At the height of election fever, let’s not lose track of the latest developments in the disturbing situation involving the Central Coventry Fire District.
The following report, on “Central Coventry Citizens Taskforce for Fire Protection” letterhead and inclusive of two contact names and phone numbers, was sent out via e-mail this afternoon. It appears that at the Monday meeting and in other venues, Governor Chafee has had no compunction in carrying out the almost certainly unconstitutional order of the General Assembly to the taxpayers of the Central Coventry Fire District: – an order that could well come to every fire district in the state: No voting; just shut up and pay.
Here’s a result that shouldn’t be overlooked in the Brown University statewide poll released today…
Each state has its own constitution that is separate from the United States Constitution. Would you vote to approve or reject a convention to amend or revise the Rhode Island Constitution?
- Approve 42.3%;
- Reject 26.8%;
- Don’t know 30.9%
How #GamerGate points to the great metaphysical war of the universe.
Rob Paquin and Bob Plain discuss a debate between candidates for RI Secretary of State and related topics.
Jim Vincent, of the Providence NAACP, quotes the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity in a recent Providence Journal op-ed. (Naturally, he fails to name his source, because progressive activists aren’t about public debate, they’re about confusing public debate for political reasons.)
Supporters have also suggested that a Constitutional Convention would be a good opportunity to “resolve some thorny cultural issues — one way or another.” Cultural issues have no place on the ballot.
He’s referring to a line, way toward the end of this analysis from the Center, in a section about ways in which Rhode Islanders might use a constitutional convention to “take issues off the table” of the General Assembly, where they come up regularly to distract the public and distort the legislative process. Most of the points have to do with the operation of government, but here’s the final bullet point:
Resolve some thorny cultural issues — one way or another — though the mechanism that most clearly represents the will of the people
Look, cultural issues have to be resolved. When the government begins dabbling in them (which it inevitably will do if we let it become as large and invasive as it has become), lines must be drawn by somebody concerning the appropriate scope and, if government is going to take a side, which side it will take. To people with Vincent’s political philosophy, it’s not a question of whether cultural issues should be resolved within government, but how government should assert authority and make decisions.
In March, Vincent told Bob Plain, of RI Future, that “he will lobby legislative leaders this session to pass a bill that would tax and regulate rather than criminalize pot.”
In other words, the “thorny cultural issues” — which are at the core of defining our society and directing its course for generations — ”have no place on the ballot” because he wants them decided in back rooms by insiders and special interests. He doesn’t trust the people — black, white, male, female, gay, straight, liberal, conservative — to come to the right decisions, so it’s imperative that their betters — the elite power brokers who’ve manipulated their way into positions of influence — control the system to tell the people what to do and who to be.
Rhode Island’s September employment story was one of “down.” The unemployment rate was down, but so were labor force and employment numbers.
At the end of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the hobbits return from their battle with ultimate evil to find it necessary to vanquish some vestiges in their country home, the Shire. I’m hoping this election season ends up to be something like that.
Depending on your city or town, the 2012 election may have left you under three layers of bad government. The Obama Administration has proven to be more ideological, partisan, and (worst) incompetent than even most of us early skeptics feared. The fruits of Rhode Island government under the General Assembly and Lincoln Chafee (who is still governor, I believe, although it doesn’t seem like it) are impossible to ignore.
And in Tiverton, we’ve had scandal after scandal, failure to oversee employees competently, and a regular practice of back-room decisions and subversion of government processes for political reasons.
Video of a hostile, uncomfortable Town Council meeting, last week, caps off the experience of the last two years. Among the many scandals has been the council’s determination to appoint a specific person to the role of full-time town planner, even though budgets are tight, the voters did not approve enough money for the planning office for a full-time position, the anointed person lacks the credentials, and the Personnel Board did not include her among the finalists. In the course of this battle, two members of the Personnel Board left, and three people have volunteered to fill the slots, one of them the wife of Town Council President Edward Roderick.
Another of the three volunteers is resident Donna Cook (also running for Budget Committee). The day that she was scheduled to interview for the position, Council Member Jay Lambert, who has been on the council with Roderick for quite a while, called Cook on the phone and suggested that she should consider some other volunteer position in town.
Each party to that conversation tells it a little differently. Cook says Lambert suggested that she withdraw her application to the Personnel Board, leaving a clear, uncontroversial path for the president’s wife. Calling her “a liar” (but choosing his other words with a lawyer’s skill), Lambert presents it more as a friendly suggestion that she help the council fill the many vacancies.
I believe Mrs. Cook. You can watch the seven-minute video yourself, but it’s apparent to me that Roderick — who tried to have her physically removed from the podium almost the moment she began speaking — had prior knowledge of the call and that the majority of the council at least had some sense of what was going on.
Sadly, I imagine these scenes are playing out across Rhode Island and the United States after the last election. We might have to reverse Tolkien’s tale and clean things up from the Shire in.
Both a statement from Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and a related review by PolitiFactRI leave out important context that should have affected the Truth-o-meter rating.
The Providence Journal’s war against Buddy Cianci feels similar to the battles that the paper regularly conducts against people on the wrong side of its institutional bias.
Boston Globe deputy editorial page editor and Rhode Island native Dante Ramos somewhat misses the mark, in his basic assessment of the Providence Mayoral race…
In Cianci’s Providence, as in James Michael Curley-era Boston or Edwin Edwards-era Louisiana, there’s a sharp divide between good-government reformers and a, well, more instinctive style of politics.
“Instinctive” is an appropriate euphemism for describing Cianci’s brand of politics.
However, “good-government reformers” cannot be used to describe an opposition that’s centered on political players who believe that corruption and mismanagement from a Mayor aren’t issues, as long as they are kept at levels that David Cicilline or Lisa Baldelli-Hunt would tolerate.
Trends in the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Legislative Freedom Index show the unhealthy attitude of the state’s legislators.
An article by Lynn Arditi in today’s Providence Journal, “Report: Too many teens in state care,” looks likely to be one of those dry, bureaucratic-process-related matters that many readers probably skip over. That would be a mistake:
In her testimony, Field described a system where overloaded caseworkers who don’t have the time or resources to help families are increasingly removing teenagers from their homes and sending them to live in group homes. And group homes are paid only by the numbers of beds filled, so “you’ve got incentives for providers to keep kids to keep those beds filled,” [Tracey Field, director of the child welfare strategy group at the Casey Foundation’s Center for Systems Innovation in Baltimore] said.
To summarize in one sentence what appears to be going on: The state government of Rhode Island is taking children away from their parents in order to maintain a government program, in part because its priorities have led the state government not to adequately fund a responsibility that it arrogated to itself.
That’s a long sentence, and the second half of it goes into the process stuff on which politicians like to focus because they can muddy the water. It’s the first part of the sentence, though, that’s important: “The state government of Rhode Island is taking children away from their parents in order to maintain a government program.”
You don’t get much more ghoulish than that, and you don’t get a much better representation of the progressive style of governance.
We keep hearing complaints that out-of-state special interests are trying to manipulate Rhode Islanders when it comes to our own state constitution. We hear it from folks like the three special-interest speakers who attended the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s luncheon with Grover Norquist, last week, and managed to grab a good portion of the coverage:
… Dr. Pablo Rodriguez, spokesman for Citizens for Responsible Government, which opposes a convention[, said,] “But today we have the prime evidence that outside wealthy special interests are coming into our state.”
Rodriguez was referring to Norquist, but his own little event did much more to prove his thesis about “outside wealthy special interests.” As far as I know, of the seventy or so people joining the Center to support the idea of a constitutional convention, only three were from out of state: Norquist and his Massachusetts-resident parents.
It’s true that the special interests with whom Rodriguez was standing were in-state special interests. Kate Brewster of the Economic Progress Institute and Michael Araujo of the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Employees were the speakers. Of the three or four non-speakers at the anti-constitutional-convention rally, I recognized two: Jenny Norris, the campaign manager for Rodriguez’s group, and James Parisi, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals.
But the small group wasn’t only representative of in-state wealthy special interests. Among CRG’s sponsors is Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, which (according to the Providence Journal) donated one-sixth of its initial funding, or $10,000.
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England is actually not a Rhode Island organization. It operates out of New Haven, Connecticut. According to the organization’s 990 form for 2013, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England had revenue of $34.2 million that year, with $4.9 million left over after expenses (what some might call its profit), contributing to assets of $28.3 million.
Judith Tabar, its president and CEO received $392,150 in compensation from the corporation and related entities, and the seven members of her executive staff listed on the form each received well over $100,000.
That looks like a wealthy out-of-state special interest, to me. Meanwhile, actual Rhode Islanders — you know, the in-state non-special-interests — overwhelmingly support a constitutional convention. I suspect they are who Rodriguez really fears.
Here’s the latest word on the major public works program related to the land in Providence formerly occupied by Route 195:
It’s the kind of project the I-195 Redevelopment District Commission and state economic leaders have long said they hope to foster on nearly 20 acres of prime real estate. In the spring, [Lawyer Timothy H.] Ehrlich’s team submitted a bid to the commission to create [a biotechnology] incubator.
But after working all summer, Ehrlich is convinced the project needs financial help from the state, and that the help must be more than the life-sciences tax credits outlined in the state law that created the commission.
No doubt a variety of people would jump at the chance to tell me I just don’t understand how these things work. Government must invest in economic development. Biotech is a growth sector, and an incubator will attract all those “well-paying jobs” that we hear about. Every other state is subsidizing this industry. And yet, somehow Rhode Island will become a hub, even though small and late to the game. Yadda yadda yadda.
Indeed, the article has Marcel Valois, the executive director of the Commerce Corporation (which was formerly the Economic Development Corporation that invested in 38 Studios), insisting that “the project would ‘absolutely’ help the economy.”
Still, I just can’t get past the plain-language description of this whole process. The government invested in a project to move a highway because it would free up all sorts of “prime real estate” that could be sold to raise money and make economically productive use of the land. Now we’re “investing” in the process of luring organizations to the property. Next, those organizations will need massive subsidies to get off the ground. And then the start-up companies that this particular project attracts as clients will need additional subsidies to afford its services.
I ain’t a biotech-investment guru by a long shot, but this has all of the common-sense markers of a bad way to go about economic development and all of the common-sense markers of a scheme for empowering government agents and enriching connected individuals.
Timothy H. Ehrlich is, according to Kate Bramson’s Providence Journal article, “very encouraged by gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo’s knowledge and background as a venture-capital investor.” He’s so encouraged, it appears that he’s given Raimondo’s campaign $1,500 since May 2013, although the campaign refunded $250 of that two weeks ago.
The name on the campaign reports is “Tim Ehrlich,” but the address given belongs to this $1.4 million property in Concord, Massachusetts, which is owned by “Timothy H. Ehrlich,” matching the article. The article also calls Ehrlich a “lawyer,” and the campaign finance reports list the donor as employed by Boston law firm Gunderson Dettmer, where partner Timothy H. Ehrlich “focuses on the representation of start-up, emerging growth and public companies in the information technology, biotech and medical device industries.”
Campaign finance filings may provide a clue showing that different candidates (often from different parties) operate in ways that might reflect where they’ve been and what they’ll do.
Why do lawmakers get away with having unpaid campaign finance fines? Why don’t we actually enforce the laws that they were elected to create? This is an affront to all voters and taxpayers of the state.
Congressman David Cicilline’s primary challenger asks voters to consider Republican Cormick Lynch in the general election as a step toward term limits.
Folks who pay a whole lot of attention to politics and policy (myself included) can be astonished at things that don’t take off as controversies. Manipulated studies about casino gambling. Pension reforms that give the legislature’s authority away to a union-heavy board. Development of plans that seek to undermine property rights and individual liberty (while using supposed outreach meetings to find local activists). An unnecessary government start-up healthcare broker intended as a gateway to increasing the people addicted to government programs.
None of that registers, mostly because it’s complex, and there’s too much space between the walls for politicians and insiders to fill with smoke.
Why was this clumsy move such a bombshell? Because it’s so easy to understand, that’s why. While it may be difficult to decipher funding kindergarten and water treatment plants, everyone understands that their own kids got the short end of the stick. In fact, there are unemployed adults who would have been grateful for the work! They know where they stand with her now, and it’s on the outside, looking in.
What is even more striking is the mayor’s ethical blind spot and lack of any contrition.
Too often, we wait until hubris brings on the obvious corruption. One can’t help but wonder what it looks like from the politicians’ perspective. Hey, they got away with all of these huge power grabs and political maneuvers. A few thousand bucks of straight-up corruption shouldn’t matter if all that didn’t.
Looking at the brief report that the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity released, yesterday, showing some slices of employment data, something struck me about the numbers for labor force participation — that is, percentage of each demographic group that is either working or looking for work:
Notice that a larger percentage of black and Hispanic Rhode Islanders are either working or looking for work. Inasmuch as the unemployment rate (i.e., those who are looking for jobs) is almost two times higher for blacks than the average and more than two times higher for Hispanics than the average, we can infer that the higher labor force participation rates for those groups result mainly from the unemployed.
That makes sense, of course, because the income levels for these minorities tend to be lower than the average, so their need for jobs is greater. The gap between people’s need to work and their ability to find work is a humanitarian concern, but it’s also an indication of lost opportunity for our economy.
Here we see another indication of the harm that Rhode Island policies (and progressive policies more broadly) do to the productive class, no matter what race we’re talking about. These Rhode Islanders want to exchange their productive effort and their talents for money. Oppressive big-government policies make that exchange more difficult. High tax rates remove money from the economy and reduce incentive to expand productive activity (both work and investment), and invasive regulations make it more difficult to engage in productive activity legally.
It’s not surprising that minority groups are most profoundly affected by a wrong-headed approach to government. It is surprising, though, that the votes of different racial groups prove that they haven’t caught on to the abuse, yet.