The House Finance Committee heard several bills yesterday concerning the operation of the RI Economic Development Corporation (EDC) in the wake of last years 38 Studios fiasco, including two bills that would prohibit the state or the EDC from making payments to the bondholders of the failed video game company.
The bills, H5639 and H5888, would stop the state from making any payment to bondholders until all of the bondholders can be identified in the case of the former, and in the latter, would prohibit the state from making payments to the bondholders regardless of whether they can be identified. The bills have been introduced by Reps. Charlene Lima and Karen MacBeth, respectively.
Rep. Lima, growing more upset as she presented her bill, said, “The biggest problem in government is lack of transparency, and this deal was no different. The bondholders did not hold up their end of the bargain.”
Lima contends that, by not filing the agreed upon documentation with the state, the bondholders violated their contracts, and therefore the state has no obligation to repay the debt.
MacBeth testified that the legal definition of a moral bond removes the state’s obligation. “The two criteria for repayment of a moral obligation bond are being the primary bondholder, and ability to pay,” she said, “38 studios was the primary bondholder, and the state does not have the ability to pay.” She added, “These bonds were insured. The insurer knew the risks. Let the insurer pay.”
A representative of the Occupy Providence movement, Randall Rose, also testified in support of MacBeth’s bill. He said that the only reason to pay these bonds is the fear of retaliation by Wall Street. “This was an inefficient way to borrow money, and amounts to an end-run on the Rhode Island constitution.” By Rhode Island law, the public cannot be held obligated to a debt that was not put forth by ballot measure.
A currently unemployed finance director, Brian Kelly, testified that if the bonds were not paid, and if there was a retaliation by Wall Street in the form of increased interest rates to state bonds, “We would have to float $11 billion in bonds at a 1 percent increase in interest to equal the debt from 38 Studios.”
He also indicated that the bonds were insured, and analogized the situation to sports teams that insure players with guaranteed performance contracts who then get injured. “In either case, a claim is filed, and the losses are covered. This is what insurance is for. The insurers knew the risk.”
Rep. Lima called the bondholders “cowards” for not coming forward, and House Minority Leader Brian Newberry said, “The fact that no one from EDC is here to testify is disrespectful to this committee, disrespectful of the House. The impacts of these bills are at EDC’s feet, and the fact that no one is here to testify is an outrage.”
EDC execs did offer a letter concerning the bills to legislators that all indicated that the letter was received just minutes before the hearing. Rep. MacBeth called the letter incomplete, at best. “It has no fiscal note, and no evidence of future negative impacts to bond ratings. We’re just supposed to take their word for it?”
Other EDC related bills heard at the meeting were H5268 which would cap any one loan by EDC at $10 million, H5463 which would prohibit EDC from making any loan guarantees, H5643 prohibiting the state from paying interest on 38 Studios loans, H5745 imposing a limit of $5 million in EDC loans to any one entity, and H5746 which would impose an aggregate limit of $1 billion on any EDC loans out at one time.
Committee Chair Helio Melo, when asked if he found any of the testimony particularly compelling, and if he thought that an oversight committee would have been a more effective way to ferret out those questions, said “Nothing really jumped out at me, but I think that introducing legislation is a good way to uncover the questions that need asking.”
“In today’s testimony we heard questions regarding the state’s obligation to the bondholders, the possible effects of non-payment, and the role of the bond insurers. I’m sure there will be many more in the coming weeks.”
]]>Rep. Karen MacBeth has reintroduced the odious and embarrassing ultrasound bill meant to erect new barriers between a woman and her right to access legal health care. The motivation for this bill is religious, and has nothing to do with preserving women’s health.
This state of affairs is doubly ridiculous because Rhode Island is just not that religious. A Gallop Poll released yesterday shows Rhode Island as being tied with Oregon as the fifth least religious state in the country. Only Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are less religious.
In all, 29% of Rhode Islanders identify as very religious, 27% identify as moderately religious, and a whopping 44% identify at nonreligious. I know that the nonreligious don’t want religion warping politics and legislation in our state, and I also know that many who identify as moderately or even very religious also respect the Constitution of the United States and the sanctity of the separation of church and state.
The message to our legislators and other elected officials could not be more clear: Rhode Island is a secular state, our religious beliefs are our private concerns, and we don’t want religion in our laws.
]]>“I think it’s intrusive and unnecessary,” said Rep. Ajello, D- Providence. “We have already in law what has to happen in the procedure of an abortion including a doctor or medical staff talking with the patient … about making sure that there are alternatives to having an abortion. It really has nothing to do with medicine.”
Susan Lloyd Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, plans to testify that MacBeth’s interest in the bill are moral rather than medical.
“It is not lost on us that the sponsors of this bill are well known as opponents of abortion,” according to a draft of her prepared remarks. “The intent of this legislation is to dissuade women from choosing abortion by requiring them to listen to a description of the image of the developing fetus, even if she has chosen not to view it.”
MacBeth’s bill would require that doctors do an ultrasound on a woman before performing an abortion, and then describe the fetus to her. Doctors would be fined $100,000 for not doing so, and $250,000 for a second offense.
In this video, she talks about why she thinks it’s important to fine doctors.
]]>“This approach is a very bad idea,” they wrote in their editorial on the bill this morning. “Doctors and women should be able to make these often difficult decisions with a measure of privacy, and without the cumbersome imposition of the state dictating what should be said and done. Regulations should be based on the health of patients, as much as reasonably possible, rather than on trying to enforce particular religious or moral views of politicians.”
We couldn’t agree more.
As Paula Hodges of Planned Parenthood told us when we first broke this story: “Politicians forcing doctors to use an ultrasound for political – and not medical – reasons is the very definition of government intrusion. Rhode Island lawmakers should not be interfering with personal, private medical decisions that should be best left to women and families and their doctors.”
The Projo points out, as we did last week, that doctors who don’t comply would be subject to fines starting at $100,000 and go up to $250,000. This is a ridiculously large fine, considering there is no medical issue here – only a political one. I suspect the high dollar amount is more about State House politics than anything else in that they might be able to get a few votes be negotiating down the fine.
That said, given the lack of support in the legislature for reproductive rights it might not be all that hard to win over votes on this bill. Less than a third of the Democratically-controlled General Assembly is on record as being pro-choice.
To that end, local women need everyone to let their elected officials know how they feel about this issue that seems to be doing little more than distracting government from dealing with the stuff that is really plaguing our society.
]]>If it’s true, as Nancy Pelosi said recently when she was here in Rhode Island, that the recent dust-up over reproductive freedom for women is an election year tactic, it might just prove to be a successful one in Rhode Island.
While we may like to fancy ourselves a left-leaning state, such is not the case when it comes to abortion rights.
The Guttmacher Institute, a public policy group that specializes in reproductive health, has listed Rhode Island as being the only northeastern state listed as being “hostile to abortion.” And it’s been listed that way since at least 2000. Check out these three maps to see how the country has become more hostile to abortion rights since 2000.
It’s not surprising that Rhode Island would be listed as hostile as only a third of overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives are on record as being pro-choice, according to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. The Senate is even more hostile to reproductive rights, with only seven of 38 members identifying themselves as being pro-choice or 18 percent – and one of the them is Republican Dawson Hodgson of North Kingstown.
Given this, it’s no wonder Rep. Karen MacBeth’s bill that would require Rhode Island abortion doctors to perform an ultrasound and to ask the woman if she would like to see the picture might gain traction – even though it carries very high fines for doctors who don’t comply: $100,000 fine for a first offense and up to $250,00o for a second offense.
A Republican legislator who is pro-choice but doesn’t go on record for political purposes recently told me that abortion issues are losers for social liberals. Abortion politics, they said, energize only the anti-choice side of the debate.
To that end, it is no surprise that FOX News told MacBeth, she said, they are ready to report on Rhode Island if and when her bill comes up for a vote. Seeing how well economic issues are going for conservatives, they may as well try to move the debate over to social issues.
]]>