Rick Santorum – RI Future

May 12, 2016May 12, 2016

It’s time for Kevin Jackson to resign

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

It’s time for Providence City Councillor Kevin Jackson to resign. Jackson represents Ward 3, on the East Side where I live. He has been plagued by scandal and bad choices for years, and barely won his last election against write-in candidate Marcus Mitchell.

I reluctantly voted for Jackson over Mitchell because of Mitchell’s past association with US Senator Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Mitchell claimed the mantle of progressive, but I couldn’t trust him, and there was little time to properly vet him. What little I knew about Mitchell didn’t thrill me. In 2005, Mitchell, then a registered Republican, was Senator Rick Santorum’s Director of Community & Economic Development in Pennsylvania. Santorum represents everything I find ugly in a politician.

Santorum once compared Obamacare to apartheid in a tribute speech to Nelson Mandela. Santorum is anti LGBTQ rights at best, a raving homophobe at worst. He’s not only anti-abortion, he’s against your right to use contraception. He supported the privatization of Social Security. He called climate change “junk science.”

Did I allow my completely reasonable disdain for Santorum to cloud my judgement regarding Mitchell? Perhaps. But given what I knew about Santorum and what little I knew about Mitchell, I made the best choice I could.

I voted for Jackson. I don’t regret making what I consider to be the best choice in a bad situation…

…but it’s time for Jackson to resign.

Jackson has done some good things as a city councilor in the last year, including fighting against fiscally irresponsible Tax Stabilization Agreements (TSAs). Some of the most recent TSAs, supported by Mayor Elorza, would have functioned as little more than cash giveaways to connected realtors.

This is all for the good, but I think voters in Ward 3 could do a lot better than Jackson in an open election.

Buddy Cianci is dead, and the culture of casual corruption he represents should have died with him. Jackson backed Cianci when the former Mayor made his quixotic bid at a return to power. I found Jackson’s support of Cianci embarrassing.

Ward 3 could vote for a candidate that both looks after our interests and doesn’t play fast and loose with his campaign cash. We could vote for a candidate that has not been accused of embezzlement. We could vote for a candidate that does not embarrass us but instead represents us.

It’s time for Jackson to resign.

April 12, 2012April 12, 2012

RI Progress Report: Romney, Zimmerman, Kroll and Fenton

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

Mitt Romney was in town last night … if you missed him, you can read about the Providence Journal story or Ted Nesi’s.

Romney said it was President Obama, not Republicans, who are waging a war on women. Here’s why that’s untrue.

Then again, as Romney was in Warwick, State House Democrats were testifying on a bill that would mandate ultrasounds before an abortion.

George Zimmerman, the man who killed Trayvon Martin, has been charged with second degree murder.

Charlie Kroll, who founded the wildly successful company Andera in his Brown dorm room back in 2001, has jumped into the Capital City v. Brown fray with an op/ed in today’s Projo.

We’re looking forward to the improvements being planned for the downtown Providence train station.

Congressman Jim Langevin visits the Steelyard today. And speaking of the CD-2 seat, Michael Gardiner formally announced his challenge to Langevin yesterday, making him the second Republican to seek the seat.

While Rick Santorum may have “suspended” his campaign, Rhode Island Republicans will still be able to vote for him on the 24th. not sure why anyone would actually want to do that, even if he was still running for president, but anyways his name will be on the ballot.

Exclusive: PVD vs. GoLocal.

This page may be updated throughout the day. Click HERE for an archive of the RI Progress Report.

January 16, 2012

Santorum and Romney Square Off On Felon Disenfranchisement

Rick Santorum asked Mitt Romney point blank: “Do you believe people who were felons, who served their time, who exhausted their parole and probation, should be given the right to vote?” This was in response to an ad by Romney’s “Super-PAC” attacking the former Pennsylvania senator.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush. “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote. And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote– just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy. A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation. How can a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box? How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law? Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony. It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation? Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006? I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime. It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote. It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.

January 16, 2012January 17, 2012

Philadelphia Freedom: Is This The New Swing Vote?

A coalition of seventeen organizations have recently embarked on a revolutionary voter registration drive, and what better place to be revolutionary than Philadelphia? The Returning Citizens Voter Movement is directed towards formerly incarcerated people, engaging many more people with felony records who never went to prison, and far more people without records who have a family member in the criminal justice system. Is this an effort that will be replicated around the nation in 2012?

The goal of 10,000 new registrations may seem overly ambitious, but consider that at any given time, Philadelphia has between 200,000 – 400,000 residents who previously served time in prison. These are people who have the right to vote, and surely some do, but have collectively never been engaged in the political dialogue of their community. As Maelissa Gamble, founder of The Time Is Now to Make a Change puts it, “People are tired. They’re saying, ‘somebody should have done this already.’ And they are not seeing the re-entry resources that get talked about all the time.”

Gamble and other community leaders have been tangling not only with getting people assistance in restructuring their lives, but also in successfully tearing down the barriers that keep people from following their good intentions. Last year Philadelphia “Banned the Box” and eliminated “Have you ever been convicted from a felony?” from job applications in the city. It is ironic that the same government allocating funds for rehabilitation/re-entry also has laws that create ever-higher hurdles for people trying to build a life in the community.

With the Pennsylvania Republican Primary on April 24th (the same day as New York, Rhode Island, and Delaware) it will be interesting to see how this specific criminal justice-based civic outreach can be bolstered by the media. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has a history in Philadelphia, and his views on issues may be well known. Meanwhile, Texas Senator Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the Drug War and the massive use of incarceration in America. With the Texas and Wisconsin primaries on April 3rd, it is possible that Paul’s campaign will have a bounce that reverberates through three weeks of focus on Pennsylvania (a perennial “swing state”).

All but three of the coalition organizations in the voter registration and awareness campaign are led by formerly incarcerated people. This is part of a concerted effort by the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement to register one million people across the country, and Philadelphia is leading the way. One historical dilemma with a broad movement is the creation of factions and the challenge of coalition-building. Gamble, formerly incarcerated herself, now finds herself in the middle of a group including the Human Rights Coalition, Proyecto Sol Filadelfia, ACLU, Reconstruction Inc., Educational Advocates Reaching Today’s Hardworking Students (EARTHS), and more.

It is often noted that over four million people are disenfranchised due to criminal records, however it should be also noted that there are tens of millions of people who are eligible to vote- people who have been (or still are) impacted by the criminal justice system. This is an issue-based group, with no party loyalties. The group is urban and rural, of all skin tones. And the voices are beginning to be heard.

Politicians will be knocking on doors of “Likely voters” registered to their parties or as “Independents.” If one is not registered and exercising their vote, there will be no knock, no pandering, no listening. The coalition will be setting up registration stations all over the city, from grocery stores to community forums, probation offices to social services locations, they will even be registering people currently awaiting trial in the jails. When thousands of voters demand candidates who will call a cease fire in the Drug War, who will re-direct that money into education, to books rather than bars, the pandering will begin. It is not likely that the GOP will hold an inner city debate with ordinary residents in the audience (these are made-for-TV controlled events); and it is not likely that Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will come looking to do a “Town Hall” session with urban voters… but wait until 2016. Rebuild it, and they will come.

Maelissa Gamble can be contacted at (215) 834-5165 and mgamblethetimeisnowtomakeachange@yahoo.com

January 11, 2012January 11, 2012

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Tax Policy Would Destroy the Economy (Even More)

There’s nothing quite like a political campaign to demonstrate just how extreme the national Republican Party and its primary voters are. The Center for Tax Justice has an analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans which shows just how much they favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Some high(low)lights:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s $18.1 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $391,330.
Texas Governor Rick Perry’s $10.5 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $272,730.
Former Senator Rick Santorum’s $9.4 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $217,500.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s $6.6 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $126,450.

To put these numbers into better perspective, let’s compare them to the 2010 median wgae of $26,363, as reported by the Social Security Administration (note: median wage means that 50% of workers earned less and 50% or workers earned more. This is a much better calculation to use since “average” income skews higher because of the outrageous sums of wealth that some people generate).

Under Newt Gingrich’s plan, the median worker would need to work almost 15 years to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 10 years and 4 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
Under Rick Santorum’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 8 years and 3 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 4 years and 8 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.

And these calculations don’t include the millions of people who are either “officially” unemployed, or have stopped looking for work, just those that are fortunate enough to find jobs. Why these proposals are even being seriously considered is beyond me.

It’s important to remember that not all taxes (or tax cuts) are equal. For instance, a payroll tax is more regressive than an income tax, a sales tax is more regressive than a payroll tax, and a capital gains tax is the most progressive of all since the wealthy benefit the most from capital gains (hence why capital gains taxes were sharply cut under George W. Bush). It’s also important to remember that the US tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958 and also federal income taxes are at historically low levels. The LAST thing this country needs right now are additional transfers of wealth to the already rich.

Each of the GOP candidates’ tax plans would further starve the federal government of much needed revenue, increase borrowing to provide for all the important things the federal government does for us, further increase the national debt and the interest we pay on that debt, and exacerbate the growth of income inequality, albeit in varying degrees. What they wouldn’t do is deal with the real economic problem facing the country: not enough money is going into the hands of people who will spend it.

Since the 1970s, U.S. wages have largely remained stagnant. At the same time, the vast majority of all the wealth created in the country over the last 30 years has been flowing upward.

Because the super wealthy don’t actually work to generate their income, wages as a share of national income has been declining for just as long. What that means is less and less money is being earned by workers, and that’s bad for the economy because workers spending money is what fuels economic growth. Consumers earning more money means that they can buy more goods and services, increasing the effective demand in an economy. Seems pretty simple, right? Well, yes, it is.