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.
Rhode Islanders should keep an eye on this story, out of California:
Striking at the sanctity of public pensions in California, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that U.S. bankruptcy law allows the city of Stockton to treat pension fund obligations like other debts, meaning the city could trim benefits.
State laws vary. Judges vary. Circumstances vary. But this is important because it goes to a broadly applicable principle. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein is the judge in the case:
The judge spent much of the morning questioning whether CalPERS and its members enjoy a protected status under federal and state laws.
“One can’t mess with CalPERS, that’s the vernacular way of putting it,” the judge said at one point, summarizing the view of CalPERS and Stockton officials.
“Is CalPERS a state unto itself?” Klein mused later.
The labor unions and their backers want everyone to believe otherwise, but the fact that the debt is owed to people who exchanged their work for promises rather than people who exchanged their money for promises doesn’t mean the deal is signed in magic ink that cannot be edited.
Another example of Rhode Island government as a political jobs program has arisen in the East Greenwich school department, and it raises deeper questions than does the Woonsocket mayor’s summer street cleaning crew.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Harris v. Quinn, which found that personal assistants for disabled recipients of state aid in Illinois could not be forced to be part of a labor union. They aren’t state employees, and the state isn’t their direct client. The people for whom they care are their clients, and they are a disparate group, not an entity with which they can negotiate as a collective.
That ought to have frozen efforts to implement a new Rhode Island law requiring child care providers to be part of a union if their clients receive state subsidies, and yet today’s Providence Journal Political Scene reports that negotiations are ongoing:
This was the initial answer from the Department of Administration’s policy director, Allison Rogers: “The negotiations are ongoing. Subsequently, the department is unable to provide any further comment at this time.”
When pressed recently on why the negotiations are still going on a year later, she said: “This is not an unusual length of time for negotiations, especially for a brand new contract.
It’s good that the reporters are keeping tabs on the progress or lack thereof, but it’s strange that the article doesn’t mention the cloud of unconstitutionality under which the negotiations are happening.
I frequently state my opinion that there’s basically no rule of law in Rhode Island. An article in today’s Providence Journal about a lawsuit concerning an “affordable housing” development illustrates why.
The basic point is that citizen groups almost never win. Either the government agency appeals to the department under which it works, and that department rules in its favor (as with a school committee appealing to the Dept. of Education) or some quasi-judicial agency, like the Ethics Commission, waves the language of the law away, or the courts carry the water. The foreclosure of that route to reform and civic engagement leads people who might otherwise become more politically active, perhaps even running for office, to give up totally, sometimes directing their efforts to an exit strategy from the state.
I didn’t realize (but probably could have guessed) that Maya Angelou, the poet, has precedential weight in Rhode Island courts:
In his written decision, filed Wednesday, Procaccini opened with a quote from the late Maya Angelou: “ ‘The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.’ As this Court considers the case before it, it keeps Maya Angelou’s wise words in mind.”
Whatever the law says, the ruling class of Rhode Island will find it to say whatever they feel is right. There’s no way citizens can work to craft language that will actually do what they want it to.
That’s not the rule of law. It’s an aristocracy.
Justin and Bob Plain discuss the campaign for lieutenant governor and the possibility of a constitutional convention, and (in text) Justin corrects an assertion of Bob’s.
In a must-read article, Scott Atlas looks at one of my biggest fears about ObamaCare and the regulatory state generally, when it comes to healthcare:
Of the many unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act, perhaps the least noticed is its threat to innovation. Although most discussions center on the law’s more immediate effects on hiring, insurance rates and access to doctors and care, attention should also be paid to its impact on U.S. research and development and health-care technology.
Millennials may be too young to appreciate it, but the last twenty years have been a time of medical marvels. Things that were a death sentence when I was young are now curable, or at least their fatality can be delayed. We’d gotten to the point, I think, of taking for granted that all cures were just a matter of time. ”I hope I don’t get [disease X]” was becoming “I hope I don’t get [disease X] before they’ve found a cure.”
We who inhabit the modern era don’t seem to understand that such progress is not inevitable. It takes risk and investment, and maybe a little bit of apparent unfairness. (After all, if you can’t see the vision of the inventor and the investor, it looks like an awful waste of resources to do what they’re doing, and once they’ve succeeded, it can look so obvious that it hardly seems fair to reward them so lavishly.)
That’s not an argument for an anything-goes society, but it seemed like we had found a decent balance between ensuring that somebody was keeping a check on the system and allowing the system to operate. Now, it seems like the weight has shifted, and the whole thing is wobbling.
A New Englander’s first reaction to news like this is to sound the alarm:
The Northeast, once the nation’s political engine that produced presidents, House speakers and Senate giants including the late Edward M. Kennedy, is losing clout in Washington as citizens flee the high-tax region, according to experts worried about the trend. …
Deep in a recent report, for example, the American Legislative Exchange Council tabulated how the drop in population relative to the rest of the nation cut the region’s power in Washington. While the states from Pennsylvania to Maine had 141 House members in 1950, they are down to 85 today, a drop of some 40 percent.
Upon reflection, what we see here is the American system of government working. New England policies aren’t policies for families and growth. They’re policies for a ruling elite and an underclass to serve it. In the long-term, they’re policies for stagnation and decline.
I’ve said before that I think the illness that infects the Northeast has spread to the national body, and it may be incurable. But maybe, just maybe, the shift in population and representation will slow the contagion long enough for a cure to be found.
Following up on Jim Hummel’s discovery of Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt’s friends-and-family jobs program, the mayor’s actions look like they violate at least three provisions of the state Code of Ethics. The first is directly in the relevant statute of the Rhode Island General Laws, specifically section 36-14-5(d):
No person subject to this Code of Ethics shall use in any way his or her public office or confidential information received through his or her holding any public office to obtain financial gain, other than that provided by law, for him or herself or any person within his or her family, any business associate, or any business by which the person is employed or which the person represents.
Broadly, the argument can be made that the mayor revived a jobs program to benefit her son. The argument can also be made that the existence of the program was essentially privileged information that the mayor shared only with her son’s baseball team.
Section (h) of the same statute drives the point home, but would specifically be a violation by the mayor’s son:
No person subject to this Code of Ethics and or any person within his or her family or business associate of the person or any business entity in which the person or any person within his or her family or business associate of the person has a ten percent (10%) or greater equity interest or five thousand dollars ($5,000) or greater cash value interest, shall enter into any contract with any state or municipal agency unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded; provided, however, that contracts for professional services which have been customarily awarded without competitive bidding shall not be subject to competitive bidding if awarded through a process of public notice and disclosure of financial details.
That isn’t to say that the Lisa Baldelli-Hunt can get away with hiring her son. Under the regulatory provisions of the code, regulation 36-14-5004(b)(2)(A) addresses this circumstance directly:
No person subject to the Code of Ethics shall participate in the supervision, evaluation, appointment, classification, promotion, transfer or discipline of any person within his or her family or a household member, in the state or municipal agency in which the official or employee is serving or over which he or she exercises fiscal or jurisdictional control, except in accordance with particular instructions and advice received from the Ethics Commission in a written advisory opinion.