The politicization of the (now poorly named) Department of Justice illustrates the challenge of reversing the progressive ratchet.
The danger of the political fashion flip and a loss of perspective.
Ian Opaluch, of WPRI, provides the latest forum for local politicians to go after National Grid for seeking a 53% increase in its energy rates. Says Democrat Lieutenant Governor Daniel McKee: “National Grid’s proposed 53-percent standard offer rate increase is unacceptable. Another rate hike is a step in the wrong direction when it comes to making Rhode Island a better place to live, work and own a business.” Republican Senator Elaine Morgan calls the request “unconscionable.”
But there’s a mystery:
… Laws in Rhode Island prohibit National Grid from making a profit on the energy supply itself, and the company said the price hike is necessary to deal with rising energy costs.
In addition, the price increase would not affect delivery fees, so the average bill would go up by about 19% if the rate hike is approved, according to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
In short, National Grid won’t profit from this increase, but rather is just passing increased costs along. What could be driving the request, then?
Rhode Islanders should wonder how any reporters could cover this issue without noting the culpability of state governments. Even with fracking holding down the price of energy worldwide, New England politicians are happy to cave to activists on actions like shutting down the Brayton Point energy plant, delaying and maybe stopping a new energy facility in Burrillville, forcing us all pay for expensive renewable energy mandates, imposing additional taxes on fossil fuels, and on and on.
Morgan is right; it is unconscionable for Rhode Islanders to be saddled with skyrocketing energy costs when our country is becoming a world leader in energy production. But the people taking the unconscionable actions are those who work in the same building as Morgan and McKee. Every year, they take many steps in the wrong direction, across a variety of issues.
In an op-ed today, Gio Cicione observes that carrying over last year’s state budget — and nothing more — wouldn’t exactly be the end of the world:
Elsewhere in our great nation, state legislatures only meet every other year, and some go home after a couple months each year with no ill effect. Is it really so bad if ours goes home after six months of flailing? If anything, Rhode Island has suffered for most of its recent history from an over-abundance of well-intentioned but amazingly harmful legislative activity. (Remember 38 Studios? Of course you do.)
For context, we must keep in mind that carrying forward the old budget still sticks us with almost $9 billion of state spending. Without an increase, we still spend more per person than virtually every other state government in the country. (According to data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, no New England state spends more per capita and eight states nationally spent less than half of the $9,146 per person that Rhode Island spent in 2016.) We would still be giving $3.3 billion to fund education, $2.7 billion for health and social services, and yes, even that all-important $1.35 million to maintain our own Atomic Energy Commission.
But urgency is how news media sells stories and politicians sell “solutions.” Moreover, government and its satellites don’t create wealth, so they have to make sure that their take keeps growing, and in a state with a long-stagnant economy, like Rhode Island, they can’t just rely on regular ol’ tolerance for inflation.
Under single-payer, government-run health care, decisions about what conditions require coverage and for which coverage is banned will be based on politics and fashion.
The phrase, “government schools,” is useful and increasingly accurate, as seen in an incident in Tiverton.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the regulatory suggestion put forward by Republican U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, as Eric Boehm describes on Reason thus:
The Supreme Court in 2014 overturned a North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners ban on non-dentists offering teeth whitening services. The ruling opened the door to lawsuits against state-level licensing boards that behave like private-sector monopolies by enforcing anti-competitive rules against their very own potential competitors. …
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on Thursday will introduce a bill that would give states two paths to immunity. The first by bringing state licensing boards under direct supervision by the legislative and executive branches. The second by requiring states to show why a certain licensing requirement is necessary to protect public health and safety.
Lee’s “Restoring Board Immunity Act” creates a limited, conditional exemption shielding licensing boards from federal antitrust lawsuits, but only for states that change how their licensing boards operate and how courts handle disputes between those boards and individuals subjected to their rules.
The problem, in Rhode Island, is that I think the new rules would apply only to licensing bureaucrats, not legislators, and that’s where the problem lies. For a forthcoming brief from the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, I’ve been reviewing the (let’s pretend) deliberative process behind some legislation introduced into the state’s General Assembly with an eye toward pricing some of the proposals, and I found the experience depressing.
Consider the paid-time-off legislation that is on the cusp of passing into law. From what I can tell, nobody in our government made any effort to estimate how much this mandate would our neighbors’ businesses. (It’s a lot.) To them, the cost is beside the point.
As for the supposedly limited authority of government, our elected officials simply don’t believe in the concept. Any freedoms that you continue to enjoy in Rhode Island, you enjoy entirely by their sufferance. Your money is theirs to collect. Your psychiatry is theirs to control. Your actions are theirs to regulate.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were Raimondo’s height fixation, the union’s leverage, continuing budgetlessness, and the state of play in Newport/Jamestown.
Recently on the world stage, we’ve witnessed the unthinkable results of a government-controlled health care system in Great Britain. The tragic story of Charlie Gard’s death and his parents battle against a socialist health care system has broken the hearts of you, me, and people around the world.
Progressives want big government that’s involved in our every transaction and life decision because they want to help, right? Sure, maybe they’re woefully misdirected, but that’s their objective, isn’t it?
Yeah, about that… GoLocalProv has been tracking the financial dealings of Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo’s Chief of Staff Brett Smiley, who ran as a progressive for mayor of Providence last time around:
Brett Smiley, the failed 2014 candidate for Mayor of Providence, is today Governor Gina Raimondo’s Chief of Staff. He also owns a political consulting business that represents clients including Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza, and he has hired his consulting firm’s former staffers to work in the Governor’s office. Smiley earns more than $170,000 per year in his role for Raimondo.
This month, Providence City records show that he and his husband Jim DeRentis sold their house to Brown University for $1.1 million — 30% more than the assessed value of the house at $843,600.
The story has multiple angles. According to GoLocal, Smiley was a high-up officer with the City of Providence when it assessed his house 6% below what he’d paid for it two years earlier, during which time houses in his area had gone up 20% in value. That implies a 21% discount in the assessment of his house, implying something like a $4,400 discount on his property taxes each year.
Now he’s collecting money from the mayor of Providence through his consultancy at the same time that he’s a higher-up with the governor of the state, who implicitly negotiates deals with the mayor. At the same time, he’s sold his house to a university that is also involved with deal making with the governor. (Even if Brown is paying Smiley what his house is worth, it simply proves the point of the too-low assessment.)
Big, intrusive government, in short, creates a giant funnel, at the point of which already-wealthy progressives can position themselves for enrichment. This is the inevitable chemical reaction when one mixes human nature with a lack of freedom, whether it comes in the form of dictatorship, communism, socialism, or progressivism.
The Rhode Island House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing right about now on DCYF and the deaths of children that had been on their radar. The Ocean State Current took a look at staffing trends at DCYF compared to those at the Department of Administration during the last three years.
The significance of Block’s voter-fraud findings depends what numbers one emphasizes, but the most reasonable number for concern is pretty big.
During my weekly call today to the John DePetro Show on 1540 AM WADK, John and I disagreed, a little, on the news that, at Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s request, the State Police are investigating the process by which Frank Montanaro, Jr., got around $50,000 in free public-higher-education tuition as a benefit for a job that he no longer held with Rhode Island College.
The disagreement, minor as it was, involved John’s expectation that there’s legal fire behind the smoke of this issue and my skepticism that the State Police will find and pursue anything that’s actually a legal problem for Montanaro. John mentioned other legislators who’ve been nailed on legal challenges, but with some of the more-notable cases (Fox & Gallison), federal officials were involved, not just the state.
I guess I’ve just reduced my expectations for the State Police in recent years, based on various seemingly political decisions they’ve made. Maybe that’s fair, or maybe it’s not, but it’s my feeling.
A key point that I didn’t manage to make adequately on the radio is that Rhode Island has a dire need to start enforcing rules that aren’t quite laws. The moment Montanaro was found to have filed false reports in pursuit of his benefit, he ought to have been gone, whether or not it proved to be illegal. And to ensure that reform, we need something other than the State Police.
If the State Police come out and say that they found no evidence of criminal activity — however bad the whole thing might stink — that counts as absolution for crooked behavior. What we need is some other authority, like an inspector general or something, who can bridge that gap, both recommending legal prosecution and providing credible analysis that a particular deal did not seem to jibe with the spirit of a personnel policy.
A lot of corruption can go on between completely legit government activities and clearly illegal behavior. Our government officials have proven unwilling to enforce that gray area on the side of justice, so we need something more.
In the meantime, I’ll remain skeptical.
A Trump-Russia and East Greenwich illusion; emergent order; and the gig economy
Boy, taxes and the cost of government must have really fallen for this to be the case:
Penn Station is just one symptom of a larger illness. With an aging subway system subject to a recent state-of-emergency order by Cuomo, and a 67-year-old bus terminal called “appalling” and “functionally obsolete” by officials of the agency that runs it, the New York area’s transportation systems embody America’s inability, or unwillingness, to address its aging infrastructure.
Of course, far from shrinking, the cost of government has exploded over the lives of Penn Station and the bus station, so where is the money going? In brief, our tax dollars are being redirected to pet projects, progressive redistribution, and (I would say) special deals that amount to outright theft. A core tenet of blue-state spending is that the people will always accept more debt and higher costs if the last things they get to pay for are the things they find most critical.
We don’t have to go to the Big Apple or major infrastructure for the lesson. Take a look at this somewhat-cryptic Providence Journal article by Alex Kuffner:
The Community College of Rhode Island organized an open house on Saturday at its Margaret M. Jacoby Observatory to celebrate the completion of a $45,000 renovation that included a new control desk, new seating and repairs to the roof-opening mechanism. …
But the event was clouded by a demonstration outside the observatory’s doors by faculty members and students who protested what they allege is mistreatment of the astronomy professor who has overseen operation of the observatory for the past decade. …
Britton was hired in 2007 to teach astronomy to students and to operate the observatory for his classes and on nights when it’s open to the public. Last month, when the administration changed the way he would be compensated for the public nights, resulting in less pay, he balked.
Kuffner never details the change, but the context suggests that the college may now be paying only a non-faculty rate for the public night. That is, a special deal has gone away.
One needn’t look far at all to find other examples.
How legislation shouldn’t happen, when the people can’t trust anybody, apathy, and high school reunions.
As far as I can tell, the one interesting thing that Rhode Island’s Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo said of interest at her press conference yesterday was that she intends to find the money to fund her “free tuition” policy at CCRI:
Raimondo told a press conference she is not exactly sure where she will find the $2.75 million-plus needed, at minimum, to launch the free-tuition pilot program, but she voiced confidence that she would be able to do so within the $8.9-billion year-old budget cap in which the state is currently operating.
One hopes some lawyer or other on the governor’s staff is aware that money is only part of the question. Our state’s constitution still vests the General Assembly with the authority to make law, not her, and if nothing else, her campaigning has made clear that this is a new policy.
Governors are not without authority, of course; readers may recall that Lincoln Chafee signed us on to ObamaCare and health benefits exchanges via executive order. So, Raimondo may be able to get away with this, if only because the politics of actively stopping her would be much stickier than the politics of not creating a new program in the first place.
That said, the rule of law is already a problem in Rhode Island, so causing further damage to it should do the governor political harm, if she goes in that direction.
A State House News Service story by Katie Lannan appearing in The Herald News of Fall River answers a question that I’d been wondering:
After Maine and New Jersey reached deals to end their government shutdowns, just six states remain in budgetary limbo: Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rhode Island and Connecticut, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Interesting, isn’t it, that half of the states are from New England — specifically Southern New England. Five of the laggard eight are Northeastern states.
Looking at the list, one’s tempted to muse about general similarities of the policies that these states have pursued over the past half-century. Maybe the can has met the end of the road.
On National Review Online, Wesley Smith writes about a push in the United Kingdom to publicly fund womb transplants for men who want to become women:
This would be wrong on so many levels, ranging from safety concerns for both patient and potential future baby, the prospect of doctors and hospitals being forced to participate even if it violates their religious or moral beliefs–already beginning to happen–to the question of whether going to such extremes to satisfy individual yearnings constitutes wise and public policy.
But make no mistake: Powerful political and cultural forces will be–are–pushing us hard in this direction.
An advocate for the policy quoted in the Daily Mail “predicts” that this technology will eventually be in demand among not only homosexual men, but also heterosexual men who want to experience childbirth.
Smith focuses on the way in which this episode illustrates the impossibility of ever controlling health care costs, when the incentive for providers and government is constantly to broaden the services for which other people must pay. I’m not sure, though, that Smith isn’t writing with his tongue in his cheek, because health care costs and the concerns he articulates in the above quotation are among the least of the concerns in the envisioned brave new world.
Go right to the profound: If this sort of technology advances to perfection, people could install and remove organs as they desire them, which would make us more like organic machines than human beings.
We’re coming to a decision point at which individuals and society will have to decide in a very fundamental way what it means to be human, or even to exist. It greatly aggravates the dangers of that decision point if we accept a pervasive attitude that everything’s a civil right at public expense and those who disagree must be forced to accept and financially participate radical changes almost from the beginning of their possibility.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were the PawSox, Montanaro, the Budget, and “free” tuition.
Marc Munroe Dion picks up on what I’ve been calling “the government plantation” in his latest “Livin’ and Dion” column about the budget consequence of recasting drug use from a crime to an illness. Noting that a person who comes across a homeless beggar could feed him or her with a $10 sandwich, but:
If you ran a non-profit agency, you’d need an outreach worker to find the homeless guy, an intake worker to make sure the homeless guy was really hungry, a case manager to find out what kind of sandwich he likes, a nutritional expert to make to make sure he got a healthy sandwich, a coordinator to introduce the outreach worker to the case manager, a facilitator to go into the store and buy the sandwich, and a five-member board of directors to approve the $10 sandwich, which would be referred to in all documents as a “nutritional expenditure for indigent substance abuse-affected client.”
At all times, the homeless guy eating the sandwich would be referred to as a “client.” Total cost of the sandwich? $65,000, not including benefits, and pensions.
Rhode Island’s state government is deliberately working to transform our economy into one built on this very model. Declare some benefit to be a right, find a way to collect money from the rest of the economy and other states (via the federal government), and fill out a massive bureaucracy with government-satellite non-profit agencies with plenty of well-paying jobs whose holders will tend to support the system politically and to fund the necessary political action through their labor union dues.
Providence Journal columnist Mark Patinkin has been making a lot of sense, lately. Most recently, on “R.I.’s disability-pension gravy train”:
One of the bills, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Robert Craven, a North Kingstown attorney, wants firefighter disability to include not just on-the-job injury, but illness, too — specifically, cardiovascular.
If a firefighter can no longer serve because of hypertension, stroke or heart disease, it would be considered work-related. Automatically.
Bingo — tax-free disability for life.
A second bill, introduced by four reps who are former cops, also makes “illness sustained while in the performance of duty” grounds for disability for police officers.
Companion bills have passed each chamber, meaning that the state House and Senate each has passed an identical version of the bill (H5601 and S0896). If either chamber passes the other chamber’s version, the legislation will go to the governor to be signed.
It’s tempting to say that Rhode Island has crossed some sort of line this year (probably as the jackals put in their conditions for negotiation with Democrat Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, so that he could get the car tax elimination he locked himself into providing), but the reality is that we were already over the line.
As this legislative session has proven, the “reasonable” position in state government isn’t to improve conditions in Rhode Island or to loosen the ropes on residents, but simply to insist on a slower pace for the pilfering of people’s wealth. That may delay the Puerto Rico or Venezuela endgame, but perhaps not by much.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?