I'm glad to see that the governor isn't giving the speech with an audience. Something too friendly comes out in that sort of setting with him.

"High taxes and excessive spending made us weak and vulnerable."

Can't wait for the reflexive cliche machine afterwards from the "progressive" / union folks:

"on the back of hard working state employees"

"the most vulnerable amongst us"

"tax cuts for the rich"

I liked the restaurant analogy. Would you go to a restaurant with high prices, mediocre food, and poor service? Welcome to Rhode Island!

We could do without the "what we've been doing" stuff. We need to look forward, especially from a governor who isn't running for reelection.

In other circumstances, the "since we began keeping records" would be funny.

"Prosperity has a way of hiding bad policies and practices."

Amen.

Changes to pensions:

* Minimum retirement age of 59.

* Eliminate cost of living adjustments

* Move to defined contribution pensions

Eliminating COLAs!

Defined contribution plans for new employees!

Great point: Even a scaled back pension would be very attractive from a private sector perspective.

Local aid ... here it comes!

We should be going for a pension freeze for all current participants and imposition of a defined contribution plan.

But even with these relative modest / benign proposed changes, I'm enjoying the mental image of Bob Walsh and Pat Crowley rolling on the floor frothing at the mouth as they listen to this ...

Good to see he's using this highly visible platform to educate Rhode Islanders about various factors (our cost of public services compared with the nation) that most of us around here already know.

"Better share our resources..." uh-oh.

The Gov. is proposing a lot of consolidation statewide and at the county level.

A new committee to study consolidation.

If it's inclusive (I'm thinking George Nee and Bob Walsh), then it could be a bad thing.

I'm liking the education of the general public aspect, as well as the comparisons to other states. We can't tell people how to get out of the muck, if they don't know how they got into it in the first place.

>If it's inclusive (I'm thinking George Nee and Bob Walsh), then it could be a bad thing.

Consider that inevitable.

Think Murphy's pension study commission ...

Now say: "We should not be relying on what the federal government will or will not give us."

Good thing bringing up the magic Obama stimulus money.

Tom:

That's one way the governor sets himself up. He puts his weight behind a commission or panel and then allows the opposition to play prominently under his banner.

Long lasting consequences for Rhode Island's Future. Nice touch. ;)

>That's one way the governor sets himself up. He puts his weight behind a commission or panel and then allows the opposition to play prominently under his banner.

Yep.

Kind of a variation on John McCain's destructive "bipartisanship."

Did I hear a reference to God?

Quick, call the ACLU!

Public employees pensions.

Local aids to cities and towns.

Social service spending.

I call that the trifecta!

Cianci on channel 6 just highlighted the retirement age as something that will really "eat at the unions."

Can you imagine! It will be a sticking point to wait until fifty-nine years of age to retire!

No "broad based tax increases," of course doesn't mean no tax increases at all. Important nuance.

For the minimum retirement age, even 59 sounds pretty generous. Hell, let's go right to 62. Social Security says the full retirement age is 67, let's be generous and go 5 years earlier than that. How about that, "you can retire and collect your pension in RI FIVE YEARS EARLIER than the Social Security Administration says you're at your full retirement"

Choke on that unions.

But if they have to wait until 59, how will they get that big head start on their second career? LOL

Tim Williamson already told Dan Yorke that taxes are going up.

Carcieri better scream to the moon when that starts to take shape.

Will,

The only "major" tax increase being proposed is a cigarette tax increase. See the next post for details...

I have to say: after liveblogging the presidential debates, this felt like a matter of minutes.

>Can you imagine! It will be a sticking point to wait until fifty-nine years of age to retire!

As someone who doesn't expect to be able to retire at least until seventy, if ever, largely because the taxes I pay to fund THEIR pensions keep me from being able to put enough away for my own retirement, no I feel no sympathy for them at all.

For example, my annual property taxes alone equal FOUR annual IRA contributions.

Then there's self-employment tax (FICA); corporate (LLC) tax; income taxes; sales taxes; gas taxes; phone taxes ...

It's enough to drive one to drink. Of course, booze is taxed too!

Thanks Andrew for the update. That was really the only non broad based one I could think of, too. Gasoline taxes would be considered broad based.

I know the written stuff they've distributed is a lot more detailed than what he said tonight, which was meant to be more thematic than policy wonkish.

By the way, I think the reason why he chose 59, is that opposing it on its merits would be too difficult for General Assembly members to explain away. In truth, it ought to be well into the 60s.

I'm very interested to see how effective the governor is at getting his budget through the Assembly.

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that this can only go one of two ways.

1. The Assembly capitulates, trying to grab one or two moral victories.

2. The Assembly raises taxes.

I'm less inclined to think it's the second option. Gordon Fox just introduced a bill yesterday to provide a tax credit to owner-occupied units in Providence and in this economic environment how can you raise property or income taxes without severe backlash?

If the governor is able to get this through the Assembly how do cities and towns react?

Definitely should be an interesting six months.

... in this economic environment how can you raise property or income taxes without severe backlash?

Put it off until just after an election.

"2. The Assembly raises taxes."

Let them. It will the their tax increase. The governor has drawn his line in the sand. It's up to them ti figure out if it's worth the risk to cross it.

"If the governor is able to get this through the Assembly how do cities and towns react?"

By cutting spending further. Most of them have been on notice for a while now. They've know this was coming. I think it they are able to get real relief from unfunded mandates, especially as it relates to education, they won't be quite so bothered by it.

The speach was lousy. As I read the actual plan it is much, much more impressive. The union/welfare crowd will be literally tearing their hair out.
For the first time in 6 years we get something REAL from Carcieri in terms of reform.

The speech was good enough. Not lousy, but not over-specific with details. He came off as calm and reasonable. I imagine that the labor pains will be anything but calm and reasonable. This is going to send them over the edge. However, the real meat of his proposals, as you stated, are in writing, and they are wonderful. I imagine he'll have more opportunity to talk about those details when he does his talk radio gigs all day tomorrow.

A small point but one which is making me giddy:
Cicilline is either going to have to deep six the hundreds of Hispanics (many illegal aliens) he has hired as bus monitors or pay for them out of his own budget.

Where's Pat Crowley, Rhody, Phil, Bob Walsh, Old Time Lefty, Jerzyk and Donnis?
Carcieri got their tongue!
LOL.
Murphy will go along with 90% of this. The deal has already been made, believe me. You think it was an "accident" that not a single one of Carcieri's veto's was overridden yesterday?
Sleep tight union pigs-the chickens have come home......................................to ROOST.

"Murphy will go along with 90% of this. The deal has already been made, believe me."

I agree. Comparatively speaking, the Senate will be more of a challenge with Sen. Theresa "Naked Mole Rat" Paiva-Weed now in charge there, but I think it will ultimately happen. As long as the core of the proposals are adopted, the nibbling around the edges for political cover are largely irrelevant.

Bingo, Will, with one adjustment.

It's important not to forget the basics of Rhode Island politics just because we're relatively happy with the governor's plan.

Part of the "political coverage" built into our system as it stands is coverage to do the wrong thing. The House may pass this proposal having already arranged for the Senate to make fatal changes. On something else down the road, the Senate will take a political risk, and the House will kill it. Meanwhile, the governor's new commission will contain a mole or two who'll scuttle advancement in the governor's name.

Maybe.

>>You think it was an "accident" that not a single one of Carcieri's veto's was overridden yesterday?<<

Huh? Mike, they can't. Different session. Last session is in the books. They had until Monday to override the vetos.

As for Murphy going along with 90% and then the Senate picking it apart. That's fine, but what the Gov sent was a balanced proposal. It closes the current deficit to $0. So if you take something away, you gotta put something back. If they're that good at finding other sources, we wouldn't be in this mess. If their idea is to raise taxes, they'll need enough votes willing to raise taxes to override the veto. Are there enough people in the Assembly who will go on the record and tell the voters in two years, "Yes, I am your Representative/Senator who raised your taxes!"??

Talk about a rock and a hard place. Go along with the Gov's suggestion and let him be the hero or do your own thing, raise taxes and possibly lose your seat to the next Mike Pinga or Ed O'Neil, a nobody who comes out of nowhere but whips you because you pissed off your constituents enough times.