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

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

Sakonnet River BridgeThere’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.

Was this David Cicilline’s best vote yet?


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

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

cicillineLast Thursday, David Cicilline cast one of his best votes in Congress, voting against the latest budgetary assault on economy.

It is not easy to defend the austerity “deal” struck between Paul Ryan and Patty Murray.  On its face, it looks bad.  In exchange for $85 billion in austerity, this deal would pare back $65 million of the sequester cuts.  That is what Democrats get.  (Remember how the sequester cuts were supposed to affect Republican and Democratic priorities equally?)

The austerity measures do not include any Democratic priorities like closing tax loopholes for the rich or large corporations.  Instead, the most prominent provisions are pension cuts for federal workers and a big hike to air travel fees.  Of course, there is also the usual mess of blatant right-wing giveaways, like opening more of the Gulf of Mexico up for offshore drilling.

In many ways, this is the sort of “deal” we have come to expect.  Any stimulus must be paired with steeper austerity.  For those of us who believe that we should be passing a jobs bill and fixing the economy, it is a disappointment we have become sadly accustomed to.  Since the 2010 elections, we have been losing the broader budgetary battle–and losing it spectacularly.

None of this is the main reason Congressman Cicilline voted no.  For there is something much worse about this deal–it does not extend benefits for the long-term unemployed.  As the Congressman put it so eloquently on the floor of the House, “just three days after Christmas, 1.3 million Americans struggling to find work will be immediately thrown out into the cold and lose their unemployment assistance, including 4,900 Rhode Islanders.”  To put that in context, nearly as many Rhode Islanders will lose unemployment benefits as the 6,500 Rhode Islanders Gordon Fox threw off of Medicaid this year!  It is easy to see why Nancy Pelosi had to resort to “embrace the suck” as her main argument for voting yes.

While some may fantasize that passing the budget deal will not kill any shot at passing Senator Reed’s bill to extend benefits (which Senator Whitehouse has cosponsored), it is hard to see the House passing it outside of a deal.  Make no mistake, a vote for the budget deal is a vote against unemployment insurance.  David Cicilline has the sense to recognize this.  His no vote on this dangerous deal might just be his best vote yet.

Beware Recent Grads: Sequester Tolls For Thee


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

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

I’m surprised we haven’t seen more sequester protests from the ranks of the recently graduated given this demographic will likely be most-affected by the long term cuts being rolled out. Here’s why.

Since the recession hit, the number of underemployed college graduates has skyrocketed. According the Associated Press, about 50 percent are either out of work or working in a job for which a college degree is unnecessary. Look across the counter at Starbucks, these days your barista is just as likely to have a college degree as not.

The recession has produced a marketplace where recent graduates are competing with people who have years of experience for the same jobs. Whereas college grads used to exit college to fill entry level jobs, now they are competing for entry level jobs with people who have been working for 5 or 10 years. (Better that than no job at all).

One of my students, who graduated last year, exemplifies this trend. After graduating with honors from URI with a double major in Economics and Political Science, she moved back to Arizona. She completed several prestigious internships while at URI and when she left she got a fellowship to go work in Mexico and learn Spanish. If anyone should have been able to find a job immediately, it’s her. Yet when I spoke with her a few weeks ago, she was perplexed because she could not get even get an interview for a secretarial position.

The situation she is experiencing is one in which she is competing with the recently laid off. Instead of competing for those entry level jobs with other recent grads, she is competing with people who have been in the workforce for 5 to 10 years and lost their job when the economy soured. Experience wins when jobs are scarce and supply is high. It’s a basic law of supply and demand. Right now supply is high but demand is low.

While this is distressing in the short term given the large amounts of student debt most of these college graduates have, the long term earning impact is what has me concerned. If these students take jobs for the next 5 years as baristas and waitresses, then when the economy recovers and there is a demand for entry level workers, they will be at a disadvantage against the students graduating then.

The end result: the college grad who is either unemployed or underemployed for an extended period of time has a more difficult path to gainful employment.

This is where the sequester comes in. Our economy is still quite fragile and the sequester is undeniably going to lead to a new round of layoffs. Layoffs will start with government positions and government contractors but the cuts in spending will reverberate through the economy leading to lower spending and demand for other goods and services which should lead to more layoffs in the private sector.

These new layoffs are going to make the job market for our new graduates even more difficult.

Cicilline On Sequester


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

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

Congressman David Cicilline was on MSNBC yesterday and spoke about the sequester’s effect on the nation’s economy and politics in the nation’s capitol.

“I think everyone understands this isn’t the way to do budget cuts,” he said.

Watch the whole thing here:

RIPR has more.