try and make things work better for our entire state and end the cycle of real and perceived corruption.

Here’s why I’m donating to my own campaign, along with some caveats…

  • Giving money to an inspiring candidate feels good.
    But… The inspiring candidate could fall short of his promise, leaving you disappointed and dissatisfied.
  • Contributing to a candidate is a way to push the causes and political agendas you support. For example, you might donate to a candidate who you believe will vote for Choice or Marriage Equality.
    But… If your candidate isn’t the Speaker of the House, he might not be able get an important bill to the floor. Or, if he is the Speaker, he might not call for a vote on something like Marriage Equality.
  • The current office holder has disappointed you or made you angry, so you’ll fund his opponent as a way of demonstrating your disapproval and discontent.
    But… If you back the challenger and the incumbent wins, then you might experience political retribution.
  • You can “invest” in a candidate with the hope that she or he will help improve your business. Personally as a professional author and storyteller, aside from the $14,000 annual salary I don’t see this happening for me. However, if you run an auto body repair shop, you might give support a candidate who supports a particular agenda. Or your friendly candidate might take a meeting with an ex-sports star in your office to discuss a multimillion-dollar loan guarantee.
    But… Your candidate might just be honest and ethical and not make political decisions influenced by your “investment.”

So far, I’ve donated $200 to my campaign. That’s money I’m not getting back in loans. Won’t you join me?

To make a contribution, please visit the http://markbinder.org/contribute/

Posted on

As Legislature Spends Money, Cities Feel Pinch


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
Woonsocket High School (photo courtesy of Woonsocket School District)
Woonsocket High School (photo courtesy of Woonsocket School District)
Woonsocket High School (photo courtesy of Woonsocket School District)

I see from the Providence Journal that the new state-appointed budget commission has decided that the city council and Mayor Fontaine were exactly right to request permission from the state to impose a supplemental tax increase on their citizens.

Last week, after an impassioned speech by Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, the House rejected Woonsocket’s request.  This week, the state-appointed budget commission asked that the request be reconsidered.

For some reason state legislators seem to get this idea in their heads that though they were elected on promises of fiscal responsibility, and intend to carry through on them, city council members and mayors get elected by promising to spend like drunken sailors.

This is not only bizarre, but entirely backwards.

By almost any measurement you care to make, it’s the state that has been the fiscal problem child over the past couple of decades, not the cities and towns. The difference is that the state has power over the cities and towns: they have more money, and stand uphill in a legal and constitutional sense, too.  But the General Assembly continues to resist the appeals of the duly elected leaders of our cities and towns, feeling that they know better.

This year, Governor Chafee infuriated organized labor by offering several “tools” to municipal officials to help them control pension costs.  I tend to agree with the labor folks here, that the state should stay out of these issues, and that passing state laws to trump local bargaining agreements is only a good idea in a very limited short-term sense.  But the Assembly has shown no interest in believing Mayors when they complain about financial stress, so if you don’t want more bankrupt cities, what should you do?  It seems to me that Chafee wasn’t so much sticking his thumb in Labor’s eye as making a realistic assessment of the Assembly and acting accordingly.

Or maybe not.  It appears that the Assembly leadership isn’t interested in Chafee’s suggestions, and pretty much none of them were put into the House budget.  This reminds me of the time in 2005 when the Carcieri administration came up with some personnel reforms that might have saved around $32 million.  They were the usual sort of benefit cuts, limits on vacation time and sick time and an end to “statutory status” which is a kind of state employee tenure.

Whatever you think about the wisdom of those reforms, it’s hard to praise the Assembly for what happened next.  The legislature rejected the reforms — but left the $32 million in savings in the budget.  So the administration was faced with finding $32 million in savings, but without the law changes to do it.  How, exactly was that responsible?

So now the Assembly is poised to do the exact same thing, and act to increase the pressure on cities and towns — not enough money to support their commitments, but no relief from those commitments, either.  The only difference this year from previous years is that now we have some Assembly appointees joining the Mayors in the hot seat, begging that they not be put in the same position as the Mayor and City Council of Woonsocket.  Mayor Leo Fontaine and the Council have failed to keep Woonsocket solvent, but a new budget commission won’t do any better unless the conditions change.  Right now, the only way the conditions will change is through the bankruptcy court, so mark your calendars.  I simply can’t agree with the people who imagine that dragging each of our cities into bankruptcy is a sensible strategy — in either the long or short term — for our state.

The Assembly can act here.  Sensible options are available, that take into account the actual realities facing our cities.  But will it?  So far, it does not appear likely.

Posted on

Budgeting for Disaster: Like What We’ve Got? Good


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

As has been amply reported by other writers here and in other places, the state budget has emerged from the mists of the Finance Committee, and will likely be voted on and passed this week. It contains no broad-based tax changes, though there are small increases in cigarette taxes, and small expansions of the sales tax, and tolls, to cover restoring 40% of the money cut from care to the developmentally disabled, and to fund the state’s education funding formula — the one that the legislature’s own study shows is inadequate. Due to more encouraging revenue projections than were the case last fall, some money has been restored to important places, but it’s just a bit here and there.

This graph is still the policy of the state:

That lower line is the effective tax rate on the median taxpayer. The blue line is the rate on the top 1%, and the red line is just thrown in there to show there is no relationship between taxes and unemployment.

The message overall from the legislature is that the cities and towns be damned. There seems no willingness to acknowledge that the fiscal crisis in the cities is largely the result of state policies. Tremendous cuts in state aid in 2008-2010 to both the municipal and education sides of city and town budgets brought fiscal havoc everywhere, and last week we had the spectacle of Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, a representative from Woonsocket, begging her colleagues in the legislature not to allow Woonsocket to fix the problems caused by her colleagues. Oddly enough, they complied, and now we have two more cities half a step from joining Central Falls in bankruptcy.

The sad fact is that by and large the people in charge of our cities and towns have actually been more fiscally responsible than legislators in the General Assembly, but they have less power, and so the Assembly leadership can pretend otherwise.

That’s quite a claim, isn’t it?  How to back it up?  How about this: as of 1990, Rhode Island cities and towns collected about $1.3 billion, between state aid, property taxes and various municipal fees. In 2008 — before the worst of the state aid cuts — they took in a bit less than $3 billion. This does not count the car tax payments from the state, which only offset taxes that towns would have collected from their residents. If you’re keeping score, that’s growth of about 1.9% per year — after correcting for inflation. This is troubling, but it’s not necessarily evidence of mismanagement. Inflation measures the price of goods and a few services, while towns spend their money on services and a few goods.

So how best to measure this if not against the inflation rate?  If you want a yardstick with which to measure a service-oriented enterprise like a town, how about a private-sector service like Federal Express? Fedex is fiercely competitive, I hear, and non-union, to boot. How did they do?  In 1990, it cost $11 to send an overnight letter across the country, and today it’s about $25.50 for the same service. After correcting for inflation, that’s up about 2% a year.

What about the state?  After accounting for inflation in the same way, the state’s general revenue has gone up 2.4% per year since 1990, and overall expenses are up even more. (That’s the structural deficit and the rise in state debt you’re smelling.)

So who is being more responsible with tax dollars?  The General Assembly, with members like Baldelli-Hunt who give lectures to municipalities, or the towns, who have controlled costs not only better than the state, but better than Fedex. But it’s the towns who get cut while the state basks in the adulation of business leaders who praise legislators for their tax cuts.

The main message of this budget bill is continuity. This is a budget motivated by policy choices virtually identical to the ones of the previous year, the year before that, the year before that, and so on. The idea is to squeak through another year with minimal pain to everyone, especially the wealthy. But it was to a large extent that very set of policies that brought us to the status quo: high unemployment, bankrupt cities, ever-rising tuitions at the state colleges, and lower taxes on rich people.

Do you like the way things are going around here?  Hope you do, because the legislature is voting this week to give you more of the same.

Posted on

RI Needs to Learn from Mistakes of 38 Studios Deal


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

To the 379 people who just lost their jobs, I want to say something that no one responsible for this turn of events is going to say: I’m sorry. I doubt that will make you feel better, but I think it needs to be said, by someone. You moved yourself and your families down here, you put your work into an artistic endeavor, and I’m glad you work in an industry that is so good as to reach out to you immediately (although I hear that unless you work for Valve, your work hours are crazy). I wish you luck, and I hope you create great things in the future.

That said, the politics behind this whole thing has been atrocious. It was championed by both the former Gov. Carcieri and House Speaker Gordon Fox, which despite their different partisan labels, found some common ground in it. It displays that there is now a reckless disregard for the very real impact of the decisions that happen in the State House on the people of Rhode Island.

Everyone with an iota of power who is involved in the direction of this state needs to spend the summer discussing what’s happened over the last two years, what failed, what worked, and what needs to be done. I don’t care if you want to kill each other at the end, as long as it makes you more effective. The citizens of Rhode Island are more important than your feelings, and they deserve better.

To the officers of the General Assembly, please remember these cheery facts: in 20 years, people will have difficultly remembering your names. In 40 years, only historians doing research will. Your personal prestige needs to be subsumed into the idea that you need to make the best decision for the state.

No one should want you to fail. No matter your political affiliation, the issue is that you need to be the best you can be. And right now, you’re not. I don’t have the answers, and I can’t tell you how to do your jobs (though I think doing them full-time and for reasonable pay wouldn’t be a bad idea).

There was a lot riding on 38 Studios that shouldn’t have been. But this deal was opposed by the people of Rhode Island, and the more I compare the polls to the actions of our government, the more I wonder whether Smith Hill just lives in a different state.


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