Rhode Island – Page 6

May 7, 2014May 7, 2014

Let’s not mince words, we were bowling for abortions

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

On Sunday, April 27, I had the pleasure of bowling at a fundraiser that benefits the “Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island.” This annual bowlathon is part of a national campaign that funds abortion services for people who demonstrate financial need. Anyone who needs abortion services should have access to them, regardless of financial state, location or any other of the many factors that keep pregnant people from accessing necessary reproductive services.

If you clicked the national campaign link above, you will see that our little state is 9th (!) in ranking nationwide. This makes me happier than I can say. I am proud of this work; it is one of the most important things we can do to help people claim autonomy of their bodies and make personal choices regardless of access restrictions.

With a couple of new state bills proposed that would limit abortion access in Rhode Island, we have to take a critical look at our state’s commitment to bodily autonomy and personal choice. The most infamous of these bills, proposed by State Representative Karen MacBeth of Cumberland, has been brought back and struck down every year for the past five.

Karen, move on. Forced ultrasounds are not informing people of the choice they are making. Abortions are a deeply personal choice and quite frankly, none of your damn business. This bill is an act of intimate violation of a person’s body by the government. Every pregnant person has a right to decide what to do with their bodies without your interference.

With H 7303 and other bills like it creeping steadily into our legislation, we need to think about how we phrase our fundraising and work that we do in this state. “Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island” feels like code. Why aren’t we more transparent about the work we are doing? Why is the word “abortion” skirted around? If you visit the WHEFRI website, you see in clear language that these funds are going to abortion services. The more we use the word abortion, the less stigma there will be attached to it. I encourage the Board Members of WHEFRI to look deeply at the name and think about changing it to bring light to this important work under no cloaks or guises.

I’d also like to address with use of the word “Women.” We have to recognize that abortion services need to be available to everyone, regardless of gender identification. In that I mean that not all people who need access to abortion services are women. A transgender man may need abortion services. A non-binary person may need services. Keeping around terms like these may limit people’s access to these funds. I do not mean to say that WHEFRI would ever discriminate against someone because of their gender, however I will posit that it may make a pregnant person who does not identify as a woman question whether they would have access to these funds. Inclusive language is something we need to address in the reproductive justice world; without it we are limiting who we reach. If we want all people to have access to abortions, let’s work on how we present our mission and work.

As one of the biggest access funds in the state, we should be shouting loud and proud. Let’s work on ensuring that all pregnant people have access to abortion services and that our work is recognizable as such. I want to make Rhode Island a forerunner for reproductive justice.

May 6, 2014May 6, 2014

DEM, URI team up to help fishing industry

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

The state Department of Environmental Management and the URI Graduate School of Oceanography are partnering to produce more – and more efficient – data and analysis about the fishing industry here in the Ocean State.

The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Institute “will enhance the state’s ability to positively affect marine fisheries research and management,” said Jason McNamee, a DEM biologist. He was speaking to a crowd of scientists, students, bureaucrats, politicians and fishermen at the Mosby Center, the oldest and most waterfront building at the Bay Campus. The group met there to formally bless the effort.

The Institute will focus on both commercial and recreational fishing, which DEM Director Janet Coit said “bring hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs into Rhode Island.”

Oceanography professor Jeremy Collie said he hopes the collaboration can make the state a hub for research and information. “When people have fisheries related questions, they will come to Rhode Island first,” he said.

And the folks from the fishing industry seem happy with the effort too:

As far as what the Institute will do, “I can think of about 50 projects off the top of my head,” said one fisherman in the audience. Ideas ranged from studying closer the emerging squid and scup fisheries, to the effects of climate change – which include some species, like cod and lobster, moving out of local waters and others, like summer flounder, moving in.

“The fishing industry will drive the agenda,” McNamee said. But Collie added, “the focus will be on research, not management.”

April 25, 2014

It’s the (green) jobs and the economy, stupid!

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

Since his ascension to the legislative throne, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello has adopted the oft-heard, heptasyllabic mantra of “jobs and the economy.” This is an admirable goal, but suggesting that adjusting the corporate and estate taxes will have any effect on the economy as a whole is like saying the best way to jump start a car is by playing with the radio dials.

Rhode Island’s economic engine needs a jump, to get us to the garage for a complete overhaul. In combustion engines, there are three must-have components, the engine itself, an alternator, and a battery. The battery starts the engine, then the alternator kicks in to fire the spark plugs and trickle charge the battery. VROOM!

"Hey. Yeah, our battery is dead. Can you come and give us a jump? Cool. We're at the corner of Environment and Economy." — “Hey. Yeah, our battery is dead. Can you come and give us a jump? Cool. We’re at the corner of Environment and Economy.”

A New Battery and Alternator

So, here we are at the garage with our barely functioning engine, and the mechanic says, “Well, you definitely need a new battery. This one hasn’t worked well in quite a while. I suggest you upgrade to a Revolving Commerce Fund for new and existing businesses.”

“O.K.,” we say, “what’s that going to run us?”

“Probably about $100 million, but this battery holds a 50 million volt charge for both new and existing businesses.”

“That seems pretty steep. Could we go for a different model?”

“Sure, but I don’t think you’ll get optimal performance out of them. The other bonus with this model is it acts as it’s own alternator. Loan Payments charge the battery.”

Engine Maintenance

The engine isn’t broken, per se, but maintenance is required. We could use an oil change.

“You, see,” says the mechanic, “Your engine is designed to be lubricated by manufacturing, but overseas markets have caused a crack in the oil pan, causing the textile and dye mills of yore to move overseas, and there’s little chance they’re coming back. You need a different grade of oil in the 21st century. If your engine is built for manufacturing, look to green tech, building, and energy.”

If we want our economy to work in the future, we have to a) make sure we have one, and b) prioritize what we’ll need in that future. Green sector jobs create swaths of jobs over the entire spectrum of skill sets.

Let’s say that Panasonic decides to open a solar panel plant here. Not only does the company need the designers and engineers to envision a product, they also need people to work on the production line, in the warehouse, make deliveries, and clean up the office.

Green design and building also employs people throughout the economic strata. One again, designers, architects and engineers have a place in this business, but so do the carpenters, welders, machinery operators, clerks, project managers, and dudes who lug stuff around the site.

Industries that have yet to be born in Rhode Island like waste conversion to energy are waiting for the state to step up and say ‘Yes’ to the future economy. Renewable energy companies are floundering in Rhode Island, waiting for the state to say ‘Yes’ to self-sustenance. The building trades are waiting for the state to say ‘Yes’ to being part of the solution.

Efficiency has to be the first step. Lowering electric bills puts more money in everyone’s pocket. Companies that have embraced efficiency are seeing significant benefits. Banneker, a logistics and supply company based in N. Smithfield, took on several efficiency initiatives, and lowered their operating cost by 60 percent. Not 60 percent off overhead, 60 percent off of the entire budget!

The mechanic also notices worn belts and hoses. He recommends some serious investments in public infrastructure and transit to fix what can be fixed, and nix what can be nixed.

A Note on Transmissions

The transmission in our R.I.-mobile is a healthy and thriving middle class. As long as the middle class has a few extra bucks in their collective pockets, they will spend it. A well maintained middle-class transmission is the only thing that will get this old jalopy moving forward.

As for Mattiello’s mantra, I think the next time I hear the words ‘jobs’, ‘economy’, ‘corporate tax’, and ‘estate tax’ in the same sentence, I will immediately picture him standing on the side of the road, smoke billowing from under the hood of his car as he tries to peer in, and not having the vaguest inkling of a clue what he’s looking at, or how to fix it.

April 14, 2014April 14, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: Why now?

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

The reason the debate about a constitutional convention is happening now is because RI is constitutionally obligated to do so. The 2014 election will mark 10 years since Rhode Islanders were last asked to have a convention. Since 1984, they’ve rejected it at each election. It’s unclear how they’ll vote this time.

To some extent, the pro-convention side has been portraying this as the last chance we’ll have for the next ten years. It’s imperative that we fix our problems through a constitutional convention, and that it be done by 2016. And while that’s a good case if you assume nothing else changes, it’s a weak reason to have a convention.

This is the first of a four-part series on a potential constitutional convention and why we should not have one this year. Read more later this week.

Legislators have the power to place the convention question on the ballot at any election. There’s many reasons why they will not, but a pretty obvious one is that there’s no constituent pressure to do so. And if there’s no constituent pressure, that means there isn’t a popular demand.

That’s a serious problem. While the convention might be the desire of outsider reformers who can’t get changes through the General Assembly, it’s not something they’re willing to push the General Assembly to do. Without that prior pressure and popular support, the pro-convention side looks less genuine in their desire to hold a convention to improve government and more like political opportunists taking advantage of a required process.

Regrouping and lobbying the General Assembly to place the convention on the ballot has numerous advantages. First, it helps build organizational capacity, which will be useful later for ensuring a serious reform faction among the delegates. Second, it enlists support before the question is required to be asked, forcing media coverage and public interest to happen before the year the question is placed on the ballot. Even if the effort is stymied for ten years, a concerted campaign will make the public far more receptive to a convention then if they’d been ignored.

April 9, 2014April 9, 2014

Legalizing marijuana could mean $82 million in annual revenue for RI

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

Legalizing marijuana in Rhode Island would generate $21.5 to $82 million in new tax revenue, according to a new report from OpenDoorsRI a group that works with formerly incarcerated people in Rhode Island.

“Resulting taxes would generate $7.6 to $21 million for alcohol and drug abuse treatment and education, $10.5 to $50 million for the general fund, and $1.9 to $5.2 million for medical marijuana research,” according to a press release with the new report.

Read the full report here.

The two estimates are based on current marijuana use which is difficult to monitor accurately because it is unregulated. The report assumes .55 percent of American pot users live in Rhode Island* and use between 1 and 3 grams of marijuana weekly and pay $292 to $375 an ounce.

The report says Rhode Islanders who grow their own pot will not be taxed, according to the current bills before the General Assembly.

The new report indicates cost savings on criminal prosecutions would be less dramatic, estimating a savings of about $100,000. “While the collective financial savings are not huge, this legislation will free up important bed space, police time, and prosecution and judiciary time that is currently spent prosecuting these cases every year,” it says.

Far greater are what the report calls the “human costs” of keeping marijuana illegal. It uses the real-life story of Providence native Josh Giorgi, who was arrested for selling pot while a student at URI in 2006.

Josh Giorgi was a freshman at University of Rhode Island studying wildlife conservation when he was arrested for marijuana delivery in an undercover operation in 2006. The sting resulted in the arrests of nine individuals for drug delivery charges, but Giorgi was one of only two that ended up with a prison sentence. Giorgi served 13 months in prison in both the training school and the Adult Correctional Institute for the charges, and he will be on probation until he is 28. Giorgi, a Federal Hill native, says he was dealing marijuana on a small scale to help pay his tuition. He was never arrested for anything else prior to or since that conviction.

After release, he says he applied to jobs and apprenticeships everywhere but most places would not take him because of his record. He started working in a local grocery store that did not do background checks. He continued to work hard and find more skilled employment, and for the last three and a half years, he has worked for an international manufacturing company with offices in Rhode Island, working his way up to logistic coordinator. He owns a house and is now a father.

Despite his hard work and success, he says that because of that one mistake, he was treated like a serious criminal, and he continues to pay a heavy price. He was unable to re-enroll in school and was never able to complete college. Though he hopes to return at some point, his felony record continues to present obstacles.

“I made a mistake, but I am not a criminal,” he says. “I do not want to see anyone else’s life ruined like mine was for selling marijuana, but as long as people use marijuana, they will buy it from someone. So someone will keep going to prison until people that want it have a legal way to buy it.”

*Corrected. An earlier version of this post said .55% of RIers use pot. Jared Moffat of Regulate RI said about 13 percent of Rhode Islanders use marijuana.

April 7, 2014April 8, 2014

Democrats for governor make their case to liberal Rhode Island

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

With little substantive differences in their talking points, the four Democrats running for governor each tried to impress upon an audience of mostly liberal activists that they were the best person for the job at the Economic Progress Institute’s candidate forum Monday night.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras said he wants Rhode Island to have the best schools in the nation and make the Ocean State and “example for opportunity.” General Treasurer Gina Raimondo called income inequality “biggest problem facing our state” and said the social safety net is “an investment in our future” rather than an act of charity. Todd Giroux said he’d create a $1 billion commerce fund and wants to make workers’ comp available to day laborers.

But arguably the best line of the evening belonged to Clay Pell, who brought down the house when he said: “I’m a Democrat. I believe people who earn more should pay more.”

Pell was also the only one to pledge to fully fund the Open Doors plan to end homelessness in Rhode Island. He may have laid out the most progressive messaging of the evening, but also drew sharp attention to his privileged upbringing when he said, “for too long in Rhode Island it’s been who you know not what you know.” Minutes earlier in his opening remarks, he name dropped his grandfather and namesake’s signature college aid grant program.

Taveras leaned heavily on his biography, at least twice recalling his formative years living in affordable housing and being a “Headstart baby.” Substantively, he said Rhode Island could boast the best education system in the country, and that he wants to make Rhode Island a national “example for opportunity.”

If any news was made at the Economic Progress Institute’s governor’s candidate forum, it was that Raimondo said she would dismantle the parts of Rhode Island’s health care exchange that link people with other social services to help offset the cost when federal funding runs out. She also said “income inequality is the single biggest problem facing our state and in fact our country.” Here’s how she said she would address income inequality:

Todd Giroux plays the part of the everyman political outsider. He was the only candidate on stage who didn’t got to Harvard and who has actually worked in the Rhode Island economy – they both sounds like nice attributes in a candidate but neither will likely garner him any political support.

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy

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

Not since Roe v. Wade has a U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as I abided by current FEC guidelines of $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.

March 30, 2014

Mattiello championing ethics reform is laughable

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

Former Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Judge Robert Flanders Jr., did not intend to get the biggest laugh at the recent forum on the possibility of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) being held in Rhode Island, but he did.

The forum, sponsored by the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant, the Roger Williams University School of Law, Common Cause Rhode Island and the Rhode Island League of Women Voters, was attended by over one hundred participants, most of whom were of the politically savvy sort interested in the possible consequences of a Con-Con.

Flanders got his (unintentional) laugh when he suggested that the Rhode Island House of Representatives, under the leadership of the new Speaker, Nicholas Mattiello, might champion ethics reform.

It should be noted that Representative Joseph Almeida, Speaker Mattiello’s choice for deputy minority whip, has already come under scrutiny from the Board of Elections and the Attorney General’s office for “a campaign-finance case involving Almeida’s “misreporting’’ of contributions and expenditures.” Apparently Mattiello was unaware of Rep. Almeida’s circumstances when he tagged him for his post and it is unknown what action Mattiello intends to take in light of these revelations, though the safe bet is “none.”

You can see the comment Flanders made in the video below. (I’ll have more videos from the forum on RI Future soon.)

“You Laugh,” said Judge Flanders in response to the laughter, “It seems improbable.”

Judge Flanders’ larger point was that without the threat of a Constitutional Convention, Speaker Mattiello will have no reason to tighten ethical standards, but if a Con-Con appears in the offing, and if the convention delegates seem willing to enact real ethics reform from outside the House structure, then Mattiello might be feel compelled to enact his own reform or risk looking weak and ineffectual on ethics.

Oddly, few people present at the forum seemed to think that Speaker Mattiello in particular or the General Assembly as a whole was much interested in doing the right thing and tightening ethical standards on their own. It is partly this lack of faith in the General Assembly that makes people support the panacea of a Con-Con in the first place.

March 30, 2014March 31, 2014

John Marion on the history and possible future of the RI Con Con

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

“I wish I could say, ‘Go read this book! There’s a great narrative of what happened in 1984-1986,'” says John Marion, Executive Director of Common Cause RI, “There isn’t a single volume that tells that story.”

Instead, Marion gave this terrific talk at the opening of a forum sponsored by the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant, the Roger Williams University School of Law, Common Cause Rhode Island and the Rhode Island League of Women Voters that sought to provide needed information to the public about the possibility of a Constitutional Convention in the next few years.

What will a Constitutional Convention look like? What issues are likely to be taken up? What will an election of delegates look like and what will this all cost? Marion attempts to answer these and other questions by examining the history of the 1984-1986 Constitutional Convention held here in Rhode Island, which is also the last Constitutional Convention to be held anywhere in the United States.

This might just be the best introduction to this important subject available anywhere.

March 29, 2014March 30, 2014

Should RI pursue a Ford or Cadillac-style economy

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

If there is one thing everyone in Rhode Island agrees about it’s that jobs and the economy should be our number 1 priority. But there is a great disagreement in how we accomplish that. I think these two very similar Ford and Cadillac commercials explain the difference between the economy conservatives want for Rhode Island and the economy progressives want.

Cadillac:

Ford:

I actually believe Rhode Island needs both these economies. But I haven’t seen a lot of evidence that our Cadillac economy is struggling. I think oftentimes what happens is we point to the problems of our Ford owners and suggest solutions for Cadillac owners.

March 27, 2014March 27, 2014

Progressives only lose when they abandon their values

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

Nobody likes losing, but sometimes, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try or what new strategies you develop, you go into a battle knowing the numbers are against you, and that you are going to lose. There is nothing wrong with losing, but there are different ways to lose.

You can lose gracefully and with style, summoning all your energy to give it your all, demonstrating to your opponent and those watching that you are a worthy foe and someone to be taken seriously. In doing so you can demonstrate the best of the values you hold dear, earning the begrudging respect of even your most diametrical opponents.

Or you can lose in a tawdry muddle of confused loyalties, last minute defections, 11th hour deal making and factional splits.

As Nick Mattiello consolidated his power in the Rhode Island House of Representatives over the last weekend, making deals with conservative Democrats and even more conservative Republicans, progressive hopes were hung on the “progressive caucus” that seemed to coalesce around Representative Michael Marcello, but Marcello lost big.

In the end Mattiello had ten times the votes.

Progressives lost this battle, and perhaps it was inevitable, because the numbers were not there, but progressives lost something else as well. They lost the chance to define the battle they were losing. In the scramble to find an alternative to the business-as-usual Mattiello, progressives rallied around “anyone but Mattiello” which became a statement about what we were opposed to, but not about what we believe in. We did not rally around our values.

Representative Teresa Tanzi got me thinking about his when she told Bob Plain that she abstained from voting for either side “because there were no women on the new leadership team[s]” put forward by Mattiello or Marcello. The leadership teams under consideration were primarily made up of white heterosexual male lawyers. From a conservative like Mattiello this is to be expected. Diversity is not the conservative value that hegemonic patriarchy is, after all.

But for a so-called progressive caucus to ignore diversity, one of its key values, is more than an oversight, it’s an abandonment of principle and a violation of our values for the sake of petty politics. Worse, this was done for the sake of a battle that was destined to be lost. Putting aside values for a moment, from a pragmatic, political point of view, this was a terrible strategy. Why on earth would anyone sacrifice their values when they know they are going to lose?

If anything, all the losing side in any conflict has is its principles and values. When faced with defeat, the losing side should seek to differentiate itself as much as possible from its opponent. For instance, Mattiello might have had the numbers and the political grease to unify a coalition in his favor, but the progressive caucus could have staked out the moral high ground, demonstrating not only diversity but other core values such as women’s autonomy, the rights of workers to not be exploited, concerns over the environment, and a call for getting special interests out of politics.

When Representative Joseph Trillo snidely suggested that Marcello’s camp was more concerned with plastic bag bans than improving the economy, the progressive caucus should have been able to say that they are interested in protecting Rhode Island’s most valuable asset, the environment. While Mattiello dismissed calls for reforming PayDay Loans as unimportant, the progressive caucus should have asked why the economic exploitation of our at risk poor and the shuffling of millions of dollars from poor urban communities to out of state corporations is beneath his notice. A progressive caucus might suggest that Mattiello’s longtime mentor and supporter, former Speaker Bill Murphy, who gets a pretty hefty paycheck every year from PayDay loan companies, might be exerting an influence. And what about the plague of gun violence? Most Rhode Islanders want an assault weapon ban, but not Bill Murphy, who also lobbies for the NRA, and not his hand-picked successor Mattiello, or any of Mattiello’s new committee chair appointees, all of whom seem to have perfect scores from the NRA.

If the progressive caucus wants to mean anything and if the progressive caucus wants to effect real change in the General Assembly as opposed to the appearance of change currently on offer from Mattiello and friends, then it will have to figure out how to stand up for progressive values, explain the importance of progressive values, and demonstrate those values in a way Rhode Islanders can understand.

Doing this will not only make the progressive caucus look good when they lose, it will give them the best chance they have to win.

March 26, 2014March 26, 2014

The Marcello 6 and the 5 liberal abstainers

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

Big time props to the Marcello 6, who stuck by their speaker candidate even after realizing he didn’t have the votes to win. They are:

Greg Constantino of Lincoln, Paddy O’Neill of Pawtucket, John Lombadi of Providence, Linda Finn of Middletown, Joy Hearn from Barrington and – of course – Marcello himself. These six are now effectively the loyal opposition in the House of Representatives and I hope other progressives join them.

They are now effectively the loyal opposition in the House. Hopefully the 5 Liberal Abstainers will join them. They are:

Edith Ajello and Maria Cimini of Providence, Teresa Tanzi of South Kingstown and Larry Valencia of Richmond {Update: Andd Rep. Jeremiah O’Grady, Lincoln]. Progressives are pretty disappointed in these five. Tanzi said she did so because there were no women on the new leadership team, and Valencia told me he would explain his decision to his constituents in the future (declined to comment). My guess is Team Marcello had splintered to the point that some didn’t want to support it.

West Warwick Republican Pat Morgan also abstained, but her reasons for doing so were certainly different. She disrupted the formal vote to try to give a speech about her reasons, which seemed to be that she wanted something for her support. This generally drew ire from both parties, though Minority Leader Brian Newberry defended her on procedural grounds.

Some progressives legislators also voted for Speaker Mattiello, including Frank Ferri, of Warwick, Art Handy of Cranston and Chris Blazejewski. Blaz, of course, was initially a leader of Team Marcello and Handy was an early supporter. Handy said his decision to jump ship was an attempt to remain chairman of the Environmental Committee.

“Staying as chair and having more access to leadership is one of the best things I can do for the progressive causes I care about,” Handy said.

March 26, 2014March 27, 2014

Entering the Speaker Mattiello era

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

Well, it’s safe to say my first interview with Speaker Nick Mattiello didn’t go great, and here’s hoping this is in no way indicative of how other progressives may fare in their dealings with the brand new ‘most powerful politician in Rhode Island.’

Full disclosure, I’ve spoken with the Speaker before, and this is in no way indicative of our dealings! But Gordon Fox was always a delight to deal with in public and people say he ran a pretty stern ship behind the scenes so maybe Mattiello will be tough on reporters and easier on legislators.

That aside, I think he makes a good point when he says that legislators should represent their districts and not ideology (Randall Edgar of the Providence Journal asking the question)

It’s no secret RI Future wasn’t rooting for Speaker Mattiello to win this one, but we certainly congratulate him and wish him all the luck in the world in leading the group elected to do the people’s business.

March 25, 2014

Scott Guthrie, Spencer Dickinson support Mattiello

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

Coventry Rep. Scott Guthrie said he is supporting Rep. Nick Mattiello for speaker because “a couple people pissed me off.”

He said he initially contemplated caucusing with the group supporting Rep. Mike Marcello, but at the outset that group didn’t even know who it would put forward as the candidate for speaker.

“There was no one they had a name for,” he told me this morning. “If you have a name you can build a team around a name.”

He also said the group was “cutting deals here and there.”

“I like Michael but now it’s going to turn into silly season,” Guthrie said. “Do we have a smooth transition and do the people’s business? All this is is politics for the next election.”

South Kingstown Rep. Spencer Dickinson, another occasional ally to the progressive movement, said he too is supporting conservative Democrat Nick Mattiello.

“I began by supporting O’Neill or Lombardi, but lack of sign-on by the progressive wing made those choices unavailable,” he wrote on his Facebook wall. “I believe that if you had been with me for the last 72 hours, and seen what I have seen, you would have made the same choice.”

On my Facebook wall, Dickinson, a vocal critic of Gordon Fox and his leadership team, wrote: “Plausible intel that the Ucci Blazejewski team (that later grafted on Marcello as speaker) actually started out as the team of horses that was to keep [Frank] Anzeveno in power. Mattiello put a credible stop to that and that’s one reason why he will be the next speaker.”

Dickinson has long been at odds with the previous leadership group.

March 24, 2014March 24, 2014

Sam Bell is running for Gordon Fox’s seat

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

He exposed the illegal campaign tactics of the NRA. He leads the Progressive Democrats of Rhode Island. He’s a frequent contributor to this blog. And – hopefully – next Sam Bell will add to his resume state representative from District 4. With news that soon-to-be-former House Speaker Gordon Fox won’t be seeking re-election, Bell has announced he will run for Fox’s old seat.

“Our state needs a fresh Democratic voice on Smith Hill,” said Bell in a widely distributed press release. “As Representative, I’ll fight to invest in our schools and our workforce, and I’ll be an unfailing advocate for transparency and sunlight at the State House.”

Bell has been a frequent critic of conservative Democrats on Smith Hill. Most recently he called attention to the austerity ideas being put forward by Gina Raimondo and as well as by legislative Democrats to pay for the Sakonnet River Bridge. But he is best known for exposing the NRA’s “illicit” political action committee activity. Bell learned their practice was illegal and the NRA paid a $63,000 fine, which he says is the second largest campaign fine in state history.

“I’m glad to have stood up for the people of Rhode Island against the powerful, out-of-state gun lobby,” he said in his statement. “I’ll continue to protect my constituents against the forces of special interests on Smith Hill.

And Bell will likely be the only RI Future contributor vying for the District 4 seat at the State House. Mark Binder, who challenged Fox in 2012 and occasionally posts to RI Future, indicated he will NOT run again in an email to supporters today.

“Let me be blunt,” he wrote. “Any representative who votes for the sort of “Leadership” that enabled Gordon Fox to abuse his power is betraying the interests of citizens. We, the people of Rhode Island did not elect you to submit to the whims of lobbyists and special interests and corporations. We elected you to serve the people.

“For too long the political conversation has been framed by special interests. The purpose of our State Government is not to create jobs, however much that may be a method for getting votes. The purpose of our State Government is to create an environment where people can live and work and thrive. This means protecting our landscape and natural resources, paying for education that teaches beyond tests, and offering powerful reasons for people to live and work here.”

Ed. note: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said Binder would run due. He is not.

March 24, 2014March 25, 2014

Which side are you on, House Democrats?

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

One of the most pernicious myths about Rhode Island politics is that the state house is dominated by liberal, labor-backed, Democrats. The Democrat part is certainly true, but neither the liberal nor the labor-backed parts are. Rhode Island, after all, enjoys the only voter-ID vote-suppression bill in the nation voted in by Democrats. We have endured 15 years of tax cuts for the rich that have impoverished our schools and towns and allowed great profits for businesses that turn around and betray our state. We allow payday lenders to soak their customers for 260% interest rates. We were utterly unable to enact any meaningful gun control legislation in the aftermath of an appalling massacre in the next state over last year. The list goes on in a long and embarrassing fashion.

Labor gets a lot of blame for this in certain circles, but it’s a sick joke. The labor movement in Rhode Island is so disunited that pensions were “reformed” in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2011, each time making pension coverage for state employee union members weaker and smaller. Whether it’s labor law, pensions, taxes, or municipal funding, it is difficult to think of a high-profile controversy in the legislature won by labor in the last 15 years.

The tragic part of this is that Rhode Island’s electorate is not nearly so retrograde as its legislature. Gun control polls well, as does reproductive justice and raising taxes on rich people, and yet the legislature does not act that way.

This accounts for the Machiavellian nature of legislative politics. The conservative Democrats who have held power there for decades rely on strong-arm tactics to enforce docility among the rank-and-file. Uncontroversial bills get held until after the budget is passed to assure its passage, committee chair and vice-chair seats are awarded to “team players,” malcontents are assigned to the standing committee on whatever they care least about. These are not a sign of power, but a sign of weakness. The leadership has long been aware that their hold on power is precarious, and they rely on the disunity of their opposition to maintain their hold.

Part of what maintains that disunity is the selective granting of power to a few individuals, who are allowed to sit as committee chairs or vice-chairs. These individuals imagine they have some leverage worth protecting and that their position allows them some access to the inner workings. This makes them reliable votes to protect the interests of the powerful. But a lot of it is illusion. I found myself once talking to the vice chair of House Finance committee some years ago on the very day that the Finance Committee issued its revision of the Governor’s budget. I was fascinated to notice that he knew as little about what was in it as I did. In other words, his position allowed him to think he had access, but in reality he had virtually none.

This is what is happening today. People with some small measure of influence — who will never get any more than what they have from Mattiello’s leadership — are unwilling to risk what little they have by supporting a leadership that actually favors their perspective. The tragic part, of course, is that if they could be united, they could make a change.

Tomorrow will be a test.

If Nick Mattiello becomes Speaker, the most powerful position in the state Democratic Party, it will be through the support of tea-party Republicans allied with representatives who do not believe he supports any of their priorities, but are willing to go along with him for the sake of small and ultimately meaningless favors. Do you want Republicans Doreen Costa and Joe Trillo to be kingmakers of the Democratic Party?

The conservative path of our recent history has brought us one bankrupt city and a couple more flirting with it. We have given up tax revenue and gotten nothing for it in return. Our schools, buses, streets, and virtually every other public service you depend on, has gotten smaller, weaker, dirtier, and meaner. The legislature has thwarted Governor Chafee’s attempts to restore Carcieri’s school funding cuts and any semblance of equity among the cities and towns, along with most of the other useful reforms he has proposed. You can be upset with him for not fighting harder, but he is not the obstacle to reform in Rhode Island. This is the status quo of our state, and if you are happy with it, then you have every right to be happy with the status quo of the Assembly leadership.

If you are not happy with it, though, please contact your state rep today and ask them to support change at the state house tomorrow. And if you are a state rep reading this, please remember that the bluff only works when no one stands up.

March 23, 2014March 24, 2014

Next House speaker: Anybody but Mattiello

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

Gordon Fox always struck me as a sincere guy who somewhat struggled with the onus of power in a game that many believe is won through fear rather than love. Whatever he may or may not be in trouble for, I wish him the best.

But Gordon Fox in no way, shape or form represented the progressive – or even the liberal – wing of the Democratic Party and I also sincerely hope his political demise leads to less conservative leadership in the state legislature.

This would not be the case if Nick Mattiello is the next speaker of the house. He’d be the fourth-consecutive conservative Democrat to lead the House and was put in place to inherit the gavel from Fox by speaker-turned-lobbyist Bill Murphy.

Progressives would much prefer Pawtucket’s Paddy O’Neill replace Gordon Fox as the most powerful politician in the Ocean State. O’Neill is more liberal, he’s more open-minded, he’s more liked and he’s more respected. And perhaps most importantly, he isn’t connected to the current leadership team that has effectively been in place since John Harwood made a deal with Republicans to become the speaker.

Mattiello, a Cranston lawmaker, is one of the more conservative members of the House, a legislative chamber dominated by fiscal conservatives and social moderates whose party affiliation often belies their political leanings. Philosophically speaking, Mattiello seems no more or less liberal than his GOP counterpart Brian Newberry, and Newberry has surely been more open-minded to progressive ideas than Mattiello.

Often conservatives (and even sometimes liberals!) will rail against “70 years of Democrats in control” in the state legislature. But it’s hard to argue that the Gordon Fox era hasn’t been defined by conservative policy. During his tenure as speaker and majority leader before that, he backed tax cuts to the rich, financial cuts to struggling cities and programs for the developmentally disabled as well as nearly across the board austerity except when it came to corporate interests and Curt Schilling. Nationally, Fox is known as the openly gay legislator who pushed for civil unions before same sex marriage and/or as the Democrat who sponsored a Voter ID bill.

But progressive ideology aside, I think it’s high time Rhode Islanders demand a change to the leadership team in the House of Representatives.

Any and all Rhode Island political insiders will happily proclaim the speaker of the House to be “the most powerful person” in the Ocean State. But ever since self-proclaimed conservative Democrat John Harwood captured the speaker’s gavel by striking a deal with Republicans, the most powerful position in state politics has been awarded based more on loyalty than ability.

Former Speaker of the House Bill Murphy is a lobbyist who opposes payday lending reform. (photo by Ryan T. Conaty. www.ryantconaty.com)

As Scott MacKay of RINPR reported yesterday, “Longtime Speaker John Harwood seamlessly passed the leadership to William Murphy, D- West Warwick. Harwood and Murphy later had a falling out, but it occurred only after the speaker’s gavel had changed hands without a battle royal. Then in 2010, when Murphy thought it was time to leave, the transfer of power to Fox was greased.”

Indeed, MacKay says Mattiello was set up to inherit the speaker’s gavel from Fox when Murphy handed it off to him. “The only thing that some House observers noticed that Murphy made taking Mattiello as majority leader a condition of support for Fox,” he wrote. “Fox may be a bit rueful about that arrangement after yesterday’s events.”

Fox may well be rueful. But Murphy, now a lobbyist who represents the NRA and payday lenders, probably is not.

Neither may be Frank Anzeveno, who has served as chief of staff to the speaker since Harwood, and he would likely retain this job if Mattiello gets his way. Anzeveno infamously has a small placard on his State House desk that reads, “No better friend, no worse enemy.” And more than anything I just think the next speaker of the house would do well to be a little less Machiavellian.

March 19, 2014March 19, 2014

Combined reporting would close tax loophole for retail giants, big box stores

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

Rhode Island missed out on somewhere between $40 and $100 million in 2011 and 2012, according this new report. That’s because in 2011, the General Assembly rejected Gov. Chafee’s idea to implement what is known as “combined reporting” for corporate taxes and instead called for the aforementioned report.

The study found that combined reporting would have earned Rhode Islanders between $23 and $54 million in 2011 and between $21 and $44 million in 2012, depending on the accounting method used. The larger number focuses on just sales while the smaller number also factors in payroll and property. Read the overview here and watch video from last night of state Division of Taxation employees explain it the Senate Finance Committee.

Combined reporting combats the corporate practice of doing business in one state and utilizes the tax advantages of another state. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy called combined reporting “the most effective approach to combating corporate tax avoidance.” 23 states and the District of Columbia use combined reporting, including most New England states.

Rep. Teresa Tanzi, a progressive Democrat who represents Narragansett and South Kingstown, has sponsored legislation this year and in the past two legislative sessions that would implement combined reporting.

“The fundamental justification for combined report is a robust corporate tax that can’t be gamed by aggressive corporate tax planning while creating a level playing field between big multistate corporations and smaller, local corporations,” she said in an email to me. “Nonetheless, I am gratified that the study confirmed that Combined Reporting would give a modest boost to revenues that could be used to help the state address its unmet needs, and we now have the numbers to show the advantage certain corporations have.”

Most local businesses would not be affected by combined reporting, according to the study. It found 28 percent were negatively affected and 6 percent experienced a tax advantage.

“Any company that has a large presence here, property and payroll, is not really affected,” state Tax Director Dave Sullivan told the Senate Finance Committee last night. “companies that do not have a big footprint here and have maybe one or two retail outlets here may actually see an adverse affect in tax increases with single sales factor. If all their property and payroll are out of state and they have a significant number of sales because they have, we use the example of big box stores here in this state…”

Massachusetts and Vermont both implemented combined reporting in the same year they lowered their overall corporate tax rate. State tax officials told the Senate Finance Committee both states improved their Tax Foundation rankings after doing so.

March 19, 2014March 19, 2014

Rev. Gene announces Religious Coalition for a Violence-Free Rhode Island

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

The Reverend Gene Dyszlewski, a prominent religious figure in the battle for marriage equality, welcomed the arrival of a “new conversation about gun violence” at the State House yesterday with the announcement of the formation of the Religious Coalition for a Violence-Free Rhode Island (RCVFRI).

This is a group of about 80 (and growing) religious leaders from a variety of religious perspectives who maintain “a core belief in the dignity of human life” and that gun violence is “an unequivocal violation of that human dignity.”

RCVFRI is also a member of Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV), with a mission to “invite all Rhode Islanders to engage in a serious and reasonable discussion about how to curb gun violence” and call upon “the legislature to enact reasonable, sensible gun control regulations and ask for support for evidence based violence disruption programs.”

Reverend Gene picked the date for his announcement weeks ago, reserving the rotunda for the announcement of his religious coalition long before a date was set to hear testimony on fifteen gun related bills that brought large coalitions on both sides of the issue to the State House. While outside the State House over two hundred people representing groups opposed to sensible actions to curb gun violence rallied supporters through fear and paranoia, under the dome about half that number embraced common sense, optimism and a sense of a historic turn in the dialog on guns in the United States.

Reverend Gene introduced the other speakers during the half hour program, including RICAGV President Jerry Belair, Senator Josh Miller, Representative Linda Finn, the local director of Moms Demand Action, Nan Heroux, Co-chair and co-founder of Newtown Action Alliance Po Murray, and Teny Gross of the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence. I’ll have more on these speakers in a later post.

March 18, 2014March 19, 2014

RI lawmakers propose sequester to replace Sakonnet tolls

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

There’s a new plan out to replace the Sakonnet River Bridge Tolls. For the next six years, discretionary spending will be slashed in every department by 0.25%, until the total cut is 1.5%. Funneled into a transportation infrastructure trust fund, those dollars will hopefully eliminate the need for tolls on the Sakonnet River Bridge.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Known as a “sequester,” this tactic of across-the-board cuts was controversially implemented at the federal level as a Democratic concession in the 2011 debt ceiling standoff.

Given that I’ve staked out a pretty solid position on the Democratic side of public policy debates, you might be surprised to hear that I’m not calling on legislators to vote down this bill. That’s because I consider tolls a really bad idea. They’re , hitting the lower middle class especially hard. Although it’s difficult to properly assess, tolls do economic damage as well–possibly almost as much as sequesters. So I can’t blame a legislator who votes for this bill.

But we should not forget the pain these austerity policies are causing our state. Few states have caught austerity fever as aggressively as Rhode Island. Slashing jobs to the point where we have the second fewest per capita public sector employees in the country, Rhode Island has gone all in on the budget cut strategy. (And somehow, we still found the money to give the wealthy big tax cuts.)

Part of the goal of sequesters is to spread the pain so thin no that one will be too upset. Instead of directly slashing one program, the state will be asking every department to squeeze things just a little bit harder, cutting a few jobs in each department instead of concentrating the cuts in one specific area. The hope is that this will reduce the political opposition. As Rep. Jay Edwards, chief bill sponsor, put it on Newsmakers:

If a department can’t cut their own budget by a quarter percent every year and look forward to it, then they are not doing a good enough job.

This is the kind of thinking we must avoid. It probably is true that distributing the cuts like this makes the damage less visible, but it doesn’t make it any less real. This sequester will cost our state jobs. And of course it’s much better policy to direct the cuts towards less important programs than to take this meat-axe approach.

Michael Lewis, the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, expressed similar concerns. Explaining that his “concern with the plan is that it doesn’t contain new revenue,” Director Lewis cautioned that, “somewhere in the state budget, something is going to suffer,” and we “have to think about what kind of impact that’s going to have on the overall state budget.” He’s right. We can’t forget the pain these cuts will inflict.

What makes this story so tragic is that there is a really easy free lunch solution to our infrastructure crisis. In America, states traditionally finance infrastructure with cheap general obligation bonds. Underfunding infrastructure maintenance can often lead to a higher effective interest rate than you would pay on bonds, since replacing unmaintained bridges is much more expensive than just maintaining them properly. That’s exactly what happened with the old Sakonnet River Bridge.

Given record low interest rates, now would be the fiscally responsible time to take out the infrastructure bonds we know we’re going to have to do, and with the Fed already tightening, this next bonding cycle may well be our last chance to access rock-bottom interest rates. Curiously, our state government has spurned this incredible opportunity. There were no transportation bonds on the 2012 ballot. When we take out those inevitable bonds, we’ll be paying much higher rates, and our roads and bridges will have continued to crumble, bringing the bill even higher than it would be today. Plus, we will have missed out on all the jobs we could have created.

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