On Banning Commenters

Anchor Rising's policy on deleting comments and banning commenters is being turned up a notch. If you're commenting on this Web site, you're doing so to advance a conversation. Some of you are using comments as an outlet for political spin... and that's alright, too. But when the comment sections get to the point that contributors dread rhetoric for which their posts are providing platforms, things have gone too far.

Ultimately, all we ask is civility, a measure that has apparently been too loose thus far. As of now, obvious logical fallacies bearing offensive insinuations will no longer be tolerated. Example:

... you must be that special type of guy who catches his wife sleeping around but pretends that nothing happened instead of throwing her out. ...

Unless you enjoy seeing your no-good wife sleeping around with other guys....

I'm well aware that some will argue that such rhetoric stays on the fair side of debate, and in some contexts, I might agree. In the context of this Web site, however, we've unlimited latitude to decide the tone that we believe to be most consistent with our goals. In lieu of the work of installing a registration system — which may scare away many a valuable commenter — and of ceasing comments altogether, an increasingly strict (as needed) editorial policy seems like a reasonable approach.

Of course, sincere explanations — and apologies, if necessary — can lead to unbanishment.

The RI GOP's Big Tent Must Be for Sleeping

On gut impulse, I attended the Republican Party's convention last night. Given how busy I am, it turned out to be a huge mistake. I'll put it this way: the Rhode Island Republican Party is so dull that it can suck the excitement right out of Steve Laffey. When members of the party are inclined to lean over into the press box to empathize about boredom — even expressing astonishment that Dan Yorke, who didn't "have to be here," had cared enough to show up — you know there's a problem.

For one thing, the pacing of the thing was horrible. Granted that conventions involve a bit of process, such as the delegates voting for nominees, but they also ought to stir the base and create buzz in the media. I had to leave during the governor's acceptance speech just after nine o'clock (and I'm sure Andrew will post on any subsequent excitement), but the only bit of political theatre that I saw came when Lincoln Chafee — he of the scripted hand gestures — finished his acceptance speech and John McCain's voice suddenly blared over the speakers while a parade of Chafee supporters marched around the delegates. Of course, with magnificent symbolism, there was a mass exodus of the Chafee people thereafter. Those looking to Chafee to build the party more broadly in the state, it seems, would do well to look elsewhere.

Most notable, though, was the absense of the pot-stirring opposition. Dennis Michaud, running for governor, had some signs hanging from the balconies, but he didn't even bother (or manage) to find somebody to nominate him for party endorsement. (According to Scott MacKay and Elizabeth Gudrais, Michaud appeared early on, but made his exit.)

Worse, Steve Laffey's boycott of the event apparently carried over to his supporters, and like charade-candidate Michaud, he failed even to be nominated. A rumored Laffey-crowd walk-out didn't materialize. With the only mention of his name being those made in nomination speeches for other candidates, Laffey might as well have been a member of a different party.

And that, to my mind, is why Laffey was the big disappointment of the evening, especially in contrast to the life that he brought to the convention a couple of years ago. Effective rebels find ways to highlight imbalances and injustices; they don't assist in masking them by allowing themselves to be made irrelevant. If Laffey were truly the RI GOP's subversive hope, he'd have at least found a way to stoke the doubts that those bored Republicans have in the party as currently constituted. As it was, we would have been better off staying home. And as it is, Republicans in this state will continue to need, as Chafee put it, "the votes of independents and Democrats to win." Perhaps they should be invited to the conventions, as well.

ADDENDUM:
I do have some photos and video that I'll try to add later.

Laffey and Chafee on Yorke Show

{NB: This started as a brief re-cap of Mayor Steve Laffey's amicable return to the Dan Yorke show. Subsequently, State GOP Party official Chuck Newton and Senator Lincoln Chafee appeared.}

Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey and WPRO's Dan Yorke have buried the hatchet, hence, Laffey was on Yorke's show today to discuss the Senate race and why he would not be attending what he considers to be tonight's "fixed" RI GOP convention.

For the first time that I've heard, Laffey took on the accusation that he wasn't "senatorial" enough. He stated that if being "Senatorial" meant hanging out with Robert Byrd and doing nothing, then he never would be "Senatorial." He said that he's a reformer and that the actions of the Senate show that things need to be shaken up and that he plans on doing just that.

From there, he also explained that he wanted to shake the hold that the Old Line members have on the State GOP. He said they're happy with the scraps they get from the Democrats, don't want to rock the boat (and just want to collect fees for services) and they didn't want to win. He than offered that, "Luckily those people are old and are dying." He said that he's interested in building the State Party anew, from the ground up. Finally, he noted that Cranston was the only place that has seen a growth in GOP registrations in Rhode Island. He also that Governor Carcieri was not part of the Old Guard and affirmed his support for the Governor and his agenda.

Chances are that Yorke will have the audio somewhere here, eventually.

UPDATE: Chuck Newton of the RI GOP called in after Laffey and was on. When asked about Mayor Laffey skipping the convention, Newton stated that they'd been trying convince Laffey to attend. Newton observed that Laffey has been "bragging" about being the only real Republican and then he is stiffing the GOP convention. According to Newton, politics is about process and the convention
is part of that process.

Yorke offered that perhaps Laffey was afraid of getting "his head handed to him." To this, Newton mentioned that someone had pointed out that at the straw poll in Newport a few weeks ago, Laffey didn't show up at, but he won. Thus, Newton didn't know if a fear of losing was keeping Laffey away.

Newton also believes that an endorsement of Chafee is not a "slam dunk." Though he did assert that the Laffey campaign hasn't been focusing on convincing the delegates of the state central committee to vote for him.

SIDE NOTE: By the way, I'm awaiting the Mea Culpas from those who stated that Sen. Chafee would be running as an Independent. (Just stirring the pot).

UPDATE II: Senator Chafee spoke with Yorke on the air during the 5 O'Clock hour and offered two basic themes. His primary point was that he was the only electable Republican vs. Whitehouse, especially since Mayor Laffey enjoys nearly 100% name recognition and still polls 30 points lower than Whitehouse. Secondarily, Chafee believes that Laffey is being disrespectful to the GOP by not showing up at the convention.

Bill Harsch to File Ethics Complaint Against Patrick Lynch

The Associated Press (via the Projo's 7-to-7 blog) is reporting on Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch’s acceptance of campaign contributions from a lawyer representing the DuPont Corporation at around the time that the lawyer and Lynch were negotiating Dupont's release from any liability in the Rhode Island lead paint trial…

Attorney General Patrick Lynch accepted campaign contributions from the chief negotiator for DuPont Co. at the same time he was in talks with the company to drop it from the state's landmark lawsuit against former lead paint companies, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Attorney Bernard Nash, who represented DuPont, negotiated the deal reached with the state in June 2005 to drop it from the lawsuit in exchange for DuPont donating about $12.5 million to three charities. Campaign documents filed with the state show that both before and after the settlement was reached, Nash contributed at least $1,500 to Lynch's campaign committee...

The deal with DuPont dismissed the company from the lawsuit in exchange for its donations to the Children's Health Forum, a nonprofit group that works to prevent lead poisoning, Brown University Medical School and the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center in Boston.

Nash first made contact with Lynch's office to work out a deal for DuPont in 2003, according to court documents related to the lead paint case. Depositions from January of Lynch and his chief of staff, Leonard Lopes, show Nash was DuPont's primary contact with the Attorney General's Office as the deal was negotiated. The deal was announced June 30, 2005.

Documents filed by Lynch's campaign with the state Board of Elections show Nash gave Lynch donations totaling at least $1,500.

The first, for $500, was on June 30, 2004. On Dec. 20, 2005, Nash gave Lynch's campaign $1,000, the maximum individual political donation allowed in Rhode Island per calendar year.

The executive director of one of the charities whom DuPont agreed to donate to in return for being dropped from the suit also gave a contribution to the Lynch campaign...

According to campaign records, Lynch also accepted a $250 donation from Olivia Morgan, executive director of the Children's Health Forum, which stands to receive millions of dollars from DuPont's deal with the state. Her donation was recorded Dec. 20, 2005, about six months after the settlement was reached.

According to the AP, Bill Harsch intends today to file an ethics complaint concerning the questionable contributions ...

The campaign of Bill Harsch, Lynch's Republican challenger in this year's elections, planned to file a complaint today with the state Ethics Commission, alleging conflict of interest and influence peddling, Harsch told the AP.

Media and Citizen Responsibility during Wartime

In response to the decision by the New York Times (and other newspapers) to reveal the details of the U.S. Government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, the House of Representatives will today debate the following resolution…

Resolved, that the House of Representatives –

(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program;

(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been initiated to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program;

(3) condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts; and

(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

Hugh Hewitt thinks the resolution is too vague…

The House resolution that will be debated tomorrow may be accompanied by blunt words in the floor debate, but its language is the language of indecision and purposelessness. It doesn't name the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, so it isn't directed at them. It is a half-measure in a time when Americans in the military are asked to give their full measure. I don't think I could vote for it.

Tomorrow's vote is instead a choice on what the House might have said and what it did say. And what it proposes to say is a half measure. It should be defeated, and the leadership should bring forward a resolution that let's its "yes" be "yes" and its "no" be "no."

What do Anchor Rising’s readers think; too soft, too hard, or just right?

Governor Carcieri and the Cutting Edge of Constitutional Jurisprudence

Well we’re on the subject of campaign finance reform (see the comments in the post below), it should be noted that Governor Donald Carcieri’s most recent veto has placed him on the right side of the U.S Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. Scott Mayerowitz describes the campaign finance bill vetoed by Governor Carcieri in today's Projo…

Governor Carcieri vetoed legislation that would have changed campaign-finance laws -- limiting each political party to donating $25,000 to a "group" of candidates during a calendar year.

Current law allows parties to give up to $25,000 to each candidate. This bill would have capped party contributions to candidates at $1,000.

According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Randall v. Sorrell (2006), issued just this Monday, Governor Carcieri vetoed a bill that was clearly unconstitutional.

In Randall (“the Vermont Campaign Finance Law Case”), the court overturned the Vermont legislature’s attempt to impose very strict limits on state election campaign donations and expenditures. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled 1) that “well-established precedent makes clear that the expenditure limits violate the First Amendment” and 2) that the “low maximum levels and other restrictions” embodied in the Vermont law “impose burdens upon First Amendment interests that…are disproportionately severe”.

One of the “other restrictions” considered by the Court involved contributions made by political parties. The court held specifically that it is unconstitutional to place contribution limits on parties that are no greater than the limits on individuals…

Act 64’s insistence that political parties abide by exactly the same low contribution limits that apply to other contributors threatens harm to a particularly important political right, the right to associate in a political party….

We recognize that we have previously upheld limits on contributions from political parties to candidates, in particular the federal limits on coordinated party spending….But the contribution limits at issue in Colorado II were far less problematic, for they were significantly higher than Act 64’s limits….they were much higher than the federal limits on contributions from individuals to candidates, thereby reflecting an effort by Congress to balance (1) the need to allow individuals to participate in the political process by contributing to political parties that help elect candidates with (2) the need to prevent the use of political parties “to circumvent contribution limits that apply to individuals.”….Act 64, by placing identical limits upon contributions to candidates, whether made by an individual or by a political party, gives to the former consideration no weight at all.

We consequently agree with the District Court that the Act’s contribution limits “would reduce the voice of political parties” in Vermont to a “whisper.”….And we count the special party-related harms that Act 64 threatens as a further factor weighing against the constitutional validity of the contribution limits.

Governor Carcieri’s veto illustrates the strength of the separation of powers system; when one branch of government -- in this case the Rhode Island legislature -- tries to impose limits on a guaranteed right, there exist other co-equal branches of government who can stop it from happening.

Rhode Island Senators Vote Against Flag Burning Ban

Both Senator Reed and Senator Chafee voted against the Flag Burning Amendment (story), which failed by one vote. Senator Chafee, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Robert Bennett of Utah were the only Republicans who voted against the Amendment.

UPDATE: Andrew emailed me to say it was worth noting that Langevin voted for the House version and Kennedy against.

The Brown University June Poll is Out

The latest Brown University Poll of Rhode Island voters conducted by Darrell West and the Taubman Center for Public Policy has been released. Here’s the horserace news concerning the Governor’s and Senate races…

• (U.S. Senate) Sheldon Whitehouse 38%, Lincoln Chafee: 37% Undecided 25%, or
• (U.S. Senate) Sheldon Whitehouse 55%, Steve Laffey 25%, Undecided: 20%
• (Governor) Don Carcieri: 44%, Charlie Fogarty: 39%, Undecided: 17%

To my mind, there’s one big surprise in the results, concerning the vote on a casino…

• (Amending the state constitution to allow a gambling casino in West Warwick) 39% favor, 52% oppose, 9% undecided

Maybe state Representative and casino supporter Tim Williamson can turn the tide on this one with an ad campaign along the lines of “Vote for the Casino, or else I’ll Shove Your Head Through a Glass Window”.

Bill Harsch on What's Wrong with the Public Utilities Commission and the Attorney General

National Grid is overcharging its Rhode Island customers. In a May filing with the Public Utilities Commission, National Grid estimated they would be collecting $48,400,000 more than was needed to pay for electricity by the end of 2006. (Think of the amount of money involved this way: in the space of a year, National Grid will suck about 1/2 of the proposed casino license fee out of the Rhode Island economy).

As Rhode Island Attorney General Candidate Bill Harsch explained in a public briefing last week, the sequence of events in response to the overcharges show that neither the Public Utilities Commission nor the current Attorney General are upholding their legal responsibilities to protect Rhode Island citizens from the problems inherent in utility monopolies...

• The law is clear that the duty of the PUC with respect to electric carriers is to make sure that electricity rates accurately reflect production and transmission costs. Yet the Public Utilities Commission has invoked a mysterious “price stability” doctrine to justify keeping electric rates high. On what authority is the PUC going beyond the bounds of the law to mandate higher than necessary electric rates? When did the job of the PUC become protecting a monopoly carrier from market fluctuations, instead of protecting individuals from the danger of a monopoly fixing prices?
• The rate cut proposed by the PUC does not provide adequate relief to Rhode Island ratepayers. According to National Grid's March filing, a reduction to a 9.4¢ per-kWh rate would have reconciled $31,900,000 in overcharges. This means that the current reduction to a 9.6¢ per-kWh rate can erase only a fraction of the now-projected $48,400,000 in overcharges. Mr. Harsch believes (and he has the law on his side) that rates should be lowered to reconcile the entire amount overcharged.
• When National Grid asked for a rate increase in 2005, the PUC called for a series of public hearings within two weeks of the initial filings. When National Grid asked to lower rates this year, the PUC issued its recommendation against lowering rates without holding any hearings dedicated to the subject. Where was the opportunity for public participation in the process?
• Finally, where has the Attorney General been through this? By law, the AG is notified of rate filings. The docket for the rate increases that occurred in 2005 makes note of his participation, but there is no record of his participation in the 2006 rate-lowering/“price stability” process. When National Grid renegged on their proposal to lower rates, even as they conceded they were still overcharging, why didn’t the Attorney General intervene to demand that the law be followed?

Since the Attorney General has taken no action in response to the odd (dare I say collusive?) actions of National Grid and the Public Utilities Commission with respect to electric rates, Bill Harsch intends to file an action on behalf of National Grid ratepayers, seeking to lower rates to a level that reconciles the full $48,400,000 in projected overcharges...

Former Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission and Attorney General Candidate Bill Harsch today announced his intent to file a complaint with the PUC to reduce Rhode Island’s electric utility rates.

“In the absence of an effective Attorney General and with the summer cooling season fast approaching, I am taking the initiative to argue for a reduction in Rhode Island’s soaring electricity rates in front of the Public Utilities Commission,” Harsch said….

Next week, I will be joined in my effort by former Special Assistant Attorney General Richard Crowell whose experience in rate cases is well-established and highly respected.

It is my hope that by taking this step, we will be sending a clear message to the people of Rhode Island that there is someone willing to stand up and fight for their interests. It is my hope that we will be triumphant.”

Bill Harsch: “In the absence of an effective Attorney General…I am taking the initiative to argue for a reduction in Rhode Island’s soaring electricity rates in front of the Public Utilities Commission”

Suppose the electric company offered you a rate cut. Would you answer...

• ”Yes, I’ll take it”, or
• ”No thank you, I’d prefer that my rates be stable instead of low”.

Bill Harsch, candidate for Rhode Island Attorney General, wants you to know that this question is not a hypothetical one, because the State of Rhode Island has determined that people prefer "stable" rates to low rates and no one is advocating otherwise.

In mid-2005, National Grid was making a Standard Offer of 6.2¢ per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity to its customers. Because of rising fuel costs, National Grid determined that a rate increase was necessary, made the appropriate filings, and received permission from the Public Utilities Commission to raise rates to 10.0¢ per-kWh beginning January 1, 2006.

National Grid and the PUC, however, overestimated how much fuel costs would rise. By the end of March 2006, it was obvious that millions of dollars more were being collected from customers each month than was needed to pay for electricity. To reconcile the overcharges, National Grid asked the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission on March 31 of this year for permission to lower its rates.

On your behalf, the Public Utilities Commission initially answered don’t bother -- keep your rates high if you want.

Here are the details. On March 31, National Grid sent a letter to the Public Utilties Commission stating that the utility expected to collect $31,900,000 more from ratepayers by the end of 2006 than was needed to cover costs and that the Standard Offer to electricity customers should be reduced from 10.0¢ to 9.4¢ per-kWh to reconcile the overcharges. But before the PUC took any action, National Grid revised its estimate. In an April 21 letter, National Grid said, due to changes in fuel costs, they had revised their year-end overcharge projection to $14,600,000 and that a reconciliation would only require dropping the Standard Offer to 9.7¢ per kWh.

Four days later, the Public Utilites Commission -- without holding any public hearings dedicated to the subject -- issued a recommendation in response to National Grid’s filing. The PUC's recommendation was that no reduction in electricity rates occur, despite the projected overcharges. The PUC based its decision on a doctrine of price stability…

If price stability is the objective, then a prudent course of action may be to defer any action on the standard offer price at this time and continue to monitor the fuel markets and their effect on the underlying cost to serve the standard offer customer base. Another month or so of market information would be helpful in assessing what type of rate effects might occur in 2007 from a price reduction in 2006.

However, on May 31, National Grid revised upward its estimate of how badly it was overcharging its customers. Now, National Grid projected that, if rates were held constant, $48,400,000 more would be collected from ratepayers by the end of 2006 than would spent on electricity. But despite the fact that the projected over-charges to Rhode Island customers were 50% higher than in their March estimate, National Grid now parroted the PUC line, withdrawing its rate lowering request and declaring that the price changes were too difficult to follow, so rates should just be kept high, regardless of actual costs…

The Company believes that, given the difficulty of predicting the reconciliation balance with a reasonable degree of accuracy by more than two or three months, the best course of action at this time is to maintain a stable Standard Offer Service rate at the current level. We will continue to monitor fuel prices and their affect on both the projected and actual Standard Offer reconciliation balance.

Eventually, in June, in light of the electricity overcharges now averaging $100 per-ratepaying household (and because, I suspect, of the attention being brought to the problem by Bill Harsch) the PUC recommended a modest lowering rates to 9.6¢ per kWh starting on July 1.

Mr. Harsch does not believe this to be sufficient...

In Defense of Darrell West, or the Theory of the Surly New England Independent, Part 2

Comparing the history of Darrell West's Brown University pre-election polls to actual election results, it's hard to find strong evidence of the phenomena of undecided voters breaking in favor of the challenger that has been documented in other places. To explain why an incumbent factor is not consistently seen in Rhode Island’s highest profile statewide elections, I propose the existence, in substantial numbers, of a class of Rhode Island voters that we can call “surly New England independents”.

Consider Myrth York’s numbers -- not just the percentages, but her absolute numbers of votes received. In 1994, York received 157,361 votes for governor. In 2002, she actually received about 7,000 votes fewer (and not because of lower turnout; Don Carcieri’s vote total was about 10,000 more than Lincoln Almond’s in 1994). In 1998, her total was even less, but turnout in general was down that year.

York, despite a decade of campaigning for governor, clearly never broadened her appeal beyond her initial 1994 base of support. Now, given this fact, which scenario do you think more likely. A) Bunches of independents and/or undecideds suddenly realized, in the last month of the 2002 campaign, that Myrth York was the same candidate she had always been and her Republican opponent was a better alternative. Or B) bunches of independents and/or undecideds were strongly disinclined, all through the 2002 election cycle, to vote for the same person they had already voted against twice, yet still told the pollsters they were “undecided”. I think B) is more likely (making Darrell West's and Victor Profughi's jobs all the more difficult).

I’m not suggesting that respondents intentionally deceive pollsters, but that there exists in Rhode Island a large number of surly independents who take the “I vote for the best candidates, be they Republicans or Democrats, incumbents or challengers” meme more seriously than most and who stay open to the possiblity of voting for any candidate deep into the election cycle. They may strongly lean towards one of the candidates, but since they believe it is their civic duty to consider all available information before casting a vote, they consider themselves to be “undecided” until they have heard the entire campaign.

The existence of surly independents explains, for example, why the Reed-Tingle result from ’02 bucks the conventional wisdom regarding incumbents. Most voters had never heard of Bob Tingle before the campaign. Still, the surly independents did their duty as independents, stayed open to the possibility of voting for either party through the campaign, and waited to hear Tingle’s message. When they didn’t hear a message (Tingle’s ability to get his message out was hampered by serious underfunding), many voted for Reed.

How the existence of surly independents might affect the current Senate race is difficult to predict, but the impact of surly independents is clearly being seen in the the current race for Governor of Rhode Island.

There are two phenomena difficult to explain in the Governor's race. 1) What spurred the sudden closing of the poll numbers between Gov. Carcieri and Lt. Gov Fogarty while politics was proceding business as usual in Rhode Island? 2) How does an incumbent Governor only get 44% support for re-election in the same Rhode Island College poll that shows him with 54% favorability rating?

The answer, I submit, lies in the existence of the surly New England independents. With election season underway, the independents have opened themselves up to the possibility of voting for either candidate -- even if they are strongly likely to vote the same way they did four years ago (is it pure coincidence that the Governor's 54% approval rating is the same as his 2002 percentage of the vote?).

Here's my prediction: As the Gubernatorial campaign moves forward, Lieutenant Governor Fogarty's penchant for giving mushy answers of “I’ll study that” or “maybe” in response to even the most basic questions about reforming Rhode Island’s taxation, spending and education policies will not play well with the surly independents. They will re-confirm their reasoning of why they voted for Governor Carcieri and the final election result will contain a break in undecideds, relative to the final Brown poll, that is slightly-to-strongly in Governor Carcieri's favor.

In Defense of Darrell West, or the Theory of the Surly New England Independent, Part 1

In anticipation of the release of June’s Brown University(*) poll on the upcoming November elections, I compared past Gubernatorial and Senate election results to the corresponding Brown poll taken closest to the election date. I was curious to see if evidence of the current conventional wisdom -- that in races involving incumbents, undecided voters tend to “break” in favor of the challenger -- existed.

Three Rhode Island Gubernatorial or Senate races since 1994 have involved full-term incumbents seeking re-election. In none of these cases did undecideds (as measured by the Brown results) break in favor of the challenger...

• During the 1994 U.S. Senate race, the September poll showed incumbent John Chafee leading challenger Linda Kushner 55%-24%. Undecided voters broke relatively evenly, with Chafee winning the election 65%-35%.
• During the 1998 Governor's race, the September poll showed incumbent Lincoln Almond leading challenger Myrth York 41%-35% (with only 13% undecided, due mostly to the presence of Robert Healey). In the actual election, undecideds broke slightly in favor of Almond, giving him a 51%-42% victory over York.
• During the 2002 U.S. Senate race, the October poll showed incumbent Jack Reed leading challenger Robert Tingle 61%-14%. Undecideds broke in favor of Reed, giving him a 78%-22% victory.

A fourth race involving an incumbent who had received a late-term appointment to his seat did exhibit a break in undecided voters towards the challenger...

• During the 2000 U.S. Senate race, the October poll showed incumbent Lincoln Chafee leading challenger Robert Weygand 52%-28%. Undecideds broke in favor of Weygand, though Chafee still won a comfortable 57%-41% victory.

There have also been three Gubernatorial or Senate races involving no incumbent since 1994...

• In the 1994 Governor’s race, the September Brown Unversity poll showed Lincoln Almond in a dead heat with Myrth York 38%-37%, with 21% undecided. Undecideds broke slightly in favor of Almond, but enough to give him the 47%-43% victory (Robert Healey picking up 9%).
• In the 1996 U.S. Senate race, the September poll showed Jack Reed with a 49%-32% lead over Nancy Mayer. In the actual election, undecideds broke in favor of Reed, giving him a 63%-35% victory.
• And, of course (in the only case where the Brown poll got the final result wrong) the October poll showed Myrth York leading Don Carcieri by a 41%-34% margin. In the election, undecideds broke for Carcieri by a large enough margin to give him a 54%-45% victory.

There’s at least one technical issue affecting poll accuracy that goes beyond the scope of the data presented: making accurate “likely voter” adjustments. Despite this large X-factor, it's still possible to draw a few conclusions.

First, there's no obvious ideological bias in the Brown University result set. In the three cases where undecideds split evenly, (John Chafee, both Almond/York races), everyone’s support was understated about equally. In three cases (Reed in ’96 and ‘02, Weygand in ‘00) eventual Democratic support was understated and in one case (Carcieri in ’02) eventual Republican support was understated.

Second, the results suggest a necessary refinement to the idea that undecideds not supporting an incumbent are likely to vote for a challenger. In Almond/York II, for instance, the controlling dynamic was probably as much "if I didn't vote for her before, why would I vote for her now?" as it was a referrendum on the incumbent. The number of undecideds that a challenger picks up is likely inversely proportional to how well-known the challenger is going into the election.

Third, most interestingly, there may be a factor called the phenomena of the surly New England independent in play here...

(*)The Brown University poll is conducted by Brown University Political Science Professor Darrell West, Director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy and the John Hazen White Sr. Public Opinion Laboratory. I mention this in full detail because 1) I believe in giving full credit where credit is due and 2) because I would never think of slighting the fine contributions the Whites have made to the civic culture in Rhode Island, especially when John Hazen White Jr. might be looking in innovate directions to find for moderators for a series of political debates.

Deluded America

Extending the discussion that began with Worse Than Even Moral Equivalence, Diana West writes about Deluded America:

...a quotation by Churchill on the subject of war. Specifically, what happens to a civilized society when it goes to war with a barbarous one...what I remember as being the main point was that if the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory. Partly, this is because civilized war tactics are apt to fail against barbarous war tactics, thus requiring civilized society to break the "rules" if it is to survive a true death struggle. It is also because the clash itself — the act of engaging with the barbarous society — forces civilization to confront, repel and also internalize previously unimagined depredations. This is degrading, too...

The question is, did bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting make the Allies into barbarians?

I think most people would still say of course not and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself — and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective. We view it from a perspective in which Allied lives — our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons — counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.

How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think anymore. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy and the "civilians" they hide among — and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq — our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, and not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran and not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.

In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives — and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people — Western elites — never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadists. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of, anyone who does. This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.

Why not? Because such smugness masks a massive moral paralysis. The morally superior (read: paralyzed) don't really take sides, don't really believe one culture is qualitatively better or worse than the other. They don't even believe one culture is just plain different from the other. Only in this atmosphere of politically correct and perpetually adolescent non-judgmentalism could anyone believe, for example, that compelling, forcing or torturing a jihadist terrorist to get information to save a city undermines our "values" in any way. It undermines nothing — except the jihad.

Do such tactics diminish our inviolate sanctimony? You bet. But so what? The alternative is to follow our precious rules and hope the barbarians will leave us alone, or, perhaps, not deal with us too harshly. Fond hope. Consider the 21st-century return of (I still can't quite believe it) beheadings. The first French Republic aside, who on God's modern green earth ever imagined a head being hacked off the human body before we were confronted with Islamic jihad? Civilization itself is forever dimmed — again.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, RIP.

ADDENDUM:

Diana West has more in It's an Islamic jihad, stupid:

Discussing the "war on terror" has been endlessly awkward. Terror -- like a blitzkrieg, sneak-attack or disinformation -- is a tactic, not an enemy. But in our politically-correct era, we dwell on the tactic, never defining the enemy...but don't describe him as an Islamic jihadist in the age-old tradition of Islamic jihadis going back to Muhammad. Such historical precision might be hurtful and insensitive, and we wouldn't want that.

Indeed, as a matter of American foreign policy, we don't want that. Better to keep things vague and indirect...Once upon a time, We the People were crass enough to have repelled a German blitzkrieg, defied Japanese sneak attack, and even, some of us, combated Soviet disinformation. Now, We the Peoples are "enlightened" to the point where we send armies out for years to fight generic "terror" -- no matter how specifically Islamic that it is.

There are many reasons why this matters, not least of which is that, without understanding the religious nature of jihad (holy war), along with its sister institution of dhimmitude (inferior status of non-Muslims under Islam), there can be no triumph over jihad and no avoiding dhimmitude. There can also be no understanding of the religiously rooted attitudes toward jihad movements among even non-violent Muslims, generally ranging from a tacit ambivalence to wild adulation.

Even as we fight our war against "terror," we simultaneously fight against any such understanding. Maybe the reason goes beyond reflexive PC manners. Maybe the West simply doesn't want an "enemy" at all; maybe we simply want to safeguard ourselves against "terror." Maybe our elites believe that, in targeting only terror, the enemy will learn to like us, and terror will go away.

This mindset may explain why the United States exhausts itself trying to disclaim a connection between Islam and jihad, opening Islamic centers on U.S. military bases (most recently at Quantico at the behest of a Wahhabi-educated cleric). Thus, as Paul Sperry writes at frontpagemag.com, "facilitating the study of the holy texts the enemy uses, heretically or not, as their manual of war"; treating those same holy texts reverentially by military order at Guantanamo Bay; and even sending in the Marines to donate prayer rugs to an Iraqi mosque.

Such tactics suggest we no longer seek a military triumph over Islamic jihad -- if we ever did. Had we prosecuted such a war, it would be over by now. The president would have directed the military to eradicate, freeze or neutralize jihadi threats where they exist...

But no. Such a war on terror long ago gave way to the Struggle to Make Everyone Think We're Swell. In this no-win fight, we must watch what we say...And we must watch what we do...In a war in which an interrogation could save a city, we rewrite our interrogation rules to make sure that it won't. "If this debate were limited to what's best for interrogation purposes, the decision (about whether to soften interrogation techniques) would be pretty easy," a senior Defense Department official told The New York Times. "But then you have to look at what we lose diplomatically.'"

Why? What are we, Liechtenstein? We sure act like it. The Washington Times' Tony Blankley recently noted the defeatism in America's about-face with jihadist Iran -- the looming front in the war. By offering non-military nuclear technology or else threatening non-military sanctions, the Bush administration seems to have acquiesced to what Blankley describes as "the only 'respectable' position" among both European and American elites: namely, "the absolute exclusion of a military option."

If true, this would mean that the already inadequately titled "war on terror" would no longer refer to "war" at all. And that would leave only...

ADDENDUM II:

Israel offers an appropriate and, by American standards, politically incorrect alternative approach for dealing with Islamic jihadists:

Israel will work to ensure the Hamas-led government falls if a soldier kidnapped by Palestinian militants is not released alive, a high-ranking security official said.

"We will make sure that the Hamas government ceases to operate if the kidnapped soldier is not returned to us alive," the source told AFP...

The Senate's Vacuous War Debate

In addition to rejecting John Kerry's hard deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, the Senate on Thursday also voted on an Iraq proposal sponsored by Democratic Senators Jack Reed and Carl Levin. The Reed-Levin amendment was a non-binding resolution that called on the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by the end of this year and to submit estimates for further withdrawals beyond 2006, but established no final deadline for completing a withdrawal. The amendment failed by a vote of 39-60.

I am not sure what the public gained through the "debate" of this proposal.

Reed-Levin would not have mandated -- nor even suggested -- any change in the President's current Iraq policy. Here's what the resolution asked of the President...

(D) the President should--

(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security forces, providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;

(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year; and

(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise;

(2) during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq; and

(3) the President should carefully assess the impact that ongoing United States military operations in Iraq are having on the capability of the United States Government to conduct an effective counterterrorism campaign to defeat the broader global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

Yet according to the June 9 International Herald Tribune, the beginnings of withdrawal from Iraq, to occur this year, are already planned...

The subject of future troop levels is certain to be an important part of President George W. Bush's two-day war cabinet meeting, which will start Monday at Camp David in Maryland. Senior U.S. commanders in Iraq will join the meeting by a video link.

In preparation, military planners in Iraq and at the Pentagon have been refining troop-rotation proposals that, in the best case, would reduce levels to between 110,000 to 120,000 troops by the end of December, from current levels of about 130,000, administration and military officials said.

So suppose the President brings home 15,000 troops by Christmas and announces tentative plans to withdraw more troops after that. That meets conditions spelled out in the Reed-Levin amendment; how then has the amendment altered the US war plan?

Most Republicans, rightly, voted against this proposal because it would have made American policy look weaker than it actually is. Passage of the amendment would have created a perception that any forthcoming withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was the result of American division and inconstancy and not of the consideration of the facts on the ground.

Forcing a vote on this kind of resolution shows that the Democrats do not understand how critical avoiding an unnecessary perception of weakness is to a deterrence-based defense policy. There is no advantage in focusing on low-substance but high-profile atmospherics that make an existing policy look weaker than it is. And it is neither good military strategy (because it boosts enemy morale) nor good political strategy (because it reduces the room that domestic hawks have to compromise) to make considered political/military decisions look like purely military retreats.

Centracchio Running for GOP LT. Governor Slot

Confirming reports from the ProJo 7to7 Blog and NBC10 's Bill Rappleye, Major General Reginald Centracchio, former Adjutant General of the RI National Guard, confirmed that he was entering the GOP primary for Lt. Gov. on the air with Dan Yorke this afternoon. Centracchio had previously said he wasn't going to run. He also told Yorke that he asked the other GOP candidate, Kerry King, to step aside. Apparently King wasn't very happy. (No Kidding!)

Yorke asked Centracchio "who came to you" and asked you to run. Centracchio first said his family and then friends and then stated that no GOP political players had a part. He also said he notified Gov. Almond yesterday.

UPDATE: Yorke spoke with Chuck Newton from the State GOP for reaction. Newton said that he thought it was "terrific" because it energizes all within the party. When asked if the party would ask King to run for General Treasurer instead, Newton said it's possible but no such talks have been held. When pressed, Newton proffered the line that each candidate was his own man. He also implied that some in the GOP were excited by Centracchio's entrance into the race, while others had a different view. In short, he continued to toe the line that it would energize the party. (He also hinted that another Republican would be making a bid against Patrick Kennedy).

UPDATE II: Yorke also spoke to Kerry King. King said he's not bowing out and that he's going to win. He related that he told Centracchio that "You've got to be kidding" when Centracchio called King last week to tell him he was entering the race. King also said that Centracchio told him he had the support of "the Governor." Governor Carcieri called King and told him he had his support. Then Centracchio called King again and said he's out. Then, after this past weekend, rumors began floating that Centracchio was going to jump in after all. King characterized Centracchio's back-and-forth as not showing leadership but opportunism.

Yorke asked King if anyone had asked him to back out from the State GOP or if they had asked him to run for some other office. King said "no."He said that, like Nathanael Greene, he had been keeping his powder dry and that his organization has been out raising money for the stretch run. Now he's ready to fight a tough campaign.

Sheldon Whitehouse Lurches Beyond the Democratic Mainstream

According to his television ads, Rhode Island Senate candidate Sheldon Whitehouse wants American troops to leave Iraq "by the end this year".

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate rejected a measure sponsored by Senator John Kerry that would have required most American troops to leave Iraq by mid-2007 by a vote of 13-86.

The overwhelming margin of defeat of the amendment shows how far outside of the mainstream Sheldon Whitehouse is. His ideas on Iraq lie outside not just the national mainstream, but far to the left of the conensus of the national Democratic party. Is a candidate who promotes the foreign policy ideas of the radical fringe really a suitable representative of the citizens of Rhode Island?

Worse Than Even Moral Equivalence

Yesterday's Best of the Web from the Wall Street Journal offers this story:

Horrific news out of Iraq, where two U.S. soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, were either killed or captured and later killed in an enemy attack Friday. Their bodies were found Monday, CNN reports, "mutilated and booby-trapped":

The bodies also had been desecrated and a visual identification was impossible--part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said...

Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.

To most of us, this is a reminder of the depravity of our enemies. But blogress Jeralyn Merritt sees it as a reminder of America's sins:

Violence begets violence. Inhumanity and cruelty bring more of the same. The whole world is watching and we don't have the right to claim the moral high ground so long as those responsible for the abuses at Guantanamo and detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan go unpunished, the policies stand uncorrected and the Pentagon continues to prevent the media from learning the facts first-hand.

The always excitable Andrew Sullivan similarly laments "the cycle of depravity and defeat."

This rhetoric about "cycles" appears to reflect a theory of moral equivalence, but in fact it is something else. After all, if the two sides were morally equivalent, one could apply this reasoning in reverse--excusing, for example, the alleged massacre at Haditha on the ground that it was "provoked" by a bombing that killed a U.S. serviceman--and hey, violence begets violence.

But America's critics never make this argument, and its defenders seldom do. That is because it is understood that America knows better. If it is true that U.S. Marines murdered civilians in cold blood at Haditha, the other side's brutality does not excuse it. Only the enemy's evil acts are thought to be explained away by ours.

Implicit in the "cycle" theory, then, is the premise that the enemy is innocent--not in the sense of having done nothing wrong, but in the sense of not knowing any better. The enemy lacks the knowledge of good and evil--or, to put it in theological terms, he is free of original sin.

America ought to hold itself to a high moral standard, of course, but blaming the other side's depraved acts on our own (real and imagined) moral imperfections is a dangerous form of vanity.

But they claim to support the troops and don't want anyone to question their patriotism.

Latest RIC Poll Shows Tight Races

Here are the results from the latest RIC poll (actual polling questions and results in this PDF) and here is the ProJo story. Here are some of the results:

GOVERNOR
Carcieri 44%
Fogerty 39%
Undecided 17%

SENATE (Scenario "A")
Chafee 43%
Whitehouse 40%
Undecided 17%

SENATE (Scenario "B")
Whitehouse 58%
Laffey 27%
Undecided 16%

CASINO
Yes 48%
No 47%
Undecided 4%
Won't Vote 2%

Now you all can begin talking about why this does or doesn't matter.

UPDATE: In the comments section, "Greg" makes a good point about the Legislature's approval ratings and I think it's worth mentioning. The poll asks:

How much of the time do you think you can trust each of the following to do what is right– just about
always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost never.

Here are the results broken down by Total Positive or Total Negative (I left out the "I don't know"s).

The state legislature
Total Positive: 20%
Total Negative: 75%

Your state legislator
Total Positive: 33%
Total Negative: 56%

Governor Carcieri
Total Positive: 54%
Total Negative: 42%

We often hear how people don't approve of the State Legislature as a whole, but usually like the job "their guy" is doing. These numbers seem to counter that argument. Additionally, the Governor is easily more popular than the General Assembly. It's also interesting that the Governor's approval rating is 10 points higher than the amount of people who said they were going to vote for him (54% vs. 44%). As always, looking at poll internals can reveal inconsistencies.

UPDATE II: RIC has just released some more poll information that shows that the GOP primary race between Laffey and Chafee is neck and neck.

If the September primary for the U.S. Senate election were held today, 39 percent of voters would support Chafee while 38 percent would back Laffey, if half of those voting in the primary are Republicans and the other half unaffiliated voters. One in four likely primary voters say they are undecided.

Among men, Laffey leads Chafee by 44 to 34 percent, while Chafee’s lead among women is only 37 to 35 percent. Regionally, Chafee appears to be strongest in Providence (73 to 27 percent), western Rhode Island (43 to 21 percent), and in the East Bay (44 to 33 percent). Laffey is strongest in Blackstone Valley (50 to 40 percent), Newport County (46 to 23 percent), and in the Providence suburbs south of the city (39 to 31 percent). Among age groupings, Chafee is strongest with voters older than 64 (49 to 37 percent), while Laffey’s greatest strength comes from voters 39 or younger (55 to 33).

According to the survey, the key to the primary outcome will be the number of unaffiliated and Republican voters coming out on election day. Chafee betters Laffey by 49 to 31 percent among unaffiliated voters but the incumbent loses to his challenger with Republicans (Laffey, 45 percent; Chafee, 28 percent). If 50 percent or more of those who turn out for the Republican primary are unaffiliated voters, Chafee wins; if more than half are Republicans Laffey comes out ahead.

The director of the poll, Victor Profughi, was on with Dan Yorke (audio here) and explained the various scenarios they used to come up with somewhat reliable polling numbers.

Of note is the head-to-head numbers among registered Republicans in which Laffey beats Chafee 45% to 28%. If RI didn't have an open primary system, Sen. Chafee would be in serious trouble.

Contra Michaud: Governor and House "Get Along" on Budget

One of the central lines of Dennis Michaud's criticism of Governor Carcieri is that he has a poor relationship with the General Assembly (Remember: "He's a fighter, I'm a lover."). Any follower of contemporary Rhode Island politics would probably agree, but that doesn't mean that tough-minded negotiating on both sides can't yield positive results. In short, there is no logical link between KUMBAYA circles and fiscal sanity. Rhode Island still has a ways to go, but it appears as if the Governor's managed to extract some concessions out of the House (and, yes, vice versa).

"I believe that my fundamental principle, which is that we have to live within our means, has finally begun to sink in," Carcieri said yesterday as he praised the House budget, which raises spending 4.9 percent.

Is that a responsible increase when inflation rose only 2.5 percent last year?

"I would like to see it lower," the governor said, "but to get a budget that everybody can agree to, you've got to compromise on some things."

House Finance Committee Chairman Steven M. Costantino, D-Providence, added: "This was a budget of shared priorities in a lot of cases. Were there some philosophical disagreements? Yes. But ultimately I think we worked through a budget."

In fact, things were so cordial between the House and the governor's office that Carcieri's chief of staff Jeffrey M. Grybowski celebrated the budget's passage in the speaker's office Monday night with Costantino and House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence.

The budget includes several issues that Carcieri and Democratic lawmakers can take credit for in November.

Take the car tax.

Carcieri had proposed raising the exemption from the first $5,000 in value to $5,500. Lawmakers went to $6,000.

The same can be said about local school aid.

Carcieri increased school funding by $20 million. Lawmakers added another $13.3 million, although some communities saw less under their plan than Carcieri had proposed. But in the end, both parties can take credit for more school aid, which in political circles translates into "property tax relief."

"I bet you have to go back to the late '90s to see a local-aid package as large as this," Carcieri said yesterday.

Lawmakers restored many of the cuts Carcieri made in welfare and subsidized health care for the poor, but did end up going along with a few of his reductions. The legislators can campaign that they helped the poor while Carcieri can take credit for "reforming" part of the system.

"They came not as far as I might like to see," the governor said, "but they came quite a ways toward what we wanted to accomplish."

For years we have seen the slow, inexorable power of incrementalism on the part of traditionally Democratic constituents who rely on--and demand--tax revenue taken from the wallets and pocketbooks of average Rhode Islanders. This week we've seen property tax reform coming from the Senate side and a Budget compromise--that includes tax reductions--coming from the House side. Perhaps this is the beginning of a slow (I won't say inexorable!) move in the other direction.

In an election year, even Democrats see the wisdom of letting the taxpayers keep more of their own money. These are positive developments. However, we still need to keep the pressure on. Should all of this legislation pass, we still need to make sure that the legislature doesn't try to take away these tax breaks next year. Re-electing Governor Carcieri would go a long way in ensuring that won't happen.

Why Mr. Straight Talk is Straight No More

A quote reported by Charles Bakst in yesterday’s Projo from Senator John McCain shows how Mr. Straight Talk has sadly morphed into Mr. Blatant Hypocrisy…

McCain joined in denouncing the Club for Growth's strident advertising effort: "I don't think that that's exactly what American politics should be all about, and why don't we have a little less of the negative and a little more of the positive?"

This is shameless. Via the campaign speech regulations he has shepherded through Congress, Senator McCain has done as much to tilt campaign discourse towards the negative as has any living American.

Under the McCain-Feingold rules, civic groups that run ads in favor of candidates they support are under the constant threat of having their efforts declared “illegally coordinated electioneering communications”. The resulting possibility of endless litigation has had a chilling effect on positive advertising.

There are, on the other hand, no limits on how much money can be spent on ads run by civic groups that discuss why a particular candidate is no good, so long as no explicit message to vote for or against anyone is conveyed. That's why third party ads often include a message suggesting that you call a candidate’s office to voice your displeasure; the contact-the-candidate message establishes that the ad has a primary purpose other than suggesting who people should vote for.

So if Senator McCain wants to blame someone for the absence of positive third-party campaign ads, he should look first into the mirror. He cerainly should not treat the public as utterly ignorant of the effects that his law has had on political discourse in this country. The Senator's weak civil liberties position on this issue is a large part of why he has no shot at the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008.

Senate Passes Property Tax Reform Bill

With a vote of 36-0, the State Senate passed a bill that would slow down and then limit the amount that a community could raise property taxes in any given year.

The bill would lower the maximum annual increase to a community's tax levy from the current 5.5 percent to 4 percent gradually, starting in fiscal 2008 and reaching 4 percent in 2013.

Rather than imposing a 4-percent cap immediately, [Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa] Paiva Weed said she chose the gradual cap to give cities and towns time to adjust. When Massachusetts capped local tax increases at 2.5 percent, she said, "a dramatic decrease overnight did have a negative impact on municipal services."

There were quite a few changes made from the original proposal, including:

...a provision instructing judges to consider the caps in deciding whether to allow school committees to seek a higher appropriation than they receive from a city or town council.

The bill would apply the same percentage caps to school-spending increases as it would to tax levy increases....

Another amendment would excuse school committees from including state and federal aid in computing compliance with the cap....

The bill contains an exemption from the cap in four cases:

if a city or town experiences a loss in revenues other than property taxes, such as state aid or gambling revenues,

if a city's or town's health-insurance costs, retirement contributions or utility expenditures rise at a rate more than three times the cap specified for that year,

if a city or town experiences debt-service costs that exceed the prior year's costs by a percentage greater than the cap specified for that year,

if a city or town "experiences substantial growth in its tax base as the result of major new construction which necessitates either significant infrastructure or school housing expenditures . . . or a significant increase in the need for essential municipal services."

The original bill would have required a special election, paid for by the state, to override the cap in those circumstances. The bill, as passed, instead requires a supermajority vote -- four fifths of the full membership -- of the city or town council.

The Governor supports the measure, but it's still up in the air as to whether or not the House will take it up. I'm betting against that happening. Nonetheless, kudos to Sen. Paiva Weed and the Senate for making the attempt.

Just a Note: Giuliani Endorses Chafee

I'm sure everyone will let me know if I missed this already, but included in his new website "Solutions America", Rudy Giuliani has a section for those Republicans he has endorsed. For Rhode Island, he has endorsed Lincoln Chafee, which really isn't a big surprise. But perhaps the bigger point is the whole concept of this website. Why have it? Apparently, the "Solutions America" organization has been around since 1998. Nonetheless, the effort to publicize the website launch seems to be a clear indication that Giuliani is engaged in some base-building for an '08 Presidential run.

How the Legislature's Education-Aid Plan Will Affect Your City or Town

According to today's Projo, The Rhode Island House has approved a flat 4.8% increase in education aid for all Rhode Island cities and towns. Because Rhode Island distributes state education aid very unevenly, this plan gives generous increases to some communities while basically ignoring others.

For example, in 2006 Barrington received $727 per-student in state education aid. At the other end of the scale, the Providence school system received $6,632 per student. Applying these base figures to the legislature's flat funding formula, the Providence school system will get an an additional $318 per student next year, while the Barrington school system will receive only an additional $35 per student.

Here is the complete list of aid increases, based on the 4.8% figure and last year’s aid totals, as well as the amount of education aid communities gained or lost relative to Governor Carcieri's original budget proposal…

	Per-Pupil Increase in FY2007 Education Aid (Approved by House)	Total Increase in FY2007 Education Aid (Approved by House)	Change in FY2007 Education Aid (Relative to the Governor's Proposal)
Central Falls	$531	$1,983,387	+$1,968,138
Providence	$318	$8,882,407	+$4,991,967
Pawtucket	$317	$3,061,659	+$1,971,915
Woonsocket	$315	$2,181,873	+$1,700,547
Bristol/Warren	$255	$938,638	+$469,450
West Warwick	$244	$935,998	+$462,986
Burrillville	$244	$631,241	+$241,179
East Providence	$192	$1,225,477	+$471,546
Newport	$191	$540,157	+$211,633
Glocester	$186	$147,166	+$53,278
Chariho	$176	$679,136	+$160,132
Foster	$176	$64,862	+$37,645
North Providence	$174	$605,976	+$138,848
Middletown	$174	$480,676	+$70,989
Exeter/WGreenwich	$157	$346,906	+$265,615
Coventry	$157	$919,263	+$167,409
Foster/Glocester	$155	$262,378	+$87,161
Johnston	$152	$499,858	+$9,680
Cranston	$145	$1,629,295	+$319,644
Warwick	$144	$1,722,942	+$251,705
Tiverton	$122	$271,636	+$34,507
North Kingstown	$119	$548,854	-$25,329
South Kingstown	$114	$477,543	-$90,167
Cumberland	$114	$607,430	+$56,152
North Smithfield	$110	$221,575	+$31,491
Smithfield	$97	$263,194	-$55,602
Portsmouth	$93	$286,197	-$326,063
Lincoln	$93	$339,105	-$141,466
Scituate	$86	$156,019	-$68,215
Westerly	$84	$313,353	-$219,169
Narragansett	$52	$86,873	-$195,126
LittleCompton	$52	$16,888	-$28,161
Jamestown	$45	$24,357	-$55,242
East Greenwich	$36	$89,282	-$229,292
Barrington	$35	$119,036	-$307,683
New Shoreham	$32	$4,870	-$29,339

According to a Michael P. McKinney article also in today’s Projo, Barrington residents would like to know why the state government seems so hostile to assisting education in their town…

A dismayed Barrington Town Council approved a resolution last night expressing frustration with House lawmakers' "unprecedented last-minute" changes in school aid to more than a dozen communities and asking the legislature to provide those towns with an analysis that supported the decision to cut.

Schools Supt. Ralph A. Malafronte said that in a dozen years as superintendent, he had never seen a House committee drop the aid below the governor's level.

The answer to Barrington’s question is that, somewhere along the line, the Rhode Island legislature adopted the philosophy that the major function of state government was to redistribute resources from smaller cities and towns to the urban core. The justification of why towns are less entitled to state support of their municipal institutions is unclear.

Two last points. With so much money being distributed so inequitably through the state funding system, the fundamental question of the fairness of forcing people to contribute money to bureaucracies they have no control over cannot be reasonably ignored. Though all Rhode Island residents help pay 2/3 of the education costs in cities like Providence, Pawtucket, and Woonsocket, most of those Rhode Islanders have zero say, through a school committee or city council, in how those school systems are run. That’s taxation without representation. If education is to be funded on a statewide basis, students should be allowed access to any school in the state via a public school choice program.

Second, when you look over the numbers on how the capitol core gained education funding the expense of other Rhode Island communities, don't forget the recent vote on the no-bid casino deal. Maybe the members of the Providence and Pawtucket delegations who supported the no-bid deal did so because they figured that the extra revenue that would come from a competitive bidding process wasn't necessary for their communities -- they could just take what they want from Rhode Island’s smaller cities and towns instead!

Illegal Immigration: What is at stake & where do we go from here?

This morning's publication of an Open Letter about immigration by leading conservatives prompted me to re-read a draft posting I had last edited on May 26. Here is that late-May posting:

Now that we have the Senate and House going into conference with the objective of negotiating a final bill out of two very different bills, it is worth taking a step back and asking ourselves: What are the big issues in this illegal immigration debate? In other words, what policies and values are at stake as those negotiations begin and where should we go from here?

Let me begin with an analogy:

Think back to when you were in elementary school. Remember the occasional kid who would not play by the rules? Now, in most cases, peer pressure corrected their aberrant behavior. But sometimes it did not. And, without the presence of teachers or school aides to adjudicate the situation, a bully could get away with uncivilized behavior and disrupt the peaceful actions of kids who were simply trying to play by the rules.

Now recall how you felt if you or your friends were taken advantage of: The bully was being unfair. Playing fair - by playing by the rules - is a key principle of American life. It is why we don't like cheaters - in school, on the ball field, in business or in politics.

Whether we will play fair with illegal immigration concerns defines the core issue of this debate.

What the American people get - and many of the Washington politicians from both parties do not get - is that we understand this Senate bill is amnesty for lawbreakers. For corporate lawbreakers and for illegal alien lawbreakers. This bill rewards all of them for breaking the law by relieving them of any consequences for their past illegal actions. And it is no less troubling that the structural incentives of the bill will ensure future behaviors are equally reprehensible. All of this is unfair and wrong.

The Senate bill fails to codify a sense of fair play - aka the rule-of-law in legal terms - into public policies that enhance our ability to live together peacefully as a society. It is actually worse than that because it makes future societal conflict more likely.

These initial points also clarify what are NOT the big issues here. This is not about being racist or hating minorities, no matter how hard some amnesty advocates will push that shtick. All you have to do is read the postings on this blogsite, from well before the illegal immigration issue moved front-and-center, to know that many of us who are agitated about illegal immigration come from families that marched with and were outspokenly supportive of the noble cause led by Martin Luther King, Jr. And because this is a rule-of-law issue, it is also not a civil rights issue.

The American people see through all the moral preening by various parties and have cut to the heart of the matter. Under the status quo, they observe:

The government passes laws they have no intention of enforcing and grants benefits to people who have not earned them.

Businesses are willing to break the law in order to get cheap labor and increase their profits.

Unions are looking for easy marks to recruit for membership, thereby increasing their power.

Both political parties are willing to ignore serious and unresolved policy issues so they can maximize their chances of attracting more Hispanics to their respective parties.

Radicals - like many who organized the May 1 rallies - are promoting an anti-American vision of separatist identity politics completely disconnected from the Founding principles of our country.

Mexico is in political disarray, has an economy that does not generate enough jobs, and threatens to sue our country just for protecting our border.

Illegal immigrants (and many of their advocates) are effectively saying "I am here so deal it with it on my terms."

Broadly speaking, there are national security, economic and cultural issues at stake here and none is being addressed with any rigor. The American people understand that a failure to deal effectively with any of the three issues diminishes the quality of our country's life - and could even threaten its existence over time.

There are three specific policy issues at the center of this debate:

American sovereignty: Will we set our own laws about immigration as a country or will we let illegal aliens or foreign countries drive our laws?

Rule of law: Will we enforce fairly the laws on our books, thereby ensuring a consistent - and not corrupt - application of those laws?

Assimilation - Becoming an American citizen is an honor, not a right. We want all citizens to share that sense of honor. So, what does it mean to be an American citizen and how will immigrants be taught American history and the uniqueness of the American experiment in ordered liberty?

So where do we go from here? I would suggest several key points:

We need to transform immigration processes from dishonest to honest practices. The only way we will get to that point is if we first skewer the moral preeners and drive the debate to a focus on both the 3 broad issues (national security, economic, cultural) and the 3 specific policy issues (American sovereignty, rule-of-law, assimilation) mentioned above.

There is a consensus about the need for enforcement, both at the border and with employer compliance. We should begin there and do that right.

There is not a consensus on what to do next and the worst thing we can do is force another law onto the books that either makes no sense or will not be enforced. There is an analogy with the abortion issue. This country became polarized because the Supreme Court acted in a way that pre-empted a national debate from occurring, from allowing a broad consensus to develop. In its current form, this Senate bill is likely to lead to a similar outcome. The issues won't go away; the passions will not diminish. But the debate will be stopped dead in its tracks and that will only polarize the country. There is much to discuss and we should conduct a reasoned debate at the national level about immigration issues - such as how to deal with the existing illegal aliens in our country, guest worker strategies, and so forth. If we did that, a national consensus would emerge. None of us would likely prefer every outcome but the odds are we could find a way to policies that are generally acceptable to most Americans.

My personal hope is that a more limited bill comes out of conference and we can then conduct a thoughtful public debate on how best to do the right thing and keep America strong. We owe nothing less to our children and to the future of America.

For more readings on the topic, there have been numerous recent postings on Anchor Rising about immigration. Several key ones include:

Identifying Four Core Issues Underlying the Immigration Debate
More Misguided Thinking From RIFuture & State Legislators on Illegal Immigration
Does The Rule Of Law & A Sense Of Fair Play Matter Anymore? The Debate About In-State Tuitions For Illegal Immigrants
Jennifer Roback Morse: Further Clarifying What is at Stake in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Other recent postings on Anchor Rising include:

Why is Congress Discriminating Against Educated Legal Immigrants?
More Links on Immigration Issue
Asleep at the Border
Senate Rejects Securing the Borders while Supporting Increased Presidential Power
Senator Reed Votes For Open Borders
Senator Grassley's Top 10 Flaws in Immigration Bill
Senator Sessions' Senate Floor Speech on Illegal Immigration Bill
The Senate Passes an Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill, But Lacks The Courage To Call It What It Is
The Department of Homeland Insecurity and Consular ID Cards
More Thoughts on the Senate Immigration Bill
The Pence Immigration Compromise: Yes to Guest Workers, No to Amnesty
The Department of Homeland Insecurity and Consular ID Cards

In addition, another series of previous postings contain information about recent events in the public debate about illegal immigration and can be found in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.

Where I've Been Walking

Over on Dust in the Light: "A Life Begins" offers some explanation for my relative lack of literary activity in recent months.

Happy Father's Day!

Happy Father's Day to all the Dads out there!

I am fortunate to have a great Dad, about whom I wrote this last year. He is still going strong one year later. Happy Father's Day, Dad!

National Review Online has several interesting articles on the role of fathers:

Indispensable: Fathers and their day
The Father Effect: It can't be replaced
Husband's Day: Your children will thank you

Hope each of you Dads out there have a great day!

Happy Father's Day!

Happy Father's Day to all the Dads out there!

I am fortunate to have a great Dad, about whom I wrote this last year. He is still going strong one year later. Happy Father's Day, Dad!

National Review Online has several interesting articles on the role of fathers:

Indispensable: Fathers and their day
The Father Effect: It can't be replaced
Husband's Day: Your children will thank you

Hope each of you Dads out there have a great day!

Rediscovering Civil Society, Part I: Mediating Structures and the Dilemmas of the Welfare State

To Empower People: From State to Civil Society was a book published in 1996 and edited by Michael Novak. It is a group of essays which take a retrospective look at the policy recommendations contained in a 1977 book by Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus entitled To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy .

The first chapter of the original 1977 book defines some structural challenges we face in today's society and offers a policy framework for solving some of those problems:

Two seemingly contradictory tendencies are evident in current thinking about public policy in America. First, there is a continuing desire for the services provided by the welfare state...The second tendency is one of strong animus against government, bureaucracy, and bigness as such...

...we suggest that the modern welfare state is here to stay...but that alternative mechanisms are possible to provide welfare-state services.

The current anti-government, anti-bigness mood is not irrational. Complaints about impersonality, unresponsiveness, and excessive interference, as well as the perception of rising costs and deteriorating services - these are based upon empirical and widespread experience...At the same time there is widespread public support for publicly addressing major problems of our society in relieving poverty, in education, health care, and housing, and in a host of other human needs...

...The alternatives proposed here...can solve some problems...become the basis of far-reaching innovations in public policy, perhaps of a new paradigm...

The basic concept is that of what we are calling mediating structures...defined as those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life.

Modernization brings about a historically unprecedented dichotomy between public and private life. The most important large institution in the ordering of modern society is the modern state...In addition, there are the large economic conglomerates of capitalistic enterprise, big labor, and the growing bureaucracies that administer wide sectors of the society, such as in education...All these institutions we call the megastructures.

Then there is that modern phenomenon called private life...

For the individual in modern society, life is an ongoing migration between these two spheres, public and private. The megastructures are typically alienating, that is, they are not helpful in providing meaning and identity for individual existence. Meaning, fulfillment, and personal identity are to be realized in the private sphere. While the two spheres interact in many ways, in private life the individual is left very much to his own devices, and thus is uncertain and anxious...

The dichotomy poses a double crisis. It is a crisis for the individual who must carry on a balancing act between the demands of the two spheres. It is a political crisis because the megastructures (notably the state) come to be devoid of personal meaning and are therefore viewed as unreal or even malignant...Many who handle it more successfully than most have access to institutions that mediate between the two spheres. Such institutions have a private face, giving private life a measure of stability, and they have a public face, transferring meaning and value to the megastructure. Thus, mediating structures alleviate each facet of the double crisis of modern society...

Our focus is on four such mediating structures - neighborhood, family, church, and voluntary association. This is by no means an exhaustive list...

Without institutionally reliable processes of mediation, the political order becomes detached from the values and realities of individual life. Deprived of its moral foundation, the political order is "delegitimized." When that happens, the political order must be secured by coercion rather than by consent. And when that happens, democracy disappears.

The attractiveness of totalitarianism...is that it overcomes the dichotomy of private and public existence by imposing on life one comprehensive order of meaning...

Democracy is "handicapped" by being more vulnerable to the erosion of meaning in its institutions...That is why mediation is so crucial to democracy. Such mediation cannot be sporadic and occasional; it must be institutionalized in structures. The structures we have chosen to study have demonstrated a great capacity for adapting and innovating under changing conditions. Most important, they exist where people are, and that is where sound public policy should always begin...

The understanding of mediating structures is sympathetic to Edmund Burke's well-known claim: "To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle...of public affections." And it is sympathetic to..de Tocqueville's conclusion...[about] Americans: "In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made."...

...Emile Durkheim describes the "tempest" of modernization sweeping away the "little aggregations" in which people formerly found community, leaving only the state on the one hand and a mass of individuals...on the other...Today Robert Nisbet has most persuasively argued that the loss of community threatens the future of American democracy...

...Liberalism...has tended to be blind to the political (as distinct from private) functions of mediating structures. The main features of liberalism...is a commitment to government action toward greater social justice within the existing system...Liberalism's blindness to mediating structures can be traced to its Enlightenment roots. Enlightenment thought is abstract, universalistic...The concrete particularities of mediating structures find an inhospitable soil in the liberal garden. There the great concern is for the individual ("the rights of man") and for a just public order, but anything "in between" is viewed as irrelevant, or even an obstacle, to the rational ordering of society...

American liberalism has been vigorous in the defense of the private rights of individuals, and has tended to dismiss the argument that private behavior can have public consequences. Private rights are frequently defended against mediating structures...Similarly, American liberals are virtually faultless in their commitment to the religious liberty of individuals. But the libert to be defended is always that of privatized religion. Supported by a very narrow understanding of the separation of church and state, liberals are typically hostile to the claim that institutional religion might have public rights and public functions...liberalism has a hard time coming to terms with the alienating effects of the abstract structures it has multiplied since the New Deal. This may be the Achilles heel of the liberal state today.

The left, understood as some version of the socialist vision, has been less blind to the problem of mediation...The weakness of the left, however, is its exclusive or nearly exclusive focus on the capitalist economy as the source of this evil, when in fact the alienation of the socialist states...are much more severe than those of the capitalist states...

On the right...we also find little that is helpful...Both the old faith in the market and the new faith in government share the abstract thought patterns of the Enlightenment...today's conservatism typically exhibits the weakness of the left in reverse: it is highly sensitive to the alienations of big government, but blind to the analogous effects of big business...

The argument of this essay...can be subsumed under three propositions. The first proposition is analytical: Mediating structures are essential for a vital democratic society. The other two are broad programmatic recommendations: Public policy should protect and foster mediating structures, and Wherever possible, public policy should utilize mediating structures for the realization of social purposes...

The analytical proposition assumes that mediating structures are the value-generating and value-maintaining agencies in society. Without them, values become another function of the megastructures, notably of the state, and this is a hallmark of totalitarianism. In the totalitarian case, the individual becomes the object rather than the subject of the value-propagating processes of society.

The two programmatic propositions are, respectively, minimalist and maximalist. Minimally, public policy should cease and desist from damaging mediating structures....

The maximalist proposition ("utilize mediating structures") is much the riskier...there is a real danger that such structures might be "co-opted" by the government in a too eager embrace that would destroy the very distinctiveness of their function...

It should be noted that these propositions differ from superficially similar propositions aimed at decentralizing governmental functions. Decentralization is limited to what can be done within governmental structures; we are concerned with the structures that stand between government and the individual...

The theme is empowerment. One of the most debilitating results of modernization is a feeling of powerlessness in the face of institutions controlled by those whom we do not know and whose values we often do not share...The mediating structures under discussion here are the principal expressions of the real values and the real needs of people in our society. They are, for the most part, the people-sized institutions. Public policy should recognize, respect, and, where possible, empower these institutions...

Upper-income people already have ways to resist the encroachment of megastructures...Poor people have this power to a much lesser degree. The paradigm of mediating structures aims at empowering poor people to do the things that the more affluent can already do, aims at spreading the power around a bit more - and to do so where it matters, in people's control over their own lives...

Michael Novak has these words to say in the Introduction to the 1996 book:

One reason for the widespread acceptance of the Berger-Neuhaus approach may be as follows. In modern political thought, two tersm have until recently tended to dominate discourse: the individual and the nation-state...these terms are modern arrivals on the stage of history. But these terms apply...only to the two extremes of social life, excluding the "thickest" parts of social living in between.

The rise of the nation-state came about as heretofore separate petty kingdoms were brought to unity in new and larger national units, as in Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century...Almost as if in echo, there arose, as well, the sharp awareness among more and more individuals...that each is an atomic, lonely, and poignantly vulnerable individual...

Never before had nationalism...exercised so broad and highly organized an appeal upon human hearts. Never before had individuals felt so detached from kin and neighbors. Until recent generations, most loyalties had been local, feudal, personal...rather than abstract, legal and systematized in the new modern style of rationalized bureaucracies, conscripted armies, and impersonal welfare dependencies...

The Arrangement of the New Edition

...the idea of mediating institutions...[is] much easier to talk about...than actually find ways of realizing it, especially through the agencies of government...

...Mediating structures...do not at all fit the patterns of bureaucratic rationality. They require a more prudential, case-by-case form of reasoning...

In recent years...under the pressure of the new "rights regime," distant authorities began indeed to drive out local control and thus to crush these local "mediating structures."...the pressure brought by certain progressive elites to nationalize formerly local institutions and...to do so with the full weight of a new interpretation of the law...

...even the great philanthropic foundations, once thought of as an "independent sector," have slowly been drawn into an indecent liaison with government...foundations have frequently been co-opted by the seductive techniques of governmental agencies...

...The concept of mediating structures is not a simple one, since mediating structures come in all shapes, sizes, and forms, and their relations to the larger society, and even to government, are many and various. This concept is closely related to three others powerful in the world of ideas today: the principle of subsidiarity, the law of association, and civil society...

...We think that the political party that best makes mediating structures the North Star of a new bipartisan agenda will dominate practical politics for the next fifty years. Those who cherish the preeminence of the little platoons and associative networks of civil society over the bureaucratic state are more deeply rooted in the original ground and genius of the American experiment...

...it is never wise to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. It is also unwise to trust the state excessively. And it is usually prudent to place your bet on human liberty. Men are not angels, and on this earth we will never create an earthly paradise...the approach to public policy through mediating structures is not paradise, but only a significant and more humane alternative to the tangle of pathologies our nation now experiences...

Democrats Crossing the Line

According to this morning's ProJo:

More than 14,500 Rhode Island Democrats have switched their voter affiliations within the past six months to participate in the Sept. 12 Republican primary, a figure that experts say will probably help incumbent Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in his campaign against Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey.

State elections records compiled by the secretary of state's office show that 13,596 Democrats switched their affiliations to independent -- or unaffiliated in the state's political argot -- which would make them eligible to vote in the primary. An additional 987 Democrats switched to Republican, thus making them eligible to vote in the GOP primary.

That's quite a number, especially given the