Tough day for Raimondo backer, Social Security slasher Pete Peterson


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

Fix the Debt is the preeminent group whose mission is to slash Social Security and Medicare.  Its founder,  Pete Peterson, is among the many finance elites who are are bankrolling Gina Raimondo’s political career.  She hopes that you’ll not discover this, or will divine some path by which to rationalize it away.

Prior to becoming the foremost proponent of the undermining of retirement security for American seniors, Peterson founded a private equity firm and was Treasury Secretary. He’s now one of the 150 wealthiest Americans!

FTD ventured out into the Twitterverse this week, and received the greeting it deserves — an old fashioned trolling, in what’s surely unusual fashion for a gentleman of such rarified standing.

fix the debt trolled

Why Raimondo won’t run as an independent


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

chafee raimondoWPRI’s Ted Nesi poses this question in the most recent Saturday Morning Post:

“Running as an independent could let [Gina Raimondo] avoid a bruising nomination battle and save her growing war chest for the fall campaign, where she’ll face a less liberal electorate. The treasurer is canny, and she believes in numbers: if an independent run makes the most strategic sense, why wouldn’t she pull the trigger?”

Nesi is asking the question based off assertions from unnamed pro-Raimondo sources, who want Raimondo to skip the Democratic primary (because it’ll be expensive and could be close) and concentrate solely on winning in November. But before we get all in a titter about another four-way race in Rhode Island, it’s important to look at how Nesi hedged the question: “makes the most strategic sense.” Simply put, running independently does not make the most strategic sense. I’ll walk through the campaign issues first, and then deal with the governing problems after.

1. It doesn’t avoid a negative campaign.

That’s one assumption there; that the cost of a Democratic primary will be in vicious attacks that will leave the eventual nominee so damaged that the Republican will swoop in and pick off disgusted Democrats and unaffiliated voters. But circumventing the primary doesn’t dodge those attacks; especially if the treasurer’s race become a debate largely about Raimondo’s current pension policies. In the gubernatorial race, it just sets the starting date for those attacks at a different date, as now the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee get to open fire without worrying about hamstringing themselves in their own primaries.

2. It potentially saves Angel Taveras money as well.

Yes, an independent doesn’t have to go through that messy primary process, they just automatically get to go to the general election (once enough signatures are valid). But Raimondo and Taveras are the only two candidates who could’ve challenged one another in a Democratic primary. If one bows out (or never declares), the remaining candidate can virtually get by on sheer name recognition and popularity without spending much money. In fact, if Raimondo goes independent and Taveras remains in the primary race, it should boost his fundraising as he becomes the presumptive frontrunner thanks to the strength of the Democratic Party.

3. Rebuilding the value of the Democratic Party is going to be costly.

While there’s more then enough bellyaching from all sides that Rhode Islanders will vote for anyone labelled on Democrat on the ballot, that ignores that beyond the base effects, this ignores that the Party is the most powerful campaigning apparatus ever in history. And that might not even be exaggeration. Ever since Howard Dean became chair and following two Obama campaigns, the technological and informational advantage the Party conveys onto its candidates shouldn’t be underestimated. An independent candidate can mitigate this somewhat by appealing to unions who have decades of experience in organizing, but that way is mostly blocked for Raimondo. This is why in response to fundraising it’s best to keep in mind Voltaire’s dictum, “God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.” Money can buy you a lot of the best shots. But it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be bought.

4. It isolates you from a base.

Observers might be tempted to compare Raimondo running as an independent to Lincoln Chafee running as an independent. It’s a bit apples and oranges. If Raimondo runs as an independent, it’ll be seen solely as a political move with the goal of advancing Gina Raimondo (and that holds true for any candidate who jumps parties too close to the campaign). Chafee made himself an independent long before he ran for governor, on a matter of principle, and campaigned for President Obama in the interim. When Chafee lost in 2006, it seems easy to proclaim in retrospect that his political career was effectively dead. And he would not be governor today were it not for Frank Caprio shooting himself in the foot. If Raimondo leaves the Democratic Party, she proves the pronouncements from various left-wingers that she’s a “Democrat-in-name-only” and also removes the partisan support she could’ve relied on. I know a recent post of mine attracted comments from self-proclaimed “lifelong Democrats” that they’d vote for Allan Fung should Raimondo win the Democratic primary, but that’s just foolish. At least Raimondo couches her language in traditional Democratic priorities. Fung isn’t going to give any quarter. If Raimondo tosses aside her party, she has to rely on unaffiliated voters who aren’t hard partisans and disaffected partisan voters who don’t believe that their nominees better represent their interests. And frankly, there simply aren’t enough of those without extraordinary circumstances like in 2010.

 

I’ll stop there on the horse-race bit, because I want to talk about what’s more important: how does an independent governor govern? The answer: not well. We can see this in Chafee’s major push for a constitutional convention when he announced he would not seek re-election. Chafee knows all too well the limits of gubernatorial power, especially as an independent. It’s mostly limited to a few things: proposing a budget, vetoing, and use of the bully pulpit. There are other powers; but it would take a creative executive to utilize them. Chafee recently made the argument on Newsmakers that without the line-item veto it’s difficult to fight the General Assembly on spending. Given the way the budget just nearly passed (and saw a leadership amendment defeated), a more combative governor might’ve been able to open fissures within the General Assembly by vetoing the whole budget.

But that kind of dynamic is more typical of the Republican governor versus the Democratic General Assembly, where the two branches act as foils for one another. It’s also been more than two decades since we had an elected Democratic governor, who supposedly functioned as a leader of the Party (I’m too young to remember, so I’ll rely on confirmation from my betters on that point). Would Raimondo forgo that kind of responsibility? Or the advantage it confers; when the priorities of the Governor and the priorities of the General Assembly are supposed to be aligned thanks to single-party control? Because that’s what’s being given up in an independent run, the ability to lobby from within the leading political party.

Raimondo as head of government might be a more striking a figure than Chafee’s been, but there’s something about independent officials that make them less standard-bearers and more referees. No one likes referees, and there’s a lot of kicking while their backs are turned. Chafee’s primary opposition hasn’t come from the Democrats or Republicans, it’s come from talk-radio. And I think that’s largely because an independent governor lacks a requirement to be dealt with. If an independent governor needs something passed, they need to build an ad hoc coalition for the issue. And there’s no electoral benefit for a legislator to join, since if they cross leadership, the independent governor can’t back them up in a primary fight. A Democratic governor can promise to go to bat for their supporters, much as Raimondo promised when pension reform was passed. Raimondo understands the power in that.

So to me, it seems obvious; running as an independent needlessly handicaps both Raimondo in the campaign and in her future political career as well. For whatever reason, there seems to be a desire for some big name to run as an independent, Caprio was previously bandied about. But I just don’t see it happening.

Gina could hurt Democrats in general election


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

wall-street-indyBrown’s recent gubernatorial poll has received a lot of attention.  The dubious primary results, which show Raimondo beating Taveras in a Democratic primary where most voters aren’t Democrats, have been widely mocked.  (For comparison, a Taveras internal by a reputable pollster put Taveras up 19 points.)  The general election portion, however, is significantly more plausible, although nearly a quarter of registered Democrats are mysteriously missing.

One nugget from Brown’s poll is especially interesting.  Even though the poll shows Raimondo winning the primary, Taveras still fares better than Raimondo in the general.  Raimondo beats Fung by only 1.7 points.  In a state as blue as Rhode Island, that’s a horrendous margin for a Democrat.

Of course, in the topsy-turvy world of Rhode Island politics, where Democrats are often just as conservative as Republicans, this makes perfect sense.  Because Raimondo is so far to the right, many Taveras voters hate her, and they simply won’t vote for her in the general.  In particular, workers whose pensions she helped cut will find it especially hard to vote for Raimondo.  Fung may get a lot of spite votes.

Raimondo’s problems go far beyond the handful of Democrats who will actually vote for a Republican.  The real concern is all the Democratic base voters who will stay home.  Many of these voters might reluctantly tell a pollster they would vote for Raimondo, but if it is raining, if it was a long day at work, if there is something good on TV, it would be hard for them to take an hour out of their day to vote for a candidate they dislike.

Even this is painting too rosy a picture for Raimondo. If she makes it to the general, she will enter it after a bruising primary drowning in a deluge of negative ads.  Having faced no opposition in the Republican primary, Fung will be flush with cash and ready to pounce.  If Raimondo is really only two points up before the mud has started flying, it is very hard to see her emerging the final victor.

Many observers believe this is a good poll for Raimondo, but if it were real, it would pose a very serious threat. When a deeply flawed candidate leads in the primary, threatening what should be an easy general election victory, that’s the rare recipe for the national party establishment to get involved in the primary.  Raimondo had better hope the Brown poll is wrong.  If more polls like this one emerge, expect electability to be a major argument against her candidacy.

Op/ed writers pick up ‘political football’ fumble


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

wallstmainstForget the football analogies, maybe Ed Achorn was writing this morning’s misleading Providence Journal editorial while his beloved Boston Red Sox were getting goose-egged by Detroit (his most reviled municipality) last night?

Like Gina Raimondo did in 2011, the Sox crushed the ball against Tampa Bay. But last night the hirsute home team looked more like the Gina Raimondo of 2013, swinging and missing against more major league pitching. Raimondo’s only hit since being at-bat against the likes of Ted Seidle and Matt Taibbi has been to label the recent influx of high-and-tight, hard-hitting, anti-Wall Street journalism as “political football.”

I posted about political football Wednesday morning and both ProJo op/Eds (Fitzpatrick and Achorn) followed suit this weekend. It was an obvious great line right from the get-go. Interestingly, the Providence Journal news coverage led with the quote in print and the online version ended with it.

Ed Fitzpatrick looked at how the national narrative about Raimondo has gone from protagonist to “Wall Street Raimondo.” (we like to call Raimondo a Wall Street Democrat). I wrote that I thought it hypocritical that Raimondo used pensions as a political football when it was to her advantage and dismissed them when it did not.

Conversely, Ed Achorn wrote that people in unions are against good. And those who support their interests are childish. And failing to cut pensions would have been akin to “murdering” the private sector. (I am not making this up, you can read it for yourself here!!) It begins:

Frank Caprio, the last Democratic nominee for Rhode Island governor, made his mark by pledging to stand up to the special interests and fight for the common good. Public-employee unions did not like that very much, and turned on him with a vengeance in 2010, tearing down Mr. Caprio while dragging Lincoln Chafee into the governor’s office.

But wait, it gets even more ridiculous. Those who don’t agree are just being childish:

It would be nice to make politically powerful groups happier with more generous retirement benefits, but grownups realize the state has only so much to spend on government. There are other areas that cry out for funding; notably education, roads and bridges, and programs to help the neediest among us.

I would agree that education, infrastructure and ending poverty are more important that pensions, and so would every single retiree. Where we disagree is whether these are either/or propositions. Well, Rhode Island’s paper of record’s official editorial voice actually wants you to believe that cutting pensions was necessary to save capitalism!

Murdering the goose that lays the golden eggs — the private sector — would have hurt public employees vastly more than making some reasonable changes in the system. Reform was a question of math, not politics.

Well Rhode Island, if you thought the Ed Achorn era as op/ed editor was bad, wait till we get a healthy dose of the Ed Achorn era minus Froma Harrop. The ProJo really needs to send Achorn to the showers and bring in someone from the bullpen who isn’t scuffing the ball.

Do cellphone-less polls have a conservative bias?


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
Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras supporting payday loan reform. (Bob Plain 5/18/12 Click on image for larger version)
Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras supporting payday loan reform. (Bob Plain 5/18/12 Click on image for larger version)

A new Brown poll has the quarterback of pension politics football team leading Providence’s most oft-plagiarized mayor in a likely Democratic primary for governor in 2014 with 24 percent still undecided. But it’s at least worth noting that the Taubman Center has often been off mark with election forecasting.

“A new Brown University survey of Rhode Island voters finds Democratic State Treasurer Frank Caprio has widened his lead over Independent candidate Lincoln Chafee in the race for governor,” an October 2010 press release says.

The Taubman Center predicted Caprio would win by 7 and he lost by 13 – that’s a 20 point swing. Sure, Caprio then told off the president on hate radio, but Brown botched other races that year too: It said David Cicilline would win by a whopping 39 to 20 margin and he won 50 to 44. And Ralph Mollis only beat his Republican challenger by one point, not the 11 point swing Brown predicted. In 2006, a Brown poll thought Governor Don Carcieri would hold on to his office by 12 points. He won by less than two.

In 2012, Abel Collins own internal poll was almost as accurate as the Taubman Center in predicting his electoral results, only in the opposite direction.

It’s no secret that polls can get it wrong, and a huge reason for this is they don’t often account for those without landlines. What’s interesting is that, at least with 2012 presidential polls, the ones that got it wrong tended to anticipate a more conservative electorate.

Here’s hoping that’s the case with this Brown poll.

On pensions, political hypocrisy worse than football


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

raimondo pension pol quote“It is time to stop using pensions as a political football,” said the person who has used pensions as a political football more and more successfully than perhaps any other human being this century.

While many loath Gina Raimondo’s vociferous Wall Street-over-Main Street approach to finance and politics, there’s also her sheer hypocrisy to dislike too. After riding the pension political football to millions of dollars in donations, reams of positive publicity and praise from some of the most pro-Wall Street people, political organizations and news outlets in the nation, she all of a sudden thinks we should change the topic.

Who can blame her. Even fellow Wall Street Democrats such as Frank Caprio, who works for an investment firm and considered running as a Republican, are critiquing her hedge fund heavy approach to pension investment.

On the other hand, changing the truth isn’t the same as changing the subject. Raimondo also told the Providence Journal:

“If the General Assembly had not passed the reform legislation, it is likely that some cities and towns would have gone bankrupt and that down the road pensions would have to be severely cut.”

I don’t believe state pension cuts saved any cities (and certainly no towns!) from filing for bankruptcy. Gene Emery?

Pensioners pay more taxes than hedge fund managers


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

Taibbi cartoonRegardless of whether you worship at the church of Rolling Stone or the Manhattan Institute, Matt Taibbi brings up a very good point about transferring wealth from local public sector retirees to hedge fund managers in his second critique of Rhode Island pension cuts.

Not only are states like Rhode Island paying millions in fees to outrageously expensive money managers, but those millions will be taxed at a rate far below what the teachers and police and sanitation workers who are being forced to swallow cuts in those states pay on their dwindling incomes. This is thanks in large part to a tax loophole preserved for years by cowardly Wall Street-supplicating politicians hailing, as Henn correctly notes, from both parties, Republican and Democrat.

Sam Bell, of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, tackles the part about Taibbi going soft on Democrats here:

Most out of state pundits forget this, but the legislature that so gleefully passed the pension cuts is the same legislature that passed a voter ID law.  These are the people who gave us a D+ rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America–the worst of any solid blue state.  It was these so-called Democrats who pushed through the steep 2006 tax cuts for the rich that blew up the budget in the first place.  The top four leaders of the Democratic caucus in our state legislature–House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed, House Majority Leader Nick Mattiello, and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio–have each taken thousands of dollars from the NRA.  And I believe those contributions were illegal.  (The Board of Elections is still deliberating on my complaint.)

Renn: ‘Innuendo not evidence’ for me but not 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

renn’ll admit it. I love Urbanophile blogger Aaron Renn. He never fails to entertain and often makes some good points. But his hit job on Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi was profoundly deceptive.

If you clicked on the link or pay close attention to the local news cycle, you probably know I wrote my lede in a way to tease Renn. (Welcome to RI, Aaron!) But also to prove a point. My lede is virtually identical to the lede Wrenn wrote when he tried to discredit Taibbi’s blockbuster Rolling Stone article in GoLocalProv yesterday, I just switched Taibbi for Renn and Raimondo for Taibbi! Now, I will systematically discredit Renn’s reasoning in the same way he tried to do to Taibbi’s.

But before I do, like Renn, I will disclose that I too have worked for an entity with a profound stake in pension politics. While Renn has done some freelance work for the Manhattan Institute and I’ve done some work for the union-backed cable access show Labor Vision and organized labor sometimes (though not as often as it should!) advertises with RI Future. If you think my previous relationships somehow matter more than Renn’s, then either you are trying to influence politics yourself – as me and Renn are clearly doing! – or I would like to invite you to invest in the hedge fund I am starting later this afternoon (full disclosure, you may lose your money)

Here goes:

  • Renn says Taibbi blames Wall Street for Rhode Island pension cuts and lets Dems off the hook, including Providence Mayor Angel Taveras because he never worked on Wall Street.As a factual matter, this is not why Mayor Taveras does not reap the same treatment as does Raimondo. It’s well-known that Taveras cut pensions by sitting down and negotiating with labor while Raimondo fist-pumped at rallies and pushed through severe cuts that union leaders vociferously and publicly opposed. He’s just wrong on this point.As far as blaming Wall Street rather than Rhode Island Democrats. Yes, local liberals deserve much fault, and I would love to see a Rolling Stone article or MSNBC segment about how often Ocean State Democrats side with Wall Street interests over local retirees. (I believe we are still the only state in the nation to have a law that guarantees bondholders get paid before retirees.) But again Renn is wrong when he asserts that Taibbi says Wall Street and/or its shibboleths are “responsible” for pension cuts in Rhode Island. Rather Taibbi says they helped fund a campaign to do so and that they benefited from it.
  • “Where’s the evidence,” writes Renn. Taibbi “only makes two actual attempts to link Raimondo to a hedge fund plot.” There it is, the evidence! Oh wait, only two pieces of evidence. Nevermind. Does journalism critical of Wall Street require at least three? Or just at least one more than the author can dig up?What’s even more rich is that Renn does absolutely nothing to discredit the evidence!!First, he offers the ridiculous false equivalent of noting that labor supported Raimondo too, so they must be in on the scam as well. I don’t believe Renn believes that. Labor bet that Raimndo could do less damage to their interests than Kerry King – a bet they lost in spectacular fashion, I might add. I’m sure most union members wish they backed Tom Sgouros rather than Raimondo to run for treasurer. Wall Street, on the other hand, I would guess is pretty happy with how it worked out.Secondly, he says Taibbi’s evidence falls flat because he “quotes a third party.” Not only is quoting a third party more commonly referred to as “sourcing” information in the act of journalism, but Renn doesn’t even try to discredit Taibbi’s source.
  • Renn’s big picture isn’t all that big. In fact, it read like what one might call “innuendo, not evidence.””Taibbi seems to think if the government is spending money on anything he doesn’t like, from hedge fund fees to the bone-headed state investment in video game company 38 Studios, then the state cut the pensions specifically to fund those bogus expenditures,” he wrote.
  • My favorite part is when claims that smaller risks are illogical. Vegas should hire Renn as a consultant for roulette players. Though maybe the Manhattan Institute pays better to convince taxpayers to bet big on Wall Street.

Math versus morality


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

enron pension“The pension reform debate is … a dispute over which members of society will have to make sacrifices and which ones will not,” Rolling Stone magazine’s Matt Taibbi tells GoLocalProv.

Long before Ted Seidle parsed pension cuts as a wealth transfer from Rhode Islanders to hedge fund managers, this was the non-labor left’s biggest issue with the struggle to save public sector retirement security by taking money away from public sector retirees. It is inherently wrong to ask the people who played by the rules (labor) to fit the bill for those who didn’t (management).

I would argue that Raimondo’s star power, bolstered by anonymous out-of-town money and an adoring local media unwittingly conspired to make a very regressive pension reform proposal seem the only sensible thing to support. There is math component to the political problem that is pension reform in that a deficit exists. But the morality part is what we do about that. All too often in today’s political climate, very powerful people spend a lot of money saying the way to fix this deficit is to take from the poor and give to the rich.

Personally, I’d much prefer to live in a financially bankrupt society than a morally bankrupt one and by foisting all the responsibility on retirees, Rhode Island legislators may have made prudent moves away from the former, but they also made foolish leaps toward the latter.

Here’s Taibbi’s response in GoLocal:

For the record, I appreciate Treasurer Raimondo’s thorough response. I understand this is a tough issue and there are heated opinions on all sides. She was gracious enough to speak to me at some length before the article came out, and she did so probably knowing that the article was going to be critical. She clearly believes she is pursuing the correct policies and the fact that she was and is willing to openly engage critics in discussions about those policies is absolutely to her credit.

However, nothing in the response released by her spokesperson Joy Fox yesterday makes me believe that we got the story wrong.

Raimondo dismisses me and her union critics as politically and ideologically motivated, which is fine and understandable. But she doesn’t acknowledge that her own decisions and policies are similarly political and ideological. She presents herself as merely a technocrat who “puts politics aside” to do what’s best for Rhode Island.

But this is wrong on its face. The pension reform debate is the ultimate political and ideological argument. It’s a bitter fight over resources, a dispute over which members of society will have to make sacrifices and which ones will not.

The advocates of pension reform, not just in Rhode Island but across the country, believe that ordinary public workers — teachers, police, firemen — are inherently overcompensated, politically over-empowered by unions, and receive unsustainably high incomes and benefits. They also believe that the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems lay in asking these workers to make the first financial sacrifices — something Raimondo (like other politicians in other states) often describes as “making tough choices.” (By coincidence, these tough choices also seem quite often to involve privatizing large amounts of public retirement money into the hands of the financiers who stand behind these politician-advocates of pension reform.)

All of this falls in line with certain trends in political thought nationwide. A lot of people these days genuinely believe we must invest in employers first and foremost, and that ordinary wage-earners, public or private, are essentially drains on the bottom line, whose benefits especially are luxuries we can’t afford.

It would be silly to deny that a lot of people find this ideology convincing. But it’s certainly an ideology. That’s why it’s disingenuous when Treasurer Raimondo describes my article as political propaganda, when she had no such reservations about the public relations efforts of organizations like EngageRI and the Manhattan Institute, groups that not only supported her politically, but which have clear financial interests in this debate. But this a common tactic, dismissing critics of pension reform as ideologues clouded by frustration and unreason, while pension reform itself — well, that’s just math.

Having interviewed public workers in Rhode Island and in many other states, I know that state employees on the whole are absolutely willing to make sacrifices, if they’re needed to help states get out of fiscal crises. What they resent is being told they’re the cause of these crises and that the size of the sacrifices they must make is beyond debate and just mathematical fact. Time and again, when they ask questions about the reform plans, they’re dismissed as recalcitrant ideologues unwilling to accept reality. This is condescending and I think they’re right to be angry about it. Talking about omitting facts, most of these people haven’t been told even part of the story about the widespread crime and fraud in the mortgage/finance sector that caused the crash and put the retirement savings of people all over the country in jeopardy. Going forward, they were also not told about things like high management fees, the role of consultants and placement agents, and other such dubious nooks and crannies of pension reform.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I think politicians like Raimondo would do better to stop pretending that pension reform is somehow not about politics. This whole thing is political, on all sides.

And here is the comment from Raimondo’s spokeswoman Joy Fox he was responding to:

This is clearly a political propaganda piece driven by the critics of pension reform, including those who are paid by local labor leaders to discredit the state’s reforms and its investment policies. The author does not appear to have a clear understanding of the 2011 pension process and its goals, and conveniently omits many important facts.

The Treasurer stands by the work of the General Assembly to provide retirement security for hardworking public employees and retirees.

This story also unfortunately glosses over what actually happens to people when leaders do not make tough choices. The retirees of the City of Central Falls saw their pensions cut in half. Leaders do not want the same to happen again to public employees and retirees in the state system.

In 2011, Rhode Island had a choice. It could have done nothing and been dishonest about its problem. Instead, Rhode Island leaders came together, courageously put politics aside, and made the tough decision to protect the retirements of hard working public employees and retirees.”

It is important to remember:
– The treasurer fought to always keep a defined benefit pension, and always respected collective bargaining.
– Reform passed overwhelmingly in a Democrat-controlled General Assembly
– There were countless hours of labor-attended pension advisory group meetings, legislative hearings and town hall-style meetings with the Treasurer and Governor
– All but one vote to approve the hedge funds were unanimous. The only vote to approve hedge funds that was not unanimous was due to one abstention – again, showing strong SIC support to execute this investment strategy.

Taibbi on TV: pension deform is wealth transfer to Wall St


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

taibbi democracy nowIn October of 2011, when Rhode Island’s ruling class was drooling all over Gina Raimondo’s efforts to deform public sector retirement plans, a group of outcasts were occupying Burnside Park to call attention to Wall Street greed.

Two years later, Rolling Stone has a blockbuster story focusing on Raimondo and Rhode Island’s pension deform called: “Looting the Pension Funds: All across America, Wall Street is grabbing money meant for public workers.” If you haven’t read it yet, you should. Or, at least watch Matt Taibbi talk about it on Democracy Now!.

He calls the COLA freeze “wealth transfer from teachers, cops and firemen to billionaire hedge fund managers” and calls John Arnold, the moneyman behind EngageRI, to “the new Koch brothers figure.”

He also says, “Pension funds are sort of the last great big unguarded piles of money in this country and there are going to be all sort of operators who try to get their hands on that money.”

The solution that a lot of Wall Street-funded think tanks are coming up with is to get higher returns by putting these funds into alt investments like hedge funds and in a lot of cases what i;m funding is that tee fees that states are paying for these hedge finds and new type of alt investments are actually roughly equal to cuts they are taking from workers.

In the state of Rhode Island, for instance, they’ve froze the cost of living adjustment and frozen COLA roughly equals the fees they are paying to hedge funds in that state. So essentially it’s a wealth transfer from teachers, cops and firemen to billionaire hedge fund managers.

Raimondo, American LeadHERship PAC: ‘hundreds of Joe Mollicones’


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

gina manhattan institutePolitifact did itself great credit this month by calling out the “American LeadHERship PAC” — the political action committee concocted to support the prospective gubernatorial campaign of Wall Street acolyte Gina Raimondo — on its shameful hit-piece about her likely Democratic opponent, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras.  The PAC’s prospectus implies the preposterous slander that Taveras is to blame for a downgrading of Providence’s bond ratings.  Any Rhode Islander old enough to, as they say, remember where 38 Studios “used to be” surely knows the real story:

As Politifact writes: All three downgrades occurred about two months after Taveras took the oath of office — and only after a committee of financial experts empaneled by Taveras found and disclosed that the city had a $110-million structural deficit. (A structural deficit is a built-in long-term gap between revenue and expenses.)

The structural deficit, equal to one-sixth the size of the budget and aggravated by a depleted rainy day fund, was inherited from Taveras’ predecessor, David N. Cicilline. In his final months in office, as he was campaigning for his current seat in Congress, Cicilline declared that the city was in “excellent financial condition” — an assessment that he apologized for after winning his new political office.

Thick in cynicism but bereft of wit, ALP and Raimondo are devious enough to warp the truth but too dense to notice the sharp irony at hand: ALP will strive to leverage the bond downgrade deception (and surely many others to come!) into even more campaign funds for Raimondo — who’s spent her tenure as Treasurer paying court to and benefiting from the largess of a shockingly broad swath of the architects of the financial crisis of 2007–tbd.  That of course being the very same crisis that helped compel the Providence downgrading that Raimondo’s backers so tactlessly tag onto Taveras.

Raimondo’s supporters insist: “We’re really nice guys.”  But would you vote for a gubernatorial candidate whose campaign was backed by hundreds of Joe Mollicones?  That’s precisely what they demand.

Under the contemporary economic predicament it is possible for an earnest person to push solemnly for modest pension reforms, lamenting all the while that the detritus of the demolition of our economy rolls downhill to states and cities.  Recognizing that so many very wealthy, ever greedy people who run our economy and government wrecked it for the rest of us, even while making it impossible to institute appropriate fiscal policies that might have blunted the impact on the likes of you and me — on our parks, roads, schools, buses, pocketbooks, bellies, and so on.  Working people aren’t to blame for the deficits, but cities and (especially small) states only have a few tools in their kits, so: tradeoffs, tough choices, and all that.
That stinks, but fine.

But that’s not at all what Raimondo’s been up to.  Rather, she has networked her way into the closed chambers of precisely those same wealthy, greedy people (and is no doubt quite impressed by herself for having pulled off such a feat from her modest perch in a down ballot office in the smallest state).

First, Raimondo convinced Wall Street’s 1% to pay for a secretive propaganda campaign to advocate for deep cuts in the state pension system. Doing so garnered her effusive praise from right-wing stalwarts: from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, to the National Review, to Rhode Island’s own tiny Tea Party, which congratulated Raimondo for her “true leadership” as General Treasurer. Then there are the fetes by the likes of ALEC, the Manhattan Institute and the Hedge Fund Industry Awards (for running one of the hedge-fundiest of mid-sized public pensions).

Unfortunately for Rhode Island’s working stiffs, Raimondo’s “true leadership” consisted of slashing benefits even for already-retired seniors on fixed incomes while sending millions of Rhode Island taxpayer dollars to pay the bloated fees demanded by her hedge fund manager friends — for which she’s even been derided in the pages of Forbes Magazine.

Their palates now whetted, Wall Street is lining up to pay for her hoped-for ascent to the state’s highest office.  The names that pop out during just a cursory review of the hundreds of people who’ve max-ed out to her still-unannounced gubernatorial run represent a who’s-who of Washington-to-Wall Street revolving door corruption in the extreme.

-Pete Peterson, the billionaire former Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers, who now runs the foremost Social Security and Medicare “reform” “think tanks” in Washington, DC, urging the slashing of benefits from these and other programs that are critical for middle class and poorer Rhode Islanders.

-All of the dearest relatives of Robert Rubin, America’s #1 most “Corrupt Capitalist” and the revolving door poster child who oversaw the deregulation of Wall Street during is tenure as Treasury Secretary — between the obligatory stints at Goldman Sachs and Citibank.

-John Arnold, a billionaire Houston-based former Enron energy trader who funds anti-worker campaigns across the country.  Read Salon’s recent write-up of Arnold here.

Securities and Exchange Commission target and former administration official Steve Rattner, another exemplar in extremis of Washington-to-Wall Street revolving door crony capitalist corruption.

Few states have been more harshly impacted than Rhode Island by the of the instantiation of the the will of the global financial elite: from NAFTA’s expediting the decline of the local manufacturing industry, to the outsized local impact of the housing/mortgage crisis and broader economic collapse.  If Raimondo’s benefactors get their way, Rhode Island’s relatively aged population will endure the slashing of Social Security, Medicare, and other programs on which they rely; even the modest banking reforms urged by Dodd-Frank will fail to be implemented, and we’ll remain exposed to future cycles boom and (in Rhode Island mostly) bust.

These people and institutions give her money not for concern for the people of Rhode Island, but because under the reign of the Rhode Island proto-Romney, our bright blue state will bleed as the proving grounds for further right-wing financial “innovations”.  And because she will serve as a trusted sycophant to Wall Street’s wizard’s should she ever (God forbid) realize her ambition of achieving federal office.  Let’s please not let that happen, no matter the deceitful propaganda onslaught that she and her Wall Street backers and the shameful LeadHERship PAC will surely be foisting on Rhode Islanders in months to come.

Rolling Stone on RI: ‘Looting the Pension Funds’


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

wall street democratWhen Wall Street broke the American economy, the Pew Center for the Public Trust told Rhode Island and others it was the retirees’ fault. So we cut their salaries and transferred the savings to the same sector that broke the economy in the first place. That’s how renowned Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi describes the Ocean State’s 2011 pension cuts.

The blockbuster article accuses Raimondo of transferring wealth from local retirees to Wall Street tycoons, which has become an increasing narrative about the rookie general treasurer since Ted Seidle exposed her reliance on hedge funds.

Today, the same Wall Street crowd that caused the crash is not merely rolling in money again but aggressively counterattacking on the public-relations front. The battle increasingly centers around public funds like state and municipal pensions. This war isn’t just about money. Crucially, in ways invisible to most Americans, it’s also about blame. In state after state, politicians are following the Rhode Island playbook, using scare tactics and lavishly funded PR campaigns to cast teachers, firefighters and cops – not bankers – as the budget-devouring boogeymen responsible for the mounting fiscal problems of America’s states and cities.

It also ties together the Pew Charitable Trust and former Enron trader and Engage RI financier of working together to overstate the “unfunded liability.”  This is especially interesting because legislators, experts and reporters all relied on research done by the Pew Center during the lead up to the pension legislation.

In 2011, Arnold and Pew found each other. As detailed in a new study by progressive think tank Institute for America’s Future, Arnold and Pew struck up a relationship – and both have since been proselytizing pension reform all over America, including California, Florida, Kansas, Arizona, Kentucky and Montana. Few knew that Pew had a relationship with a right-wing, anti-pension zealot like Arnold. “The centrist reputation of Pew was a key in selling a lot of these ideas,” says Jordan Marks of the National Public Pension Coalition. Later, a Pew report claimed that the national “gap” between pension assets and future liabilities added up to some $757 billion and dryly insisted the shortfall was unbridgeable, minus some combination of “higher contributions from taxpayers and employees, deep benefit cuts and, in some cases, changes in how retirement plans are structured and benefits are distributed.”

What the study didn’t say was that this supposedly massive gap could all be chalked up to the financial crisis, which, of course, had been caused almost entirely by the greed and wide-scale fraud of the financial-services industry – particularly with regard to state pension funds.

A study by noted economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic Policy and Research bore this out. In February 2011, Baker reported that, had public pension funds not been invested in the stock market and exposed to mortgage-backed securities, there would be no shortfall at all. He said state pension managers were of course somewhat to blame, but only “insofar as they exercised poor judgment in buying the [finance] industry’s services.”

In fact, Baker said, had public funds during the crash years simply earned modest returns equal to 30-year Treasury bonds, then public-pension assets would be $850 billion richer than they were two years after the crash. Baker reported that states were short an additional $80 billion over the same period thanks to the fact that post-crash, cash-strapped states had been paying out that much less of their mandatory ARC payments.

So even if Pew’s numbers were right, the “unfunded liability” crisis had nothing to do with the systemic unsustainability of public pensions. Thanks to a deadly combination of unscrupulous states illegally borrowing from their pensioners, and unscrupulous banks whose mass sales of fraudulent toxic subprime products crashed the market, these funds were out some $930 billion. Yet the public was being told that the problem was state workers’ benefits were simply too expensive.

It concludes:

The bottom line is that the “unfunded liability” crisis is, if not exactly fictional, certainly exaggerated to an outrageous degree. Yes, we live in a new economy and, yes, it may be time to have a discussion about whether certain kinds of public employees should be receiving sizable benefit checks until death. But the idea that these benefit packages are causing the fiscal crises in our states is almost entirely a fabrication crafted by the very people who actually caused the problem. It’s like Voltaire’s maxim about noses having evolved to fit spectacles, so therefore we wear spectacles. In this case, we have an unfunded-pension-liability problem because we’ve been ripping retirees off for decades – but the solution being offered is to rip them off even more.

It’s well worth a read if you still don’t understand how Raimondo used pension cuts to enrich Wall Street or if you still don’t understand how the the 1% wants pension funds to fuel their continued economic growth.

Boston pol says no thanks to Raimondo’s husband’s group


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

stand on childrenA former charter school teacher running for mayor of Boston turned down a half million dollars from a so-called education reform group today.

“I did not request any contribution and I do not want any contribution,” said John Connelly according to the Boston Globe about a $500,000 independent expenditure from Stand for Children.

It turns out its bad form in Boston politics to take money from groups pushing that pro-corporate form of reform. Here’s how Boston Magazine described the spurned donor:

The group in question is called Stand For Children, and they are not stealthy. They may be wrong-headed, or perhaps even controlled by evil corporatists, but they’re pretty upfront about what they’re doing. They spend a whole lot of money on certain kinds of school-reform measures.

If the way Stand for Children is throwing money at local politics sounds a bit like the way the pro-pension cutting political group Engage RI did so here, well that isn’t the ed reform’s group only connection to pension politics. Gina Raimondo’s husband Andy Moffitt is also a member of its board of directors.

Here’s the write-up about him on Stand for Children’s website:

Andy Moffit is a Senior Practice Expert and member of core leadership team for McKinsey & Company’s Global Education Practice.  Since co-founding the Global Education Practice in 2005, Andy has worked with multiple large urban districts, state education departments and charter management organizations to markedly improve system performance and close achievement gaps. He co-authored a recent book, Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for School System Leaders (Corwin Press, 2010), which describes key success factors and steps in driving results in global school system reforms. Before joining McKinsey, Andy was an elementary school teacher in an inner-city school in Houston, Texas as a corps member of Teach For America.

And here’s one of Stand for Children’s founders talking about how the group used pension politics in Illinois to help drive a wedge between labor and Democrats.

ALEC loves Raimondo


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

wall street democratThe pro-big business bill mill known as ALEC released a report this week that not only praises Gina Raimondo and local legislators for what they did to retirees in 2011, but also uses Raimondo’s Rhode Island model for why and how to downsize public sector pension plans.

The new ALEC overview even uses Raimondo’s emotionally compelling words as a visual graphic in its executive summary. Furthermore, the 45-page report is also the same exact game plan she used to sell the state on her plan.

“Legislators should move defined-benefit systems to properly designed alternatives, such as defined-contribution, cash balance, and hybrid plans,” suggests the summary. “They offer increased predictability for the employer and an increased likelihood for the employee that the money promised will actually be set aside.”

ALEC’s report is called “Keeping the Promise” and Raimondo’s legislation was called the “Rhode Island Retirement Security Act.” Both names imply that the effort is on behalf of the employee, but both ALEC and Raimondo are known for championing a much different demographic.

The crux of both is that a defined contribution plan, which is more management-friendly, is more sustainable than a defined benefit plan, which is more retiree-friendly. Rhode Island switched from a defined benefit plan to a hybrid plan.

Using the same pretense of being retiree-focused, the report also cites Central Falls fiscal problems as an example of why pension cuts can be needed.

More than anyone else, though, public retirees suffer from ill-funded plans. For example, in August 2011, the city of Central Falls, RI, filed for bankruptcy protection and went into receivership. As a result, some retirees saw their monthly payments cut in half.

It’s the second reference to financially-struggling cities benefiting from pension cuts. The first page of the executive summary says, “In the most extreme cases of fiscal distress induced by poorly managed pensions, some cities have had to go to court to seek bankruptcy protection and restructuring.”

National media briefly concerned itself with this same topic last summer when Joe Nocera of the New York Times wrote a column saying Woonsocket’s budget problems were more closely related to conservative government-shrinking efforts than to pension obligations. Josh Barro, a conservative columnist who then worked for Bloomberg, quickly fired back that pensions are to blame.

This is at least the second ALEC report to laud Rhode Island for its pension cuts. “Perhaps the biggest pension reform success last year came from Rhode Island,” reads ALEC’s 2012 Rich State Poor State report.

Another local connection to the two ALEC reports: Jonathan Williams, a contributor to the local ALEC-aligned small government group the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, is listed in the acknowledgements of this year’s report and was a co-author of the previous report.

Something else worth noting: Last year (when Raimondo was still known as a “pragmatic progressive” rather than a “Wall Street Democrat”) only RI Future published a report on ALEC’s thoughts on Rhode Island’s pension cuts. This year, it was covered by at least two TV stations, one radio station and the Associated Press. At least three local reports used the word “praise” to describe what ALEC thinks of Rhode Island’s pension cuts. None of the reports call the changes to state’s pension system a “reform.”

Hedge fund investment good, but for who?


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

ginaThere is a difference between a thing having a good effect and a thing being a net good.

Take hedge funds, for example. They do produce a good outcome, in that they manage against investment risk. But that doesn’t mean that investing in hedge funds is a net good for the state’s pension fund.  Mike Stanton’s Sunday blockbuster on Rhode Island’s hedge fund gamble points out that there are lots of competing goods going on here.

Hedge funds do manage investment risk, there’s no doubt about that. But this management strategy has required a massive divestment from our workforce and a transfer of that wealth to Wall Street.

Ted Seidle writes, “paying huge pension fees to Wall Street hasn’t hurt the Treasurer’s campaign fundraising efforts.”

It’s reasonable to assume hedge fund managers would be willing to underwrite pension reform if reform means they make tons of money on the deal. Billionaire hedge fund manager John Arnold underwrote pension reform in Rhode Island with massive donations to Engage RI and now he is investing in pension reform in California, Reuters reports.

Council 94 should hire Tom Sgouros instead

sgouros
Tom Sgouros, left, and former RI Future editor/publisher Brian Hull.

At least if Council 94 was going to hire a blogger to do opposition research on its behalf, it should have shopped local! This is not at all any kind of slight on Ted Siedle, but I don’t believe there’s anything he can uncover about our pension investments that Tom Sgouros can’t do at least as well.

Sgouros, in addition to being the policy/financial wizard, is also a progressive Democrat who decided not to run for treasurer after labor threw its support behind Gina Raimondo. He also just wrapped up a very similar kind of forensic investigation into how the state uses the NECAP tests. I think he’s well qualified for this kind of employment.

Shop locally, Council 94, and offer the job of blogger-for-hire to Tom Sgouros too!

Linc Chafee: Democrat of convenience, not conviction


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
DINOs
DINOs

Policy-wise, Linc Chafee might best belong as a Democrat, and he often finds common ground with the progressive movement, but personally my favorite thing about our governor was how he seemed to relish his independence. He seemed to have no friends or natural allies on Smith Hill and he didn’t seem to care.

Chafee had thrown off the shackles of party politics and was willing to go it alone for the Ocean State. Or so I told myself. But now, he will soon have the dubious distinction of running for office under more party labels than Buddy Cianci. Linc Chafee, the principled independent is now a DINO.

Party affiliation is no small thing in our political process, and it sure seems to me Chafee is a Democrat of convenience rather than of conviction. Next stop: the Moderate Party. Then Cool Moose.

Scott MacKay and Ted Nesi both opine that they think Chafee’s most recent change of heart will benefit Gina Raimondo more than Angel Taveras, but I don’t see it that way. Don’t forget about this must-read recent post by Ian Donnis about how important the ground game could prove – and Taveras can still crush both these better-funded candidates on the ground. I wouldn’t think this changes anything for labor – two of them worked together to unilaterally slash public sector pensions while the other negotiated cuts; that seems like pretty basic math to me. And Taveras is still the only Latino in the race. So while the limousine liberals split their money between Linc and Gina, activists, labor and Latinos will be out in force for Angel.

But what if they all run in the general election too? Should we start the conversation now about instant runoff voting before this really gets out of hand?

Raimondo pushes pension cuts to Bay Area CEO’s


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

gina manhattan instituteThe Providence Journal reports that Gina Raimondo was in San Francisco recently selling her pension cutting playbook to a group of San Francisco business leaders.

The Bay Area Council, which bills itself on its website as a “a business-sponsored, public policy advocacy organization for the nine-county Bay Area. The Council proactively advocates for a strong economy, a vital business environment” and on its YouTube channel as a “CEO-led public policy and advocacy group working to improve the business climate and promote economic growth in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley Bay Area and California.”

The CEO advocacy group is led by the leaders of the biggest corporations in the Bay Area; it’s chairwoman is from Bank of America and its treasurer from Wells Fargo. Other companies represented by corporate bosses include accounting powerhouses, giant local real estate firms, the 49ers, the Giants, oil and gas conglomerates, communication giants like AT&T and credit card companies and tech giants.

The CEO advocacy group is probably best known for organizing and helping to fund Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent trip to China and pushing for greater trade with that country.  It boasts a pretty diverse list of issues it chimes in on – including climate change and healthcare. A big focus of the CEO advocacy group is in the area of “education reform.” Here’s how it describes this effort: “The Bay Area Council is working to reform California’s education system by creating a strategic plan to put in place a data system and reform finance and governance.”

According to the Providence Journal, Raimondo’s staff chose not to discuss who raised money for her.

What RI should know about hedge funds, part 2


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

hedge fundsThe truly remarkable thing about the hedge fund industry is that once you strip away the confusion about how shares are valued and what exactly the returns are, you find returns that are far from extraordinary. In fact, the average returns over the past 20 years for the industry — the returns actually experienced by the vast majority of hedge fund investors — are less than they would have earned in government bonds. (And this isn’t just a matter of the huge losses in 2008-2009, though obviously that didn’t help.)  This isn’t to say that some customers aren’t lucky in their choice of funds, but the odds are stacked heavily against them.

As if this isn’t bad enough, fraud in the hedge fund industry is hardly confined to Bernie Madoff. The unregulated and opaque nature of the funds lends itself to fraud. Plenty of managers have succumbed to the obvious moral hazard, and Simon Lack, in his book, “Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It’s Too Good to Be True“, provides plenty of examples. With a hedge fund, the entire investment is at risk, so fraud is an ever-present concern.

The Hedge Fund Fraud Casebook provides over 100 examples of hedge fund fraud, all of which happened before anyone realized that Bernie Madoff, the former president of the NASDAQ and famous fund manager, was running a giant Ponzi scheme, but also before the frauds of Conrad Seghers, James Dickey, Ed Strafaci, Mark Focht, Paul Eustace, Michael Berger, and many more were uncovered. When the industry standard is to charge high fees and to tell your customers what you want and when you want, can any of this be a surprise?

Surveying the industry landscape at the end of his book, Lack says he used to blame the managers for running a rigged game, but eventually he turned around and now blames the customers for enabling this bad behavior. This is a funny kind of Wall Street blame-the-victim ethics, but it is true that a lot of institutional investors — like pension funds — have the resources to have discovered these facts on their own. And they haven’t.

Let’s be clear: any investment portfolio should be hedged somehow. Even within the world of stocks, most fools know you don’t make a portfolio out of a single company’s stock. Diversifying stocks is one way to hedge. Diversifying investments so that you’ve got some money in things that tend to go up in value when your other investments go down is also wise. This is what hedge funds originally did. But the evidence implies that the lowest cost way to do that now might be to do it yourself. Want to hedge your exposure to stocks with investments in bonds?  Go find a friendly bond dealer and buy some. Or invest in a mutual fund for bonds. Want to invest in failing mortgages?  You can find ways to do that without paying 2-and-20. Gold?  That can be done, too, if you must. But if you go to a hedge fund, you should know that you’re walking into a casino where the odds are great that you’re not going to walk out with nearly as much money as the advertising claims. If you walk out with any at all. The occasional lucky patsy can walk out of a rigged game a winner, but that doesn’t mean the game isn’t rigged. As they say in poker, if you can’t tell who’s the patsy at the table, well, you’re the patsy.

If you’re not a “accredited” investor, who can afford to dine at tables like these, why should you care?  Because, though you might not be one yourself, you probably belong to one. Institutional investors — pension funds, university endowments, banks, charitable foundations — make up a huge proportion of the money invested in the hedge fund industry, though exact data is hard to come by. You probably have a piece of this somewhere, perhaps as a taxpayer whose municipal or state government is investing heavily in hedge funds, or as an alumnus/a of some college, or as a customer at a big bank. Rhode Island’s pension fund has increased its investment in hedge funds substantially, and as much as a quarter of the value of the fund is now invested in “alternative investments”, which includes hedge funds, and private equity funds (also not an industry known for its low fees and transparency).

The stated reason behind this is to increase the returns. This is important, as a result of the 2011 pension changes. With fewer people paying less money into the pension fund, investment returns are more important than ever before to make good the state’s debts to its retirees. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate lower fees, or find ways to increase the transparency of the funds you invest in, but there are valid reasons to be very skeptical.

Here and in other states, when your money winds up in a hedge fund, the people in charge of your money have put it in the care of fund managers whose incentives do not involve keeping your best interests at heart. And while those Very Serious People invest your money in these risky and opaque funds, they are relying on the empty promises of representatives of a corrupt industry. If they do well, you’re lucky. If, as is more likely the case, they do not — well, you’re the patsy.

Part I of this series

Updated: clarified that the RI fund’s allocation to alternative investments is not exclusively hedge funds.

Raimondo pension/hedge fund beat goes on


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

wall street democratThere’s so many news and blog posts being published about hedging our pension investments in hedge funds and venture capital, I decided to make this Storify to try to keep track of all the different strings to this unfolding financial/political drama that has given credence to our claim that Gina Raimondo is a Wall Street Democrat and called into greater question her capabilities and loyalties in running a public sector fund.

I’ll update this Storify as warranted.


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