Complicity by Inaction: Be Sure to Name the General Assembly in that Car Tax Lawsuit

Today's ProJo:

Here in Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri’s administration said it is withholding the local aid payments until the General Assembly decides what to do with the governor’s midyear budget plan, which calls for third- and fourth-quarter motor-vehicle excise-tax reimbursements — a total of $66.7 million, half of it due last week — to be eliminated. ...

One city — Woonsocket — went to court Friday, suing the state for not sending the $1.3 million excise-tax payment that was due Feb. 1, and Providence and the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns say they may do the same thing this week.

The Governor proposes; the General Assembly disposes. The GA officially received the supplemental budget when they opened for business in early January; they've known about various revenue shortfalls since well before then. Whether to approve, modify or toss out the Governor's proposals, they have inexplicably chosen not to act. In failing to do so, they have placed a piece of several local budgets in limbo.

Clearly, neither a sense of duty nor empathy for local governments is providing sufficient motivation at this point. For their own fiscal clarity and as a prod to action, cities and towns need to amplify the list of defendants in their lawsuit to include the party that actually holds the power in this matter.

State Exceptions to Unemployment

Owing to some legislation put forward by union-friendly state Senator John Tassoni (D, Smithfield, North Smithfield), I've been poking around state law related to unemployment insurance. Tassoni's bill would remove the word "private" from the following paragraph related to the state's workshare program:

"Eligible employer" means any private employer who has had contributions credited to his or her account and benefits have been chargeable to this account, and who is not delinquent in the payment of contributions or reimbursements, as required by chapters 42 – 44 of this title.

The obvious question is why public employers wouldn't be eligible for this program in the first place, and I can't say that my digging has led me to an answer. It has, however, unearthed a peculiar exemption. Government employers don't have to make regular contributions to the unemployment trust fund and can instead reimburse the fund for benefits paid to laid-off employees. Why should that be allowed?

My understanding is that employer payments into the fund are invested (assuming a positive balance) and are not reimbursable upon the closing of the business. When a particular employer lays off workers, its payment rate goes up (in the same way that auto insurance goes up after an accident or ticket), and when the fund is low, employers have to pay more in order to build it back up. Public-sector employers that make pay-as-you-go reimbursements to cover executed benefits do not contribute to the body of money that earns investment returns, and since they don't make regular payments, they would not pay more no matter how many employees they lay off or how low the fund might be.

This doesn't appear to be relevant to Tassoni's bill, however, because it would still only apply to an employer that has "contributions credited to his or her account." The new question is therefore what proportion of public employers make contributions, and the previous question about the reason for their initial exclusion from the workshare program remains.

Of course, the issue of more general concern is why the state's largest employer — i.e., the state and its subsidiaries — wouldn't have to participate in a program that is ostensibly set up to spread employment risk.

Note to the Sec of State and the Senator from Coventry: Forcibly Keeping Open a Primary Has Been Ruled Unconstitutional

... by the United States Supreme Court.

During the height of the debate several weeks ago as to whether the RIGOP should close its primary, Secretary of State Ralph Mollis declared that if a political party closes its primary, it would be a violation of state law. Further, the Sec of State stated that if the RIGOP decides to change its by-laws in order to do so, he intends the RI Board of Elections to intercede.

the office of Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis sent out an advisory that the state Board of Elections reviews all revisions to party bylaws, so that if the GOP Central Committee does vote to restrict who can vote in its primaries, the “state Board of Elections will be the setting for the next step in the process.”

Now, as Justin points out, Senator Leonidas Raptakis, Mr. Mollis' probable primary opponent, has filed legislation reinforcing (?) existing law to keep primaries open.

Both of these gentlemen may want to slow down and review precedent in this matter. When the Connecticut Secretary of State tried to stop the Connecticut GOP from opening their primary, the US Supreme Court in 1986 said ix-nay. And when the California Secretary of State tried to force all political parties to go beyond an open primary to something I had never even heard of - a blanket primary: all primary candidates on the ballots of all party primaries, with all voters free to choose from the smorgasbord - the US Supreme Court in 2000 not only ruled against him but provided a remarkable historic example of what could have happened in one particular primary if non-party members had been permitted to choose a party's candidate.

But a single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party. In the 1860 presidential election, if opponents of the fledgling Republican Party had been able to cause its nomination of a pro-slavery candidate in place of Abraham Lincoln, the coalition of intraparty factions forming behind him likely would have disintegrated, endangering the party’s survival and thwarting its effort to fill the vacuum left by the dissolution of the Whigs.

In short, without a closed primary, President Lincoln might not have been the Republican candidate, he might not have been President and slavery ... well, let's just stop there.

The RI Board of Elections just finished wiping constitutional egg off its face from trying to uphold another dubious Rhode Island electoral law - one involving signatures and the RI Moderate Party. Don't make them go through that again, messieurs.

The Window and the House of Cards

Apart from the complications of Rhode Island law, as a matter of political theory, this strikes me as a reasonable argument:

The lawsuit [by the city of Woonsocket], which also names State Controller Marc A. Leonetti and General Treasurer Frank T. Caprio as defendants, said the money [that the state was supposed to give towns for automobile excise taxes] was appropriated by a legislative act of the General Assembly and that means Carcieri, Leonetti and Caprio have "a clear legal duty" to pay it.

"He may submit the budget, but he does not have the authority under the state Constitution or state law unilaterally to change the General Assembly's budget after it has passed," [Woonsocket Mayor Leo] Fontaine said.

I've long been including, among my complaints against Governor Carcieri, that he is far too passive about describing the ownership of the budget. Even though we're into the second month of the calendar year — and the legislative session — legislators have yet to act on the supplemental budget. So, the governor should pay out whatever money is due, to whomever it's due, until the money runs out and then just shut down. "I'm bound by law to follow the General Assembly's budgeting," he could say, "and they've chosen to spend the account dry rather than take corrective action." It's their responsibility.

WPRI's recent poll data gives reason to hope that the public is coming around to an understanding of the political dynamics, in this state. Overall, 53% of Rhode Islanders blame the GA for the budget crisis, with another 25% splitting blame between the legislature and the executive. Perhaps based on relative degrees of attention, the General Assembly fares worse as the age of the respondent goes up. Moreover, 61% of respondents want cuts in spending and services and not in taxes.

If increasing understanding is to translate into the appropriate electoral actions — rather than merely contributing to the general grumble — the governor must make the necessary political decisions crystal clear. He should declare that the General Assembly's failure to act has been an open window next to the budgetary house of cards and then get out of the way of the inevitable.

A Curious Political Development

State Senator and Secretary of State candidate Leonidas Raptakis (D, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick) has submitted legislation that would insert the following language into state law:

No political party shall prohibit any independent registered voter who has no affiliation with any political party from participating in any political primary.

Here's his press release, which (curiously) he sent out himself, rather than through the senate's procedure:

State Senator Lou Raptakis, who recently announced his campaign for Secretary of State, is drafting legislation that would prevent any political party in Rhode Island from holding a closed primary. The Rhode Island Republican Party is considering closing their primary and prohibiting the participation of unaffiliated voters, a voting block which constitutes the largest group of voters in the state.

Raptakis said that no political party in the state should expect taxpayers to pay the bill for a party primary which shuts out 335,288 unaffiliated voters.

"It's very simple," said Raptakis. "If a political party wants to turn an open primary election process into an exercise in determining the will of their own members, then that party should not expect the taxpayers of Rhode Island to pay the bill."

Raptakis added, "The fact that some members of the Rhode Island GOP are seeking to close their primary, would reduce the number of eligible participants in that primary from 408,089 unaffiliated and Republican voters to 72,801 registered Republicans. Why should the state have to pay for a party's primary election when that party is telling the overwhelming majority of voters that their participation is not wanted?"

While a spokesperson for the Secretary of State suggested that their interpretation of the law was that Republicans could not hold a closed primary, it is expected that if the state GOP votes to bar unaffiliated voters from their primary, the issue will wind up in state court. Raptakis noted that Rhode Island General Laws 17-15-24 establishes that the only people who can be prohibited from voting in a party primary are those who vote in the primary of another party and don't disaffiliate or those who have designated their affiliation with another party.

"I don't believe the state's election law allows for a closed primary, but a judge may rule otherwise," said Raptakis. "I think we need to make it crystal clear that as long as the state is funding primary elections, it will not allow any political party to significantly limit participation in the electoral process."

If Raptakis is so confident that a party cannot close its primary, then why the legislation? In other words, why is a closed primary such a threat that it must be "crystal clear"?

One obvious reason might be that Democrats like the easy option of jumping over to control the effectiveness of the other side. The small size of the RIGOP also represents a little bit of an advantage for Republican candidates in a closed primary, because they can campaign to a smaller group of people, avoiding expense and center-stage bloodshed, almost as a community discussion. A third reason could be that Raptakis, himself, is a right-leaning outlier among Democrats and fears that his own party might follow suit, effectively blocking his campaign.

Evidence that the proposed legislation is more political than principled can be found in the fact that the legislation makes no reference to the funding of primaries, however much the senator may stress that rationale.

Kennedy Down - Inside the Numbers

The WPRI poll Monique mentioned highlights the poor favorability ratings for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (apparently because he has the lowest approval numbers of RI's Federal delegation). Yet, Senator Whitehouse isn't up for reelection for a couple more years, so the more immediate--and actionable--item is the news that Congressman Patrick Kennedy has a high unfavorability rating.

First, for what it's worth, he has a 29/58 Favorable/Unfavorable rating in the 2nd Congressional District (not his own) and WPRI published some overall breakdowns, but the important numbers are those solely from the First District (note, the poll was conducted prior to Rep. John Loughlin officially entered the race):

If the election were held today, would you vote to re-elect Congressman Kennedy?

Overall
Re-Elect - 35%
Consider Another - 31%
Replace - 28%

Age
18-39 - Re-elect - 31%; Consider another - 29%; Replace - 20%
40-59 - Re-elect - 34%; Consider another - 30%; Replace - 31%
60+ - Re-elect - 31%; Consider another - 36%; Replace - 29%

Gender
Male - Re-elect - 33%; Consider another - 32%; Replace - 30%
Female - Re-elect - 37%; Consider another - 31%; Replace - 26%

Union Member in Household
Yes - Re-elect - 49%; Consider another - 26%; Replace - 23%
No - Re-elect - 32%; Consider another - 33%; Replace - 30%

Political Leanings
Democrat - Re-elect - 61%; Consider another - 20%; Replace - 12%
Republican - Re-elect - 8%; Consider another - 33%; Replace - 57%
Independent - Re-elect - 26%; Consider another - 42%; Replace - 25%

Kennedy is still strong among Democrats, but the Independents are the key. It looks like those over 60 may finally be getting over Camelot, too. Kennedy's strongest support comes from Democrat women between 40-59 years old who live in union households. His strongest opponents are Republican men of the same age who don't live in a union household.

NOTE: While I won't go so far as to agree with the contention that these polls are poorly designed, I do think the real problem is that those who conduct and report on these polls need to do a better job with the way they phrase the results. This particularly true with the way the lump Favorable/Unfavorable by putting "Fair" in the latter category. "Fair" is the ultimate "meh" answer in polling, and doesn't indicate anything. Someone who says a politician is doing "Fair" could still very well vote for them--and in RI, it would probably take someone else knocking the socks off a voter to get them to change their ballot box habits. That being said, the results I've replicated here are a bit more clear.

Rough Poll Numbers for Rhode Island's Junior Senator Emerge on a Politically Interesting Day

From a poll conducted by WPRI 12.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has a favorability rating of 33 percent, with an unfavorable rating mired at 57 percent. Ten percent of those polled weren't sure how they felt about Whitehouse. Five percent thought Whitehouse was doing an "excellent" job.

Yikes. Apparently, many Rhode Islanders who thoughfully oppose the health care reform pending on Capital Hill do not appreciate the Senator's virulent characterization of them.

These poll results have been publicized on the same day that Scott Brown is sworn in as a Republican US Senator from Massachusetts and John Loughlin formally declares his candidacy against the Democrat incumbent Congressman from Rhode Island's First District. Altogether, not an encouraging day for advocates of big government.

Caprio Switching to GOP (with coattails)?

Former Steve Laffey campaign manager John Dodenhoff (he ran Laffey's Senate campaign in 2006) was on the Dan Yorke Show to explain that he ate lunch last week with Michael Lepizzera (former Laffey campaign member, now affiliated with Frank Caprio) who put forward an idea of having Frank Caprio run as a Republican so long as Steve Laffey stayed out of the 2010 Governor's race. According to Dodenhoff, Lepizzera confirmed that Caprio was "on board with this [the idea]."

The aim would be to, obviously, help Caprio by avoiding a primary, but the proposition was that it would also to help "save" the RI GOP and bring the disparate groups of the party together. It was also revealed that, apparently, some current Democratic State Representatives would also be interested in shifting to the GOP along with Caprio, including Caprio's brother, State Rep. David Caprio.

Dodenhoff's explained to Yorke that his incentive for revealing this meeting was to expose what he believes is a non-starter for rehabilitating the GOP party. Further, he wants to prevent local (city and town) GOP leaders from getting "sand-bagged" into thinking this is a viable way to grow the RI GOP.

Conspiracy, conspiracy everywhere.....

UPDATE: According to WPRO's Carolyn Cronin, the Caprio Campaign has issued a statement that "He [the Treasurer] has authorized no such conversation."

One Way to Shrink Government

Anybody catch this little nugget?

A one-time chief of staff to former Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano, [Former state Sen. Edward] Morrone has spent the last year as the $94,100 "director of intergovernmental affairs" in the office of Montalbano's successor: M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport.

In recent days, Superior Court Presiding Judge Alice B. Gibney nominated Morrone to replace David E. Perry, who retired in December, as clerk of the Kent County Superior Court. Morrone's current salary includes a 10 percent longevity bonus. Even with that bonus, it appears the court post -- advertised at $66,177 to $74,996 - would result in a pay cut for Morrone, who worked in the courts once before as the first manager of the Adult Drug Court.

Why does a part-time legislature require a full-time "director of intergovernmental affairs"? And why should the position pay so well?

More importantly, the career of Mr. Morrone is one more indication of the importance of a viable second party. If particular seats, including the senate presidency, were to change political hands from time to time, it might dislodge patronage careerists.

If "A" Equals "B", Then "C" Equals Patrick Lynch is a Racist

Patrick Lynch's campaign issued a press release (thanks, Ian Donnis) implying that the Statewide Coalition must be racist because they associate with the Tea Party movement which is, in turn,

responsible for a number of ugly protests around the country featuring racist rhetoric and signage over the past year.

The plot thickens, however. Harry Staley reported yesterday afternoon on the Dan Yorke Show that Patrick Lynch sought to associate himself a couple of weeks ago with the Statewide Coalition - wha-a-a-a-t? - by soliciting their support on the matter of the LNG terminal.

It seems clear that by his own logic and definitions, when Patrick Lynch is doing his round-up of racists, he needs to include the man in the mirror.

A Couple of Comments on the VRT

Last week's Violent Roundtable on the Matt Allen Show featured Rep. John Loughlin (R, Tiverton, Little Compton, Portsmouth) and Senator Leonidas Raptakis (D, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick) and is, as always, worth a listen. As one might expect, the three participants (John, Lou, and Matt) were in agreement on most issues, albeit with differences of emphasis, but two points stood out as worthy of further comment.

First is the humorous moment in which Loughlin caught Matt not knowing the names of his state representative or legislator. In fairness, Matt hasn't been in Tiverton but so long, and I've gotten the sense that his living arrangements are transitional. Still, I've increasingly been wondering whether gerrymandering helps to create a distance between residents and their representation. We've got all of these towns, with their unique character, and representatives often cover swaths of three or four of them.

My senator, for example, Walter Felag, covers Tiverton, Bristol, and Warren. One needn't drift into stationary Rhode Islandism to think it inappropriate to lump Tiverton with the other two, and one can be forgiven for not associating Felag with the town. (To be sure, I don't see him around very often.)

Second is the disagreement of Loughlin and Matt on compensation for legislators. Matt puts a hard-line emphasis on the "service" in "public service," suggesting that remuneration (especially healthcare) shouldn't be a factor. That might have been arguable in a time when Americans' lives progressed at a different pace, when families typically had one spouse staying home and seeing to property and family matters during the day, but in the current context, it pretty well ensures government by the independently wealthy. Or worse, people whose jobs allow for and encourage such participation, such as lawyers and union workers. Some sort of pay or benefits might make the difference toward encouraging participation.

Of course, so might changing the start time to an hour convenient for people who work more normal business hours. There's a reason most public meetings start no earlier than 6:00 p.m.

That Anti-Republican Feeling

An interesting call to the Dan Yorke Show as I was nearing home on my commute. The caller started out complaining about the corrupt, one-party political system in Rhode Island and then suggested that he simply couldn't vote for Republicans because, while he's fiscally conservative, he's socially liberal. He included opposition to the welfare state in his fiscal conservatism (erroneously, in my opinion). So, when Dan asked about social issues, he came up with abortion and same-sex marriage.

Dan got the caller to agree that abortion is a national issue, not a state issue, and asked (paraphrasing), "You're not putting same-sex marriage above the economic collapse of the state, are you?"

At that point, the caller switched to, "Well, Republicans can't govern." He said they're typically a rubber stamp. Assuming we're able to tease out the Rhode Island context, the caller thereby illustrated two of the attitudes that have helped to doom this state.

The first is the need for saviors, whether in the form of a person or a party. Having such a small minority is not going to be conducive to expert performance from Republicans. They do what they can, no doubt, but sometimes the going along thing can seem like a fair trade for some small pittance of success. To turn things around, one must vote Republicans into office so that (1) what they do carries the minimal weight of, well, mattering, and (2) people who might be reluctant to spend valuable time on a futile effort will increasingly see public office as worthwhile.

The second attitude, under which the first arguably falls, has been bred by decades of manipulation in movies, art, education, media, magazines, and so on that voting Republican is just a bad thing to do. Special interests have gotten a lot of return on that particular investment. The impression of too many Rhode Islanders that good people have to vote for Democrats has certainly helped unions and the welfare industry, and we're seeing the consequences, nationally, when the Democrats cash that chip in.

"Social issues," in other words, can be cover for intellectual laziness and moral cowardice. It's nice and vague and allows the voter to give in to the fully flourished seed of propaganda... without having to hurt the brain trying to dig up a plausible reason.

RIPEC's Analysis of Firefighter Pay/Contracts

My post concerning the Warwick Beacon's look into Warwick firefighter pay/contracts has generated some commentary regarding the RIPEC report (mentioned in Russell Moore's story) that found:

On average, [a RIPEC] report showed that Rhode Islanders spend about $6.24 on fire services for every $1,000 of personal income, or just under double the national average of $3.21 per $1,000 of income.

1) EMS services are included for Rhode Island but not the other states. By including EMS, you couldn't even compare Providence to Worcester- two very similar sized cities, but Worcester's EMS is provided by UMass Hospital, and Providence's by the Fire Department.

2) The cost represents the total cost of fire protection in RI, meaning sprinkler systems, alarms and other additions, not just the actual fire department budgets.

3) Belief that pension costs are included in the RI costs but not in those for other states.

All the RIPEC report says about it's methodology is:

Fire Protection comprises expenditures for the prevention, avoidance and suppression of fires and for the provision of ambulance, medical, rescue or auxiliary services when provided by fire protection agencies.

1) Whether cities and towns pay for EMS or not is not as relevant as some think. Having tax dollars pay for EMS is still a governmental (taxpayer/resident) choice. Just because some don't cover EMS via taxes doesn't mean it should be excluded from a comparison of tax dollars spent on fire/safety services. Those are real dollars no matter what column on the spreadsheet you want to put them in. Don't let the inconsistent accounting methodology obscure the fact that other cities and towns in other states appear able to provide EMS services through private companies or hospitals and not through taxpayer supported fire departments.

2) It is probably true, given the brief explanation by RIPEC, that they include expenditures for fire suppression (sprinkler systems, etc.) the state paid to have installed in government buildings (for instance). There can't really be any doubt that much of that expenditure is a direct result of government over-reaction to the Station Night Club fire. We all know that small businesses have screamed that they can't afford to pay for the new requirements. Unsurprisingly, local governments didn't because, well, they had the money, right? (Ours....)

3) There is no way of knowing whether pension costs were included or not without the raw data.

I'm sure this won't satisfy RIPEC's critics, though I wonder if they have similar reservations about the rest of RIPEC's analysis regarding other areas of government expenditures?

The Uneducable Must Be Replaced

With the legislature back in session, the press releases have resumed, and I'll tell ya: If all Rhode Islanders received them in their emailboxes and gave each a moment's thought, there might be more discouragement across the state. Those whom we elect don't seem to understand cause and effect and the 1,000-papercuts principle.

So, here we get Rep. Joanne Giannini (D, Providence) conspiring to ensure another incremental increase in the baseline cost of health insurance:

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Joanne M. Giannini would require health insurers to cover the cost of donor breast milk for infants who are severely allergic to formula and whose mothers are unable to produce milk.

"For women who, for whatever reason, are unable to lactate, formula is usually the solution. But for those whose babies are allergic to formula, donor breast milk is the only option, and although it is extraordinarily expensive, the child's life depends on it. That's exactly the type of extraordinary but critical health expenses that insurance should cover," said Representative Giannini (D-Dist. 7, Providence).

If the government is to the point of deciding every minute benefit that health insurance should offer, what need is there of a public option?

Then, we get Rep. Charlene Lima (D, Cranston) illustrating why Rhode Island's strategy of "targeted" tax cuts for businesses is an extremely diluted method, at best:

Representative Lima is calling for an immediate halt to the distribution of more [business] tax credits until the state has a system in place that complies with the requirements in the law that was passed allowing the tax credits. She is also calling for a temporary halt to film tax credits until it is proven that the state is getting enough value in return and making the tax credit dollars worthwhile to Rhode Island taxpayers. ...

To that end, Representative Lima will be submitting legislation today requiring any business applying for tax credits to sign a waiver of confidentiality and an affidavit stating they will turn over all financial records needed by the state to verify the benefit to the State of Rhode Island. Under the bill, before any tax credit can be issued to a business, those requirements must be met.

Additionally, any business already receiving tax credits would also be required to sign and comply with the waiver and affidavit or pay the state an amount equal to the tax credit previously given. Because the law already requires verification, any business not willing to turn over requested documents immediately would be breaking the law and would have to forfeit and reimburse the state for any tax credits given. Representative Lima said she will be asking the Attorney General to investigate any company unwilling to comply with the verification requirement.

So, the General Assembly passed targeted tax credits to attract and support economic development in Rhode Island, and because the government is having difficulty compiling data related to its targets, Lima wishes to shut the incentive down and hereafter require all businesses that wish to be developed to open up their books to the ravenous state. The next step, one supposes, is to have public battles over every bonus that a business receiving tax credits hands out.

What business would want to bind itself to a state in which this crew of clowns might swoop in on any given year and demand either financial documents or the return of tax credits already given? The state should stop with the "targeted" and stop with the presumed right to be invasive and just loosen its grip on the economy. Say it with me: cut taxes, eliminate mandates, lighten regulations across the board.

Mandated Monitor Waste

Here's the scene: Shortly after 7:00 a.m. on a semi-rural road that locals often use to avoid a mile or so of Middletown's two main roads, the school bus pulls up to a modest split-level house, and the driver opens the double doors. A middle-school girl skips up the driveway and stops a few feet from the bus. She waits. She hooks her thumbs in her backpack straps. Motorists crane their necks to see what's going on.

Finally, first one leg then another appear. An elderly woman in an reflective vest climbs backwards onto the street. With one arm still attached to the handrail, she leans a little out of the way, and the young girl bounds effortlessly up the stairs. The bus monitor bows her head, takes a deep breath, and begins the laborious climb back up to her seat.

Now, if the people of Middletown feel that the benefit of intergenerational cooperation is worth the expense of such morning-time chaperons, then I'm hardly in a position to object. However, we have, here, a living, breathing example that the arguments proffered for a state-level bus-monitor mandate are not actually the most significant motivations. The woman in question makes no pretense of inspecting the underside of the bus for suicidal children, and were a child about to enter into danger crossing the street, or something, she would likely prove physically unable to prevent the calamity. The bus driver and the horn would be more effective.

This, folks, is one small emblem culled from daily life explaining Rhode Island's deterioration.

Patrick Kennedy to be Primary-ed?

Rep Jon Brien (D-Woonsocket) has been on the Dan Yorke Show since 2 pm. Ya knew something was up when he asked Dan and his listeners whether they are satisfied with their representation in Washington.

After a couple of point blank questions, Brien confirmed that he is giving serious consideration to running against Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI).

What Consolidators Are Missing

I suppose this Projo editorial opposing the newly legislated board for statewide health insurance benefits for teachers is better late than never, but the editors continue to keep two and two from being joined:

Obviously, Rhode Island can do much better than rushing through a new system whereby a panel of special interests reward themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The approach adopted is, in essence, a new and costly mandate on local communities, with less, rather than more, local input into spending decisions that affect the bottom line.

That will always be the case, once the messy reality of human self-interest is introduced to the shiny machinations of planners. Better policies on a case-by-case basis may delay the deterioration as power and money are consolidated, but they will never prevent it.

More importantly, though, we all should have learned by now that there are other aspects of Rhode Island's government that must be fixed prior to consolidation. Handing a mandate to consolidate to the ruling class that has brought Rhode Island to its knees is like buying a home-owner's insurance policy from the thief who just broke in and stole all of your belongings.

"Pensions as stimulus"?

Apparently, we're supposed to believe that it's a net good to be spending more taxpayer dollars on pensions because it's good for the economy:

While several speakers were telling the House Finance Committee last week that cities and towns were spending too much on employee pensions, another, representing public school teachers argued that the state and its municipalities should be concerned about spending too little.

According to Patrick Crowley, an assistant director at the National Education Association of Rhode Island, putting money into public-employee pension plans is a good investment. So good that every $1 contributed by taxpayers reaps a return of $4.56 in local economic activity.

Crowley was citing figures from the National Institute on Retirement Security, which concluded in a 2009 “Pensionomics” report that the yield was good because investment earnings and employee contributions provide “the lion’s share” of employee pensions. The people receiving those pensions then go out and spend money, helping the local economy, the report says.

Crowley’s statement led to a spirited exchange with Rep. Laurence W. Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown, who questioned the Crowley’s logic.

“That dollar comes from someone,” Ehrhardt said. “Doesn’t it then have the same effect on the other end?”

“No, it doesn’t” Crowley responded.

Ehrhardt listened to the explanation but gave no ground.

“I have a graduate degree in economics,” he said when Crowley had finished. “I completely disagree with you.”

Fighting the Mandates

A quick skim of Rhode Island's General Laws didn't reveal anything to contradict what Providence fire fighter union head Paul Doughty says, here, although through the finger pointing and blame shifting of Rhode Island politics, the perception that he's incorrect is probably widespread:

"There's no requirement in state law, in state rules, or anywhere that says there needs to be a certain number of firefighters on a fire truck," said Providence Firefighter Paul A. Doughty, president of Local 799 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. "It becomes a necessity that we put these terms in our contract."

Whatever the lay of the law, Doughty does point toward an important distinction. Rhode Island must begin dismantling the mandates that ensure high costs for towns and businesses alike, but we shouldn't install negative mandates ("towns cannot...") as a remedy. Where a mandate is a matter of state law, it should be scrapped. Where it's a matter of local charter and contractual agreement at the municipal level, voters need to get to work, and if property taxes increase, it's a matter to address with the mayor and/or the town council, not the governor and/or the General Assembly.

How a Ruling Class Is Maintained

Ed Achorn makes a familiar observation when he writes:

Ocean State politicians have long supported a two-tiered society in which there is a privileged class of public employees — about one in six workers in Rhode Island two years ago, probably a higher percentage today — and an underprivileged class of private-sector drones.

We should remember, though, that the dynamic isn't entirely of two groups buying each other's support. It's more of an incestuous cabal. Look no farther than newly elected RI Representative Mary Duffy Messier (D, Pawtucket), who leaped directly onto our Legislative Stooge list:

But Messier was among the 47 House members who successfully voted to override Carcieri's veto [of the bill mandating teacher health insurance].

[Rhode Island Association of School Committees Executive Director Tim] Duffy said his sister, who recently retired as a Cumberland school teacher with a $46,536 annual state pension, "has always been a strong union advocate."

Duffy Messier is 57. The average per capita personal income in Rhode Island is $37,523. Sometimes political victory is a matter of who has the time to make noise and join legislative bodies that pass harmful laws. And sometimes, I wonder whether we should stop complaining when public-sector workers who retire at a young age have their retirement largess sent to their new homes out of state.

Are We All in the Same Boat, Here?

As though anticipating former Senator Chafee's answer to WPRO's Matt Allen,

Matt just asked about whether the unions will have to give more concessions. Seeming to ignore the public/private sector distinction, Chafee said — unbelievably — "Everybody's in the same boat, here."

in his column Tuesday, Ed Achorn enumerates the ways that we are not.

And [accumulation of] sick days are only the tip of the iceberg.

Similar “buybacks” are available to employees who decline to take health insurance. See if you get that in the private sector. Then there are the extraordinarily munificent health benefits, negotiated co-pays that are based on static dollar amounts rather than percentage (meaning the taxpayer gets hit with 100 percent of the cost of any increases in premiums), step increases on top of pay raises, longevity pay, early retirements with remarkably generous payouts and health care for spouses, etc., etc.

And in yesterday's Valley Breeze, Arlene Violet (great job questioning the current AG on Lively, Arlene) points to more dissimilarities in compensation between the public sector and the private.

fat contracts which reimburse sick days, holidays not taken, seniority boosts, automatic cost of living increases, etc. Taxpayers should not be paying for advanced degrees for state or municipal employees. As it is, there are salary increments for advanced degrees, but it is a "double dipsey do" when the very degree or courses are paid for by taxpayer, Joe Blow, who still has to shell out tuition for his own kids.

As to the underlying premise of Matt's question, however - who has benefited and continues to benefit from those promises - it seems pretty clear that we are in two distinct boats.

Come to Rhode Island! (We'll Take Your Money.)

Even without taking up the debate about Rhode Island's flat tax, a press release announcing legislation to eliminate it, sponsored by Rep. Helio Melo (D, East Providence), illustrates why Rhode Island's economy will go nowhere until there's massive turnover in the state house:

"The flat-tax was championed as a way to attract employers to our state, but it's really more of a no-strings-attached gift to the fortunate few who just happen to be very well-off," said Representative Melo, a Democrat who represents District 64 in East Providence. "That's certainly not real tax relief to our citizens, the majority of whom are working people struggling to pay their bills. If one group gets a tax cut, that money has to be made up somewhere, and the result is that it's deepening our state's deficit and creating more of a burden for us all to pay. We all keep hearing that taxes will have to increase. Does that mean more taxes for the working-class people in my district while the high-income people get tax cuts? I don't think so."

If you were evaluating locations in which to invest your life to build a business, would you be comfortable choosing a state in which legislators believe that the rewards of your labor would be something that "just happened"?

If Mr. Melo wishes to help his working-class constituents, he should advocate for lightened tax burdens all around, compensating for potential losses of revenue by cutting government expenditures. Rhode Island's politicians would rather play ideological games than get results.

Legal Basis for the Teachers' Health Care Board: Solid as Fissured Bedrock

Under Marc's post, Roland observes

anyone in office will and can make mistakes but it's important to catch them before they're carved in stone such as [Rep John] Loughlin catching himself

Indeed. This is an approach that needs to be extended to the newly legislated teachers' health insurance board.

Every legislator who voted to override the veto of the bill to consolidate teacher health care coverage into the hands of organized labor - oh, sorry, into the hands of a twelve person panel consisting of ten people who will directly benefit from a maintenance of or increase in benefits - needs to catch their mistake and remove this new law from the books.

Assembly members should do this for their own sake as much as taxpayers' as this law has at least two fatal flaws. The first is the matter of constitutionality; try though he might, Andrew was unable to find a home for the board in the Rhode Island constitution. The second is that it violates the laws that clearly delegate school budgets and teacher contracts to local school committees and the amount of school funding to city and town councils. ... wait, make that three flaws: those who mandate these benefits will directly benefit from them. (Act now before the list gets even longer!)

These flaws are so blatant that even our most labor-sympathetic judges will see them.

Accordingly, when this law is struck off the books by various courts, any legislator who voted to override the veto of this bill will look foolish and incompetent. Better to get ahead of the curve and correct the error before it is carved in constitutionally-faulty stone.

BUMPED & CORRECTED: Making the Legislative Stooge List

The following correction (initially made Saturday morning) is sufficiently important that I've bumped this post so that it is not diluted by the lightened weekend readership.

CORRECTION:

Although readers may offer partial mitigation based on the fact that Rhode Island's method of providing legislators' votes is not exactly helpful when it comes to pre-dawn data collection, an error on my part in the compilation of this list was egregious, and I apologize to the parties involved and to you. While reviewing the relevant Senate journal (PDF), a stray click of the mouse brought the wrong vote tally onto my screen, and although the overlap was extensive, I've made the following corrections:

• Senators who actually voted to sustain the governor's veto and have therefore been removed from the Legislative Stooge list:
  • Dennis Algiere (R, District 38, Westerly, Charlestown.
  • David Bates (R, District 32, Barrington, Bristol)
  • Marc Cote (D, District 24, Woonsocket, North Smithfield)
  • Leonidas Raptakis (D, District 33, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick)
• Senators who did not vote on this override and have therefore been removed from the Legislative Stooge list:
  • Daniel DaPonte (D, District 14, East Providence, Pawtucket)
  • Walter Felag (D, District 10, Bristol, Tiverton, Warren)
  • William Walaska (D., District 30, Warwick)
• Senator who voted to override the governor's veto and has therefore been added to the Legislative Stooge list:
  • Jamie Doyle (D, District 8, Pawtucket)

Again, I apologize to readers and to the senators for the error.

Frankly, it's a little hard to stomach the following from House Minority Leader Bob Watson, with reference to the RI House's override of the governor's veto of 2009-H 5613 Sub A, mandating healthcare benefits for public school teachers (including charters):

House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson said those who supported the override were "voting against the interests of every city and town in the state, and for that you should all be thrown out of office."

After all, he voted to pass the legislation in the first place; every legislator did. Granted, that vote was taken in the late hours of a special autumn session, and nobody among the media or right-leaning reformist community had noticed that the bill did much more than create a benign research committee. But what good is a powerless minority party if it at least doesn't spot and decry the sneaky state-killing legislation making its way into law?

That said, Watson and the 22 other Representatives and four Senators who changed their opinion between passage of the legislation and override of the veto get a pass on inclusion in our new Legislative Stooge list of politicians who, because of a dramatic and unforgivable overreach and catering to special interests, should under no circumstances receive your vote. This isn't meant to be a comprehensive balancing of a legislator's career, and not every piece of legislation will be enough to put politicians on the list, only the most egregious, and getting off of it will require stunning examples of wisdom and leadership.

For explanation of why this veto override is enough to make the list, see here, here, and here.

Anchor Rising's (Do Not Vote for the) Legislative Stooge List - House

Anchor Rising's (Do Not Vote for the) Legislative Stooge List - Senate

Hoyas as Poster Child

Is it me or does everything about the Chip Hoyas check scheme story make him the perfect poster child for Rhode Island political corruption? Sure, the most damaging corruption in the state is entirely legal, but Hoyas's shadow amply covers that, as well: The obese political insider, pathetically sunken into a gambling addiction by those stupid slot machines, saw the mountain of state dough lying around and concluded, from his perch as deputy chief of staff for the Senate president, that nobody would notice if thousands of dollars went missing.

Sharper players maneuver fancy dives into positions as magistrates or rewards for public "service," or they figure out ways to make their larceny legal. Hoyas slipped off the wire and, by his splash, exposed the whole system. Those who'll argue that he's just an individual, cutting a sad figure in the state's political class, are entirely correct. But we all know, don't we, that if he weren't so pitiful, he'd have done more fundamental harm and, perhaps, been more typical?

I hope Mr. Hoyas finds his way out of the dull hell through which he appears to have been living for quite some time. I hope the same for Rhode Island.

Perhaps There Should Be a Pal Party

I take it that Monique is responding to later segments of Dan Yorke's Thursday interview with Warwick's Republican mayor, Scott Avedisian (audio here). This is the very first exchange in the interview:

Dan Yorke: What is your position on the governor's race, what are you going to be doing with your friend, Linc Chafee, and talk to me about your support for him.

Scott Avedisian: Obviously, Linc Chafee and I have been friends for — I'm 44 — so probably thirty years, when I went to first work for his father. When I was in high school, I moved to Washington to work for John Chafee. Linc went on the City Council; I followed him onto the council. He went into the mayor's office; I followed him into the mayor's office, when he went on to the Senate. So, we have thirty years worth of political history together. He is a good friend of mine, and I think it would be difficult to walk away from someone you've been friends with for thirty years.

DY: Alright, got that. So, what does that mean? What role will you play? Let me ask you this: Do you endorse him for governor?

SA: He has not asked me to play any role. I would go to an event for him, and I would help him as best I could, but he hasn't asked me to do anything more than that.

DY: Are you actively supporting Linc Chafee to be the next governor of the state of Rhode Island?

SA: I would vote for him, and he hasn't asked me to do anything, so I'm not actively doing anything.

DY: When asked if you will support the nominee of the Republican Party for governor, your answer will be, then, "no," correct?

SA: I don't know who the nominee will be. One of the things that's interesting is that there may not be a reason to have a closed primary at all.

DY: Well, I didn't get to that part, yet. Whoever ends up becoming the Republican nominee for governor will not get the support of the top Republican municipal elected official in the state, because he is pledged to support Linc Chafee the independent, correct?

SA: That's correct.

Friendship's an important thing, but politics are supposed to be about governance, and political parties are supposed to stand for something, not just be collections of arbitrary teams. Those who advocate for open primaries (I'm ambivalent, so far) and would lash out against the suggestion that Avedisian should stop calling himself a Republican need to answer the question of what they believe the Republican Party should be. Should its message be that its label and organizational structure are available for anybody in the state, whatever their beliefs, whatever their affiliations, and whatever their willingness to support the party? That reduces the the Republican "R" to only a slightly narrower version of the unaffiliated "I."

It's one thing for an individual voter to choose a particular candidate while in the voting booth. It's one thing for registered Republicans to advocate against candidates within their party with whom they disagree. But as an elected official, Mayor Avedisian owes his job, at least in part, to his political affiliation; if that were not the case, then he'd have no reason to keep the "R" after his name on the ballot.

At this point, it is indisputable that Avedisian would more appropriately be seen as a member of the Chafee Party, and as long as he continues to call himself a Republican, his honesty is a matter of dispute.

ADDENDUM:

Let me add, here, that the obviousness of this point may be obscured by The Rhode Island Way. To Rhode Islanders, personal associations supersede everything in all contexts. In other words, Avedisian's unqualified support for his friend in a political race, no matter what his own political party may do or may need him to do, is of the same category as the corrupt old-boy system that is dragging Rhode Island back to pre-modern forms of government.

Communicating the Wrong Message

How can a struggling Rhode Islander not shake his or her head every time this subject comes up?

The [Emergency Management Agency] EMA, charged with cutting $200,000, was struggling to meet the figure because the agency had gained an employee from, of all places, the governor's office.

Steve Kass, the former radio talk show host who later served as the governor's communications director, became the EMA's communications coordinator in the spring of 2008. At the time, a Carcieri spokesman said Kass was being loaned to the agency, but the governor's office continued to pay half his salary until September of this year, when the full cost was transferred to the EMA.

Todd Tinkham, chief financial officer for the adjutant general's office, estimated the cost of the position at $100,000.

Sounds like the EMA has a high-cost employee that it's not empowered to lay off. Just like Rhode Island, isn't it? However dedicated we are, individually, to the welfare of the state, our own cliques always come first, even to the extent of six-figure salaries. I know; I know; government is really public service.

Raptakis Chooses Secretary of State

Rhode Island Senator Leonidas Raptakis (D, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick), who has been open about his intention to run for statewide office, has chosen the Secretary of State position as his target:

As a State Senator, I have worked to effectively represent the interests of my constituents. I have successfully fought for passage of legislation, worked to bring important issues to the forefront of the public debate, and pushed to make the operations of the General Assembly more transparent. And as a small business owner, I think I have brought an important perspective to the legislature.

In recent weeks, I have talked about my interest in running for statewide office. I believe that in this time of crisis, Rhode Island needs active, engaged leadership to make sure that state government is operating in the most efficient, open and accountable manner possible.

After speaking with my family, friends and many supporters, I have decided to run for the office of Secretary of State. I believe the responsibilities of that office will allow me to put my background and experience to work in the most effective manner possible for the people of Rhode Island.

We need a Secretary of State who is a watchdog for the people of Rhode Island. We need a Secretary of State who is committed to promoting public access to the decision-making process, not simply by making legislative information easily available but by fighting to make sure the public has full access to legislative meetings and the votes taken in those meetings. And we need a Secretary of State who will finally help to reduce the red tape facing small businesses and make sure that state agencies are sharing information rather than demanding excess paperwork from businesses seeking licenses and permits.

Rhode Islanders have seen what happens when we have a state government which is operated in a manner which puts the interests of the decision-makers ahead of the public interest...when the work of government is conducted behind closed doors and the rest of us are forced to deal with the consequences. Over the last few months, we have been dealing with record unemployment, countless foreclosures, a dismal business climate, and chronic budget deficits. This is what happens when decisions are left in the hands of the few and the public is largely shut out of the decision-making process.

We recently saw a special session of the General Assembly which took up some 200 pieces of legislation in just two days. To do this, the General Assembly suspended their own rules of operation and ignored the state's Open Meetings Law. Why? Was it done to benefit the people of Rhode Island? No. It was done strictly for the benefit of legislative leaders who wanted to control the outcome...to get their people in for two days, cast their votes and send them home without any questions or debates to delay the outcome. That is shameful.

In that same session, a bill was taken up unexpectedly which would have allowed for the speedier expungement of criminal records. This legislation was opposed by the Attorney General, yet it was brought back to life after being left to die in committee during the regular session with next to no notice to the state’s chief law enforcement officer. That is shameful and another example of a broken system.

When things like this can happen in our legislative process, we have a fundamental problem. And it is no accident that these things are happening when our state is in a crisis situation, with so many challenges facing us. There is a phrase in information technology—"garbage in, garbage out". It means that if you feed bad data into a computer, you are going to get bad results. If we have a legislative process where decisions are made in violation of the Open Meetings Law and the legislature's own rules of conduct, we are going to have bad public policy outcomes.

As Secretary of State, I am going to be a watchdog for our citizens. I will push the General Assembly to follow their own rules and to follow the Open Meetings Law which local Town Councils and School Committees are required to follow. I will call them out when they don't follow the rules. And if that doesn't change their behavior, I will take them to court. And if that doesn't work, I will work to put a constitutional question on the ballot to make sure that the people making the laws of our state are required to respect the law themselves.

Rhode Island government is in crisis. We need a tangible change in the way we run things. We need to make government accountable and make sure our citizens are engaged in the decision-making process. The Secretary of State's office must be the cornerstone for making that change...for promoting open government which is responsible for meeting the needs of our citizens and accountable for acting in their best interest.

I look forward to taking my message to the people of Rhode Island in the months ahead and earning their support in my campaign to be a Secretary of State who fights for the interests of our citizens and serves as their advocate in working to make state government open, honest, and effective.

ADDENDUM:

In initially creating this post, I cited Sen. Raptakis's inclusion on our Legislative Stooge list. That inclusion has turned out to be the result of an error on my part. I apologize to the Senator and to readers.

Friendship and Politics: Avedisian @ Chafee

All this week, WPRO's Dan Yorke has heavily questioned the party loyalty of Mayor Scott Avedisian (R-Warwick) for attending A Certain Gubernatorial Announcement, going so far as to call for the RIGOP to throw him out of the party. This culminated yesterday in an extensive and frank interview with the Mayor [podcast not yet available].

As the interview progressed and it became clear that hizzoner was not going to back down, Dan got to the nub of the matter, saying somewhat incredulously to the Mayor (paraphrasing), so you put friendship ahead of a political structure.

Actually, no, he didn't. He attended an event that was important to a friend. As he apparently will not be supporting the candidacy in any substantive way, the fact that the event was a campaign announcement was secondary. But let's say the Mayor had put friendship ahead of a political structure. The General Treasurer put a political structure ahead of his friend the Governor in a big way. Does Dan think this was just peachy? Of course he doesn't and I agree.

Would the Mayor's attendance at this event have been awkward had there been a declared Republican gubernatorial candidate? Sure it would. Possibly beyond awkward to problematic. As it happens, it's early; there presently is no Republican candidate. So, no issue.

And another thing. Why was Dan attacking Mayor Avedesian for opening his campaign HQ to the RIGOP for the recent Executive Committee meeting? I was working assiduously yesterday afternoon (let my supervisor take note) when Dan was grilling the Mayor so maybe I missed something. But wouldn't that constitute a material show of support of the RIGOP that Dan had, ten seconds earlier, accused the Mayor of deliberately failing to demonstrate? It strikes me that the Mayor should be commended, not criticized, for the HQ hospitality that he regularly extends to Republican candidates and the RIGOP.

No, Mayor Avedisian did not demonstrate party disloyalty by attending the announcement of a friend. No, he should not be asked to leave the Republican party for doing so. It is silly and inconsistent of Dan to suggest this. Let's have a little more focus on the actions, past and present, of the gang that has trashed our state and a little less on irrelevant or miniscule side issues involving the loyal opposition.

A Change in the Winds

Michelle Malkin presents an exhibit to go with the almost daily announcements of retiring Democrats:

Rasmussen rings in the new year with a new poll showing that the number of Americans who identify as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seven years:

In December, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell to the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports.

Currently, 35.5% of American adults view themselves as Democrats. That's down from 36.0 a month ago and from 37.8% in October. Prior to December, the lowest total ever recorded for Democrats was 35.9%, a figure that was reached twice in 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

Short-term Republican gains, in the poll, have exceeded Democrat declines, although the former still lag the latter when it comes to voter self-identification. One hopes, however, that the days of one party benefiting more from the unpopularity of its opposition than from its own merits are over and that Republicans will build a long-term majority by leading, not catering. Not being the other guy makes for fickle support.

Loughlin Follows Through

As he promised Dan Yorke yesterday, Rep. John Loughlin has penned a letter (via Dan Yorke) to Governor Carcieri apologizing for co-signing a letter drafted by Democratic Rep. Amy Rice and also explaining steps he would take to help ameliorate some of the problems that the Governor's budget cuts are causing at the city and town level. An excerpt:

Dear Governor Carcieri:

I am writing to you about my signature on a letter dated January 5, 2010 regarding your proposed supplemental budget.

I signed the letter because I was frustrated with what I perceived to be unwillingness by some in your administration to even acknowledge substantive ideas relative to the budget. The letter was not fair to you or your staff because it should have included suggestions that would make a difference to the economic well being of Rhode Island.

While, in retrospect, I can be critical of the letter I signed, it does contain some truth which I will attempt to convey in a more constructive and respectful manner.

ADDENDUM: In the spirit of full disclosure, Anchor Rising's Justin Katz was asked for, and provided, feedback on a rough draft of this letter.

Open Forum on Closing the RIGOP Primary

The RIGOP Executive Committee voted to have a meeting to vote on closing their primary (roll call and more info provided by Will Ricci in the extended entry). Chairmain Gio Cicione has stated that he won't call the meeting until after the 2010 elections and the rank and file are upset, arguing that he's abusing his executive power to put off a meeting that may result in an outcome he doesn't want (ie; a closed RI GOP primary).

Setting aside those more immediate internecine political machinations, is having a closed primary good or bad for the party? Do you care? As I said on Matt Allen's show last night, "What has an open primary done for the RIGOP so far?" I understand the argument based primarily on the belief that the party is so small and it doesn't want to freeze anyone out. But appealing to the independent/moderate masses has not done much for the GOP as far as I can tell. My belief is the RI GOP needs to decide what the heck it wants to be and it can best do that by having people willing to actually call themselves Republicans showing the way.

What do you think?

How About the Philosophical Questions?

Part of our problem, in Rhode Island, is that our political class likes to treat each issue separately. It focuses on whether policy A is good or bad, but rarely considers whether funding A ought to have implications of the funding of B, C, and D. In other words, our elected officials don't like to answer large, self-definitional questions, which is to say that they aren't too keen on leading.

So, we get concerns about the solvency of our unemployment benefit system:

Even before the recession struck, Rhode Island employers had to pay a comparatively high tax to provide benefits to the unemployed.

Now, with the state's 12.7-percent unemployment rate the second-highest in the nation (behind Michigan), and as thousands of out-of-work Rhode Islanders keep drawing benefits, the tax is higher — and could increase further.

The result could be a blow to businesses at a time when many are struggling just to survive, said state Rep. Steven M. Costantino, D-Providence, chairman of the House Finance Committee.

"There's a potential that business, under these very difficult times, will be incurring an additional tax," he said.

And we learn that (as usual) our public services are generous in this area:

Rhode Island's maximum weekly unemployment benefit is set each year at an amount that equals 60 percent or so of the statewide average wage.

As the average statewide wage rises, so does the maximum amount of benefits.

This puts Rhode Island among the top states for benefits, according to a recent report prepared by the Department of Labor and Training for a state advisory board.

The first link describes various mechanisms that will force taxes on RI businesses up with continuing high unemployment, but nobody asks or offers opinion on whether the money necessary to assist down-on-their-luck Rhode Islanders who are generally productive should come from somewhere else. Government revenue is fungible, meaning that the unemployed and the businesses that would like to employ them are not the only sources of revenue. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for our state to begin considering whether civic survival might have to come at the expense of benefits to which certain of its residents have come to rely on a long-term basis.

Perhaps it's possible to defend, on moral grounds, the proposition that the government should not allow maintenance of the lifestyles of working and middle class unemployed to eat into the resources allocated for the less fortunate, and maybe it's defensible, on political grounds, to argue that the government should protect against erosion of what it provides as an employer. Unfortunately, the practical reality is that not everybody can (or wants to) work for the government, and those who wish to work and prosper are not going to assent to descent onto the welfare rolls. They're going to leave.

RE: Opening the Year With Fatal Steps - Loughlin

Following up Justin's earlier post, WPRO's Dan Yorke took Rep. John Loughlin to task for adding his name to the Rice letter and thereby seeming to endorse the overall "it's not the legislature's fault" message that it tries to spin. Loughlin admitted his mistake and told Yorke he would be retracting his name from the Rice letter and writing his own. Well, he should have done that in the first place!

Based on what he told Yorke, Loughlin's letter will apparently detail his attempts to work with the Carcieri administration to create some sort of matrix of funding expectations for cities and towns to follow. It will also probably express his frustration about how the Governor and his staff essentially blew him off.

I understand why he is upset, but hopefully Loughlin will realize that his signing on with the Democrats sends an inconsistent message and that he's better off standing on his own. Further, his discussion with an understandably adversarial Yorke revealed a defensive prickliness that Loughlin needs to manage better. No one likes to be criticized, but its part of the rough-and-tumble of politics. Calmly and successfully dealing with criticism--whether from natural political allies or opponents--is crucial to the overall positive impression a viable candidate needs to project. Fingers are crossed that Loughlin will take some lessons from this episode and go on to run a strong campaign against Patrick Kennedy and, hopefully, win.

Budget Misery and the Government Payroll Economy

Rhode Island is not alone in facing budget deficits as many other states (if not most) are in the same predicament. As a recent study by the Cato Institute shows, a lot of the deficit problems stem from generous public employee compensation packages.

State and local governments face large budget deficits as revenues have stagnated and spending has remained at high levels. To reduce deficits, large savings can be found in the generous compensation packages of the nation’s 20 million state and local workers. In 2008, wages and benefits of $1.1 trillion accounted for half of total state and local government spending.

We've gone from providing jobs in profit-making private industry to providing jobs in profit-eating government work. Toward the end of 2007, the total number of government jobs exceeded the total number of goods producing jobs. Welcome to the government payroll economy.

Opening the Year with Fatal Steps

If you felt a dip in the collective intelligence of Rhode Island life, yesterday, it was probably because the General Assembly is back in session, gleefully lighting the fuse of 2010 with no indication that legislators intend to turn the state around. The first spark came with a veto override bonanza, including the legislation that arrogates to a union-heavy unelected board the power to define healthcare benefits for teachers across the state, mandates that districts offer that coverage (even in charters), and vomits on the principle of separation of powers.

Prudent school committees will have no option but to adjust for the control that this power grab has taken from them in the salary column, which is probably one reason that binding arbitration is so high on the union lobbyists' list. With healthcare effectively off the table, unions will offer up impossible pay demands and look to arbitrators to split the difference in favor of slightly less impossible remuneration packages.

From the General Assembly's press release on the override, one would never suspect that this board is much more than another investigative committee with no real power. It is more than that, and when the tally for yesterday's vote is available, I'll take this legislation as an opportunity to inaugurate a "legislative stooge" list of people for whom you should not vote under any circumstances. As issues in the range of "do or die" for Rhode Island come up, I'll add to the list, as merited, and explain each inclusion.

Another spark lit the caverns of the State House when 41 of 75 members of the RI House of Representatives signed on to the following letter, penned by Rep. Amy Rice (D - Portsmouth):

Dear Governor Carcieri,

We write to you today to assert our opposition to your proposed FY2010 Supplemental Budget. Rhode Island, like almost every other state in the nation, is facing a deep fiscal deficit due to the national and global economic crisis. How we deal with the economic crisis now will determine Rhode Island's future economic well-being. As such, we need real, honest leadership from your office as we strive to work together to fix our state's budgetary problems.

Your supplemental budget, which you proposed without serious consultation with municipal leaders or the General Assembly, depends mostly on slashing $125 million in aid to Rhode Island's cities and towns. Let there be no doubt about it: This drastic mid-year cut is nothing more than a passing of the buck to our municipalities. Rhode Island's municipalities have already done so much to balance their budgets in these difficult times, including eliminating after-school programs, renegotiating collective bargaining agreements with municipal employees' and teachers' unions, laying off employees including police officers and firefighters, and, of course, raising property taxes - the most regressive tax.

Your claim that your proposed mid-year cuts to cities and towns will not result in raising property taxes is either cynical or an exercise in self-deception. Rhode Island already has an exceptionally upside-down tax system that results from our over-dependence on property taxes and our low rate of state support for school funding. Your Supplemental Budget proposal would severely exacerbate this imbalance by increasing our reliance on the property tax - the worst thing in this recession.

To disinvest in our communities and the public infrastructure and institutions that form the foundations of a strong economy, is not the forward-looking leadership we need. Given that the bulk of our deficit is due to decreased revenue, we must find responsible and balanced ways to raise new revenue. We need to create opportunities for success for all Rhode Islanders.

We realize that there are no easy solutions but urge you not to choose the worst option. We look forward to having you collaborate on this with the General Assembly and our municipal leaders.

From this bit of political literary theater, one would never suspect that the General Assembly has any budgetary authority at all, let alone the final determination of what the budget is. Rice's letter perpetuates the utterly farcical spin that the General Assembly is not centrally responsible for the collapse of our state. The appropriate response from legislators to a budget with which they disagree is a better budget, not a political pronouncement to hide their collective incompetence.

Especially disappointing was to see Congressional candidate John Loughlin's name as the sole Republican to sign on to the letter. Happily (although it took a bizarre and disconcerting email exchange to get the information), I can confirm that Loughlin was on the right side of the above-mentioned veto vote, although he did vote for the insurance board the first time around.

Putting the Rabbit in the Dark, Restrictive Hat

John Kostrzewa explains that Rhode Island's economy is done harm by "inconsistent, zig-zag public policy decisions that have kept business owners, investors and people from locating" in the state. He's talking about tax policy, there, but he goes on:

... for yet another year, political leaders have put off the hard choices until well into the new year, with no clear idea of when the budget will be balanced and how.

Elsewhere in the same Sunday paper, Rhode Island Speaker of the House Bill Murphy illustrates his prior wisdom in staying out of the press and out of the public eye:

The lawmakers are hoping for other options, including a possible new round of federal stimulus dollars. "Over several of our budgets, it seems that we've been able to pull a rabbit out of a hat. I don't know if there's any rabbit left, but if there's one left down there, we'll come through," Murphy said. The governor's tax overhaul may provide another rabbit.

There you go, Rhode Island. You're being governed by people whose leadership plan is to hope for tricks that give the illusion of miracles. Apparently, Speaker Murphy doesn't consider it to be a matter of deep concern that the magician is supposed to be the one who puts the rabbits in the dark, restrictive hat in the first place. The General Assembly is standing on stage reaching through the trap door in the table hoping, just hoping, that somebody else will slip another rodent in the empty space beneath, and all of our livelihoods depend on that bit of luck.

Want further indication of the reason for our state's collapse? Here's Murphy, again, on the reason that the Rhode Island public sector doesn't need to make the same sorts of adjustments to pensions that economic reality has forced on the rest of the economy:

"We're talking about state government," he said. "State government is different."

The speaker continued: "We can control state government. We can't control what an individual company does."

In other words, given the power of the General Assembly, the government can simply force taxpayers to continue funding unworkable benefits for unionized special interests, whatever the effects on everybody else. Murphy's fellow stooge and chosen successor, House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, digs the hole more deeply:

Fox quickly chimed in, saying lawmakers are concerned that Governor Carcieri's latest proposal — to eliminate the guarantee of annual cost-of-living increases — could hurt future state retirees, and by extension, the state budget and the economy.

Fox believes that a failure to ensure perpetually increasing pensions for the small segment of workers who actually receive them (often residing outside the state) will damage the economy, but a leadership class that has no solutions other than adding to an already oppressive burden on the local economy will not. Perhaps Mr. Fox should devote some meditation time to Murphy's magician metaphor. After all, the audience is always free to leave and decline to pay for the entertainment thereafter.

Re: Morfessis Withdraws

Just in from the governor's office:

Governor Donald L. Carcieri today announced that Ioanna Morfessis has chosen not to accept the position of Executive Director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (EDC) due to a personal family matter. The Governor spoke with Ms. Morfessis late Tuesday afternoon.

"While I am disappointed that Ioanna will not be leading the EDC, I respect and understand her decision, and wish her and her family well," said Governor Carcieri. "On behalf of myself, and all those she has had the opportunity to meet and work with these past several weeks, I extend my best wishes and prayers to her and her family."

"Due to recent knowledge of a family member's serious health challenges, it is with deep regret and a heavy heart that I withdraw as the Governor's Executive Director designee for the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation," said Ioanna Morfessis.

"Over the past year, through the work of my EDC review panel, the House and Senate leadership, and the business community, we have made a united commitment to improve our economic development strategy," continued Governor Carcieri. "Rebuilding our economy and getting people back to work is our most important priority. I am confident that we will build upon the efforts of this last year to strengthen the EDC and continue to move our economic development strategy forward."

Governor Carcieri has contacted House and Senate leadership to discuss an alternative plan that he expects to announce next week.

Whitehouse's Infamous Remarks: A Proposed Tee-Shirt

Governor Carcieri's reaction Tuesday on FOX Business, principally to the price that states will pay for health care reform but also to the federal largesse that would soon ensure its passage in the Senate, inspires it.

... You said it very well. I mean, this looks like Let's make a Deal. I don't know what hapened to our senators. You know, it looks like all around me, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Nebraska, Louisiana all cut a deal. What do we get here in Rhode Island for Rhode Islanders? We get our junior senator making embarrassing hate speech, frankly.

[Side note: WPRO's Tara Granahan called Senator Whitehouse's office Wednesday seeking reaction/explanation of the senator's speech. They eventually returned her phone call ... after she had been safely off the air for eleven minutes. Their comment? Perhaps the senator's remarks had been taken out of context.]

In view of our (meaning that 47% of voters who voted the "wrong way" in November and/or that 80% of America satisfied with the current health care system - it's not clear which the senator meant) previously unknown membership in an Aryan nation, I'm thinking white letters on a black tee:

The Senate was Handing out Barrels of Pork and all Rhody Got was a Lousy Hate Speech

An Upside-Down Reform

I've got a piece in the current Providence Business news that takes issue with some well-intentioned strategies for reforming Rhode Island (ignore the title given to the essay; it'll only confuse):

The citizenry — the bought and paid, the apathetic, the ideologically blinkered — is ultimately the problem, and changing its civic habits must be the focus of long-lasting reforms.

Every component of the top-down reformers' strategy is antithetical to the cause of an engaged populace and an innovative marketplace. Consolidated government functions move decision-making farther from individual voters and diminish the authority of local officials, leaving a gap for those who might consider a transition into public service. Tax code gimmicks heighten the financial learning curve, rather than simplifying the back-office demands of business, and might actually increase the cost of opening a shop and keeping it going.

As for unprecedented big-dollar hires, as exemplified by Ms. Morfessis and Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, the risks are manifold. At the outset, one must take into account the demoralization of struggling residents as they watch a budget-busting government actually increase its high-end pay scales. Disregarding the impression caused by such news hardly alleviates apathy and cynicism, even as it erroneously declares the importance of saviors over foot soldiers.

Centralization may look attractive, but there are compelling reasons to resist the urge. The theme related to my essay in the current Rhode Island Catholic. I can't help but see something sinister in the continual lure to consolidate power, such that only a few need to be corrupted for it to be misused dreadfully.

How Would a 3% Cut in Pay Affect the Nationwide Salary Ranking of Rhode Island Teachers?

To help cities and towns close budget gaps which might crop up in part by a proposed reduction in state aid, Governor Carcieri has suggested that municipalities around Rhode Island negotiate a 3% reduction in teacher salaries.

Carcieri said he wants teachers to make the same sacrifice state workers are making. He wants every district to reopen teacher contracts and get the unions to agree to salary reductions rather than increase property taxes, but he also recognizes it is up to municipalities to figure out how they will absorb the cuts. “I’m a big supporter of education,” Carcieri said. “But all we’re saying is, if people give a little bit this year and next year, we’ll hopefully get through this.”

What would be the impact on teacher salary ranking?

Currently, at $58,491, the average salary for a Rhode Island teacher ranks tenth highest. Subtract 3% and the result is $56,736. At that point, the average salary would slip past the average salary for Michigan teachers at $57,327 and Pennsylvania at $56,906, which would move up to tenth and eleventh highest respectively.

A 3% hair cut, then, would move the average Rhode Island teacher salary down from tenth to twelfth highest nationwide. That would seem to be within the parameter of "a little bit".

If the Legislation Weren't So Irredeemably Stupid...

... I'd wonder whether we had an effect on this issue. Governor Carcieri has vetoed the apprenticeship gift to large, union contractors legislation:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 14, Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Section 42-1-4 of the Rhode Island General laws, I transmit, with my disapproval, 2009 H 5582, "An Act Relating to Labor and Labor Relations."

This act would decrease the ratio of apprentices to journeymen in various fields of trade and industry.

Although I am a strong supporter of apprenticeship programs, and believe that such programs are necessary to maintain and foster a dynamic workforce in the building trades, this bill is flawed and could have some unintended consequences.

Apprenticeship ratios should provide ample opportunities for young people to enter the ranks of the skilled workforce and at the same time allow for a level of supervision and on-the-job training commensurate with their needs. It is unclear that the ratios proposed in this bill strike that delicate balance.

If the ratios allow for too few people to enter the building trades it will be nearly impossible to replenish the aging workforce in this area. It is also important to acknowledge that there is a cost to operating an apprenticeship program, and that cost must be borne by someone. Labor unions, though not exclusively, have traditionally operated many of the apprenticeship programs. In doing so, they bear a cost that other contractors and companies -- those that do not operate such a program --- do not incur.

In closing, although I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the proponents of this legislation, I am equally concerned that the proposed remedy may have unintended consequences that could harm many businesses and workers. I look forward to working with the various impacted parties to hopefully find some other more balanced solution.

I should also note some inside information that the legislative supporters of this bill — including House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, who proved himself unfit for public office in his passionate speech on its behalf in the special session, this autumn — wanted to make a performance of their support but didn't really want it to become law. Two lessons from that suggestion: legislation can be a dishonest business, and the unions shouldn't fall for the fake support from the recipients of their support and largess.

Leadership and Rhetoric

Monique and Matt covered budgets and leadership on Wednesday night's Matt Allen Show. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed: "No one is Talking About Raising Taxes" (Other than the Governor)

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed appeared on the John DePetro Show this morning to interpret for WPRO listeners the supplemental budget that Governor Carcieri proposed in an alternate universe. Possibly John can prevail upon her to return another day and comment on the supplemental budget proposed by the Governor in this continuum.

As you know, the Govenor has proposed a property tax increase in his budget and I think you guys have done a pretty good job of covering that. And I think that is the reality of the budget that's been proposed by the Governor, you know, authorizing a supplemental property tax increase. What the Senate is saying is, when you look at the deficit, what's included in those numbers, because the projections are based upon current law, is a tax decrease, a tax cut, in this upcoming year. The flat tax is scheduled to go down once again. And the answer is, can we afford to cut taxes as opposed to having to really debate the property tax and the impact that has on so many Rhode Islanders. As you know, I've championed the property tax and tried to provide property tax relief my entire career. ...

No one is talking about raising taxes. What we're talking about is whether or raising the property tax, as proposed by the Governor, is the right way to go.

A Voice in the Wilderness

And then there's the wild card:

"Everyone involved should resign. Either they didn't know it would come to this, or they did and I'm not sure which is worse," said Laffey.

Sounding every bit like a candidate for Governor, Laffey said the state's political landscape is in need of a serious makeover. At a press conference to announce the appointment of a new economic development director late last week, talk centered on the need for everyone to "work together" to find solutions. Laffey, however, who didn't attend the event, suggested that the approach was misguided. Instead, he said the state needs reformers who are ready for a battle.

"The bottom line is we’re going to need somebody, or a group of people, to run for public office who will take the fight to the established political order, and by that I mean the public sector union leaders and the General Assembly," said Laffey. "There needs to be a direct fight ... and unless we do that, we'll continue on the road to collapse."

And Then the Other Side

From AP writer Ray Henry's ">report, it looks like RI Senate Majority Leader Daniel Connors drew the short straw:

"I think we need to look at all of our taxes and determine, you know, those that could be changed to provide sufficient revenue for the state to provide its services," Connors said during a Statehouse interview.

You know, we'll just find a way to take "sufficient revenue" from the people of the state. That's all. Easy.

Of course, Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed stands right with Connors and is apparently in need of a civics lesson from the people's perspective:

"Essentially, the proposal the governor is making is we're going to cut taxes with the left hand ..., income taxes, and we're going to increase property taxes," Paiva-Weed said.

Note that Paiva-Weed makes no distinction between the scope of her tier of government and more local tiers. The Democrats are trying to protect their public-sector union pals at the municipal level by shifting the narrative to insist that municipal leaders have no choice. They do, and so do their local constituencies.

Supplemental Budget: Not Just Cuts, Tools Also

In today's Pawtucket Times, Jim Baron points out that Governor Carcieri's proposed (the Governor proposes, the General Assembly disposes) supplemental budget does not just reduce monies to cities and towns but would also provide a counterbalance; namely, relief from unfunded state mandates.

Carcieri’s proposal also resuscitates several initiatives to allow cities and towns to cut costs that the General Assembly rejected earlier this year, including, requiring all municipal employees and teachers to pay at least 25 percent of their health insurance costs; eliminating automatic cost-of-living increases to pension payments, reducing disability pensions for those able to do other work, and changing the age requirements for retirees to start collecting pension payments, and suspending the Caruolo law, which allows school committees to sue their cities and towns if they believe they are not properly funded, during years when state aid is cut to school districts and eliminating minimum manning provisions from police and firefighters’ contracts.

Those steps alone, Carcieri told reporters, would allow cities and towns to save approximately $120 million a year, more than making up for the money they will lose in the cuts to school aid ($20.5 million) and car tax reimbursement ($65 million).

“If the General Assembly gives those tools to the municipal leadership that we describe here, virtually all of that could be offset with savings.”

Mayor Fung, presumably speaking for all objecting mayors and managers, insists that his city's budget is "bare bones". But can that be true if it contains the above unfunded mandates?

None of this is easy for anyone. Hopefully, the cities and towns will direct some of their understandable angst, so far reserved for the Governor, to the General Assembly to obtain assistance with the expenditure side of the budget (namely, these mandates), now that it is clear that the state must once again reduce the revenue side.

RE: Supplemental Budget Fallout

It seems to me that those city leaders whining about the Governor's proposed cuts (PDF) would be better served attempting genuine contract reform instead of nibbling at the edges, as they have up to this point. In short, isn't it about time we get rid of the contract step scheme? Set the entry level salary at what it is now and put 3% raises into effect for all people (not job positions) going forward. That allows you to remove contract steps and future contract negotiations would be simplified. But that's way too simple (if not "easy").

Meanwhile, Senate President Paiva-Weed is disappointed with the Governor's plan, saying he "took the easy way out" by calling for cuts, which demonstrated a lack of leadership. Do mean like that exhibited by the General Assembly over the last few months? Like, say, stating that you "cannot rule out" tax cuts? The last thing this General Assembly can claim is that they've provided any sort of leadership.

Supplemental Budget Fallout

As I walked down the cold, dark driveway to retrieve this morning's paper, it occurred to me that, for all of the badmouthing that Governor Carcieri will be receiving throughout the Christmas season, he's really set the tone for avoiding large, broadbased tax increases. Doing so has forced conversations about the way government operates that Rhode Islanders have been resisting for far too long... forever, as far as I can tell.

Is the "tax hell" vision so compelling that other governors would do the same? I tend to doubt it, although I suspect the recession will last long enough (in Rhode Island) that we'll have the opportunity to find out. Hopefully, the in-coming governor will appreciate the warning offered to anybody who has ever been trained to save drowning swimmers: they're panicking and will drag you down. In this case, the tax-raising government is the swimmer, and a frighteningly desperate grip is sure to make the rescuer (private industry and taxpayers) swim away to a safe distance.

So, for all of the very narrow and wonkish complaints that a conservative blogger might have against Carcieri, this supplemental budget should offer final proof, for any who need it, that he gets the problem to a degree for which we all should be thankful. Sure, Steve Peoples argues that the governor has boxed himself in:

The term-limited governor has painted himself into a corner — through agreements with labor unions and the federal government — that leaves few obvious places to cut the kind of money he needs to close a $219-million shortfall over the next six months. ...

Indeed, the governor largely gave up his right to cut Rhode Island's $1-billion human-service safety net when he agreed to plug prior budget holes with hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal stimulus package. And he surrendered his ability to cut the state's work force following recent labor negotiations that produced eight unpaid work days.

I'd suggest that some blame ought to go to the legislature and judiciary for limiting the governor's leverage in negotiating with state-government labor. Additionally, one can imagine the public hoopla had the governor rejected federal funds on the grounds that he intended to cut safety net spending. (If we're feeling punchy, we could also debate the wisdom of cutting assistance to the lowest rungs of the social ladder in this economic climate.)

And sure, Jennifer Jordan quotes the increasingly pitiful pleas of the usual voices with regard to this:

... Carcieri's plan to cut about $40 million between now and June from the state's 38 school districts, 13 charter schools and 3 state-run schools is more than a budget reduction — it's a message to Rhode Island's 14,600 public school teachers. Put simply, Carcieri wants teachers to take the same 3-percent pay cut that state workers accepted earlier this year, and he wants their pension plans reduced.

The unionists will scream and cry, of course, because they know that the governor has set the conversation. Well-paid public sector teachers can take a hit, or the various layers of government can attempt to further mug struggling residents, whose average pay is dramatically lower and many of whom all but have their bags packed and others of whom are prepared to ride the voter backlash into office and have their way with the nest eggs and pet projects of the establishment.

Moreover, according to Ted Nesi of the Providence Business News, Carcieri's got other points that he'd like to enter into the public debate for consideration:

To help municipalities deal with the cuts, the governor proposed a number of measures, including the repeal of minimum manning requirements for local fire and police departments; changes to municipal pension programs; a 25 percent coshare for public safety employees on their health plan premiums; the creation of a statewide purchasing system for education; and the suspension of the Caruolo Act.

The next year — and the foreseeable future — are going to see a tough fight, in Rhode Island, but there can be no denying that our out-going governor is on the right side.

Another Link on the Chain Binding Small Businesses in Rhode Island

The governor should veto this legislation:

Legislation approved by the General Assembly in the waning hours of a special session in October could transform the work force for large public projects in the state.

The bill would limit the number of apprentices employed on certain building projects by requiring that a higher share of more experienced journeymen workers be hired.

My understanding, from when the General Assembly debated the issue, is that reporter Alex Kuffner's assessment of the scope of the legislation is far too limited. For instance, the language cites residential projects. The determining factor is whether the contractor participates in the state's apprenticeship program.

The bottom line is that this sort of regulation — which the state should be shedding, not installing — helps large, established companies keep their prices (and, therefore, the cost to businesses and residents of construction) up and safeguards the strangulating negotiated salaries of union workers. For all the talk about small businesses' being the "lifeblood" of the state's economy and the necessity of "targeted" tax breaks for small businesses, when it comes down to it, Rhode Island's aristocracy doesn't prioritize economic opportunity.

The governor should veto this legislation.

The Fight Moves Outward

The General Assembly will no doubt search for tricks and methods of denial, but the state is going to have to continue cutting its budget, and according to the Providence Business News, Governor Carcieri is looking toward the cities and towns:

The state budget would be balanced by cuts in spending for local education, aid to cities and towns, one-time land sales that include the Veterans Memorial Auditorium and other savings, under a plan Gov. Donald L. Carcieri was expected to submit on Tuesday.

The amount in reimbursements for vehicle excise taxes that the state would keep for its own use would go up to $65.1 million (having previously been about half that, as I recall). School districts would also see a $41 million cut, offset in part by the end of cost-of-living adjustments for pensions.

In general, sending the fight out to the cities and towns is a positive development, from a taxpayer perspective, because it's easier for engaged residents to rally against entrenched forces at that level. The missing components, however, are statewide regulations and mandates, which limit what municipalities can do and which restrict economic activity.

Pension Disbursements After Only Twenty Years of Service - Yet Another Insanity of Rhode Island Government

The question below is spurred by this excellent OpEd in today's ProJo.

Rhode Island’s pension picture is getting increasingly alarming. Soaring unfunded liabilities are pushing the state toward bankruptcy, and putting a mounting strain on both state and local budgets. ...

Similarly, the League of Cities and Towns pushed a plan to require higher contributions from the employees themselves, higher health co-pays, a higher retirement age (the astonishingly early and well-compensated retirements of some public employees outrage the public), and the requirement of more years of service. Governor Carcieri proposed a similar plan, one that would, in addition, end cost-of-living adjustments. These are all good ideas.

Setting aside for a moment the question of defined benefit versus defined contribution (which, believe me, I understand, is another enormously fatal flaw in Rhode Island's public pension systems), where did this crazy idea of handing out a pension check after only twenty years of employment come from? On that basis, pension checks could and apparently do go on for easily double the original employment period. Where is the parallel in the private sector? [correction in response to Michael's comment] What percentage of private sector pension checks begin after twenty years of service? Is this when our grandparents and parents began receiving pension checks? At age 45 after only twenty years of work? On a more pragmatic front, how is this remotely sustainable?

In order to simultaneously save the public pension systems and bring retirement benefits more in line with those of the private sector (i.e., more in line with the retirement benefits of those who fund public pensions), at a minimum, all of the reforms recommended by the League of Cities and Towns, as well as elimination of the fixed COLA, need to be implemented. We would be remiss if we did not also put on the table for consideration the suggestion by former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey that we simply write everyone a check reimbursing them for their contributions and "convert all state pensions to self-directed IRAs".

Whatever course we take to reform (save) the public pension system, the gross irresponsibility of the pension-check-after-only-twenty-years has to end and end now. For everyone, including "retirees". Your twenty years of service is acknowledged and vested but the pension checks stop until you reach the age of 65.

Will the courts who hear the inevitable lawsuits rule against the state's action? Possibly, though not definitely. If they do, so be it. At least we'll know, when the pension checks of retired public workers as well as the paychecks of current ones start bouncing, that Rhode Island did everything in its power (... other than elect responsible politicians for the last three decades) to try to fix the problem.

Phrased another way, the crash of public pension systems in Rhode Island can be a controlled or an uncontrolled one. What's not in doubt is the violent nature of the landing, now cast in stone by the (in)actions of politicians from one party who promised with a crooked smile extremely generous pension benefits but then did not see fit to fund those benefits so as to make good their promise.

And the Campaign Announcements Roll On: Tom Sgouros for General Treasurer

From the ProJo's 7 to 7 News Blog a little while ago; thanks to Andrew for the heads up.

Tom Sgouros publishes a bimonthly newsletter that takes a fresh look at the state's economic policies; he recently published a book. Now, he is hoping to put his analytical skills to work for the state.

The 48-year-old North Kingstown resident announced Friday that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for general treasurer.

"Innovation informed by good old-fashioned practicality can show us valuable new ways to accomplish the people's business at the State House," Sgouros said in a statement. "I am running for general treasurer because I know I can make a difference in the policies, practices and governance of our state at this challenging moment in our history."

The article goes on to point out that, as Sgouros is the third Dem to express interest in the office, we may be headed for a Democrat primary for General Treasurer next year.

Disappointment in Levesque Voters

Even with the article's lack of specificity about Levesque's meaning, this is a bit hard to take:

"In a way, I'm disappointed in everybody," Sen. Charles J. Levesque, D-Portsmouth, said to Kai-Yan Lee, of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, who presented a series of graphs on foreclosures, but "quite frankly no real suggestion of where we go from here."

Perusing the legislation that Levesque introduced or cosponsored in the last legislative session, it is clear that he's comfortable with the urges to micromanage and restrict economic relationships, to dilute the job market with illegal immigrants, to grow state government, and to increase the barbs with which parasites may latch on to Rhode Island's economy (as with binding arbitration).

Among the Rhode Islanders in whom Levesque should be most disappointed are the person he sees when he looks in the mirror and the voters who keep sending the likes of him to the State House.

Only High-Paid Executives Need Apply

We can all appreciate the benefits, from an administrative point of view, of bringing in strong-willed people to help shock some of the Rhode-apathy and corruption out of state government, but we're barely three months past this announcement:

Less than a day after a Supreme Court justice blocked the first of 12 proposed government shutdown days, the state has imposed a complete hiring freeze, with no exceptions made for even the most critical jobs.

So how can Governor Carcieri justify this, from the Providence Business News:

The R.I. Economic Development Corporation's board of directors voted unanimously Tuesday morning to appoint Ioanna T. Morfessis, a consultant from Phoenix with a Ph.D. in economic-development policy, as the agency’s next executive director. ...

The board voted to give Morfessis a three-year contract that will pay her $250,000 a year plus benefits. The state also will cover her relocation costs and provide her with an automobile.

Morfessis' compensation would be more than double that of the EDC's last executive director, Saul Kaplan, who made just under $100,000 a year before he resigned in December 2008.

It's beginning to seem as if the only jobs in Rhode Island are for extremely high-paid government executives from out of state. Furthermore, as I suggested when Education Commissioner Deborah Gist was lured to the state with an outrageous compensation package, Rhode Island's executives appear to be suffering from a case of "employer's vanity" whereby the people who control hiring spend as much as they can as if salary and success are directly proportional.

To the contrary, we may be charging toward some unintended consequences: Strong-willed people — those with "big personalities," as Hasbro Chairman Alfred Verrecchia says of Morfessis — will often usurp what power they believe themselves to need to accomplish what they want to accomplish. With Rhode Island's leadership class demonstrably lacking in the spine and in the head, we may soon find ourselves being governed by an oligarchy of unelected directors. They will, no doubt, be competent and admirably focused, but not only must we remember that power corrupts, we shouldn't forget that our current stars will eventually hand all of the authority that they've grabbed over to somebody else.

Don't Scheme on Taxes, Simplify

URI Economic Professor Edward Mazze's tax-cutting suggestions sound reasonable enough, but one can't help but be suspicious of the urge to control:

Murphy said of Mazze's plan, "I want to be open to it." Murphy said he was particularly interested in Mazze's proposal geared toward revitalizing local downtown business districts.

Murphy said he remembers a vibrant Main Street in West Warwick when he was a boy. "I know in the last 40 years, our Main Street in West Warwick has not come back to where it was," he said.

An article in the latest Sakonnet Times (not online) describes the Tiverton Town Council's approval of a suite of zoning changes for commercial districts, and the accompanying pictures present a similar longing for the downtown-style main street. But there are reasons other than zoning and the lack of targeted tax breaks that Main Streets have been disappearing. Some of them are cultural; some of them are economic; the point is that attempting to counteract these forces will come at an economic cost and may fail to produce viable businesses, anyway.

In other words, if pulling the Rhode Island economy back up the cliff is the objective, we shouldn't be layering all sorts of aesthetic preferences on pro-growth policies. We also should focus on simplicity. All of Mazze's proposals will benefit people savvy enough to know about the breaks, to take the proper steps, and fill out the proper forms, but big-government corruption and waste illustrate very well that the skill set for jumping through hoops is not necessarily an indicator of a successful business. "Targeted" tax cuts, in that sense, become targets for which people looking for breaks will shoot. We need to encourage people who are interested in running businesses.

As Roland Benjamin says:

"If [Rhode Island's] tax structure was reasonable in the first place, you wouldn't need [targeted tax breaks]."

And if Rhode Island's political and academic leaders were competent to manipulate an economic recovery, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in.

Frank Caprio: Making Up Stories About a Friend to Win a Primary

... the friend being Don Carcieri.

In fact, the friendship between the Governor and the General Treasurer was the impetus for one of the rare instances in which the Governor deliberately opened himself up to criticism from his own party: it was an open secret that during the last election, Governor Carcieri favored Frank Caprio for General Treasurer over the Republican candidate. Those of us determined (or compelled) to find a silver lining recognized this as a manifestation, albeit momentarily irksome, of the Governor's pronounced loyalty streak.

Against this backdrop do we read, courtesy the ProJo's Ed Fitzpatrick, about one particular facet of Frank Caprio's efforts to pump up his left-wing bona fides for the upcoming Democrat gubernatorial primary.

Caprio (an in-house lawyer at Cookson America when GOP Governor Carcieri ran the conglomerate in the 1990s) said, “We have an administration up at the State House that locks himself in the office, thinks they know it all, doesn’t listen to much. So, let’s change that.”

Jerzyk asked if he was talking about Carcieri. “Correct,” Caprio said.

Possibly Mr. Caprio was unaware that a member of the press was nearby at that moment with notebook open and ears flapping (which is to say, diligently doing his job). On the other hand, that explanation would only make the incident worse. ("I only say bad things about my friends behind their backs.")

Personal disloyalty aside for a moment, the real killer is that the statement is simply not true! Far from locking himself in an office, Governor Carcieri has reached out so much during his tenure that it has earned him a good deal of criticism from those who, out of understandable frustration with the decades of putrid government that has emanated from one party, would prefer that the Executive Branch adopt a more confrontational style in tackling the state's problems and those who are attempting to perpetuate them.

What the Governor did do, in the course of not locking himself in an office, is work very hard - in some cases, with marked success - to fix some of the state's worst problems by creating a better business climate to engender jobs and grow the tax base; getting government spending under control; reining in generous social programs; addressing out of control public pension benefits that decades of unscrupulous politicians so glibly promised but did not see fit to fund.

What he did not do is back away from these goals despite protracted vilification from certain quarters. Hopefully, this is not what the General Treasurer was referencing with the phrase "not listening too much"; in point of fact, many would characterize this as standing on principle.

In light of the above remark, principle is a commodity that the General Treasurer appears at the moment to be somewhat lacking - the principle of loyalty, the principle of truth. The primary has presumably placed the General Treasurer under some political stress. Has this inadvertently revealed an aspect of his character? As Governor, would he abandon principle when experiencing other kinds of stress?

Regionalization Won't Make the Unions Go Away... Quite the Opposite

Somehow, this strikes me as a preview of the "benefits" of regionalization in Rhode Island:

Just hours after he closed the Douglas Avenue fire station, Mayor Charles A. Lombardi ran into a legal stumbling block from the firefighters union Wednesday afternoon and he agreed to temporarily reopen the station. ...

Firefighters want [Providence County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey] Lanphear to keep Lombardi from shutting down the station and reassigning personnel, about 12 employees, to three other stations in town.

Note that this wasn't even about eliminating positions — just moving work locations. The only savings that regionalization might promise, in such instances, is to spread out the cost of lawyers for participating towns and cities. Of course, the whole point of regionalization is to instigate this sort of change, so municipalities would be sharing an increased expense.

Prior to any regionalization efforts, towns and cities will have to begin asserting themselves in contract negotiations to regain management rights. My suspicion is that, once they've taken such a step, regionalization will look like far less of a panacea, because the situation would have already improved dramatically.

Gordon Fox Has a Plan for Fixing Rhode Island's Economy…

…but he's not ready to tell us what it is yet, reports Ray Henry of the Associated Press…

[Gordon Fox], D-Providence, said he had proposals for reviving the economy but was not ready to discuss them.

"For me to sit here today and say we're going to do X, Y and Z, I think, is premature," said Fox, who is campaigning to succeed House Speaker William Murphy in early 2011. "I don't think it's fair to the members and it would be foolish of me to do that."

About That Status Quo

Meeting with East Greenwich town officials, Sen. Leonidas Raptakis (D, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick) spoke against state mandates:

"We have so many archaic statutes, contracts and mandates, unless we start deleting these mandates or give cities and towns latitude, we're going to start this revolving circle again, and it's going to get worse," he said. "If we don't get tough this year and next year, things are going to get worse for many years to come."

And House Minority Leader Bob Watson (R, East Greenwich, West Greenwich) made this interesting suggestion:

He also said he was intrigued by the idea of cities and towns protesting by withholding the funds they collect on behalf of the state.

That, he said, would get the General Assembly's attention. "I think that would create a great dynamic."

But missing from their comments — or at least reportage of them — is an explanation of what they would do to make up the difference for the cuts to municipalities that they oppose:

"I do not support any idea of taking monies off the table that have been earmarked for communities. I take that as irresponsible, particularly because we didn't give any relief from state mandates," said Watson. "I think there will be enough pressure to at least preserve the status quo."

The "status quo" is a deficit. It's a state with insufficient funds to pay its bills. Senators and representatives, especially, have a responsibility, if they oppose cutting one area of spending, to explain what area ought to see the cuts instead. When they meet with local officials, they ought to take the opportunity to explain the reality of that situation; perhaps they'll begin to loosen the logjam of apathy and ideology that's flooding the state.

Roundtable Redux

Anybody who missed my appearance on WRNI's Political Roundtable on Friday can find the audio here. There were two points that I didn't manage to work into the extremely rapid format:

1. In response to Scott MacKay's suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church would find its pews empty were it to be as intransigent on every issue as it is on abortion (vis Patrick Kennedy), it ought to be pointed out that few issues are as stark and straightforward as abortion. On one level, there is no room for prudential judgment on the question of whether it's morally proper to deliberately kill children for any reason short of life-and-death. On another level, there isn't really much room to work prudential judgment around abortion. In healthcare, for example, additional funding for abortion will be used for that purpose, but the expanded coverage and "improvements" to the healthcare system that Kennedy (for example) cited as justifying compromise are wholly prospective — mostly suspect.
2. Regarding Gordon Fox's day out at the ballpark with lobbyists, I would have liked to point out the effect of this whole frame of mind on the citizenry. Fox (to recap) sat in a $120 seat purchased by GTECH lobbyists at a Red Sox game and claims to have paid his way. Whatever the specifics of the case, if a carpenter like me were to be elected to office and err in judgment over a $100 sports ticket, the potential $10,000 fine would be devastating. Another problem with the oppressive effort to pluck all influence peddling from government is the adverse effect of making government a game that only people insulated from the risks can play. Shrinking government would be a better approach.

Boards and Commissions Out of Control

The Rhode Island Way is taking insidious form in some of the public boards and commissions that are meant to help the residents of Rhode Island keep an eye on their government, and the Board of Election's attack on the Moderate Party gives a clear warning. I've reshuffled the paragraphs at the ellipsis to follow the narrative:

On Sept. 21, for example, [Moderate Party founder Ken Block] sent an e-mail to [director of campaign finance, Richard] Thornton asking three questions. This was the third: "Using the most extreme example, an individual donor can make a $10,000 'party building' donation to every State Committee and every Town Committee of every political party in the state every year"?

Thornton responded the next day: "I can confirm that items #1-#3 are correct as presented."

Two days later, however, Thornton sent another message, asking Block to "put your request in writing as the basis for the board issuing an advisory opinion on this question." ...

State officials have asked the three-month-old party to forfeit a $10,000 donation and its chairman to pay another $10,000 from his own pocket, according to the terms of a deal outlined behind closed doors last week. Board officials threatened, as an alternative, to have the attorney general's office launch civil or criminal investigations into a host of party officials for violating Rhode Island's finance laws.

In league with the case-by-case reviews that the Ethics Commission has taken to issuing, we're seeing a creeping governance by advisory opinion. As I pointed out in my recent Providence Monthly essay, all of these boards and commissions insert personal judgment essentiallyl to create laws and absorb resident discontent without anybody's having been elected. And as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Board of Election's own literature explicitly permits "an additional ten thousand dollars" in party-building donations.

The Board has not taken the obvious and clear position that Block acted within the scope of public documentation and that it will proceed to change that documentation, by suggesting changes in the law, as ought to be necessary for a non-legislative body. Instead, it is stomping forward with an assertion of its own power. Dangerous stuff, and if it continues, the board should be disbanded and reformulated.

Board of Elections Makes an Offer to the Moderate Party

I know that the Rhode Island Board of Elections is famous for its procedural creativity, but even so, am I the only one who thinks that the offer made to the Moderate Party of pay us a big fine and the Attorney General doesn't have to get your case is something less than above-board? From Steve Peoples of the Projo...

The state Board of Elections has quietly offered to settle a dispute with the newly-established Moderate Party of Rhode Island for what may be the largest fine in the board's history.

State officials have asked the fledgling party to forfeit a $10,000 donation and its chairman to personally pay another $10,000, according to terms of a deal outlined in a private meeting last week.

Board officials threatened, as an alternative, to have the attorney general's office bring civil or criminal investigations against a host of party officials for violating Rhode Island's finance laws.

"That was a rotten deal any which way you sliced it. And frankly, a deal designed to be rejected," said party chairman Kenneth J. Block, who discussed the details and travel of the case with The Journal Monday afternoon...."I'm ready to go to war on this," Block said.

Rhode Island Must Solve This Problem

Here's the Budget Office document showing the always-too-optimistic early revenue estimate for the state of Rhode Island: PDF. As you've likely read, the deficit is projected to be $219.8 million. It wouldn't be surprising to find that number come in hundreds of millions of dollars too low.

The reality is that Rhode Island has to cut a structural billion dollars out of its budget. Over the past few years, we've been chasing a sinking chest deeper under water.

Table 3, on the last page of the PDF, shows the decreases in revenue by source. Wading through the sloppiness of the table (mostly misplaced and missing minus signs and parentheses), the take-away is that raising taxes is not an option. Revenue is shrinking because people are doing less of the things that generate it. What's frightening is that Rhode Islanders don't seem interested in doing anything about it.

A Same Old Same Old New Face

While we're talking political platforms, it's worth noting that candidate Dan O'Connor has put himself forward as a candidate for whom those currently represented by John Loughlin (R., Little Compton, Portsmouth, Tiverton) should not vote. His letter to the editor of The Sakonnet Times isn't online, but it's adequate to summarize that O'Connor lists the various obvious problems that the state has, offers some political clichés, and writes revealing paragraphs like this:

I am a young, fresh candidate who hopes to make it to the General Assembly in order to shake the status quo while bringing a new perspective and new ideas to the State House. I have no ties to any elected officials and have not spent any time in "back rooms" working on deals behind the scenes [that] do nothing to help Rhode Islanders. I also intend to run as a Democratic candidate which is the party currently in power. As a Democrat, I will have the ability to work with the party to help our district.

So O'Connor advertises himself as an outsider and then explains that he's running as a Democrat in order to more easily become an insider. He has no experience in "back rooms," but he looks forward to entering them. He intends to "shake the status quo" by reinforcing it as a partisan.

I am running on three principles, the economy, the environment, and education. These are core principles so important to the well being of our state and are the principles I will be dedicated to working on once I am elected. Although the economy is an easy topic that so many politicians claim they are working on, we have seen no improvement here in Rhode Island. With the various challenges we face as a state, we need to tackle the issues with the economy in the same breath as education and the environment. In fact, all three of these are interrelated and need to be worked on in tandem. Creating green jobs and the people to fill them is one of the primary goals I will work on once elected to the state house.

It would probably be unfair to dwell on the possible meanings of O'Connor's pledge to "create" people to fill green jobs. It is not unfair to suggest that his vague plan illustrates precisely the wrong understanding of how government can positively affect the economy. It is also not unfair to scoff at his subsequent declaration that government "cannot solve all the problems our state faces." Why, then, should we rely on government to pick and choose the industrial direction of the state? Is Mr. O'Connor more qualified to construct profitable industries than the folks who'd actually research the benefits of setting up shop in Rhode Island and investing their own money to do so?

Dan's face may be fresh, but it's one we've seen before — far too frequently. Come on, Little Compton. We look to you for better.

Ain't No Wrong Now When It's Right

Further campaign finance evidence proves pretty decisively that the Moderate Party's main misstep was to fall into one of the many traps that Rhode Island's political establishment has laid for those who might consider challenging their reign by methods that they haven't rigged. From page 30 of the Campaign Finance Manual (PDF) provided by the Board of Elections (emphasis added):

Notwithstanding the limits specified above, an additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) within a calendar year may be contributed by an individual, political party committee or political action committee to a political party committee to be utilized solely for organizational and party building activities but which shall not be used by the political party committee for contributions to candidates for public office. Funds contributed to a political party committee for organizational and party building activities shall not be used for monetary or “in-kind” contributions to candidates for public office.

If one accepts that it is, indeed, "party building" for a town committee to send money to the state party, then Ken Block did absolutely nothing wrong. It's very Rhode Island to fault people for not following rules that the players simply know, among themselves, to apply, but it's not a very reasonable approach.

Which is not to say Block shouldn't take a political hit for this. On my end, I'm disappointed that he's amenable to preventing future activists from employing the methods that he apparently found to be necessary. He should declare campaign finance laws to be what they are: arbitrary and helpful to incumbents and powerful people.

Folks who actually support the Moderate Party, as such, should be disappointed that, with all the coverage and momentum that the group has gained over the past year, it still has to dip into the personal fortune of its founder.

The Moderate Loophole Is Moral... If Only Block Would Admit It

As it happens, I spent more than a few moments pondering the statutory language in which Moderate Party founder Ken Block found a campaign financing loophole:

17-25-10.1 Political contributions – Limitations. – (a) No person, other than the candidate to his or her own campaign, nor any political action committee shall make a contribution or contributions to any candidate, as defined by § 17-25-3, or political action committee or political party committee which in the aggregate exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) within a calendar year, nor shall any person make contributions to more than one state or local candidate, to more than one political action committee, or to more than one political party committee, or to a combination of state and local candidates and political action committees and political party committees which in the aggregate exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) within a calendar year, nor shall any political action committee make such contributions which in the aggregate exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) within a calendar year, nor shall any candidate or any political action committee or any political party committee accept a contribution or contributions which in the aggregate exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) within a calendar year from any one person or political action committee.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection, a person or political action committee or political party committee may contribute an amount which in the aggregate does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) within a calendar year to a political party committee, which funds can be utilized for organizational and party building activities, but shall not be used for contributions to candidates state and local for public office.

My impression of the intent is for subdivision (2) essentially to allow a person or committee to donate his, her, or its maximum to one local committee. Block's argument is that the word "notwithstanding" overrides everything in subdivision (1) (the first paragraph), and as a matter of the law, that's clearly correct. Indeed, one must admit that my impression has no textual basis.

Of course, reading the whole of section 10.1, one is struck by the sloppiness of the legislation, which raises the relevant point, in my mind: The whole endeavor is dumb and overreaching. I'd be a whole lot more inclined to support Block — in this and in general — if he'd just come out and say, "These laws are inappropriate, and I feel no moral compunction about poking holes in them." Instead, he offers this, from Ed Fitzpatrick's column, today:

Common Cause Rhode Island executive director John M. Marion said, "I don't think the law, as it's written, prevents [what Block did]." But he thinks it did go against the spirit of the law. He said the law aims to place a $10,000 limit on the amount one person can give to a party, but with 39 cities and towns in Rhode Island, Block has found a way to funnel up to $390,000 to a party.

"I think we should plug the hole that Ken Block found in the dam," Marion said.

Money has found its way around such dams for years. "So that's why we have embraced public financing," Marion said. "Instead of trying to stick your finger in the dike, you create a new structure and chase the special-interest money out by putting clean money in."

Block said he supports publicly financed elections. "Ultimately, that's the right way to go," he said. "But you don't unilaterally go in and operate in ways you'd like everyone else to do it." ...

But Marion noted there's a reason for limits on money in politics: "So no one citizen can have an outsized voice in our political system. If the ideal is one person, one vote, money can act as a magnifier."

Actually, my objection is more directly to Marion: Lot's of things are "magnifiers," and money probably isn't the most insidious of them. Fame is a magnifier. Media access is a magnifier. So, it winds up being not just money that must be curtailed, but political speech. Why not take the next step and insist that all candidates must run anonymously? That way we might avoid any more Al Frankens.

Attempting to bottle political genies is a fools errand that only winds up giving advantage to people whose advantage can't be captured and who have the resources to exploit loopholes or work around the law — spirit and letter.

Carcieri (not that one, the other one) on EP - and RI - Politics

Extended excerpts transcribed from Justin's recording of the remarks of East Providence School Committee Chairman Anthony Carcieri at the EPGOP Fall Fundraiser last Thursday.

Most state senators are not so tactless or ill-advised as to attend a council meeting of the municipality that they represent and berate that body for attempting to budget responsibly. This, remarkably, appears to have happened at the November 3 [beginning at 1:57:00] City Council meeting in East Providence. That charming (local) incident aside, Mr. Carcieri's analysis and advice, while originally directed at East Providence, resonates for cities and towns throughout the state.

The school department ... it's primary function obviously is to provide an excellent education to the kids of East Providence. And we have to do that in an affordable way. That's the primary function. It's not about politicians. It's not about the unions. It's not about the teachers. It's about the kids. Sounds corny because everybody uses "it's about the kids". But there's a lot of poeple who use that phrase "it's about the kids" when, in fact, it's about money.

* * * *

We would like the support of our senators. We'd like the support of our representatives concerning this binding arbitration, perpetual contract. If that ever gets in, I guarantee everybody here, it's a wrap. Done.

The school committee runs the school department which represents over 50% of your tax bill. Your tax bill will go through the roof. And Joe Larisa and Bob Cusack and the majority on the City Council, they're fighting hard not to let that happen. But I was at the City Council meeting the other night and I watched our delegation come in and I watched them drop bombs on our city Council and indirectly to our School Committee. That's not the kind of support we need.

So there's been a lot of talk here tonight about state politics, national politics. That's all great. I'm just working on the j.v. squad right here in the city. And I think all politics should start in the cities and towns and work their way up rather than from the top down. Because if we get things squared away in East Providence, we'll get some people that we can run for the Senate and the House ... and maybe we can start changing the complexion of things at the State House. Because until the State House releases its grip with the union, unions plural, the State of Rhode Island is going nowhere. And this is the 900 pound elephant that's in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Nobody wants to talk about it. They talk about tourism, they talk about this, they talk about businesses and container ports. That's all great. Distill it down to the simple stuff. The unions, the politicians up at the State House are like this. They are strangling the state. The state is going down, down.

And nobody will say it's that. They'll talk about everything else except that. That's the big elephant in the room. So start calling up your senators and reps. Start sending them letters. And anybody who's connected with the unions, vote 'em out.

"Why Do I Live Here?"

That's a question that Rhode Islanders must be asking themselves almost on a daily basis.

It's not just that the November Revenue Estimating Conference set the baseline for the current year's budget deficit at $200 million. It's not just that, but for one-time fixes, the state government would have run deficits for several years even before the recession. It's not just that, as recently as two weeks ago, the General Assembly continued to pass legislation restrictive of businesses and the economy. It's that legislators still get away with junk like this, from the first link above:

"It's extremely bleak," said House Finance Committee chairman Steven M. Costantino, considered the legislature's budget architect. "Let's hope at some point this stabilizes."

Hope? That's it? People are losing their jobs, their homes, their health insurance because of you, Representative Costantino. Because of the damage that you have done to this state — in part (but only in part) because of your utter incompetence. If your constituents in Providence had any civic awareness whatsoever, they'd give your seat to a dog from the local animal shelter before returning you to the State House.

"Let's hope this stabilizes." News flash: You're a representative — the chairman of the Finance Committee — and Rhode Island's government is the fundamental contributor to our problems. How about you set your sights on stabilizing it.

Was there no one whom Providence Journal reporter Steve Peoples could contact for the article to call Costantino on this?

The Level of Political Discourse

One doesn't have to know the specifics to be taken aback by this dirt-bag move from State Senator Daniel DaPonte (D, East Providence) (emphasis added):

Larisa has cost the city money, DaPonte said, by creating "monumental parks" named after the mayor's mother. And, DaPonte continued, Councilman Robert Cusack has cost the city "hundreds of thousands of dollars" by using city-provided health coverage to pay for his son’s extensive medical care.

One could argue that this or that public office does or doesn't justify healthcare coverage, and if so, of what kind and with what subsidy. But is DaPonte suggesting that it is illegitimate for elected officials to use such a benefit to care for their sick children? Or is he just such a low life that any attack that his small mind can conceive is fair game?

In a healthy civic society, a public apology would be forthcoming — indeed, those around and above DaPonte in the political scheme would demand it.

In the Heart of the New Revolution

Anchor Rising is well represented at tonight's fundraiser in East Providence, as are the familiar faces of the RI right-wing, and Republicans, too. About 50 people here.

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian had to be elsewhere and spoke first:

State GOP Chairman Gio Cicione went next:

Gio noted that he was glad to finally be able to express gratitude for the presence of people with blue hair:

I caught Gio between speeches and asked his thoughts on the possible primary challenge to Congressional candidate Mark Zaccaria. He said there'd be a primary and was very disciplined about not offering any sort of favoritism.

7:39 p.m.

Speech wave 2 began with Cranston Mayor Alan Fung, whom I last saw at a Northeast Republican Conference cocktail party at which the open bar regrettably had one of my favorite beers... an extra strong brew by Victory. Mayor Fung wasn't fond of my idea of the Republicans' forgoing the gubernatorial race.

Mark Zaccaria took the mic next:

And then Congressional Candidate John Loughlin:

8:07 p.m.

East Providence Assistant Mayor Robert Cusack started the third wave, making the point that a few people can really make a difference:

East Providence School Committee Chairman Tony Carcieri is up. Among the first things he said was that he's not a Republican, but an Independent. The audience wasn't sure how to react.

Carcieri called out certain state senators and representatives (ahem) to oppose binding arbitration. He says that the unions and their pals in the state house are dragging down the state. "Anybody who's in allegiance with the unions, throw them out." He amended: "Throw them all out."

Tom Clupny, who is running for Betsy Dennigan's abandoned seat, spoke next, with Cusack sneaking in to suggest that volunteers and money would be helpful, because Mr. Clupny really does have a shot. Refreshing to see somebody who really is clearly in the game because he thinks he can make a difference.

And by way of contrast (of practice, not motivation), Attorney General Candidate Erik Wallin swept in and launched into a well-practiced speech. One new and interesting item was his statement that we shouldn't have to rely on reporters Tim White and Jim Hummel to investigate corruption.

Back to local with School Committee member Steve Santos, more refreshing enthusiasm at the local level.

8:35 p.m.

Gubernatorial candidate Rory Smith is up. He brought papers up with him, so perhaps he's prepared this time. His initial point: My mission is to bring jobs back to Rhode Island. Lower taxes. Other high-tax states are economic powerhouses so "they can afford to be a little arrogant with their tax policy." Fix regulations. Stop the runaway spending. Save the educational system "from the brink of collapse," with incentive pay, teacher evaluations, leave management of education with administrators.

I think Rory's been reading Anchor Rising.

Last up, Colleen Conley of the RI Tea Party. Apparently, the group sent three buses down to the Washington protest.

Colleen's making the case for the GOP to court tea party members. This'll be a YouTube clip worth watching.

8:45 p.m.

A couple behind the scenes notes: RINO state representative Jack Savage, who had been here, left early, without speaking.

Not to pile on to the Moderate Party, but I'm hearing rumors that it's losing members because of intransigent kids who won't compromise in their left-wing social views. Not surprising.

Moderates Two-Block Themselves

I guess we now know why the Moderate Party's coffers are about as full as the RI GOPs. Ken Block has managed to bait the sharks thanks to his own situational ethics. The Warwick Beacon editorializes:

Moderate Party founder Ken Block has tried to get around campaign finance laws by funneling money to his fledgling state party through the party’s Barrington Town Committee.

State campaign finance laws allow individuals to donate up to $10,000 to political parties. Block donated $10,000 to the Moderate Party. But he then donated another $10,000 to the party’s Barrington town committee, which then turned the money over to the state party.

It may be perfectly legal for Block to funnel donations into the state party through town committees, which would make the situation a legitimate loophole in the state’s campaign finance laws. Even if that’s true, it still suggests hypocrisy on the part of Block, who has made “ethics” one his party’s platforms.

If you draw a line in the sand, you'd better be sure you dance far away from it, much less on it! Because they couldn't do things the right--albeit difficult--way, the Moderate Party is in danger of turning from a breath of fresh air to more of the same, stale political wind that blows around here regularly.

Which Democrat Will Have the Last Gubernatorial Laugh?

This piece was originally published in abbreviated form (PDF) in the November 2009 issue of Providence Monthly magazine.

Amidst the banquet of public power in Rhode Island, the term-limited governor stands mainly as a jester for activists to mock and insiders to blame. When their excess begets indigestion, angry lips shout his name. When indigestion begets offensive odors, the guilty gaseous point his way and giggle. And when, at last, the half-digested hopes of Rhode Islanders splatter upon the floor, he finds himself with mop in hand.

The General Assembly dominates state government, and it would be an understatement to say that the Democrat Party dominates it. Not excessively remunerated for their responsibility, the body consists of part-time political dabblers who seek office out of some mixture of ego, self-dealing intentions, political ambition, and (of course) genuine desire to serve their communities. Most of their constituents do not know who they are or what they do, with isolated exceptions related to narrow local issues, the occasional "legislative grant" (buying a smiling picture in the local paper for the price of a few grand in state taxpayer money), and the warm greeting on chilly community soccer-league evenings.

Absorbing the angst that inevitably bubbles up under government authority are various unelected groups that insert personal judgment into matters that might otherwise be determined by rule of law. The network of quasi-judicial acronyms (CRMC, LRB, DEM, DOE, and so on) doubles as a conduit for political reward and influence and the plumbing whereby sources of voter discontent may be diffused, keeping the focus off those who make the law.

The most intractable difficulties drain into the state's judiciary, whose edicts define subsequent law without risking direct voter response. Like legislators, judges have no constitutional limits on their time in office, with the exception being "magistrates," whose appointments can be more political. Politics also leave their mark with the General Assembly's allocation for the judiciary's budget and the inclusion of familiar names on staff rosters.

Over all of this preside the House speaker, the Senate president, and the majority leaders in both chambers, who guide the festivities by means of procedure and largess. Each representative and senator votes and proposes legislation, but the leaders may push them into the circular file of "further study" on a whim, controlling legislators by allowing or disallowing pet bills and by dolling out the tiny aforementioned grants.

While constituents on the street remain largely oblivious, segments of them collect under the Democrat umbrella and maintain a close watch on the fealty of individual legislators:

• Government insiders, party insiders, and all of those who live and die by a political system that regular folks have trouble taking seriously have obvious reason to keep a keen eye on local players.
• Special interests reliant on the kindly feelings of lawmakers — notably unions and the social-service industry — have money and manpower to spread around the public square.
• Progressive ideologues are wholly comfortable working with both of the above, as long as they can inch the state toward an experiment in their utopia.

From the perspective of the right-wing reformer, therefore, the most valuable use of the governor's office would be to turn the jester's performance into a cutting commentary against the assorted nobles of Rhode Island government. With the legislature's edicts chained to one leg and its budget to the other, while judicial manacles bind his hands, the governor has no weapon but his voice.

Neither of the remaining contenders for the Democrats' slot on the ballot is likely to do the rabble's rousing, and the intriguing, potentially differentiating question is to where the fingers will point when the scapegoat is no longer a Republican Other.

General Treasurer Frank Caprio has been a political insider his entire adult life, and his public persona is hardly characterized by an inclination to cause waves for special interests. The progressive contingent, however, has watched with suspicion as he's mingled with the enemy, represented by groups like the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition, and Operation Clean Government. He ranked number 5 on Anchor Rising's Spring 2009 list of the Top 10 Right-of-Center Rhode Islanders.

His broad appeal — manifesting in his current fundraising lead — make his chances good for general election victory. As governor, he may stand strong against tax increases, and he's certainly perceived as a friend to Rhode Island businesses, but these positive attributes may serve primarily to place him (and them) on the defensive, even as the General Assembly persists in its fiscally deadly habits. The progressives will also strive to tangle him up in the tug-of-war over social issues, in which he's been reluctant to participate.

That's less of a problem for Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who is proficient in all of the soothing courtship calls of the Democrat-labor-Left coalition, which may provide an edge during primary season. Once in office, he'll likely evince comfort with progressives' agenda (where convenient) and work with his fellow Democrats to spread tissue paper over the state's cracking foundation. With those assumptions, we can expect Lynch to toss the governor's motley joker hat out of the room, to the state's conservative minority (including the religious), national right-wingers, and "greedy" businessmen.

If former Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey was correct, when he withdrew from the state and from speculative candidacy, that Rhode Islanders simply do not want to bring the feast to an end, then his opponent in the last Republican U.S. Senate primaries will prove to have the perfect head for that three-belled cap. Lincoln Chafee is an "independent" still bearing the stain of his years as a nominal Republican. His pretentions toward fiscal conservatism will make a target of free-market and small-government principles, even as his actual liberalism clears the way for increasing burdens on taxpayers and businesses and facilitates a drunken lurch toward the libertine left in the dark hours of apocalyptic night.

In any case, conservatives might find new liberty in lacking an ally in the hall of power; we'll be free to venture out and rebuild the kingdom from the frontiers in.

Moody's Downgrade of Connecticut's Bond Outlook a Cautionary Tale for Rhode Island?

We are now broaching a topic about which I know almost nothing. But certain aspects of this situation sound familiar.

The bond rating agency Moody’s Investors Service announced on Monday it has lowered its outlook for Connecticut’s general obligation bonds from stable to negative. At the same time, the agency said it held its rating for the state’s outstanding GO bonds — amounting to approximately $12 billion — at Aa3.

The agency released a report describing the factors it used to come up with its negative rating, which included the state’s need to issue deficit bonds to resolve this year’s budget shortfall, and the non-recurring solutions and deficit financing used to close revenue gaps in the state’s 2010 – 2011 biennial budget.

“Connecticut used one-time solutions to close slightly over half of the (biennial budget’s) shortfall,” the report says, and “these solutions create future structural budget gaps and leave the state with significantly reduced flexibility to address additional fiscal pressures that may arise due to a delayed and/or weaker than expected recovery from the worst economic recession since the depression.”

Rhode Island has tapped one time fixes - tobacco revenue in at least two years and, most recently, federal stimulus money - to close state budget gaps. This is clearly not something that makes bond raters comfortable.

Rhode Island has not, however, gone to the length of issuing bonds to cover the prior year's annual operating shortfall. (If we have, I don't think I want to know.)

Moody’s specifically mentioned the [Connecticut] General Assembly's issuing of $947 million in bonds to help cover last fiscal year’s shortfall.

Break out the champagne! Another state has done worse than us in the budgeting department!

Are We Right or Should We Be Left?

Concise and clear as it is, Matt Jerzyk's Providence Monthly piece (PDF) brings into relief an inconsistency in the narrative of the local left:

Conservatives are quick to blame the majority Democratic General Assembly for most of Rhode Island's ills, but that's not fair or accurate. First, many of the so-called Democrats in the General Assembly are DINOs (Democrats in Name Only). These DINOs support tax breaks for the rich, oppose women's rights and gay rights and gang up on immigrants and the poor. In other words, they would be Republicans if they could win an election under that party banner.

And yet, with reference to Republicans' dislike of Linc Chafee:

Of course, the irony of this tale is that Republicans historically maintained a power base in New England because of their social liberalism, not in spite of it. The fringe elements of the GOP who are casting out the moderate Republicans might as well be conducting a circular firing squad.

So, Democrats win in Rhode Island as conservatives, but Republicans don't win because they're not liberal? The inconsistency, here, needn't be Matt's; it could originate with voters. Personally, I'd dispute the notion that a decisive number of RI Democrats are very conservative, and I'd point out that conservative Republicans are decisive within their party. We have as much right not to vote for liberal (read, "moderate") Republicans as liberals have not to vote for conservative ones — point being that the question of whether conservative Republicans can win is open, even dubious, given our two-term governor, but it's more clear that liberal Republicans can not win, given the current electorate. There's no objective reason that conservatives must be the ones to compromise their values.

Whoever's inconsistency it is, Matt's reference to it does highlight that "Rhode Island's ills" aren't a result of those vague liberal shibboleths about "women's rights and gay rights" and affinity for "immigrants and the poor." Leftists are free to lament the state of social affairs, but it's difficult to link any of those issues to our economic stagnation from a left-wing perspective. (We on the right would argue that policies pertaining to immigrants and the poor are certainly contributors from ours.)

Frankly, the left/right divide is less useful, in assessing our state's frightening direction, than is the special interest/taxpayer battle, and it doesn't take much imagination to understand why those special interests would like the electorate to keep their eye on political distractions rather than concentrate on political reform.

Providence Monthly: Katz and Jerzyk on Governor's Race

Anchor Rising's Justin Katz and Matt Jerzyk (former proprietor of RI Future) were asked by the Providence Monthly to handicap the presumed 2010 Rhode Island gubernatorial candidates. But there was a twist: Justin took a look at the Dems (and Chafee) and Matt looked at the GOP (and Chafee).

Matt has helpfully provided links to each piece (thanks Matt). HERE is Matt's piece on the Republicans and HERE is Justin's take on the Democrats.

Don't Turn on Capitol TV

I made that mistake, and the House is debating H5582, which would mandate the number of apprentices who can be supervised by journeymen in trades. Majority Leader Gordon Fox just gave an impassioned speech about good workmanship, living wages, people of color, etc. In short, it's a lot of rhetoric by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

The simple economic fact is that the proposed ratios are ludicrous wastes of opportunity that will protect large, union contractors and prevent small entrepreneurs from advancing. Reviewing the legislation, it wouldn't be outlandish to suggest that special interests are attempting to adjust the market because Rhode Island's commercial market is drying up.

Every crew working on a residential job would require one journeyman or master for every apprentice.* You don't need to have experience with construction sites to understand that bricklaying is the sort of work that allows an experienced guy to supervise several workers of varying experience somewhere below the level of journeyman. (Often such workers have enough experience to become journeymen but fall short by some other criterion.)

Carpenters. Laborers. Painters. Glaziers. All would be one to one on residential projects, under this bill. That's crazy, and it is very suggestive of ulterior motives that there's no difference from trade to trade.

Rep. Trillo and my representative, Jay Edwards, who actually works in construction, are trying to explain how a jobsite works to the rest. Deaf ears, I'd say.

This is why the state is in its current condition and getting worse every time this legislative body meets.

* There's been some talk on the floor that the residential ratios only apply to projects with four or more units, but that appears to only apply to certain trades, including (for example) sheet metal and pipefitters, but none of those that I list above.

ADDENDUM:

Edwards made the point that it's difficult to get apprentices, anyway, hypothesizing the reason as a desire to go to college. Part of that desire, I'd propose as somebody who entered the trades after receiving a college degree and working in offices for a couple of years, results from the lack of clear and quick opportunity in trades.

A number of years ago, I explained how Rhode Island's approach to licensing results in fewer tradesmen than our neighboring states — specifically in terms of the hurdles one would have to clear upon identifying a particular trade as a market opportunity:

Starting everybody green, and assuming everybody passes the tests immediately, after 12 years, Rhode Island's system will have turned one master plumber into four masters and four journeymen, able to take eight apprentices. The Massachusetts system? Double in every category. Not only will twice the customers receive service, but twice the unemployed people can step onto the career path. Moreover, the gap ripples outward into the economy in innumerable forms — from the cost of home renovations to the rates of pay for less-skilled jobs.

If the trades were such that smart people could hop in, learn the profession at a self-direct pace, and quickly turn the job into a profitable career, more would make the attempt. With labor laws and union influence as they are, the choices are skewed. As a young adult graduating from high school, would you rather work full time in crawl spaces and bathrooms for five years while taking night courses in order to become a master plumber or party for four years and do enough classwork to get a degree that opens a door into an air conditioned office in which you'd begin learning an actual occupation only generally related to your education?

ADDENDUM II:

The legislation passed by a healthy but not overwhelming majority. The governor should veto this particular bill. The voters should upend the legislature.

A View into Government

Monique and Matt called for more content, specifically streaming online video, coming out of the State House on last night's Matt Allen Show. Such a feature could not only provide a window into committee meetings about which few people are interested, but also remedy very odd omissions, such as the blackout of the House Labor's binding arbitration hearing. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

First Trickle of News

Probably the most significant item to emerge, thus far, from the legislative appendix underway at the State House was House Majority Leader Gordon Fox's assurance that binding arbitration for teacher contracts is not going to make a surprise appearance:

Fox confirmed that a proposal to allow binding arbitration in contract disputes with teachers' unions is dead, at least for now.

"It's not going to come up in October," Fox said, minutes before the House session began, while praising recent efforts by the House Labor Committee to examine the issue. "I wouldn't want to do anything like that. [It would be] a disservice by trying to bum-rush this through."

It was surely significant that we all — online, on the radio, and on the State House steps — didn't sigh from relief and look away when binding arbitration didn't make the initial agenda. Of course, it's too early to know what has appeared in the flurry of bills, some of them freshly rewritten, that are flying through the legislature's fingers.

The other hot item is the ban on indoor prostitution, which passed the House by a wide margin. It's interesting that only one fewer representative (eight) didn't bother to vote on the measure than voted against it (nine); notably abstaining were progressive friend Betsy Dennigan and ostensible cultural conservative Peter Palumbo.

Beyond that, we've got advancement of Patriots license plates, anti-texting-while-driving legislation, a citizen vote on "plantations" in the state's name, and compulsory chemical testing by police of drivers involved in serious accidents.

ADDENDUM:

Bill Rappleye and Andrew correct me in the comments section, noting that Dennigan and Palumbo have good reasons for not having voted: The former's resignation from the General Assembly was effective immediately, so she's not participating in the two day push, and the latter is home with the flu.

Societies We Can Imagine

Thomas Sowell pauses for a moment of disbelief at the conversation in America:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

There's a parallel in Rhode Island. You know, it's not that difficult to imagine a reality in which we wouldn't be discussing whether or not prostitution will finally be made illegal and binding arbitration for teachers contracts might make a midnight appearance on the State House floor, but rather whether the tax code would be restructured to improve the business environment of the state and legislators would be explicitly barred from selling their votes.

One can dream on a rainy autumn day...

Encouraging Signs from a New Guy

Well, he's a Democrat and a lawyer, which means he's got two strikes against him, but Scott Pollard (D., Coventry, Foster, Glocester) counterbalances with a dozen good ideas on saving Rhode Island. Here's the first:

Problem: Rhode Island's tax structure is not business- or citizen-friendly, which harms the state's reputation and potential for growth.

Solution: In one painful yank, eliminate the entire Rhode Island tax code, except the flat-tax option, and replace it. We should adopt a tax code similar to that of Virginia, Alabama or New Hampshire. These are states heralded for growth. The substantive change, in conjunction with the perception of such a massive shift, would do wonders for our state's future.

He should run for speaker... if only to trumpet his message.

Profiting from Confusion

As Justin warily explained, we're about to witness two fun-packed days of legislative confusion--at least to outsiders. For, as Lt. Holden said in Operation Petticoat, "In confusion, there is profit." Just so. The line was uttered at a point in the movie when the submarine aboard which Holden served as the supply officer was in port during an air raid. While the bombs dropped and the average sailors and grunts scurried about, Curtis led a detachment of men to the warehouse to commandeer items required to repair his vessel. And now, while average Rhode Islanders practice "duck and cover" during this economic air raid, our legislators will be taking advantage of the distraction to implement all sorts of pet causes. We all live in a pink submarine.

Mischief on the Hill

This is not encouraging:

[Rhode Island's] Legislative leaders have scheduled hearings or floor votes for 196 individual proposals between Tuesday afternoon and Thursday night. And that number is expected to grow. ...

The scope of the agenda apparently surprised several political observers.

"I thought it was going to be more targeted," said John Marion, executive director of the government watchdog group Common Cause. "It seems like they're going to try to finish the bulk of what was left on the table the morning of June 27." ...

Legislative leaders have suspended the rules, which normally require 48-hour notice of all committee and floor action. That means committee hearings can now be held with a few minutes notice in unusual places, such as State House balconies and hallways, just as has happened in the final days of recent Assembly sessions.

No explanation has been given for the sense of urgency, strongly suggesting a desire to exchange political capital (whatever the effects on the state) while Rhode Islanders are distracted by an activity-rich holiday (parties, trick-or-treating, scary movie marathons, etc.). The possible allusions for a quick strike done in the autumn shadows are too plentiful to require my choice of one; readers should pick their own favorite.

The governor should prepare to wield his veto pen like a glowing holy artifact.

Kennedy's Got a Friend at the Projo

It's a small thing, really, but curious to note: The Providence Journal's "In Quotes: The Week That Was" section touches on Patrick Kennedy's attack on the Catholic Church and Bishop Thomas Tobin's reply, but it puts the bishop's call for an apology first and then doesn't quote the more aggressive line from Kennedy's interview.

"If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health-care reform" is unduly political, but not really offensive. By contrast, declaring the Church's insistence that federal healthcare dollars not fund abortion to be dishonest (i.e., "a red herring") and contributory to civic violence (i.e., fanning "the flames of dissent and discord") does justify a call for apology.

As I said: curious. But then, we already knew that Patches has a friend at the Projo.

Williams Gone

So, Chiefygate has driven former Chief Justice Frank Williams from his post-retirement seat on the court:

[Chief Justice Paul] Suttell called Williams' decision to step aside "best for the court." He said he will not ask Williams to perform any further judicial duties, but that Williams will continue to deliberate and write decisions on cases heard by the court through Oct. 6. "There's no question that this matter has become a distraction," he said in a news release. "It is clearly in the best interests of the judiciary that the former Chief Justice be relieved of judicial responsibilities at this time."

When the court reconvenes Oct. 27, it will operate with four justices until a new associate justice is appointed to make the high court complete, according to Craig Berke, spokesman for the state judiciary.

The peculiarity of Williams's surprise withdrawal from the Chief Justice office, in December, has certainly taken a bizarre turn. Imagine if this isn't the reason he made that move two years shy of receiving his full retirement?

Exhibit #129,224,798 Proving That Rhode Island Is Doomed

Want another bit of evidence that Rhode Island ain't done sinking, yet? Tune into the Speaker of the House race, as Ed Fitzpatrick does, here. Ed's right that this story is very Rhode Island:

In the small world of State House politics, the contest is coming down to three lawyer/legislators who shared a Broadway office building in the 1990s — House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, Rep. Gregory J. Schadone, D-North Providence, and Rep. Stephen R. Ucci, D-Johnston.

"This is truly a Rhode Island story," Fox said. "Greg and I were next door to each other, renting offices that were side by side. I can still hear him: 'Fox, I need your help.' I remember I used to give him advice when he was running for his first election."

In most places, the phrase "the political class" means the general population of people who hold, have held, or are running for office. In Rhode Island, it appears to indicate an actual class of our stratified society, from which most of our elected officials are drawn.

What I find especially dispiriting, though, is the fact that — in the current climate of calamity — there isn't a single politician making a no-chance run for the office simply to grab the microphone and proclaim his or her solutions for fixing the state. To be fair, one must know and care enough to find out what those problems are and formulate a plausible solution...

Moderate Speculation

For those listening to the Dan Yorke show, here's the YouTube clip featuring Joe Trillo and Rory Smith that Dan's been playing (the relevant video starts at 6:20 in the clip):

In the last hour, Christine Hunsinger, executive director of the RI Moderate Party called in to discuss her party's "discussions" with potential candidates. She refused to give anything away, but her response was very interesting when Dan asked whether she'd confirm that the person with whom they're speaking is not Steve Laffey: "I can't answer that without giving away which prominent former official it is."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems to me that the only way a yes-or-no on Laffey tells us which public official is if it's "yes."

Laffey Meets with the RI Tea Party

Colleen Conley of the RI Tea Party was on WPRO AM 630's Dan Yorke Show talking about the movement, including the upcoming "Welcome Back Tea Party" for the Legislature on October 28th at the State House. Conley revealed that she had a 3 hour conversation with former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey but she didn't delve too far into the details. Based on Laffey's earlier declaration that the state's voters aren't ready for the kind of reform a "Governor Laffey" would implement, Yorke has hypothesized (and I agree) that Laffey is looking for some group to call on him to save the state. Yorke also believes that Laffey isn't too keen on going through another primary, so he's looking to be courted by the RI GOP (with a clear slate) or by a grass roots organization like the Tea Party.

Binding Arbitration Bill to be Heard Wednesday (Probably)

H5142, which

would expand the scope of the binding arbitration process to include monetary issues for teachers and non-teacher educational employees. It would also streamline the actual binding arbitration process itself.

is scheduled to be heard by the House Labor Committee at 2:00 pm this Wednesday in Room 313 at the State House.

Let's remember, however, that

in the closing days of the session this past June, we [the General Assembly] suspended the rules. We are still technically in session, just on extended recess. What that means is they could change the date / time [of the hearing] 30 seconds before the scheduled start

In other words, the hearing could be postponed without warning. (Thanks to Rep John Loughlin for clarifying.)

So if you're planning to attend, you may want to call ahead and make sure that the hearing is still on. The Committee Clerk is William Souza, 222-2587. In case he stepped away, the Speaker's office is 222-2466.

(Just out of curiosity, how does a legislative body purporting to carry out the people's business on behalf of the people justify exempting itself from all manner of open meeting laws?)

Strength Is Relative, I Guess

The headline for the article on the governor's race that Andrew mentioned at lunchtime (and that Matt Allen's teasers say he'll be discussing, tonight) bears the title, "Strong field surfaces in race for governor," both in print and online. I can't help but wonder whether this is really what qualifies as a "strong field" in Rhode Island.

Sure, they're all well known politicians to those who follow state politics, but as a quick anecdote for context: I was about to bring up the Gordon Fox cartoon controversy among the carpenters at lunch, today, but stopped when I realized how much explanation I'd have to offer regarding the key players. Promoting "the general treasurer, a former senator and the attorney general" as a contest of strength proves nothing so much as the lack of anything beyond the public sector, in Rhode Island.

Where are the business tycoons? The media magnates? Is there anybody in the private sector who would justify an "ooo" from the citizenry? Sure, as the article says, Rory Smith is at the precipice of jumping in, but most of you just asked, "Who?" Former Cranston Mayor and current hermit Steve Laffey would be a "strong candidate," but shouldn't there be at least a handful of names that we could put on a list for a fantasy political race? (In addition to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, of course.)

This state needs something other than government. And when it comes to government, it needs people from outside of the establishment. I mean, come on:

Their friendship dates to high school, where they played on competing basketball teams for rival schools, Caprio for Bishop Hendricken and Lynch for St. Raphael Academy.

"I used to cover him because I was usually assigned to cover the top scorer on the other team," Caprio says of Lynch. "I think we beat them every time."

Lynch offered this response: "You've got to love that Harvard wit and Hendricken Pride and admire them both. It goes to show that there's spin in both sports stories and politics."

Haven't you had enough, Rhode Island? (Whether to include that comma required deliberation...)

ADDENDUM:

This, by the way, is worth note taking:

"On social issues, I have a track record of not dictating to people how they should lead their lives," said Caprio, who is pro-choice and supports gay marriage.

Guess we've moved from field-prepping to primary positioning.

The Absence of Race: In Science, In a River Bank 9,300 Years Ago, In a Political Cartoon This Week

In a prior post, a comment by Warrington Faust sent me to research Kennewick Man, the name given to a man who lived 9,300 years ago and whose remains, discovered in 1996 in the bank of a river, became the subject of a legal tug-of-war between archeologists and the Native American community of the state of Washington. One of the articles I found ended thusly.

The political battles over the Kennewick man were framed in a large part by people who want to know to what "race" he belongs. Yet, the evidence reflected in the Kennewick materials is further proof that race is not what we think it is. The Kennewick man, and most of the Paleo-Indian and archaic human skeletal materials that we've found to date are not "Indian," nor are they "European." They don't fit into ANY category that we define as a "race." Those terms are meaningless in prehistory as long ago as 9,000 years--and in fact, if you want to know the truth, there are NO clearcut scientific definitions of "race."

Cliff Monteiro has objected to Jim Bush's cartoon [scanned image courtesy WPRO] in the Providence Journal on the basis that Gordon Fox is "multicultural"; i.e., part African-American.

My reaction upon hearing this bit of information was, really? Who knew?

Let's see, looking at him, he could be Italian. Or Spanish. Sure, you could see Portuguese. Or is he French? French French, though, not Canadian French - you can tell by his hair.

To this rather silly train of thought, the vast majority of us respond - who cares? We judge him solely on his political values, his conduct in office, how he has used his power.

It is those qualities, not any irrelevancy, which inspired this cartoon, a clever and revealing encapsulation of the top-heavy structure of Rhode Island's government as well as of the history and character of two of its key players. Any hint of race or racism therein has been projected from the mind of the reader, not placed by the pen of the artist.

The General Assembly's Persistent Free Pass

It's one of those things that, once you've noticed, it's difficult not to see everywhere: How in the world does the General Assembly always manage to step forward as the great authority and protector without shouldering any of the blame or responsibility? Consider:

"Any way you slice it, [next year's budget] is going to have to focus on how we get the cities and towns to get by on less, do some of the same cost-saving things we're doing with state employees and do some consolidations," Carcieri said.

But several Finance Committee members said they want to see more of an effort from state agency directors to cut their budgets before the administration targets local communities.

Why isn't the governor making allies of the cities and towns by hammering again and again the need for the General Assembly to get off their backs with mandates and regulations? And why didn't reporter Cynthia Needham redirect along those lines when the Finance Committee members tightened the rhetorical screws on the relatively powerless administrators?

Whatever the case, municipal and school officials had best be doing some screw tightening of their own, because the state apparatus is intent on bringing them down with the ship.

What Governs a Town?

That layoffs of police in East Providence are "the first in years" in Rhode Island is surprising, but not particularly noteworthy. In fact, we should hope that organizations — whether companies or municipalities — will operate in such a way as to ensure consistent, long-term employment. It's difficult, however, not to see some sort of relationship with a story out North Providence:

[Mayor Charles] Lombardi said he held off on filling vacancies in the Police Department in recent months for financial reasons, which triggered several union grievances and set off a legal debate about the extent of his control over police staffing. Lombardi argues that the Town Charter gives the mayor discretion to determine whether a replacement will be appointed when a police officer leaves the department.

The police union argues that the department's organizational chart is governed by the contract, which prohibits "changes resulting in reduction in ranks" or "department strength."

Employment contracts should not be allowed to modify the rules by which a constitution or charter is operated. Elected officials lack the right — and should lack the authority — to negotiate such documents away.

Add this scheme to the list of practices that reformers must end if Rhode Island is ever to recover.

Starting Small on a Big Stage?

Those who missed it (and are interested) can hear my WRNI Political Roundtable appearance here. (A preemptive admission: The different format from AM talk radio threw off my oratorical pacing, leaving me something to keep in mind next time.)

The speed of the show necessarily leaves many worthwhile thoughts unspoken, but one that I really wish I'd managed to make sparked from the collision of two distinct points made by Scott MacKay and Maureen Moakley: Scott had just complained that promising conservatives and Republicans always shoot for the high-profile federal jobs, when they should start at the state level, and Maureen jumped on the centralization train. These two concepts are in inevitable conflict.

If we acknowledge that one of Rhode Island's major problems is the dearth of fresh voices in government and the wall of intellectual and habitual rubble that protects entrenched interests and keeps citizens from becoming more involved, then collecting the state's power base into larger groups is clearly the wrong move. Scott had it right that Republicans and other reformers in the state should start small and view their ascent in long terms. In order to make that path attractive — or even plausible — there must remain local positions that have the responsibility and authority that enables newly minted public servants to learn and maintain their motivation.

The "regionalization" and (now) "centralization" buzzwords have strong currency on the right, of course. Some in the right-leaning minority of the state seem to have an inexplicable belief that we'll be able to impose a libertarian-conservative structure from above as we simultaneously reform the manifold governing systems into fewer. The problem with this intellectual approach is that it's a back door to statism: We solve the problem not by moving authority toward the people and other social mechanisms, but to an increasingly legitimized Big Brother.

More importantly, advocating for a reform on the basis of the abstract final product ignores the predicament that we're actually in. Those with imbalanced and undeserved power, in Rhode Island, will not sit idly by while their subjects build a parallel system. They'll take it over and either destroy it or use it to increase their advantage.

The Problem Is Big Government, Not Dispersed Government

Roger Williams University Political Science Professor Matthew Ulricksen provides an impressive list of public-sector functionaries in Rhode Island:

Rhode Island claims a population of slightly more than one million people in a territory of about 2,000 square miles. Yet, it is feudalized into 39 municipalities, governed by nine elected municipal chief executives, 25 appointed chief executives, 237 council members, 209 school committee members, 38 tax assessors, 14 deputy tax assessors, 38 building-code officials, 39 town or city clerks, 37 deputy town or city clerks, 16 town or city engineers, 31 finance directors, 23 fire chiefs (not including the chiefs of incorporated fire districts), 24 highway supervisors, 14 minimum housing officers, 18 management information system directors or coordinators, 15 personnel directors, 35 planning directors, 38 police chiefs, 34 probate judges, 11 purchasing agents, 29 recreation directors, 34 superintendents of schools, 15 sewer officials, 21 tax collectors, 14 town or city treasurers, and 16 water officials, not to mention legions of rank-and-file government workers from clerks and maintenance workers, to teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The first question that comes to mind is what these people do all day. It's not an idle thing to wonder, because if each town generates enough work to keep a planning director busy (for example), then economies of scale won't save all that much by pushing them under the aegis of the state government. The people who actually do the work might make a little less money each, but somebody above them would have to coordinate. And if "centralizing" them — as Ulricksen advocates — will save money mainly by eliminating payment for work that municipal employees aren't doing, then we ought to squeeze that waste out on a town-by-town basis.

Having spent an enjoyable few minutes on the radio with the University of Rhode Island's Maureen Moakley, who shares Ulricksen's vocation of political science professor, I'd suggest that the state of Rhode Island has more such instructors than an outsider might believe to be necessary. Putting aside public/private -university distinctions, the point is that centralizing the oversight of Rhode Island's political science education would not save all that much money, but would affect the function.

The lure toward a big, centralized government is attractive and many colored, but looking behind the curtain, one sees only intellectuals and power seekers who believe that they could conduct the world better than it conducts itself... or at least wish to be paid for trying.

Consider: Do we really want the General Assembly controlling more of our state's civic sphere?

The Stultified Population

Odds are that readers of Anchor Rising have come across it, already, but Ed Achorn raised the apropos problem, yetserday:

Rhode Island, according to Forbes, suffers from job-killing regulatory burdens, high taxes and steep energy costs, reflected in an astonishingly poor growth rate in gross state product of 0.9 percent over five years. The only states that performed more pitifully during that period were the Rust Belt disasters of Indiana (0.6), Ohio (0.4) and Michigan (minus 0.9).

It was not a question of factors beyond our political control, such as geography. Nearby New Hampshire (19), and even Massachusetts (34) and Connecticut (35), had significantly higher growth rates.

In a healthier state, such a frightening report card might prod the public to turn off the TV, call their legislators, convene protests, write letters and demand the politicians’ heads on a platter. Leaders, driven by shame or fear, might produce legislation to turn this around.

But here, in the land of zombies, no one apologizes, no one is held accountable, no one even seems to care.

It's really the darndest thing, and I bet we'll see it again in the next election cycle. At some point, the parasites have so thoroughly captured their host that there's no salvific possibility.

To Win, Leftists Hide Views

Isn't there something fundamentally dishonest about the sort of calculation that RI House Majority Leader Gordon Fox is making in his campaign for speakership?

... with one notable exception, he is guarded about where he stands on some of the more volatile issues the 2010 legislature is likely to face, including casino gambling, gay marriage and calls for the legislature to place itself back under the jurisdiction of the state Ethics Commission after a late-June decision by the Supreme Court left the commission's powers in question.

Shouldn't one's positions on all of the major issues of the day constitute the platform for any political race — especially for a current legislator seeking a powerful central post? If he isn't able to articulate his position, after so much time in office, then he's an incompetent boob, and if he thinks his intentions will sink his candidacy, he's a plain deceiver for withholding them. The statement — not unfamiliar in Rhode Island — becomes, "Elect me because I'm next in line, and I'll tell you how I'll govern after I've got all of my political protections in place."

This General Assembly — this state, politically — is unbelievable.

The Traveling Lynchbury

The RIGOP this week filed an ethics complaint against Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (D) for

violating the state’s $75 gift cap by accepting a roundtrip plane ticket worth $428.50 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association

The genesis of this complaint - the impetus for the RIGOP to look more closely at the AG's travel - is almost certainly Katherine Gregg's eye-opening expose in the Providence Journal three months ago of the Attorney General's penchant for out of state travel.

In the eighteen month period below, the Attorney General traveled out of state on average once a week per month. However, this figure is almost certainly on the low side as it includes only the travel that he was required by law to report for expense reasons. The Attorney General has declined to enumerate how many additional out of state trips he took for personal or campaign reasons.

Readers will note that many of the trips related to NAAG, of which the Attorney General was president during 2008/2009. When asked how all of this travel is justified, the Attorney General offered the following explanation on Wednesday's Buddy Cianci Show on WPRO.

... what the attorneys general do is kind of get together and look as a lawyer for the state and a lot more at what they've been doing is to go out particularly starting with the [inaudible] get together and bring efforts on behalf of the states collectively to strengthen their efforts to get better results for their people

In view of the numerous, convenient methods of communication available, however, it is unclear why these joint efforts and sharing of information must so frequently (at least in the case of Rhode Island's Attorney General) take place in person.

We are still left with the question, then: how has all of the Attorney General's travel benefitted the pursuit of justice and the state of Rhode Island overall?

A Camcorder on the Other Side

I'm happy to see Brian Hull making sure that it isn't only the Rhode Island right that's always on camera. Over on Rhode Island Future, he's posted video of the Democrat Primary Debate in Providence's District 10.

ADDENDUM:

On a related topic, I haven't rushed to publish my footage of Rep. Loughlin's healthcare forum, because the Ocean State Policy Research Institute is going to be posting a more professional video on its Web site. If I get a moment, this weekend, I'll put mine up.

Re: Dennigan

I wonder if revelations about House Speaker Bill Murphy's intention to step down change the context in which we should consider Dennigan's drama. The previous common assessment had held, I believe, that Dennigan's challenge to Langevin was (on the issue of abortion or just generally) a shot from the progressive faction — either to move him left or with the impression that he could actually be beat.

Could Dennigan instead be an early indication that General Assembly insiders are finally losing hope that the annual unexpected windfall or pot of money to be drained from the future will emerge? Rather than stay and fix the problem, perhaps they're interested in finding ways, individually, to cash out.

Dennigan Resigns

The AP is reporting that State Representative Elizabeth Dennigan (D – East Providence/Pawtucket) has resigned her (now former) state legislative seat, in order to devote more time to her Second District Congressional campaign against incumbent Democrat James Langevin. Will Ricci at the Ocean State Republican is quoting a source saying that a special election will be held to fill the seat in the next 70 – 90 days, meaning it is likely to occur just before Christmas…

According to a well-informed source, the Special Election should occur within the next 70 to 90 days, with a primary, if necessary, to occur about 5 weeks prior. This would place the special election in mid to late December, with a primary in early to mid November.

Gambling to be Murphy's Swan Song?

Current RI House Speaker William Murphy announced his retirement and it sounds like he'd like to get gambling done before he exits the stage (via 7 to 7):

A day after confirming his plans to leave the rostrum after next year, House Speaker William J. Murphy is saying the General Assembly needs to "revisit'' casino gambling.

He said he "would not be averse'' to putting another referendum question on the 2010 ballot, asking voters whether they would allow full-scale gambling.

"We have to look at it,'' he said.

During an interview with Buddy Cianci on WPRO-AM radio, Murphy, D-West Warwick, said he believes Rhode Island needs to pay close attention to what Massachusetts does on the gambling front, because any such move could make a huge dent in a major source of Rhode Island revenue.

He did not immediately specify whether he was talkiing about expanding the options at the state's two existing slot parlors: Twin River and Newport Grand. Murphy was a chief backer of the failed 2006 ballot proposal to allow a Harrah's-financed Narragansett Indian casino in his hometown of West Warwick.

This would tie in with Dan Yorke's thesis: That Murphy has been holding off on calling the House back to avoid the House having to consider legislation that could be submitted by those who want dog racing back at Twin River. If that were to occur, it would muck up the ongoing Twin River bankruptcy proceedings (change the revenue stream picture, etc.) and also ruin the expansion plans (ie; full-fledged casino), which is something Murphy doesn't want for personal and professional reasons. So, he's stalled on calling the House back to "bring around" some of the dog-racing proponents and, hopefully, until after the bankruptcy proceedings are over.

A Campaign Event Healthcare Town Hall

I'm about a half hour late, but I've made it all the way across town in Tiverton for John Loughlin's healthcare town hall event, as part of his campaign for Congressman Patrick Kennedy's seat. There are quite a few people here — somewhere around 130 or 140 — with a high local contingent. I can't be the only person who found the 5:30 start time a little early for a three hour event, but plenty of people turned out.

Steve Peoples and other Providence Journal folks are here. Local papers. And a couple small-camcorder folks.

As I set up, RIILE's Terry Gorman was talking about illegal immigration and healthcare. That issue has dominated the audience questions. It appears to be a very friendly crowd, by the way.

6:28 p.m.

Bill Felkner just quoted Obama's "if you like the healthcare that you have" line and the audience pretty broadly agreed: "he lies."

Loughlin: "Is Joe Wilson here?"

6:53 p.m.

One audience member noted that a family of five owes more as a function of national debt than the average mortgage payment in Rhode Island. "Are we nuts?"

7:01 p.m.

The tempo of the event seems to pick up when the topic pushes the boundaries of the healthcare issue. One audience member just asked Rep. Loughlin about his intentions with respect to the military and veterans. Loughlin was clearly more animated, and the audience began to get worked up.

Perhaps the lesson is that he should have issue-related events with targeted audience and relevant panelists (e.g., military folks speaking on military issues... Afghanistan would be good). Keep momentum rolling. Use the campaign almost as a political tool for raising current events, making the emphasis of his campaign the issues — and the voters' concerns — rather than himself.

7:07 p.m.

One of the panelists made the point that the American healthcare system is not the best healthcare system in the world. The audience was split on whether to shout objections or to shout objections to the objectors.

7:09 p.m.

Peter Asen (of Ocean State Action, I believe), who was also at the Kennedy event, just stated that, in Rhode Island, only Blue Cross offers individual plans because only Blue Cross is willing to play by the rules and abide by coverage mandates (such as preexisting conditions). His argument was that we can't allow healthcare buying across state lines because everybody will flock to the cheapest programs in states that let them get away with everything.

Well, that pretty much sums up the differences in philosophy. The left wants to institute "fixes" and then layer on controls when the outcomes don't match their desires. As they must, the controls will simply ratchet.

Every newspaper in the room sought comment from Mr. Asen.

7:20 p.m.

The audience isn't ready to move away from the question of whether the United States has a bad healthcare system.

Room thinning quickly.

Report: Speaker Murphy Will Not Run for Speakership Again

From the AP via Turn to Ten:

A Rhode Island lawmaker says House Speaker William Murphy has told his colleagues he’s stepping down from his leadership post when the next term begins.

Rep. Kenneth Carter told The Associated Press he was in a meeting last week in which Murphy told his committee chairs he would finish out his term as speaker then step down.

Carter says Murphy did not elaborate on his future plans.

Larry Berman, a spokesman for Murphy, told NBC 10 that he had no comment.

The 46-year-old Democrat has been House speaker since 2003, and has served in the General Assembly since 1992. He represents West Warwick.

ADDENDUM

WPRO's Dan Yorke determined that the original source of the report is Matt Jerzyk over at RIFuture.

ADDENDUM II

Tim points out that Dan Yorke talked about this development yesterday.

Speaker Murphy makes it official and then some in an interview this afternoon with the ProJo's Katherine Gregg - this will be his last term as Speaker and his last term in the House of Representatives.

In an interview with The Journal Wednesday, the West Warwick Democrat said he conveyed his decision at a chairmans' dinner at the Capriccio restaurant last Wednesday, along with his endorsement of House Majority Leader Gordon Fox to succeed him.

"I will not be seeking reelection in 2011,'' he said.

Is Walsh Pumping up Supporters or Simply Stating Fact?

Hopefully, Bob Walsh is merely trying to manufacture a self-fulfilling prophecy, here:

"We are preparing, if there is a session in October, to be present and strongly advocating for binding arbitration," says Walsh, executive director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island. And, "we are fairly comfortable we have the commitments we need to get this passed."

Legislators shouldn't underestimate the extent or the staying power of objection should they so clearly prove themselves to be doing the bidding of the unions.

How Partisanism Is Supposed to Function

From the RIGOP:

The Rhode Island Republican Party has today filed an Ethics complaint against Attorney General Patrick Lynch stemming from his acceptance of gifts from industry associations that he regulates. Attorney General Patrick Lynch has violated Regulation 36-14-5009 of the Code of Ethics, which prohibits public officials from receiving a gift of more than $75 in one year from an interested person. Based on records received from the Office of Attorney General, Mr. Lynch was the recipient of a gift of $428.50 for a trip to New Orleans on May 18 - 20, 2008. For a gift to violate the Code of Ethics, it must meet certain criteria. Essentially, under Regulation 36-14-5009 of the Code of Ethics, a gift of more than $75 in any calendar year from a single "interested person" is prohibited. As to the amount requirement, a trip to New Orleans, which cost at least $428.50, certainly exceeds $75.00.

RI GOP Chairman Giovanni Cicione noted that "If we allow our elected officials and regulators to be wined and dined by the very industries we ask them to oversee, we are leaving the door wide open to corruption, graft, and abuse of public office." "Patrick Lynch could have easily paid for this travel through his campaign account and avoided this conflict, but once again he has shown that when you are a powerful Democrat in Rhode Island, the rules are made to be broken." Accordingly, the RIGOP recommends that the Commission investigate this violation, and fine Mr. Lynch for violating the Ethics Code.

My first thought is that Gio's press releases have contrasted in his favor, lately, with those of his counterpart for the Democrats, Patrick's brother Bill. Lynch always has his partisan attacks set to "kill," which tends to make him look hateful and mean. That presentation may rile up the base for a few minutes, but it contributes to distrust and cynicism. Yeah, Gio's got the partisan jab, toward the end, but the bulk of the message is simply a description of the circumstances and the GOP's actions.

My second thought is that this is a clear example of why having at least two active parties is so important: to point out each other's slips. Voters can then decide whether a particular revelation matters or not.

Perhaps the distinction may be put thus: Is the partisan telling his audience what he believes and why or is he telling his audience how they should feel, because he is of superior insight?

Rhode Island Politician Inclined to Run to Big Brother

The Providence Journal today published a very disappointing op-ed from Rep. John Loughlin (R, Tiverton, Portsmouth, Little Compton) that Monique posted on Anchor Rising back in March to some extensive commentary. Loughlin's premises are that we have a moral obligation to fulfill the pension expectations of public employees and teachers who are vested in the system and that the most painless way to save the General Assembly from its own malfeasance is to ask the federal government for a handout and, in the process, give over ultimate control of our pension system.

It's a big-government scam that isn't worthy of a Republican and isn't likely to happen anyway. And it shouldn't happen. Employees are vested after 10 years, which essentially means that they get 100% of the pension that their contributions permit. There is no obligation — moral or, as far as I can see, legal — to hold on to the unsustainable system that legislators unwisely and corruptly constructed for employees who still have up to two-thirds of their careers ahead of them. Asks Loughlin:

How can we say to a valued teacher or employee who has contributed to a plan for 10, 20, or nearly 30 years in accordance with the terms the state agreed to, that they now must work a decade longer and receive a reduced retirement?

Sorry. The guilt trip is empty. Like many other private-sector Rhode Islanders, I expect to die working, as it is; how can Rep. Loughlin say to me that I must also sell the body parts out of my corpse in order to pay for the vote-buying and back-rubbing of long-retired politicians?

Radio Alert: RI Senate President on WPRO at 9:00 am

Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed will appear on the John DePetro Show this morning.

Click here to stream live.

Though Tara Granahan wasn't sure a few minutes ago whether the Senate President would be taking calls, some questions may suggestion themselves from this interview with the ProJo's Katherine Gregg.

Tom Ward on Whitehouse's Pro-ACORN Vote - What Was His Prior Job Title?

After concurring with Justin's doubts about bonuses and the definition of profits at Twin River, Valley Breeze Publisher Tom Ward contrasts a notable item on Senator Whitehouse's resume with his vote a couple of weeks ago to continue funding ACORN.

Rhode Island's former chief law enforcement officer, ex-Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, voted to continue funding a group which instructs hookers and pimps on how to open a sex slave business in Baltimore.

Setting aside for a moment the noxious political opportunism that emanates in the present from such a vote, is it wrong that his vote on this matter has diminished in retrospect my confidence in his tenure as AG?

Playing Politics in the State's Center of Politics

The in-boxes of Rhode Island's state senators have been the battleground, of late, for a political spat between Sen. Leonidas Raptakis (D, Coventry, East Greenwich, Warwick, West Warwick) and Sen. Daniel DaPonte (D., East Providence, Pawtucket):

• Raptakis wrote to Senate President Theresa Paiva Weed to suggest that the legislature should reconvene (PDF).
• DaPonte wrote a snippy response, apparently on Paiva Weed's behalf (PDF).
• And Raptakis came back (PDF).
• To which DaPonte gave the old "this'll be my last letter" (PDF).

What I find especially peculiar in these exchanges — and we saw the same sort of retort from House Speaker Bill Murphy (D, West Warwick, Coventry, Warwick) to Rep. Greg Schadone (D, North Providence), when the latter suggested reconvening the House — is the leadership's quick resort to the accusation that the legislator is merely playing politics, as DaPonte opens his first reply:

I'm writing in response to your letter to Senate President Paiva Weed this date regarding the state's fiscal crisis. I would point out to you that the press was in receipt of the letter before Senator Paiva Weed received it. Thus, it must be admitted that the suspicion that your letter is motivated more by politics than public policy, is not easily dismissed.

What a mind-numbingly stupid attitude. Apparently, Senate Finance Committee Chairman DaPonte is not sufficiently well versed in American political philosophy to understand that our system is designed to spur government officials to behave according to political incentives. We don't have a governing hierarchy of policy wonks. We have a system in which politicians stake out the ground likely to gain them the most public support, in keeping with their own beliefs and priorities, and pursue policies accordingly, within the bounds of checks, balances, and federalist procedures.

One can't help but wonder whether DaPonte's (and Murphy's) failure to comprehend such a basic principle has something to do with their sense of permanence — of being an unimpeachable class of Public Servants.

Contrasting Healthcare Fora

I've just received word that I will be allowed to do my liveblogging, YouTubing thing at Congressman Patrick Kennedy's limited-attendance healthcare forum, on Saturday. We can then compare and contrast the candidate, audience, and message with State Representative John Loughlin's healthcare town hall meeting in Tiverton on Wednesday.

Disappointing First Definition

So we've all supported the right of the Moderate Party to form, and it's been an interesting process. Now that Ken Block has achieved the milestone of officiality, however, the big question is what the group actually means by "moderate." The 4E marketing — economy, ethics, education, and the environment — is tantamount to declaring, "We're for everything good and nothing controversial." The general assumption, bolstered by the involvement of Arlene Violet, is that this translates into Republicanism minus social issues — or, more likely, capitulating on social issues.

It's disappointing, therefore, to see this be the first political shot taken by the party's new executive director, Christine Hunsinger, previously press secretary for Elizabeth "I thank the House leadership for letting me attend this OCG event" Dennigan:

"Governor Carcieri's performance — if we're grading it — I'm going to flunk him," Hunsinger said. "This thing with unions is a shell game. Whatever deal he strikes will bind the hands of the next governor. I think it's smoke and mirrors. They're just playing around and it's bad policy."

It's entirely possible that reporter Steve Peoples plucked this statement from a wide-ranging list of complaints about both major parties in all branches of government, but it also wouldn't be surprising if Hunsinger provided it as her one specific statement in a warm, fuzzy discussion about her new job. Either way, the Moderate Party's first tentative steps toward real political action are not encouraging. When the microphone is placed before her, whom does Hunsinger attack? The corrupt and absent General Assembly, which holds most of the power? The system of mutual background support across government branches? The social welfare empire? The public employee union machine? No. She "flunks" the governor. Ms. Dennigan couldn't have said it better.

The Moderates' challenge remains self-definition, and at this moment, that appears to require disproof of the impression of political hacks seeking indecisive voters.

Democrats' Use of the Office of Governor

As evidence of the suggestion, in this morning's vlog, that Rhode Island Democrats mainly utilize the governor's office as a scapegoat, I present Travis Rowley's calling out of Senator John Tassoni (D., Smithfield) for his obvious attempts to hand the General Assembly's garbage to the governor:

Perhaps worse than their inability to fiscally restrain themselves is the Democrats' dereliction of duty, showcased by Tassoni's admission that "we were gonna pass [the budget] with the $68 million, uh, issue. And then we would get back and try to figure out how we would get to that $68 million. But obviously we didn't have, we didn't go back." Yeah, take your time, Senator.

This year's budget bill passed on June 30, and nearly two months passed before Governor Carcieri officially announced his 12-day furlough plan — two months of ballooning deficits for Rhode Island taxpayers, and two months of beach volleyball for Senator Tassoni.

Travis's broader response to Tassoni's rhetoric is spot on. The next question, of course, is whether Rhode Islanders see it, as well, and see it as a problem.

Vlog #7: Draft So-and-So

Whether it's an off-season taste or the initiation of the 2010 election season on Anchor Rising time will tell, but my vlog this week concerns the practice of "drafting" candidates for office; specifically for governor:

Gov Orders Defunding of ACORN-RI

Press release of an hour ago:

With the recent revelations of alleged fraudulent and potentially illegal activity by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) being reported across the country, Governor Carcieri today ordered all department directors and state agencies to immediately identify and cease any payments being made directly to ACORN-RI or indirectly to any of its affiliates.

"It is unconscionable for a single dime of taxpayer money be spent to support an organization that is engaged in this type of activity," said Governor Carcieri. "I am ordering a review of each state department, agency, and quasi-public agency to determine if ACORN is benefitting from taxpayer dollars."

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to deny all federal funding for ACORN nationally in response to numerous incidents where the organization was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities at multiple ACORN offices nationwide. The U.S. Senate voted to deny all federal funding to ACORN earlier in the week.

The Governor is also asking the State Board of Elections to review the legal status of the ACORN-RI political action committee. "If ACORN-RI has used either Federal or State taxpayer dollars to support its political agenda, this activity must stop, and the Board of Elections must take appropriate legal actions against the organization."

The Fallacy of Victimless Prostitution

My last post on "Pro-Prostitution Progressivism" generated a debate on the conservative/libertarian side. Justin entered the fray and, after some back-and-forth in the comments, expanded his thoughts, touching on political philosophy, ideology and making assumptions about those with whom you disagree. Those were his thoughts.

As for me, my opposition to indoor prostitution doesn't stem from some overarching political ideology. Call me old-fashioned (!), but I have the funny notion that people selling their bodies for money is neither empowering nor can it be sufficiently sanitized as an economic transaction to remove the emotional and physical scars said "entrepreneurs" will undoubtedly suffer. Face it: this isn't a profession that most would choose. Little Suzie or Joey don't put "Prostitute" at the top of their "What do I want to do when I grow up" list.

Prostitution is most often a last, desperate means to an end. It's a way to make money to support a habit. Or it's a "career path" people "choose" when under the thumb of those looking to exploit them for financial gain. It may not be particularly incisive or sufficiently philosophical, but my gut tells me that legalizing prostitution isn't going to clean up the "industry" or save us money in law enforcement dollars or provide a great new business opportunity for young entrepreneurs.

Until recently, I didn't know that Australia had legalized prostitution a decade ago. Now it offers a cautionary tale that shows that legalization is no panacea and that human trafficking goes up when prostitution is legalized:

Ten years ago, Australia made a risky policy move it thought would help protect women and children: it legalized prostitution. Today, only 10% of the prostitution industry operates in Australia's legal brothels. The other 90% takes place in underground, illegal sex markets thick with forced prostitution and human trafficking victims.

The University of Queensland Working Group on Human Trafficking recently released a report stating that the prostitution laws in Australia had failed. Since 1999, women in Australia have had the option of working legally in licensed brothels or on their own. The hope was that women with an entrepreneurial spirit and a passion for commercial sex would set up their own businesses, and make everything safe, legal, and regulated. That hasn't happened.

What has happened, instead, is entrepreneurial pimps have lured and trafficked Asian women to Australia and set up illegal brothels with lower prices....And as legal brothels try and compete with the trafficking boom, they cut costs, which often involves cutting freedom and benefits for women. Even in the legal, licensed brothels of Queensland, women have reported being coerced into working under unfair conditions or against their will. {It's not a stretch to suppose that some would think this last could be alleviated via unionization, no?}

There are two major consequences of the legalization of prostitution. First, the institutional officialization (legalization) of sex markets strengthens the activities of organized pimping and organized crime. Secondly, such strengthening, accompanied by a significant increase in prostitution-related activities and in trafficking, brings with it a deterioration not only in the general condition of women and children, but also, in particular, that of prostituted people and the victims of trafficking for the purpose of prostitution.

This Just In: General Assembly to Come Out from Under the Bed... at Some Point

From my in-box:

The Rhode Island General Assembly will return for two days next month – October 28 and 29 – to address a number of legislative issues.

Speaker of the House William J. Murphy and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed today jointly announced the October meeting dates. Agendas for the chambers – committees and formal floor sessions -- are currently being determined.

See, this way, they can run a day over and then drop their bombs late on the eve of Halloween. That is, of course, unless they decide to postpone until around Thanksgiving.

The Extremists Among Us

An editorial in the latest RI Catholic takes state Democrat Chairman Bill Lynch to task for calling Governor Carcieri a "sectarian extremist" for associating with the Massachusetts Family Institute. More germane, I'd say, are the following paragraphs from an op-ed in the previous issue by Michelle Cretella and Arthur Goldberg:

As for the premises, first there is no "gay gene." Homosexual attraction is not genetic like skin color. Numerous experts including Dr. Dean Hamer, the openly homosexual "gay gene" researcher and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project agree that homosexuality is not hard-wired by DNA. Avowed lesbian, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Developmental Biology and Women Studies at Brown University, summarized the situation well 8 years ago, "[Although the claim that homosexuality is genetic] provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court, [f]or me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics."

"Bad science" because persons of differing sexual orientation are genetically indistinguishable and sexual orientation can change. Fausto-Sterling herself is an example. She had been married prior to her committed same-sex relationship with playwright Paula Vogel. Regarding her experience of sexual plasticity Fausto-Sterling explains, "The women's movement opened up the feminine in a way that was new to me, and so my involvement made possible my becoming a lesbian."

Over 100 studies document change of homosexual orientation. Even Dr. Robert Spitzer, the father of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, the "Bible of Psychiatry", altered his lifetime view and now supports the right to re-orientation therapy. In 2003 he published a study confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals can make substantial long-term changes in their orientation.

I highlight this section because Lynch's response to the editorial would be that opposition to same-sex marriage is reasonable, but that the MFI goes much farther. His argument, in other words, probably wouldn't differ very much from the statement by Queer Action RI that the Family Institute "basically wants to eradicate gay people." But the MFI does not go any farther, in truth, than Cretella and Goldberg, who in turn do not go any farther than the Catholic Church.

I emailed Mr. Lynch with the specific question of how he differentiates between the "sectarian extremists" of his imagination and the church to which so many Rhode Islanders belong, and I received the following response:

Thank you for your recent email sent to me via the RI Democratic Party. While I may not agree with you I appreciate your sincere interest and thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to inform me of your thoughts on this issue. Regards, Bill Lynch

Clearly, the unlikelihood of my supporting Lynch in any way counts against me in his cost-benefit analysis of considered response, but I don't see how faithful Catholics can support Mr. Lynch in any fashion until he shows enough consideration of their Church to take a moment to explain why they are not "sectarian extremists" of such evil that the governor shouldn't associate with them in any way.

Pro-Prostitution Progressivism?

We've argued (for a while) for closing the loophole in Rhode Island law that enables indoor prostitution. It's an issue upon which conservatives, independents and some progressives have found common ground. For instance, Democratic Rep. Joanne Giannini and URI Women's Studies professor Donna Hughes are just two of several progressives who have kept the pressure on the General Assembly to close this loophole and get tougher on the related practice of human trafficking. Currently, the legislative effort is stalled in the Rhode Island Senate, though there are promises of movement.

Yet, not all progressives agree with closing the loophole. Some continue to oppose making indoor prostitution illegal, basically arguing that current efforts to close the loophole, if successful, will only further victimize those who have turned to prostitution. Though I don't agree with him on the issue of legalizing prostitution, Brian Hull has probably set forth the most cogent argument and, like other progressives, seeks to delineate between sex-trafficking and prostitution. (I do agree with Hull on some things, particularly when it comes to rehabilitating prostitutes. For instance, there has to be a better way to reduce recidivism than the fine-them-back-the-streets approach).

More recently, Hull has defended the practice of indoor prostitution ("Criminalizing Prostitution Will Be Very Bad for RI"), stating that:

...by criminalizing prostitution, the state sacrifices people’s personal freedom to engage in consensual commercial sex work in order to 'protect' a small number of exploited sex workers who could and should be protected using other mechanisms, but aren’t.

But some pro-prostitution progressives will go much farther than advocating with the pen (or pixel). Over the last week, employees of the progressive organization ACORN in three offices (first Baltimore, then Washington, D.C. and New York) encouraged the setting up of bordello's--"indoor prostitution" businesses--and even lent guidance on how to avoid paying taxes, etc. Worse yet, they offered advice on how to engage in the illegal sex-trafficking of minors from places like El Salvador to the United States. It seems that, at least to these ACORN offices, prostitution and sex-trafficking are linked. And are to be encouraged.

RI Government, a Metastasizing Atrophy

Laments Terry Gorman, of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement: "It gets more difficult to go in good faith to testify when it seems to be a foregone conclusion that citizens' opinions do not matter." After all, why waste the time making echoes in the great hollow space of a governmental "sham"?

This state of affairs will end, one way or another — either correction or collapse — and the balance of the hourglass suggests that the latter is inevitable. Worse, there's nobody on the periphery of state government who could effect the necessary changes, and we'd need multiple somebodies in any case.

The conclusion with which we're left — call it an exhortation — is for folks with common sense, integrity, and a potential for dedication to take up the reins in their cities and towns so that they'll be in a position to begin rebuilding state government properly after it falls, rather than allowing the same old same olds to pile it back together on another foundation of reeds.

ProJo's Portrait of State Worker Plight Strikes Questionable Tone

In a state with 13% unemployment and high taxes that go, in part, to fund the not ungenerous compensation of public employees such as Ms. Esposito, do you suppose the Providence Journal thinks they're doing public employees a favor with stories such as this in yesterday's paper?

Linda Esposito, a keeper of vital records for the state Health Department, says Governor Carcieri should stop picking on state workers every time there’s a financial crisis.

“Unfortunately, the governor feels that when there’s a problem, state employees are the first people he looks to, to help fix the problem,” Esposito said. Layoffs “are just going to add to the unemployment lines,”

* * *

In Esposito’s department, where births, deaths and marriage records are filed, public hours were cut in half in February; the department has shrunk through attrition and “we’re all in there trying to pick up the slack,” she said. “I’m a single working parent. It hits us the hardest, with only one paycheck. That’s the thing, if I don’t pay my rent to my landlord, I’m going to be out on the street. The state has to manage its money better.”

Give some workers credit; it appears that they politely declined to comment when buttonholed.

Esposito was one of a few state workers who agreed to speak about the imbroglio between Carcieri, state workers and their unions, over shutdown days and potential layoffs.

“No, thank you” and “All set, thank you,” and “No comment,” were the more frequent responses from state workers who ate lunch outside the Department of Administration building at One Capitol Hill yesterday.

One gentleman even got the source of the problem right.

But [Ted] Cooper places the blame with legislators, who “kind of stuck [Carcieri] with the budget.”

All in all, however, it's difficult to believe that an article consisting mainly of this motif

“I can’t take anymore cuts in pay,” said [state worker Peter] Blais. “I just keep losing money. You get an increase of so many percent, but then you start getting more taken out” for health insurance.

would be near the top of the to-do list of a p.r. professional seeking to advance the position of the public employee in this state.

Stand Above the Political Mire on Ground of Authority

We're right, I think to take a moment to flag the suspicious belief of the Rhode Island judiciary that processes must default in the favor of the state's special interests while the judges have their moment to review and direct the minute management details of the government's operation. Layman that I am, it's entirely possible that I'm missing some nuance (or even misreading the legal arguments), but yesterday's court proceedings trace as follows:

1. Superior Court Associate Justice Michael Silverstein ruled that the clock did not allow him sufficient time to hear and consider the arguments for and against halting the implementation of Governor Carcieri's executive order for government shutdown days, but that he considered precedent for issuing a stay on judicial action (i.e., allowing the shutdown day to proceed) pending arbitration to be clear, and he did so (PDF). He also allowed that, should the Supreme Court immediately vacate his stay, he would begin hearings with the intention of reaching a decision about halting the shutdown day sometime in the afternoon.
2. The union lawyers ran to the Supreme Court.
3. Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg stated that the Superior Court judge "failed to address plaintiffs' request for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to stay, pending arbitration, the implementation of Executive Order 09-20." She thereupon, without argument, granted the unions' request to halt the shutdown and brought the case into the Supreme Court's hands for September 11 review (PDF).
4. Governor Carcieri stated that he's been left with no alternative other than layoffs and has asked his department heads to compile a list of the state's 1,000 most recent hires for the purpose of beginning layoff notifications.

Again, speaking as a layperson, McKenna Goldberg's reasoning strikes me as inaccurate to the point of dishonesty and the related ruling as predetermined. Silverstein didn't fail to address the unions' request; he failed to grant it, and that outcome shouldn't have been a foregone conclusion. That said, let's be honest about the effect: If the Supreme Court finds in the governor's favor, then the state can still schedule its twelve shutdown days, albeit perhaps with an additional speed bump of arbitration. Of course, as time passes, the number of days without employees becomes more disruptive, but the judiciary hasn't yet issued an opinion on the executive's authority.

The most destructive outcome, in my opinion, is the continued operation of state government as if its purpose is to produce cliffhangers to bring us to the edge of our seats for the commercial breaks. What will the legislature do? What will the governor do? What will the unions and the courts do? Oh, the drama!

What we need is consistent, predictable leadership. The governor should already have had in his hand a list of every state employee in the order in which they would be laid off, as well as deadlines by which the state's dramatists in the legislature, unions, and courts would have to conclude their performances in order to prevent the pink slips from flowing.

Right now, the process is a deck of reactive wildcards, and it's little wonder that all of the decision makers think they can leave the governor holding the political bag. He could completely turn the cards on them, though, if he articulated his understanding of his responsibilities and authority — "if not shutdowns, I can only begin firing" — and broadcast the next step before each milestone in the wrangling process.

To some extent, that's what he's done, but his method has left the arrow pointing at him as the most recent entity to make a decision. Post the list online. Draw red lines after the appropriate employees, marking how much money must be saved by which date in order to prevent all employees above the line from losing their jobs. And, while we're at it, bring some other wish-list items into the spotlight — explaining, for example, that only the legislature can halt certain costly mandates and giveaways.

If anything has become clear over the past few years, it is that Rhode Islanders cannot, as a body, infer cause and effect beyond the previous day's news cycle and the next day's revenue report. Let's bring transparency to the next level: namely, describing what will happen in the future. If the judges find that the governor doesn't have the authority to do X unilaterally, and if the relevant special interest won't agree to do X mutually, all by a certain date, then Y will be the consequence.

Union Bosses Win: 1,000 Brothers and Sisters to be Laid Off

After a long day, the state employee union leaders got their wish when Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg overturned Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein's decision and granted a stay of the implementation of Governor Carcieri's plan to have 12 shut-down days in an attempt to save money. The result: 1,000 state workers will now be laid off. In a statement (h/t Cynthia Needham at 7to7), the Governor wrote:

"It should greatly disturb every state employee and every Rhode Islander that labor leaders are willing to sacrifice people's jobs so they can maintain their stranglehold on the citizens of this state....This decision by Justice McKenna Goldberg may just be the straw that broke the camel's back, sending this state down the path to financial ruin, as it gives greater weight to union and special interest demands rather than the fiscal reality of the state and the employment of state workers. Preventing the state from moving forward with the shutdown days cripples our ability to address growing budget gaps, and stops the executive branch from fulfilling its constitutional duty to balance the state's budget."

Conflict Is a Big Black Marker

Developments in Woonsocket are fascinating:

Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist has warned School Committee members that they could be sued and Supt. Robert J. Gerardi could have his superintendent's certification questioned if the committee follows through on its threat to defy state rulings on hiring new staff for its literacy program. ...

She warned the committee that willfully failing to comply with state and federal education laws could provide "good cause" to examine Gerardi's state certification as a superintendent. It could also leave the School Committee members personally liable under federal and state laws that require government officials to fairly discharge their duties and enforce the laws that apply to their positions.

School Committee Chairman Marc A. Dubois said the response to the committee's Wednesday night vote was not a surprise, but the tone was.

"I expected a reaction," he said, "but not as harsh or personal."

It would be easy to scoff that Dubois had a small-town understanding of the role and responsibility of municipal school committees and didn't comprehend the powers with which he was contending, and there may prove to be a certain amount of accuracy to that assessment if he is unwilling to face consequences of which is legal council should have been able to warn. More central, though, is his apparent expectation that the conflict would more immediately be addressed at a higher level of authority. If Commissioner Gist had moved the conflict up the chain in the form of an inquiry — perhaps to the judiciary — it would have entered the purview of somebody able to dictate a broader range of changes. Hearing Dubois's complaints, a judge might have gone so far as to prescribe a course of action for the school committee or the town council, thus absolving the locals of the blame.

But Gist chose to halt the process with a test of her own remedies' strength. Inasmuch as she lacks a police force, threats will have to be carried out from above, anyway, but her order for the town to address the issue will be first in line. In other words, before a judge decides whether the Woonsocket School Committee is correct in its claim that the members are merely choosing between conflicting laws and resolves the matter for them, he or she must consider the weight of the education commissioner's assessment that they are shirking their responsibility as government officials.

In essence, the question will be whether the committee's responsibility to taxpayers, and the authority deriving therefrom, or its obligation to enact state education policy is primary. Opinions about which outcome would be preferable likely break along the lines of reform strategies:

• If the commissioner's authority is such that she can manage municipal finances under threat of superintendent decertification and challenges to elected officials' execution of their legal duties, then we've got a system of de facto regionalization, with Gist as the statewide executive.
• If the commissioner is unable to assert her authority in this way, towns across the state will be more inclined to test their capacity for unilateral decisions, expanding the range of options open to local officials when setting policies for cities and towns.

Those who see locals as too weak and incompetent to stand against powerful interests (mainly the unions) should welcome the stronger hand of a state-level administrator. Those who see municipal offices as the most accountable to voters and available for change should prefer an education commissioner whose authority extends pretty much to the setting of guidelines and performance of assessment.

Personally, I'm of the latter mind. An authoritarian commissioner may, at first, mix forced property tax increases with new restrictions on union power, but the unions are massive organizations with endless resources, and after the initial round of hits, they'll direct those resources toward controlling the single seat in which the power of public education in Rhode Island will have been made to reside.

What's the Procedure for Impeaching Legislators?

As a general proposition, Rhode Islanders should be more comfortable in the absence of their legislators, but this is a jaw dropper:

House Speaker William J. Murphy has notified lawmakers in his chamber that the House will not return next week, as originally contemplated, but on Oct. 7 and 8.

It remains unclear what the lawmakers will do when they reconvene, and whether they will be open to considering new legislation, acting on the handful of high-profile bills that languished at the end of the regular session in June, or simply overriding vetoes.

Don't some of the governor's methods of balancing the budget require legislative approval? Won't the cost only grow as time passes with no resolution? Does legislative negligence at some point become criminal?

(Initially spotted by Mike Cappelli.)

They Must Have Some Thoughts, Mustn't They?

From a Providence Journal editorial on the General Assembly's annual avoidance of structural change:

And this series of cuts may be minuscule compared with the ones Rhode Island may face soon. Ms. Mumford estimates that the state may confront a $1.2 billion deficit in the coming months, given overly optimistic forecasts of tax revenues in a bum economy. Former Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey warned that "the deficit could be north of $800 million and is leading to insolvency." As painful as the state's 12-day shutdown will be, the savings from that measure — $17.3 million — pale in comparison with such eye-popping potential deficit numbers.

And Rhode Island faces the question of what to do when the hundreds of millions of federal stimulus dollars that have been used to sustain government budgets run dry.

Do you suppose most legislators have some sort of a strategy list, such as:

• First, hope for things to work themselves out.
• If that doesn't work, trim some blatant fat.
• If that doesn't work, raise taxes.
• If that doesn't work, cut social services.
• And so on.

Or are most of them just winging it — trying not to think about the inevitable.?

The Rhode Island Lack-of-Blame Game

Whether by ignorance or deceit, there's a curious omission from the Providence Journal's coverage of Governor Carcieri's plan to bring the state government's budget out of deficit. It's not in the summary article by Cynthia Needham and Katherine Gregg. It's not in the article conveying state workers' anger, by Richard Dujardin. And at best, it receives a vague allusion in Barbara Polichetti's article about municipal mayors/managers' anger, when East Providence Mayor Joseph Larisa says, "We understand why this is being imposed."

Inasmuch as the alerts of Dan Yorke and Matt Allen are broadcast fleetingly over the radio, one has to dig deep into the comments section of the middle link, above, to find it stated by somebody calling him or her self TPaine:

If the General Assembly continues to be spineless cowards, then it is up to the governor to get the budget in line. Since the General Assembly removed the Governor's power to remove items from the budget (something 38 OTHER governors have) last decade, the tools at his disposal are blunt and heavy. Blame the General Assembly that you all elected. You reap what you sow.

So far, five out of six people have given the comment a thumbs down.

The bottom line is that the General Assembly handed Carcieri the requirement to find some $68 million in "unspecified cuts." The governor's authority to actually make cuts has a limited scope, while the Democrats in the GA have the entirety of state expenditures at their disposal. The gnashing of teeth that we're hearing, today, is orchestrated and loosely conducted by a design that directs heat away from the den of Rhode Island's corruption. With another $65 million that apparently must be found to make up for the final deficit of the last budget year, that heat is reaching furious temperatures.

In conversation after the recent picnic hosted by the Rhode Island Republican Assembly, I half-joked that the RIGOP should forswear all state-level races in the next election cycle. Focus resources at the national and municipal levels, but let the Democrats own the hollow center. Based on the electoral results, last time around, the broad failure of the state's mainstream media to explore beyond the scripted political outline, and the absence of substantial healthy skepticism among the general public, one can only prescribe an emulation of God's lesson for Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16:43: "Because you did not remember what happened when you were a girl, but enraged me with all these things, therefore in return I am bringing down your conduct upon your head."

When a structure is rotted to its very foundation and the owner refuses any expense beyond minimal cosmetics, the only remaining possibility is to allow its collapse, clear the rubble, and rebuild something new.

RI Radio Town Hall Meeting: Senators Reed & Whitehouse on WPRO with DePetro

Senators Reed and Whitehouse will appear together on the WPRO Morning News with John DePetro tomorrow morning, 7:30 - 8:30. Yes, they will be taking calls and questions:

(401) 438-9776

(800) 321-9776

And Then There Are the Judgeships

Per Anchor Rising's rule of thumb for whether inside connections should disqualify one from receiving a particular appointment: After an exhaustive nationwide search, the governor has nominated... his chief of staff to fill a Superior Court opening. I'd say the nomination doesn't pass the test.

Again, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that people who've been in government and law for years know the ropes and that familiarity is a valid consideration for nominations, but at this point, enough damage is done to Rhode Island by the perception and reality that the government is a self-rewarding spoils system that it outweighs these benefits. Some might suggest that some positions would be more difficult to fill if accepting them foreclosed other possibilities in the future, but such are the decisions of life.