Others, including social worker Michael Fallon, said they felt state workers had been unfairly made the "scapegoats" for both the ballooning unfunded liability in the state pension fund and the "poor management" that landed Rhode Island in its current fiscal mess.

Being the member of a union does not mean one's hands are clean of the stains that the union's behavior leaves — quite the opposite — and union behavior has been a key component in our state's management. If members have voted for specific candidates under union advisement, if they have stood by while their lobbyists worked back-room deals, if they have said nothing as their dues bought ads on progressive Web sites and financed the campaigns of the legislators who have done such grave harm to our state, then they are not mere "scapegoats," but active parts of the problem.

The first step to fixing that problem will be for them to realize that one-issue voting (the issue being "my employment deal") is self-defeating because so calamitous in its result.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along . . . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes about what happened next:

Immediately, the Democratic party responded in outrage, insisting it was an unprecedented political attack on their presumptive nominee from foreign soil. Barack Obama himself said: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack.”

Senator Joseph Biden called the president's remarks “bulls**t.”

The White House denied the remark was about Obama. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded, “I would think that all of you who cover these issues and for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.”

The White House’s denial is believable, and the Democrats’ accusation is a distortion and a distraction. The commander-in-chief, believe it or not, might have been concerned with something besides The Situation Room running a clip of him hitting Obama. The presidency, you see, is about more than the spin-cycle, the next election, and even the next president.

The president could have been speaking of any number of Democrats. Say, Jimmy Carter, who in April, 2008 said: “Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders [Hamas and Syria], it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.”

Or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, freelance diplomat, who in December 2007 said: “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.”

Or, perhaps he meant Speaker Pelosi in April 2007: “I believe in dialogue. As my colleagues have said over and over again, unless you communicate, you cannot understand each other. You cannot reach agreement.”

Or maybe he meant recent Obama endorser and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who, according to his own press release in February of last year, believes “the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria.”

Or Bill Richardson, who has said, about meeting with Iran and Syria: “They’re bad folks … But you don’t have peace talks with your friends.”

It could have been about Congressman Henry Waxman, who in April said: “A Democratic administration would go back and try to open that possibility up for discussions [with Iran] of a grand bargain of one sort or another ... Democrats would certainly have seen that as a missed opportunity.”

Or Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I can go to Syria. I can go to Iran and work to craft a path towards peace. And I will … How can you change peoples minds if you don’t meet with them?”

Or former Democratic presidential candidates and senators Chris Dodd and John Kerry, who met with Syria’s al-Assad and said: “As senior Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, we felt it was important to make clear that while we believe in resuming dialogue, our message is no different: Syria can and should play a more constructive role in the region … We concluded that our conversation was worthwhile, and that … resuming direct dialogue with Syria should be pursued.”

Or the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, from April 10: “[Diplomats] can deliver some pretty tough messages … You don’t begin with a president of the country, but you do need to talk to your enemy.”

You get the idea. The world does not actually revolve around Barackstar. It doesn’t even revolve around contemporary Democrats. There are two very different ways of looking at the world, represented by the two parties here in the U.S. President Bush, obviously, believes the other party’s approach is wrong. To say so, in his mind, was of historic importance, for obvious reasons. Obvious, at least, to any statesman who can see before and beyond this current election season. Thank you, Senator Obama, for helping make clear where you stand on that front.

Two different world views, for sure. John Podhoretz and Peter Wehner have more.

Ed Morrisey reports on what Obama has said on his own website and in political debates here. (And now Obama says this? Would that be change you can believe in?)

Power Line points out another significant and contradictory foreign policy position of Obama's here. Check out the photo at the bottom of the post and reflect on these words:

Commenting on the distinction that Obama vehemently observes between Iran and Hamas, Geraghty is unconstrained by the norms that Newsweek seeks to impose: "Obama contends a face-to-face summit with the guy on the left is long overdue; a face-to-face summit with the guy on the right is crazy talk."

Taking a further step back, recall Obama's NC victory speech when he said:

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

To which, Tom Maguire writes:

Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).

So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies," although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point. Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation? Puzzling.

Power Line adds these additional words:

And the United States has been talking with Iran right along in any event. It's not for lack of communication that Iran has been conducting its war on the United States.

Michael Novak discusses the implications of Obama's world view.

Glenn Reynolds summed it up with this pithy statement:

MEMO TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN: When somebody condemns appeasement, it doesn't help things to jump up and yell "Hey, he's talking about me!"

I think Obama's views on this related set of foreign policy issues are his single greatest vulnerability in the general election. They are a vulnerability because they provide the clearest and deepest insights into his view of the world and human nature, at a time of an unrelenting global war against our country. And it is in the context of those insights about Obama's world view that it is possible to attach a related and unfavorable interpretation to his parallel relationships with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

As I argued at the time, the effect of this language would be to prevent the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and, while enabling state legislatures to grant rights to same-sex couples (a moral, even necessary, capability in some respects), to require that all civil union–type laws to explicitly grant rights to any new unions without the shorthand of referring to marriage.

That arrangement is as it should be for a changing culture because:

1. It leaves culturally central definitions such as that of marriage to the people
2. It allows states to acknowledge and accommodate changing life arrangements and adapting social practices, while forcing them to consider what has changed and what that change requires.
3. If the changes effected by number 2 become sufficiently thorough — and thoroughly accepted — the amendment can be stricken to erase the legal distinction to mirror the by-then erased cultural distinction.

This process is the appropriate one because it enables our society to bring about change in such a way as to preserve that which is good and necessary in marriage, while experimenting with the expansion of its principles to other groups. Of equal importance, it arrests divisive government trends that have made all cultural battles national in scale and hinged them on the largely unelected judicial oligarchy.

Of course, the more likely course of events is for people who think they're marching on "the right side of history" to push their preferred change by any means possible, consequences be damned (or consequences be dismissed and wished away), while other people seek to avoid making ideologically defining decisions that often put them at odds with their own emotional inclinations, as well as the emotional inclinations of those whom they love and respect, thus forcing the opposing side into ever-more-defensive maneuvers, thus ensuring further cultural division and an escalation of civic hostilities.

Yes, in the state formerly known as Taxachusetts, a band of activist citizens are pushing for a statewide vote to eliminate the state income tax:

A group of antitax activists launched a campaign over the weekend to abolish the state income tax, setting the stage for a contentious public battle if the measure is added to the ballot this fall.

After pushing a similar initiative that almost passed six years ago, a group called the Committee for Small Government is back for another round, asking voters to end the income tax and save the average taxpayer $3,600 a year. The group, led by libertarian Carla Howell, is almost certain to gather the 11,000 signatures needed to put a question on the November ballot.

To say that state officials are worried about the prospect would be an understatement.

Community, political, and business officials are grasping for words such as "chaos," "devastating," and "catastrophe" to describe the scenario that would unfold if the measure passes.

Six years ago, Beacon Hill didn't pay much attention to what seemed to be a pie-in-the-sky campaign. Confident that voters would reject the plan as folly, no one even organized a campaign to fight it.

But it almost passed, gaining the support of 45 percent of voters...

A fledgling coalition of city and town officials and union officials hired former Blue Cross Blue Shield executive and civic leader Peter Meade to head a battle against the income tax cut, and is interviewing high-powered public relations firms. Their Coalition for Our Communities plans a fund-raising and public educational campaign to combat the allure of the tax-cutting measure, which would cost the state roughly $12.7 billion - about 40 percent of the budget.

Some political observers are expecting a public tax battle the likes of which has not been seen since Governor Michael S. Dukakis was in office...

These are the kind of engaged, activist people I had in mind when I wrote earlier this week about the crisis in RI and how important it was for RI to have a coalition of citizens committed to change. Why do we almost NEVER hear of similar groups of people in RI?

On a concluding note, I got a chuckle out of Andy Roth's words about the Massachusetts' initiative:

I don't know what I like more about this article. The fact that Massachusetts citizens are pushing for a repeal of the income tax, or the fact that bureaucrats are going bonkers with the prospect that they might succeed.

And how would raising taxes even higher in RI not incentivize further flight from the state by more residents?

ADDENDUM

In the comments section, Ken is kind to pass along the link to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) report entitled Rich States/Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. Key sections include the executive summary here and the section "America's Economic Black Hole: The Northeast" on pages 15-18 of the report. The Rhode Island summary can be found here, where they describe the economic outlook as 48th out of the 50 states.

There is no "moderate" solution option left anymore; the entrenched special interests and politicians have made sure of that. The state is headed for collapse under the status quo. So we might as well throw the state into bankruptcy and restructure it with some logic.

Next Wednesday at 6:50 p.m., Andrew will have his moment in the spotlight.

The median price of a multifamily house in Rhode Island during the first quarter declined about 39 percent, to $161,000, compared with $263,000 a year earlier. More than half the 261 multifamily houses sold during the quarter were bank-owned foreclosure sales, according to the Rhode Island Association of Realtors.

Condos aren't moving:

Sales of condominiums during the first quarter plunged 37 percent, as more units sat on the market unable to find buyers, according to data from the Rhode Island Association of Realtors. Only 244 condos sold during January, February and March, down from 390 during the same period a year ago, the data show.

At that pace, it would take 22 months — nearly two years — to sell all the 1,772 condos on the market during the first quarter of this year, according to an analysis of data from the statewide Multiple Listing Service.

"Holy smokes!" exclaimed Suzanne E. Mulvee, a senior real-estate economist in Boston with Property & Portfolio Research, upon hearing about Rhode Island’s condo inventory. "That sales volume is absolutely falling off the cliff."

And URI economist Leonard Lardaro is trying to shout us awake:

In a statement with the [Current Conditions Index], Lardaro said, "Anyone who denies that Rhode Island is in a recession is clearly delusional. More importantly, based on our state's 2008 economic performance, we have entered a second and deeper recession phase, where prior economic activity levels will continue to become ever-more unattainable. Having to eliminate large [state] budget deficits amid all this weakness will prove to be far more difficult than almost anyone here has imagined."

Folks, we're heading into a helluva time that some of us won't be able to make it through as Rhode Islanders. Whom we enable to remain, however, will determine the darkness and duration of the night.

It is said that every man and every woman - somewhere over the course of their life - must have their moment.

It is a moment of recognition that something larger than the day to day details of our own family life is beckoning and we must answer to it. I would propose to you that such a moment has arrived for Rhode Islanders.

The checklist of unfavorable economic conditions in which our state now exists should be by now frighteningly familiar:

* A structural deficit at more than half a billion dollars and growing.

* Seventh highest property tax burden

* Overall fourth highest tax burden

* Worst business climate - including small business climate - in the nation

* Among most generous states in pay and benefits to state workers

* Eighth most highly paid teachers/school results in bottom fifth of nation

Haven't you had enough? If you have, I ask you to take action.

The Rhode Island Republican Party asks you to make a run for the General Assembly to show you are not going to abandon our state. This is your moment that the citizens take back the state from the special interests.

The Rhode Island Republican Party does not owe anything to the grip of greed of the public employee unions and their contracts - and many who do their bidding in our legislature - which have driven this state to its present condition of bankruptcy.

The Rhode Island Republican Party firmly believes the smallest state in the nation has no business being among the most free spending in the nation to those employees in nearly every measurable benefit, especially for the size of their retirement pensions which we cannot afford.

A bankrupted state cannot adequately finance its schools or public universities. It will leave all of our school age children with inferior educations when compared to other states and diminished prospects for college and beyond.

A bankrupted state does not attract businesses that provide jobs, careers and financial stability to college graduates and young people hoping to start families. It drives your own college-educated son or daughter far away from home to more prosperous states where they take their future earning power with them.

A bankrupted state will not nourish the stable, safe, small business-thriving, friendly communities many of us grew up in. Rhode Island is headed toward deteriorating into a state of rundown, boarded-up, forgotten neighborhoods offering far less prosperity, stability and safety to families here. If this is not the future state you want for your children, it's time to say "Enough."

Come join us. We will help you launch your campaign if you will help us fight back.

It doesn't take lots of money or any sacrifice greater than the ones you would make for your family on any given day. Like all things worth doing in life, it just takes desire and hard work.

When you win, we will together pursue a plan to drastically cut our out of control spending, immediately reduce your property and income taxes, put education dollars back into classrooms not just contracts, protect our environment, and to bring companies and good jobs back to Rhode Island. Oh yes, we can!

Contact our office at 401-732-8282. Contact me personally at 401-289-2380.

Giovanni Cicione

R.I. GOP chairman

If the [lead-paint] verdict is upheld, every dwelling in Rhode Island constructed before 1978 (about 240,000 total) will have to be inspected for lead-based paint, regardless of whether the owners agree to that inspection. Residents will be forcibly relocated if their homes need an "extreme makeover" to remove and replace everything with lead paint on it — siding, walls, stairs, even kitchen cabinets — all at the paint companies' expense.

This scenario is fraught with unintended consequences. First, because Rhode Island law already requires landlords to abate lead hazards in rental units at their own expense, those who neglected to do so would get a free renovation, paid for by the paint companies. Second, real-estate values, already in decline, would further plummet while repairs are under way. This will depress the real-estate resale market and impair the value of assets held by lenders.

Read the op-ed for a reminder of the details, but the sound one hears while reading such summaries is of a nation eating itself — no doubt with a toxic aftertaste for which somebody else will have to bear the consequences.

But while House leaders have declared themselves in support of the move [to require legislators to contribute to their healthcare costs], which has both financial and symbolic significance in a year when the state is facing a huge deficit and thousands face removal from state subsidized health-care rolls, Senate leaders are less enthusiastic. In a brief interview yesterday, Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed explained why.

Asked about her reservations about the bill, she said she believes lawmakers show more "leadership" by contributing voluntarily to the cost of their health insurance, as she decided to do in recent weeks.

You see, they have to give themselves the opportunity to soak the Rhode Island taxpayers for $17,620 fully paid family healthcare so that they can have the opportunity to decline to take it. Or not:

At last count, only 26 of the state's 113 lawmakers — more than half of them Republican — are voluntarily paying a portion of their health-care premiums. The majority pay nothing; 21 lawmakers each get a $2,002 annual waiver payment for giving it up.

Ah, such leadership as we have in Rhode Island!

... a handful of legislators fretted that ending the $2,002 waiver payments might run up the state's cost by spurring some legislators into taking state-subsidized insurance they are now doing without.

"A handful," huh? Guess we'll just have to vote them all out of office.

Resource Recovery paid $163,000 an acre for the property, the current audit notes — a price that would have been consistent with other area land prices “assuming the land was usable.” But because of the dump, not all of the land was usable. And auditors could find no appraisals or any information “regarding the value of the property.”

“Serious environmental issues do exist” that will require “substantial” cleanup costs, the audit concluded.

In addition to the appraisals, we have an A.P.B. out for either the invoice of services by the appraiser or the cancelled checks in payment of same. These appraisals must have been quite special; extraordinary, in fact. Was a correspondingly extraordinary fee invoiced or disbursed for it?

We should note also that the source of the $8m was compulsory fees collected from the people and businesses of Rhode Island. Inasmuch as the RIRRC was able to accummulate $8m from those fees to spend on unusable land, clearly, there is room for an adustment of the fee structure at the Central Landfill.

Tonight, we stand here two years and a world apart from where Cranston was when I first announced my candidacy for Mayor two years ago. After serving on the City Council for four years, Cranston was headed in the right direction. The city was recovering from years of fiscal mismanagement, including having the lowest bond rating in the nation. I was proud to have been part of the team who worked to turn Cranston around....

Our city has suffered two years of broken promises. It is easy to shake hands and walk door-to-door telling people what they want to hear. Politicians who lack the basic knowledge of municipal finance believe that short-term fixes are enough. The current Mayor promised tax-relief at his campaign kick-off. Instead, Cranston residents were faced last year with the maximum tax increase allowed by state law after inheriting a city with a balanced budget, increased funding of the city's pension plan, and approval of three affordable labor agreements. This was the largest tax-increase that residents faced since the time when Cranston was merely days away from declaring bankruptcy. The Mayor's maximum tax-hike was uncalled for and was a betrayal of you, the taxpayer....

Mayor Napolitano's tax freeze budget this year is merely an election year trick, the same kind of trick that former Mayor O'Leary played on the voters of Cranston. Mayor Napolitano proposes to use a portion of the Rainy Day Fund in his budget while ignoring the multi-million dollar deficit that the City's schools are accumulating. Because the Mayor refuses to make real changes in how we operate, he will either raise taxes or spend substantially more of the Rainy Day Fund when the bills come due after the election. My friends, our City's future is in jeopardy as this Mayor makes decisions based on his own selfish political ambitions....

In these stormy times, Cranston needs a strong leader. It needs a leader who realizes that empty promises may win votes for a candidate, but do not result in a win for the people of Cranston. I will continue to tell you the truth as we move forward. I have the track record of being conservative with your money. During my tenure on the City Council, we ratified three reasonable labor contracts, ensured audits were completed on time, controlled expenses and ran surpluses that helped replenish the Rainy Day Fund. Together, we can stand up for the taxpayers of our great city....

So ladies and gentlemen, please join me once again as I embark on this journey to bring Cranston back and make it a place where dreams can come true…I am ready to take on that challenge -- and ask you tonight once again to believe in me and join me in facing the challenge. Together, let us lead our city back to greatness.

Anchor Rising: Forgive me for using the wimpy formulation of this question; some people say that the problem with Rhode Island is that even though everybody knows what the problems are, Rhode Islanders keep sending the same politicians back into office who won't do anything about them. You have more direct experience with that than anyone. What's different about Cranston and/or about your campaign that's going to make things different this time?

Allan Fung: You know, my biggest platform plank is being honest with the taxpayers. I think they are frustrated with the broken promises they keep hearing year after year from the same politicians. I've always been forthright with them about where our city has been and where it's going, and during these next six months, I am going to be laying out my plan to get the city back on the right track, to make sure that Cranston is on sound financial footing, not only for the short term, but for the long term future.

But when He Who Is Change does it? Nahhhhh. I mean, c'mon, he's a good guy and isn't the same kind of inherently evil, yet pathologically numb doofus that currently sits in the White House, right? Besides, you agree with The Prince. If you don't agree with someone, then it goes without saying that a simple difference of opinion ain't enough: they must also be evil and stupid and a poopy-pants. Right?

Some of the media elite have found that Karl Rove in his new role as a commentator is, to their apparent astonishment, a pretty good guy. Rove is now a FOX News contributor and also writes for the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. The New York Times quotes Newsweek editor Jon Meacham as saying the former Bush political strategist is getting positive reviews from the staff.

The Times writes, "Mr. Meacham said Mr. Rove had been received surprisingly well in the magazines newsroom, where he has been a reliable colleague who files his articles on time and works diligently with fact checkers.

After one editor dealt with him, Mr. Meacham said, "The editor called me and said, 'This just complicated my world view. I may like Karl Rove.'"

The status quo was best summed up in a passing comment by Representative Gorham last night on the Matt Allen show: Gorham talked about how the state budget deal is typically reached in a "clandestine" fashion in the office of a just a few state legislators and then rapidly moved to a vote.

That approach is, in no small way, how RI got into its current mess and maintaining such practices won't yield successful and lasting change.

As someone who has led corporate turnarounds for nearly 20 years and has read extensively on what it takes to lead successful change initiatives, it is appalling how little progress has been made to effect real change in the face of the current crisis here in RI. It's not like these structural problems are a new development!

One of my favorite authors on leadership and change is Harvard Business School professor John Kotter. He has been writing for years about the topic of leading change and is a world authority on the subject. More on his books can be found here.

For the last decade, Kotter has been writing extensively on what he calls the "Eight Step Process of Successful Change." Here is an excerpt from his "Iceberg" book, a book which uses a fable to describe what it takes to realize successful change. Easily accessible to the layperson, I recommend reading it.

Set the Stage

1. Create a sense of urgency: Help others see the need for change and the importance of acting immediately.

2. Pull together the guiding team: Make sure there is a powerful group guiding the change - one with leadership skills, credibility, communications ability, authority, analytical skills, and a sense of urgency.

Decide What to Do

3. Develop the change vision and strategy: Clarify how the future will be different from the past, and how you can make that future a reality.

Make it Happen

4. Communicate for understanding: Make sure as many others as possible understand and accept the vision and strategy.

5. Empower others to act: Remove as many barriers as possible so that those who want to make the vision a reality can do so.

6. Produce short-term wins: Create some visible, unambiguous successes as soon as possible.

7. Don't let up: Press harder and faster after the first successes. Be relentless with initiating change after change until the vision is a reality.

Make It Stick

8. Create a new culture: Hold on to the new ways of behaving, and make sure they succeed, until they become strong enough to replace old traditions.

As we all reflect on the severe crisis here in RI, one of the most disconcerting conclusions is how RI is currently 0-for-8 in moving in the right direction.

Where is the sense of urgency?

Where is the powerful guiding team?

What is the change vision and strategy?

There will be no successful structural changes in RI until those questions are answered in tangible and affirmative ways. If they are not, the crisis will worsen instead of getting better.

Avoiding the hard choices which go with implementing difficult changes is a part of human nature and, at one level, perfectly understandable. Which is why it is so important for there to be leaders who display the requisite courage to initiate the change dynamic.

The structural status quo in Rhode Island is built on a foundation of economic fiction. And, whether certain people like it or not, economic fictions simply cannot persist - even if many people choose to ignore the problems in the hope they will just go away. Which is exactly what causes bad situations to turn into crises.

Tackling RI's economic fictions matters for reasons beyond just balancing a budget. The well-being and futures of many families will be affected. As I wrote back in 2004:

...Even so, this debate is about more than current taxation levels and today's family budgets. It is about freedom and opportunity for all -- and family budgets in the future. The greatness of our country is that people can live the American dream through the power of education and hard work.

High taxation and mediocre public education create a disincentive for new-business formation in Rhode Island. That means fewer new jobs, and less of a chance for working people to realize the American dream. It also means people have an economic incentive to leave the state -- and the ones who can afford to do so will continue to leave.

Unfortunately, the ones who cannot afford to leave are the people who can least afford the crushing blow of high taxation and mediocre education. The status quo dooms these families to an ongoing decline in their standard of living. That is unjust...

We are at a crossroads in Rhode Island. If we tackle issues now, a turnaround with only some pain is possible. If we delay, we will doom multiple generations of working families and retirees to further tax hell and a reduction in their standard of living. That is wrong.

This public debate is about breaking the chains of bondage and giving all citizens the freedom to live the American dream here in Rhode Island. What greater legacy can we leave for our children than a fair shot at the American dream here in their state?

...Let's tear down this wall of economic fiction, and let freedom ring out across the state. Let's make Rhode Island a vibrant land of freedom and opportunity, for all working families.

Either we will do change here in RI or change will do us. The failure to act over the last 4 years means the changes will now be far more painful. And the pain will only deepen more if further inaction accompanies the passage of yet more time.

So, have you done your part to increase the sense of urgency? Have you stepped up to become part of a team dedicated to real change? Have you worked, even at your town level, to identify a vision for change?

One of the most striking observations I regularly find when going into troubled companies is how many people at all levels instinctively know what is wrong. One of the most heart-warming outcomes is how many of those people want to pitch in and be part of a solution. And one of the most satisfying developments is watching those people rise to the occasion, often in ways that would never have been predicted. Never under-estimate the power of the human spirit to be selfless and do great things. Even when it requires going through pain.

But before those wonderful developments can ever occur, we have to start with the basic first steps of a successful change initiative. Unlike the business community where companies die if they base their plans on economic fictions, change in the political world is much more difficult because entrenched special interests have no incentive to be part of constructive solutions. They have no incentive since their demands are funded by third-parties - taxpayers - while the special interests suffer no direct adverse economic consequences from making unrelenting demands.

Any real solutions in the RI public sector will require taking enough power away from those special interests so that the economic price of their demands is reduced. Yet the people to do that - politicians - usually have a focus on their own re-election and thus have no incentive to challenge the very interests who can subsequently cause them to lose an election. The problem is compounded further because the same politicians and bureaucrats have no incentive to help solve the problems because they also suffer no direct adverse consequences from their failure to act.

So any solution to RI's problems will require some selfless and courageous politicial leaders who care more about change and doing the right thing than winning elections. Part of their challenge will be to build a large enough coalition of citizens committed to change. It is only then that a courageous citizen coalition can exert the requisite pressure on enough fence-sitting politicians, providing the latter with a sufficient re-election incentive to join the change initiatives and the majority votes for change.

Bluntly, I don't see any of those dynamics even starting to happen in RI right now. Which says things will get far worse before they have any chance to get better.

We are faced with an ongoing political stalemate in place in RI: The window of opportunity for "reasonable" solutions passed some years ago. When RI already has one of the highest taxation rates among the 50 states, raising them even higher is a certain doom loop. It is too late to solve the problem by tinkering on the margin. Yet the special interests have shown zero willingness to back off their entitlement demands so as to make structural changes possible. With each passing month, there will be even less flexibility.

We are on a treacherous path as a state. But sometimes it takes going through sheer hell before the will to make tough decisions arises. Given the incredibly powerful and entrenched special interests and the political balance of power, maybe the only viable solution for RI is to let it all blow up and then pick up the pieces. Maybe we just have to become a statewide version of Vallejo.

Since the status quo political debate on these problems is an abject failure, here is my provocative proposal for public discussion:

Building the sense of urgency: Begin talking publicly and bluntly about exactly how bad the structural problems are. No sense of urgency will be built until after these problems are crisply defined and transparently obvious for citizens across the state. Simply saying we have a budget deficit of $X million is insufficiently compelling; we need to talk about the ongoing budget deficit and how we have masked it previously, the structural problems which have caused recurring deficits, the unfunded pension liabilities, and the unfunded healthcare liabilities - all of which were incurred despite extremely high taxation levels.

Pull together a team of leaders and active citizens: There has to be a conscious building of a powerful group of people from across the business community, policy community, and political community who are committed to change. It is a group which will only coalesce when we stop being so delicate in our conversations about the crisis. In RI, that means we need some people who are willing to take on previously unseen levels of personal risks. As they say, we need a few good men and women who have both the sense of urgency and the willingness to talk about the stark challenges faced in RI. Who are equally willing to talk bluntly about how the inaction of politicians and bureaucrats as well as the resistance from powerful special interests make it necessary to either do some major restructuring immediately or implement a radical solution of throwing the state into receivership/bankruptcy. Said another way, we need leaders who are willing to use that blunt public conversation to shake the foundation, thereby either stimulating real and previously non-existent policy ideas for serious change outside a legal restructuring or making the case on why there is no other alternative.

The change vision for RI: By the middle of the next decade, do what Massachusetts did in recent years by going from taxation levels which earned it the nickname "Taxachusetts" to middle of the pack among the 50 states.

The strategy for achieving the change vision: Set a specific and firm near-term time deadline for implementing the necessary major structural changes to realize the change vision. If the changes don't occur by the deadline, throw the state into some form of receivership/bankruptcy and then restructure everything by brute force.

What do you want the future of RI to look like? How are you willing to help bring about change?

During the interview, Gorham noted that there are very different approaches across the 50 states as to what issues are subject to bargaining by public employees. At one end of the spectrum, some states do not permit any such bargaining for certain public employees. Unsurprisingly, RI is at the other end of spectrum, where current law says the following is subject to bargaining for all public employees: wages, benefits and all other terms and conditions of employment.

Gorham notes that current RI law disenfranchises management, such as school superintendents and principals, and creates the structural incentive which results in the state spending significant financial resources while getting only meager results on its investment. As I have written for years about the teachers' union contracts, RI overpays for under-performance and has created an entitlement mentality instead of a focus on performance.

Gorham's bill would limit the scope of what is subject to bargaining to only wages and benefits, applying such a scope definition to fire fighters, police officers, state police officers, correctional officers, certified teachers, municipal employees and 911 employees. The bill would place RI in the middle of how the 50 states approach public employee bargaining. And, by default, leave the remaining issues of how they get their respective jobs done to the people who actually do the work - instead of union officials.

Ed Achorn had this broad observation about the current conditions in RI and how this entitlement mentality has gotten the state into a very deep hole:

...Thanks in part to unsustainable benefits for public-employee unions, the state confronts a budget deficit of a half-billion dollars or more. And it cannot effectively tax its way out of the nightmare, since its radically high taxes (including property taxes) have already driven out jobs, businesses and many middle-class taxpayers, cutting revenues and leaving Rhode Island one of the few states in recession, while Massachusetts right next door adds jobs and boosts its tax revenues.

Rhode Island, with its beauty, superb location, intellectual infrastructure and potential for port activity, should be one of America’s booming places. Instead, its politicians have left its citizens living in fear that they will lose their jobs or be forced to pack up and leave.

The kind of thinking that brought about this economic debacle also prevails in public education. Thanks to state labor laws that tilt the playing field against taxpayers, and local officials who consistently give away the store in contract negotiations (either deliberately or because they lack the intensity and experience of their well-funded foes), the Ocean State pays one of America’s highest tabs per pupil for public schools, and gets generally mediocre results. And when even more money is invested in the schools, it seems to go into the pockets of special interests in the form of unsustainable benefits, rather than getting to students in the form of new books, science labs, sports, art, music and first-rate teaching.

It doesn’t have to be this way, Mr. Gorham argues...

Indeed, it does not.

1. They make excellent "Jaywalking'' targets.
2. They don't read books -- and don't want to, either.
3. They can't spell.
4. They get ridiculed for original thought, good writing.
5. Grand Theft Auto IV, etc.
6. They don't store the information.
7. Because their teachers don't tell them so.
8. Because they're young.

Adults are so busy imagining the ways that technology can improve classroom learning or improve the public debate that they've blinded themselves to the collective dumbing down that is actually taking place. The kids are using their technological advantage to immerse themselves in a trivial, solipsistic, distracting online world at the expense of more enriching activities – like opening a book or writing complete sentences.

Mr. Bauerlein presents a wealth of data to show that young people, with the aid of digital media, are intensely focusing on themselves, their peers and the present moment. YouTube and MySpace, he says, are revealingly named: These and other top Web destinations are "peer to peer" environments in the sense that their juvenile users have populated them with predictably juvenile content. The sites where students spend most of their time "harden adolescent styles and thoughts, amplifying the discourse of the lunchroom and keg party, not spreading the works of the Old Masters."

But, I don't want to sound like the stock Scooby Doo villain complaining about "those darn kids" (especially because I always wanted to hang with the Mystery Machine crowd!). I tend to think that #8 from the Globe's list is the most relevant point of them all: "Because they're young." Remember, we were all pretty clueless once, and, like the current under-30 crowd, we didn't realize it either.

The trick is to get "those darn kids" up to speed in the ways of the professional and public world. And we need to be patient about it. We've all benefited from the guiding hand of old timers who set us straight--often with the help of a few well-placed, sarcastic "observations." It's called growing up. Eventually, they'll "get it."