A progressive dissent to a common-sense Supreme Court ruling suggests that the tide has turned on our understanding of religious freedom and the Left’s scam of self-identifying as “secular.”
Presentation of different stories in the Providence Journal show how thoroughly and dramatically the paper’s bias affects its content.
This is perhaps a minor thing, and it’s certainly a little outside of my usual scope, here, but being a language guy, I found it to encapsulate the bias that many of us see in the news media. This is from text by the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker that appears as a brief sidebar in today’s Providence Journal. The Projo gave it the online headline, “White House blames Obama for failing to stop Russia collusion“:
The White House blamed the Obama administration Sunday for failing to tackle possible Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election, sticking with a new strategy to fault President Donald Trump’s predecessor for an issue currently facing the president himself as part of a widening FBI probe.
Either Parker and the Projo’s online headline writer are attempting to deceive readers or they don’t know what “collusion” means. They use the word to mean, broadly, Russian interference or meddling in the election, but it actually requires some sort of agreement, in this case between somebody in the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Even with all of the illegal leaks newspapers have published in the last however-many months, we’ve seen no evidence of collusion, and yet journalists are using that mere allegation as the characterization of the whole “widening FBI probe.”
This sort of peep-hole into the thinking and decisions of people who claim to be objective investigators gives an example of why so many of us are suspicious of all such claims. Consider the legislation that looks likely to become law this year to shield researchers in state institutions of higher education from public records requests.
Maybe there’s an argument to be made for the transparency exception on more procedural grounds — if serious scientists are avoiding employment in state institutions because having to divulge “preliminary drafts, notes and working papers” hobbles them in professional competition with other researchers, but that’s not how it’s being presented. It’s being presented as a mechanism for hiding the work on the hotly contested issue of climate change on behalf of a governing elite that has given the people no justification for trust.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were the budget, legislators’ arrogance, and the pass that RI media gives to our rabid Congressional delegation.
If Rhode Island House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston) follows through with what he tells Ted Nesi, it will be an unambiguously positive development:
“My policy for as long as I’m speaker is going to be, 9 o’clock unless I can get it done by 10, and no later than 10 o’clock. I’ve heard from a lot of citizens, and the way we used to do business when I first got here – and that’s where I learned, when I first got here – the way they’ve always done it in the past is unacceptable today. The citizens don’t want it. So I’ve committed we’re not going to do it, and we won’t do it.” He added: “And we won’t do it as we finish session, either. It’s more important to me to do business at the right time than it is to get it done in a particular day. I’ll come back in the fall if I have to. I want to do business when our citizens can see what they’re doing and can be part of the process through their TV set or coming down to the State House and watching it, participating, rather than the early morning hours. That’s very, very important to me and that’s going to be a priority, and I’m going to maintain that as long as I’m speaker.”
The all-night, punch-drunk sessions of the General Assembly have been a real problem, not the least as part of the system that keeps Rhode Islanders confused and lets bad policy slip undetected into law.
Reviewing the terrible budget that just passed the House, in light of disastrous labor and regulatory legislation that seems to be coming closer to the finish line than it has in prior years, makes me wonder how much concessions like this are really just an acknowledgement that leaders now have a lock on the legislative game and don’t need the worst of the gimmicks.
It isn’t much of an exaggeration to compare Rhode Island political insiders, in this case, to thieves who are slowly discovering that they can just walk out the door with their booty rather than going through the trouble of sneaking.
I’d say this is outrageous, but it’s far too common and doesn’t seem to produce the appropriate outrage in the Ocean State. Stephen Greenwell reports in the Newport Daily News:
A Tiverton police lieutenant accused of sleeping during overnight shifts will retire June 30, after the Tiverton Town Council voted 4-3 on Wednesday night to accept a plea agreement that was executed Thursday morning in District Court.
Timothy R. Panell, 47, of 50 Shannon Ave., Tiverton, had a not-guilty plea entered for one charge of obtaining money under false pretenses. The charge was filed, meaning it will be removed from court records in one year provided Panell faces no additional charges.
As part of a court-approved plea-bargaining agreement, 48 additional charges of obtaining money under false pretenses and nine counts of falsifying documents were dismissed.
Keep in mind, by the way, that it wasn’t just this officer. He merely led his entire shift to have “quiet time.” The others faced no publicly stated consequence. Also keep in mind that for years, Panell was the second-highest-paid employee in town, after the school superintendent, largely because of huge amounts of overtime.
In little Tiverton alone, we’ve had multiple instances of similar stories throughout town government over a handful of years, and every time the Town Council takes one of these union-friendly pleas, one can only wonder how they don’t see the incentives they’re creating. Theft, fraud… whatever. If an employee gets caught taking advantage of the town and its taxpayers, the consequence is that he or she simply eases into retirement, with an agreement that nobody on the town side will say anything bad about them.
How could this do otherwise than make it more likely that employees will make bad decisions?
Voting for the plea were council members John Edwards the Fifth (son of Democrat Representative John Edwards the Fourth), Randy Lebeau, Christine Ryan, and council President Joan Chabot.
Every year, this time of year, the budget for the State of Rhode Island comes out and, accompanied with surrounding legislation (much of it premised, one can infer, on quid pro quo for budget votes) shows the vision of the insiders who run our state. Every year, life in Rhode Island becomes more restrictive, business becomes harder, government budgets go up.
Earlier in this legislative season, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity put out a pair of “Hey, Dude!” radio ads illustrating the point from the perspective of somebody who wants more freebies and somebody who sees the opportunities inherent in a society out from under government’s thumb.
For a little fun, here’s a pair that I’ve put together.
I’ve been very critical of Mike Araujo and his rhetoric on this site, but he is absolutely correct to object to this bill:
Tuesday night, the House Finance Committee passed a bill (H-6213A) that seeks to expand the denial of vehicle registration to individuals who may have outstanding unpaid interest or penalties on fines owed to a city or town, rather than only revoking it for the amount of the fines themselves owed to the municipality.
Legislation like this, making it easier for people to lose their licenses or registration based on financial debts, has been criticized all over the country for its problematic and counterproductive effects on poor Americans. Driving without a registered vehicle leads to substantial penalties or even a revoked license, which simply worsens the person’s financial issues and hardships. This in itself is challenging since the restrictions would deny the person the ability to drive to work, school, or any other related activity making them less able to meet their monetary obligations.
As an indication of how thoroughly aggressive the legislation is, even in the small details, consider this: Right now, the legislation requires the city or town to pay the DMV $5 in order to request a registration denial, and that fee “may” be added to the total due from the driver. This bill waives the up-front payment and says that the $5 “shall” be added to the total.
Where is the public interest in all of this, beyond wanting more money for profligate government? People need to be mobile to have a shot in the modern world and making it more difficult for them to get right with the regulations for mobility undeniably makes it more likely that they will continue struggling and probably remain dependent on government.
The legislation’s primary sponsor is progressive Democrat Christopher Blazejewski of Providence, who apparently submitted it at the request of the city, but who, in doing so, proved that government always comes first for people in government. Keeping others dependent on government isn’t exactly contrary to that goal.
Will a deceptive budget season put Rhode Island over the edge?
Ted Nesi and Tim White report that General Assembly employee Frank Montanaro, Jr., has decided to reimburse the state for the value of the tuition that his children received through a questionable benefit based on his prior employment with Rhode Island College:
“After consultation with my family and Speaker Mattiello, I believe the best thing to do is return the monetary equivalent of the tuition benefit my children received after I transitioned to my new role at the General Assembly,” Montanaro said. “I will be contacting Rhode Island College tomorrow to make the necessary arrangements.”
The first reaction of workaday Rhode Islanders may be to observe that the state seems to give insider benefits to people who don’t really need them. If, as Montanaro says a consulting labor attorney told him, everything was on the up-and-up with this benefit, that’s an awful lot of money to give up to end a media “distraction.” Either he’s even richer than his high salary might suggest or there’s even greater incentive we don’t know about for him to make the issue go away.
In that regard, enough information is already public to suggest that the state should investigate this matter. Montanaro repeatedly checked a box providing incorrect information to the University of Rhode Island, and the surrounding circumstances make it seem unlikely he did so by accident. That’s not something that people outside of the political elite in Rhode Island would get away with.
Blackstone Valley Prep and Achievement First perform far better than similar public schools, but even among charters, it looks like direct accountability is key.
Reading about Illinois’s budget problems a little earlier today, an association nagged at the corner of my mind, and I remembered something from Table 5 of the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) report comparing the states. Specifically, in fiscal year 2015, Illinois was near the top of the list when it came to the percentage of its budget spent on “other” expenditures — that is, things other than elementary & secondary education, higher education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections, and transportation.
The states higher than Illinois seem generally to have unique circumstances (Wyoming, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii), and with 43.7% of the budget going to “other” expenditures, Illinois is way up there. What’s apt to catch a Rhode Islander’s attention is that our state is only two ranks behind Illinois (after Nevada), with 42.1%.
That, if you’re wondering, is the highest in New England. The percentages across New England are interesting, particularly in the degree to which they scuttle some clichés.
Two conspicuous myth busters are Massachusetts’s relatively low spending on education and Rhode Island’s relatively high spending on higher education. Also conspicuous is Rhode Island’s low spending on transportation.
Overall, though, notice that, with the exception of higher education, Rhode Island is typically in the bottom tier for all categories, to the benefit of “other.”
What is this “other”? And why do we need so much of it?
Of course, we need to keep in mind that these percentages might be a little misleading, inasmuch as the amount of total spending will make a big difference. Nonetheless, the results are interesting.
So, the teachers unions’ annual attempt to give themselves even more leverage in negotiations by making their contracts eternal is back in the mix. The lobbying by union employees and donations to politicians are ultimately taxpayer funded, so this bill probably won’t go away until it passes someday.
What’s notable, this time around, is that the bill accompanies a labor dispute in Warwick, leading to this telling point from Warwick Teachers Union President Darlene Netcoh:
Netcoh said the bill “levels the playing field between employers and employees.”
Referring to [Warwick Schools Supt. Philip] Thornton, she added: “Would he go to work every day if he didn’t have a contract? I don’t think so.”
One wonders how it could have escaped Netcoh’s attention that plenty of Rhode Islanders go to work every day without contracts. See, it’s called “a mutually beneficial transaction.” The employer has work that has to be done, and the employee has a need to earn income. If a contract makes sense in a particular circumstance, then the parties draw one up and abide by it; otherwise, the contract is essentially a casual, even verbal, agreement to do work and to pay for work that’s done.
In government, though, it’s not about that mutually beneficial transaction, in part because nobody’s spending their own money. Contracts for government employees are fundamentally agreements about how much one party will take from taxpayers and transfer to the other party, and so they’ve become a mechanism for labor unions to get politicians to lock taxpayers into expenses.
This eternal contract legislation is about ensuring that taxpayers are locked in to the promises of elected officials (often elected with the help of the employees) to an even greater degree.
WPRI’s Ted Nesi and Tim White have kept on the story of Frank Montanaro, Jr.’s three-year job-holding leave from Rhode Island College and the $50,000 benefit of free tuition he claimed through it, and this is starting to look like more than merely an ill-advised contractual benefit for employees. Apparently, he took up the habit of filling out forms at the University of Rhode Island asserting that he was not on leave:
Asked why he stated he was not on leave during a time when he was in fact on leave, Montanaro said in an email: “As you can see all waivers were reviewed and approved by RIC. If there was a mistake they would have had me correct it before approval.” He also said a RIC staff member assisted him in filling out the forms.
RIC spokeswoman Kristy dosReis refused to say why the college allowed Montanaro to avoid disclosing his leave of absence on the form forwarded to URI, but told Target 12: “In this case, there was an existing agreement that enabled the authorization of a tuition waiver.” (RIC and Montanaro declined to provide a copy of that agreement.)
Seems to me there are three possibilities:
- The “benefit” was simply a special crony handout offered to a government insider.
- A six-figure employee of the General Assembly made a habit of submitting fraudulent forms to secure a valuable benefit.
- That six-figure employee was so inept or careless at filling out forms as to be of disqualifying competence for his high-paying job.
At the end of the article, Republican state senator from Coventry Nick Kettle suggests that Montanaro “should pay [the tuition] back or resign.” How about both? And maybe face prosecution, as well, along with anybody at Rhode Island College who facilitated any fraud?
While we’re on the topic of public education, a different angle caught my attention in the ongoing matter of East Greenwich budgeting. Readers may have heard something about the fiscal changes and personnel turnover under a largely Republican town council, actually reducing spending and holding the school side of the budget flat.
What jumped out at me as worthy of commentary (beyond “rah, rah, go Team Reform”) is this reaction from National Education Association of Rhode Island union poobah Bob Walsh:
“They level funded the schools, with Corrigan saying her firm would do administrative functions,” said Walsh. “The Chair stopped taking testimony and approved the budget — and now the school committee has to figure out how to implement some of the cuts. This is after it took us a year to get the contract.”
“I’m really surprised by the whole thing — our best performing communities are Barrington and East Greenwich,” said Walsh. “And East Greenwich has not been as generous in funding, whereas the Barrington parents usually step up.”
That’s a strange statement to make, considering that East Greenwich spends almost $1,000 more per student than Barrington.
More to the point, though, what is this “our best performing communities” stuff? When it comes to arguments about higher per-student costs and lower performance in other cities or towns, the Bob Walshes will run to the microphone to argue that the biggest contributor to success is demographic, the teachers or districts, thus denying the link between spending and results. They make the same argument with charter schools.
And yet, when one of those towns with supposedly high-performing demographics reins in its budget growth, suddenly the union organizers want us to believe they deserve the credit for results?
It has never made sense for one part of town government to have the authority to allow the teachers union to “get the contract” while only the other part of town government is authorized to raise the money to pay for it. Maybe it’s time to start removing some of the layers that confuse the question of who can say “our communities.”
The odd position of charter schools should bring us back to fundamental questions about government and our objectives.
The bright side, if the bills that Ted Nesi summarizes for WPRI were to pass into law, would be a boom in gotcha-journalism stories about questionable disability pensions:
The first bill, sponsored by Providence Rep. Joe Almeida, would allow an “injury or illness” sustained on duty – rather than just an “injury,” the current wording – to be cause for the granting of a tax-free accidental disability pension to a police officer or firefighter. It would also increase how long officers have to file a disability claim from 18 months after the incident to 36 months. …
The second bill, sponsored by North Kingstown Democrat Robert Craven, would mandate that any firefighter who suffers from hypertension, stroke or heart disease will be “presumed to have suffered an in-the-line-of-duty disability” and therefore be eligible for a disability pension, unless there was evidence of the condition in his or her entrance exam.
When first published, Nesi’s story noted that the bills had been posted for votes, implying passage, but after his story went live, they were removed:
“They were posted prematurely,” House spokesman Larry Berman said in an email. “Both bills were on a preliminary list for possible posting and then were posted in error. Those two bills are still being reviewed.”
Even if it ends there, this episode is a good reminder that special interests (ultimately funded with taxpayer dollars) are constantly working the system to expand benefits for government union members at the public expense. They work to elect friendly officials to local office for generous contracts, and they work to elect friendly legislators to write generous benefits into the law.
Something dramatic and structural has to happen to change this, because our system has no countervailing forces short of bankruptcy that will withstand the year after year after year push. The embarrassment of hidden camera stories about retirees abusing their benefits will only go so far in restraining ever-more-unsustainable benefits from being bestowed.
The idea behind charter schools may be sound, but Ted Vecchio argues that their balance between public and private disadvantages the public.
Earlier today, Tara Granahan tweeted criticism of behavior by Democrat Senator Stephen Archambault (Smithfield, North Providence, Johnston) during the June 15 hearing of the Senate Committee on Judiciary concerning drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Here’s the moment in question:
Out-of-state guests with whom the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity has interacted when they’ve come to our state to testify on legislation have commented about the terrible behavior of legislators, with very similar circumstances to those to which Gorman objected. The legislators — clearly treating hearings as a way to go through the motions and let people believe we still have a representative democracy — lapse into joking around with each other. Even if they aren’t laughing at the people offering testimony, the signal of disrespect is huge.
The shocking part of this video, though, is Archambault’s chastising Gorman as if the senator is some sort of feudal lord putting a peasant in his place. Archambault insists that “whatever I’m saying back here is my business.” Well, no, Lord Steve. You’re “back there” as a representative of Rhode Islanders in your district. Gorman isn’t coming into your space under your good-hearted sufferance. You’re privileged to be there on behalf of others.
But Senator Archambault pushes folly to offense when he repeatedly insists, “Don’t ever do that again. Ever.” Or what?
If we didn’t live in such a corrupt, one-party state, the committee chairwoman, Democrat Erin Lynch Prata (Warwick, Cranston) would have insisted that Archambault stand down and apologized to Mr. Gorman. But we do live in such a state, which means we must constantly be reminded that they don’t work for us; we work for them. We don’t bestow privileges upon them; they bestow them upon us.
Many of us on the right have had the general sense that progressives have turned the violence meter up a bit in the past year or two, but the list of incidents that Dave Brooks and Benjamin Decatur compiled for the Daily Caller is still disconcerting — not the least because it is clearly an incomplete first pass:
In creating the list, TheDCNF reviewed numerous articles detailing attacks and violent threats against conservatives and Trump supporters. While there are examples of anonymous threats, TheDCNF chose to include only those that resulted in the cancelling of events and two to members of Congress deemed credible. Some instances of violence between rival protestors were not included as it was difficult to ascertain who initiated the event.
I’d be willing to entertain the notion that there is a comparable list for the other side, consisting of stories that haven’t been as well covered within my ordinary media diet, but just as my sense is that this one seems incomplete, I’d expect a comparable mirror-image list to be shorter and to smuggle in items of arguable relevance.
Whatever the case, let’s hope recent events lead those shocked by President Trump’s election to engage in some lasting self-reflection, rather than a brief pause in the overheated rhetoric. Inasmuch as the Left’s rage at seeing its political power slip will continue, I expect we’ll see only a limited calming for a few news cycles.
For a variety of reasons, I’ve been thinking, recently, about the moral calculations around government’s involvement in charity, whether through welfare programs or grants to private charitable organizations.
My view is that charity isn’t government’s business. When a person gives of his or her own wealth for charitable reasons, he or she has made a moral decision, and the recipient has some degree of accountability to the giver and an imperative to try to become a giver rather than a recipient. When government agents give, it is of other people’s wealth, meaning that it is a confiscation, which creates moral complications for those directing the funds, and it creates a sense of entitlement and dependency in the recipient.
That said, I think other arguments can be made for some government expenditures other than the charitable, and moreover, I wouldn’t find it specious for somebody to make an argument for a “good society’s” use of government for charity. I don’t think I’d find such an argument persuasive, but it can be made sincerely.
In response, I might offer something like Pope Francis’s thoughts on corruption:
Corruption, Francis wrote, in its Italian etymological root, means “a tear, break, decomposition, and disintegration.”
The life of a human being can be understood in the context of his many relationships: with God, with his neighbor, with creation, the Pope said.
“This threefold relationship – in which man’s self-reflection also falls – gives context and sense to his actions and, in general, to his life,” but these are destroyed by corruption.
Nobody can doubt that empowering people to take money from one group to give it to another creates the potential for corruption, not the least in that it interferes with appropriate relationships to each other and God. In this context, when the pope writes that “we must all work together, Christians, non-Christians, people of all faiths and non-believers, to combat this form of blasphemy, this cancer that weighs our lives,” one could see it in part as an exhortation toward personal charity. The more need we can relieve through voluntary action, the less pressure there will be for the corruption of charity through government.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were Lincoln Chafee’s recent commentary, Gina Raimondo’s budget negotiations, and a state employee takes advantage of us all.
Take it as a warning or as an illustration of opportunity, but Rick Holmes’s history, in the Fall River Herald, of Vermont’s political transformation is a worthwhile read.
Basically, the interstate highway system brought “flatlanders” to the state for foliage viewing, skiing, and indulgence in a hippy aesthetic. By the time the indigenous conservatives tried to push back, it was too late:
“The hippies won,” says John Gregg, a Vermont journalist whose office is a short walk from the Connecticut River. In a small enough place, the influx of new citizens, even in modest numbers, can change a state’s political trajectory.
Rhode Island is different, of course. Our population is a bit bigger, and the particular flavor of progressivism isn’t hippy socialism as much as insider socialism. An historically different flavor of immigration brought with it a little more cultural conservatism and a little bit less libertarianism. Moreover, the “influx of new citizens” affecting Rhode Island isn’t the migration of relatively privileged progressives, but rather the deliberately lured clients for the company state/government plantation.
These differences bring with them unique challenges, but in both places it’s too late for an ordinary political campaign to change things. Instead, we have to change the local culture, which is no easy task when the people who see the right way forward tend just to leave.
Is there no reason whatsoever to challenge David Cicilline’s quick jump from fearmongering rhetoric to protestations that he has Republican friends?
We need to work out the gray line at which a girlfriend “goading” her boyfriend to suicide can be an act of incitement (with a nod toward the GOP-baseball assassin).
As I find myself awash in budget and employment numbers, a quick midday post can be well utilized to offer kudos to Providence Journal Mark Patinkin for exhorting his fellow leftists to reevaluate their rhetoric in the wake of the GOP-baseball shooting:
The left has long charged that such reckless words by Trump add to a toxic political culture.
What they seldom acknowledge is that the Democratic leadership has been no better.
A basket of deplorables, Hillary called Trump supporters, and went on to label them this way: “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
It’s no stretch to say such seeds can help make a twisted mind feel justified in going after Republicans with a gun. …
Now that Trump’s president, I’ve also noticed how the left doesn’t just call his policies wrong-headed — they catastrophize them.
His health-care plan? People will die. Environmental and social-policy cutbacks? Those will kill people, too. And the cries for impeachment have been constant — not just from lefty nuts, but the nightly talking heads on MSNBC.
In discussion, I’d offer some tweaks. It’s certainly conspicuous, for example, that Patinkin doesn’t call out Rhode Island’s own vitriolic Congressional delegates.
I’m also mystified as to how it could possibly have taken until this shooting for Patinkin to realize that the Left has “violent zealots.” Umm… the Weather Underground? Eco-terrorists? Among the recent campus attacks on conservatives (which he mentions broadly) was an ethics professor who hit three Trump supporters in the head with a bicycle lock.
From where I sit, this week’s shooting shouldn’t be a revelation of left-wing violence, because it’s the predictable escalation of longstanding tendencies among people who share the progressive political ideology in response to political weakness. This isn’t just observation, but reason. Progressives deify government as the bringer of “progress” and “social justice,” which means conservatives are actively preventing the world from harmonizing.
These points aside, Patinkin is going farther in acknowledging the current reality than anybody else I’ve seen on Rhode Island’s left or in its mainstream, and that’s to be applauded.
(By the way, MSNBC talking heads are clearly lefty nuts.)
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were Mayor Fung’s first forays and government spending out of control.
Shootings in two dimensions, the risks of building, and the budget cometh.
Lieutenant Governor Dan McKee’s op-ed overstates the significance of his “legislative package,” not the least because it leaves out three of five bills.
When we consider questions of government policy, we too often lose sight of the principles behind the question of what government should do.