38 Studios Loan Guarantee: the General Treasurer Pivots, Then Switches to Offense

Further to Andrew's post. Remember that it was just last month that the G.T. was telling Ian Donnis that he favors the Schilling deal.

Now, however,

R.I. General Treasurer Frank T. Caprio said Tuesday he is attempting to block the state’s $75 million loan guarantee promised to Curt Schilling’s video game company, urging the rating agencies reviewing the deal to hold off until a new administration is in office.

Caprio, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, said he voiced concerns about the loan guarantee to Moody’s Investors Service on Monday and to Standard & Poor’s on Tuesday morning. Both agencies have been commissioned by the state and Schilling’s 38 Studios to issue bond ratings on the deal for institutional investors.

Jeepers, he's mucking around with the bond rating agencies.

Look, no question, this is a bad idea. The loan guarantees issued recently to 38 Studios and other companies should be the last ones issued by the state. We cannot substitute taxpayer funded loan guarantees for the good business climate that the General Assembly inexplicably refuses to create. So I'm pleased that anyone, with or without a bully pulpit, would speak out against this arrangement.

What's confusing is the G.T.'s volte face. Keep in mind that this is his area of expertise. Wasn't he well positioned to examine and understand all aspects of this guarantee before he gave the thumbs up to Ian D? So what has changed in the last thirty days that this went from a deal for which the state should do "everything in a top-shelf fashion" to "a risky moral obligation for the state, which could adversely affect the state’s bond rating"?

Laffey Leaves

Well, it's old news now, but Steve Laffey and family have up and moved to Colorado.

In May -- a month after he canceled a Tea Party speaking engagement in Rhode Island -- Laffey paid $2 million for a four-bedroom home in Fort Collins. An MLS listing states that the house was sold on May 25: it was recorded in Larimer County records on May 26.

The property, nestled in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, includes 36 acres of land, a music room, exercise room, art studio, barn, tack room, and a pond, the listing states.

Laffey and his wife, Kelly, registered to vote in Colorado on July 21st, according to Nancy Wurl of the Larimer County Voter Registration office.

Laffey, the darling of the conservative movement in Rhode Island and one-time U.S. Senate candidate, registered as a Republican. He missed the deadline for voting in the state's primary election this month.

"We are now sending notification to Rhode Island that he registered here," so that his Rhode Island voter registration can be canceled, Wurl said on Thursday.

ADDENDUM: I didn't mean to cop out, there. It's not exactly speculative to conclude that the Laffeys simply thought it best for their family to move to Colorado and it's hard to take them to task for that personal decision. Putting a finer point on it--whether you agree or disagree with his prescriptions--Laffey was one of the most passionate politicians in recent memory. He truly believed he could help his home state but was discouraged when not enough people seemed to be willing to make the changes along with him and he publicly said as much. After years of going "all in" with Rhode Island, it looks like he decided to cut his losses and move on. At least for now.

Robert Healey, On the Diffusion of his Lieutenant Governor's Platform

At Saturday's Tenth Amendment rally at the Rhode Island Statehouse, I had the chance to interview Robert Healey on a number of different subjects. The crassly-political subject was his candidacy for Lieutenant Governor. I asked Mr. Healey about what he thought of the fact that both Republican candidate Heidi Rogers and Democratic candidate Jeremy Kapstein seem to have adopted modified versions of his we-can-eliminate-the-office platform...

"It's very interesting. I think that Heidi Rogers, the Republican candidate, understands the concept of limited government and is embracing that idea. And I think that Jeremy Kapstein, in the radio debate the other day, indicated that if the Governor and the legislature don't give him the jobs portfolio, or an economic development portfolio for him to carry out, he sees the office as worthless too..."

Audio: 1 min 3 sec

"[Mr. Kapstein] is always saying 'Well, Mr. Healey can't abolish the office by himself, it will take a Constitutional amendment'; he'll say 'Constitutional Convention', which is wrong, it will take a Constitutional amendment. I have never, ever indicated that I can do this individually...I can make sure that without a staff and without pay it is in essence abolished..."

Audio: 44 sec

"But he's pretty clear that the Lieutenant Governor has no function and is just really a waste of time, energy and effort, if he doesn't have [the job portfolio]. And if you think of the logic, ok, don't give me the job portfolio, then I'll have nothing to do. Well, that means that he doesn't have the job portfolio now, ergo, there is nothing to do...It's a million dollars a year. It's a waste of money..."

Audio: 55 sec

Power Politics Illustrated

In a recent column having to do with Warwick GOP infighting, former Democrat City Council and School Committee Chair Bob Cushman explained the machinations that go on at the party level amongst the power brokers in Warwick.

[Councilman Steve] Colantuano in 2006 ran and was defeated in the Democrat primary by me. In 2008, he once again met with the Democrat Ward 1 chairperson and was unsuccessful in his attempt to acquire the endorsement. Fearful of losing in the Democrat primary again, he switched to the Republican Party at the last minute, receiving their endorsement along with the promise of a legion of volunteers and thousands of dollars to support his campaign. Mayor Avedisian personally contributed $1,000, the maximum amount allowed by law, to his campaign....

The old political adage – make your adversary your supporter – has been a key to Mayor Avedisian’s success since Republicans haven’t had more then two members on the City Council in over 10 years. The mayor has been so successful that he has literally crippled the Democrat party, and in the process, undermined the concept of separation of powers.

The legislative branch has effectively become a yes-man for the mayor. In return for not only political support but also for the jobs and appointed board positions the mayor has given their family and friends, these candidates, once elected, support his legislation, sponsor his appointments, and give him control over the legislative process....With new first-time Republican candidates for City Council in Danny Hall in Ward 5 and Mike Mulholland in Ward 6, who seem to have a mindset independent of the administration, challenging pro-Avedisian Democrats, will they receive the same campaign cash from the mayor and support from Warwick’s Republican Party that Mr. Colantuano received two years ago? I seriously doubt it.

Heads Up, EDC, Looks Like You'll Have a Visitor at Tomorrow's Meeting (Though the Gov Tried to Dissuade Him)

On Thursday, Governor Carcieri's office released the two page letter in which he declines a request by former Senator Chafee's to meet with the EDC board to express his objection to the process by which a $75 million state loan guarantee was given to 38 Studios.

In response to your request to meet with the Board, I must respectfully decline. It is inappropriate for the EDC to become engaged in this political campaign. Your concerns have been fully communicated.

Nevertheless, the senator has vowed to attend anyway, though public comments are not part of the EDC agenda.

Senator Chafee still plans on going to the Monday meeting of the RIEDC Board in the hope that he will be allowed to speak the meeting as a citizen and taxpayer.

In Action: Queen Weed and Her Highly Selective Hearing

Good job, Operation Clean Government.

Operation Clean Government (OCG) has posted a video on YouTube of the June 1st Senate session when Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and Majority Leader Daniel Connors used "bully tactics" to squash a floor vote on a controversial bill sponsored by Senator Marc Cote, (D), Woonsocket and cosponsored by 18 members of the Senate. ...

Viewers might wonder in disbelief as they observe the Senate President as she does not allow Senator Cote the usual procedure of addressing his bill and therefore his microphone is never turned on. Additionally she ignores the request for a roll call vote.

... OCG has taken no position on this legislation. We strongly take issue with the leadership not allowing a committee vote, or, in this last session, a floor vote on this substantive legislation.

A Clean Slate for Rhode Island

The new promotional link in the AR Headlines section will bring you to the Web site of the RIGOP's Clean Slate initiative, which seeks to support Republican and independent candidates for public office, specifically the General Assembly, in Rhode Island. The pictures that cycle on the screen include many regular Anchor Rising readers, so we first of all thank them for putting forward the effort.

As RIGOP Chairman Gio Cicione said at a press conference, Monday:

"Too often, voters feel powerless to fix what ails Rhode Island. Too often we are faced with indistinguishable choices at the ballot box. Too often, we vote for a name we recognize because we don't have any better reason at hand.

"This year will be different. This year voters will be presented with a clear choice," he said."So we stand here today, advocating for a peaceful overthrow of the system," he said. "The system is out of balance, the leaders lie to the people with no repercussions, and the state continues a downward spiral."

Given the extremity of Rhode Island's economic problems, it is astonishing that the legislature has taken such baby steps — minimal tweaks to pensions, a numbers game with taxes — in the direction that we all know to be necessary. That isn't going to change unless the actual people who make up that body change first.

Hey, If Former Senate President Irons Had Held Up a Bank, the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court Would Have Been Contingent upon His Holding Office, Too

Kudos to Katherine Gregg at the Providence Journal for uncovering this, which she broke a couple of hours ago.

Former Senate President William V. Irons took $25,385 out of his long-running campaign account to pay legal bills he amassed while fighting ethics charges that resulted in the Rhode Island Supreme Court decision last year that effectively freed state lawmakers from Ethics Commission scrutiny and prosecution.

In his last report to the state Board of Elections, filed July 22, before closing out his account, Irons attributed the $25,385 expenditure to: "Other.''

Using campaign contributions for non-campaign legal fees? That's not kosher, is it? Well, apparently it is, if you can somehow get an official sign-off.

On April 21, elections board chairman John A. Daluz advised Irons, in writing, that state law "permits the expenditure of campaign funds for any expense that results from campaign or office-holder activity.'

"Since the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission was contingent upon you holding office, reimbursement of legal fees related to ethics complaints are the result of office-holder activities and are therefore allowable,'' he wrote.

This is a definitional stretch that makes a mockery of Rhode Island's campaign finance laws.

Brown Poll

In the latest Brown U. Poll, Frank Caprio has, for the first time, taken a small lead over Lincoln Chafee in the race for governor (though it's a statistical dead heat).

If the general election for governor were held today, 27.9 percent of people would vote for Caprio, and 26.5 percent would support Chafee. These numbers are within the margin of error, making the race between Caprio and Chafee a statistical tie. However, about more than 30 percent of voters are still undecided. Republicans John Robitaille and Victor Moffitt had 7 percent and 2 percent of support, respectively, while Moderate Party candidate Kenneth Block had support from 3 percent of respondents.

Generally speaking, Rhode Islanders are no different than the rest of the nation in their view that the stimulus didn't do much except help government and they don't much like that trend, either:

Nearly one and one-half years later, 49 percent of the respondents hold the view that the economic stimulus bill has not made a difference in the nation’s economy, 73 percent say the stimulus program has not made a difference in their personal financial situation, and 57 percent say the economic stimulus program has not made a difference in their local community.

A majority of respondents say they believe the economic stimulus spending helped state and local governments avoid layoffs and cuts. However, 76 percent of those surveyed say that stimulus spending increased federal budget deficit. Fifty-one percent say the federal government should make it a priority to bring down the deficit, while 33 percent think the federal government should prioritize spending more to help the nation’s economy.

When Government Shouldn't Operate as a Business

Amid examples of failed loan guarantees, Providence Journal reporter Bruce Landis interviews Gary Sasse about the 38 Studios deal, in which a videogame company has $75 million in backing from the state of Rhode Island:

If the company doesn't pay, Sasse pointed out, "The taxpayers of the state would be on the hook."

"You're playing with other people's money," Sasse said, and argued that it's too risky a use of tax money.

He also said that the qualities most important to companies are good schools, a trained work force, low taxes and an infrastructure in good condition. Without them, he said, in the long run other economic development tools such as loan guarantees "aren't going to get you where you want to be."

The cliché — with which I typically agree — that government should run like a business comes to mind, because when it comes to loan guarantees, we're moving beyond the phrase's intent. What government should emulate, in the private sector, is the imperative to provide a better product more efficiently — to pretend that its revenue entails a consensual exchange of money for service that it must justify to the payers.

That is a wholly distinct approach from behaving like a business in the sense of taking financial risks with the hope of making money. Even mitigated risk is inappropriate when the investors (taxpayers, in this case) have no choice but to participate and do not have clear, direct rewards to which they are contractually entitled should things work out well.

A Pat on the Back for the Undeserving

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that somebody is willing to cheerlead Rhode Island's governing class. Here's Donna Cupelo, admiral of the Rhode Island Commodores, a group of "top business and civic leaders":

There was something different about this year's legislative session, several Rhode Island Commodores said after attending an upbeat bill-signing ceremony with speeches by Gov. Donald Carcieri, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed and House Speaker Gordon Fox. (The Commodores is a group of more than 325 top business and civic leaders.)

A sense of respect, commitment and cooperation among these elected leaders seemed more evident than ever and a "let's get the job done" spirit produced some laws that will have a far-reaching impact on our state's economic future.

From my seat in steerage, that camaraderie is indicative of nothing so much as the successful decision to keep back-room deals out of public view. And the consequence is a bad wind energy deal and a can kicked farther down the road, over which Cupelo blithely stumbles:

The board's members are pleased that these leaders heeded the call to tackle the challenge of personal-income-tax reform by bringing Rhode Island's top tax rate of 9.9 percent down to 5.99 percent. That will put our state in line with our neighboring states and improve our national ranking and competitiveness. We believe these changes are an investment in our future and will make Rhode Island more competitive as it aggressively pursues new jobs for our families and young graduates who are looking to make Rhode Island a permanent home.

Never mind that lowering the top rate, while eliminating the flat tax, actually resulted in higher taxes for those who will pay it. Never mind that the reform looks likely to penalize active and economically engaged residents who are striving to improve their lot. It's an appropriately Rhode Island strategy, though: Working folks who haven't yet achieved the easier sailing of upper middle class lack the time and resources to hire savvy financial advisers or to change their residence in order to procure the best tax deal may be sufficiently fooled not to react to the reality that they're stuck in somebody else's scheme.

Warwick School Committee Chooses the Tough Path

Faced with an insurmountable $13 million cut in state and local funding, the Warwick School Committee voted to freeze pay and impose a 20% health care co-pay for all of its employees last night.

Before the vote, School Committee Chairman Chris Friel stressed that these are not actions the district wants to take but it has no choice faced with insufficient funding for its budget of about $161 million for the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

He said the district did not want to cut programs that directly affect students, such as sports, gifted classes, mentoring and all extracurricular activities.

The action is in apparent violation of the School Department's contract with its roughly 1,000 teachers represented by the Warwick Teachers Union, with teachers slated to lose a 2.75 percent raise this year....The leaders of the two unions that represent almost all school employees - the teachers union and the Warwick Independent School Employees union - vowed that they will respond with swift court action.

"I feel stabbed in the back," teachers union president James Ginolfi said, noting that the first he and other union executives heard of the School Committee's plan was less than an hour before it took action in executive session.

"We listened to what they had to say and said we'd get back to you," Ginolfi said, adding that the school board is sending a public message that it has no regard for a legal agreement. "I am shocked," he said.

When the Pack Shifts to the Back

Bruce Lang makes an excellent point:

Now something unexpected has happened that can help us greatly: Almost every state in the country now is having big financial problems! So if Rhode Island has the courage and discipline, we can legitimately catapult our great little state into the upper ranks of states’ standings. Because of our small size, we can reverse our poor performance more easily than most states.

Lang's prescription is hardly revolutionary — lower government expenses, cut taxes, help businesses, and increase government transparency — but it would take an electoral revolution to bring it about. Frankly, I don't think those who prioritize the future above preserving the perks of the past have sufficient numbers (with sufficient motivation) to spur the turnaround.

Being the first into recessions and the last out isn't so bad for those who aren't truly touched by it in any case.

Turnaround Dictator Comes with Big Bucks

If there are going to be public-sector pensions, then judges should receive reasonable ones, and somebody being paid to turn around a failing municipality should be compensated well for undertaking the responsibility, but state Senator William Walaska (D, Warwick) has a point about the amounts involved in Central Falls:

I was outraged when I read that retired Superior Court Judge Mark S. Pfeiffer would accept payment of $200 an hour, up to a cap of $164,000, as the receiver for Central Falls, on top of his $123,490-a-year state pension (Journal: "Retired judge steps in to run finances," July 17). His wife is District Court Judge Pamela Woodcock Pfeiffer, who is paid $148,900 a year. This doesn't even count the money that Judge Pfeiffer is making as an arbitrator.

Unseated mayor Charles Moreau, you might recall, was receiving the healthy sum of $71,736 in salary (plus plenty of perks, no doubt). Why the receiver — who already has much for which to be grateful to the State of Rhode Island — requires twice the mayor's old pay must be (let's just say) above my pay grade to understand.

A Troubling Power Grab from the State

Between its efforts to scrub religious heritage from the public square, the ACLU does occasionally address issues of wider concern, and I agree with its Rhode Island head on the issue of the state's placing Central Falls in receivership:

Brown's problem with the receivership law is Article XIII of the state Constitution, which concerns home rule for cities and towns. It says the General Assembly can pass laws that affect city and town governments, “but which shall not affect the form of government of any city or town ..."

Stripping the mayor of his authority to govern does just that, Brown said.

Speaking for Department of Revenue leader Rosemary Booth Gallogly, spokeswoman Amy Kempe argued that the receivership law is legitimate, in this case, because the elected leaders of the city requested the takeover, but that argument skirts the point. After all, a politically connected mayor shouldn't have the power to ask the state to eliminate his city's governing council, and a city council shouldn't be able to have the state make the mayor a dictator for life. More generally (and less extreme), it should require the explicit consent of the governed for their elected leaders to change their offices, even if they're admitting themselves incompetent rather than declaring themselves all-powerful. For those examples not to be included, the state constitution would require a process — preferably involving a popular vote, at some level — for a city or town to make such requests.

Following this conclusion, one might be tempted to suggest that the appropriate action of the state is to allow Central Falls voters to drive the city into the ground, if they so choose, and hopefully thereby learn their lesson. That Moreau won his office by such a large margin suggests that they've got much learning to do. But here's the problem with that approach:

[The judiciary's appointment of a receiver with powers closer to bankruptcy proceedings] alarmed the nation's bond-rating agencies, which quickly demoted Central Falls' bond rating to junk-bond status and warned state officials that if it was that easy for a Rhode Island municipality to file bankruptcy, they might start downgrading all Rhode Island municipal debt to reflect that risk.

That is: The incompetence of a particular municipality's electorate could affect every other city and town in Rhode Island. I'd suggest, though, that this is a dangerous frame of mind. Bond raters are certain to prefer strong, centralized governments with the power to force large numbers of people to do whatever suits the collective. If anybody needed one, here's another indication of the (sometimes unavoidable) evil of debt.

Brown doesn't affirm the ACLU's intention to challenge the law and, in fact, expresses puzzlement over who would have standing to take the state to court on the matter. It seems to me that any resident of a Rhode Island city or town should have such standing. It's our constitution.

The Cover Provided by 1 Administration Crony

The long, front page piece in Sunday's ProJo about current EMA PR guy Steve Kass reinforces every status-quoists talking point about cutting the fat outta the "administration" or "up top" before slashing the benny's and pay of the average working man and woman at all levels of government. For the truth is that the shuffling of Kass around Governor Carcieri's administration for the sake of, apparently, keeping him on the payroll to the tune of between $100-$200 K in salary and benefits is, quite fairly, viewed as putting the lie to the supposed "shrink government" / "big audit" bona fides of the Governor.

It doesn't matter if one crony's salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the smaller proportions that need to be cut from the wider array of "little guys." Simply put, it looks like cronyism from here, there and everywhere. It's one thing if the Administration damages itself by this inability to not live by it's own rhetoric. But it's much worse than that because such examples are hoisted up to undermine the legitimacy of the ideas that informed the rhetoric that was espoused. And that de-legitimization redounds to the people who actually believe in the efficacy of cutting government and making it leaner for the sake of fiscal sanity. So thanks for that.

Candidates Who Made the Ballot (Coverage Courtesy of Jim Baron at the Paw Times and Definitely Not of Some Apparent Neophyte at Fountain Street) and a Possible Challenge to Candidate Order

Naturally, being agog for the last week about who did and did not made the ballot, I clicked on an article in today's ProJo which looked like it might answer the question. Immediately, however, the headline

They’re off! Candidates for offices across R.I. file paperwork

posed more questions than answers. Candidates had "filed papers" - Notice of Intent to Run for office - over three weeks ago. Nor did the single sentence that comprised the article clarify whether the list of candidates that followed (and were posted on the Sec of State's website) had simply pulled papers or had, indeed, collected enough signatures to be certified for the ballot by the Sec of State. Grrr.

Fortunately, I remembered it had been a while since my last visit to the Pawtucket Times. Ahh - there, in red at the top of the front page, the self-evident headline to a Jim Baron (that's Jim Baron) article

It's official: state certifies nomination papers

confirmed by the first two sentences of the article by the estimable Mr. Baron.

We now know which candidates will be on the ballot for national and statewide offices in the Sept. 14 primary contests and for races where there will be no primary, the Nov. 2 general election. The secretary of state’s office certified the candidates’ nominating papers Friday. Secretary of State Ralph Mollis on Friday

To reiterate, this vital update brought to you by Jim Baron at the Pawtucket Times and not by the statewide paper, who apparently brought in an intern who is enthusiastic but clearly unfamiliar with the state's election process to report on this important development. Please excuse the fuss; it's just that there's nothing more frustrating than a newspaper article on a subject of interest that has been poorly - in this case, incomprehensibly - written.

Now, Baron doesn't stop there. He goes on to report that there may be a (in my opinion, long overdue) challenge to the method by which the state determines the order of candidates on the ballot.

As Mollis was calling out the ballot order as dictated by the ping-pong balls, Independent candidate for governor Joseph Lusi stood and announced he intends to sue to get the process declared unconstitutional.

“I will be filing challenge in to the constitutionality of this,” Lusi declared.

Lusi literally ran away from a Times reporter and photographer who tried to question him about the lawsuit as he left the Statehouse Friday.

Fun! Confirmation of the ballot qualification of candidates PLUS report of a possible political mini-drama. Could a political obsessive ask for better during the normally quiet days of summer?

With regard to the basis of the potential lawsuit, by the way, Mr. Lisi objects to both the existence of the master lever, which automatically excludes votes for non-affiliated (a.k.a. independent) candidates, and to the placement process, codified by the General Assembly, which dictates that non-affiliated candidates will always be last on the ballot after all party candidates. While his objections are most certainly valid - no civilized electoral system offers a master lever - it will be interesting to see whether they are determined to be unconstitutional.

All of this to say that you can click here to check out whether your favorite (or unfavorite) candidate has made the ballot.

Is Rhode Island Getting Full Value of the G.T.'s Time?

The RIGOP is not wrong to raise this matter. (Press release.)

The Rhode Island Republican Party today called on General Treasurer Frank Caprio to account for the value of his time and energy spent campaigning rather than doing the job he was elected to do.

Citing a steady stream of campaign events this week, the RIGOP questioned how Caprio could justify taking his full salary while doing half his job.

“We know that Rhode Island has a reputation for creating ‘no-show’ jobs,” said party Chair Giovanni Cicione, “but usually the people who are slacking off try to avoid the TV cameras when they’re not at work.” “This week Frank managed to dedicate a homeless shelter, attend a taxpayer forum, and participate in a debate, all before the week was half over.”

“Even worse,” continued Cicione, “is that the Democrats called on Gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille to leave his public service job the second he even hinted that he was considering a run for Governor.” “What hypocrisy that Caprio continues to vigorously campaign on the taxpayers dime when he should be working day and night to fix the pension disaster his office is supposed to be managing – it's no wonder the unions, whose members' pensions are at risk, won’t support him.”

Citing a recent Pew Center on the States study that made note of the fact that the Rhode Island pension system had unfunded liability that equaled 277% of covered payroll, giving us a grade of 1 out of a possible 5, and making us the third worst state in terms of pension funding, the RIGOP requests an accounting of the Treasurers time spent campaigning to date and for him to step down if he would prefer, as it seems, to dodge the pension issue and focus on campaigning instead.

UPDATE - GT's office responds

... to Ian Donnis at WRNI, who asked the General Treasurer's Chief of Staff Mark Dingley

whether Caprio has a policy on making up time spent campaigning during business hours

And the reply.

Dingley said Caprio remains “in constant contact with the treasurer’s office,” and “is available to answer any questions” during campaign activities and/or other periods away from the office.

Dingley says he hasn’t discussed with Caprio the question of whether the treasurer should have a plan or policy for making up for campaign time, adding, “It seems like he hasn’t missed a beat.”

Digging into Government

Calling in to the Matt Allen Show, Wednesday night, Andrew described the series of posts on and pending on Anchor Rising addressing some of the basic facts of Rhode Island governance. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

The Nine RISC Business Network Endorsed Candidates

Interesting mixture of Dems, Repubs and Independents; incumbents and challengers.

House

Lisa Baldelli-Hunt (D, Woonsocket) - Incumbent facing a primary

Jon D. Brien (D, Woonsocket) - Incumbent facing a primary

Douglas W. Gablinske (D, Bristol) - Incumbent facing a primary

Brian Newberry (R, North Smithfield) - Incumbent

Stephanie Santos Sivalingam (R, East Providence) - Challenging John Savage in Primary

Senate

Sean Gately (R, Cranston) - Challenging Bea Lanzi

Ed O'Neill (I, Lincoln) - Incumbent

Chris Ottiano (R, Portsmouth) - Challenging C. Levesque

Michael Pinga (D, West Warwick) - Incumbent facing a primary

Patrick Lynch Dropping Out

WPRO's Steve Klamkin report during the 6:30 am news that the AG will be withdrawing from the governor's race sent me to projo.com which had a confirming article by Katherine Gregg and Tracy Breton on the front page.

On Wednesday, a source close to Lynch said, the two-term attorney general was telling people close to him that he intends to announce at midday Thursday that he is withdrawing.

At this point, “it is when, not if,” the source said.

The AG's chronic, garrulous inability to give a straight answer (Buddy Cianci once noted that if you asked Lynch the time, he'd tell you how to make a swiss watch) has stayed in high gear right to the end.

When asked directly on Tuesday night, as he was leaving a Rhode Island Young Democrats’ event, if he intended to drop out of the race this week, Lynch said: “That’s back again? Listen, you asked me on the way in and the way out. What job am I getting now with the Obama administration? I always thought ambassador to Ireland would be a good one.” But he did not deny it.

Had Lynch become the Dem candidate for gov, I was looking forward to compiling the long list of his politically motivated failures and malfeasances as the people's attorney. (Bad as they were, none came close to his deliberate mishandling of the Station Night Club fire, during which he did not just refuse to prosecute West Warwick Fire Inspector Dennis LaRocque, the man most responsible for the fire, but actively shielded him from the Grand Jury and from being held accountable for all of those deaths and injuries.)

As Klamkin's report was followed by a discussion between John Depetro and Professor Victor Profughi about the feasibility of Lynch returning to politics in due course (presumably after memories have had time to fade somewhat), I won't clear out my Lynch files just yet. For now, it's just nice to know that the actions of Rhode Island's worst Attorney General will not be rewarded in 2011 with the state's highest office.

Donations for the Powerful

As a third party locked out of tax-form-based public campaign donations, the Moderate Party is striving to prevent the unfair system from continuing through this election season without repairs for fairness:

The party, which sued last month in federal court, argued in a request for an injunction that the formula used to divide the money up among parties is inherently unfair and set up to benefit Republicans and Democrats while putting third parties at a disadvantage.

The party is asking U.S. District Judge William Smith to block the distribution of any public funding, which it says could be distributed at any time between now and Sept. 1.

A subsequent article in the Providence Journal about the mechanics of the program raises some real questions about its purpose:

Every Rhode Island taxpayer has the option of earmarking $5 of what they owe the state — or $10, if filing a joint return — by checking the box at the top of their RI-1040 tax return marked: "electoral contribution."

If they also check a second box, to the right of the first one, they can direct the first $2 of that contribution (or $4, if filing jointly) to a political party.

If they do not name their party of choice, [donors'] dollars go into a "nonpartisan" account split among the established parties in proportion to the number of votes their candidate for governor garnered in the last election, and the number of top offices their party holds.

But if the taxpayer does not check this second box directing a portion of their contribution to one of the political parties, it all goes into the General Fund.

So, there are multiple paths that this money takes, but ultimately about 55% goes into the General Fund, and the state must budget for the likely requests that candidates might make — a formula that the article doesn't describe. However, the results of the program in 2006 bring the entire pretense under a shadow:

In 2006, the state provided $981,000 to then-Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty for his failed bid to unseat Republican Governor Carcieri; $245,000 each to Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts, in her first campaign for the job, and her GOP opponent, Reginald Centracchio; $168,041 to Caprio in his first run for treasurer, and $6,820 to his Republican opponent, Andrew Lyon III; $245,000 to Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis and $74,310 to his Republican opponent, Sue Stenhouse.

It seems to me that, in cases in which both candidates have requested assistance, the fund has mainly exacerbated differences that already existed. Sure, sometimes one candidate will raise (or have) so much money that he or she will decline to request any from the state, but in other cases, it's difficult to understand how the supposedly dirty influence of money will be ameliorated by giving one competitor so much more of it than the other (making the safe assumption that Republicans Andrew Lyon and Sue Stenhouse didn't out-fundraise their Democrat competition by the amount of difference in public funding).

Spending Priorities Are a Consequence of Policy Priorities

Complaints that the State of Rhode Island has allocated more money for the Department of Corrections than for higher education miss the point. Put aside the fact that the comparison is arbitrary; the real concern should be the underlying policies that wind up making imprisoning people such a large expense.

That would be a pretty intensive examination, and I'm not really in a position to embark on it. Answers could range from needless or excessive imprisonments (of drug users, for example) to economic and welfare policies that attract people with a higher tendency to run into trouble with the law. Once again, folks are focusing on the symptoms and not the causes of Rhode Island's predicament.

The comparison of the two expenditures does raise an interesting possibility, though:

In the new fiscal year beginning Thursday, the state will contribute just 15.5 percent of the money higher education needs to operate, with the University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island College and the Community College of Rhode Island, raising the rest, largely through tuition and other fees.

URI President David M. Dooley told the board that URI attracted a record $86 million in outside research in fiscal 2009. The previous year, the latest for which economic impact figures are available, URI’s research arm generated 1,400 jobs and $21.5 million in federal and state tax revenue, Dooley said. ...

Overall, enrollment increased 10.4 percent between 2004 and 2009 — higher than the national average — while the state appropriation for public institutions of higher education plunged 29.1 percent during the same period — the steepest decline in the nation.

Why not begin charging inmates "tuition"? If they lack the resources to help pay for their incarceration, we could give them loans that they can pay back over the next few decades of their lives, as we do for college degrees. Perhaps the services available to them in prison should also be fee-based, with some cost for using the gym or renting movies. If Rhode Island is noteworthy for the arduousness and expense of doing time, here, those who see prison as a possibility in their future might avoid the state or improve their behavior while here.

On the other side of the comparison, I do have to note that I'm not but so sympathetic to the plight of colleges and universities:

"This model is not sustainable," [URI Provost Don DeHayes] said.

"It really means we have to find some other way to support Rhode Island students," he said.

Given the earlier comments of URI President Dooley, I can't help but wonder what sort of economic model suffers from success. How is it that an institution with an above-average increase in paying customers (students) and additional revenue from its research arm can require more subsidization? If the answer is that the cost of educating students exceeds the amount that they pay, then expenses — including remuneration of faculty and staff — enter the conversation.

Chafee and His Supporters Get National Play

The national press loves the independent candidate and USA Today (h/t Ian Donnis) is the latest to report about them in this year of the disgruntled voter. RI's own Lincoln Chafee plays prominently in the story and all of the classic Chafee themes are there. First, there's the typical RI attitude towards "name candidates" like Chafee:

As Chafee carries bags of the eatery's signature doughboys — a cardiologist's nightmare of deep fat-fried dough and crab — Antonio Ferreira, 67, comes over to get his photo snapped and a trio at the next table give him a friendly wave.

"I remember when he went to Cedar Hill Elementary School," says Hilda Poppe, 83, a retired librarian from Warwick whose younger daughter was in Chafee's class. She and her husband, Norman, 84, are having lunch on the outdoor deck with their older daughter, Nonnie O'Brien, 59.

"I always vote Democratic except for him," O'Brien says.

"He has a Republican name but he's always been independent," her father says approvingly.

What about his idea of raising the sales tax?

Norman Poppe hadn't heard about the proposal. "I don't like that," he says, frowning.

"But if it pays the debt," his wife chimes in. With the state's finances in trouble — there's a projected budget shortfall for next year of $405 million — she says any remedy will be painful.

"The others are saying they won't do it," her husband concedes, "but they might when they get in anyway."

Chafee, 57, is a happier, more confident candidate than he was during his last race four years ago.

Then, he was challenged from the right in the Republican primary by Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. He lost in November to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

Chafee felt rejected by the GOP, which no longer seemed willing to include moderate Republicans like himself.

After losing the race, he taught at Brown, his alma mater, and wrote a book titled Against the Tide. In 2008, Chafee voted for Barack Obama, his first vote for a Democrat. He weighed joining the Green or Libertarian parties but found neither a good fit. Chafee considered Rhode Island's fledging Moderate Party but thought the name sounded "wishy-washy."

Costa Encounters the Pitiful Enemy

It appears that vocal Tea Party figure and District 31 candidate for the General Assembly's House Doreen Costa has attracted the attention of some mentally deficient (probably unstable) supporter of the status quo:

According to a police report, the car also contained "expensive electronics such as a navigation system, CD player, and IPod which was never touched or tampered with." "They just destroyed all my political stuff," Costa told Political Scene, adding that the following week someone smashed eggs on her car. "The trooper said it was someone making a statement because nothing was stolen."

Pictures on Doreen's Facebook page reveal the attack to be minimally disruptive, consisting mainly of spilled campaign materials:

It's always a little unsettling to encounter such evidence that one can't know what's going on in the minds of others. Of course, being a Jersey boy, I lock my van obsessively, much to the annoyance of coworkers who wish to borrow my tools during the course of the workday.

Blue Cross Advertisement from the Former Governor

A Sunday that happens also to be a holiday seems well suited to this minor observation concerning a man who left the public sphere before my time, as it were. From a recent op-ed by former Governor Lincoln Almond:

Every insurer in this state is seeking rate increases, some higher than Blue Cross, some modestly lower. But only one insurer is based here. Only one employs over 1,000 Rhode Islanders. Only one has invested in our capital city. Only one stands as the insurer of last resort, a company you can turn to no matter what your prior conditions have been. Only one stands out as an exemplary example of corporate commitment to the community. That company is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island.

Of course, anybody should feel free to express their opinions in public fora, but there's something, well, inappropriate-feeling about such an overt advertisement by a former governor. I confess that I suspect that the biography line at the end of the essay is missing a line — a contextual disclaimer, if you will.

The End of the Governor's Effective Term

This statement will surely draw heat, but it seems to me that an objective view of perceptions among Republicans and, especially, conservatives in Rhode Island is that Governor Carcieri chose to end his term as a leader early (in contrast to his term as an administrator), for the reason that Larry Ehrhardt expressed succinctly in a recent Political Scene:

"The governor wanted that Deep Water bill so bad that he was willing to trade just about anything for it. The speaker of the House needed that budget not to be vetoed because it barely passed in the House, and if the governor had vetoed it, the speaker might not have been able to override the veto because of tremendous dissension within the House. So the speaker definitely needed that budget not to be vetoed, and that was the midnight bargain that was made: Deep Water versus the lousy budget."

A bad deal for Rhode Island energy consumers in exchange for a bad budget balanced only in an imaginary sense. Republican candidates for governor should take this up as a point of differentiation.

The Anti-Democratic, Pro-Illegal Immigration Senate Leadership Team Will Not Simply Waltz into Office this November

... because the senate president picked up an opponent Wednesday and her smirky lieutenant has decided not to seek re-election.

I learned this double scoop of delightful news Wednesday night at the RIGOP Convention (with apologies to Andrew for whooping in his ear when the second item was announced from the podium).

Beth Moura is running for Connor's former Senate seat and Geoff Cook will be running against Senate President Paiva-Weed.

We all vividly remember the parliamentary maneuver by which the senate president and her then Majority Leader, aided by the senate president's highly selective hearing, whisked e-verify off the Senate floor this session and safely away from the will of the full Senate. (By the way, in yesterday's Valley Breeze, under the prescient headline "Sen. Connors is not working for us", Patrick Laverty lists several of Mr. Connor's ... er, charming qualities as a legislator and why he really will not be missed by those in the state who value good government.)

Moura and Cook have pledged that they will refrain from sending or helping to send any bill which makes it to the Senate floor back to the Committee to die. If this strikes you as a somewhat low standard by which to judge a candidate, you're absolutely correct. But this is the standard that has been set by the special interest party which has controlled - and badly damaged - the state for the last seventy years.

In fact, the candidacies of Moura and Cook are of considerably higher caliber than all that. Check them out for yourself. Beth Moura's website is here. Geoff Cook's can be found on Facebook at "GeoffCook3" and his Engaged Citizen post about becoming an American is here. (How fitting that the senate president, who is an advocate of illegal immigration, should be opposed by someone who immigrated legally to the United States.)

A Change of Race

For some reason a statement released by the Moderate Party's candidate for lieutenant governor, Jean Ann Guliano, capped for me a little wave of inexplicable optimism, yesterday:

Many have pointed out that my running for state office is admirable, but what we really need are committed people in the General Assembly, people who are going to advocate for taxpayers, our students and small businesses. We need a strong coalition of General Assembly members who will pledge to focus all efforts on 1) growing our economy and 2) promoting a successful educational system for our children. Those are the two most important priorities for the state, and are my priorities, as well. So, after much consideration, I have decided to run for the State Senate in District 35 (East Greenwich, North Kingstown, Warwick, Potowomut).

As the Providence Journal reports, the General Assembly races have attracted a lot of interest:

How many Rhode Island lawmakers will return to the State House next year without a fight?

The answer: very few, after tea party activists, Republicans, Moderate Party candidates, independents and a slew of Democratic primary challengers raced to meet Wednesday's deadline for officially declaring their candidacies for the General Assembly.

By 4 p.m. on Wednesday, at least 307 candidates had entered the running for the 113 seats in the House and Senate. ...

... from the information available so far, it appears that only six incumbents in the House and six in the Senate are running without opposition.

We're talking Rhode Island, though, and the fact that somebody is not an incumbent does not mean that they'll pull the government in the right direct. Indeed, it would be foolish of special interests not to run candidates to capitalize on anti-incumbent sentiment, even if they're generally satisfied with what they've already got, and folks who merely thirst after power will surely see this season as an opportunity. Nothing beats paying attention to the races on which you'll vote, but as a general rule, vote Republican, Moderate, and Independent, first, going with the Democrat only if you're very familiar with him or her. Even breaking the party's hold a bit would send a valuable message.

Still — and whatever the dynamics of district 35 — Moderate Guliano's move might suggest a general shift in focus toward the actual center of power. It's indicative of the sorry state of circumstances, 'round here, but even just a handful of fresh faces with a healthier political philosophy could make it more difficult for the establishment to play such games as I mentioned yesterday. It will be much more difficult for Democrat leaders to shift blame for their own predictably bad outcomes to reform policies that were never actually implemented if legislators are making noise about the scam all along.

Of course, while we should plan for small steps in turning the state around, many Rhode Islanders who are struggling to get by would welcome an electoral revolution (even if some of us don't realize it, yet).

Government and Related Matters

On last night's Matt Allen Show, Monique talked government spending and legislative grants with Matt. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Legislative Grants, "An Extra Perk or two...."

The ProJo highlighted the RI General Assembly's "Legislative Grant Program" (nee earmarks or the "rub-n-tug), focusing on the legislators (mostly State Rep's) who believe it's essentially a political spoils system. As reported by the ProJo's Randall Edgar, Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) is one of those questioning the "process":

Testifying before the House Finance Committee this spring, MacBeth said the program, while it may help worthy causes, is being used by the House leadership to hand out "rewards for votes or support." A case in point: She said that while her grant requests from last fall were being ignored, more recent requests from House Majority Leader Nicholas Mattiello were approved.

"I think that's wrong," she said.

Committee members gave the freshman lawmaker a cool response.

"I'm a little confused," said Chairman Steven M. Costantino. "On one end, you're saying you didn't receive grants. And, on another end, you're saying let's eliminate the whole thing."

"I'm not upset I didn't receive the grants, I'm upset with the process," MacBeth replied. "As I said, if there's money for communities there, I'm going to absolutely advocate for my community. Do I agree with the process and the money? Absolutely not."

Her comments about Mattiello prompted Rep. Kenneth Carter, a nine-term lawmaker from North Kingstown, to chime in.

"Representative," he said to MacBeth, "if I was the leader of the House, I'd expect to get an extra perk or two for the time and effort they put in."

As many have long argued, there's no better example of all that is wrong with RI politics than the rub-n-tug. And that's especially true given the fact that so many think there isn't anything wrong with it! Veteran scribe Scott McKay has been around long enough to consider it "business as usual" and takes the "disingenuous state house whiners" to task while pointing to a double-standard:

The fact is, we have a representative democracy with elected leaders. To the victor belongs the spoils. At some level, political leadership demands some modicum of loyalty and meting out grants is one lever that legislative leaders have.

So Lima and the others should not act as if they are "shocked, shocked" to find politics being played under McKim, Mead and White's dome. She supported Rep. Gregory Schadone for speaker. He lost. (Schadone was also one of the complainers in the ProJo piece.)

It has never failed to amaze long-time legislative observers of the disconnect between the way state and federal lawmakers are treated by the media and others. There is a serious double-standard.

Rhode Islanders canonize federal lawmakers who bring the bacon back to the state. We revered Sen. Claiborne Pell for his eponymous grants to college students and named buildings after John Chafee for the federal largess he brought to the state when he was in the U.S. Senate. But a state rep who gets a few bucks for a senior center in his or her community to buy new bingo cards is somehow doing something bad.
Reminds one of that old adage about how one can tell a reformer in Rhode Island: A legislator who is out of power.

A Line from the Town to the State

On my wish list of general changes to Rhode Island government structure is bringing state representation more directly in line with voter residence. I've argued that legislators would thereby be more accessible and that such a system would create a more direct line for involved residents to move up the ladder of governance — moving from local committees, to town councils, to state senator. State Senate candidate Dawson Hodges adds some fuel to the fire:

So long as Rhode Island maintains home rule for its municipalities, a more prudent constitutional reform might be to reapportion the Senate to one seat for each city and town. Senators representing cities and towns would give municipal governments, which are responsible for the bulk of government expenditures and services, a voice in the State House.

Municipality-based Senate representation would also restore some influence to those well managed cities and towns whose residents shoulder a disproportionate share of Rhode Island's tax burden.

Of course, I might as well have added "imaginary" before "wish list," above, because gerrymandering is one of the mechanisms that keeps the old guard in power.

Rhetoric for the Times, at Least

State Democrats' lopsided (88 to 32) endorsement of Frank Caprio indicates that party operatives understand, at least, what sort of rhetoric the electorate wants to hear, just now:

"We are going to be the party that holds the line on taxes. We are going to be the party that streamlines state government. We are going to be the party that says to small businesses: 'We want to get out of your pocket and out of your way,' "Caprio said from the podium at the head of the packed room. "And we are going say to state employees ... that the pensions that you have saved for, they're going to be there, they're going to be affordable for the taxpayers and they're going to be sustainable..."

The message — something that could have been said at a Republican convention — didn't dissuade his supporters.

Even if we assume that Caprio is sincere, his characterization of the RI Democrats is (his "we") is laughable. They'll keep on doing what they're doing — namely, striving to preserve the comfort of their special interests (unions and welfare statists) and assuage their ideologues (progressives) while continuing to protect themselves in any way possible. Then, when Rhode Island's situation persists in its deterioration, they'll point to Caprio's rhetoric, which will never have come anywhere near implementation as policy, and declare that Republicanesque policies have been proven not to work.

And Rhode Islanders will buy it.

Tangled Rhode Island Webs

I hadn't had time to explore the new news site, but apparently, Go Local Prov (which is affiliated with WPRO) has been featuring regular commentary by RI Future founder Matt Jerzyk, including a Rhode Island "who's hot and who's not" column. The list typically has the slant that one would expect from Matt, but one example is of a particularly Rhode Islandish flavor. On the "not" list:

Jim Hummel -> Many in the media have done so much to expose the corruption of those in power. However, the "gotcha" stories targeting hard-working Rhode Islanders is really old. Perhaps its Hummel's corporate connection to right-wing groups like OSPRI, but his recent report that attacks a laid-off manufacturing worker in his 50s for trying to retrain himself in the computer sector is really outrageous. Instead of trying to nickel and dime the working class, it would be great if Hummel would go after those who are really fleecing the taxpayers.

As one can see in the current Hummel Report (also affiliated with WPRO), that "working class" fellow whom Hummel is "nickel and diming" is David Arruda, who was laid off from his job as a general manager of an electronics manufacturer last fall and has since been collecting the maximum unemployment from the state (over $500 per week). Mr. Arruda's "retraining in the computer sector" entails being the lone employee of D.A. Computers, presumably "David Arruda Computers."

Mr. Arruda asserts that he's doing nothing inappropriate because he doesn't draw a salary from his "job," and although his LinkedIn page calls him the owner, the company is actually in his wife's name. His wife, as it happens, is employed as a Legal Nurse Consultant with the law firm DeLuca & Weizenbaum, whose Web site header reads, "A Law Firm for the People." Also employed at this people's law firm? Matthew Jerzyk, who might consider putting himself on his next "not hot" list.

Dave Talan: "ULTRA-LIBERAL DEMOCRAT STATE LEGISLATOR RE-ELECTED UNOPPOSED; R.I. REPUBLICANS FAIL TO PUT UP CANDIDATE!!"

On Thursday morning of this week, that is the headline that some of you might be reading in your local newspaper. UNLESS somebody comes forward to run in the next few days.

All candidates for State Legislature must file their Declaration Of Candidacy, at the City or Town Hall in the community where they are registered to vote, on Monday - Wednesday (until 4 P.M.). After that, it is too late. If no Republican has filed to run by 4 P.M. on Wednesday, then the Democrat is automatically elected on November 2nd. Even if he gets indicted before Election Day (something which always seems to be a possibility in this state).

There are a number of Districts where we have not been able to identify any possible GOP candidate; not even a place-holder candidate (we will explain what that means a little later).

In 2010, Republicans are going to win in some very unexpected places, where they would never stand a chance in other years. Voters all over the nation are very angry, and are throwing out incumbent office-holders, just because they are incumbents. Look what happened recently in South Carolina's Democratic U.S. Senate primary, where a total unknown, who did not campaign or spend any money, won only because his opponent currently held an office. This same sort of thing can happen in Rhode Island. But ONLY if the Republicans have a name on the ballot.

Many people have been assuming that someone else will come forward to run, and they do not need to do anything. Every election year, after the deadline has passed and no Republican filed to run in a District, we have people come up to us and say, "I wish I knew that you did not have a candidate in my District. I would have filed to run, just to keep the incumbent from being re-elected unopposed". Well, in the Districts listed below, we do NOT have a candidate, and you know about it now. If you live in one of these Districts, will YOU do something about it, and file to run before the Wednesday deadline? Reply to this E-Mail right away if you would consider putting your name on the ballot. (Please, no E-Mails saying "I agree, and I hope you find somebody, but it will not be me").

Now, the explanation of a place-holder candidate. If a candidate files to run, and gets enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, but then withdraws from the race; the state GOP Chairman has the authority to appoint a replacement, up until September 17. But if nobody files to run by this Wednesday at 4:00 P.M., there is no way under R.I. election law for us to have a candidate on the ballot. (At that point, we are totally out of the race.)

Here are the Districts where we need a candidate in a hurry:

House 1 (Providence - Rep.John McCauley)

House 3 (Providence - Rep. Edith Ajello)

House 7 (Providence - Rep. Joanne Giannini)

House 9 (Providence - Rep. Anastasia Williams)

House 10 (Providence - Rep. Scott Slater)

House 11 (Providence - Rep. Grace Diaz)

House 12 (Providence - Rep. Joe Almeida)

House 14 (Cranston - Rep. Charlene Lima)

House 19 (Warwick, Cranston - Rep. Joe McNamara)

House 20 (Warwick - Rep. Al Gemma)

House 21 (Warwick - Rep. Eileen Naughton)

House 22 (Warwick - Rep. Frank Ferri)

House 42 (Johnston,Cranston - Rep. Stephen Ucci)

House 49 (Woonsocket - Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt)

House 51 (Woonsocket - Rep. Chris Fierro)

House 56 (Central Falls - Rep. Agostinho Silva)

House 57 (Central Falls,Cumberland - Rep. Ken Vaudreuil)

House 64 (East Providence - Rep. Helio Melo)

Senate 1 (Providence - Sen. Mary Ellen Goodwin)

Senate 3 (Providence - Sen. Rhoda Perry)

Senate 4 (Providence,North Prov. - Sen. Domenic Ruggiero)

Senate 5 (Providence - Sen. Paul Jabour)

Senate 6 (Providence - Sen. Harold Metts)

Senate 7 (Providence,North Prov. - Sen. Frank Ciccone)

Senate 8 (Pawtucket - Sen. James Doyle)

Senate 15 (Pawtucket - Sen. John McBurney)

Senate 16 (Central Falls,Cumberland,Pawtucket - Sen. Elizabeth Crowley)

Senate 25 (Johnston - Sen. Chris Maselli)

Senate 28 (Cranston,Warwick - Sen. Josh Miller)

Senate 29 (Warwick - Sen. Mike McCaffrey)

Dave Talan is a member of the R.I. GOP Candidate Recruitment Committee. His e-mail address is davetalan@aol.com.

The Complaint and the Campaign Path

Did you catch state Senator Lou Raptakis (D., Coventry) in the Providence Journal?

It is no accident or coincidence that as Rhode Island is mired in an economic and budgetary crisis, our General Assembly has been operating in the shadows. When hundreds of bills are considered at the last minute, when significant new proposals are brought forward for a vote without substantive public debate, and when House Speaker Gordon Fox suggests that members should vote on bills without reading them because it’s just time for everyone to go home, we have a broken legislative system.

Raptakis is keeping the light on his fallen legislation to require legislators' votes to be publicized more quickly and simply as he runs for... Secretary of State. Obviously, keeping track of such records would be a relevant task for somebody interested in that office, but it would take the action of legislators to make it available.

I feel like I'm missing something when it comes to the campaign path that Sen. Raptakis has chosen for this election cycle. Perhaps he could implement something resembling his proposed vote tallying process from within the secretary's office, but that's not the message of his op-ed.

"But Rhode Island Is Still Asleep"

Heavy metal/punk rocker Henry Rollins used to (and may still) do free-form monologue shows — sort of a cross between stand-up comedy and academic lecture. As you might imagine, his commentary was often sordid and aggressive, but in my youth, I found there to be an underlying goodness, even wisdom, in his talks.

One skit that illustrates my description well began with him speaking against hating people — as opposed to abstractions, like weakness. But he confessed that he couldn't shake his hatred of folk-pop singer Edie Brickell (she of New Bohemians fame), and he described a work of performance art by which he imagines expressing his feelings. Essentially, he would go through bouts of torturing himself, after which a voice would come on the PA system and say, "But she's still alive."

That's the voice I heard when Richard DiDomenico, of North Providence, ended a recent letter to the Providence Journal (no longer online) as follows, after scorning RI Speaker of the House Gordon Fox (D., Providence) for his heavy-handed opposition to e-Verify:

The U.S. in general seems to be awakening, but Rhode Island is still asleep!

I'm already hearing the echo of that line every time I hear of the contentious actions of New Jersey's new Republican Governor Chris Christie. Perhaps it should haunt Rhode Islanders' dreams until such time as we begin electing people who might attempt something more ambitious than preserving as much of the status quo as possible.

Gov Vetoes Casino Bill

... pointing out that the bill lacks critical financial information, especially as to the state's take, and questioning why the bill by-passes the right of the proposed host communities (Lincoln and Newport) to hold their own referenda on the matter.

Now, it passed the House with an apparent veto-proof majority of 62-12. The Senate is more problematic. The margin was closer (21-14). Moreover, leadership of that body may prove to be a hindrance. The Senate President has indicated that she is not particularly amenable to reconvening the Senate, both because, as Justin highlights, she's just really looking forward to enjoying the summer and, more seriously, the community that she represents, one of the two proposed host communities, has reservations about becoming a destination city for a casino.

The other factor that shouldn't be overlooked here is the margin (wide) by which all other casino referenda in Rhode Island were voted down. Will this add to the reluctance of lawmakers in an election year to override the veto and put what would be, judging from prior elections, an unpopular item on the ballot? Or will this be overcome by the pressure from Massachusetts, poised to authorize - what, one? three? just let us know if your community wants one? - X number of casinos, regardless of the fact that Rhode Island would not pick up 100% of that "lost" revenue even if it did install two casinos and, a poor harbinger for potential casinos in both Mass and RI, the fact that gaming revenue in Connecticut is down?

Common Sense Exploded

On one level, it's peculiar that so much attention should be paid to a simple change of law to make some minor fireworks legal. On another level, the issue is emblematic of Rhode Island governance.

When I first read of the change, slipped into an article about municipal receivership, I made a light-hearted note in the margins: "finally, common sense."

Also signed by Carcieri over the weekend was a bill that legalizes certain " "hand-held" and "ground-based" fireworks, including sparklers, smoke devices and glow worms.

State lawmakers said they passed the bill because it will help businesses, help the state and allow Rhode Islanders to enjoy holiday items that are available in most states.

The idea that sparklers were illegal in Rhode Island always struck me as absurd, especially given such defining events as the Bristol Fourth of July parade. Of course, this being Rhode Island, lawmakers couldn't just research the language in other states with the desired policy and copy it or, alternately, research the technical names of the specific devices that they wished to legalize and name them. Given the stated scope of the law, I chuckled when the above article went on to explain legislators' motivation as the creation of economic opportunity, but then:

Welcome to Rhode Island’s own Wild Wild West of pyrotechnics, where Casey's Legal Fireworks of Conimicut Village — an empty storefront just five days ago — is the first of what's expected to be a horde of local stores to offer "hand-held" or "ground-based" flammable entertainment with little or no direction from law-enforcement or fire officials.

Store owner James Casey plans to open two more roadside fireworks tents this weekend — one along Post Road and another in Oakland Beach. He believes what he's selling is legal, but says there's "so much confusion about what you can and can't do."

I can't find the article, just now, but fire officials have confirmed that indoor fireworks displays (such as the gerb that started the Station Nightclub fire) are still banned, but nonetheless, it appears that either a lack of consideration or deliberate and careful wording has made the law much more inclusive than was the intent. Which is not to say that I oppose legalizing small consumer fireworks. It'd be nice, though, if legislators could be at least minimally aware of what they're doing when they vote at the State House.

Hull Selling RIF to Shadowy Board of Directors!

Brian Hull (h/t Ian Donnis), current proprietor of RI Future is putting the old girl up on the block again. This will be the 3rd ownership change for our erstwhile Progessive counterparts in as many years. Hull has been accepted into the Masters in Public Policy degree program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and the workload will be too much to both manage RIF and get the sheepskin. (I do believe we have a contributor here at AR who can relate).

However, Hull still intends to be part of the future of RI Future as a member of a new "Board of Directors" that will take ownership of the site with the intention of turning it into a non-profit. (Because--apparently--we need another progressive non-profit!). So, the blog founded by community activists will be run by a corporatist-like Board of Directors comprised of as-yet unknown individuals (with the exception of Brian). Meanwhile, this blog--oft-accused of being in corporate pockets like Big Radio, etc.--will continue to be run by volunteers. Ahhh, the Alanis Morrissette-like irony!

In all seriousness, best of luck to Brian in his studies. See you in the interwebs.

"We Want to Vote for It" - Speaker Fox Discovers a Novel Way to Handle Legislation

In yesterday's Providence Journal, House Speaker Gordon Fox describes how the new Rhode Island fireworks law came to be.

"It was my intention to put it in just to get the discussion going for next year," Fox said. "And the members just liked it. So next thing I know, they're like, 'We want to vote for it.' And boom -- I shouldn't say boom -- it passed."

So let's review. The bill was considered in committee, with testimony and everything. It was voted out of committee and onto the House floor. And then (drum roll), all seventy five House members got to, you know, express their sincere opinion about the bill by voting "Yea" or "Nay" on it.

It wasn't held in committee for further study. Once on the Floor, it didn't get sent back to committee with an extremely convenient, uniquely interpreted voice vote.

Amazing! Any chance this procedure will catch on for other - dare we say all - bills that are filed at the General Assembly?

Losing Faith in Our Government

Ed Achorn joins those of us for whom the just-passed session of the General Assembly had the effect of bringing the representative nature of our state government into question:

Rhode Island leaders enjoy having the power to defy the public and render its representatives impotent.

But that power trip costs us dearly. An informed and active citizenry actually makes a state stronger and more vibrant. Citizens bring ideas to the table, help stop bad legislation, and form an important check against public corruption. That makes for a better-run state, with a stronger economy, less waste, lower taxes and fewer cozy deals for special interests.

I'll tell you truly that I'm finding the evidence to point toward the possibility that our current leadership actually does represent the majority of Rhode Islanders — a blend of self-dealing interests (whether corrupt politicians, unions, or welfare-statists) and apathetic sheep beholden to some notion of government, society, and themselves that reality ought long ago to have proven as false. I mean, look to Andrew's review of the new municipal receivership law, which (in advance) removes from the table of struggling cities and towns the possibility of repairing the single greatest factor in local governments' travails: excessively generous employment contracts.

More fundamentally, though, consider a provision of the law that Andrew had previously highlighted:

Upon the appointment of a receiver, the receiver shall have the right to exercise the powers of the elected officials under the general laws, special laws and the city or town charter and ordinances relating to or impacting the fiscal stability of the city or town including, without limitation, school and zoning matters; provided, further, that the powers of the receiver shall be superior to and supersede the powers of the elected officials of the city or town shall continue to be elected in accordance with the city or town charter, and shall serve in an advisory capacity to the receiver.

Financial difficulty, at the municipal level, is now cause for the elimination of democracy, assuming the benevolence of a state-appointed dictator. The only way this provision would make any sense whatsoever would be if the state government clearly understood our political and economic problems and would provide a better result. And the only perspective from which that opinion is conceivable is that of the special interests who are strangling the state. (This, I'd emphasize, is the problem with "regionalization.")

The behavior of the governments of the cities and towns and of the state as a whole reinforce each other and suggest that a handful of aristocrats are not to blame. They are merely puppets in a corrupt system with no chance of reform or improvement. There will be no outrage as the strategies for keeping the scam alive become more and more egregious as a matter of lost democracy and oppressive taxation. Most Rhode Islanders will lack the awareness to understand the origin of their increasing pain, and most of those who do will take the attitude of, "that's not how it should be; oh well."

In$ight Into the Overpriced C.F. School Repairs? (And What About AG $piderman?)

Further to my post pointing to the Hummel Report about overpriced school repairs carried out by Iron Construction under the authorization of Mayor Moreau, someone kindly sent along a list of campaign contributions made by the president of that company.

Let's see. Thanks to Hummel, we know what Mr. Depasquale appears to have received by nearly maxing out campaign contributions to Mayor Charles Moreau for the last three years. Now the question is, what did he expect from fully maxing out his contributions to the Attorney General for the last three years?

Hummel! Overpriced School Repairs - Mayor Board-Up Strikes Again

This week's Hummel Report [h/t WPRO's John Depetro] returns to the scene of a prior potential crime to discover that Mayor Charles Moreau has had a heavy hand in choosing the vendors for repairs to Central Falls schools

[Superintendent Fran] Gallo quickly found out, though, Mayor Moreau held the checkbook, and was calling all of the shots, with virtually no input from a Facilities Committee made up of representatives from both the city and the school department

with a very predictable result for the work awarded on the Captain Hunt Elementary School.

Despite that, the company kept working well into the fall and the price of the original bid more than doubled. The original bid was $587,000. With more than $620,000 in change orders, the total came to $1.2 million. The building had the entire brick exterior on one side replaced, extensive roof work and a brand new ceiling and lights in the cafeteria.

The company was Iron Construction and - surprise! -it turns out that the "president played a major role in the mayor's re-election campaign". (No indication so far that the mayor received a discounted furnace or other discounted items for his personal abode in connection with this matter.)

Some questions:

- In a state where the unemployment rate among building contractors is far higher than the state average of 12%+, how did the city receive only one bid for this work? Or did the mayor deliberately wait until the last minute to make these repairs so that he could once again invoke his "emergency" powers?

- Is it even legal for a vendor to change the specs of an awarded contract to the extent that he gets paid double the original tender?

- Did the Mayor sign off on those changes?

Presumably, this becomes yet another matter for the RI State Police to look into as the RI Attorney General has made it clear that, when it comes to this particular friend public official, "recusal" means "I ain't looking at it no matter how bad the accusation or how persuasive the evidence".

Four Bills to Be Heard by the House Finance Committee Today

According to the Rhode Island General Assembly website, four bills are to be heard by the House finance committee this afternoon, and be eligible for floor-action on what is purportedly going to be the last day of this legislative session...

1. What looks to be a good-goverment bill regarding state purchasing and bidding (S2442). Most of the sponsors have solid good-government credentials, but Senator Frank Ciccone is also a sponsor, so I am a bit suspicious.

2. A 7.5% income tax on the income of 527(c) political organizations (S2501). 527s are organizations that can make independent political expenditures, so long as they don't "coordinate" with campaign organizations. In the past, 527s were prohibited from engaging in direct electioneering communications (i.e. running ads that say to vote for or vote against a candidate), but this has almost certainly changed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs. FEC.

3. The state education "funding formula" (H8094). I doubt the text posted at the moment is the most current version of what is being discussed, as it is the original version of the bill that was introduced, and according to funding formula advocate Jennifer D. Jordan, last minute negotiations concerning issues like capital project financing and blunting the removal of regionalization bonuses are ongoing.

4. An act "supporting" this year's budget bills (H8270), which rolls chagnes related to Medicaid reimbursements, the car tax, and fire-district levies all into a single piece of legislation. Are there any bean-counters out there who'd like to take a look at this one, and explain why it is a priority?

Senator Marc Cote: A Call to Action - Representative Government at Risk in RI

If you or members of your family are currently unemployed, please take notice of the following.

Whether or not you've spoken out about past government abuse, now is the time to be heard!

Last week's orchestrated procedural shenanigans by the leadership of the State Senate to stifle debate and deliberation, and temporarily kill reasonable legislation to address a labor injustice that is caused by illegal immigration should outrage Rhode Islanders who expect open and accountable government.

The bill in question (2010 S-2348 E-Verify) is cosponsored by 19 of 38 senators, and statewide polling shows that the majority of Rhode Islanders support this legislation. The Rhode Island House of Representative has passed this legislation during the past two legislative sessions, and has yet to vote on the bill this year.

Recent news reports have provided concrete evidence that there are employers in this region and within our state that are intentionally violating the law by hiring individuals who are not legally authorized to work in this country. In some cases, employers are also conspiring with individuals who participate in the fraudulent document and identity theft industry to advance this scheme.

These rogue employers are driven by their greed and self-interest. They take advantage of these unauthorized immigrants by hiring them at less than market labor rates - recognizing that the employees' illegal status prevents them from pressing for fairness and equality in the labor marketplace.

The 2007 enforcement action at the Michael Bianco Company in New Bedford has demonstrated that United States citizens and legal immigrants are being deprived of employment by unscrupulous employers. The owner and upper management of this company were arrested for hiring 360 illegal workers -- and within days, over 400 formerly unemployed New Bedford area residents applied for the job openings after the enforcement action.

On April 4, 2009, U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi sentenced the owner of Falcon Maintenance LLC of Johnston to 60 days of imprisonment in a federal halfway house, three years of probation and a $10,000 fine for the long-time practice of hiring illegal immigrants, of not withholding the appropriate taxes from their pay, and of lying about participating in the E-Verify system which is now required of state contractors.

On July 28 of last year, a Channel 12 investigative reporter revealed that a subcontractor hired an illegal immigrant to work under-the-table to build, of all things, the new federal immigration building in Johnston. The scandal came to light after the undocumented worker claimed a subcontractor failed to pay him and others for their work. The worker also claimed he was not the only one working illegally at the site.

Some employers unwittingly harbor violent criminals when they employ illegal aliens. In 2008, a young Providence woman was raped in Roger Williams Park by an illegal alien with a prior history of assault who had been employed at a local Texas Roadhouse restaurant. This criminal was sentenced to 30-years at the ACI at our collective expense, which will likely exceed $2 million dollars, adjusted for inflation.

It is estimated that there are about 20,000 unauthorized immigrants currently working in Rhode Island – working in jobs that should be made available to the 72,000 currently unemployed Rhode Islanders.

The legislation that was procedurally and unjustly "killed" by the Senate leadership last week would accomplish this objective by requiring that Rhode Island employers register and participate in the federal basic employment verification program known as "E-Verify".

In Rhode Island, the program is currently mandatory for state and federal contractors only. However, it is already used by over 2,200 Rhode Island employers, and this legislation would make it mandatory for 16,000 additional employers in this state. This would level the playing field for those conscientious employers, so that they are not disadvantaged by doing the right thing and hiring only legal workers.

If you care about the costs of illegal hiring practices to your family and friends by unscrupulous employers in Rhode Island, please call Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed at 222-6655, and Majority Leader Daniel Connors at 222-3310 and respectfully ask for a vote on the E-Verify bill by the full Senate.

This is your opportunity to make your voice heard, and I respectfully ask for your support. Should you have any questions, you can contact me at 765-3360.

State Senator Marc Cote (D) represents Woonsocket and North Smithfield.

Busy Week

Three questions about what is happening at the Rhode Island Statehouse this week...

1. Given that a Constitutional referendum on the expansion of gambling looks to have been fast-tracked, will the referendum be simply a yes-or-no decision on the casino, with all of the details to be decided by the legislature later, as at least one early report from Katherine Gregg of the Projo seems to suggest...

   Asked how quickly Twin River could become a casino, and how much it expected to pay the state on its new offerings, [Twin River spokeswoman Patti Doyle ]said: "With respect to timing and tax rate, we remain focused at this juncture on receiving voter feedback on the will to expand gaming at Twin River. All other issues will be explored should the ballot question win voter approval."

   
   
2. Will the Senate take up the ethics reform amendment (h/t Ian Donnis of WRNI 1290AM) that has already been passed by the House, restoring the State Ethics Commission's jurisdiction over state legislators to the scope that Rhode Island voters intended in 1986? Or will the Senate leadership team of Teresa Paiva-Weed and Daniel Connors refuse to let the ethics bill be voted on, because they believe that a code of ethics that prohibits the casting of votes based on bribes or other personal financial gain will overly impede the normal operation of the Rhode Island legislature?
   
   
3. Will a funding formula for education be passed? Is the Rhode Island Department of Education plan still the favorite, and how might it be combined with pieces of the Gallo plan (such as the hold-harmless provision regarding aid-changes) or the Ajello plan (such as more more more for current big-aid recipients)?

Thwarting the Senate on E-Verify: Why Did the Senate President Go with the Highly Unusual Voice Vote Rather Than the Far More Accurate Electronic Vote?

[See my post for a recitation of events and Andrew's post for a description of bill procedure and why democracy within the Capitol is too often considered a "parliamentary trick" by leadership.]

This is the question that I asked the office of the Senate President four times over the course of three days last week: why a voice rather than an electronic vote on the smirky motion by the Majority Leader to send the e-verify bill back to committee, effectively killing it?

In the conspicuous absence of a reply and an alternate explanation, we gravitate towards the most obvious answer: a voice vote permitted the Senate President to "hear" the result that she desired - a vote to kill e-verify - and if an electronic vote had been taken, the members of the Senate would have had the opportunity to cross and contradict their leader. This was a risk that she was evidently not prepared to take.

Now we need to look at what compelled the Senate President to take the egregious step of thwarting the will of the Senate. Let's see, the continued exploitation of undocumented workers, the deprivation of jobs to legal immigrants and citizens in the face of 13% unemployment, the suppression of precious tax revenue to the state with the perpetuation of under-the-table employment, disrespect for those people who immigrated here in conformance with our laws. References have also been made to the employers - mostly restaurants - within the Senate President's district who use cost-saving illegal labor.

Ultimately, however, the answer is that nothing should have come ahead of the will of the Senate. Quite simply, in putting her own interest and desires ahead of the Senate, she went too far.

And while some senators may have agreed with the Senate President on the outcome of this particular matter, they need to ask themselves: what happens when something that they care about comes up in the future but, unlike this week, they find themselves on the "wrong" side of the issue in the eyes of a Senate President who has demonstrated that she is willing to set aside the sledge hammer traditionally wielded by Smith Hill leadership and pick up a lighter and a stick of dynamite?

Andrew was not altogether wrong. Leadership is only as powerful as rank and file legislators permit. When a leader overreaches, members are well within their right to seek a leader more amenable to placing personal/political self interests secondary to the will of the body.

Budget "Highlights"

For commenter edification, here are the three "highlights" of the just-passed House Budget, cribbed from the ProJo:

* Car Tax - 50-22 voted to cut around $120 million in car tax subsidies from cities and towns. Gave cities and towns the ability to implement their own car tax "to make up for the losses" by taxing car values after the first $500. So now, even your winter-beater is taxable.

* Education Aid - 50-19 to cut school aid by $31.3 million. $6.1 million offset by proposed pension cuts. Rep. Brian Newberry tried to offset another $2.3 million by killing the rub-and-tug (the legislative-grant money that Rep's and Sen's pass around to little leagues and the boy scouts, etc.), but that was shot down 43-29. Gotta keep the gravy train.

* Pension - 39-33 to limit the pension COLA to the first $35,000 in benefits. Requires pensioners to wait until age 65 before collecting COLAs. Rep. Joe Trillo tried to get it down to the first $12,500, but that was defeated.

* Restored - Proposed subsidized-housing cuts, the state's renewable energy fund, arts programs, and cancer screening programs for low-income women.

* Welfare - Did not extend July 1 deadline for cash-assistance and job-training program (welfare).

Always Money for the Trifles

I don't know enough about the project in question to endorse his insinuations, but William Stanley, of Cranston, does point out a curious allocation of limited resources:

Both of these bridges are critical to the residents, especially because without them, such emergency services as police, rescue and firefighting must travel a considerable distance, and in that lost time a person could die.

What bothers me is that new sidewalks are being constructed in various places in West Warwick. Is it a coincidence that this is being done in the town that state Representatives William Murphy and Timothy Williamson, both powerful political figures, represent? Perhaps the money was earmarked to do the sidewalks, but under these emergency conditions, should not the money have been diverted to repair these critical bridges? Politics in Rhode Island? Nah!

Sometimes, complex systems like government simply allocate resources inefficiently, so corruption isn't necessarily in play. At the very least, though, we could suggest that Mr. Stanley's observation would be an excellent place to begin looking for means of improvement of government operations.

RI has 2 of 7 "Junkiest Cities"

Oy.

Think Greece and Spain are drowning in debt? Look a little closer to home. Seven U.S. cities recently had their municipal bonds downgraded below investment grade. Their debt is now junk, considered more worthless than that of the so-called PIIGS.

"America's short-term budget crises, long-term growth perspectives and needs for austerity are similar [to Greece]," said Matt Fabian, managing director at Concord, Mass.-based consulting firm Municipal Market Advisors.

Last quarter, Moody's Investor Services declared the debt issued by Harrisburg, Penn., and Woonsocket, R.I., to be junk, or below-investment grade. Meanwhile, Fitch Ratings currently has four other cities in the basement -- Detroit and Pontiac, Mich.; Harvey, Ill.; and Littlefield, Texas -- while Standard and Poor's has one -- Central Falls, R.I.

These seven cities are struggling under the weight of the recession. Residents are unemployed, and without a job, they can't pay their property taxes, which are the foundation of local budgets. And cities' operating expenses continue to soar; pension and debt payments don't go away. And as their credit gets worse, the cost of borrowing for municipal projects -- such as sewer plants and roads -- just gets more expensive.

"The fiscal stress is severe in cities around the country, and it's likely to stick around for at least a couple of more years," said Chris Hoene, director of policy and research at the National League of Cities.

One Degree of Disconnect, Part Two

I previously commented on the one degree of disconnect that I've come to believe is the core political problem in our state. The event that motivated that post was an immigration reform-related bill that was brought up in the RI House (kinda). Now, as Andrew and Monique have explained, the same shenanigans--again related to an immigration reform-related bill--have gone on in the Senate. And the problem is the same, but this event has pulled back the curtain even more.

This time it was the Senate President, Theresa Paiva Weed, with the help of Majority Leader Danel Connors, who killed the vote on E-verify. As I explained before, it's only a single degree of disconnect between the average RI voter and the Senate President or Speaker of the House. That "degree" is our local Senator or Representative, who we may think of as a good guy or gal and can't bring ourselves to punish for the actions of their leaders. Even though they selected them in the first place.

As Andrew pointed out, there are avenues that Democrats could have used to call the leadership on the procedural shenanigans on display last night. It took political courage to do it--which some of the Democrats appear to have--but in this case it also took some acumen to realize what was going on. They didn't: apparently (as brought to light on the Dan Yorke Show) Sen. Marc Cote was led down the procedural primrose path by Paiva Weed herself. Now we have another instance of a Democratically elected leader, Senator Paiva Weed, exercising unilateral power to quash a bill that had strong support publicly and within the Legislature.

So what happens now? Will the Democrat Senators take this into account when judging whether or not to select Paiva Weed as their leader next session? Will voters take this into account before voting to re-elect those who continue to enable this type of "leadership"?

E-Verify to Be Voted on by the Rhode Island Senate Late Today

Under Marc's post, Joe Bernstein points out that

RI needed E-verify

Yes, it does. Present tense: it needs e-verify.

Jobs are the single biggest enticement for people to come here - here to the United States and here to Rhode Island - without respect for the law. This was clearly demonstrated when our economy tanked a year and a half ago: millions of jobs evaporated and the rate of illegal immigration dropped correspondingly.

Further, there's a sleazy but undeniable competitive advantage to businesses who hire undocumented immigrants. Quoting RISC,

Over 2,200 Rhode Island employers already use E-Verify, but an additional 16,000 would be added with passage of S-2348. Our bill would level the playing field for those 2,200 conscientious employers, so that they are not disadvantaged by doing the right thing and hiring only legal workers.

If you get a minute, please consider calling your state senator (click here or call the Senate President's office at 222-6655 to obtain your senator's phone number) to urge them to vote for legal immigrants, citizens and conscientious employers and against exploitation and sleaze.

UPDATE - Democracy quashed on Smith Hill

Senator Ed O'Neill just advised WPRO's Matt Allen that as soon as the bill came up, Senator Connors moved to recommit it to committee; i.e., to effectively kill it for the year. There was then inexplicably a voice rather than an electronic vote. The Senate President "heard" a majority vote in favor of sending the bill back to committee and, in due course, the loyal Parliamentarian upheld her ruling.

Senator O'Neill opined to Matt that the bill itself would have passed. It's hard to argue in view of the fact that the bill had 19 co-sponsors.

It appears that the Rhode Island Senate has been replaced by a monarchy.

(Thanks to MadMom for the initial heads-up.)

While Your Eye Is on the Tax Cutting Hand

Something just isn't adding up with the news out of the General Assembly about this supposed "tax overhaul." According to some details explained by Neil Downing, it looks like all taxpayers would make out pretty well under the Senate's version, although the rich and the single appear to get the best deal, relatively speaking. Those on the lower end of the scale would appear to do pretty well, also, with only middle-income families facing a question mark. The one possible trick toward which Downing points is that the flat tax would disappear, and although the new top bracket would equal the current flat tax, those expecting it to drop to 5.5% for next year would be disappointed.

The peculiarity — as distinct from the vague sense that something isn't right — emerges with a subsequent article:

But the plan cannot be approved as it stands because it would result in lower state tax revenue, forcing the state's budget out of balance, a top negotiator said. ...

But the plan would also implement other provisions to reduce taxes. As a consequence, overall, 61 percent of taxpayers would see a tax decrease, 18 percent a tax increase and 21 percent no change, according to Senate fiscal office figures.

But the plan would also reduce state tax revenues by about $11.5 million for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2011 (and more in later years), Senate fiscal office figures show.

The key question is who the 18% seeing a tax increase would be, especially in light of the fact that they'd be taking the burden of 61%. The curious question is why such a big deal is being made of an $11.5 million shortfall. Personally, I'd like to see government revenue decreased by many times that amount, but if the goal is to pass something revenue neutral right away, it shouldn't be difficult to make that up.

Perhaps my RI-skepticism is too finely tuned, but if we see another General Assembly session come and go, in the next few weeks, without fruits from all of this hype, I'll be inclined to wonder what they were actually trying to distract us from. (Apart, of course, from the mountain collapsing beneath our feet.)

A Unique Notion: Previewing Legislation Before It's Passed

On Wednesday night's Matt Allen Show, Andrew expressed surprise at the unique notion of attorney general candidate Erik Wallin that he should release his preferred legislation so early that he's not even in office, yet. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

The RI Public Sector Always Wins

I haven't had a chance to review all of the substitutes that the RI House Finance Committee made to the governor's proposed budget, but over on the TCC Web site, I have explained the upshot for school funding in Tiverton. Basically, the General Assembly looks likely to bump up the governor's school aid number for the town, meaning that our 7.88% tax increase could have been 5.7%.

Put differently the local appropriation could have been not even $150,000 more than the Budget Committee recommendation that would have "gutted," "decimated," and "destroyed" the schools and had no deleterious effects.

Well, they're certainly not going to give the extra money back, so anybody want to wager what the $684,319 in "unexpected" money will go toward?

Palumbo's Political Game with Immigration Reform Bill

Rep. Peter Palumbo (D-Cranston) gained some kudos from conservatives and immigration reform proponents for submitting an Arizona-like immigration bill. Palumbo further benefited amongst the same group when it was learned that his immigration bill wouldn't get a hearing because House Speaker Gordon Fox killed the bill (something I commented on myself). In short, the perception was that Palumbo had tried to do the right thing on immigration but was foiled by the too-powerful Speaker of the House.

Turns out that wasn't so much the case. Now Palumbo has stated (on WPRO) that he never sought a hearing and that, essentially, he submitted the bill for show because he was upset about the reaction to Arizona bill. So there was no hearing to kill because Palumbo admitted he never requested one. Knowing this, he still allowed people to get their agida up and rail against the system that allows one person (the Speakah!) to kill debate. That criticism is warranted in the abstract, but now, unfortunately, the proximate cause for this discussion and the planned protests turns out to have been nothing but a political ploy.

So let's not martyr Palumbo. It's clear he was playing games, which is something conservatives and other good government reformers should remember, and that he's hardly an outsider. For lest we forget, it was Palumbo who indicated his approval of perpetual union contracts when he sponsored the legislation calling for the automatic extension of expired union contracts (teachers and firefighters) when negotiations had stalled. So, instead of hitching a wagon to a veteran player, maybe conservative and reformist folks should look to Palumbo's 2010 RI Legislature opponent, Don Botts.

One Degree of Disconnect

You grew up with the guy. Went to school together, played sports on the same teams. Went your separate ways after high school, but still saw each other every once in a while. When he ran for the legislature, you didn't think too hard about voting for him. As you got older and had kids and raised your family, you started paying a little more attention to politics.

Now, when you run into him at the ball field or church or at the kids' school, you exchange pleasantries and maybe bring up a thing or three about the economy or this bill or that issue. You're an unaffiliated, independent voter and your buddy is a Democrat, but you get the sense that he is pretty much on the same page as you: traditional kinda guy, law and order, keep taxes down, kind of live-and-let-live.

You agree, for instance, that this country has to do a better job to protect its borders. But it really wasn't a state issue. Then Arizona decided to take matters in its own hands because the Feds wouldn't. You weren't sure about all the details. We need to protect the borders, but you have some questions-you aren't sure about some of the civil liberties issues, for instance--but you could understand how Arizonans are fed up and you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Then you heard that a similar bill was submitted in the Rhode Island house. The other day you talked to your legislator buddy and learned that he was pretty much in favor of the bill, had some of the same questions as you and was looking forward to a good debate and hearing on the issue. Rhode Island ain't Arizona, so there would be differences, no doubt. But the debate would be worthwhile.

Except now we won't get the chance because the Speaker of the House, Gordon Fox, quashed the hearing. That's his prerogative as Speaker, of course, but it sure doesn't seem right that one person can make that kind of decision, does it?

Yet, that's the way the system works in Rhode Island. The truth is, it really wasn't one person who tabled that bill, or who tables any other bill, for that matter. In Rhode Island's political system, one guy really runs the show, and it ain't the Guvnah. It's the Speakah. He's selected and empowered by the members of his own Party who are elected by their neighbors and the people they grew up with, who consider them good guys.

That includes your buddy, who may not agree with the Speaker on more than 30% of the issues. But your buddy ran as a Democrat because that's how you do things around here. And he voted for the heir apparent to ensure that he was in "good standing" down the line, if you know what I mean. And now--not for the first time and surely not for the last--an important issue won't see the light of day because you and your buddy and the rest of Rhode Island continues to follow the same pattern, year after year.

It's only a single degree of separation between us and the Speaker. But that one degree enables us to say our guy is all right, it's the rest of 'em that are the problem. It allows us to keep fooling ourselves into thinking that our buddy ain't the problem, that we aren't the problem. Of course, the truth is we are the problem. We'll continue to help push Rhode Island down the same rutted path until we realize that the only way to shake up the system is to vote out the entrenched powers. Even our old buddies.

A Familiar Drum

I'm keeping up the posting over on the Tiverton Citizens for Change Web site, including the observation that the drum that the Tiverton School Committee beat prior to our financial town meeting are now being played in West Warwick:

Sports programs and part-time employees join the list of recommended cuts school officials hope will compensate for a $1.2-million hole in the School Department’s proposed $47.8-million budget. …

Topping the list of cuts is the closing of the Maisie E. Quinn Elementary School, a move that will save the district $750,000. …

The School Committee is still discussing this budget, Chairwoman Lindagay Palazzo said Thursday. The committee will review the proposal at the June 8 public meeting, and likely will vote to have a budget ready for the Financial Town Meeting, now scheduled for June 22.

How long, do you suppose, until parents and taxpayers learn that there's a template in play, here.

King at the Crowne Tuesday: But What Office is He Running For?

Kerry King, who ran for Lieutenant Gov in 2006 (handy dandy info courtesy Andrew), sent out the following announcement a couple of hours ago.

Kerry King cordially invites you to his announcement for candidacy for a State General office on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 5:30 pm, at the Crowne Plaza Inn, Warwick, RI. King promises to outline his program to rebuild Rhode Island as a state with less government, lower taxes and more jobs. King is a lawyer, financial planner and an executive with the experience of directing 11,000 employes and responsible for a $900 million budget. "I will lead the charge for state constitutional amendments that will insure less government and impose fiscal restraint...and prevent legislators from continuing to ignore the will of the people," King said.

Governor Carcieri, honored guests, friends and supporters will join Kerry for a brief program followed by refreshments.

Expensive Sheets on That Ghost

Look, I know the effort that goes into writing, and I've got no gripe against ghost writers. Truth be told, I generally assume that public figures act more as editors of their prepared speeches than as authors, and if they opt to outsource the writer function, well, nobody expects historic literature from state appointees. But I read Education Commissioner Deborah Gist's General Assembly speech prior to interviewing her, last month, and its hokeyness persuaded me that she must have written it herself — not because she's especially hokey, but because it's a quality that's much more tolerable when writing about one's self than when reading what others have written.

I mean, this in a $10,000 speech?

I can’t tell you how nice it was to be talking about a winning streak — or any streak, for that matter — other than the one in my hair. ...

Well, I quickly came back to earth. As you may know, we got some very, very bad news that Monday. I learned that my Guinness World Record for most kisses in a minute had been broken by some ill-natured person in Scotland. ...

Our action agenda, like all learning, starts with teachers. That’s no surprise coming from me! I am a teacher. I truly never imagined doing anything else. In fact, I was an active member of the NEA. Someone please revive Bob Walsh!

Next time Board of Regents member Angus Davis wants to shell out ten grand for a ten-page speech, I hope he'll think to give me a call. For that much money, I could write the speech and then take the rest of the quarter off. And I'll have the advantage of actually knowing who Bob Walsh is and might even be aware of tiny details like the fact that he was not long ago sidelined from the political battlefield by an in-surgery stroke.

The Attorney General Should not be Rewarded with Your Vote: What Dave Kane Will Do with Some of the Station Nightclub Fire Settlement Money

Dave Kane issued the following press release today.

Since yesterday's announcement about the release of the Station Nightclub Fire settlement money, I have been asked several times what our family plans to do with the money. First, at the risk of sounding like a commercial, "We're going to Disney world", Nicky's favorite place to go with his family.

However, the release of these funds does not mean that our fight for justice is over. My wife, Joanne and I are dedicating some of Nicky's settlement money to begin a Media campaign to defeat Patrick Lynch's attempt to be elected Governor of the State of Rhode Island.

As Attorney General, Patrick Lynch proved to be an incredible combination of incompetence and corruption. After taking steps and making rulings that resulted in the denial of justice for all the victims and their families, Attorney Lynch wants to be rewarded with your vote for Governor.

The election of Patrick Lynch as Governor would add severe insult to devastating injury to everyone touched by the Station Nightclub Fire. This man needs to be held up as an example of what happens when elected officials fail to execute the duties of their office honorably. As I have said many times, "Patrick Lynch may have been re-elected Attorney General over my son's dead body. But, he will be elected Governor over mine."

Greece Is the Way

I'd been intending to highlight Ed Achorn's column from last week, anyway, but it's got special significance for me, after Saturday's vote in Tiverton:

See if any of this sounds familiar.

In Greece, politicians have duped voters into believing that it is compassionate to run up massive debts, fund unsustainable social programs, punish the work ethic and job creation, and give away the store to public-employee unions (with higher wages, better benefits and earlier, more generous retirements than those available to most in the private sector). ...

Still, thanks to a sufficient number of voters who pay little in taxes, get handouts, and/or have friends or relatives in government to protect, its politicians have gotten away with this behavior for quite some time.

Ed's focus is on Rhode Island, as a state, but the same characteristic philosophy resides in the cities and towns, to varying degrees. Some of the people who voted for a 7.88% minimum tax increase, in Tiverton, were parents riled by the threats of the School Committee, but most were teachers themselves or the family and friends of union members. Fill in the remainder with residents who enjoy what they perceive as free services and others who just resent having people who've lived here for only a decade or two deign to offer suggestions.

It's difficult to see what could turn the ship around.

Sunday at 6 pm: Your Opportunity to Personally Lobby the Junior Senator from Rhode Island

As the Ocean State Republican points out, there's even free food!

…With that in mind, I’d like to invite you to bring your family and friends and join me for a free macaroni and meatball community dinner to share your personal story regarding flooding in your neighborhood, and to speak with representatives of FEMA, SBA, and RIEMA directly.

Sunday, May 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m.

Cranston Senior Center
1070 Cranston Street
Cranston, RI

This free event is open to all Rhode Islanders. You can RSVP by calling 401-453-5294 or e-mailing to rsvp_whitehouse [at] whitehouse [dot] senate [dot] gov. RSVPs are encouraged, but not required and the event is first come, first served.

I was going to attend but Sundays are when I clean my hood and sheets ...

Eventually, We'll Have to Stop Hoping That Time Hasn't Run Out

At some point, it has to stop being relevant to argue about what Rhode Island has to do to "break out of its death spiral," as former Economic Development Corp. head Michael McMahon puts it, and start talking about how to rebound from the collapse. There's something of a sense of fruitless repetition to McMahon's suggestion for Rhode Island:

The only costs that are meaningful enough to have an impact are costs related to employment and social services. Some may challenge this approach on "moral" grounds. But this is not a moral issue. Rather, it is economic reality.

If Rhode Island is to break out of its death spiral, it must be prepared to do the following:

• Reduce existing pension and health-care costs to retirees by 10 percent across the board.


• Change retirement-benefit plans for all current employees from defined-benefit to defined-contribution and increase the age at which workers can begin receiving benefits to 65.


• Require all workers to pay 20 percent of their health-care costs.


• Consolidate Rhode Island's school and municipal districts (fire, police, mayor/town manger etc.) into five entities, roughly along existing county lines — Providence, Kent, Washington, Bristol and Newport.


• Reduce social-service payments by 3 percent per year over the next five years.

I'm increasingly persuaded that the numbers destiny is written — meaning that there are just not enough people left in Rhode Island's "productive class" (upwardly mobile working and middle class private sector residents) to force change through political means. That leaves only revelation; enough of the people invested in the system have to be persuaded that they're going to lose more by not fixing the problems than by accepting the fact that their own deals with the system are the problems.

Pensions, social service payments, all of it, will be gone when the state collapses. It's not an either or. You cannot keep what you're getting, and the only question is whether the state has to collapse around you or you make yourself part of the solution.

But it's very, very hard to take make that leap of faith. Before Tiverton's financial town meeting, I had a pleasant and interesting conversation with a teacher with whom I last spoke during last year's contract negotiations. He understands that the state needs to change the way it does business, but he's not persuaded that it should begin, as I always say, from the bottom up. That is, from his union's concessions up through the State House's policies.

In the comments to my initial post about the financial town meeting, a local parent explains that he's made the decision to back his children's education. But that backing quickly becomes indistinguishable from backing the system as it stands — the system that has locked our public schools into a failing model and our economy into decline. If he accepts a 10% increase in taxes every year, as he claims to be willing, for the sake of his children, he'll rapidly be paying more than a private school tuition each year in additional taxes just to support growing labor costs. And if we should have learned anything over the last decade, it's that public sector unions controlling the levers of government will never say, "OK, we've got enough."

Which, I guess, is to say that Rhode Island is done. We can and should keep writing the same essays over and over again, about how to fix the problem, but at this point, they're all objections for the record. Our fervent hopes should focus, instead, on a quick collapse and rapid recovery.

The AG and the C.F. Board-Up Bonanza

A couple of points to lightly touch upon now that the feds have joined with the State Police to do the heavy lifting.

- The Attorney General has been patting himself on the back this week for recusing himself and purportedly handing the matter of his friend, the mayor of Central Falls, king of the prolonged rip-off board-up emergency, over to a prosecutor in his office in January. This would be more impressive if action of any kind - and it is clear from the conduct of the State Police who have set up shop at C.F. City Hall that there was something here to follow up - had been initiated by the AG's office in the last three months. Instead, we are left with the distinct impression that the Attorney General's loud and repeated proclamation on the Lively Experiment and elsewhere that he would keep this matter at arms length was as much second person imperative to his staff as first person declarative of his own intentions.

- In view of recent developments, it appears that the theme of Patrick Lynch's upcoming fundraiser - "Countdown to Victory" - is either a tad premature or partially misnamed. (There's certainly a countdown taking place, though possibly not in the process or to the outcome referenced by the Lynch campaign.)

- Finally, an O/T request of Mr. Lynch from all of his political opponents: please continue to not tip or under-tip when you entertain, eat out or hold a fundraiser in a public venue. Nothing will ... endear you more to former and current wait staffers and their family and friends than this display of parsimony.

Changing the Rules for "The Next Big Thing"

Special deals. Special laws. Once the state starts taking this sort of step, we're well past the point of reasonable accommodation for an incipient industry:

State lawmakers are attempting to breathe new life into a stalled proposal for an eight-turbine wind farm in waters off Block Island through legislation that would allow the project to bypass a difficult regulatory hurdle.

A bill filed late Wednesday would make it possible for developer Deepwater Wind and National Grid, the state's main electric utility, to enter into a power-purchase agreement without having to win approval from the state Public Utilities Commission. ...

Instead of the PUC, approval of a new contract for Deepwater would be in the hands of the appointed directors of four other state agencies: the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, the Economic Development Corporation, the Office of Energy Resources and the Department of Administration. All four agencies would have to certify an agreement for it to go into effect, but they would each be given very narrow parameters for their review.

Deepwater and its government supporters didn't get the result they wanted through the normal path — permission to force energy consumers to pay three times the going rate of electricity for its product — so the latter are changing the regulatory path and putting blinders on the regulators. Whatever good intentions may lie behind such initiatives, this sort of special treatment should be a red flag for voters and legislators and is a bright beacon for corruption.

Amy Kempe, Carcieri's spokeswoman, said the introduction of the bill had no connection to the Cape Wind decision. Approval of the Massachusetts project, she said, only buttressed the belief held by Carcieri and House and Senate leaders in the promise of a national offshore wind industry.

"Yesterday's announcement shows that this is a viable industry," she said Thursday. "It is going to be moving forward."

It appears that Ms. Kempe misses the distinction between evidence that an industry is viable and evidence that it is politically popular. The former means that people are willing to allocate their own money for a good or service; the latter means that elected and bureaucratic officials are willing to allocate other people's money for it. The standards for success are clearly quite different.

State Deficit 2012: $750,000,000

This year's deficit was $220 million. 2011 stands at $440 million. But three quarters of a billion dollars is the number for 2012. Gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille revealed this startling and grim projection last night at the East Providence Super Spring Spectacular.

It's being called the Medicaid Cliff. In two years, federal stimulus monies stop flowing into the state but the obligations which accompanied those funds - namely, expanded Medicaid eligibility guidelines - carry on, at which point, state tax dollars must pick up the slack. Mr. Robitaille explained to me after his public remarks that the General Assembly can change eligibility guidelines in 2012 as the obligation goes away with the federal stimulus dollars. But, if I understand correctly, even if they act immediately to modify eligibility and eliminate the entire Medicaid deficit, those changes would not go into effect until 2013, leaving 2012 as a crunch year.

I turned on the radio this morning just in time to hear Minority Leader Bob Watson upbraid General Assembly Democrats for postponing local aid and pension payments to mid June, effectively pushing the 2010 budget problem off to another year. (Hey, at least their willing to allow cities and towns to take in this irresponsible approach to their own budget probs.)

So ... 2010 is being postponed. 2012 we fall off a cliff. Puts a lot of pressure on FY2011, people.

Interesting Poll Results

Rasmussen reports that Lincoln Chafee (I) and Frank Caprio (D) are currently tied in the race for governor, with John Robitaille (R) pulling 21%. Switch Caprio out for Patrick Lynch, and Chafee goes up to 35%, while Robitaille gains to 26%. Clearly, right-leaning conservatives are still buying Caprio's moderate image.

By way of a wildcard: Governor Carcieri's approval rating jumped 10 percentage points, to 53%, from last month's survey. The governor's been kind of quiet, lately, so I'm not sure what would drive that jump, unless it's a post-flood rally. Although, this might be related:

While Robitaille leads in both three-way races among those who strongly support repeal of the health care law, Chafee earns over 50% support from those who strongly oppose repeal.

A majority of Rhode Islanders support the repeal of the healthcare legislation (51%), which can perhaps be taken as a stand-in for a broader shift of the electorate rightward and toward Republicans. The cult of Obama is still holding relatively strong, with 57% approving of the president's performance. But note this: That means the One now leads our much-maligned governor by a mere four percentage points when it comes to approval.

The Providence Journal reports Rasmussen's healthcare numbers differently than does Rasmussen itself (unless Rasmussen just didn't summarize the results that the Projo cites), but if anything, this the Projo offers a moderated view of a surprising shift that ought to send chills down the spines of Democrats who expected passage of the legislation to kick off an upswing of approval::

The latest poll also showed 48 percent of Rhode Islanders approve of federal health-care reform, with 46 percent opposing it. Support was stronger last month, with 54 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed.

Just Run

The thing about politics and governance is that the battles can't ultimately be won from the outside. Somebody's got to step forward to take office and make the right decisions, with the right motivation and guidance, once in office.

I pass the following along with the suggestion that running under the flag of a particular party does not require a blood oath or cult-like fealty. The person who wins a particular office holds the cards; the purpose of the parties, in this case, the Republican Party, is just to help with the effort and to coordinate action among office holders. In other words, if you're interested in running as a right-leaning reformer, you should see the state GOP as a facilitating ally, not as a cadre that seeks to usurp your office.

On Saturday, May 1, 2010, the Rhode Island Republican Party will begin its 2010 Candidate Training Program. The first session of this program will be held at the Campaign Headquarters of Mayor Scott Avedisian, located at 1800 Post Road in Warwick, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

While the content of the Candidate Training Program will be directed primarily to candidates for the RI House and Senate, Republican candidates for all state and local offices, as well as their key campaign staff, will be welcome to attend.

The Candidate Training Program will begin with a one-day training session focused on practical requirements for success including: Declaration of Candidacy and signature requirements; Financial Disclosures and the RI Board of Elections; campaign fundraising; media; and issues. Republican Party officers, past candidates and political consultants will be among the presenters at this portion of Training Program.

The RI GOP 2010 Candidate Training Program will resume with an intensive, two-day training session on May 22 and 23 to provide an in-depth look at successful campaign strategies. Additional details regarding the two-day portion of the Training Program will be released at a later date.

Anyone with questions or wishing to attend the 2010 Candidate Training Program must respond by email to: contact@rigop.org.

The Biggest Faction in the General Assembly

In today's ProJo story about the General Assembly and pension reform, one sentence jumps out and explains the root problem at the heart of trying to change things here in Rhode Island:

At least half, 55 of the 113 lawmakers, have a publicly-financed pension, or between 1 and 33 years of credit toward a possible pension from a city-, town- or state-financed pension fund in Rhode Island.

Rep. Mary Duffy Messier of Pawtucket, a recently retired fifth-grade teacher, was also on the losing side of the 42-to-29 House vote to limit the COLAs paid future retirees to the first $35,000 in retirement pay.

"It is not a lot of money, not compared to the governor's pension, let's say, from Cookson America," said Messier of her own $4,542 a month pension after 35 years in the classroom.

While acknowledging "the pension system is in a bad way," she said she still could not vote to cut the benefits of future retirees because "I know the hard work that teachers put in, and I know all the aggravation they go through with parents and administrators, and now their jobs are going to be on the line if their test scores don't come through...I think it's kind of unfair to them."

Caprio's Pension Plan

General Treasurer Frank Caprio has released a cliff-notes version of his pension reform plan. It's composed of two options for future retirees and will not affect current retirees. To summarize:
Plan 1 - Combination Play or "Hybrid" Plan: Mimics the Federal plan: most of the plan consists of a fixed pension and his supplemented by a 401(k) style component. Costs for pension component are shared equally by employee and taxpayers. The State would provide a fixed contribution to the 401(k) portion while employees could make elective payments (ie; not required to pay in).

Plan 2 - 401(k) style plan: The 5 and 5: State and employee contribute 5% to a 401(k) style plan. Approximately 5,000 state employees already have this plan and the idea is to give future employees a choice between either plan.

There are no details on how much this will save long-term versus the current system.

Achorn: RI's Problems Reflected in Your Mirror

ProJo's Ed Achorn agrees that the unions have a big hand in running the state. But he emphasizes that they aren't to blame.

If there is a public enemy number one, it's not [AFL-CIO President George] Nee. He's just exploiting the system to enrich himself and the people who empower him. He does a very good job of it.

No, the real enemy of the common good stares back at the voters in the mirror every morning.

They are the ones who elect willing puppets, instead of men and women determined to break the strings.

They are the ones who have ignored years of warnings that our policy of running government to benefit special interests is not working out very well.

The Center Is Relative, I Suppose

With a few notable exceptions (ahem), Ian Donnis checked in with some right-leaning Rhode Island groups as we move into election season. It's interesting to note that the two voices for the other side were not people known for their roles as explicit leftists, but as union leaders, with this bold comment:

Robert Walsh is executive director of the National Education Association in Rhode Island and another prominent Democratic activist. He says unions and liberal Democrats don't deserve the blame for Rhode Island's woes.

"You want to give us the keys to the kingdom for a while, we'll show you what good progressive taxation and business development policies can do to turn the state around," Walsh says. "We're, I suppose, a useful target for the people on the other side of the political spectrum, but the gravity in the legislature's clearly in the center."

This chart, to which I linked during the Scott Brown campaign, comes to mind. It shows that RI's Democrats are relatively in the center among Democrats across the country, but that our Republicans are the most liberal around. Which means that the General Assembly is just plain liberal.

Magic Numbers and Pension Politics

Rhode Island GOP Chairman Gio Cicione makes a good point about pensions and General Treasurer Frank Caprio:

In fact, Mr. Caprio knew better a long time ago. As early as April 2002, when he was Senate finance chairman, Mr. Caprio indicated that an 8.25 percent return had "proved to be an overly optimistic assumed rate of interest for the fund" (reported in The Journal on April 17, 2002). Nonetheless, throughout his career in the General Assembly and his tenure as treasurer, Mr. Caprio promulgated this budget fantasy to mask the truth from taxpayers and from public employees who will depend on the state pension fund to provide their retirement benefits.

As a candidate in the upcoming gubernatorial election, and with the pension fund in trouble, Mr. Caprio is working now to appear fiscally responsible, but he has a lot to explain about his two-decades-long political record of endangering the retirement of public employees and increasing the pressure on taxpayers to fill the holes in the fund.

I'd expand the criticism to anybody in government who complied with the conspiracy to behave as if such expectations were founded in reality. Anytime people in government — or in any capacity — get to make up numbers that determine what they can do with the money at their disposal, others should be skeptical. They should be especially wary if the predictions are anything other than clearly conservative.

We are where we are, however, and it appears that Big RI Labor is content to lean on public officials to find some way through the mess that they've jointly created. Since the magic of government accounting cannot reach beyond the printed page into actual transfers of funds (at least in sufficient amounts), it's going to come down to one of two options: Taxes are going to have to increase greatly, or pensions are going to have to be trimmed. Union members should not risk tremendous confidence that it will be the former.

"Sense of urgency"?

So the RI Senate threw the supplemental budget back at the House because they didn't want to re-amortize the pension plans. And suddenly, we're told there was a "sense of urgency"!

“They clearly threw off any timetable,” said House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, advised of the Senate’s plans Wednesday afternoon. “That’s what we were always butting up against, a sense of urgency. Apparently, now the urgency is out, so I will have to see exactly what they do.”

Shoveling, but Down or Out?

I imagine we'll have commentary to offer on the supplemental budget as we all have time to digest it (or eject it from our systems by one route or another). But let's be honest; we all know the basic story: the General Assembly had big battles over relatively minor details to tweak around the edges and buy another month, another year, another election cycle of the status quo. Coshares, COLAs, contract approval — none of it adds up to a repair of the annual deficits, much less a new structure with which to effect a complete turnaround.

So, with spring in the air, we can at least package the continuing decline in the light packaging of Stephen Gerling's letter to the editor of the Sakonnet Times:

While out in my yard shoveling manure into a wheelbarrow, I got to thinking about Rhode Island politics. My purpose was to get grass to take root; a "grass-roots effort" if you will. I suppose I have a liberal lawn. It has no mind of its own. It just sits there and hopes it gets enough water to grow. It mindlessly grows until it gets cut short, but doesn't mind, it just offers more of itself up. It often needs a healthy dose of manure to make it feel better again. Lastly, underneath it are little bugs that eat away at its roots giving nothing back, just taking. Still I labor to care for it. Why? ...

What about my state? Does it want to prosper, or will it simply wait for what it needs? Will the people have their pay cut short, then make some more to give without asking where it's going? Will Rhode Islanders be happy with a healthy dose of manure? I’m scared to death that they might. I'm scared to death that when a candidate steps forward to speak for the people, their voice might be buried by the shovel of indifference, then tamped over with a little more of the dung we seem to have acquired a taste for.

Please, Rhode Island, surprise me this election cycle.

The Little Policy Details That Say So Much

Sometimes, in the noise and rancor of politics and budgeting, one's attention becomes monopolized by particular details. Consider the following:

[The state's public-employee unions'] chief target: a proposal to limit annual pension increases to the first $35,000 in retirement pay initially. The $35,000 would go up each year, in keeping with the Consumer Price Index, and legislative budget writers stripped from their final bill a provision that Carcieri sought — to reinforce a right they already have to adjust these cost of living adjustments of up to 3 percent annually.

By way of comparison, Massachusetts has, for more than a decade, limited its annual pension increases to the first $12,000 in retirement pay.

There's no excuse for so much of what goes on in Rhode Island. Oh, there are rationalizations and complaints, and they'll continue to float to the surface as bubbles long after the state has drifted to the bottom. But the poor leadership and self-serving lobbying have no justification but greed and corruption. One class rallies and demands the continuation of ill-advised and unsustainable handouts, and another class suffers until its members reach the threshold of whatever's keeping them in the state.

The cycle continues, and down we go.

A Sign That Our Government Has Become Distracted

Take every pothole that you hit and bridge that you tremble to cross as a reminder of how misplaced the priorities of the state and federal governments have become:

In the supplemental budget Governor Carcieri sent to the legislature, he proposed reducing the DOT budget by $74.3 million. The House Finance Committee recommended cutting slightly more than $5 million more, leaving the DOT with $409.4 million. The House is scheduled to vote on the supplemental budget this week. ...

The state puts no more money into its bridge and highway programs than the 20 percent required to match federal aid for projects, and it borrows that matching money. Shawver said the state has known its highway aid would be held up for months. Congress hasn't approved a replacement for the country's main highway legislation, making funding unpredictable, he said.

Road repairs aren't as politically valuable as big giveaways, in part because everybody already expects them, leaving no advantage to being the politician who made them happen. Then, when they're clearly deficient, the blame is diffuse, both in its origin among the people and in its targets.

Retired and Rehired in Central Falls: "Terribly inappropriate" but legal

Ok, vent over this:

The police chief of Central Falls is drawing criticism for collecting a $43,000-per-year pension while also continuing to work and draw an annual salary of $72,000....Moran "retired" two weeks ago, then signed a five-year contract under a deal approved by the city retirement board, city lawyer, and mayor....Moran says he made the move so he would be eligible to receive approximately $35,000 for unused sick days. He says his deal actually saves the city money in the long run.

Former city Finance Director Edna Poulin said the arrangement, although legal, looks "terribly inappropriate."

Illinois Does Pension Reform

George Will's latest contains this information about pension reform in Illinois (not Texas, union-friendly, "progressive" Illinois):

Gov. Pat Quinn called it a "political earthquake" when the state's Legislature recently voted -- by margins of 92-17 in the House and 48-6 in the Senate -- to reform pensions for state employees. There is now a cap on the amount of earnings that can be used as the basis for calculating benefits. In some states, employees game the system by "spiking" their last year's earnings by accumulating vast amounts of overtime pay.

An even more important change -- a harbinger of America's future -- is that most new Illinois state government employees must work until age 67 in order to be eligible for full retirement benefits. Those already on the state payroll can still retire at 55 with full benefits.

Another Unlikely Budget Provision

I'm surprised nobody else has highlighted this provision noted in the Providence Journal's summary of the RI House Finance Committee's supplemental budget plan:

The budget would also change a school funding "maintenance of effort" provision that requires cities and towns to provide at least as much local money for school as was provided the year before. Instead, cities and towns would be able to cut that amount by 5 percent for the current year only.

Maybe it's only because I'm up to my ears in budget details for Tiverton, but I'd say this is among the most significant changes that I've heard proposed, which is why I'll be very, very surprised if it makes it into law. Requiring town councils to approve teacher contracts is also significant and unlikely to make it into law.

On a different note, I have to say that I'm still not a fan of mandating health coshare percentages. All we're doing by pushing these changes up to the state level is increasing the power of the General Assembly and consolidating the target for which the unions have to shoot. As grassroots reformers, we'd do much better to concentrate on local elections and make the contractual changes where they belong: within the cities and towns.

Lastly, every time the General Assembly mucks with one of the governor's proposed budgets, the same dynamic applies: They reduce the hit to everybody, and the game becomes finding out where they're getting the money from; that's the hand that they don't want us to watch in their magic trick. In the current case, this appears to be it:

Budget hawks, meanwhile expressed concern that the package included a measure to "reamortize" the state retirement system's $4.3 billion in unfunded pension liabilities over 25 years, a move akin to refinancing a mortgage that costs less now, but more over the long term. The state had been in the ninth year of a 30-year plan to pay off the massive debt.

The overall cost to taxpayers is $2.2 billion, according to House fiscal adviser Sharon Reynolds Ferland.

All they'll be doing, with such a strategy, is making Rhode Island's inevitable judgment day even more painful.

As if we didn't know who calls the shots in RI

So the long-awaited supplemental budget has finally made it's way to the RI House floor. According to Speaker of the House Gordon Fox, “This is a budget where everyone shares a little bit of the pain." Well, at least, that was the plan:

Changes are possible in the coming days, as evidenced by one reversal by Democratic leaders over the course of four hours on Thursday, a day characterized by closed-door meetings among the Assembly’s Democratic elite.

Fox shocked public-sector unions when he confirmed at roughly 4:30 p.m. that the budget plan would require municipal employees to contribute at least 15 percent of their health-care premiums in new contracts.

An hour later, AFL-CIO President George Nee vowed to spend the coming days “aggressively lobbying every member of the House” to reverse the plan, characterizing the move as “a totally unacceptable intrusion into collective bargaining.”

The outcome, according to Nee, could have political consequences: “This is an election year,” he said. “It could be a factor in how endorsements are made.”

By 8:30 p.m., Democratic leaders had confirmed that the co-share requirement had been stripped from their budget plan, a victim of a final round of negotiations among House and Senate leaders, according to House spokesman Larry Berman.

Hope After the Flood

Jim Bush just about sums it up. (Reprinted with permission.)

The Departure from Rhode Island of the John Galts Can be Reversed

Under Justin's post "Do You Know This Guy?", BobN points out

Why would anyone have a problem with the [Ayn] Rand signs? They are neither in poor taste nor dishonest.

The condition of Rhode Island's finances, economy, and urban society does resemble the one described in Atlas Shrugged in a number of disturbing ways.

Indeed. As does the end result: the "strike" or departure of the John Galts. The only difference is that the John Galts - using the term in a larger sense to include both corporations and individuals - of Rhode Island have been leaving the state over the last two decades, not all at one moment. So they're departure is less stark.

That they have been leaving, however, is plainly demonstrated by the poor economic condition of the state on every level: the chronic scarcity of good jobs; an economy always worse than that of most other states; the extent of our tax burden (more payers would mean lower taxes); the size of the state budget deficit.

As in the novel, the decision by the John Galts to leave Rhode Island was not arbitrary but in response to certain repulsing conditions. The good news, however, is that, in real life, these conditions can be ameliorated with the legislative flip of a switch: the tax and regulatory burdens unique to Rhode Island can be eased and the John Galts encouraged to return.

Washing Out the Apathy

In a related way to that in which the healthcare debate has galvanized public action, Ed Achorn wonders whether the flooding of Rhode Island will bring people to the conclusion that I mentioned on last week's Matt Allen show: The impact would not have been as terrible had our government been concentrating on the things for which it is actually intended, such as infrastructure and community protection.

Interestingly, the trauma of Hurricane Katrina jolted the people of Louisiana to rethink their ways. They elected a governor, Brown-educated Bobby Jindal, on an anti-corruption platform, and supported efforts to improve the economy by attacking special-interest politics.

"The average person out there understands now that public corruption has adversely affected his or her quality of life, whether it’s the crumbling streets they drive on, the dismal state of the public school system, the crime rate or the lack of jobs," U.S. Atty. Jim Letten, based in New Orleans, told the Chicago Tribune.

Our state is heavily taxed. It's in a tremendous amount of debt. And yet its roads, bridges, and dams are crumbling, and its very expensive public sector is ineffective and focused on the wrong things. I'm not optimistic, but at least there's reason to hope that the Great Flood of 2010 has provided a stark example of the consequences of wayward government.

Oversized, Photogenic Grant Checks or Some Flood Relief for Constituents?

This will be an interesting conundrum.

[From a press release.]

State Representatives John Loughlin (R-Tiverton, Little Compton, Portsmouth) and Jon Brien (D-Woonsocket) today announced that they will be introducing legislation to provide tax relief to Rhode Islanders affected by the devastating March floods.

The proposed tax credit would provide a one-time, per family $2,000 state income tax credit to Rhode Islanders who have met FEMA standards for aid and have uninsured losses greater than $10,000.

“Rhode Islanders are resilient, but these floods are another blow to our already reeling economy and bleak job market,” added Representative Loughlin. “It is our hope that allowing Rhode Islanders to claim this special tax credit for uninsured losses will help close the gap between what they lost and what is covered by federal aid.”

“While there’s little we can do to replace items of sentimental value, we wanted to ease the financial burden,” said Representative Brien. “By using the $2.6 million stashed away in the legislative grant fund, we expect that this bill will be revenue neutral. We believe that other legislators will agree that helping victims of a natural disaster should be a budget priority.”

(HEY! Aren't these guys opponents for the same Congressional seat???)

UPDATE

... as to the candidacy status of Rep Jon Brien, courtesy of commenter John:

Jon declared himself to be no longer seeking the first district congressional seat last Friday on a Woonsocket radio appearance (WNRI). Now they'rer just two conservative buddies again.

Status Report on RI Gov't: Beaux Arts But No Budget

The temptation to contrast this RFP by the State of Rhode Island [PDF]

RFP # 7323535

TITLE: Fiscal Agent – Arts Council Panel Operations

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Rhode Island State Council on the Arts (RISCA) requires a fiscal agent to administer the timely payment of honoraria, fees and travel expenses, under the direction of the State Arts Council.

with this report by the ProJo's Katherine Gregg about the accomplishments of the General Assembly at the half way mark of the 2010 session is irresistable.

They spent a total of $7,488,011 between Jan. 1 and March 30 on their own operation, including staff.

They introduced 1,716 bills. They passed six new "public laws," including matching House and Senate versions of bills to lift the state cap on new charter schools, provide new business loan guarantees from the state's Industrial and Recreational Building Authority and name the Rhode Island Training School for a legislator who died last year: the revered Rep. Thomas Slater, D-Providence.

If you include the 130 resolutions "commemorating the 166th anniversary of Dominican Republic Independence," for example, or declaring March as "Irish-American Heritage Month," and the 33 measures reinstating lapsed corporate charters and allowing otherwise unauthorized people to perform marriage ceremonies, they have voted on 169 pieces of legislation.

Noticeably absent: any action on the 2010 Supplemental Budget, though the fiscal year is three quarters over and the G.A., who haranged the Governor to promptly prepare and submit it, has had the budget in hand since mid-December. (The Gov's office advised today that the Supplemental Budget will be heard Wednesday evening in the Finance Committee.)

As for the position of Fiscal Agent for the Arts Council, while I am grateful that it has been thrown open to competitive bidding (I'll let you know if I work up gratitude that the position is funded with federal tax dollars), it is a reminder that funding of the arts remains an item in the state budget. As the 2010 Supplemental Budget has not yet been acted upon, in part, due to the unpleasant decisions surrounding a shortage of revenue, and the 2011 budget is short $400 million, soliciting a fiscal manager to disburse funds for an arts program seems a little like ordering dessert when the wherewithal for the meal itself is lacking.

Will Disaster money become another "one-time fix"?

I've heard chatter about how, perversely, the flood disaster here in Rhode Island could turn out to be some sort of blessing. Why? Because the Federal Disaster Area tag brings with it Federal dollars that can be used to rebuild infrastructure damaged in the storm. And whereas Bastiat's parable of the Broken Window certainly applies to those businesses damaged by the flood (money they could have spent elsewhere is going towards just getting back to normal), does it apply to RI government?

On a macroeconomic scale, yes it does. Federal dollars are still our dollars, though filtered through Washington. That is money that could be spent elsewhere if there was no disaster. So, whether you agree or disagree with the other avenues of spending--ie; health care, military, etc.--disaster relief takes money away from other areas.

On the other hand, if we've already sent the moola to D.C., what the heck is wrong with getting it back because we need it, right? In fact, isn't disaster relief amongst one of the core functions of a government anyway? I would say yes and to heck with Bastiat.

But then there is this: RI government has done an awful job at one of its supposedly central functions of maintaining infrastructure. The budgetary crunch wasn't going to alleviate that any time soon and, at best, we would be subject to the same routine as past years such as voting on "transportation bonds" apart from the normal budget or cutting out school building improvements. But then we get the rains of March and the resulting disaster, which leads to the promise of a Federal bailout of a different sort.

My fear is that the General Assembly will manage to turn disaster aid--just like last year's stimulus money--into another short-term, one-time "fix" by moving money around and using federal dollars to replace state spending (like they did with education stimulus dollars) instead of as a supplement to it. So questionable programs favored by those in the General Assembly will be maintained and Federal dollars will be used to cover the basic areas that State government should be doing anyway. Another one time fix that will allow the GA to kick the can down the road again.

Of Twitter and Governing Water

Matt and I talked Twitter and flooding on last night's Matt Allen Show as I was en route to the Voter Coalition meeting. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Some Non-10th Amendment Questions, to the Candidates at the 10th Amendment Rally

More from some of the candidates who attended Saturday's 10th Amendment Rally held at the Rhode Island Statehouse, in response to a few questions not directly related to the 10th-Amendment...

• Mark Zaccaria, candidate for Congress in Rhode Island's Second District, answered a question about his reaction to Congressman James Langevin's vote on the Democratic healthcare bill...

  "Mr. Langevin has had a very long history of explaining himself as a pro-life candidate...the flip-flop is more about the fact that OK, he was lying to us about this, what else is he lying to us about..."

• Robert Healey answered a question about whether this is the year for his Lieutentant Gubernatorial candidacy and his platform, which is to eliminate the office...

  "Four years ago people would say, bah, it's only a million dollars a year. Now people are saying it's a million dollars a year..."

• And Dan Harrop, who is running as a Republican for Mayor of Providence, gave more of a stump-speech than a 10th-Amendment speech during his official remarks. It was however a pretty good stump speech, and very appropriate to the venue, as you can hear from the excerpt below...

  "I'm from Providence and many of you are not, so I'm going to give you one fact, then ask you to move around and take a tour of Providence with me..."

Feeding the Beast: General Assembly Looks to Take a Bite Out of Non-Profits

"Desperate times call for desperate measures", right? So now we learn that the RI General Assembly is looking at taxing non-profits to earn more "revenue." The method will be via suspension of the tax-exempt status by removing the sales tax waiver that non-profits receive (the GA isn't considering property taxes or taxing donations...yet). According to the Steve Peoples' story in the ProJo, this will effect 6,600 nonprofit organizations, including churches, hospitals, private schools, youth sports leagues, PTO's/PTA's and the YMCA among others.

It's obvious that the General Assembly has done a poor job of managing state revenue and has made poor choices in what it prioritizes for spending. I'm also sure there are those who will argue that hospitals and private schools and the larger non-profits that proliferate in this state can afford to be taxed. But what about the Parent-Teacher groups and sports leagues and any number of smaller non-profits? Many of these groups help fill the gaps caused by budgetary oversights and misplaced priorities that have trickled down from the General Assembly into our cities and towns.

For instance, with more education dollars going towards personnel costs, it is up to the Parent-teacher groups to pay for programs--field trips, assemblies, etc.--that once were funded by the school districts. In Warwick, youth sports leagues help keep Jr. High age kids on fields because Warwick schools don't offer organized sports. Levying the sales tax will leave less money to spend on an event at a school or available for financial aid to help a kid from a poor family play ball with his friends.

Then there are animal shelters and soup kitchens and hundreds of other small groups of people giving of their free time to do what they can to help the community. They didn't expect the government to help pay for things, but asked instead to be left alone and given a tax break in recognition of the good works they perform. These groups certainly didn't expect to be taxed for giving a helping hand. This really is shameful.

Politics at Night

On last night's Matt Allen Show, Marc and Matt discussed various topics including the multiple candidates for representation of the second Congressional district The frequent question is why Republicans don't run for General Assembly seats, rather than crowd onto the ticket for higher offices. I'm beginning to think that it may be less a matter of prestige than of income; national offices, the governorship, and so on, come with paychecks. There are fewer union members and lawyers among Republicans, so fewer can afford to invest so much time and effort into fruitless General Assembly offices. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Fox's Missing Adjective

A quick observation from another article about RI House Speaker Gordon Fox (D, Providence):

Thirty eight years later, the new speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives is a bit more reserved in his choice of words — but not much — when he talks about gambling, taxes, public employee pensions and the difficulty every incumbent will have in a year when he acknowledges: "People are angry. They are hurting. They are scared, and they want to lash out."

Notice the phrase "lash out." That's an indiscriminate verb, an unthinking response. What's missing from everything that I've seen from Fox is any admission that those angry people have a point, that some of their complaints are valid and worth adjusting policy to answer.

Sgouros's Music to Delusional Ears

Having spent some time in the trenches over the past half-decade, arguing the finer points of Tom Sgouros's economic analysis, as he compiled it one spun conclusion upon another, I have to say that his candidacy for General Treasurer has been a learning experience. It's as if, by the time the collection of molded conclusions reaches the length of a book, people believe it carries its own credibility — or at any rate, it would be quite a task to take it apart. So, they convey it mainly as an opinion to which they offer no response.

Consider Ed Fitzpatrick's recent column:

Sgouros believes the dominant narrative has produced the wrong diagnosis of what ails Rhode Island and, as a result, "everybody is running around creating the wrong solutions" and "wondering why the problems don't get fixed."

As an example, he cited the flat-tax alternative, which helps the state's wealthiest taxpayers.

"To pay for those tax cuts, the state government has absorbed some of the Obama stimulus money that should have gone to cities and towns, and to schools," he wrote Tuesday in his Rhode Island Policy Reporter column. "Property taxes have been increased, leaving thousands of working families with even less money to spend. We've laid off municipal workers and teachers, and made cuts in education, Medicaid and other services used by ordinary Rhode Islanders. These policies send a clear signal that our leaders in the State House, notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary, have not really been helping working families in Rhode Island."

The first thing to note is that even legislators hostile to the flat tax put its cost at barely a double-digit percentage of the state's current budgetary short fall — let alone next year's projected deficit. Yet the candidate for treasurer wants us to believe that eliminating it is the key to solving the state's fiscal woes.

Even more curious is the amount of time that Sgouros has spent arguing, in the past, against the idea that wealthy people are leaving Rhode Island. In fact, their numbers have been increasing, as has the amount of tax that they've paid, in both absolute and percentage terms. Of course, he's ignored the intriguing correspondence of that increase with the enactment of the flat tax and the now erased capital gains tax faze out.

Fitzpatrick should have spent some time reading blogosphere back-arguments. Some interesting questions for his interview might have arisen.

ADDENDUM:

It occurs to me to clarify — just in case — that I'm not implying that Fitzpatrick is among the deluded to whom my title refers.

Which Is the Frying Pan, and Which Is the Fire?

Perhaps a more politically savvy operative than myself would see opportunity in it, but I find it discouraging to watch spats between factions of Rhode Island's ruling party, because neither side will run the state well. It's a bit like watching two ogres battle over who gets the larger portion of your flesh, with little chance that they'll accidentally free you from your cage in the process.

Take Rep. Arthur Corvese (D, North Providence), who has this to say about Speaker Gordon Fox (D, Providence):

Therein lay the substantive difference in the two candidates for speaker. I believe that Gordon Fox's stance on major issues is too far to the left for the good of Rhode Islanders. Speaking strictly for myself, I would say that a Fox speakership will inevitably include, but not be limited to, an increase in the state income tax; a lack of constitutionally sound state limitations on illegal immigration; an economic-development policy overly influenced by environmental extremists; and, of course, the left’s raison d'etre, gay marriage. I firmly believe that neither my constituents in House District 55 in North Providence, nor the taxpaying electorate at large, want this agenda for our state.

And should Speaker Fox decide that he may not want to pursue the aforementioned legislative agenda, he will have no choice, because he will be forced to do so by his liberal supporters inside and outside the House chamber.

And yet, Corvese introduced the current legislation (H7581) concerning binding arbitration for teacher contracts. Voters just can't win.

Which Senator Would He Replace?

It appears that with regard to his political options, Congressman Patrick Kennedy is keeping his powder dry and his campaign fund intact. In yesterday's Washington Post,

... he notes that he is not retiring for good. "I consider it taking a sabbatical," he says. He will transfer his roughly $500,000 in campaign money to an interest-bearing account, which he says he might tap if he runs for the Senate someday.

In the absence of any relocation announcement, the congressman would presumably run for a Rhode Island Senate seat. Can we know which senator, Jack Reed or Sheldon Whitehouse, the congressman believes is doing an unsatisfactory job and how he would better represent Rhode Island in the US Senate than that incumbent?

"Sins of the Past" Contribute to Pension Woes

ProJo has the story:

Acting Auditor General Dennis E. Hoyle said...cities and towns need to look at their sometimes generous retirement plans, determine whether they are “sustainable or not” and make changes. He said cities and towns could improve the situation by making full contributions each year, raising employee contributions and transitioning out of defined-benefit plans to defined contribution or hybrid plans for new hires.

“Without changes in the benefit structure, there’s not going to be that much of a dramatic savings” he told the commission.

...cities and towns are trying to deal with the “sins of the past” when it comes to promised retirement benefits, but he acknowledged it is a challenge. It would help, he said, if the state allowed defined contribution and hybrid plans for cities and towns that enroll employees in the state Municipal Employees Retirement System, because those would lower projected costs for new hires.

Hoyle cited the Cranston police and fire retirement system as an example of a plan that is in trouble. According to the report, the Cranston plan covers 70 active members and 426 retirees and has enough money to cover just 15 percent of its projected obligations. As a result, the annual required contribution needed to keep pace with projected costs is $20.1 million. By contrast, the annual required contribution for the state Municipal Employees Retirement System, which covers 14,667 active employees and retirees — more than 29 times as many people as the Cranston plan — is $33.5 million.

Any Way to Tax the Productive

A letter by Middletown Republican Town Committee Chairman Antone Viveiros in the Newport Daily News directs attention to H7563, submitted by Rep. Amy Rice (D., Portsmouth). The legislation would add the following language to Rhode Island tax law:

Opting out of the domestic production deduction. — All corporations doing business in the State of Rhode Island shall add back into their taxable income any amount deducted under the federal "domestic production deduction" also known as section 199 of the federal Internal Revenue Code. State tax forms shall be changed if needed in order to comply with this statute.

For the likes of Rice, it appears, ideology trumps economic wisdom. Even were it a principled correction to remove national tax reductions from the Rhode Island calculation, sucking money out of the productive segment of the state is plain lunacy in the current economy and in our current condition of civic deterioration. As Viveiros asks in closing:

Is this the way to create jobs?

Why won't the General Assembly majority cut spending, as we have? Do they have to, to get reelected? I'll leave those answers to you.

Connecting the Dots: The PPD Drug Ring

It's been a few days since the main players were divulged, so--based on information gathered in various stories--here is an attempt to show the links between the known players in the Providence PD drug ring and others. These links aren't to be inferred as an accusation against those not charged, but they are interesting in that they show how the saying in Rhode Island that "everyone knows everyone" is indeed the case.

General Assembly Waiting for Problems to Fix Themselves

Honestly, I don't know how Rhode Islanders can read articles like this one without wanting to storm the State House. In brief, the General Assembly is now letting months pass by without resolving this year's nine-figure budget deficit, and every day of delay makes the task more difficult, thus building political tolerance for the most dim-witted (but typical) solutions:

Key legislators acknowledge that the delay has forced them to consider options that may balloon future deficits, such as refinancing the payment plan for the $4.33-billion unfunded portion of the pension system for state workers and teachers.

Any homeowner should know that the possibility of refinancing the house to pay the grocery bill ought to be evidence that it's time to cancel the premium channel package from the cable company, but the General Assembly marches on, even after years of one-time fixes that have without doubt harmed the lives of future Rhode Islanders — applying stimulus funds to programs that will require continued revenue once the federal largess dries up, sacrificing future tobacco settlement money at a loss, and so on. At a first-year savings of $40-45 million, reamortizing the pension debt wouldn't even come close to addressing the $220 million budget gap, yet it's the only big idea floated as a possibility in the article. And here's the shiny new House Speaker, Gordon Fox (D., Providence):

"No COLAs for life, for instance, for me is a non-starter," Fox said. "Do you want someone when they're 80 years old to be living in poverty? I don't think we, as a society, want to do that."

Being inclined to be charitable, I'm not sure whether to ascribe that statement to stupidity or dishonesty. Eliminating automatic cost of living adjustments (COLAs) to pension payouts in no way prevents the General Assembly from enacting such increases in pension benefits as will prevent 80-year-old former state employees (many of whom would have been retired for more than twenty years, at that point) from starvation. Thus far in his time as speaker, the only case that Fox has competently backed is the case for relocating beyond his taxation reach.

Meanwhile, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Daniel DaPonte (D, East Providence, Pawtucket) dips into the musty playbook for the "blame the governor" card:

"People understand that it's the chief executive and department heads that manage the state on a day-to-day basis," DaPonte said. "The General Assembly does not run departments. We pass a budget, and year after year after year, departments overspend."

I'd replace "understand," in that quotation, with "have been misled into believing." It is the General Assembly that tells the departments what work they must do and what money they must hand out. And that's the one area the shysters refuse to go, because it's how they buy their offices.

Rhode Island at the National Level: Left and Leaving

You saw this, perchance?

Rhode Island's delegation to the U.S. Senate is the nation's most liberal, with Democrats Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse tied in the number one spot, with partisans from three other states. All five scored 88 on the liberal composite scale....

It's difficult to place Rhode Island on the left-right spectrum in the House of Representatives because one of its two Democratic Congressman, Patrick J. Kennedy, missed too many votes to be considered in the rankings. ...

Rep. James R. Langevin ranked 124th among House liberals with a composite rating of 74.2 on the liberal composite scale of 100.

Rhode Island is deep, deep blue, in a political sense, but as we've been discussing for quite some time, its politicians are well to the left of the population. The problem is that the political machinery and deal making between factions have opened up a channel for our national representatives to be the safe ciphers of the Democrats' way-left base.

Once More Into the (Canine) Budgetary Breach

Scanning ProJo headlines yesterday, Katherine Gregg's article about Governor Carcieri's recommendations (more about that in a moment) for the Twin River slot parlor, which include an end to greyhound racing, caught my eye. This morning, while clearing out files, in a happy coincidence, I came across the clipping below from the July 11, 2003 front page of the Providence Journal.

Reading Gregg's article of yesterday more carefully this morning, it became apparent that this is one of the rare instances in which it is not altogether clear to me what the Governor is attempting to accomplish with regard to Twin Rivers.

Governor Carcieri is asking legislators to free the owners of the Twin River slot parlor from current employment and dog-racing requirements, cover more than $10 million of their marketing and management costs and provide them with an even more solid guarantee that state taxpayers will cover them if they lose money to a new competitor in Rhode Island.

Interviewed for the article, Carcieri spokesperson Amy Kempe elaborated

The fragile economic climate is exactly the reason to protect the state’s interests at Twin River. As the third-largest source of revenue, the state must protect that revenue. This legislation does not put the taxpayer at risk to protect Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, et al as you imply. That clause protects the third-largest source of revenue, which effectively protects the taxpayers.

Sure, I understand that the idea behind the fiscal safeguarding of Twin River's operation is to preserve a non-tax (i.e., non-compulsory) revenue stream so that taxes don't have to be raised. But if taxpayers are going to lose revenue under certain conditions, doesn't that negate the preservation of the Twin River revenue stream to the monetary extent of the "slippage clause"?

Providence Journal, July 11, 2003.

Original caption: "ON A LEASH: House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson opens his office to two retired greyhounds named "Tax" and "Spend" for the day, owned by Kathie and Chris Smith, of Warwick. Republicans want to end state subsidies to greyhound owners at Lincoln Park."

Journal Photo by Kathy Borchers.

A Toll on the Governor's Race

For my call in to the Matt Allen Show, last night, the topics were the proposed toll on the Sakonnet River Bridge and Board of Regents Member Angus Davis statements against Lincoln Chafee and the importance of maintaining a strong chain of authority for necessary reform up every rung of government. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

Issues on Suburban Minds: Regionalization and Arbitration

I know many of the right reform crowd in Rhode Island disagree with my general take on regionalization, but I'm relieved to see this, from Tuesday's Newport Daily News:

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, and Rep. Deborah L. Ruggiero, D-Jamestown, met with members of the Town Council and School Committee before the regularly scheduled council meeting to discuss legislative issues. Both legislators said they would not support any regionalization of municipal functions unless the communities involved agreed to the consolidation. ...

Weed and Ruggiero both agreed that the impetus should come from cities and towns.

I'm even more relieved to see this:

When Weed asked school officials for a list of their legislative priorities, several members held up wrists bearing plastic handcuffs.

"No binding arbitration," Kaiser said, referring to legislation that would require binding arbitration for teachers. "This is not the time to handcuff school committees."

Council President Michael Schnack agreed. "There is no negotiating with binding arbitration," Schnack said. "You get a terrible contract and terrible results."

Weed said she did not think the idea had a lot of legislative support.

Of course, continual vigilance will be required. A lack of legislative support is not necessarily a good enough reason for legislation to fail.

Sasse Converted to the Dark Side?

I'm not sure what to make of this news:

Gary S. Sasse has been hired by the Rhode Island House of Representatives to serve as a part-time adviser to the House Leadership, according to an announcement today by Speaker Gordon D. Fox. Sasse will work 20 hours per week. ...

"Having Gary Sasse as a resource will be invaluable to me and the members of the House of Representatives," said Speaker Fox. "I have asked him to focus his energy on issues relating to government restructuring and tax policy, as well as other projects as we move forward. He brings an enormous amount of knowledge and expertise that will continue to benefit our state as he has done for more than three decades."

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Buy credibility for economically fatal programs currently in the making? Or do I have Gordon Fox all wrong?

Rhode Island Statewide Coalition Winter Meeting Table of Contents

Anchor Rising's complete coverage of the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition's winter meeting:

• My on-the-scene liveblog
• Video: RISC Chairman Harry Staley's opening remarks
• Video: 630AM/99.7FM Host John DePetro
• Video: Central Falls Superintendent Frances Gallo
• Video: RISC President James Beale and Business Network Organizer Jeff Deckman
• Video: Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri
• Video: Board of Regents Member Angus Davis

Governor Don Carcieri at the RISC Winter Meeting

As has been a regular tradition Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri spoke at the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition's 2010 winter meeting, described in my liveblog of the event. (More video in the extended entry.)

Jim Beale and Jeff Deckman on the RISC Business Network

RISC President James Beale and Business Network Organizer Jeff Deckman went into detail about the Business Network at the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition's 2010 winter meeting, described in my liveblog of the event. (More video in the extended entry.)

630AM/99.7FM Host John DePetro at RISC's Winter Meeting

John DePetro took on the role of first featured speaker at the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition's 2010 winter meeting, described in my liveblog of the event. (More video in the extended entry.)

Board of Regents Member Angus Davis at RISC's Winter Meeting

NOTE: Any members of the media who couldn't make it to the meeting and rely on this video for future reports are encouraged to do so, but a brief note of the video's source would be appreciated.

Rhode Island Board of Regents member Angus Davis came out with guns blazing in a surprise speech at the Winter meeting of the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition, as described in my liveblog of the event. (More video in the extended entry.)

Davis was especially animated when discussing an email from gubernatorial candidate Linc Chafee at the beginning of this clip.

Yesterday, I received an email from Senator Chafee. In this email, Senator Chafee asked for clarification on whether or not teachers had really been offered 100% job security, describing it as, quote, the basic question that must be settled, unquote. He said he does not want to, quote, inherit the labor mess, unquote, as he works to build a more prosperous Rhode Island as governor.

What kind of leadership thinks the basic question about a school in which only half of children graduate and 90% can't do basic math — what kind of leadership thinks that the basic question involves job security for its adults rather than the educational outcomes for its children?

Politics & Pupils

Monique and Matt talked Central Falls and Chafee on last night's Matt Allen Show. Stream by clicking here, or download it.

The Price of Education Labor Peace in Rhode Island

Addressing the prospect (now a reality) of the firing of all Central Falls teachers, former Senator Linc Chafee said Monday,

It would be a step back to have labor unrest in our schools

It is quite possible that former Senator Chafee - along with many other people - is truly unaware of the price that has been paid to avoid "labor unrest".

Property Taxes: 7th Highest

engendered by

Teacher Salaries: Top 20%

and contrast with

Academic achievement: Bottom 20%

Senator Chafee proposed mediation between the union and the city. The drawback to this course is the prospect of yet more money being placed on the table. But look at where we are now: compensation on one end of the scale and academic achievement on the opposite end. Clearly, money has not been the answer.

Further, the senator presumably does not believe that Rhode Island has been paying this high price solely to achieve peace. Of course, the goal has been to secure a good education and a better future for our children. The answer, then, is not to exacerbate the polarity between price and education achievement by endlessly increasing the price. It is to begin bringing results in line with the price that we have been paying and, as a first step, to be clear that the goal is more than labor peace.

Moderate Party Kick-Off Event Video, Part 4

Closing out the video that corresponds with my liveblog from the Moderate Party's kick-off event, herewith are the clips of Gubernatorial Candidate Ken Block's presentation. (Additional video in the extended entry.)

Moderate Party Kick-Off Event, Part 3

Following along with my liveblog of the Moderate Party's kick-off event, on Sunday, at the Everyman Bistro in Providence, the next videos are the presentations and speeches of the candidates for Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor (Additional video in the extended entry.)

Moderate Party Kick-Off Event Video, Part 2

As described in my liveblog, the Moderate Party's kick-off event, on Sunday, at the Everyman Bistro in Providence, began with Executive Director Christine Hunsinger and Chairman Robert Corrente. (Additional video in the extended entry.)

Moderate Party Kick-Off Event Video, Part 1

After the Moderate Party's kick-off event, yesterday, Andrew and I had the opportunity to interview Gubernatorial Candidate Ken Block, Lt. Gov. Candidate Jean Ann Guliano, and Attorney General Candidate Chris Little. Here are the videos (click the extended entry for the latter two.)

A couple of quick thoughts:

• Ken Block is more liberal than I'd thought. He's much more comfortable with the welfare industry than one would expect from a "fiscal conservative." Although he'll take the easy fruit of eVerify, I'm not so confident that he'd oppose amnesty-type programs. He sees same-sex marriage as a "civil rights issue" and would vote for it. And he's pro-choice. Interestingly, he referred to his upbringing when stating his views on abortion, as if being pro-choice is a religion into which one is raised.
• It's a shame that the Republicans didn't recruit Guliano. If the GOP has no candidate, she's got a shot, and if she were the GOP candidate, I think her chances would have been good.

A Moderate Afternoon

Owing to the moderately light traffic, I've arrived moderately early for the Moderate Party kickoff event at the Everyman Bistro. Actually, part of the reason that I made such good time was that I've been here before. In one of those small-Rhode Island coincidences, I actually met RI Future administrator Brian Hull here for dinner in the autumn. (I initiated the meeting; he chose the location.)

Mine was the third name on the "press" sign-in sheet, and although I didn't devote too much energy shuffling through my disorganized memory for names, I didn't recognize the other two, but the flow of people into the joint has been steady since I arrived.

1:50 p.m.

It's a funny experience, to set up at these things. Since last summer we've increasingly been treated as official members of the press. But then I set up with the cheap little netbook and the tiny camcorder, my shoelaces thoroughly frayed and holy sweater, and the "press pass" around my neck feels kinda inappropriate.

Perhaps I should begin droppin' my Gs in order to make the whole thing seem like a conscious imaging plan, rather than a consequence of limited funds and a sparse wardrobe.

2:13 p.m.

They've pretty well packed the place, although it's small and three candidates and a new party really shouldn't have had any trouble filling it. Not very many familiar faces, although that's probably more a measure of my lack of networking rather than the party's lack of connections. WRNI's Ian Donnis is walking around. So is Arlene Violet. Republican Representative Brian Newberry is here, undercover, as it were. A registered Republican who recognized me from Tiverton is here to check things out. That's about it, so far.

2:25 p.m.

Moderate Party Communications Director Kate Cantwell just took the podium to say that the program would start shortly and to request a moment of silence for the victims of the Station Nightclub fire. I know we're somewhat near the anniversary of that tragedy, but I'm not sure what the connection is.

2:39 p.m.

Executive Director Christine Hunsinger opened up the speeches with the message, essentially, that the party is made up of newcomers and motivated novices. Outsiders.

Next up is the new chairman Robert Corrente. He's offering a typically Republican assessment of the state's problems. If you've read Ed Fitzpatrick's column today featuring Corrente, you know what he's saying.

Passing note: An Anchor Rising reader just introduced himself and gave me a matchbook from the Reagan/Bush '84 campaign. Really neat. There's a metaphor in there somewhere about Anchor Rising setting Rhode Island on fire, but politics is such a litigious game that I'll work on the metaphor carefully before unleashing it.

2:47 p.m.

There's something telling in the fact that Corrente just expressed outrage about legislative grants. Good thing we've got a budding Moderate Party to raise that sort of issue, huh?

2:49 p.m.

So far, Corrente's just stealing the low-hanging fruit of the RIGOP's message. I suspect that the effect of having two parties that are mainly distinguished by the fact that they are not each other will allow the Democrats to jump in with a smarmy "Hey, us, too" and eliminate the strength of the civic complaints.

2:53 p.m.

"You don't have run as part of the monolith, and you don't have to run as part of the dysfunctional group that would rather spend time bickering internally." Lot of scorn in his voice on the second clause. I take it that Corrente's not interested in attracting the votes of Republicans who aren't necessarily bitter and hateful about their party. The vibe I'm getting from him is that he's interested in actively pulling voters away from the GOP rather than fostering a cooperative front against the Democrats. That could be significant in races that lack Republican candidates and Republican voters have a bad feeling about the Moderates.

3:14 p.m.

AG candidate Chris Little didn't really say anything unexpected, although he wasn't hostile to anybody other than the current AG. Lt. Gov. Candidate Jean Ann Guliano is essentially suggesting that the Moderates can accomplish all of the obvious repairs to the civic culture without partisan baggage and bickering. You know, because the Democrats and the Republicans will see that the Moderates are really just uniters... new kids with whom everybody can work. Right?

3:20 p.m.

Guliano is a Gist supporter. Funding formula. You know, so far I don't see the argument for a Moderate Party other than avoiding Republican and Democrat primaries.

3:32 p.m.

Ken Block is expressing his centrist extremism, as if we who are ideologically firm on the left or right are some insignificant niche, while most everybody else is ideologically pure in the center.

3:36 p.m.

"I will find common ground with everyone!." Cue bluebirds.

3:38 p.m.

Ken's first step as governor: Ask for federal money and issue bonds to invest in business. He'll then create business zones. Actually a surprisingly government-heavy solution.

"We must take every step to increase our tax base" to continue paying for welfare services.

From home:

Two notes:

• A reader points out that simultaneous to the Moderate Party event, there was a memorial for the Station Nightclub, thus explaining the moment of silence.
• Andrew and I were able to interview each of the candidates. I'll have that video, as well as full video of the event, up soon, hopefully by morning.

Moderately Interesting

Anybody else wondering how many Rhode Island journalists are grateful to the Moderate Party for letting slip their list of candidates in advance of tomorrow's kickoff party? Some of them may take time out of their Sunday relaxation plans to attend, but the pressure is surely off.

I'll probably go — if only to see whether I can confirm a creeping suspicion that the choice of Sunday for the event represents a subconscious declaration of separation from social, religious conservatives who still strive for a habitual distinction between the two weekend days. In other words, I'm still not sure what the purpose of a "moderate" party might be except as a home for economically literate liberals.

An op-ed in yesterday's Providence Journal by the party's new chairman, Robert Corrente, doesn't give any reason for me to suspect my gut impression of being wrong:

... The Democratic Party in Rhode Island has become a self-perpetuating monolith, which must (but won’t) take responsibility for our “last place in everything” distinction, even as its members revel in celebration of their achievements. They have no shame, but that’s okay, because they also have no opposition.

So why not just be Republicans? There are two reasons. First, and most fundamentally, we do not define ourselves, nor do we delineate our positions, by party affiliation. If there is one clear thing in contemporary politics, at the national, state, and local level, it is this: People are sick of elected officials who define their success by whether they are being good Democrats or good Republicans.

Second, and we needn’t dwell on this, but let’s be honest. The Republican Party in Rhode Island is, and has historically been, spectacularly dysfunctional, devoid of structure, and wracked by internal discord.

Inasmuch as the way to battle a monolith is manifestly not to set its opposition against itself, the first paragraph rebuts the second. How should we defeat entrenched Democrats with bought-and-paid votes among its public sector, welfare state, and loony left constituents — a "self-perpetuating" combination, in Corrente's words? If you're a Moderate Party supporter, you might answer: By giving Republican-leaning voters two opposition choices.

The third paragraph offers no help on this count. Are we to believe that the Moderates were competent to build an entirely new party structure out of the contents of Ken Block's brain and wallet but not competent to rebuild from the hollow shell of the RIGOP? Corrente's next sentence gives away the real thinking (emphasis added):

On a related point, why not just be independents, like Lincoln Chafee, who is rightly respected for his principled stands in the U.S. Senate?

The Moderate Party's audience is now — although it probably was not upon its inception — a bastion for those whom the state's Republicans have rightly squeezed from their leadership ranks. It is a choice for non-Democrats who can't stand to be counted within the same political movement as people like, well, like Anchor Rising contributors or, for another example, the Rhode Island Republican Assembly.

The Moderate Party's problem will likely prove to be that its potential for growth is limited to those narrow bounds. Where there is no Republican in the race, it will attract anti-Democrat votes. But where the race offers three or more party options, the Moderates will not attract those who wish to live in a pro-government economic fantasy land and neither will it attract those who refuse to be governed by the privileged fantasies of social liberals.

Using Their Own Tools Against the Levers of Power

Ed Achorn offers an excellent suggestion:

Maybe Republicans should exploit the master lever to throw a scare into the legislature.

They could point out that, under the utter domination of one party in the General Assembly, Rhode Island has lost tens of thousands of jobs, fueling an unemployment rate of about 13 percent, while that in nearby New Hampshire is only 7 percent; that the state has become a small copy of Michigan, with boarded-up neighborhoods and foreclosed homes; that unsustainably generous benefits for politically powerful public-employee unions threaten Rhode Island with financial catastrophe; that the state's business climate is the worst in America, according to Forbes magazine, even below Michigan’s (New Hampshire leads New England); that the Assembly-controlled state budget has exploded 47 percent since 2003, almost three times the rate of inflation and many times the rate of income growth of most Rhode Island families, while property taxes have skyrocketed.

They could argue that citizens could easily "send a message" against this record with one-stop shopping, and rock the State House to the core with a single mark on the ballot, choosing the opposition party. That would filter down to every legislative race. (No further thinking required.)

Actually, it would be an excellent idea were the Republicans able to promise candidates in key races. John Loughlin's current General Assembly seat looks likely to be available for a Democrat to stroll on in, just as Jay Edwards did upon Joe Amaral's retirement during the last election cycle in North Tiverton, There's also the complication of the Moderate Party and any independent candidates who might emerge.

But leave that all up to the other parties and candidates. An "anyone but" campaign might be just what the lazy, apathetic electorate needs.

Candidate Update

This may have to become a daily feature for the next few days...

Ken Block will be the Moderate candidate for Governor (according to Katherine Gregg of the Projo). Is this because no one else was interested, or because no one wants to give the Moderate party any money and by becoming a candidate, Mr. Block can spend his own? Also, Robert Corrente is the new Moderate Party chair.

Also from Katherine Gregg, Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts and Secretary of State Ralph Mollis are out of the 1st District Congressional race. This is an important development, in that Lt. Gov. Roberts would seem to have a good shot in a Democratic primary, with David Cicilline's problems with unions and William Lynch not fully trusted by progressives. But then again, we are yet to hear any specific examples of where Mr. Lynch disagrees with the "extreme left".

Myrth York is considering a run for Mayor of Providence (according to Ian Donnis of WRNI). No word yet from Bruce Sundlun or Lincoln Almond.

Fox in the Hen House

I had to switch to music halfway through my commute home, on Friday, because Dan Yorke had Rep. Tim Williamson (D, Coventry, West Warwick) on his show, and my feet were beginning to stick to the pedals from the slime that was seeping from the speakers. A woman called in to challenge Williamson's assertion that he and his peers have done a good job, and the representative slipped into politico-lawyer talk. He let her make the concise message that she was clearly intent on delivering and, at first opportunity, chastised her for interrupting his reply (always note when such folks deploy the sentence, "I didn't interrupt you, did I?"). He then embarked on a rambling spiel raising barely relevant facts, contesting the fact that Rhode Island is really in much trouble at all, and allocating blame everywhere but where it belongs, with the General Assembly.

A quick example: When Dan suggested that the roads bore testament to Rhode Island's problems, Williamson threw out some numbers and explained the reason as dramatic underfunding. Of course, it's the General Assembly that has allocated money that ought to go to infrastructure to everything but, then relying on the trick of floating bonds for the necessities that the body has underfunded.

I raise Williamson's performance from obscurity (Dan hasn't posted the Podcast) because we're beginning to see evidence that nothing short of an extremely unlikely wholesale change in the legislature will be adequate, in the coming election. We've been asking, Don't these people see that there won't be a miracle salvation of Rhode Island's status quo? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but the salient point is that they just don't care. Whatever the consequence to the legislators' constituents — be they voters or government-dependents or public-sector workers — they, the politicians, will survive, perhaps thrive. Williamson's attitude was the arrogance of the untouchable.

The various news reports and profile pieces published upon Gordon Fox's ascension to House Speaker solidified my conviction that the General Assembly as currently constituted has no intention of making the difficult decisions that will enable the rest of us to pull the state from the tortuous waters in which it is — we are — languishing. How could you conclude otherwise (emphasis added)?

"A Fox speakership will invariably include, but not be limited to, an increase in the state income tax, a lack of constitutionally sound state limitations on illegal immigration, an economic development policy overly influenced by environmental extremists, and of course ... gay marriage," wrote [Rep. Arthur Corvese (D, North Providence)], who has been replaced [as chairman of the House Labor Committee] by Rep. Anastasia Williams, an unpaid member of the AFL-CIO board of directors. "I believe your philosophical stance on major issues is too far to the left for the good of the citizens of the State of Rhode Island."

According to the brief biography presented in the Providence Journal, Fox came of age and built his career as a lawyer while under the wing of the state's power brokers, solidifying his place by choosing back-room deals over his left-wing ideology. We should be discomfited that the state house's progressives support him, of course, but we should be more concerned that his election to the top post signals a retrenchment of the forces that have brought Rhode Island so low.

And I don't see anywhere near the level of targeted angst and anxiety that would indicate that the people of Rhode Island are about to upset the designs of the political class.

Why Has the RI AG Waited Until the End of his Tenure to Implement an Electronic Centralized Case Management System?

As a function of one of my jobs, I review state RFP's to see if the state needs anything that my employer can supply. It's an interesting task, in part, because it's a way to see first hand what various state departments are spending tax dollars on. Most of the time, expenditures seem pretty straight forward; the only jarring aspect is how long the list always is and how expensive many of the projects are, invariably leading me to wonder, "Do these people know how broke we are?"

Today, an RFP, one posted by the Office of the Attorney General, popped out for a different reason.

RFP # 7323420 TITLE: Integrated Prosecutorial Case Management System

with this eye opener on page 7.

Currently, with the voluminous records and data we have accumulated over time, we still can not electronically ascertain if a defendant, victim or witness has an association with any other criminal matter, has testified before in another venue or has a conflict through an association with other defendants, victims or witnesses, and frequently must rely on staff’s independent recollection of the individual. A centralized case management system would provide name association tables that track individuals and relationships, independent of individual staff memory of events. ...

The Attorney General’s Office would not be able to comply with any requirement for electronic filing, unless we first begin the process by implementing a case management system that maintains an electronic case file which contains all relevant documents and records in a centralized manner.

Now, to be clear, the individual records of defendants are centralized in digital form. So a prosecutor can quickly determine whether a defendant has a prior record. But the need does not stop there, as the RFP itself states. A comprehensive centralized record system would seem like quite an important tool for the Office of Attorney General.

Hasn't the Attorney General been quite irresponsible in allowing a critical part of our justice system (i.e., his office) to "rely on staff’s independent recollection of the individual" for the last seven years?

Lynch Bids for Congress, Depends on Voter Amnesia

As the usual and unusual suspects emerge out of the woodwork, we can be sure that we're going to see and hear some things that should induce a chuckle amongst the politically astute. And there's no better example than now-Former RI Democratic Party chair Bill Lynch:

The partisan politics of Washington are no longer providing solutions for the taxpayers of Rhode Island. I share the sentiments of voters who are angry and upset with the divisive debate that has ground Washington to a halt.

I want Rhode Island families to know I will not participate in the rhetoric that has left all of us discouraged and disillusioned these past few years...I believe the vast majority of Rhode Islanders want the Republicans and Democrats who represent them to move to the center.

It is time to stop the bitter debate driven by the extreme left and right. We need to come together and govern from the middle in a manner that makes sense for working families here in Rhode Island....I admit to a growing sense of frustration and disappointment with the lack of civility and progress in Washington that has left the American people out in the cold...Washington needs leaders who are dedicated to producing a new way forward and I plan on being a part of that process.

FLASH: ABC6 Reports Patrick Kennedy Won't Run for Reelection

UPDATE: Kennedy's office confirmed the ProJo's John Mulligan that Kennedy WILL NOT seek re-election. Here is the ad that started it all.

MORE: According to Cianci, RI Dem. Chair Bill Lynch was selling an ad package dealing with Kennedy's announcement to be released this Sunday. The ad was being sold as a Democratic Party ad. Word leaked out and Cianci confirmed at 8:30 tonight.

So, who's luckier? John Brien or John Loughlin? It's a wide open race, now. And we'll see if some other wannabe's suddenly have an itch to scratch. Names like Mayor David Cicilline, AG Patrick Lynch (or Bill). And, of course, what about Steve Laffey?

Would anyone be surprised to see Patrick in Massachusetts in 2012?

MORE 2: Here is an in-development RI Monthly piece by Mark Arsenault that was rushed out the door (h/t Ian Donnis).

ORIGINAL REPORT: Buddy Cianci is reporting via ABC 6 that Congressman Patrick Kennedy will not seek reelection this fall. It's worth noting that Cianci's WPRO colleague Dan Yorke has been speculating that this would be the case for the last few days. The story is still developing. Cianci will be on ABC 6 at 11 PM with more information.

MORE: From the Boston Globe:

A Democratic official says Rep. Patrick Kennedy has decided not to seek re-election for his seat representing Rhode Island in the U.S. Congress.

The official spoke to The Associated Press only on the condition that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak ahead of the official announcement....

Kennedy plans to air two-minute commercials about his decision to air on three Rhode Island TV stations on Sunday night.

Rhode Island Young Republicans: Welcome to 2010

Premiered at last night's RIGOP meeting.

Stop! It's Healey Time

I think now is the time to support Bob Healey for Lt. Governor. This is why:

He has long argued that the office of lieutenant governor is unnecessary and a waste of public money.

For fiscal 2010, the budget for the lieutenant governor’s office was $973,262, though the governor has since proposed a revised spending plan of $898,489, according to the lieutenant governor’s deputy chief of staff, Dan Meuse. The office employs a staff of seven, including the $99,214-a-year job of lieutenant governor.

If elected, he said, he’d have to remain in office in case the governor is no longer able to serve. But he’d devote his effort to trying to get the General Assembly to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to either transform the office “into something that actually does something” or eliminate it altogether.

“That’s up to the General Assembly and the people,” he said. “All I can do is save $4 million if I get elected. (One million a year for four years.) I’ll be the million-dollar man.”

Reminder: Teacher Pink-Slips Don't Actually Mean Layoffs

Pink slips are flying at teachers in Woonsocket, East Providence and Lincoln and probably soon in your town, too. Two points:

1) State law dictates that all layoff notices be sent by March 1st. Why then and not later, say mid-May? Could it be that it is more politically beneficial for some to have teachers and parents upset at layoffs during the budget-making season of late winter/early spring rather than later.
2) Aside from the fact that laying off anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3s of all of the teachers in a district is frankly impractical (if not impossible), most teacher contracts cap the number of layoffs allowed each year. For instance, in Warwick (p.48 of document), only 40 layoff notices can be sent and only 20 teachers can actually let go in any given year.

Now, this isn't to say that laying off teachers is the way to go by any means. But so long as the teacher union leaders refuse to renegotiate their contracts, this is one of the only ways left to school committees and administrators to cut costs. (Often due to their own shortsightedness!).

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?