Best wishes Tom Sgouros, new adviser to Seth Magaziner


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

tom-headshot-thumbIt’s always gratifying when one of the best and most deserving folk actually get a position in government where they can make a powerful difference. We recently learned that RI Future contributor Tom Sgouros has been appointed as senior policy adviser to Seth Magaziner, the new treasurer of Rhode Island.

Tom was himself a candidate for the office of treasurer in 2010 but dropped out early in the race that Gina Raimondo would go on to win. He is known for his incisive, well-researched and often sarcastic insights into the economics and policies of Rhode Island.

In addition to writing for RI Future, Tom recently started — and will suspend — an excellent column in the Providence Journal. Which is a shame, but a fair tradeoff for honesty and transparency in government.

Tom’s most recent book, Checking the Banks is subtitled “The Nuts and Bolts of Banking for People Who Want to Fix It”, so it looks like they’ve picked the right person for the right job.

sgouros book ad
“This is a marvelous book! Well-written—even enjoyable to read—about local banking! ” — Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do?

In the book, Tom goes into great detail about what’s wrong with the banking system, like the mortgage crisis, lack of loans to small businesses, and predatory practices. He also offers alternatives, solutions and possibilities for change.

We hope that Tom and Treasurer Magaziner will create bold initiatives to make banking more innovative. Maybe we can start our own state bank, and save taxpayers millions while priming the local economy’s pump…

At the beginning of the session everything is possible. Now the hard work begins.

(DISCLAIMER: As the editor and publisher of two of Tom’s best books, this article is 100% biased and slanted.)

Economists agree: Little reason to trust stink tank’s economic modeling


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

mrmoneybags Tom Sgouros and Jason Becker are both well-respected critical thinkers in Rhode Island politics, though they don’t often have opportunity to agree – for example, Sgouros has been critical of the new state education aid funding formula that Becker helped devise.

But it turns out the two have found common ground when it comes to the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Both agree the science, as it were, associated with the right wing think tank’s plan to eliminate the sales tax is built on rosy predictions and politically-charged assumptions.

Last week Sgouros wrote two posts on the right wing think tank’s specious use of economics in their proposal to shrink state government by reducing the sales tax (here and here). This inspired Becker to take a closer look at the modeling used for its report. After doing so, he tweeted, among many others:

and

Additionally, he tweeted these questions and concerns:

Becker also tweeted this report compiled by an University of Arizona economist (you can check her credentials here) disparaging the same economic modeling tool that the RI right wing think tank used to push its preferred policy here as the Goldwater Institute was using in Arizona.

In it, she wrote, “They should know that models can only be used for modest changes from existing economic conditions and that results from modest changes cannot be used to predict what would happen with large, never before seen, changes in policies.”

Three Local Authors, RI Futurists Present At Netroots


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

Three Rhode Island progressive authors will “battle it out” at Netroots Nation in what is being billed as “an idea free-for-all.” The meeting of the minds will take place at 2 p.m. on Thursday in the fifth floor Rotunda of the Convention Center.

Not only are all three published by Light Publications – billed as a “fiercely independent” publishing company, but all three are also correspondents for RI Future.

According to a press release:

“In one corner, John Speck, author of ‘Yesterday on the Internet’ will lay out his take on the endless war machine that seems to be running America. In another corner, Mark Binder, author of ‘Stories for Peace,’ will share his view of harmony and cyber-bullying. And in the third corner, Tom Sgouros, former candidate for RI Treasurer and author of ‘Ten Things you Don’t Know About Rhode Island,’ will offer his extraordinary calm, and rational take on what’s really going on.”

The authors will be signing copies of their books, and available for question and answer following the presentation. You can also catch them at the Working RI/RI Future happy hour on Wednesday night at the Convention Center.

Here’s a brief bio on each of them:

Tom Sgouros is a freelance researcher and writer about public policy, statistics, software and assorted other technical topics. His clients range from candidates for office, to advocacy groups and Fortune 500 companies. In Rhode Island, he has done policy work with Ocean State Action, Working Rhode Island, and the Sierra Club, among several others. He edits the Rhode Island Policy Reporter, and writes a newspaper column that appears regularly in ten newspapers around the state, and irregularly in several others. He has also worked as an an engineer, videographer, fire-eater, circus producer, and robot impresario. He lives with his wife and two daughters, by the seashore, on RIPTA’s number 14 bus line.

John Speck, aka Frymaster, was born in a working class New Jersey town, raised in a “snotty, white, Connecticut suburb” and brought to life on the streets of San Francisco,John Speck is a living contradiction; whatever he does, he most likely does the opposite. An inveterate punk rocker, he took a degree from Oberlin College Conservatory of Music. His interests circle the globe, are fiercely local but also include the entirety of the universe and all of history, especially the part we don’t know about.

His complete resume includes abject failure as a criminal and a rock star, average results in business and ringing success as a changer of people’s minds. He describes himself variously as a “one-man socialist revolution”, an “entrepreneur from the future”, a “PowerPoint performance artist” and a “general-purpose genius”. One press release claimed he has worked as “a gopher, a toady and an elf”.

He is currently in charge of publicity for an internationally famous multinational corporation that specializes in making noise.

Mark Binder is a former candidate for US Congress, an author/storyteller and a student and teacher of martial arts. An award-winning book and recording artist, he travels the world, sharing his work at festivals, theaters, schools, libraries, churches, synagogues and other community centers. He holds a third-degree black belt in Aikido, the martial art for peace. He promises not to throw anyone across the room.

 

Budgeting for Disaster: Cutting the Buddha


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
FY2013 budget

FY2013 budgetOur budget tour continues with a visit to the Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals. The acronym is BHDDH and I’m told by insiders it’s pronounced “buddha.”

BHDDH is spending more time than usual in the news. This is largely because last year they cut $26 million from the budget that would have gone to private providers of care for disabled adults. You can see the cut on page 153 of Volume II of the budget (or page 17 of this excerpt), second line, where $206 million in 2011 went down to $180 million in 2012.

This is a cut about three times as big as Governor Chafee proposed. But if you remember, the General Assembly rejected Chafee’s sales tax changes, so they had to cut much deeper than he’d suggested.

Some background: Rhode Island provides services to these people in two ways. About 220 get services through Rhode Island Community Living and Supports (RICLAS), a state program, and a bit more than 3,000 others get services through private agencies who bill the state for their service. These agencies are almost wholly dependent on those bills.

BHDDH recently commissioned a big study of the matter and determined that the state actually doesn’t pay very much for this service. Over the last few years, the population under care grew slower than any northeast state besides Massachusetts, and we reduced the per capita expense from $76,803 in 2009 to $63,013 in 2011. This is despite being one of only nine states (out of 44 where data was available) without a waiting list for services. In other words, we appear to be getting pretty good service for our money.

There is another side, though. We get this great value by paying people very little. The going rate for direct support staff at the private facilities appears to be between $9 and $11 per hour, even for the unionized folks. Remember, these are the people who are bathing, feeding, teaching, and otherwise caring for highly disabled individuals. By contrast, direct care staff at RICLAS are paid about twice as much. (Representative Scott Slater has sponsored a bill in to set a minimum wage for direct support staff at these residences.)

Conversely—and somewhat unfortunately—some of the executives at the private organizations are paid far more than their counterparts in the state. David Jordan, the CEO of Seven Hills, who runs homes in Massachusetts, too, was paid $533,214 in 2009. ($265k in salary and the rest in pension contributions.) This year he has responded to the budget cuts by cutting support staff pay by 5% and ending most of their benefits. Executive pay was cut 3%, according to UNAP, the union representing workers there.

So what happens when the administration makes a plan to cut costs and the Assembly says that’s great, but please cut three times as much? Answer: some pretty dumb things.

For example, the state will only pay a fee for service provided, as opposed to a per-person “capitation” rate. This sounds fair, but if an employee shows up an hour late to work, the agency gets docked not only that employee’s pay, but also the overhead costs allocated to that hour of pay. It’s not as if the agency wasn’t responsible for that care, or the heat and electricity didn’t have to be paid for that hour.

The state also changed the way they assess the level of disability for each resident. This affects the amount the state pays for their care. We had been using a four-step measure, but it was changed to a seven-step “Supports Intensity Scale” (SIS). The SIS is probably a better measure, but the four-step scale doesn’t exactly translate over to the seven-step one and the staff to do re-assessments simply doesn’t exist. Result: BHDDH simply decided which levels of the old scale corresponded to which levels of the new scale, and voila, they had to pay less to support the residents.

Actually, what BHDDH says is this:

If SIS has not been performed and client is receiving services then, the resource allocation is based on previously approved level of service cross walked to the new levels effective 7/1/11.

 

So what do we learn from this? That there isn’t much deference to department plans in the Assembly, for better and worse. If you’re a department director with a plan to cut costs, you should probably only present a fraction of those costs, or risk having your department turned upside down by a demand to cut much more. The promise of cuts is like blood in the water; the sharks don’t care where they bite, and presto you have people mobilizing marches against you. Under these conditions, which director is going to volunteer cuts again?

And we also learn about the downside of privatization. Through aggressive use of private group homes and community-based care, Rhode Island has kept costs low, much lower than most northeast states. But part of the reason we could do that is that the private operators of those homes didn’t have to pay their employees well (and could pay their executives too well). Though I’m sure it would help (at some of the agencies), slashing executive pay won’t make up for the cuts; there simply aren’t enough executives with egregious salaries to make up $26 million.

Overall, administrative costs at the private agencies (about 10%) seem comparable to the RICLAS costs, as far as one can tell from the personnel lists in the budget. More important, because these are private agencies, we have only limited control over them. As some will recall, that was part of the point of the whole privatization push. We were to give up control of services so the invisible hand of the private market could work its magic. Well it has, and here’s the result.

None of this is to say it isn’t possible to squeeze costs down over time, but how much less do we want care-givers to be paid? Though we would like to be able to slowly reduce administrative overhead, the sudden cuts of this past year will not have that effect. More likely they’ll bankrupt one or two of the providers, and that will be a lesson to…someone.

Full disclosure: I have recently done some software consulting work for West Bay Residential Services, one of the DD residential care providers, and may do so again someday.

Update: Clarified the makeup of David Jordan’s 2009 compensation.

Read previous posts from this series

Budgeting for Disaster – Part III


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
FY2013 budget

FY2013 budgetWe continue our tour of state budget documents. The Executive Summary  has a lot of useful information, but the parts that I find myself referring to most often are not the text descriptions of the Governor’s program for the various departments, but the numbers in the back: the summary tables, the planning values the Budget Office used to predict the future, the wonderfully informative appendix C, which shows how much state aid each Rhode Island city or town gets, and appendix D, which does the same for education aid.

In a state with one bankrupt city and several more threatening to dive into bankruptcy, these are the focus of a lot of my attention. What deserves at least as much attention are the same sections from previous years. Let’s start with Appendix C.

The first thing you’ll notice if you flip, click, scroll, or slide to Appendix C is that local aid comes in lots of different forms. There is “appropriated aid”, which comes out of the general state taxes (called “general revenue” in the budget), and “shared” (or “pass-through”) aid, which is money the state collects on behalf of a city or town. For example, “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) money is paid to a town instead of taxes on state property, and is appropriated in the budget, while the meals and beverage tax is a portion of the sales tax, collected on behalf of a city or town and passed on to them.

The meals and beverage tax collected in Providence restaurants goes to Providence and the tax collected in Newport restaurants goes to Newport, and so on. The numbers in the appropriated aid represent actual decisions made by legislators and the governor. The shared aid numbers are just estimates of how much those taxes will bring in.

There are a couple of things worth noticing about these numbers. One is that the state is planning to give the cities and towns $61 million in appropriated aid in 2013, which is exactly the same amount budgeted for 2012. Level funding sounds like a cold shower, but compared to recent history, it’s a warm bath. In 2008, appropriated state aid amounted to about $250 million. Or well, it would have, except the legislature cut $10 million halfway through that fiscal year. Providence got a $2.4 million cut, Pawtucket lost $850,000, and Woonsocket lost $600,000. Central Falls was hit for $250,000.

These are cuts in the neighborhood of 1%, which doesn’t seem that big a deal, although they came halfway through the fiscal year, so the cities and towns had to cut around 2% of their expenses to make up for the lost time. For cities under financial stress, this hurt.

For 2009, the Governor proposed a slight increase in aid, back up to $244 million. But once again, this was cut halfway through the fiscal year, to $215 million. Providence was cut $5.7 million, Pawtucket $2 million, Woonsocket $1.4 million, and Central Falls $600,000. Again, the cuts came along well into the fiscal year, making them at least twice as hard to deal with. For Central Falls, this worked out to cutting more than 7% of the annual municipal budget in a few months.

The pretense of maintaining the level of aid was burst by this point, so the Governor proposed cutting municipal aid by 14% for fiscal year 2010, to $184 million. Are you keeping track? To recap: In September 2007, Central Falls was on track to get $3.6 million from the state, or a bit less than a fifth of their budget. By May of 2009, the Governor was suggesting they get by with half that amount, a 10% cut in their budget.

But even that cut wasn’t enough, and with only months to go in the 2010 fiscal year, the state slashed total aid yet again, from $184 million to $118 million. Providence saw a $12 million cut, Pawtucket $5.1 million, Woonsocket $2.8 million, and Central Falls $750,000. This time, quite a bit of the cut came in the last quarter of the year, leaving virtually no time to make up the cuts. And for the 2011 budget Carcieri proposed to cut total municipal aid all the way down to $49 million. That year, insurgents in the Assembly pressured the leadership to put a little aid back in the budget, but it still only got up to $60 million, down 76% from just three years before.

I’m sure it was a coincidence that Central Falls went into receivership in May of 2010. At least the way everyone talks about Central Falls, their bankruptcy was all the fault of their unions and retirees, and the state played no part besides offering them a receiver to work out their issues. Their annual budget was $18.9 million in 2008, of which $3.6 million was state aid. In 2010, they were promised only $1.8 million, but got only $1.1 million. And in 2011 they didn’t even get half of that.

In 2008, Providence expected to get $65 million from the state, to help with its $302 million municipal (non-education) budget. In 2009, it went down to $57 million, and in 2010, the city still expected to see $49 million, but got $29 million instead. Over two short years, the state cut 10% of the Providence budget, and each time it happened well after the fiscal year was underway. But it’s fashionable to blame David Cicilline for Providence’s fiscal crisis, so apparently there’s no point in asking Governor Carcieri or any of the Assembly leadership what made them think the municipal budgets could withstand this kind of abuse without cracking.

Here’s the part that makes it all a bit worse. A lot of the aid cut technically did not go to the city or town itself, but to you. In the fall of 2009, towns expected $133 million of state aid to reduce the property tax on your car in fiscal 2010. The state was paying a portion of your taxes for you. The towns only got half of that, and almost all the rest was cut for fiscal 2011. Essentialy, the state was telling the cities and towns to make up the difference from property taxes on cars—now! Some did send out new car tax bills, but many just sucked it up and made cuts.

You see a lot of people wringing their hands about Rhode Island’s municipal fiscal crisis—How will we pay for all those retirees? What were those Mayors thinking? Can you believe those unions?—but how often do you see the story of the state budget included in the saga?

When I describe this sequence of events to people, they will point out that state revenues plunged in 2009, so the state had no choice. But this is an absurd position to take. After all, during each year of these huge municipal aid cuts, Rhode Island was increasing the amount of a generous tax cut granted to the richest taxpayers in the state. That is, taxes were cut further each year at the same time aid was slashed to all the cities and towns. Governor Carcieri and Assembly leaders felt that lower taxes on rich people were important enough to slash aid to  cities and towns—a position they still hold.

Next: Education (really)

“Centrist” Economic Pap

Friend of the blog, Tom Sgouros expresses the following concern about protestors and supporters of Occupy Providence:I’ve enjoyed walking through Burnside Park on my way to and from work lately, and I find the activity and energy invigorating. One point that worries me, though, is represented in some conversations I’ve joined or overheard as I passed through, and it has to do with our political parties and the differences between them… Not being represented by either party isn’t the same thing as saying there is no difference between them. It takes a fool to deny the differences between our two parties.Notably Sgouros doesn’t offer the details of those conversations or list those differences he finds so significant, so we’re left to wonder what exactly he means. But it appears to be a common strawman argument, usually intended to marginalize those critics as unreasonable, to be set up and knocked down as if it actually represents the views of these “foolish” unnamed Occupiers.

The actual position is much harder to dismiss. With neither party addressing the great moral issues of our time, who cares if one supports minor policy changes of some sort or another while the other doesn’t? That’s an example of the illusion of choice, not proof of it. Here’s Gore Vidal some forty years ago:

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
Which part of that is foolish, Tom? I’d say that’s even truer now, than when Vidal wrote it. In fairness Sgouros goes on to conclude:…it also takes a fool to claim that what the bulk of the current Democratic party offers is economic populism or anything other than centrist economic pap. Which is a problem because centrist economic pap — bromides about growth, fealty to the “job creators” who walk among us, and lack of respect for the great mass of workers who made our country great — has not served us well.Yeah, sure, I normally vote Democratic, but count me with Vidal among the “foolish” on this one.