risc – RI Future

March 21, 2013March 21, 2013

Ken Block: Why Progressive RI Should Agree With Me

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

While I might not agree with where Ken Block invests his energy and determination, I certainly have a lot of respect for his energy and determination. Even after I compared him to PT Barnum and likened his SNAP fraud investigation to Anthony Gemma’s voter fraud investigation, he still took the time to write an essay for RI Future on why progressives should support his efforts.

But either before or after reading Ken’s thoughts, please read my editor’s note at the bottom of his piece, and Sam Howard’s excellent analysis about how and what we communicate about those who live in poverty.

Here’s Ken’s piece:

There are two fundamental truths when it comes to social service spending programs—1) even now, these government assistance programs are not fully meeting the needs of low-income Americans and 2) there will always be people who say the government spends too much on these efforts.

The recent Washington Post story highlighting the effect of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on the residents of Woonsocket was a powerful reminder not only of the impact of the program, but how it is leaves people struggling to make those benefits last.

The issue of targeting waste and fraud in these programs is one that makes some in the progressive community uncomfortable, because they fear that highlighting real-world abuses of welfare programs will give fodder to the forces that want to eliminate them. But let’s be honest: no degree of welfare reform, not even the most effective effort to stop waste and fraud in the system, will be enough to silence those who want government to stop funding social service efforts.

So is it best then for the progressive community to fight for state and federal expansion of programs like food stamps and housing assistance, while simply ignoring whether waste and fraud are limiting the effectiveness of those programs? I say no. If we truly believe that these programs provide lifelines to individuals and families who desperately need help to get by in today’s difficult economy, I would argue that while fighting to fully fund these programs, progressives also need to make sure that the people who need help the most are getting it.

If government isn’t moving to add additional funding to these programs, then the next best thing is making sure that waste and fraud isn’t taking money away from families in Woonsocket and other parts of the state who need it.

I have spoken to people who run Health and Human Services programs here in Rhode Island and in states across the country. They are good people who know how to get assistance dollars out the door and into the community. But they are not always as effective when it comes to making sure those dollars are creating the desired outcomes. So when I talk to them about the importance of program integrity, they get it and they realize it is a way to maximize their effectiveness and to make an even bigger difference in the lives of the people they are trying to help.

What is program integrity?

It’s a way to make the most of a limited pool of dollars. It’s a way to get the most bang for our social spending buck. And it’s a way to help make sure that people in need don’t get left out because assistance dollars are going to those who don’t deserve them.

Program integrity is the formal name given to efforts to ensure that spending in public assistance programs is consistent with the mission and rules of those programs. I believe that program integrity should be an issue that the progressive community backs whole-heartedly.

In SNAP, the key program integrity issue involves stopping unscrupulous retailers (most often small convenience store owners) who facilitate the conversion of food benefits in the SNAP program into cash. Like payday lenders who prey on those without access to the banking system, these people take a cut of the money for providing this service—often as much as 50% of the total benefit due to a recipient. The beneficiary is then able to use whatever cash is left for non-food items that SNAP would not pay for otherwise. An effective program can red flag retailers engaged in this practice and put an end to it, so that funds aren’t being channeled to retailers and so that the children of SNAP beneficiaries aren’t left going hungry because the funds the family was counting on went to pay for cigarettes, alcohol or other non-food items.

In programs like housing assistance, there are finite financial resources and a limited number of available housing units. Using program integrity here helps to ensure that the neediest citizens are not unfairly denied assistance. Section 8 housing can often have a waiting list of many years. If someone living in a subsidized housing unit is misrepresenting their financial situation and hanging onto the unit as a result, a needier family is being denied access. This is an issue of basic fairness and if the agency providing the benefits has the ability to make sure everyone is playing by the rules, they have an obligation to do so.

As with any effort that throws off a lot of data, there will be people who misconstrue and attempt to misuse program integrity data to undermine the mission or activities of the agency involved. But with or without data, those attacks will go on from those who are hell-bent to force the elimination of these necessary social service programs. But by gathering and acting on this data, program integrity initiatives produce a larger good—ensuring that taxpayer dollars targeted for social service programs provide the best possible results. And in the long run, improved results will effectively marginalize the empty noise made by those whose agenda does not involve producing positive outcomes in our communities.

I truly believe that government should always strive to measure the effectiveness of all programs and initiatives to determine if those programs are achieving their stated goals and operating efficiently. That holds true whether we are talking about evaluating economic development incentives, tax policy, social service spending programs or even something as unglamorous as DMV waiting lines or wait times for service at the Department of Labor and Training. To me, this analysis is a cornerstone of good governance and an indicator of government accountability to voters and taxpayers. And that’s something progressives should be proud to support.

And here’s my equally long editor’s note:

I firmly believe Ken Block’s efforts on this report was not the work of someone who would make a good governor. I think he is really smart and obviously hard-working, but, as Howard writes, it is “full of conjecture and insinuation that wouldn’t receive a passing grade in a college course.”
Holding such an opinion does not equate to supporting public sector fraud. In fact, many have suggested areas of government where both more fraud and more potential savings can be found. Scott MacKay suggested physician and health care industry fraud, for example.
I think the most common takeaway from this piece will be that the progressive left doesn’t value good government initiatives.
I think because of the way the mainstream media reported on Block’s SNAP investigation, the biggest effect of his efforts will be to further foster the false narrative that there is a widespread social services abuse among those who live in poverty (Again, see Sam Howard’s post).
I might be wrong, but it’s worth considering that I’m right. It is an indisputable fact that local Republicans and other fiscal conservatives are using the media swirl around his report to counter progressive proposals – see this video of Dave Fisher asking House Minority Leader Brain Newberry about tax equity.
If I’m right, it’s an example of how politicians and pundits have learned to manipulate the marketplace of ideas, which is still largely driven by print and broadcast journalism/journalists/pundits.
Ian Donnis and Scott MacKay are the best around at using the tools of unbiased journalism to get Rhode Island politicians on the record, and it is well worth listening to their probing interview with Block from last week.
However, it’s worth mentioning that MacKay, who dismissed Block’s report last week in this op/ed, tipped his hand in the interview: When Donnis asked Block if teaming up to form a “taxpayers” group with members of RISC and the tea party – probably two of the most conservative groups in the state – cast a shadow on his reputation as a “moderate,” you can actually hear MacKay laugh when Block responds by saying, “I became the president of a re-branded, move to the center organization…” (It happens at 6:55 here … perhaps MacKay coughed, but it is laughable to suggest that joining forces with Lisa Blais, Harriet Loyd and Donna Perry is an attempt to move to the center.)
So much of what Ken Block does reminds me of the famous Thomas Pynchon line from Gravity’s Rainbow: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
Only news in his post: Ken Block says it is more important to increase funding to SNAP than it is to investigate waste and/or fraud.

February 4, 2013February 4, 2013

What’s In A Name: RISC Meets Moderate Party

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 something refreshingly honest about Ken Block and RISC coming together to form the RI Taxpayers organization. They are both now coming clean and admitting in monicker who it is they are actually advocating for.

Say what you will about Ken Block’s policy proposals – and there some I like and many I don’t – but at least he is no longer trying to fool Rhode Islanders into thinking he stands for something other than what he does.

By and large, he stands for the group of people known as “taxpayers” – in politics this doesn’t mean people who pay taxes, it is code for people who want to pay less in taxes, which is usually made up mostly of people who (think they) don’t need government services. This constituency is also often referred to as “fiscal conservatives.”

Sam Bell recently pointed out in a comment on RI Future that oftentimes political party names don’t match their politics: “For instance, the Liberal Party of Australia is conservative, and so is the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. And the Socialist party of France is not very socialist. Many members of Yisrael Beteinu (Israel is Our Home) actually live in the West Bank. Unless Mr. Block seriously pretends that he is not a conservative, there is no harm done.”

That’s where the rub was: Block wasn’t so much pretending his position was moderate as he was pretending that the progressive position didn’t exist. Bell went on the eviscerate Block on that point too which you can read here.

Similarly, by changing its name from the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition to RI Taxpayers, one of the charter members of the chorus of pseudo-think tanks that lobby for the rich and powerful in Rhode Island has also come clean with its actual agenda.

The Rhode Island Statewide Coalition was never a statewide coalition at all. In fact, quite the opposite. It started out being called the Rhode Island Shoreline Coalition and according to Progressive Charlestown was formed in 2003 to win “the vote for out-of-state land owners and fighting the Narragansetts over gaming.”

Will Collette, co-editor of Progressive Charlestown, published a two part investigation into RISC in August when it was moving out of Charlestown and to west Warwick. You can read it here and here.

August 27, 2012

RISC-y Spending

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

In my last installment, I examined how the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition structured itself to gain political power and, as a surprise side bonus, serve as a tax shelter for some of its wealthy leaders.

I ended that installment with a general overview of how RISC uses a non-profit foundation, the RISC Foundation, as a way to raise large amount of cash from out of state donors while offering those donors the benefits of tax deductibility.

I also reported that while RISC is Rhode Island’s leading conservative lobbying and electoral organization, they report spending close to zero dollars on lobbying and getting its endorsed candidates elected.

In this installment, we’ll look in detail at how RISC spends its money.

Until recently, Charlestown held the dubious distinction of being the headquarters for Rhode Island’s top ultra-conservative political action group, the RI Statewide Coalition. Formed as the ”Shoreline Coalition,” RISC was set up as the voice of the landed gentry along the south coast, especially uber-rich seasonal property owners in Watch Hill and Shelter Harbor.

Their main issues were fighting the Narragansett Indian tribe and crusading for the rights of rich land-owners. They were particularly devoted to the idea of granting the right to vote to people based on property ownership, rather than on where they called home. I’ve written about them extensively on Progressive Charlestown.

Where did the money go?

Anyone who reads the newspaper or reads Rhode Island knows that RISC is a conservative political action machine. Their money goes to pushing their right-wing causes and candidates. The way they do that – and dance around the lines set by IRS and the state – are a bit like watching a gymnast working the uneven bars.

RISC and RISC-PAC are allowed to get involved in politics. The rules vary slightly between them, but let’s just say that RISC and RISC-PAC can lobby, push causes, endorse and support candidates and engage in lots of other political action.

Of course, they are supposed to be “open and transparent” – meaning that they report their lobbying expenses to the IRS and the Secretary of State and their campaign expenditures to the Board of Elections. As I noted in the first installment, RISC and RISC-PAC are not very forthcoming when it comes to reporting what they spent to become the political players that they are.

But the RISC Foundation is strictly limited in what it can do, and political activity is severely limited under the tax code. That is the trade-off that allows them to offer their donors – including all those out of state folks – tax-deductions on their donations.

Here is a sampling of expenditures reported by RISC-F and RISC in its most recent report to the IRS:

The Foundation pays 40% of the rent for the space co-occupied by them and RISC.
According to the depreciation schedule in the Foundation’s most recent filing, the Foundation owns all the office furniture, file cabinets, computers and their LCD projector
According to the RISC filing for the same period, RISC itself doesn’t own any of its furniture or computers
The Foundation pays all of the cost of maintaining the RISC website.
RISC reports no website expenses
On its IRS-990 report, the Foundation says its website is at www.riscfoundation.com. The problem is you won’t find a website at that address. Further, according to Archive.org ^[1], there apparently never was such a website.
There is, of course, a RISC website, maintained and updated frequently. It just went through a complete overhaul after Donna Perry took over as Executive Director.
RISC buys no office supplies
The Foundation, on the other hand, paid $7,563 for supplies.
The Foundation paid $25,703 for videos, $45,875 for public records, and $25,034 for a handbook on legislators.
RISC reported it spent $47,062 to set up RISC’s business lobby network and another $27,444 on educational activities.
The Foundation’s filing shows that it paid $5,086 for database maintenance, compared to only $2,109 for RISC.
The Foundation paid $25,402 for “communications” while RISC only paid $6,335.
On top of all that, the Foundation made a direct transfer of $33,401 to RISC.

So when it comes to doing the heavy lifting – to paying for RISC’s operations – it’s the Foundation with its tax-deductible, out-of-state money that shoulders the financial load.

And that’s just what was in the last IRS-990 report.

The earlier reports show essentially the same story – the Foundation raises most of the money in the form of tax-deductible donations mostly from out-of-state, and pays most of the organizations’ expenses.

Among the high-lights of earlier “charitable and educational” activities by the RISC Foundation, we find:

In the RISC Foundation’s first year of operation, 2006, it actually spent nine times more than it took in to campaign against the Narragansett Indian Tribe. This deficit appears to have been covered by a loan from RISC to the Foundation, the last time that RISC funded the Foundation, rather than the other way around.
In 2007, the RISC Foundation spent $24,415 to conduct a survey of voters on “the most important issues facing Rhode Island.”
Also that same year, the Foundation spent $50,226 to intervene in the state’s and Charlestown’s lawsuit against the US Department of Interior and the Narragansett Indian Tribe in the infamous Supreme Court Carcieri v. Norton^[2] case.

IRS regulations on the conduct of non-profit, tax-exempt organizations like the RISC Foundation contain some very clear prohibitions – no direct endorsements or political intervention on behalf of particular candidates, parties or ballot questions. There are also some pretty clearly permitted activities, such as unbiased, non-partisan, purely educational material that addresses public issues.

Then there is a huge gray area where IRS notes that it reserves its right to examine the compliance of the non-profit on a case by case basis. At best, RISC’s use of its Foundation to collect large tax-deductible donations from its board members and others, and then to use the Foundation to cover so many of RISC’s costs, seems like a pretty dark shade of gray.

Add to that the absence of expenditure reporting for lobbying and for the support of its candidates, and there are lots of questions about the extent to which RISC plays by the rules.

The Future of RISC

RISC is in the process of re-branding itself. They’ve moved out of Charlestown to West Warwick. They’ve moved Harry Staley and his daughter Harriet Lloyd out of day-to-day control – for years, RISC was the Staley family business. They’ve hired P.R. flack Donna Perry as director. Perry is a regular on radio, mostly on her shock-jock brother John DePetro’s program on WPRO^[3].

Perry says RISC has decided to re-organize the RISC Foundation which will now be chaired by retired Judge Robert Flanders – who just recently finished fleecing the city of Central Falls as their bankruptcy czar. Flanders and all-around happy guy Gary Sasse will turn the RISC Foundation into a bona fide research organization.

Whether that new role is in place of, or in addition to, the RISC Foundation’s role as a tax shelter for wealthy supporters of RISC’s political mission remains to be seen.

RISC just had its annual meeting on August 4 where Flanders, Sasse, Staley and others continued to blame public worker unions for everything from global warming to NBC’s Olympics coverage and excessive screaming on HBO’s “True Blood.” And, believe it or not, Donna Perry tells us that all this is part of “the expanding reform movement in Rhode Island.”

Reform what? Reform it how? And most importantly, reform it for whose benefit, I wonder?

[1] Archive.org is one of those great on-line research tools that allows you to search for web content that has been changed or removed but has still left a trace in internet archives. Generally, you have to take active steps to scrub your website to keep its old content from showing up on Archive.org. Either there never was a RISC Foundation website. Or if there was a RISC-F website, then it was thoroughly “scrubbed” when it was taken down. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance has been removing huge blocks of information from its website – intentionally or not, hardly any of these changes show up on Archive.org.

Harry Staley, RISC’s founder and long-time President, is listed as the administrator for the domain which is reserved with GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy.com charges $12.99 a year for this service. Among its assets, the RISC Foundation lists the value of this non-existent website as $15,000.

[2] The case became Carcieri v. Salazar after Barack Obama was elected President and appointed Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary.

[3] Perry might find herself getting less air-time, given the new troubles her brother John DePetro faces and current suspension. DePetro’s problems have been extensively covered by Rhode Island’s Future (and it was DePetro’s ill-conceived remarks to RIF editor Bob Plain that got him suspended). Read the complaint against DePetro here.

August 20, 2012August 19, 2012

RISC-y Reporting

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

Recently, I reported in Progressive Charlestown about major leadership changes in the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC) and their plan to move out of their long-time headquarters in Charlestown to new quarters in the metro area (they’ve moved to West Warwick).

RISC is Rhode Island’s most prominent right-wing political organization. They’re always getting mentioned in the news when they criticize unions, public workers, Democrats, spending, taxes, etc.

They were originally founded to fight against the Narragansett Indian Tribe and to promote voting rights for out of state shoreline property owners. Over the years, they diversified their issue portfolio to its present, generalized attack on Rhode Island working people. They now list among their coalition partners the Tea Party, Operation Clean Government and a motley collection of local anti-tax groups.

RISC is also a big promoter of open, honest and transparency in government – although as you read on, you’ll see that these principles only apply to other, but not to themselves.

RISC was all over last year’s pension deliberations in the General Assembly building the case that it’s better to rob the pensions of teachers, firefighters, police and public workers than to raise taxes on the rich. This year, they were all over the Governor’s tax proposals and the budget to make sure they didn’t raise taxes on the rich. They seem to have a gavel-to-gavel lobbying presence at the Capitol.

And during election seasons, they spend a lot of energy promoting their slate of conservative candidates. In the 2010 election cycle, they had a slate of 22 candidates for Rhode Island General Assembly seats.

It’s MAGIC!

And they manage to do all this by scarcely ever spending any money on political action. At least that’s what it says on their state and federal reports.

A close look at RISC shows that they have a non-profit, tax-exempt foundation, the RISC Foundation, that can accept foundation grants and large, tax-deductible donations from out-of-state moguls who happen to own property in and around Watch Hill and Shelter Harbor^[1]. Under the tax code, the RISC Foundation is strictly limited to doing charitable and educational work. But a close examination of their tax returns shows this tax-exempt “foundation” does a whole lot more than charity and education, at least as it’s commonly understood.

RISC itself is a separately incorporated a non-profit organization although the boards of RISC and RISC-F overlap substantially. They also share the same quarters and staff and RISC-F pays for much of the two organizations’ expenses.

Under 501(c)(4) of the tax code, RISC can and does engage in political action, but the consequence of that choice is that its donors cannot deduct their donations. Read on to see how RISC works around that problem.

Then there’s the RISC Political Action Committee (PAC) which is where the rubber hits the political road. RISC PAC is supposed to be the arm of RISC where things like candidate endorsements, campaign contributions and direct political lobbying takes place.

This is where RISC has made its mark as the #1 right-wing Republican political powerhouse in Rhode Island.

However, according to campaign finance reports and the state’s database on lobbyists, they do it by spending almost nothing to support its candidates or lobby the General Assembly on its issues.

Pretty amazing.

Of course, RISC has the right to engage in lobbying, political action and electoral campaigning, so long as it abides by the rules. There are very specific rules under state law and the federal tax code that govern what kind of political action the charitable, educational 501(c)(3) RISC Foundation can do (almost none), what RISC can do under its 501(4) status (quite a bit) and what the RISC-PAC can do (almost anything).

There are reporting requirements that must be followed by all three entities.

RISC is big on demands for open and transparent government. It is also big on fairness for rich people who are, apparently, an oppressed minority subject to brutal discrimination.

For years, they echoed the claims of another one of their offspring, the late Ocean State Policy Research Institute (OSPRI), that Rhode Island was driving rich people away through its tax policy, when in fact, the opposite is true. Then, OSPRI died, having been caught fudging its data once too often.

First, let’s take a look at how well RISC practices what it preaches on openness and transparency.

RISC and the RISC Foundation file annual 990 reports with the Internal Revenue Service_[2] that cover where their money comes from and how they spend it.

According to their IRS-990 reports, the two organizations take in an average of just under $300,000 a year according to the last three reports on file at Guidestar.org.

The really big bucks go to the RISC Foundation. In their last three IRS-990 reports on file, RISC-F raised $506,648. Of that $440,186 came from out of state – that’s 87%. The largest sums come from Florida.

By comparison, RISC raised $377,630 during that same period.

The donations to The RISC Foundation are tax-deductible while donations to RISC are not. Much of this tax-deductible money comes from RISC and RISC-F board members^[3].

RISC’s income is harder to trace. Much of it comes from unsourced “donations” and “membership.” Some of it comes from money transfers from the RISC Foundation.

Since there is a significant time lag in the filing of IRS-990 reports (e.g., the most recent RISC reports cover the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2009), I project that RISC has raised around one and a quarter million dollars since 2007. Most of it was in the form of tax-deductible donations, and most of the tax-deductible donations came from out of state.

I believe my projections of RISC’s income are conservative. The 2010 election cycle was big for RISC, and the IRS 990 reports for that year are not yet available online. In 2011, RISC’s campaign to cut public worker pensions gave it some of the most notoriety it has ever had, the kind of fame that often translates into money.

RISC-PAC

RISC’s Political Action Committee was set up by RISC founder Harry Staley on December 16, 2005. According to its filings with the RI Board of Elections (BOE), it took no part in the 2006 elections. It raised nothing and spent nothing. Then Staley dissolved the group in December 2006.

He reactivated RISC-PAC in November 2008, but too late to take part in that election cycle.

According to its filings with the RI Board of Elections, RISC-PAC raised $4,200 in the 2010 election cycle and gave out exactly that amount just before Election Day, in the form of $200 checks, to 22 candidates for the state Senate and House.

So far, according to their filings with the Board of Elections (which are current),RISC-PAC has raised nothing and spent nothing for the 2012 election cycle. They have not filed a declaration with the BOE stating which candidates or ballot questions they plan to support or oppose.

It’s certainly mystifying how RISC can be such a political player and report so little of its resources being used to advance its political objectives.

As for their lobbying in the General Assembly, there too, RISC is required by law to report on their expenditures. Regular reports, plus an annual cumulative reporting on lobbying activities, must be filed with the Secretary of State.

RISC also had to report its lobbying costs to IRS on its annual 990 reports. Interestingly, in 2008, RISC reported $6,190 in lobbying expenses to IRS and another $3,451 in 2009 but zero to the RI Secretary of State.

However, in both those years, RISC told the RI Secretary of State that it had no lobbying expenses.

Online copies of the state records are available by clicking here. The database is clunky, but the records going back to 2005 are there. According to this database, the RI Statewide Coalition spent zero on lobbying from 2005 to 2012, except for one year – 2006 – when it reported spending just under $5,000^[4].

In the next installment, I will go into where RISC and the RISC Foundation say the money goes.

FOOTNOTES

[1] It’s not a coincidence that half of the founders of the Shelter Harbor Golf Club were also founders and board members of RISC and the RISC Foundation. Accord to its website, Shelter Harbor Golf Club’s Founders were Mr. H. James A. Atwood; Mr. Finn M.W. Caspersen; Mr. Frederick Maynard, III; Mr. Robert C. McCormack; Mr. Stephen M. Peet; Mr. Charles M. Royce and Mr. Frederick B. Whittemore.

[2] To get a look at these IRS-990 reports for yourself, go to Guidestar.org and register (for free). Then, you can use their database to look up the last five filings for just about every nonprofit organization in the United States. Guidestar is by far the most popular way to get detailed information on nonprofits.

[3] These include RISC’s founder Harry Staley himself, who gave a tax-deductible donation of $15,600 to the Foundation. Other board donors include the late Finn Caspersen ($25,000); Frederick Whittemore ($10,000); John P. Duffy ($20,086); James Birle ($20,000) and Robert McCormack ($5,000)

[4] That was the year RISC, then called the Shoreline Coalition, spearheaded the Voter Initiative Alliance. Because of their extensive lobbying on this issue, the RI Board of Election ruled that RISC needed to register as a Political Action Committee. For at least that one year, they reported lobbying expenses to the Secretary of State, but not since despite its extensive lobbying activities and electioneering.

August 6, 2012August 6, 2012

Progress Report: RI Is Most Democratic But Not So Liberal; RISC Dumps Don Carcieri; Gamblers Need New Casino

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

We may be the most bluest state, according to a new study done by Gallup, but keep in mind that distinction doesn’t mean any more than the D after Jon Brien or Doc Corvese’s name on the ballot.

Especially in the northern parts of the state, Rhode Islanders will instinctively vote for Democrats, even if like Brien and Corvese, their politics are more-closely aligned with the GOP. That’s why we call it the Democrats in Name Only.

Speaking of not staying true … it seems that things have gotten so bad for former Gov. Don Carcieri that not even the conservative-leaning Rhode Island Statewide Coalition, which held its annual summer meeting this weekend, is willing to stand behind their former champion anymore. For the past several years, it gave out an award called the Donald L. Carcieri Award for Good Government. Not this year, though. Wonder what happened?

On Friday I wondered aloud if anyone would be willing to stick up for gay-bashing congressman Allen West who was in town this weekend to raise money for local Republicans. It turns out Michael Riley, running against Jim Langevin, not only supports him but thinks he should run for president. Here’s what West once said about progressives: “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Compulsive gamblers better hope Rhode Islanders pass a casino referendum this November … if we don’t, public money for their addictive habit will dry up. So, in other words, the state is only interested in funding gambling cessation programs if we can also make it much easier to gamble…

For the first time Narragansett Beer will be available outside of the East Coast as the 130-year-old lager will now be brewed in Wisconsin as well as the East Coast. Hi, neighbor indeed.

Anyone who cares about Narragansett Bay or the culture of quahogging in the Ocean State should read my friend Ray Huling’s book, which EG Patch did a great feature on. It’s a great read about how we allowed one of the state’s best resources to nearly fall off the map up until they get fried and sold out of a clam shack.

The produce grown at the Charlestown Community Garden goes to help feed the less fortunate in South County.