An Experiment in Voter Initiative, Introduction part II

However, I want to kick off the discussion on voter initiative from a non-theoretical direction. I am going to propose a change in the law. At the end of its recent teachers’ contract negotiations, the Cranston School committee gave very short public notice before voting on the new contract and apparently didn’t make the exact terms of the contract public before the vote. Let’s build a safeguard into the law that makes contract approval procedures more reasonably transparent…

Here’s a draft of the change…

Amend section 16-2-9 (18) of Rhode Island’s general laws to add the following:

No school committee shall hold a binding vote on approval of a contract of any kind until at least seven (7) days after the exact text of the contract has been made available to the public. The town clerk shall be responsible for certifying the date and time when the exact text of the contract was made public.

Initial questions: Is the idea behind this change a good one. If so, does the proposed text implement the change properly?

If we decide that this is a reasonable good-government idea, let’s see how responsive the legislature is to making the change on their own. If they do implement something like this in response to public deliberations, maybe there is no need for voter initiative. But if a simple and reasonable change like this can’t make it to the floor, then RI does need voter initiative.

An Experiment in Voter Initiative, Introduction part I

Ironically, Rhode Island is one of the least “progressive” states in the nation, at least in terms of its direct democratic procedures. Rhode Island lacks either voter initiative, where laws can be passed by a direct vote of the people, or voter recall, where voters can recall public officials they are dissatisfied with. State Senator Marc Cote is the legislative leader of a drive to implement voter initiative in Rhode Island, a drive actively supported by Governor Don Carcieri.

The coming year will see many theoretical arguments for an against voter initiative. The initial argument against is that voter initiative is too easily manipulated by big money special interests. So far, this argument is unconvincing. Those making this argument have yet to explain how decisions made by hundreds of thousands voting by secret ballot are more susceptible to manipulation than are votes made by a few hundred who can be punished (losing committee assignments, losing committee chairmanships, etc.) for making the “wrong” decision.

I know that many conservatives oppose recall on principle. I am not sure if there is a “conservative” position on initiative. Over the coming months, we will find out…

The Republican "Economy Bloc" in the Senate

Robert Novak wrote of a successful rebuttal of a bi-partisan attempt in the U.S. Senate to spend more of our tax dollars under the auspices of "Katrina Aid."

The Senate was up to its old tricks Monday evening. It prepared to pass, without debate and under a procedure requiring unanimous consent, a federal infusion of $9 billion into state Medicaid programs under the pretext of Katrina relief. The bill, drafted in secret under bipartisan auspices, was stopped cold when Republican Sen. John Ensign voiced his objection.

The bill's Democratic sponsors railed in outrage against Ensign, a 47-year-old first-termer from Las Vegas, Nev., who usually keeps a low profile. But he was not acting alone. Ensign belongs to, and, indeed, originated, a small group of Republicans who intend to stand guard on the Senate floor against such raids on the Treasury as Monday night's failure. The group includes Sen. John McCain, who long has tried to wean Republicans from ever greater federal spending but attracted little support from GOP colleagues until recently.

Fear has enveloped Republicans who see themselves handing the banner of fiscal integrity to the Democrats. The GOP is losing the rhetoric war, even though Democrats mostly push for higher domestic spending, because Republicans, while standing firm against tax hikes, have also declined to cut spending. Fearing the worst in the 2006 and 2008 elections, Republican senators who would not be expected to do so are looking to McCain to lead the party back to fiscal responsibility.

The "emergency" Medicaid bill is a classic case of how government grows and spending soars. Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, concerned by health problems of evacuees in her state of Arkansas, introduced a bill increasing Medicaid funds to the states. The Senate Finance Committee's Republican chairman, Chuck Grassley, and its ranking Democrat, Max Baucus, drafted the scaled-down, $9 billion substitute and marked it for quick passage. No hearings, no debate, no trouble.

Follow the link for the rest of the story, but you get the picture. Thankfully, there is still a small core of Senators willing to stop this sort of largess. Perhaps more Senators will join them in the future as they wake up to the fact that their political future depends upon it.

A Familiar Plot

Somehow this bit of biography of the man who recently performed a "75-minute one-act, written by Howard Zinn, [that] engaged the audience by shedding light on the theories of philosopher Karl Marx" at the University of Rhode Island is almost too predictable to notice:

Jones is a high school teacher in New York and is a member of the International Socialist Organization. By traveling around the country, he hopes to expose the man behind the ideas that sparked a revolution.

Wonder what he teaches.

An Even Livelier Experiment, 9/29/05

As an experiment of our own, AnchorRising will be liveblogging responses to tonight’s installment of “A Lively Experiment”, Rhode Island public television’s public affairs roundtable (Channel 36, 7:30 pm). This is not intended as a comprehensive review of the program, but as a supplement helping to add ideas and insights to the existing dialogue. My brilliant insigts are in italics.

This week’s host-of-the-week: Susan Farmer

Issue 1: The American Express Building

Bob Watson is boring the viewing audience to death with an “it’s all about process” argument. Maureen Moakley is not bothered by the process so far, what’s happened so far is just a first step. Guy Dufault said legislative leadership couldn’t tell the Governor about their plans because the Gov would have went public because the Gov is a pressmonger. Isn’t the bully pulpit part of the executive’s job? Whatever the merits of buying the building, Dufault is killing Watson on the process issue.

Dave Layman chimes in about substance! Is buying the building a good idea or not? Why does the state government need premium real estate in the networked age? And should government be buying up “Class A” property. Moakley says citizens should have Class A property for interfacing with government.

Farmer adds that even if the state buys the building, it still has to lease the land the building sits on for something like $18,000 per month.

Issue 2: Voter Initiative

Dufault says its “stupidest idea I’ve ever heard” Doesn’t he favor a vote on gambling? Unions would press a minimum wage hike. People will vote themselves mandatory buisness-provided healthcare. It’s a boondoggle everywhere they’ve tried it.

Watson says RI wouldn’t need voter initiative if better ideas came out of the legislature. He doesn’t outright endorse it, but says that it should be looked at very carefully. Farmer points out that VI can prevent good legislation from getting lost in committee.

Moakley states that few politial scientists approve of VI. Interesting. I've never heard that before. She claims cliams that people with money win the voter initiatives, and that the Republicans shouldn’t pursue insitutional changes simply because they don’t have enough seats in legislature. Layman states that 34 states have VI, and most have not gotten rid of it. Laughs at the idea that VI invites manipulation by big money, isn’t that what we have already?

Dufault says VI bypasees the electoral process. A tad incoherent there, Guy. VI directly involves the electoral process. As Dufault and Watson start into a partisan back-and-forth about who has better ideas, it's time for the hook on this issue.

Issue 3: Disaster Evacuation Plans

Farmer says that when she was RI Secretary of State, the formal evac plan for RI was “drive to NH”. Moakley says “they’re” workng on a plan. Moakley adds that it’s understandable that they’re still working on a plan, given how fast events occurred. Haven't we known at least since 1938 that hurricanes pose a serious threat to RI? Watson mentions that Aquidnick Island poses major concerns. Layman adds the danger is not just weather, we need to consider response to terrorism. Moakely says we need less disjointed processes between local, state, and federal govts.

Farmer reads an e-mail: Dufault sucked as host last week.

Outrages:
Moakley: Too many giveways as part of disaster relief, in the form of no-bid contracts, exemptions from environmental regulations, etc.
Dufault: Hypocricsy that Gov supports general VI, but opposes vote on gaming. 88% want right to vote on Casino! Dufault's gone incoherent again, basically arguing we should have a vote on a casino, but nothing else.
Layman: Giving 250 billion to the corrupt Louisiana political system is a mistake. He’s got lots of facts to back up the corruption charge.
Watson: Too much secrecy in govenrment. Mentions film commission. Probably true, bland as butterscotch.

A Disaster Preparation Template

Peggy Noonan has an excellent article over at OpinionJournal, ostensibly about the government’s role in disaster response, but really about the government’s role in everything. Keep Noonan’s article in mind when reading anything about government disaster programs, like Wednesday’s Projo article on the state of hurricane preparation in Rhode Island.

Noonan points out a weakness intrinsic to any government program: Individuals in government get so caught up in the fact they have authority, they seek to apply that authority, whether it makes the situation better or not…

No one took responsibility, but there was plenty of authority. People in authority sent the lost to the Superdome and the Convention Center. People in authority blocked the bridges out of town. People in authority tried to confiscate guns after the looting was over.

I would extend Noonan’s argument to disaster preparation. The most effective way for government to prepare for a disaster is not for government to compel people to behave in a certain way. It is to most efficiently deliver the means and information that people need to help themselves.

This principle leads to a three part disaster management template…

1. Who and where are the people who cannot help themselves in an emergency? Do we have the resources and are we ready to get them out of harm’s way?

2. What mistakes are citizens preparing for a disaster likely to make? How do we deliver the information and resources that will help people preempt as many of their own errors as possible?

3. What good options are people preparing for a disaster likely to overlook? How do we deliver information about disaster response options that people are not likely to see on their own?

Pork Comparison of the Day

Imagine that the town of Smithfield made the following announcement…

Although revenues are stable, due to a cost analysis, funding will only be available for a few programs this year. We are closing down the school department, the police department, and the fire department, because the only programs we can afford are laying new bikepaths, acquiring conservation land, and funding several museums.

Would you think the government really had the costs right? Would you think the money was being well spent?

I am picking on Smithfield here because their FY 2005 general fund expenditures, as recommended by the Town Manager, are about $49,000,000 – about the same amount of RI highway bill funding that should be redirected to Katrina relief. For $49,000,000, Smithfield is able to fund its School Department (about $25,000,000), fire and police Departments (about $3,500,000 each), public works department (about $2,800,000), and almost everything else that municipal government does.

When spent by the Federal government, $49,000,000 gets you a few miles of bikepaths ($38,000,000), a big purchase of conservation land ($8,000,000), and a few other odds and ends.

Is laying a few miles of bikepaths really as expensive as running an entire town? How much would the bikepaths cost if Smithfield was buying them, instead of the Federal government?

This is the heart of the anti-pork argument. It is not just a philosophical argument about the proper role of government spending (although that is part of it). It’s the fact that municipal governments tend to spend money more carefully, at least when compared to the Feds. The Feds just throw money in a general direction, so that Senators and Congressmen can brag about how much money they brought home.

The long-term solution to this problem is to reduce the Federal tax burden, so that people can afford the local services they need.

Defeating the Logic of Pork

It would be a great disappointment if funds redirected from Rhode Island pork went to nothing more than paying for Louisiana pork. Unfortunately, this may happen (if Congress bothers to make any spending cuts at all). As Dale MacFeatters writes in today's Projo, Louisiana’s Congressional delegation, enabled by a willing Congress, seems to be using Katrina as an excuse for a shameless money grab…

[I]t calls for $40 billion in Army Corps of Engineers water-and-flood-control projects within Louisiana, including many that seem unrelated to hurricane protection....The Washington Post reports that the Corps provisions were ‘based on recommendations from a 'working group' dominated by lobbyists for ports, shipping firms, energy companies, and other corporate interests.’

Maybe grabbing as much money as they can when, even if it means exploiting tragedy, is simple Congressional reflex. But there may be something else at work here. Maybe Congress realizes that the quickest way to kill the Porkbusters Project is to attach all kinds of pork to Katrina relief and convince citizens that everyone is as greedy and shortsighted as the current Congress and that the only way to defend yourself is to do it to them before they do it to you.

I’m not that cynical yet. I still think that some of the money earmarked for civic luxuries in Rhode Island should be redirected to Katrina relief. But since federal money sent directly to New Orleans is as likely to be misspent it would have been before Katrina stuck, I am adding a condition to my call that $49,000,000 in Rhode Island highway bill earmarks be redirected to Katrina relief. Instead of focusing redirected funding on New Orleans, redirected highway pork should be focused on helping Katrina victims reestablish themselves wherever they are, whether or not they choose to return to New Orleans.

If the Porkbusters want to keep their momentum going, they need to get someone in Congress to sponsor a bill that directs aid towards individual Katrina victims and the communities that are helping them, not towards the corrupt governments and their cronies that helped create the disaster in the first place (something modeled on Senate Bill 1681, but with a wider scope) and make that new bill the focus of redirected funding.

Out Beyond Expectations

David Wilcox and Nance Pettit's new CD, Out Beyond Ideas, puts to music mystic poetry from multiple religious traditions. My review, of sorts, suggests that they've uncovered and enhanced commonalities that underlie human societies, and that conservatives should look past the too-obvious backstory of the project to commonalities that ought to underlie our own.

Federal Pork's Dubious Return per Dollar Spent

One of the problems with looking through public budget numbers to identify wasteful spending is that the numbers become mind-numbing after a while. Is a $1,000,000 a lot to pay for something or not? How about $10,000,000? Or $100,000,000?

Here is an example. The Westerly Sun has a report on construction of a new police station in Westerly. The total cost for a new police station, according to the Sun, is $12,300,000. Sounds like a lot. However, a quick look at the RI highway bill earmarks shows that $10,000,000 has been budgeted for improving the Blackstone River Bikeway. It's hard to believe that building a few miles of bikepath really costs as much as building a police station.

When you see these kinds of numbers side-by-side, it becomes obvious that the people of Rhode Island would be better off if they had their federal tax burden reduced. When control of the money stays closer to home, communities can address their local needs instead of paying for premium-priced pork.

To see a list of $49,000,000 in highway pork suggested for redirection to more pressing needs, click here.

Where has Patrick Lynch been in response to Rhode Island’s Drunk Driving Problem?

When Patrick Lynch ran for attorney general in 2002, he told the people of Rhode Island (via the Providence Phoenix), that his background as a lobbyist – which included lobbying for clients in the alcohol business -- would be to the people’s advantage…

His experience at the General Assembly, Lynch says, will help him work for better laws.

Fast-forward to the present. Rhode Island has a drunk-driving problem. According to Sunday’s Projo, federal statistics show that Rhode Island has both “the highest percentage of alcohol-related fatal accidents in the nation for five years” AND “the second-fewest drunken-driving arrests in the nation (after Delaware) on a per capita basis” in 2003.

Some local law enforcement blame the discrepancy on loopholes in Rhode Island law. Yet despite the high number of deaths, the lax enforcement, and the loopholes in Rhode Island law...

The legislature has been largely inactive on the issue, to the frustration of police, other law enforcement officials and advocates against driving drunk.

On the issue of drunk-driving, Patrick Lynch has not delivered on his promise to use his lobbying experience to repair laws that poorly protect the public interest.

Taking Abortion Away from the Supreme Court

Though I think he's indulging in a flight of fancy (heck, I'm conservative in both my politics and my expectations), David Gelernter has a politically "radical" (and he offers, "conservative") proposal regarding the ever-present abortion debate. First, his reasoning:

The abortion issue is a catastrophic wound in U.S. cultural life. It has inflicted unending battles on American society ever since the Supreme Court seized control of the issue from state legislatures in 1973 — in one of the grossest power grabs American democracy ever faced.

Young people pondering U.S. democracy today might easily conclude that all really important laws must be decreed by the high court.

We could heal the abortion wound, end the battles and reaffirm the integrity of American democracy if we had the guts to use the Constitution's own mechanism for introducing big, permanent changes to American law. We should get Congress to propose and the nation to ratify a constitutional amendment.

As for specifics, Gelernter further opines and proposes:

Overturning Roe, moreover in the face of majority support, would be a spectacular gesture for the Supreme Court, which no longer likes making spectacular gestures.

How can democracy reassert itself given American political reality? Congress could propose, and the nation could ratify, a two-part constitutional amendment.

Part one would legalize abortion with suitable restrictions. Part two would nullify Roe and reaffirm that only Americans and their elected representatives have the power to make law in this nation. All courts would be implicitly instructed by this slap-in-the-face clause to butt out of law-making.

Obviously, pro-abortion liberals would gain if such an amendment were ratified. Anti-abortion conservatives would too — not in their fight against abortion, perhaps, but as Americans. They can live in a nation where abortion is legal and democracy is under a cloud, or a nation where abortion is legal and democracy has been resoundingly reaffirmed.

Abortion poses vitally important problems, but liberty and democracy are even more important. If we lose them, we lose everything — including all possibility of making things better in the future.

To pass a constitutional amendment is hard, but plenty have been approved in short order. . . . The ratification process would give conservatives a chance they haven't had for years, to make their case to a public that is empowered to act. If the amendment were ratified, which would be likely, abortion rights would at least be backed by the legitimate authority of the people instead of the usurped authority of the court. Democracy would have been vindicated. When the people finally have a chance to speak, this wound would finally have a chance to heal.

It seems to me that the chance that the Supreme Court would render itself moot on the question is low. Thus, the real question is: will the political class be willing to undertake such an effort, with or without the Supreme Court's abdication on the issue?

Senator Reed’s Vote Against Fiscal Transparency

Senator Jack Reed has voted against an amendment making government spending procedures more transparent.

Yesterday, the United States Senate approved a Congressional rules change. Presently, in an appropriations bill, only one house of Congress is required to specify the purpose and dollar amount of an “earmarked” project; the other House need only approve a total amount budgeted for all earmarks. If a similar rules change passes in the House, both houses of Congress will have to approve all specific earmarks.

You might think that a Senator who consistently favors high taxes (Senator Reed scores 17 out of 100 from the National Taxpayers Union, 10 out of 100 from Americans for Tax Reform) would also favor procedures that give close scrutiny to how that money is spent. Apparently, Senator Reed thinks differently.

Senator Lincoln Chafee voted in favor of the transparency amendment.

Land Speculation and the General Assembly

I had one of those "only in Rhode Island" moments this morning when I picked up the ProJo and read that the Democrat leaders of the General Assembly had secretly placed a bid on a prime piece of downtown Providence real estate for the purpose of expanding the bureaucratic office space.

House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano confirmed last night having made the bid, on the General Assembly's behalf, to buy the former American Express building next to the train station for unspecified state use, which could include office space for the state's part-time legislators.

The two Assembly leaders went public after refusing initially to either confirm or deny having made a play for the building in the auction being conducted by the Rhode Island Public Employees Retirement System, under the supervision of a U.S. bankruptcy court judge.

In a statement issued last night in response to two days of questioning, Murphy and Montalbano cited the "significant rents" that several state agencies -- including the treasurer's office -- are paying to lease privately owned office space in Providence.

They said: "Moving these departments into a state-owned building would save the taxpayers money over the long term. Further, the bid helps to protect the state pension fund."

The third reason they cited for making a bid on the 135,110-square-foot, four-story building, with a two-level underground garage: with 150 parking spaces, "the property would help ease the parking situation faced by the public when visiting state departments or the State House."

Said Murphy in an interview: "We look at this building and this opportunity and say there are endless possibilities for the State of Rhode Island." Added Montalbano: "The focus is on the opportunity of acquiring the building. We didn't want to sit idly by and let the opportunity go by."

Governor Carcieri and former Democrat Governor Bruce Sundlun wasted no time in decrying the move.

"The idea that we should be buying a Class A, premium office building in downtown Providence for some unknown use is absolutely ridiculous," said Carcieri, ticking off his objections one after another. Among them:

"That's got a lot more potential for economic development. Bring a real business into the city. That will bring jobs with it and income taxes and corporate taxes, hopefully, and all those things. That's what it should be used for.

"The state doesn't need it. My gosh, we've got plenty of buildings we are looking at converting, rehabbing and so forth" at the state-owned Pastore complex in Cranston, "so I have no idea what they are thinking."

"Last time I looked, it's the executive branch that purchases property."

Finally, he said: "Here we are scrambling for money to do much more needy projects . . . [and] we are going to spend that kind of money? I see no sense in this whatsoever."

Added a "disappointed" Sundlun: "All that does is tell me why all of the arrangements that had been made and worked on -- for what, three years at least -- to acquire that Francis Street land are apparently going down the drain.

"Everything was going swimmingly and then all of a sudden, it closed off and I couldn't get a word out of Murphy . . . Other people talked to him on my behalf and he said, 'tell Bruce I love him, but I can't talk to him now.' "

I wonder if there's any other angle being played here?

After meeting Murphy for coffee at a Dunkin' Donuts in Warwick earlier in the day, Watson said: "I can confirm that I met with the speaker this afternoon and he confirmed that the General Assembly has submitted a bid for the building.

"I understand it is in and around $20 million . . . [and] the speaker hopes and expects to save money by consolidating agencies, such as the auditor general and perhaps other agencies that are, perhaps, leasing properties."

Watson said he had many questions, among them: how much money will be removed from the City of Providence tax rolls if the state buys the building. According to Capitol Properties, which owns the separate groundlease on the building, current city taxes on the land and building are $616,393.

He said Murphy promised answers and also assured him "it would require approval of the General Assembly."

But Watson said his most significant question -- where would the money come from -- remains unanswered, and "I have yet to be convinced by anyone a part-time legislature requires additional office space."

As for the possibility of housing other non-legislative agencies in that building, Watson said: "we have a duly elected governor who can address those issues."

UPDATE: Watson was on with Dan Yorke this afternoon. Essentially, he repeated his concerns but, with some questioning by Yorke, the picture became a bit more clear. According to Yorke, and confirmed by Watson, the Joint Committee on Legislative Services has a $30 million block of cash that they keep rolling over every year that they can use when they want. As such, though Murphy indicated to Watson that the General Assembly would be consulted to approve or reject the purchase, the fact is that there is no legal reason for this to occur. According to Watson, there are also some Separation of Powers issues.

Yorke gave his impression that the offer by Murphy to bring in the General Assembly seems to have occurred only because the deal was found out. To this, Watson commented that, as he understood it, the bid has to close by the end of November. Since the General Assembly doesn't meet until January, he wondered, "How do we go about approving this?" Finally, Watson speculated that, given the Governor's position on the matter, how many members will feel comfortable dashing up to the State House to approve this purchase in November? By that time, heating oil prices are going to be rising and the appearance could be given that the Legislature is throwing the public's money around for the benefit and comfort of themselves.

Re: Chafee Wants Democrats to Select Republican Candidates

That's an interesting circle the "Chafee forces" are hoping to square, Andrew. On one hand, they don't want anybody to believe that Laffey is electable. On the other hand, they want Democrats to cross over for the primaries in order to ensure the nomination of the Republican candidate who can (the Chafee folks believe) beat the victor of the Democrats' own primary!

I wonder if Laffey's advisers have developed any rough drafts of ads encouraging Democrats to cross over in the hopes of nominating the (supposed) least electable Republican.

Chafee Wants Democrats to Select Republican Candidates

That’s what the Washington Post says about Senator Chafee’s primary strategy…

Chafee forces will try to persuade Democrats to vote for Chafee on primary day.

So much for party building. Is the Senator going to do anything at all to appeal to Republicans in this state?

In search of an Honest Democratic Argument Against John Roberts...

...because you won't find one in Sunday's Projo from Democratic party chairman Howard Dean. Here is the start of what is supposed to be the substance of Dean's rant...

The consistent mark of Roberts's career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans -- particularly the most vulnerable in our society. He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls to have the same opportunities in sports as boys....

The case he is referring to, I believe, is NCAA v. Smith. Sports Law Blog has a short summary here...

[H]e successfully defended the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") against a lawsuit by Renee Smith, a law school student who alleged that the NCAA, when it refused to allow her to participate in postgraduate intercollegiate volleyball, discriminated against her because of her sex.

The ruling in the case revolved around some technical issues about whether the NCAA itself is subject to Title IX regulations.

Now, ignore the fact that Roberts was representing his client's position. And ignore the fact that, in 1999, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the position advocated by Roberts. Which Neanderthal Supreme Court justice do you suppose wrote the opinion concurring with Roberts' position? The answer is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Following Howard Dean's reasoning, Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes laws protecting the rights of girls to have the same opportunities in sports as boys.

Are the Democrats telling us that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is too far to the right to be part of the mainstream? (Maybe the Democrats consider openly Marxist judges, like Rhode Island superior court judge Stephen Fortunato, to be the true representatives of the mainstream). Or are the Democrats telling us that they are not even going to bother with honest arguments against Judge Roberts and that they will say anything to obstruct qualified judicial nominees who don't have the right political credentials?

Milquetoast as Cocky Careerist

Andrew is perspicacious to note, in a comment to the previous post, that the Chafee camp's talk of ending Steve Laffey's political career is disconcerting. Laffey may or may not be worth keeping on a list of potential Republican candidates, but this tough rhetoric — now used too frequently to be mere candid overstatement — is a strategic loser.

Most directly, such talk will make it more difficult for Chafee to gain the general-election votes of those who opposed him in the primary, assuming he makes it that far. His campaign may be correct that some percentage of us simply cannot be won over, but even if that is their calculation, it's difficult to see what (or whom) they stand to gain by posturing in the public square — political cap guns twirling around their fingers.

Especially spoken by and on behalf of a Senator whose political and policy image can most charitably be described as that of an amiable Ichabod, the language of a Brom Bones echoes phony. Not only does it put the lie to claims of inclusiveness, maturity, and evenness of temper, but it evokes the impression of a man made haughty by the proximity of his "friends." Worse, it makes the once-endearingly unadept Chafee (to adapt Patricia Morgan's characterization) sound a bit too confident in his mastery of the political game.

Projecting strength in that area makes conspicuous his failure to do the same when it comes to those aspects of his job that have more to do with leadership.

Chafee v. Laffey: Yorke Interviews GOP Nat'l Senate Committee Spokesman Nick

Following is a rough summary of Dan Yorke's interview with Republican National Senatorial Committee spokesperson Brian Nick.

First, Dan Yorke found it provocative that Elizabeth Dole personally tried to talk Steve Laffey out of running against Sen. Chafee. Nick explained that Dole told Laffey that the mission of the Senatorial Commitee is to protect incumbents. By that rationale, they will support Sen. Chafee. Above that, their data shows that the best way to keep a Senate seat and to keep the Senate in GOP hands is to keep Chafee, the incumbent, on the ballot. As such, worrying about a primary is not conducive to the priority they have put on re-electing Sen. Chafee.

Yorke then asked about why Laffey is regarded as a liability. To this, Nick answered that, first, since an incumbent is elected 85% of the time, incumbency is a lot more of a guarantee then having a wide open election. Second, as far as the issues break down, from their understanding of talking to both Chafee and folks in Rhode Island, Sen. Chafee fits the mainstream of where most Rhode Islander's are on the issues. Finally, putting someone on the ticket who is untested, has no understanding of Washington, D.C., no relationship with the Senate or the President and is simply not ready does not appeal to them.

Yorke asked if they had done any research on Laffey. Nick stated that Laffey was initially tough to read: he's raised taxes, but word of mouth had it that he's a conservative. Then there is a T.V. add that sounds like a John Kerry or Hillary Clinton demonizing the Republican's energy policy. To them, it seems like Laffey's people are focus grouping to find his niche.

Yorke joked that they should have figured out that the worst thing to do was to have Elizabeth Dole try to cajole the contrarian-by-nature Laffey into not running. That was the wrong M.O.

To this, Nick said that, though they knew that going in, they thought it possible he could be persuaded. He then offered that they had thought he could be persuaded to run for some of the other open RI political offices (Lt. Gov, State Treasure). Then, in an unsolicited aside, he stated that Chafee will have to beat Laffey in the primary and it'll be more expensive and more time consuming, but there'll be a certain amount of enjoyment in ending his [Laffey's] career before it started.

Picking up on this, Yorke asked why the animosity, to which Nick stated that they felt that Laffey didn't respect the privacy of the meeting with Dole and that, in general, he has handled things without a lot of respect.

Yorke replied that it seemed to him that this isn't just one of those go-through-the-motions-to-support-an-incumbent deal, but that this guy [Laffey] "has pissed you off." Nick responded that, "I can tell you this, has he been helpful to the overall agenda? No."

Yorke commented that they were getting a flavor of Laffey and that because he squeeled and violated protocol, they were going after him. Nick responded that, while Laffey does like to lecture people, we don't want to curse him and we will make sure Chafee is re-elected.

Yorke then asked about the Laffey "tax machine" add campaign and Nick explained how it came about. He added that, from his understanding, Laffey prides himself as being a fiscal conservative, but he [Nick] was pretty sure that, if you personally have raised taxes, you can't have anti-tax rhetoric and be persuasive.

Yorke responded that that may be true, but Cranston was in pretty dire straits. To this, Nick responded that, while that may be true, it is his contention that Laffey didn't need to raise taxes to the extent he did.

Yorke asked about Laffey's latest add concerning the price of oil. Nick then brought out what he obviously felt was a hammer. According to Nick, while Laffey says he's going to take on and stand up to the special interests, Laffey himself profited from oil and gas interests while he was in Memphis, TN. And now he promises to take them on.

Finally, Yorke asked if they were really "holding your nose a bit with Chafee" who has been a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration? Nick responded that, while it was an important point, we don't work for the Administration, we want what's best for the Senate majority. Sometimes those things aren't the same. Accordingly, Chafee as an independent Senator is admirable and politically smart and he's a valuable member of the caucus. Yorke mentioned Chafee's vote for Bush, Sr. in the last election and Nick responded that he's [Chafee] willing to speak his mind and take a stand and to speak for the people of Rhode Island.

There you have it. In essence, to the GOP Senatorial Committee, it's about keeping incumbents in office and maximizing the chance of maintaining a majority. If that means sacrificing ideology, so be it. Of course, it's not as if Mayor Laffey can be considered a "mainstream" conservative himself, given his recent ad campaign rhetoric! In short, it appears as if we RI conservatives should say "how-de-do" to Mr. Rock and Mr. Hardplace when it comes to the coming RIGOP primary.

*note: Minor text edits and cleaning up done @ 7:40 PM. MAC

UPDATE:This story in the Warwick Beacon has more on the links between Mayor Laffey and the oil industry, including the charges made by Nicks and the response from Laffey.

Some Perspective on ANWR

Everyone can read about the good and the bad of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Without further comment, and to add some "perspective," here is an image of the area in dispute.

Elite College Women Eye Motherhood

According to the New York Times:

Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

"At the height of the women's movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing," said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. "The women today are, in effect, turning realistic."

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

"Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all," said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

"Men really aren't put in that position," she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

"I've seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn't, and it's kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it," said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

As Lee Harris might say, this confirms that there is something to be said for tradition. Uzezi Abugo's anecdotal evidence can be supported by others.

For instance, some actually consider being a stay-at-home Mom to be a "dream job," (gasp!). Also, Mary Eberstadt has given the topic a more scholarly treatment in her book Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes, which garnered a favorable review by F. Carolyn Graglia in the latest Claremont Review of Books. Graglia summarizes:

In her wonderfully insightful and eminently sensible book, Mary Eberstadt, a mother of four children who works from home for the Hoover Institution, sets forth evidence of the harm done to children by the maternal exodus responsible for the "Home-Alone America" she rightly deplores. Discussing many facets of children's lives, she may tell us what we already know, but she analyzes the subject with a fresh insight. She recognizes that her book violates a major taboo today about any discussion of "whether and just how much children need their parents—especially their mothers." This taboo seeks to protect working mothers from feeling guilty, and Eberstadt sensibly concludes her book by observing that those who "cannot choose otherwise," such as single parents, "have nothing to feel guilty about." As for those who do have a choice, perhaps the "continuing complaints about the guilt felt by absent mothers" may be "further proof of a social experiment run amok."

This social experiment is, of course, the mother-child separation required by the feminist notion that a woman's personal fulfillment requires her energetic participation in the workplace. Eberstadt calls defenders of this conceit "separationists": those who believe that women's freedom to work in the paid marketplace justifies separation from their children, and who refuse to consider whether the children and adolescents left behind by the adult exodus have suffered. She challenges a society, which only seems concerned with making it easier and cheaper for women to "combine work and family," to consider how small children actually experience being in daycare all day. She makes the very sensible point that the daycare debate is never about what it feels like for the infant and children in day care, but always about what the outcomes are in terms of personality development and cognitive ability. "The daycare proof," separationists believe, "is in the achievement pudding." Separationists, however, are often not around children, who, in their lives, have been made "someone else's problem."

This is more than another conservative hit-piece contra feminism. Eberstadt's examination of how children are affected by their mother's decision manifest their "personal fulfillment" in the workplace rather than the home is a worthy discussion. As Graglia, herself a stay-at-home Mom, continues:

Parental absence, [Eberstadt] demonstrates, is implicated in the savage behaviors of serial and teenaged killers and in increased feral behaviors ranging from elementary school violence to suicides (those born in the 1970s and 1980s are three to four times more likely to commit suicide than people of a comparable age who were born at mid-century). Parental absence is also implicated in the obesity epidemic among children, which occurred when adults were no longer around to police children's eating habits and when shorter periods of breast-feeding by working mothers deprived babies of the protection against obesity that breast-feeding affords. She connects parental absence to the explosion in the number of children diagnosed with mental disorders: depression rates in children have risen tenfold since the end of World War II and children in single-parent families are two to three times more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. And parental absence is again implicated in the staggering increase in the number of children and teenagers diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and autism.

Eberstadt makes a powerful case that these disorders are overdiagnosed and that the psychotropic drugs used to treat them—which are so hard on the children, who are their harshest critics—are overprescribed. Prescription drug use is growing faster among children than among the elderly and baby boomers (Ritalin production increased more than 700% between 1990 and 2000). These drugs have been available for decades, but the revolution in their use began only in the 1990s. The reason, says Eberstadt, is that the too busy parents and teachers want to make children easier to deal with; "yesterday's children—which is to say today's adults—enjoyed the luxury of being considered 'normal' in ways that today's children increasingly do not." The parents of yesterday had a wider experience with their children and thus "a more expansive idea of child normality." Parents who spend less time with their children "find their behavior more problematic and in need of alteration." And so, encouraged by a psychiatric profession that refuses to consider a child's environment and believes that antisocial behavior stems only from an underlying disorder, parents acquiesce in what Eberstadt calls "the pharmaceutical outsourcing of childhood."

They also acquiesce in the ultimate outsourcing of specialty boarding schools, which arose, one operator explains, because of the breakdown in the family. Parents involved in messy divorces, bitter custody battles, and remarriages often send teenagers to these schools for behavior-modification through "tough love" and physical deprivation not because they are involved in drugs or crime or violence—as was the case with reform schools of yesteryear—but because "they were in the way of what adults needed or wanted to do."

These insights aren't really new. I grew up in the '80's and was inundated with movies about kids who were regarded by their parents as nothing more than trophies, better seen than heard or dealt with. In short, it seems to me that common sense indicates that there is a reason that women are Moms--and not merely another family revenue stream--and that it really is better for the kids if Mom can stay home. Having children used to mean that a certain amount of personal sacrifice went along with the bouncing bundle of joy. But in today's have it all society, too many try to have it all--the big house, big SUV, club memberships, high-paying dual incomes--at the expense of having a parent around for the kids. The Times article also portrayed an interesting disconnect between the mother's of these well-educated twentysomethings and the faculty and administrators at some of the institutions to which they attend. For instance, two examples were given of young women emulating their mothers in their attitude towards staying at home.

"My stepmom's very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable," said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. "It justified it to her, that I don't look down on her for not having a career."

. . . Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu's roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. "I do have this bias that the parents can do it best," she said. "I see a lot of women in their 30's who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best."

Again, though anecdotal, the consternation among the academics that this attitude has engendered is telling (pun intended, btw). For instance,

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation's top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

"They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it," said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women's and gender studies at Yale. "Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

"I really believed 25 years ago," Dr. Wexler added, "that this would be solved by now."

Or how about:

"What does concern me," said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, "is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."

Dr. Wexler's attitude hints at a sense of betrayal of a birthright given to these young women by she and her sisters. Dean Salovey seems to be unable to think outside of his own box in which success is defined only by dollar signs. They both come off looking like they think they know what's best for the young women. But wasn't the goal of feminism to provide equal opportunity and thus a better chance of true self determination for women, whether they want to climb the corporate ladder or stay at home and raise kids? Who are they to dictate the "why" and "how" of what makes a woman happy? Don't tell me they're being judgemental?

I'm sure some will argue that, "Well, of course, their rich kids, they'll marry rich guys. They can afford to stay at home." That is true. But we don't need all of the toys we think we do, no matter the size of our income. A family doesn't need two new cars, a 3000 sq. ft house and a 50" widescreen. These things are nice, but not essential. If a couple plans ahead properly, stashes a nest egg, and makes some sacrifices along the way, it is possible for the average middle-class couple to survive on one income while they bring up their kids. I know, my family is doing it now. Where there's a will--and the proper priorities--there is a way.

RI Supreme Court: Harrah/Narragansett Casino not Legal

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Harrah's and the Narragansett Tribe as the RI Supreme Court has concluded that the latest casino proposal doesn't pass constitutional muster:

A bill that would allow the Narragansett Indians to open a casino on nontribal land does not pass constitutional muster, the state Supreme Court said in an advisory opinion today, responding to a request by legislators who crafted the bill.

In its opinion, the court said the measure fails to satisfy a provision of the state constitution that requires any lotteries in Rhode Island to be state-run.

Las Vegas-based Harrah's Entertainment and the Narragansett Indian Tribe are seeking to build a casino in Rhode Island, off their tribal lands in Charlestown. Lawyers presented oral arguments last month to a three-justice panel of the state's highest court.

The opinion said the legislation would leave the state Lottery Division without control over the proposed casino, including the types of table games played there and the extension of credit to gamblers.

Without direct authority over those parts of the operation, the justices wrote, "the state simply cannot in good faith be said to be operating the casino."

The justices note that the proposed legislation did give the state more power -- including the ability to direct daily revenue, set the odds of winning and determine the number of table games and video lottery terminals -- than a bill introduced last year. But they said it was not enough to comply with the state constitution.

"To summarize, we interpret the proposed Casino Act as granting to the Lottery Division the power to make decisions concerning many, but not all, operational aspects of the gaming enterprise," the opinion reads. . .

The tribe has tried for more than a decade to get approval to build a casino.

A year ago last August, the high court derailed a Harrah's-Narragansett casino proposal for West Warwick as it was headed to the state ballot after clearing the General Assembly and surviving a gubernatorial veto.

Responding then to an advisory opinion request from Governor Carcieri, the court said the casino legislation and referenda question ran afoul of a requirement in the state Constitution that all "lotteries" be state-operated.

To remove this legal barrier, the casino's legislative backers introduced a new version of the bill this year.

It recast the proposed West Warwick casino as state-operated, to be run by the Narragansetts and their chosen partner under a contract with the state Lottery Commission.

Under the aegis of House Speaker William J. Murphy, of West Warwick, the House voted to seek the court's opinion first this time, before voting.

Carcieri praised the court's opinion today, saying Harrah's had put forward an "unconstitutional scheme."

"For two years in a row, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ruled the Harrah's casino legislation unconstitutional," the governor said in a statement. "I have said all along that this is nothing but a Harrah's casino. For the second time in a row, the Supreme Court has agreed with me."

I'd still feel better if the Governor hadn't hatched the pragmatic but ideologically inconistent plan of expanding Lincoln Park. Nonetheless, so long as we can keep the seemingly "painless" and get-rich-quick option of increased gambling revenue from the hands of our state politicians, the better chance we have of them pursuing other, more sound, avenues of economic development.

Of Hospitals and Bikepaths

According to the New York Times, it costs $8,000,000 to refurbish a hospital in Najaf, Iraq (h/t Andrew Sullivan). According to the highway bill, it will cost $10,000,000 for "transportation improvements" to the Blackstone River Bikeway. Am I the only one who thinks there is something amiss with these relative amounts?

These kind of numbers really have to make you rethink the idea that Iraq is an unprecedented drain on American resources.

To see the complete list of Rhode Island highway bill earmarks, click here.
To see $49,000,000 in earmarked funds suggested for redirection to New Orleans, click here.

Judicial Restraint 101

Terry Eastland has written an article entitled Chief Justice Roberts: The distinction between law and politics that the Judiciary Democrats do not respect lies at the heart of Roberts's approach to judging, including these words:

On the final day of the Roberts hearings, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried one last time: "If you've made one point many times over . . . the course of the last three days," he told the judge, "it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law." But "beyond loyalty to the process of law," he asked Roberts, "how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? . . . That's what I've been asking."

And so, in various ways, had Durbin's Democratic colleagues been asking about such matters--ones "beyond loyalty" to the rule of law. In response to Durbin, Roberts stuck to the point he had indeed made "many times over." Reframing the senator's question so as to reach the core issue, Roberts said, "Somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' . . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."

That exchange crystallized the fundamental difference between John Roberts and the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Democrats believe a good judge will move "beyond loyalty" to the rule of law, if necessary, and seek to advance certain political outcomes--in Durbin's question, the expansion of personal freedom. Roberts dissents: He believes a good judge will distinguish between law and politics and stick resolutely to the law, regardless of the result...He'll not look out for "particular interests" because his oath obligates him to support not this or that interest but the Constitution and the laws of the United States...

There is unease among some conservatives as to how Chief Justice Roberts will turn out. Yet it must be said that Roberts has made emphatically clear his view that a judge must be restrained by the law--the rules, principles, customs, practices, and understandings that define it--and must not allow the law to be infused with the judge's own political views and personal values. In other words, the distinction between law and politics that the Judiciary Democrats do not respect lies at the heart of Roberts's approach to judging...

Roberts took care on numerous occasions to emphasize the importance of the distinction between law and politics as it relates to judging. For example, in response to Lindsey Graham's question about what the judge regarded as the biggest threats to the rule of law today, Roberts identified only one threat--the "tendency on behalf of some judges to take . . . [their] authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law"--the province of elected officials. He observed: "Judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy. I've said it before and I'll just repeat myself: The Framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, 'Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them.' That would have been the farthest thing from their mind."

The failure of the Judiciary Democrats to applaud comments like these, their evident desire to have justices and judges who go beyond any loyalty to the rule of law to advance "progressive" visions, demonstrates how far their party has traveled since the middle of the past century, when Justices Robert Jackson and Felix Frankfurter still sat on the Court. Jackson (whom Roberts admires, by the way) and Frankfurter sought to preserve the judiciary "in its established but limited place in American politics," wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in 1947...By the end of the Warren Court, political judging had become the norm for most Democrats. So it has been ever since, and so it is today that a nominee committed to judicial restraint like Roberts received the reception he did from the law firm of Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer, Feingold, and Durbin....

I hope, but am far from certain, that Chief Justice Roberts' central belief about the importance of judicial restraint will lead to the Supreme Court ceasing its recent legislating practices. What I do believe is that a strong belief about restraint has a greater chance of yielding that outcome than the activist views of leading Democrats.

Cutting the Fat: The New Porkbuster Site

Andrew has started the debate here in Rhode Island, asking why we are spending highway bill pork in RI at a time of national need in New Orleans.

In what is likely to be another example of how the blogosphere is changing politics, take a look at this posting from Instapundit about various bloggers looking for pork awarded their state in the recent highway bill, including Andrew's posting.

Instapundit extends the pork debate with this important additional posting, linking to this interesting porkbuster site from Truth Laid Bear that is the result of an idea developed by TLB and Instapundit. Congratulations to them for such a good idea.

So how do you think our Senators Chafee and Reed as well as our Congressmen Langevin and Kennedy will respond to this responsible idea of porkbusting?

Maybe we should ask each of them...

Same Old Story: Clinton is a Deceitful & Dishonest Man Who Has No Principles

This story shows the latest example of just how unprincipled a man Bill Clinton is.

Power Line has a strongly-worded response.

For a man who (i) had shady dealings with a range of Communist Chinese or their agents; (ii) passed up an opportunity to capture bin Laden when he was offered to the USA before 9/11; (iii) treated terrorism as a police action matter against which to lob a few cruise missiles; (iv) ran $300 billion budget deficits until the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and reduced spending enough to yield surpluses; (v) took personal credit for the Cold War peace dividend achieved by President Reagan; (vi) decimated the US military after the Cold War; (vii) brought dishonor to the White House by his personal behavior; (viii) created the legacy of perpetual campaigning; and, (ix) took the techniques of personal destruction against political opponents to a unprecedented level, Bill Clinton certainly has chutzpah.

And he has no grace. That is why history will show him for what he is: a petty small-state governor whose personal charisma allowed him to reach heights where his lack of values then made him a spineless man who had to triangulate because he didn't have the backbone to lead like a real man.

Small and inconsequential to the long-term history of America. That will be his legacy as President - unless we let him succeed in his unilateral effort to rewrite history.

Not in our lifetime, Slick Willie.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

JunkYardBlog has more.

Oblogatory Anecdotes also has more.

Rhode Island's Initial Pork-Reduction Goal should be at least $50,000,000

Looking over the specific projects listed in the highway bill, Rhode Island’s absolute minimum goal should be to redirect $50,000,000 of earmarked funds towards rebuilding New Orleans. This doesn’t mean that the total cannot be more, but $50,000,000 should be the minimum.

There is $49,000,000 available, just in bikepath funding ($38,000,000), plus a few other projects listed below.

I don’t want to come across as a Darth Vader conservative, suggesting that funding for anything green be eliminated. Rhode Island’s bikepaths and trails and parks are a tremendous quality of life resource. But they are a civic luxury. At a time when another American city needs help finding the resources for civic necessities, we cannot justify Federal funding for our civic luxuries.

Transportation Improvements for the Washington Secondary Bicycle Facility/Coventry Greenway/Trestle Trail (Coventry)	$4,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Northwest Biketrail/Woonasquatucket River Greenway (Providence, Johnston)	$6,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Blackstone River Bikeway (Providence, Woonsocket)	$10,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Jamestown Bridge Demolition--Bicycle Access/Trestle Span Demolition/Fishing Pier (N. Kingstown)	$4,000,000
Acquisition of fee or easement, construction of a trail, and site improvements in Foster	$1,000,000
Open space acquisition to mitigate growth associated with SR 4 and Interstate 95, by non-profit land conservation agencies through acquisition of fee or easement, with a match requirement of 50% of the total purchase price	$8,000,000
Transportation Enhancements at Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor	$500,000
Restore and Expand Maritime Heritage site in Bristol	$500,000
Transportation Improvements for the Colt State Park Bike Path	$2,000,000
Construct trails and facility improvements within the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge complex	$1,000,000
Completion of Washington Secondary Bike Path from Coventry to Connecticut Border	$7,000,000
Completion of Greenway from Johnston to Providence	$5,000,000

Senator Chafee: Is This How You Define Fiscal Conservatism?

Andrew has done a tremendous service by publishing the actual highway bill "benefits" to Rhode Island: $150 million of projects spread around the state.

Senator Chafee voted for the highway bill. Since one of his key campaign positions is fiscal conservatism, I thought it might be useful to do some math on the true cost of those state projects to Rhode Islanders.

The true cost of the highway bill projects is the hidden cost effect of the highway bill that our elected officials will never talk about: Rhode Island residents are paying a pro rata cost for every single project across the entire United States as the price for getting their highway bill projects.

Let's make some simplifying assumptions that have the effect of changing the precise numbers without changing the conclusion. Assume the number of taxpayers as a percentage of the total population is roughly the same across the fifty states. This allows us to simplify the analysis by using the population of the USA and of Rhode Island. Assume there are 1 million residents in Rhode Island. The highway bill was for $286 billion. Since there are just under 300 million Americans, the highway bill spends about $1,000 per American.

Therefore, the tax burden for Rhode Islanders from the highway bill equals roughly $1 billion ($1,000 per resident x 1 million state residents).

That $1 billion bought us $150 million of special projects. I am sure there are some hidden nuances in that pork-laden bill that will accrue to the benefit of Rhode Islanders. But, even if there are, remember there would have to be $850 million of nuances (a multiple of 5.67) just to get to tax payment breakeven for Rhode Island residents.

So, during the upcoming campaign, when Senator Chafee takes a photo opportunity with one of the highway bill projects and touts how he brought home the bacon for us, remember that Rhode Island residents will be paying as much as $6.67 per person in extra taxes for every $1 of projects proudly boasted about by Chafee.

Senator Chafee, is this how you define fiscal conservatism?

Since my family has five members, we are paying roughly $33 in extra taxes for that $1 of benefit. I can assure you that is not our definition of fiscal conservatism.

[You can read more about the highway bill here:

The Highway Bill: Another Example of Unacceptable Government Spending
The Highway Bill: "Egregious and Remarkable"
Tapscott: Has the GOP Lost Its Soul?
Has the GOP Lost Its Soul? Part II.]

Modern American Parenting: "Ill-tempered, ill-mannered, self-centered, joyless children spoiled by too many choices"

In an article (available to magazine subscribers) found in the September 26 edition of National Review, Meghan Cox Gurdon has written a book review entitled Where the Buck Stops:

...But once you read It Takes a Parent: How the Culture of Pushover Parenting Is Hurting Our Kids - and What to Do About It — and if you have children, you should read it — you may feel almost gleeful, as I did, to follow your own instincts instead of the honeyed rules of the parenting culture.

These rules pervade the bulk of current writing and thinking about child-rearing, and will be embarrassingly familiar to anyone who has spent time recently with children and their parents...

What is the creed? First, even if it means bending like a circus contortionist, parents must always "empower" children and "use directives sparingly" to avoid the crushing negativity of that awful word, "no." To "help our children make wise decisions in their lives," we must give even toddlers abundant choices: "Would you like apple juice, or orange juice? In the blue cup, or the red sippy cup? Do you want to sit here at the table, or — oh, you want to sit on the floor? Okay!"

Our behavior must reflect the understanding that building children’s self-esteem is the most important task of parenthood. We must assure our children that they are wonderful just the way they are ("our kids deserve to feel good about themselves," enthuses one expert quoted by Hart, "simply because they exist"). We must criticize only the behavior, never the child (who is, remember, wonderful just the way he is), and must reassure turbulent infants that their feelings, in the words of another expert, "are always okay — they are never right or wrong."

"“Feelings are never right or wrong?" Hart writes. "I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think Hitler’s hatred of Jews was wrong." She goes on: The "entire focus on feelings in the parenting culture is only about the appropriate expression of feelings. The focus is almost never on the feelings themselves, nor on the idea that some feelings are not okay or that some feelings may need to be reconsidered, because they’re a clue that our hearts are not okay, before they lead to unwholesome, dangerous, or malicious behavior."

When Betsy Hart writes "heart," she is talking about the soul, which, for too many children, she believes, goes neglected amidst all the parental straining to be fun, understanding, and non-confrontational.

"There’s no doubt that as religious influence has waned in this country, many parents are trying to fill a void in their spiritual life by vainly putting everything into the one thing that will live on after them — their kids," Hart argues. "So, each child is nurtured and protected and fawned over like a hothouse flower, when they are actually hardy little geraniums who need to be outside soaking up the sun. Even if being left out in the sun means they will experience a lot of wind and rain. After all, they need rain to thrive, too."

The result is a society awash in ill-tempered, ill-mannered, self-centered, joyless children spoiled by too many choices.

So, what to do? Betsy Hart’s book is not so much an egg-headed analytical treatise as it is a bracing pep talk from a wise friend, and the wisdom begins in the title: It takes a parent, not a Clintonesque village. Please, the author exhorts mothers and fathers, be parents: Be not afraid to assert your authority rather than cede it at the first childish howl, or at the first gasp of disapproval from the parenting culture.

Our job, she reminds us, is not to be our children’s friends, or facilitators, or self-esteem coaches; our job, for heaven’s sake, is to civilize the little savages, and we can hardly do that properly if we fear we will smash their self-esteem by denying them a choice in the juice they get for breakfast.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An interview with Betsy Hart follows here.

Is Rhode Island ready to step up for New Orleans?

One suggestion for finding funding to pay for the $200B reconstruction of New Orleans is to redirect funding allocated in the recently passed highway bill. Here is the list of projects earmarked for Rhode Island, straight from the text of the bill. Are Rhode Islanders -- citizens and Congressional delegation alike -- willing to step up and declare that they are willing to sacrifice some of these projects to help rebuild a decimated American city?

Transportation Improvements for the Apponaug Bypass	$22,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Washington Secondary Bicycle Facility/Coventry Greenway/Trestle Trail (Coventry)	$4,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Northwest Biketrail/Woonasquatucket River Greenway (Providence, Johnston)	$6,000,000
New Interchange constructed from I-195 to Taunton and Warren Avenue in East Providence	$7,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Blackstone River Bikeway (Providence, Woonsocket)	$10,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Jamestown Bridge Demolition--Bicycle Access/Trestle Span Demolition/Fishing Pier (N. Kingstown)	$4,000,000
Weybosset Street (200 Block) Streetscape and Drop-off Lane Improvement-Providence	$750,000
Acquisition of fee or easement, construction of a trail, and site improvements in Foster	$1,000,000
Open space acquisition to mitigate growth associated with SR 4 and Interstate 95, by non-profit land conservation agencies through acquisition of fee or easement, with a match requirement of 50% of the total purchase price	$8,000,000
Replace Sakonnet Bridge	$7,000,000
Transportation Enhancements at Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor	$500,000
Bury the Power Lines at India Point	$2,500,000
Restore and Expand Maritime Heritage site in Bristol	$500,000
Transportation Improvements for the Colt State Park Bike Path	$2,000,000
Construct trails and facility improvements within the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge complex	$1,000,000
Improvements for the Commuter rail in Rhode Island	$5,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the East Main Road in Middletown	$5,000,000
Downtown Circulation Improvements Providence	$2,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Route 138 (South Kingstown)	$4,000,000
Transportation Improvements for the Route 1 Gilbert Stuart Turnaround (N. Kingstown)	$2,750,000
Rehabilitate and improve Rt. 138 from Rt. 108 to Rt. 2	$12,000,000
Improve traffic circulation and road surfacing in downtown Providence	$5,000,000
Improve access to Pell Bridge in Newport	$5,000,000
Completion of Washington Secondary Bike Path from Coventry to Connecticut Border	$7,000,000
Replace Warren Bridge in Warren	$11,000,000
Rehabilitation of Stillwater Viaduct in Smithfield	$5,000,000
Completion of Greenway from Johnston to Providence	$5,000,000
Replace Natick Bridge in Warwick and West Warwick	$5,000,000

Do they Believe their own Spin on Laffey's Record?

According to the Projo, both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Chafee campaign disapprove of Steve Laffey's fiscal policies as Mayor of Cranston. The Projo article, however, leaves a couple of questions unanswered...

To the National Republican Senate Committee and to the Chafee campaign: Does your disapproval of Steve Laffey's fiscal policies lead you to conclude that the people of Cranston would have been better off with Aram Garabedian, Gary Reilly, or John Mancini as their Mayor?

Also to the Chafee campaign: If you believe that Steve Laffey made poor fiscal decisions as Mayor of Cranston, why did you encourage him to run for statewide office?

Make-Believe Thinking About Drug Prices & Pharmaceutical Industry Economics

This posting responds to Steve Laffey's outlandish criticism last week of the pharmaceutical industry.

Originally part of an extended entry to this posting, the comments below - which represent counter-arguments to his suggestion that importing drugs from Canada would miraculously allow comparable patient care at radically reduced costs - were not sufficiently visible to readers. As a result, I am reposting a slightly modified version of my original comments here and deleting them from the original posting.

I have worked in the healthcare industry since 1983, spending most of my time since 1985 working in venture capital-financed startup companies. With that experience base, I found Laffey's words on drug prices - which you can read in the posting mentioned above - to be grossly misleading and grossly misinformed.

The Canadian Health System

The romantized - but fake - vision of simply importing inexpensive drugs from Canada in an effort to mimic their health system completely ignores the many grotesque failings of their socialist system discussed in an earlier posting entitled Canadian Supreme Court: "Access to a Waiting List is NOT Access to Health Care", including these highlights:

Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance...

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services...

The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left.

There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity...

...in Canada you wait for everything. North of the 49th parallel, we accept that if you get something mildly semi-serious it drags on while you wait to be seen, wait to be diagnosed, wait to be treated. Meanwhile, you're working under par, and I doubt any economic impact accrued thereby is factored into those global health-care-as-a-proportion-of-GDP tables. The default mode of any government system is to "control health-care costs" by providing less health care. Once it becomes natural to wait six months for an MRI, it's not difficult to persuade you that it's natural to wait ten months, or fifteen. Acceptance of the initial concept of "waiting" is what matters...

...[for single-payer health insurance systems] rationing by waiting is pervasive, governments overspend for the healthy and deny care for specialist and life-saving medical technologies to the sick, and leave health-care choices to bureaucrats rather than patients. Single-payer systems, in other words, often deny choice and access to the sick.

This denial and limited access also exists in market-driven systems...but at least sick patients in market-driven systems can explore options outside of rigid federal bureaucracies, as many Canadians do by coming to their neighbor to the south for care. The Canadian court decision debunks the myths that government systems offer equal access to care, that they offer a higher quality of care to all, and that a paternalistic government can take care of all of the people all of the time...

Preventing citizens from purchasing as much health care as they want and can afford under the pretext that it "wastes" resources needed to fund "free" health care presupposes that the state is the rightful owner of all wealth...

Further examples of the failings of the Canadian healthcare system can be found in a report entitled What goes into the cost of prescription drugs?...and other questions:

In British Columbia, some Canadians being treated with one effective medicine are switched to a substitute simply because the government health system mandates it. This can result in patient confusion, greater noncompliance, and a worsening of symptoms.

Canadian patients are often denied easy access to certain medicines that, for them, would have minimal side effects, because the government requires that they must first endure therapy with the "cheaper," potentially less-effective medicines. Only when serious side effects appear - sometimes requiring hospitalization, for example - does the government allow the more efficacious drug to be prescribed.

Canadians wait, on average, seven months longer than Americans for new medicines to be approved by their government regulatory agency. Even after a medicine is approved, patients wait an average of five to 13 months longer before the medicine is put on and reimbursed by each province's formulary...

Canada ranks third-from-last in the developed world on the availability of medical technology, according to the OECD...

Is this the healthcare world we aspire to for all American citizens?

Adverse Macro Impact of Price Controls

In an article entitled The High Price of Cheap Drugs, John Calfee writes about the effect that price controls have had on innovative research, including the loss of jobs:

...Those price controls prevent innovative pharmaceutical firms from reaping free-market rewards anywhere but in the United States. That is one reason why the world pharmaceutical industry, which 20 years ago was mostly based in Europe, has largely relocated to the United States. American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion). Even traditional European firms, notably GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, have moved many of their most essential operations to the United States. After years of looking the other way, the European Commission is sufficiently alarmed by these trends to propose relaxing price controls in order to rejuvenate its pharmaceutical industry, especially the biotechnology sector...

Are we willing to pursue drug price controls in America and accept the resulting loss of jobs and innovation?

Drug Importation

As to the drug importation issue, David Frum frames the big-picture issue in this August 11, 2004 posting (no longer accessible on web) at his NRO blogsite:

...drug re-importation is a cheap and cynical non-solution to a real problem: the unfairness of asking Americans to pay the whole cost and more of new drugs while the rest of the world pays less. But it’s no kind of answer to cut prices in the US: In that case, innovation could disappear entirely. The answer is to share the cost more widely within the developed world – an answer that US trade negotiaters are beginning to press hard. So here’s the real question for [any politician] on drug prices: Will he stand up for American pharmaceutical-makers – and global pharmaceutical-users – by calling for a fair sharing through trade of the costs of innovation?...Or does he just want to score points now – at the price of denying Americans access to potential drugs of the future?

Are we going to hold our politicians accountable when they use cynical ploys to pander for votes? Are we willing to push for more equitable trade policies regarding drug pricing outside the United States?

Calfee adds his comments on drug importation from Canada:

...[Politicians] think this is competition and free trade at work. The fact that a group of Canadian or European bureaucrats would be setting drug prices for the entire U.S. economy seems to elude them. What would this law actually do? For one thing...might not get the low prices they want even if Congress passes their law. Prices won't drop in the United States unless foreign drugs really will be imported in large volumes. Importation from Canada alone won't do the trick because the Canadian market is tiny, about 5 percent of the U.S. market in terms of revenues. When Canadian pharmaceutical wholesalers ask Pfizer, Merck, and their competitors to ship them 10 times the usual volumes of Lipitor and Zocor and other blockbuster drugs, with the obvious intention of shipping them right back to the United States, any manufacturer with a decent regard for its shareholders will refuse. Why sacrifice billions of dollars in U.S. sales to maintain sales in a market one-twentieth the size? If that were the end of the story, events would follow a simple course. Canadian authorities, who understand the importation logic as well as anyone, would have to reassess their price ceilings or leave their citizens short of the best pharmaceuticals. At some point, it would become clear that Canadian drug importation would not bring the low U.S. prices its advocates want, although it might put a good number of patients at risk if importation--including importation of counterfeits--were to ramp up before prices adjusted. Prices in Canada, meanwhile, would rise...

Drug Safety

The second report referenced above includes these words:

...according to the Acting FDA Commissioner in July 2004, the FDA found evidence of a Canadian Web site advertising "Canadian generic" drugs, when in fact it was selling fake, contaminated and substandard versions of three commonly prescribed medicines. In addition, the FDA has identified drugs being imported into the U.S. arriving from unreliable sources in such places as the Bahamas and Pakistan. Media reports have found that some Canadian pharmacies are now shipping drugs from all over the world, including Belize, Israel, India, Chile, New Zealand, Ireland and Great Britian. So a drug that a consumer assumes is coming from Canada, may in fact originate anywhere in the world.

According to Canadian Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh: "Canada cannot be the drug store of the United States."...Additionally, Diane Gorman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Canada, said "the Government of Canada has never stated that it would be responsible for the safety and quality of prescription drugs exported from Canada into the United States..."

Calfee also discusses the risk of increased importation of counterfeit drugs:

...pass a law so that drugs shipped to Canada or Europe or South Africa can be imported into the United States for sale at foreign prices. The law would leave the Food and Drug Administration with almost no authority to check the safety of these imports. Wholesalers would have to do their own testing, but pharmacies and "qualifying individuals" (who could resell to others) would face no such requirement. This bothers the FDA...

Are we willing as a society to tolerate the greater human risk and higher economic costs resulting from use of counterfeit drugs by patients?

Long-Term Impacts

Calfee then notes how there are two eventual scenarios that arise from price controls and importation issues:

Two scenarios could play out, one bad and the other worse.

In the first scenario, drug manufacturers would again simply refuse to ship huge volumes of drugs to small foreign countries in order for the drugs to be shipped back and cripple profits at home, where the drugs were invented. If that happened (and I think it would), our European friends would probably have a political fit. They would face the prospect of either going without American drugs or raising their own price ceilings--and with them the costs of their fiscally strapped socialist health care systems. From their point of view, the importation plan would be a clever way to force U.S. drug prices on Europeans. They would want very much to prevent that. An international demand for drug price controls in the United States (not just in Europe) would become a centerpiece of international diplomacy. And we might cave in, pushed by the same politicians who want importation.

In scenario two,...importation would rapidly escalate to massive volumes from Canada and Europe, maybe from South Africa and elsewhere. The process would resemble the "parallel trade" now engulfing European drug markets as products with Greek or Spanish labels flow to patients in Germany and Britain. Drug prices would drop here, limited only by fears of counterfeiting, dilution, or inadequate storage. Wholesalers, pharmacies, managed care organizations, and other large-volume dealers would feel intense price pressure from the imports, and the U.S. pricing structure would gradually collapse...

Either way, price controls would end up suppressing innovation here, just as they have done abroad. It is one thing for the Canadians and Europeans to free-ride on American R&D, but we can't free-ride on ourselves. The system that gave us the drugs the whole world wants would be hobbled...The market would understand with perfect clarity that the days of free-market rewards for high-risk-high-payoff research were over. The implications for future drug research are both obvious and depressing...

Are we willing to live with either of these outcomes in America?

Myths About Prescription Drugs

Robert Goldberg writes about Ten Myths about the Market for Prescriptions Drugs, including these excerpted thoughts:

Myth No. 1: American Spend Too Much on Prescription Drugs. Per dollar spent, drugs offer a better return on health care spending than virtually any other health care option. Using prescription drugs often reduces or eliminates the need for costlier health care services. One recent study found that every dollar spent on drugs is associated with a $4 decline in spending on hospitals...

Myth No. 4: Drug Prices Are Higher in the United States than in Other Developed Countries. Drug prices in the United States are not very different from prices in other developed countries. Using accurate pricing information, health economist Patricia Danzon has found that drug prices in Canada, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden are higher on average than prices in the United States. When "purchasing power parity," a means by which economists attempt to compare the price of goods in different countries, is considered, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has found that Americans spend less per capita per year on drugs than do people in Germany or France and only slightly more than those in Canada and Italy - yet the other countries have controls. (Go here for another verification of this point.)

Myth No. 5: Americans Could Reduce Their Drug Costs If They Paid the Same Prices as People in Less-Developed Countries. Critics of the U.S. system complain that consumers can buy drugs in Mexico for less than half their cost in the United States. Prices for the same drugs do differ in different countries, but Americans cannot get the newest drugs at Mexican prices for a simple reason. The research and development required to ready a drug for production can cost millions of dollars and take many years, but the cost of actually manufacturing a drug is usually small. Because manufacturers have discretion about pricing, the price may be close to production costs in poorer countries, which could not otherwise afford the drug, and higher in wealthier countries - more accurately reflecting the drug's value to patients. If all patients paid the lower price, there would be no money for research and development and no new drugs...

Myth No. 7: Price Controls Can Reduce Drug Spending. Attempts to drive down drug costs through price controls have two unintended results: (1) they encourage increased consumption of drugs and (2) they lead to the consumption of inferior drugs. Many European health systems with price controls spend more on drugs per capita than the United States spends, but Americans use newer and more appropriate medications. That is one reason Americans spend less time in hospitals when they are sick and have a higher quality of life than do Europeans...

Myth No. 9: We Can Have Price Controls without Rationing Drugs. If federal price controls for pharmaceuticals were adopted, an increase in consumption of pharmaceuticals would be inevitable and the government would then try to control the increase. That is what happened with erythropoietin (EPO), which is used to reduce anemia in kidney dialysis patients. Medicare, which pays for drugs for kidney dialysis, put a price control on EPO in 1994, rationed the amount patients could get and refused to cover patients with healthy blood cells above a certain level...

Price controls represent not a mere extension of market pressure but a fundamental shift in values. Controls substitute a political process for the marketplace. For controls to work, individuals must be forced to adhere to governmental and bureaucratic decisions. This allows a few "experts" to decide what pharmaceuticals millions of physicians, pharmacists, medical researchers and patients "deserve" - and at what prices.

Finally, Did You Know?

That spending on drugs accounts for less than 11% of every healthcare dollar, of which branded drugs are about 7% and generic drugs are about 4%? That hospital care totals about 31% of every healthcare dollar, physician services about 22%, and nursing homes about 9%?

That studies show treating conditions with new medicines instead of older medicines increases drug costs but significantly lowers non-drug spending?

That developing a new drug takes 12-15 years and costs over $800 million?

That, on average, only five of every 10,000 compounds investigated are tested in clinical trials and, of those five, only one is ever approved for patient use?

That, on average, only three of every 10 prescription drugs available to treat Americans generate revenue that meet or exceed average R&D costs?

That pharmaceutical companies spend 20% of their revenue on research & development efforts for new drugs, equal to over $34 billion in 2003 alone and slightly over 10 times what they spent on direct-to-consumer advertising?

We need leaders who truly understand the economics of developing new drugs. If they stay ignorant, then we risk implementing policies which will lead to Americans losing access to innovative new drugs and losing the freedom we currently have to pursue the medical care we want.

And, if you needed any further evidence that the government is the last entity we want interfering with the marketplace, then reread this posting and share it with the next friend that whines about how the government should do something about the number of citizens lacking health insurance. Remind them that the government created the problem in the first place.

Our public debate and the ensuing public policies would improve if leaders did not go about promising economic benefits while simultaneously claiming the benefits can be realized without any costs.

Such suggestions are nothing less than a form of economic make-believe. In the end, if you won't deal with economic reality, then it will deal with you - on its own terms.

Inviting a More Balanced Debate About America's Energy Policy

I wrote the words in this po