state house – Page 15

June 5, 2012June 5, 2012

Budgeting for Disaster: Like What We’ve Got? Good

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

As has been amply reported by other writers here and in other places, the state budget has emerged from the mists of the Finance Committee, and will likely be voted on and passed this week. It contains no broad-based tax changes, though there are small increases in cigarette taxes, and small expansions of the sales tax, and tolls, to cover restoring 40% of the money cut from care to the developmentally disabled, and to fund the state’s education funding formula — the one that the legislature’s own study shows is inadequate. Due to more encouraging revenue projections than were the case last fall, some money has been restored to important places, but it’s just a bit here and there.

This graph is still the policy of the state:

That lower line is the effective tax rate on the median taxpayer. The blue line is the rate on the top 1%, and the red line is just thrown in there to show there is no relationship between taxes and unemployment.

The message overall from the legislature is that the cities and towns be damned. There seems no willingness to acknowledge that the fiscal crisis in the cities is largely the result of state policies. Tremendous cuts in state aid in 2008-2010 to both the municipal and education sides of city and town budgets brought fiscal havoc everywhere, and last week we had the spectacle of Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, a representative from Woonsocket, begging her colleagues in the legislature not to allow Woonsocket to fix the problems caused by her colleagues. Oddly enough, they complied, and now we have two more cities half a step from joining Central Falls in bankruptcy.

The sad fact is that by and large the people in charge of our cities and towns have actually been more fiscally responsible than legislators in the General Assembly, but they have less power, and so the Assembly leadership can pretend otherwise.

That’s quite a claim, isn’t it? How to back it up? How about this: as of 1990, Rhode Island cities and towns collected about $1.3 billion, between state aid, property taxes and various municipal fees. In 2008 — before the worst of the state aid cuts — they took in a bit less than $3 billion. This does not count the car tax payments from the state, which only offset taxes that towns would have collected from their residents. If you’re keeping score, that’s growth of about 1.9% per year — after correcting for inflation. This is troubling, but it’s not necessarily evidence of mismanagement. Inflation measures the price of goods and a few services, while towns spend their money on services and a few goods.

So how best to measure this if not against the inflation rate? If you want a yardstick with which to measure a service-oriented enterprise like a town, how about a private-sector service like Federal Express? Fedex is fiercely competitive, I hear, and non-union, to boot. How did they do? In 1990, it cost $11 to send an overnight letter across the country, and today it’s about $25.50 for the same service. After correcting for inflation, that’s up about 2% a year.

What about the state? After accounting for inflation in the same way, the state’s general revenue has gone up 2.4% per year since 1990, and overall expenses are up even more. (That’s the structural deficit and the rise in state debt you’re smelling.)

So who is being more responsible with tax dollars? The General Assembly, with members like Baldelli-Hunt who give lectures to municipalities, or the towns, who have controlled costs not only better than the state, but better than Fedex. But it’s the towns who get cut while the state basks in the adulation of business leaders who praise legislators for their tax cuts.

The main message of this budget bill is continuity. This is a budget motivated by policy choices virtually identical to the ones of the previous year, the year before that, the year before that, and so on. The idea is to squeak through another year with minimal pain to everyone, especially the wealthy. But it was to a large extent that very set of policies that brought us to the status quo: high unemployment, bankrupt cities, ever-rising tuitions at the state colleges, and lower taxes on rich people.

Do you like the way things are going around here? Hope you do, because the legislature is voting this week to give you more of the same.

June 5, 2012June 5, 2012

RI Progress Report: Carcieri, Fox Should Face Public, Anti-Union Manipulation, How Central Falls Made Budget

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

With regards to the 38 Studios debacle, Gov. Chafee is just about the only Rhode Island politician who has respected the public’s right to know what happened. Former Gov. Don Carcieri and House Speaker Gordon Fox – who shepherded the failed deal – ought to follow his lead. It may not be in either of their best interest, but public servants aren’t supposed to act in their own best interest but in the best interest of the people.

Projo columnist Ed Fiztpatrick writes this morning, “Fox needs to stop hiding in plain sight, and former Gov. Donald L. Carcieri needs to emerge from the bunker. After putting $100 million at risk, elected leaders better be ready to defend what they did — or apologize to the taxpayers.”

Speaking of Projo columnists, union-basher Ed Achorn writes about today’s Wisconsin recall election and, in doing so, gives a clue as to why he so often-confuses his anti-labor crusade with the public interest. He cites a poll that he says indicates “90 percent of employers believe the state is on the right path” and concludes that “All this seems to have been in the public’s interest, though not perhaps in the unions’ special interest.” Ed, just so you know, employers are a special interest, too.

For a more intellectually honest look at the Wisconsin recall vote today, the Associated Press runs an informative Q&A.

The AP, by the way, has an interesting paragraph about how Central Falls is able to balance its budget this year: “The plan … balances the budget for this fiscal year and the next five fiscal years but does not factor in the millions the state wants the city to pay for the costs of the receivership.” If this were a pension cost, conservatives would call this kicking the can down the road and there would likely be a bi-partisan effort to retroactively reduce these costs … not when the recipients are wealthy and connected lawyers though…

The state GOP’s local legislative caucus got a little smaller with Rep. John Savage of East Providence announcing he will leave the party … but remember, this won’t make the General Assembly any less conservative. It simply waters down the difference of local party affiliation.

While we’re on the topic of the State House … this Red Sox banner really shouldn’t be hanging above the entrance:

June 3, 2012June 4, 2012

Progressives May Still Push for Tax Equity in Budget

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

Progressives had mixed reactions to the budget bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee late Thursday night, expressing disappointment with the lack of focus on the revenue side of the ledger. While there are few new cuts in this year’s spending proposal, and a few restorations, it didn’t include tax-the-rich revenue enhancers that organized labor and community activists lobbied for all session long.

“If this budget is passed as is, the wealthiest Rhode Islanders will skate by again while lower and middle-income Rhode Islanders get stuck with the bill,” said George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO who took an active role with Working RI, a group that led the charge for taxing the rich.

While legislative leadership and the local media widely predicted income tax equity reform wouldn’t pass this year, the fight isn’t over yet. Progressive lawmakers are expected to offer an income tax amendment to the budget bill when it hits the House floor next week. Rep. Maria Cimini, a progressive Democrat from the Elmhust area of Providence, led the charge in the House this year, could be the one to offer the amendment. She’s a rising star to the liberal left and an increasing thorn-in-the-side of the more moderate House leadership.

Her bill would have raised the income tax rate on those who make more than $250,000 from 5.99 percent to 9.99 percent, what the rate was before former Gov. Don Carcieri cut taxes to the rich. It also included a job creator incentive that would have lowered the proposed increase by 1 percent for every 1 percent the state’ unemployment rate dropped.

But Rep. Larry Valencia, a progressive Democrat from Richmond, also could offer the amendment. He sponsored a similar bill for the second consecutive year that doesn’t include the job creator incentive, which he said would make the budget more volatile.

“You can tell by the kinds of bills I’ve introduced that I would have preferred some changes to a more progressive tax code,” Valencia said, right after voting for the bill Thursday night. While he was hoping for income tax reform, he said he was happy it included some new sales taxes and glad it didn’t increase the meals and hotel tax – which would have hurt the the local tourism economy, one of the state’s strongest sectors.

Rep. Scott Guthrie, a populist Democrat from Coventry, has sponsored several income tax reform bills during the past two sessions also could offer an amendment.

House leadership has communicated to progressive legislators that it doesn’t want an amendment to come up on the floor. Income tax reform is expected to be used as a campaign issue this summer and fall, as voters seem to support it more than politicians. A Flemming Associates poll showed that 68 percent of Rhode Islanders support a more progressive income tax code, and many conservative legislators don’t want to be put on the record as supporting tax breaks for the wealthy.

June 1, 2012June 1, 2012

Budget Would Create One State Board of Education

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

Perhaps the biggest policy proposal in the draft budget is the idea to merge to board of regents, which currently oversees elementary and secondary public schools, and the board of governors, which oversees public higher education, into one board of education.

The nine member board would be appointed by the governor and would employ a chancellor of education whose responsibilities would be “determined by the board of education,” according to Article 4 of the proposed budget bill. The current commissioners of education “shall be subject to the direction and control of the board of education.”

House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo said the idea is to “make the education system in the state more efficient and effective.” Because of Rhode Island’s small size, he said, the two current education boards should be able to merge into one sort-of super committee that would oversee all public education in the state.

Melo and others said the proposal is in the nascient stages.

“Is it a plan to combine the staffs of the two [education] organizations, I don’t know,” said Tim Duffy, the executive director of the Rhode Island Assocation of School Committees. “There’s a lot that still needs to be straightened out.”

According to the bill, the change would take place in 2014.

Rep. Frank Ferri, a progressive Democrat from Warwick, said, “I don’t disagree that we need to see if we can make the system more efficient and responsive, but I’m concerned about the time limit. In Vermont and Florida it took five to seven years to create.

Melo said, “I don’t think it will take years but it will take months. It’s going to be very long process.”

May 31, 2012June 1, 2012

Budget Bill Restores Previous Cuts, Adds Sales Taxes

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 been called the year of restoration, in part because this year’s proposed budget will restore cuts made last year to programs for the developmentally disabled and low-income dental insurance.

The “education funding formula will be fully funded for the second straight year,” House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo said, noting that $22 million is appropriated in the proposal.

The House’s proposal is $156.4 million more than the governor’s proposal and almost $400 million more than last year’s enacted budget.

Increases will be paid for by Chafee’s proposed luxury clothing tax, but instead of kicking in at articles that cost more than $175 as the governor proposed the House budget calls for taxing items that cost more than $250. This tax is expected to raise about $5.9 million. The governor’s proposal would have raised more than $11 million. A $.04 per pack cigarette tax is also called for and would raise an estimated $1.8 million.

Melo there will be $9.6 million for the developmentally disabled programs in this year’s budget, about half of which will come from the federal government in matching funds. Last year, $24 million was cut which resulted in some program cuts and pay cuts for low wage workers.

May 30, 2012May 31, 2012

Clothing, Cigarette Taxes Considered for Budget

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

With the proposed budget expected to restore some funds cut last year, several revenue sources first identified in Gov. Chafee’s budget proposal may be used to pay for them.

House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo, who has been tight-lipped about the budget he has been crafting with staff for the last several weeks, said, “Revenues are always a good way to pay for expenditures.”

He added, “We’re still working on it.”

But lawmakers from both the House and Senate said ideas being strongly considered include: a new tax on expensive clothing, an increase in the cigarette tax and a tax amnesty proposal. All three proposals were first identified in Chafee’s budget proposal released much earlier this year.

The proposed tobacco tax increase of $.04 per tax could generate more than $4 million, according to Chafee’s budget. A tax amnesty is when people who owe back taxes are allowed to pay their delinquent bills without penalty.

Chafee proposed the tax on high-end clothing kick in at any item over $175 and is expected to generate more than $11 million. The House is inclined to start the tax at $175 or $200. Senators would rather see it start higher; one mentioned $250.

After a meeting with Speaker Gordon Fox late in the day Wednesday, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed said a clothing tax would benefit big box stores that could avoid paying it. She also said it would take away Rhode Island’s competitive advatage over Massachusetts, which already taxes clothing more expensive than $175.

“Whatever we do in the budget on any area of revenue needs to maintain our competitive advantage,” she said. “It’s important that we remain competitive with our neighbors in Massachusetts.”

May 29, 2012May 30, 2012

House Democrats Offer Clues About Budget

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

As House Democrats emerged from a closed-door caucus on Tuesday afternoon concerning the budget proposal, a picture began to develop of what might be included in the annual spending bill which will be released Thursday.

“There’s probably not going to be tax increases,” said Frank Ferri, a progressive Democrat from Warwick.

But he and other lawmakers said restoring funds cut last year for the developmentally disabled, DCYF and to nursing homes are being considered. One House member said in the closed-door caucus this year’s budget proposal was referred to as “the year of restoration.”

The big debate of this year’s budget meeting could be $2.6 million the governor’s office requested as part of the final settlement with Central Falls retirees. Part of the deal receiver Bob Flanders negotiated with the retirees called for the General Assembly to contribute to their retirement costs.

“My concern is it could be a slippery slope,” said Jamestown Democrat Deb Ruggerio. Several legislators told me they worry that it could set a precedent for other struggling communities to ask the state to appropriate funds as part of a deal with pensioners.

House Democrats also hope to include more money for public education, a Chafee initiative, to help expedite the new school funding formula. “It’s been a priority of the governor’s since Day One,” said Director of Administration Richard Licht.

It doesn’t seem like it will be funded by an increase in the meals tax, as was proposed by Chafee. “I’d say that’s dead,” one legislator told me after the caucus meeting.

Public transportation supporters made a big push for more operational money this year, but it seems, if anything, there will only be money for new buses.

Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo, who has been logging long hours as of late putting together the budget proposal with staff, said this year’s bottom line will be helped by a one-time windfall from this year’s Poweball winners, which will inject an additional $15 million into state coffers for the next fiscal year.

The House Finance Committee will consider the budget on Thursday at the rise of the House. A summary of the proposal will be released earlier in the day.

May 29, 2012May 29, 2012

Gina, Chafee Also at Odds on Muni Pension Bills

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

38 Studios isn’t the only matter of public policy that Gov. Chafee and Treasurer Gina Raimondo disagree about. There’s also the governor’s hotly-debated municipal pension reform proposal that Raimondo has given the cold shoulder to publicly.

While she said much of her work has been behind the scenes, and with municipal finance directors rather than mayors, twice Raimondo dodged the question when I asked her on Friday if she endorsed the governor’s pension proposal. On my third try, she said:

“Here’s what I would say: I certainly endorse the concept of giving municipalities more tools to help them do their work. This particular legislation is making its way through the legislative process, and this is like a legal hornets’ nest. The General Assembly, they are going to have to figure out the legal issues and the language to try and do that.”

Chafee, for his part, wishes Raimondo would have use her pension cred to help his municipal reform efforts this session. In fact, he told me he wanted her to fight harder for them during last year’s special session devoted to pension reform.

“We had a special session, with total focus on pension reform,” he said. “What are we waiting for? It’s time we get some energy behind this important area moving the state forward.”

Legislative leadership didn’t want the municipal reforms in the landmark reform bill last year. Chafee fought for it to be included and Raimondo not so much.

When pressed, she said the it won’t withstand a court challenge.

“Listen, if we could have figured out a constitutional, financially sound way to pass a statute that reformed these independent pension plans last year we would have done it. I wish we could have, I really do but there is no solution like that.”

She added, “We have to respect collective bargaining.”

It’s a fair point, and one that organized labor certainly agrees with. Pat Crowley of the NEA-RI has described the governor’s municipal package as, “Wisconsin heavy, not even Wisconsin light.” The bill would freeze annual raises for communities with underfunded pension plans, lower disability pensions and prevent cities and towns from offering more generous benefits than the state plan.

But details aside, with both municipal and statewide pension reform efforts, inevitable lawsuits will hinge on whether or not a contract has been broken, and if so if a financial catastrophe can be averted by doing so. A ruling last fall said that state workers have an implied contract with the state.

“That was a summary judgment so it remains to be seen,” said Raimondo. “We’ll see where it goes.”

Another theory is that Raimondo doesn’t want to anger municipal unions, which could prove critical if she runs for governor in 2014.

She vehemently ruled out politics playing into her decision not to endorse the governor’s municipal package, saying, “No, of course not. That’s not how I think about it.”

But she wasn’t so adamant when I asked her if she was, in fact, thinking of running for governor.

“Never rule anything out,” she said, “but I’m not thinking about it.”

Meanwhile, the next governor won’t be chosen for another two years and the first lawsuits over pension reform won’t be filed until the July or perhaps January, depending on when the reforms first affect workers and retirees.

But it’s the final few days of the legislative session and Chafee’s municipal aid package, including the municipal pension reform proposal, rests in the hands of the House Finance Committee. The Committee heard the bills earlier in the session and held them for further study. It would need to vote them out in the coming days in order for them to take effect this year.

May 29, 2012May 30, 2012

Tax Equity Still A Question for Impending Budget Bill

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

rite rally — Sen. Josh Miller and Rep. Maria Cimini, sponsors of a bill that would raise taxes on the richest 2 percent of Rhode Islanders.

One of the key ingredients in this year’s impending proposed budget from the House Finance Committee will be how to pay for existing services that have already been cut to the bone in recent years.

There’s the governor’s proposed 1 or 2 percent meals tax increase, which would raise some $20 to $40 million for education. There’s also Rep. Edith Ajello’s proposed soda tax, which would net another $40 million in revenue.

But the most talked-about revenue-increasing mechanism debated this year has been increasing income taxes on Rhode Island’s richest residents. The Miller-Cimini bill would raise state income tax rate on Rhode Islanders who make more than $250,000 a year from 5.99 percent to 9.99 percent, but the percentage would drop with every one percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate. Rep. Larry Valencia’s proposal would make a similar increases without being tied to unemployment.

House Speaker Gordon Fox, who pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy as majority leader when former Gov. Don Carcieri first proposed the idea, doesn’t want to touch the tax rate this year, but Majority Whip Patrick O’Neil has signed onto the Miller-Cimini bill. Fox has told lawmakers he doesn’t want a floor amendment on a tax increase during the budget debate.

Some speculate that a compromise put forward by local fiscal guru Gary Sasse of raising the rate slightly and earmark those additional funds to economic development.

“I don’t think anyone in this room could really defend the difference between 5.9 and 6.2 percent among certain levels of income,” he told the House Finance Committee on April 24. “My conclusion is there’s some room to make a modest increase to the top rate.”

Whatever happens, Rhode Islanders for Tax Equity, a group made up of community activists and organized labor, knows well this is the time of year the bill is being scrutinized the most. So they’ve flooded the marketplace of ideas with advertisements. In addition to buying space with RI Future, the group also put together a radio ad and this TV spot:

The TV ad was only seen on ABC6, though … that’s because WJAR and WPRI didn’t air the ad. WPRI didn’t, according to a source familiar with production of the spot, because it prominently features their news staff. WJAR, the source said, didn’t because it prominently features WPRI’s news staff. Sales reps for both companies could not be reached for comment.

May 25, 2012May 25, 2012

Paiva Weed Pushes for Reversing Cuts to Disabled

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

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed said she is pushing for restoring funds to programs for the developmentally disabled in this year’s budget.

“From an overall policy perspective we believe decisions in last year’s budget resulted in a negative impact on the community,” she said. “The senate has consistently made restoration of funding for the developmentally disabled a priority.”

Last year, funding for the developmentally disabled were cut by $24 million. Only about $12 million was cut from the state budget; the other half comes in federal matching funds.

Paiva Weed said Senate Finance Committee Chair Daniel DaPonte and House Finance Committee Chair Helio Melo, both East Providence Democrats, are working together to see how much of the approximately $12 million in local cuts can be restored.

“At this point finance chairs have been negotiating,” she said. “Hopefully they will resolve it all soon.”

During the last week or so, the finance committee chairs, among others, have been busy putting together the budget proposal behind closed doors. When I caught Melo opening the door of his office (after his secretary told me he wasn’t in there) he was tight-lipped about what might be in the much-anticipated proposal. “We are looking at it,” he said. “We are looking at everything.”

As a result of the cuts last year, programs were scaled back, even though they weren’t supposed to be, and several hundred low-income wage earners had their hours cut.

House Finance Committee member Rep. Larry Valencia, a progressive Democrat from Richmond, said, “It’s important to see what we can do about reversing the cuts from last year,” he said, noting that pay cuts to low-wage employees has a significant effect on the state’s economy.

Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat who is the deputy chair of both the finance committee and the human services committee, is also pushing for funds to be reinstated.

“We need to see how to move needle from where it was last year,” he said. “The cuts last year went much too far.”

Advocates for what’s known as DD funding were successful this session at drawing attention to the cuts. The biggest crowd at the State House this session was for a rally to raise awareness to the cuts – it drew close to a 1,000 people I would estimate. And several labor unions affected by the wage cuts either staged one-day strikes earlier in the session.

May 25, 2012May 25, 2012

Anti-Choice Zealots Hold Medical Bill Hostage

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

Right now there is no statute regarding the licensing of genetic counselors in Rhode Island, opening the door for those without appropriate training and codes of ethics to exploit and potentially harm patients. Fifteen states have licensure laws, and seventeen more have bills in consideration or preparing to be introduced.

On Wednesday, a Senate subcommittee discussed a bill that could make Rhode Island the 16th state to permit counselors to give advice about their potential medical future based on what can be gleaned from their genes.

Rhode Island’s bill was crafted by Senators Perry, Nesselbush, Sosnowski, Miller and Pichardo. It is a fine bill and has the complete approval of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic Counselors from Rhode Island are keen to see the bill passed, as it speaks to their professionalism and commitment to proper patient care. Passage of such a bill should be an easy slam dunk, as it will prevent patients from being victimized by the unscrupulous and the improperly educated.

So of course this bill can’t be passed by our General Assembly. Why? Because anti-abortion rights activists have stymied the bill for years. Let that sink in. For years versions of this bill have been advanced, only to be continually sidelined by activists like Barth E. Bracy, Executive Director of Rhode Island Right to Life, who said, in 2010:

Genetic counseling can be used for good or for evil, in the same way that fire can be used to cook food or burn down a house. Insofar as genetic counseling can be used in order to enhance and sustain human life and well being, it is a good thing. And we agree that the State of Rhode Island has an interest in regulating the practice of genetic counseling… Our primary concern regarding the Genetic Counseling Licensure Act is to include at least some conscience protection for genetic counselors who do not accept abortion as a valid treatment option in cases where some disability or undesired trait is possible, probable, or even present in an unborn child.

The position statement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors is quite clear on the issue of reproductive freedom:

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: NSGC supports the right of all individuals and couples to make reproductive choices. These include using information from genetic counseling and/or testing to decide whether to pursue a pregnancy, to utilize assisted reproductive technologies, to prepare for the birth and future needs of their offspring, to make an adoption plan, or to end a pregnancy. NSGC firmly believes that reproductive decisions should be made in the context of unbiased and comprehensive information, free from discrimination or coercion.

As a result of this conflict between the medical professionals of the NSGC and the anti-abortion zealots represented by Bracy, a so-called conscience amendment was added to the bill:

5-86-8. Counseling concerning abortion.- Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require any genetic counselor to participate in counseling with respect to abortion, nor shall licensing of any genetic counselor be contingent upon participation in such counseling with respect to abortion, and the refusal of the genetic counselor to participate in such counseling with respect to abortion shall not form the basis for any claim of damages on account of the refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against the genetic counselor, provided that the genetic counselor clearly informs the patient, in a manner consistent with ethical standards… that he or she will not participate in counseling with respect to abortion and offers to give the patient a list of licensed councilors in the state. The genetic counselor’s disclosure of non-participation and offer of a list of other licensed genetic counselors shall be made at the start of the counseling relationship and at other appropriate times, if any, based on the genetic counselor’s professional judgement.

Steve Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU, noted, in a letter to Senator Perry that this amendment:

…Would allow genetic counselors to refuse to counsel “with respect to abortion,” a counselor could potentially use this as an opening to, for example, withhold information about potential fetal abnormalities from women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant. A counselor could, by omission, mislead a patient about her options when serious fetal abnormalities are detected late in the pregnancy. A counselor could even suggest that no other options are available, but so long as the counseling was otherwise “consistent with ethical standards,” the amendment could appear to immunize the counselor from any state regulation or sanction.

In other words, it seems that the bill to license genetic counselors, with this amendment intact, would do nothing to assure the public that genetic counselors are professionals bound by a code of professional ethics to serve the best interests of their patients, because the bill will contain a loophole that will allow potential licensed genetic counselors to place their own consciences above that of their patients rights and needs. As a result, the ACLU proposed small modifications to the language, but these modifications could not win the support of Bracy’s RIRTL.

Speaking at the subcommittee meeting Wednesday evening, Benjamin Brown, a 4th year medical student speaking on behalf of Medical Students for Choice, put it quite well:

What concerns me here is that you have heard from the genetic councilors in the room that it is not within their code of ethics not to discuss abortion. And you have heard from other people speaking today that that is a professional requirement. So why would it be necessary to include this language about not talking about abortion if people are going to be acting within their code of ethics of their profession which states that they must discuss abortion? So to me this language makes no sense, it has nothing to do with professional regulation, and it has nothing to do with the professional standard practice of the profession of genetic counseling. It has to do with the fact that there are people who want to restrict access to abortion. This language has no purpose except to give an anti-choice genetic councilor room to hide behind a legal excuse for not providing information about abortion when the code of professional ethics says that you should have given that information, they can say, “Well, but I practice in Rhode Island.” [emphasis mine]

We should be clear at this point: The genetic counselors in Rhode Island would greatly prefer a clean version of this bill bill, one without the amendment, but so desperate are they to get some sort of licensing structure approved that they are willing to make a deal with the devil. They are willing to take the bill with the amendment. But what they might not realize is the precedent they are setting here. Paula Hodges, of Planned Parenthood, said it well:

There is a broader concern … that with the approval of such an amendment this committee will have all but formalized the practice of allowing legislation regarding liscensure in the medical field to be held hostage until the wishes of those opposed to abortion are considered and incorporated into the bill’s language.
…
We know that the Rhode Island ACLU has offered specially crafted improvements to this language which has not been adopted. Regardless, should this committee approve this amendment, with or without improvements, we head down a path where we all meet in these hearings, year after year, as each type of profession seeks to routinely improve or expand its scope of practice. The irrelevant demands of abortion opponents will need to be placated year after year.

The genetic counselors of Rhode Island are just following their code of ethics in capitulating to the unreasonable and irrelevant demands of anti-choice zealots like Barth Bracy and RIRTL. They are seeking to protect the interests of their patients at any cost, counting on their national group’s code of ethics to carry them through the ethical morass created by the amendment. Right now all fourteen people covered under this bill are pro-choice, but what of the future? What is to prevent someone who is anti-choice from becoming licensed and withholding information that would serve the best interests of their patients? In the amended bill, nothing prevents this.

Senator Nesselbush early on pointed out that the language in the bill is specifically crafted for those who are not pro-choice. Is it really necessary in our society to start crafting two sets of laws, those that cater to the whims of the religious, and those that serve the rest of us? With all the trumped up fear mongering being spread about such nonsense as Sharia law in America, why are we unable to make the small cognitive leap to the emergence of a two-tiered justice system respecting conservative Christian values?

Further, since when has the General Assembly had any luck crafting these last minute conscience clauses to their bills? Those who remember the much less than satisfactory civil unions bill of last year may recall that any rights such a bill ostensibly granted were seriously undercut by the Corvese amendment, which in some cases may have taken away rights enjoyed by committed same-sex couples who had gone to the trouble of establishing durable powers of attorney for each other. This genetic counseling licensure bill with the amendment included may have a similar effect of establishing a short term gain but a long term loss in the quality of the counselors licensed as anti-choice advocates move into the field, perhaps to work at one of the many fake pregnancy counseling centers that exist only to trick women into not realizing all their health care options.

When a group of bright, committed medical professionals, with the full support of the medical establishment, presents itself to the legislature and asks for legislation that will serve to protect the integrity of their profession and the health of their patients, the legislature needs to listen to them, and not to anti-choice cranks who care nothing for the health and safety of anyone save for the the unborn.

This bill should be passed, immediately and without any amendments.

But don’t hold your breath.

May 22, 2012May 25, 2012

Woonsocket Legislators Call for Fiscal Receiver

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

baldelli hunt — Reps Lisa Baldelli-Hunt and Jon Brien talk to Woonsocket's finance director Tuesday after a vote on a supplemtenal tax increase for the struggling city.

Woonsocket legislators would prefer a receiver step in and help right the struggling city’s financial problems rather than raise property taxes, according to a letter from them to Mayor Leo Fontaine.

“Significant and immediate structural reforms are needed to avert a financial crisis in our city and we respectfully request that as a first priority, our city’s leadership should request that a receiver be appointed,” said a letter signed by Sen Marc Cote and Reps Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, Jon Brien and Bob Phillips. The letter was also sent to Gov. Chafee, Treasurer Raimondo and legislative leadership.

While Reps. Baldelli-Hunt, Brien and Phillips supported the supplemental tax increase for their community yesterday before the House Finance Committee voted o the matter, they said it would be wiser to have a state-appointed receiver negotiate bills and contracts than tax residents more.

Baldelli-Hunt said she has discussed as much with state Director of Revenue Rosemary Booth Gallogly, who has been working closely with struggling cities in the state.

“A receiver has the leverage to make the adjustments that need to be made,” Baldelli-Hunt said yesterday after addressing the House Finance Committee about the supplemental tax increase. “I don’t want a supplemental tax bill to stand in the way of getting a solid plan in place.”

Baldelli-Hunt said she does not want Woonsocket to go into bankruptcy and feels that a receiver can help the cash-strapped city avoid that by renegotiating contracts with unions and implementing other cost-saving measures. She added that a receiver is a better option than a budget commission because it is easier for one person to make bold decisions than a five-member board.

Brien agreed, saying, “I think a receiver is ultimately what we need to do.” He also plans to submit legislation as early as today that would allow Woonsocket to borrow money from its pension fund to bridge its budget deficit. He said that would be a better option than adding an additional tax burden on residents.

Mayor Leo Fontaine also said the city should consider utilizing a receiver, but not before it implements to supplemental tax increase. “We can always go back to a budget commission or a receiver but we can’t go back to [a supplemental tax increase],” he said.

The House Finance Committee approved the supplemental tax increase yesterday after not acting on the matter for a week. Some legislators said the committee was waiting to vote until it had the endorsement of the Woonsocket delegation, which didn’t happen formally until yesterday. “We’ve been hearing different stories over the course of the week, “said Rep. Larry Ehrhardt, a conservative Republican from North Kingstown. “Sometimes they were for it and sometimes they were against it.”

Some said Baldelli-Hunt was using the issue to bolster her credentials against Fontaine in case she runs for mayor of Woonsocket, but she denied the allegation saying, “This has nothing to do with politics.”

Fontaine confirmed he had heard such rumors as well. “I hear the scuttlebut,” he said. “but I’d like to think that we’re all acting in the best interest of the people.”

May 22, 2012May 23, 2012

Projo Uses ‘Scare Quotes’ To Smear Progressives

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

Projo State House beat reporter Phil Marcelo is one of the best journalists in the state, and so I have to assume this is something that happened in the editing process of his piece today titled “Democrats poised to unwrap own spending proposal.” I’ve sent my friend Phil an email and am waiting to hear back from him. (Update: in keeping with Projo policy, Marcelo declined to comment)

In any case, in the 13th graph, the story reads:

House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, are both firmly opposed to such proposals, but “progressive ” Democratic lawmakers have used the budget process to make their case in previous years.

Why is the word progressive in quotes? Who is saying that? Who is being quoted?

No one, of course. It’s well understood that when otherwise out-of-place quotation marks appear around a word of phrase without any indication that someone said something, they are being used to convey either suspicion or irony. They are commonly called scare quotes, and Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the term as, “quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase.”

Scare quotes are not forbidden in journalism. In fact, according to the AP Stylebook, in the section under quotation marks it says:

IRONY: Put quotation marks around a word or words used in an ironical sense: The “debate” turned into a free-for-all.

Okay … so what’s ironic about progressive Democrats? Is the Projo insinuating that those who have used the budget process in recent years to make their case about tax reform are, in fact, not progressive?

To me, it smacks of media bias. Does anyone think the Providence Journal would ever put the word conservative in scare quotes to describe far-right Republicans? The local paper of record might be more inclined to capitalize the word rather than do that.

Like I said, Phil Marcelo is a great reporter and when I’ve questioned his reporting in the past he’s always been able to back it up. I’d love to hear either from him or an editor, though I understand the Journal has a longstanding policy not to comment on its journalism. If you’d like to do so, please use the comment section below.

UPDATE: Marcelo declined to comment.

May 21, 2012May 22, 2012

State House Rally: Stop Paying for Pot Prohibition

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 rally Tuesday at the State House, at 3:30, to call attention to marijuana porhibition in Rhode Island. Legislators at the RI State House are considering bills to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana (under 1oz.). Concerned residents across the state are invited to attend a rally to support marijuana decriminalization, a sensible measure which would remove current criminal penalties with a $150 civil fine.

Confirmed speakers include: Representative Jay Edwards (D – Tiverton, Portsmouth), House Sponsor of the Bill; Dr. David Lewis, MD, Professor Emeritus of Community Health at Brown University; Beth Comery, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Important Notes: PLEASE DRESS APPROPRIATELY AND PROFESSIONALLY. Please arrive early, as there will be many people going through State House security.

For more information:

RSVP to the event on Facebook

And make sure to Like ‘Rhode Island Campaign for Informed Marijuana Policy‘

Watch short films produced by OpenDoors of RI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa9KTtYxAw&noredirect=1

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150909052586399

Read research on this issue within RI

Read the bill texts:

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext12/housetext12/h7092.htm
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText12/SenateText12/S2253.pdfTo get involved:

Volunteer in your Neighborhood:

Contact Becky Mer at OpenDoors of RI at bmer@opendoorsri.org

Email your Legislator:

https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1237

Sign an online petition:

http://signon.org/sign/rhode-island-legislature

May 18, 2012May 19, 2012

Ciccone Bill Would Repeal Marriage Equality Order

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

As we first reported last week, Sen. Frank Ciccone is pushing a bill that would weaken Gov. Chafee’s executive affirmation that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states.

The Democrat from Providence submitted on Thursday “a joint resolution of the House and Senate on Thursday rejecting the order’s assertion,” according to the Projo.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island responded to the filing with a press release saying:

“Gov. Chafee’s executive order sent a powerful message that all Rhode Island families should be valued, respected and treated equally under the law. It’s a sad day for our state when members of the Senate would introduce a resolution whose ultimate purpose is to strip Rhode Island citizens of their civil rights. Sen. Ciccone’s position is indefensible, and we urge the members of the General Assembly to reject this outrageous assalut on equality, common sense and fundamental decency.”

A bill that would legalize marriage equality has not yet been heard by a Senate committee yet this year, and its chances are looking increasingly grim with some hoping to be done with the session by June 1.

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Sen. Michael McCaffrey does not support the bill, but I haven’t yet asked him if it would at least have a hearing.

Ray Sullivan, of Marriage Equality Rhode Island said he hasn’t heard if there will be a hearing.

We haven’t been told officially or definitively whether or not we’ll receive a hearing on our legislation,” he said in an email. “That being said, we would not be surprised if the Senate did not schedule hearings.”

May 16, 2012May 16, 2012

‘Two Handfuls’ of Senators Block Marriage Equality

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

Forget about a marriage equality bill making it out of the Senate this session, such legislation hasn’t even been heard in committee this year. It was introduced on February 16, but still hasn’t received its customary hearing.

“I think you know what my position is on this,” said Sen. Michael McCafffrey, a Warwick Democrat, when asked for his position on marriage equality. It is well-known that McCaffrey, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, doesn’t support the bill.

The next hurdle is that several other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee don’t love it either. Sen Harold Metts is on record as not supporting it, and Sen. Paul Jabour, a Democrat who represents Federal Hill and the West Side, told me he “still prefers civil unions.”

Jabour said he’s still weighing whether or not to support actual marriage equality.

Sen. William Walaska, a conservative Democrat from Warwick who is also on the Judiciary Committee, wasn’t tipping his hand, saying, “You’re asking me about a vote that isn’t on the floor yet. I’d have to look at the legislation.”

Even Sen. Erin Lynch, a Warwick Democrat who co-sponsored such a bill last year, wouldn’t fully commit this year, saying she supports marriage equality in theory but that “it depends on the language of the bill.”

Outside of the committee, there are a number of Democrats who don’t support marriage equality, including Sens. Dominick Ruggerio, the majority leader, from North Providence, Frank Ciccone, of Providence and Louis DiPalma, of Middletown.

Ciccone said he will submit a bill soon that would reverse Gov. Chafee’s executive order that recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states. “I think the governor exceeded his authority,” he said, noting a recent court case before the state Supreme Court. “I don’t think an executive order can supersede a Supreme Court decision.”

Of course, there’s also Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who wouldn’t even answer my questions last night at the State House.

By the way, I think every Senator I just mentioned is Catholic (I’m not sure about Metts or Lynch). And, it’s worth noting, there is no shortage of GOP support for marriage equality in the chamber. Sens. Christopher Ottiano, a Portsmouth Republican, and Dawson Hodgson, a socially-liberal Republican who represents East Greenwich and North Kingstown, would support marriage equality if it came to a floor vote. Nick Kettle, of Coventry, said he likely would too, but only after taking the pulse of his constituents.

“Probably two handfuls,” is the way Sen. DiPalma described it to me when I asked him about the opposition to marriage equality in the Senate. Based on my very informal whip count, that sounds about right. The President, the entire congressional delegation, the governor and the House all would support marriage equality in Rhode Island. But “probably two handfuls” of Catholic state Senators still stand in the way.

May 10, 2012May 10, 2012

RI Progress Report: Chafee and Political Principles, Paying for Public Education, Gemma on Marriage Equality

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

In a surprising move that really shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows him, Gov Chafee has decided to take the Jason Pleau case all the way to the US Supreme Court, if they will hear it. While talk radio, and even the Pleau family, may not agree with this decision, taking a case to the SCOTUS is not about either politics or individuals – it’s about interpreting the law, and in this case the relationship between states and the federal government. We love the way this case has right wing talk radio hosts arguing against state’s rights … so much for the conservative principles of our on air personalities. Chafee, on the other hand, has such principles in spades, and often to his political detriment.

By the way, the New York Times editorial board, far superior constitutional scholars than this state’s on air shock jocks, argues Chafee has a strong case in a piece titled Rhode Island’s Principled Stand.

With state budget season just around the corner (legislators are starting to talk about how certain bills are serving as tea leaves for the impending spending proposal) Ted Nesi posts on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities guidelines for state budget during a down economy. Many good ideas in there.

The line of the day comes from Linda Borg, of the Projo, who writes: “Now you can buy a Barrington education.” (Though you always could, if you could afford real estate there) Her article is about how the town with the best test scores in the state will now allow a small amount of students to pay tuition to go to school there. This will prove to be disastrous public policy for Rhode Island. Instead of allowing the affluent to pay for a top tier public education, the state should step in to ensure that all students get a good education regardless of how much money their parent’s home costs.

Like Senator Reed, Anthony Gemma now supports marriage equality, too. Even more so than Reed, Gemma’s announcement reeks of political opportunism -he’s a socially conservative Catholic who happens to be running against an openly gay incumbent. But we enjoyed his statement: “This is not a question of being a liberal, a progressive, or a conservative.” Well, yes it is, but as the old saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

May 9, 2012May 10, 2012

ALEC Funds Brien’s Travel Costs to Annual Meeting

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

Conservative Rep. Jon Brien, of Woonsocket, will be attending his first ALEC meeting as a member of the far right wing group’s board of directors when he travels to Charlotte, NC on Thursday for its annual Spring Task Force meeting where, he said, one of the orders of business will be “coming up with a strategy to win the war against the left wing media.”

ALEC task forces pair state legislators with corporate sponsors to formulate policy and write model legislation to be used in state legislatures across the country. At this year’s spring meeting, ALEC members will discuss, according to an agenda: 21st century commerce and taxation; insurance; education; energy, environment and agriculture; health and human services; and tax and fiscal policy, among other topics.

Brien said the American Legislative Exchange Council will reimburse him for the cost of his plane ticket, which cost under $400 and two nights in a hotel. Because ALEC is not a registered lobbyist with the state and has no bills before the General Assembly there are no requirements that Brien disclose the money ALEC is paying for him to attend to conference.

Interestingly, but unrelated to Brien’s trip, Common Cause Rhode Island sent a letter to the state Ethics Commission yesterday “requesting greater disclosure of gifts and travel of elected officials.”

In an email sent out yesterday, Common Cause wrote:

“In light of recent events in Rhode Island, with expensive travel by elected officials not being reported, Common Cause requests the Ethics Commission enact a regulation requiring disclosure of any gift over $25 received by an elected official by virtue of their being an elected official. Rhode Islanders have a right to know who is trying to influence their public officials. Without a complete picture of the flow of influence, citizens cannot fully determine who is behind the laws that govern them.”

John Marion, the executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, agreed with Brien that under the current rules, he does not need to disclose the trip to the ALEC conference. “Because ALEC doesn’t have any bills before the legislature – its members do – there’s no requirement to disclose,” he said. “ALEC essentially acts as the pass through.”

But, he added, it’s important that citizens know “who is influencing our legislators,” he said. “These entities are out there paying for things for legislators and the only way we know about it is when a reporter happens to stumble onto it.”

May 8, 2012May 9, 2012

Valencia Bill Shows Momentum for Tax Equity

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

Long before the Occupy movement and Warren Buffett made the idea of taxing the rich politically popular, Rep Larry Valencia, a progressive Democrat from Charlestown, introduced just such a bill in the previous legislative session.

This year, although it hasn’t received the media attention the Miller-Cimini proposal has, he introduced the same bill again. And, because he recognizes there still isn’t a preponderance of political will to tax the rich in the fiscally conservative-leaning General Assembly, he said he’ll do so again next year too, if need be.

“I think it’s important to keep these ideas in the spotlight,” he said. His bill, the model for the Miller-Cimini version but it doesn’t include a reduction tied to the unemployment rate, will be heard by the powerful House Finance Committee this afternoon. Families earning more than $250,000 would pay an additional 4 percent on income above that amount and individuals would do so at $200,000. It would raise about $140 million for the state, he said.

While both Chairman Helio Melo and Speaker Gordon Fox told me earlier this session they don’t support changes to the tax code this session (Valencia’s bill didn’t make it out of committee last year) some in leadership now do. Majority Whip Pat O’Neil, a Pawtucket Democrat and potential rival to Fox for the speaker’s gavel, is a co-sponsor this year.

“I think we are slowly building a consensus,” Valencia said, noting that he’s picked up several additional supporters this session. “We know from national polls that people are sympathetic to the ideas of taxing high income earners at a higher rate.”

Although he’s a co-signer of the Miller-Cimini bill, he thinks his is better legislation because it isn’t tied to the unemployment rate, which would cause fiscal fluctuations from year to year.

May 7, 2012May 7, 2012

Raimondo Advocates Against Tax Equity

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

If you’re still looking for the evidence that likely 2014 gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo is a progressive Democrat, as she told many a union member during her push for pension reform last year, you won’t find it in local tax policy. Instead of advocating for more revenue, Treasurer Raimondo decided to again side with business interests and the right in calling tax equity measures the enemy of economic growth.

“Given Rhode Island’s current economic condition – with high unemployment and stagnant population growth – I have reservations about adopting policies that could put us at a competitive disadvantage when compared to other states,” she said in a prepared statement. “The best way to increase tax revenue is to grow our state’s overall economy so every Rhode Islander benefits from our success.”

Earlier this month, when I first asked Raimondo about the Miller-Cimini income tax bills, that would repeal the flat income tax and raise back the rates on Rhode Island’s richest residents to the where they were lowered from starting in 2007, she said she hadn’t heard of the effort – even though it had been covered by this news outlet, as well as the Providence Journal, WPRI and RI Public Radio, among others.

In her statement that her deputy chief of staff Joy Fox gave me more recently, Raimondo said: “Representative Cimini and Senator Miller should be commended for reminding all Rhode Islanders about the increasing levels of income inequality across our state, and by extension our country. I look forward to working with Representative Cimini and Senator Miller to actively pursue economic development policies and opportunities that improve our state for everyone.”

When asked about Raimondo’s position on the tax equity bills, George Nee, president of the local AFL-CIO, who has been helping to lead the charge for the bills passage, said, “I don’t know if I’m surprised but I’m certainly disappointed. I still don’t see the connection between jobs and taxes.”

Nee, and other supporters of the tax equity bills, have pointed to the fact that unemployment in Rhode Island has gone up as income tax rates for the affluent have gone down. The AFL-CIO also released poll results last week done by Flemming and Associates that indicates 68 percent of Rhode Islanders support the bills, which would raise the income tax rate on those who make more than $250,000 but subsequently lower it when the unemployment rate drops.

“We will continue to provide her with information to try to change her mind,” Nee said. “I was hoping she would see this as a necessary change in policy on both a state and federal level.”

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