Policies that start by asking what’s best for inner city families will be conservative in nature and will prove activists who thrive on urban angst to be demagogic frauds.
Progressives become reactionary when it comes to big-government programs because they benefit from inefficiency and don’t trust freedom.
Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity CEO Mike Stenhouse often refers to the value of “a paycheck, not a welfare check.” Rich Lowry suggests President-elect Donald Trump is on the same page:
Trump hammered away at the true bottom line of the economy for most people. Mike Konczal, a fellow with the liberal Roosevelt Institute, went back and listened to Trump stump speeches after the election to better understand how the mogul pulled off his upset. Konczal notes that Trump “never mentions poverty. And while he talks a lot about reducing taxes, he never talks about increasing transfers, redistribution, or access to core goods. He talks about wages, full stop.”
And that’s the key to Trump’s economics. If you squint just right, you can see a strategy. It is to increase growth through traditional Republican means (i.e., tax reform and deregulation) at the same time, he aims to directly create a tighter labor market through soaking up labor via an infrastructure program and reducing foreign competition by discouraging outsourcing and squeezing immigration.
Related principles applied to Rhode Island would focus on workers both by decreasing the incentive for them to enter into dependency on government programs and by increasing the resources and liberty at their disposal to expand their work and, if they choose, build their own businesses (that is, reducing taxes and regulations). Instead, the champions of the status quo in the Ocean State are striving to make more of us dependent on government (through, e.g., UHIP and continually expanding social welfare programs), to attract people to the state who will require government assistance (for the government plantation), and to give government-selected businesses an edge against their local competition by taxing others more to tax the favored companies less.
This is unambiguously the choice Rhode Islanders face, and it has to be made again and again. For example, infrastructure projects to “soak up labor” are sorely needed, both for jobs and for public safety, but the choice is whether to increase the tax/toll/debt burden or to redirect funds that currently foster dependency to help independent workers.
“The traffic is being engineered,” a former top NYPD official told The Post, explaining a long-term plan that began under Mayor Mike Bloomberg and hasn’t slowed with Mayor de Blasio.
“The city streets are being engineered to create traffic congestion, to slow traffic down, to favor bikers and pedestrians,” the former official said. …
“They’re not coming out and saying it, but they’re doing other things to cut down on traffic coming into city, things such as taking streets that had four lanes and making them three by creating bike lanes, or putting a plaza in, creating pedestrian islands,” the source said.
Those who follow transportation issues even casually may have seen people argue against them for such reasons, and we certainly shouldn’t assume that our roadways are perfect as they are, but as progressives attempt to move people into urban areas and make them more reliant on city services to get around, each proposal deserves scrutiny.
After all, when everybody else is on foot or in government-controlled transportation, the mobile elite will have yet another advantage. The source in the article says Mayor Bill DeBlasio “doesn’t care about traffic,” meaning that he can blame others (like resident Donald Trump), but one can’t help but wonder what effect police escorts and helicopters have on his perspective.
Perhaps things are different in other parts of the state, but it has seemed that the new Dept. of Transportation (DOT) signs displaying their proud green on-time-and-on-budget dots are mostly planted around relatively small paint jobs. Painting’s important, of course, but the metaphor of bragging about it is too appropriate to let slide.
Within the first two pages of today’s Providence Journal, for example, we learn of DOT’s botching the roll-out of a temporary lane change, causing untold damage to the Rhode Island economy and the continued travails for people on public assistance after the botched roll-out of the Unified Health Infrastructure Project (UHIP). Now add in Nick Domings’s reporting for WPRI about “Dozens of dams in RI deemed unsafe“:
Dozens of dams in Rhode Island are in rough shape. In fact, dozens of them are in high-risk areas, and failure could cause death and catastrophic damage, according to the R.I. Department of Environmental Management.
To be fair, some of these dams are privately owned, but if we’re going to give government the role of inspecting and regulating even private infrastructure, it should be doing so (rather than the myriad other tasks government sets for itself). More importantly, can anybody have confidence in the people who run state government to handle a real catastrophe? If they can’t manage even a simple lane change, planned well in advance, and if $364,000,000 and years of preparation aren’t enough for it to implement new a software system smoothly, why should we expect that state government will do anything but make matters worse when something really bad happens unexpectedly?
A comment from Raymond Carter comes to mind both as a wake-up call and a warning:
The (very sad) truth is that sane crooks like Murphy, Paiva-Weed, Gina, Paolino, Mattiello and DeSimone will be a fond memory once the progressive crazies take over the asylum. Get ready for $100,000 babysitters with state pensions. Get prepared for Venezuelan style government, economics and collapse.
And in the face of all of this, Rhode Islanders remain poorly informed and apathetic.
At the truck stop in West Greenwich off Route 95: 849 Victory Highway, West Greenwich, RI 02817. Tuesday, October 18, at 11:00 am. (No question, a bit of a tough time of day for a lot of us working folks.)
The Rhode Island Trucking Association and NATSO, the national association representing travel plazas and truckstops, announced today that they will host an informational rally and press conference Oct. 18 to discuss the devastating effects that “RhodeWorks” — the Rhode Island Department of Transportation’s truck-only tolling plan — will have on local businesses and commercial truck drivers that operate within the state of Rhode Island.
The small group of state officials advocating for truck tolls say that they are necessary because the money to repair our bridges cannot be found within the budget. Like most of the data and talking points that accompanied the passage of truck-only tolls, this is a flat-out lie. This money can be found in the budget. Remember also that, under Governor Gina Raimondo’s highly destructive RhodeWorks toll plan, shepherded through the General Assembly by a flip-flopping Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, hundreds of millions of dollars would be completely squandered on items other than bridge repairs: gantries, toll fees, interest – meaning that hundreds of millions of dollars would be coming out of the pockets of truckers and all Rhode Islanders and going down a rat hole rather than into infrastructure repair.
Adding urgency and danger to the situation, a recent federal court ruling in New York has brought tolls on cars in Rhode Island one giant step closer. As WPRO’s John Loughlin correctly pointed out on air Saturday morning, this is almost certainly why the start of work on the 6/10 Connector was rushed. Governor Raimondo and her organized labor supporters want to be sure to sink their toll claws into the state as quickly as possible by getting projects hooked on this destructive new revenue source ahead of a court ruling. (“Oh darn. The courts ruled that we can’t toll just trucks. We have no choice but to toll cars because look at all of the borrowing and construction that we rushed through … er, that is now underway.”)
In addition to the big red flag of the federal court ruling in New York, it is important to note that no other state tolls only trucks. From the beginning, this posed an enormous constitutional flaw in the RhodeWorks toll law. (For more on this, check out Rep Blake Filippi’s excellent op-ed in Thursday’s Providence Journal.) Accordingly, any state leader or legislator who voted for truck tolls in February took the unnecessary and very dangerous step of inviting the toll vampire into all of our homes. If state leaders don’t wise up and rescind truck tolls, it is now just about impossible to envision a scenario by which the toll vampire doesn’t turn to feast on the blood … er, wallets of car owners. It is critical, therefore, that state legislators who voted for tolls be held accountable. Please go here to see how General Assembly incumbents voted on tolls, where their challengers stand on the matter and vote for the candidate who did NOT invite the toll vampire to Rhode Island.
And if you’re able to get away from work for an hour tomorrow, please also stop by this rally. Garlic is optional. But your presence at the rally and, especially, your anti-toll vote on November 8, would send an important message against the toll vampire.
Although it leaves me feeling as if there might be more to the story, a Kate Nagle article on GoLocalProv has the strong smell of Rhode Island to it. The Peregrine Group (no strangers to our insider culture) is prepared to build a large waterfront mixed-use development in Pawtucket, but Rhode Island’s additional costs for building make government subsidies a necessity, and the Commerce Corp. appears to be dragging its feet:
“We have a profound live for the site and the city, and we’ve made a “Rebuild RI” application [with Commerce]. We’ve had preliminary conversations, but right now, the current iteration doesn’t work,” said Kane. “It’s just the economics of new construction. In Boston, I can do projects without the city and state’s help. I’m doing 80 more units in Rumford [Center] with no help. Pawtucket is hard.” …
The Commerce Corporation recently awarded RebuildRI tax credits to Ocean State Job Lot (who had threatened to leave the state if truck tolls were approved), and AT Cross (whose former CEO began serving as a consultant at the Commerce Corporation).
Now, I don’t know whether this particular development is a net positive or negative, but state government’s handing out taxpayer-funded subsidies shouldn’t be the mechanism for making such decisions. Even if we were to assume that government functionaries are qualified to pick and choose the best projects for Rhode Island, the incentives of politics and government are inefficient, in part because of one unavoidable question: “the best projects” for whose interests?
If one believes in the importance of government involvement, maintaining the governor’s programs becomes a critical objective. So, when an iconic company ramps up opposition to a new toll program that government agents think they need, the value of handing that company subsidies far exceeds whatever direct economic development is involved, to the government agents.
It turns out that the General Assembly’s proposed 2017 budget will, after all, contain very partial relief from impending truck tolls in the form of lower registration fees for in-state trucks though, due to questions of constitutionality, the Speaker is asking that we not connect the two.
With the national trucking industry threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the truck tolls in court, after the first gantry goes up, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello was insistent on Thursday that the registration-fee cuts in the newly unveiled budget bill have nothing to do with the tolls.
“I don’t want to connect the two,’’ House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello said Thursday.
Okayfine, they’re not connected. The reduction in registration fees for this NON-RELIEF from tolls will vary with truck size.
At the lowest end, the annual registration fee would drop from $106 to $78. For trucks weighing more than 74,000 lbs. — which are at the top end now — the fee would drop from $972 (plus $24 for every additional two pounds in weight) to $510. For even larger rigs, there would be a graduated fee schedule, topping off at $690 for tractor-trailer trucks weighing more than 104,000 pounds (plus $12 for every additional 2,000 lbs. of weight).
Soooo, on the upper end – $500-$600 savings per year? By the way, this means that some of the heaviest trucks which do the most damage (to use Governor Raimondo’s logic for implementing truck tolls) to our roads and bridges will be getting relief from tolls EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL NOT BE PAYING TOLLS.
Back to the matter at hand. Approximately $500-$600/year in registration savings for this NON-TOLL RELIEF. Now let’s look at the cost of tolls. At the $40 max per day, a truck driving around in Rhode Island, assuming he operates five days per week, fifty weeks a year:
5 days/week X $40/day = $200. $200 X 50 weeks/year = $10,000/year
Ten thousand dollars a year. Yeah. “Token” relief is actually an understatement, Christopher Maxwell, President of the Rhode Island Trucking Association:
“If they’re trying to help the truck industry, great,” Maxwell said. “But it’s a long way from undoing the damage the tolling would do. It looks to me more like a token gesture.”
Yesterday, we talked about the wink-wink-nudge-nudge falsehood that 38 Studios bonds were actually an investment in the videogame company. Today, we get another yeah-sure moment as Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston) attempts to claim that a budget gimme for local truck drivers isn’t an attempt to offset the cost of tolls for them in a preferential way:
With the national trucking industry threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the truck tolls in court, after the first gantry goes up, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello was insistent on Thursday that the registration-fee cuts in the newly unveiled budget bill have nothing to do with the tolls.
“I don’t want to connect the two,” House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello said Thursday.
But “if it’s a Rhode Island company with a Rhode Island registration they are going to benefit from this new plan which cuts their registrations in half. If they are registered out of state, they won’t receive that benefit,” he told The Journal, moments before a public briefing on the budget bill got under way.
Well, that’s great. When courts strike down the tolls as a targeted tax and public outrage makes politicians weak kneed about implementing car tolls, no doubt the General Assembly will keep this nice benefit for in-state truckers.
The impossibility of holding government accountable illustrates a fatal flaw in the progressive approach to society.
So reports today’s must-read-as-always Political Scene in the Providence Journal
The four Democrats who attended the event under an East Providence highway overpass: Senators Gayle Goldin and Josh Miller, and Representatives Aaron Regunberg and Arthur Handy.
All other legislators, including those who voted for Governor Raimondo’s RhodeWorks toll plan and, notably, the House Speaker and the Senate President, apparently had other plans that precluded them from attending this high profile event.
Oh dear. What happened? Are tolls so politically unpopular with voters that they caused legislators to forego a significant opportunity to get some juicy media attention during an election year? (Don’t be misled by your legislators’ absence. See how your rep voted on tolls here and how your senator voted here.)
Important side note: the attendance of Senator Goldin and Rep Regunberg, who represent Providence, at this event is especially disturbing as, under the preliminary list of gantry locations, five business-strangling gantries would encircle Providence. Respectfully, honorable legislators, how could you attend an event to publicly condone (much less vote for) a new revenue stream that will inevitably heavily damage the residents and businesses in the city that you represent?
Of course, Governor Raimondo’s new tax on vacation-home rentals needs to go. Rhode Island government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
The bigger take-away from this Providence Journal article is how far off base her administration’s projections have turned out.
So far, Rhode Island’s plan to collect an extra $7.1 million in annual revenue through new vacation-home rental taxes is falling short of expectations.
In the first eight months since collections began, from last July 1 to the end of February 2016, the state has received just $1,563,565 in new rental taxes, according to Neil Downing, chief revenue agent for the state’s Division of Taxation.
Even on the basis of another projection – $5.3 million – presumably revised to account for a shorter season last year, the $1,563,565 actually collected is far short. Meanwhile, the biggest effect of the introduction of a new (ineffective) tax/fee is to reinforce Rhode Island’s reputation as heartily anti-taxpayer and anti-business.
Is this a preview of how far off the projections by her administration about toll revenue are? If so, what happens then? We know the answer: “Sorry, our projections were off. We now need to toll all vehicles including cars.”
Isn’t this charming.
A package of toll scofflaw bills sought by the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority are moving slowing through the General Assembly and drawing questions about whether they might apply to the state’s planned truck toll network.
The bills, sponsored by Middletown Democrat Louis DiPalma in the Senate and Tiverton Democrat John Edwards in the House, would allow the Turnpike and Bridge Authority, through the Division of Motor Vehicles, to block toll violators from renewing their driver’s licenses or registrations.
Important to note that these toll scofflaw bills are sponsored by East Bay legislators – DiPalma and Edwards – who fought tolls on the Sakonnet River Bridge but voted in favor of statewide tolls. Tolls for thee but not for me appears to be their repugnant philosophy.
Now they are going a step further and spearheading the legislative effort to make it easier for the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority to crack down on toll violators. At this point, the RITBA only administers tolls on the Newport Pell Bridge. But the RhodeWorks toll law enables them to administer statewide tolls if RIDOT wants it. Even if RIDOT goes with a private firm to administer tolls, it’s a snap that these tougher measures would quickly apply to statewide tolls – just as it’s a snap that litigation will morph tolls on trucks into tolls on all vehicles INCLUDING CARS.
We know how DiPalma and Edwards voted on Governor Raimondo’s highly destructive statewide toll plan. How did your legislator? Find out here for reps and here for senators, then please keep that in mind in November. Rhode Island DOES NOT need toll revenue to repair its bridges, only legislators who are willing to think for themselves and act in the best interest of all Rhode Islanders rather than blindly accept destructive marching orders from above.
… our bridges are bad.
Before his speech, Biden got a close look at the notorious “Lincoln logs,” as he called them, holding up the McCormick Quarry Bridge over Warren Avenue, and described them as “shameful.”
The question is, how to pay for the repairs. A large part of the problem is that the “middle-class jobs” you and Governor Raimondo tout,
“Infrastructure is about a lot more than delivering people from Point A to Point B; it is about middle-class jobs,” Biden said. “Nobody is making minimum wage pouring concrete on a highway job. No one is making minimum wage surveying a new road. …
when funded by yet another government fee, tax or toll, simply come at the cost of other members of the middle class (and every other “class”). The middle class – and all Rhode Islanders on the economic spectrum – would be better off if the repairs came from more prudent budgeting – quite easy to do when the net money that will actually go into bridge repairs from the RhodeWorks toll plan, after bond interest and gantry costs, is only approximately $15 million/year, not the $45 million that RhodeWorks will cost us. Best of all, none of those “middle class” jobs go away just because they are funded more responsibly by the Governor and the General Assembly.
Speaking of the General Assembly, very interesting that neither the Rhode Island House Speaker nor the Senate President were present yesterday in East Providence as Vice President Biden was praising tolls, RhodeWorks and Governor Raimondo.
Larry Berman, spokesman for Mattiello, said the speaker needed the morning to work at his private law practice. Greg Pare, spokesman for Paiva Weed, said in an email that the Senate president’s “schedule did not permit her to attend today.”
As they are both very much members of the Vice President’s political party, it is odd that they would miss such a high profile event, especially in an election year.
Is anyone hearing why? Were they not invited? Or did they choose not to go …?
The Democrats caucused on Wednesday. Stand by, everyone.
Asked the likely date for the unveiling of the legislators’ version of Democrat Raimondo’s proposed $ 8.9 billion tax-and-spending plan, Mattiello again told reporters: “As soon as possible.”
Interesting observation by Rep Marcello about an admittedly small but highly controversial item in the budget.
“The elephant in the room [was] the legislative grants,’’ said Rep. Michael Marcello, D-Scituate, of the budget earmarks that have mired the General Assembly in controversy again this year, especially the $70,875 grant that went to an education non-profit that employed Raymond Gallison, the House Finance Committee chairman who resigned mid-session amid a police investigation.
Shall we start a pool? What’s going to happen in the budget with community service and legislative grants? Is it too much to expect that they will all be cancelled, along with tolls, and the revenue directed to repair our unsafe bridges??? (Okay, that last item may border on delusional. But it would certainly be the right thing to do!)
My main beef with the proposed Pawtucket train station is that it is completely absurd to spend north of $40M to accommodate only eighty nine (89) net new riders.
But in its weekly look at Best and Worst Bills of 2016, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity (disclosure: I am their Communications Manager) raises another unfortunate aspect of the proposed station. They point out that it offers a disturbing insight into the economic development philosophy of state officials who are pushing for the station, which is that it
… perpetuates a submissive philosophy that the State of Rhode Island should be considered a suburb of Boston and should rely on the Massachusetts capital’s economy to achieve growth. The Center strongly disagrees and for years has advocated that broad-based reforms can transform the Ocean State into a vibrant and independent economy of its own that will benefit all families and businesses, as opposed to the insider few industries targeted by the Brookings plan.
Upon reading an article such as a blurb by Christine Dunn in today’s Providence Journal, about Rhode Island’s high rental costs, my first reaction is always to wonder why nobody ever looks to the causes of supposed problems:
Rhode Island’s state minimum wage is $9.60 per hour, but a worker would need to earn $19.06 an hour to affordably pay a rent of $991 a month, the state’s fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment, the study added. The estimated mean hourly wage of Rhode Island renters is $12.59.
“Today’s report shows what we already know: we need to invest in and build more housing in Rhode Island,” said Barbara Fields, executive director of Rhode Island Housing.
Of course, one should challenge the assumptions of an article that is so thoroughly in line with the cause of an activist who has a personal interest in public policy on the issue. Why should we assume, for example, that a person earning the state’s average should be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment on his or her one paycheck? Add in a spouse or a roommate at the average, and suddenly Rhode Island rentals are very affordable. Or hey, do what millions of families (like mine) have done and take on additional work!
But even going with the concept that Rhode Island needs “to invest in and build more housing,” why ought that to be done with government involvement? Unless something (probably government policy) is getting in the way, the market should take care of this.
If apartments are drawing such an exorbitantly high rent for the area, then more people should be seeking to become landlords. The higher the profit, the greater the motivation. This should ensure that housing expands until its ready availability drives the price down to the point that the incentive to build more is no longer there.
If that isn’t happening, something is keeping the cost of building and maintaining rental property artificially high or keeping wages artificially low. In Rhode Island, it’s probably both. Or maybe the assumptions about what is “affordable” are flawed.
Whatever the case, using government to force more money into housing — with strings and bureaucratic rules — doesn’t solve the underlying problems, but takes resources away from something else that our community needs and wants, which could be the very something that will help resolve those underlying problems. (Hint: like innovation and jobs.)
Governor Raimondo says its because her toll-funded
RhodeWorks, a program that is set to charge tolls on some trucks, and other construction projects, has turned heads, including in Washington
But could the real reason be to try and get someone, ANYONE other than those who would directly benefit from it (or is a personal friend of the Governor), to say something good about her toll program? If so, it’s interesting that Governor Raimondo’s administration had to go out of state and all the way to Washington, DC, to find someone to talk up this highly destructive new revenue stream. It would also confirm the generally held view that Governor Raimondo’s toll program, passed by the General Assembly (how did your legislator vote?), has pretty much the same political popularity as a new government Puppy Kicking Program.
Rhode Island has taken its biggest step yet toward building a new train station to serve Pawtucket and Central Falls, requesting $14.5 million from the federal government to cover about a third of the project’s cost.
But a new train station in Pawtucket would net only eighty nine new riders per day, with hundreds more poached from the South Attleboro and Providence stops. By the way, it isn’t just federal dollars that would be involved.
Separately on Tuesday, the House Finance Committee is scheduled to take up a bill sponsored by Rep. Carlos Tobon, D-Pawtucket, that would appropriate $10 million to help underwrite the cost of the Pawtucket train station. Tobon proposed a similar bill pegged at $20 million last year.
RIDOT is currently looking to fill a $126,648 – $140,920 position of “Administrator, Office of Transit, New Starts, Operations and Transportation Alternatives“. It looks from the job description that this proposed new train station would fall under the purview of this position. Is this taxpayer-funded job the sort of “opportunity to transform the area and provide much needed economic opportunity for local residents” that RIDOT Director Peter Alviti is referencing when he tries to justify this completely unneeded project?
This is serious derangement. The “If You Build It, They Will Come” approach to expensive public transit projects didn’t work in Wickford. We know NOW it won’t work in Pawtucket, either. So why are our elected officials working to repeat Wickford’s costly mistake in Pawtucket?
Representative Patricia Morgan had an op-ed in yesterday’s ProJo describing the latest development in the area of tolls and proposed toll-funded projects – the Governor’s toll plan, as it has now become clear, being the biggest bait-and-switch ever pulled on Rhode Island’s residents. (“Danger, danger, Will Robinson! The bridges are unsafe!” “… Psych! Most of the money is going to a 6/10 boondoggle!”)
Honest and straightforward answers are simply impossible to come by. It appears that Director Peter Alviti has discovered the value of labeling everything “preliminary.” By doing so, he can avoid supplying forthright answers.
A reminder: all of this – tolls (if they survive the legal challenge), federal revenue, the bridges, highways, RIDOT – involves public resources and hard earned tax dollars, which means complete openness is mandated. Governor Raimondo will put an end to “preliminary” and all such dodges if she wishes to repair her very poor reputation in the area of transparency and open government.
Multiple reporters, citing multiple sources, began reporting last night that a major development would take place on Smith Hill today.
House Finance Chairman Ray Gallison is set to resign as a state representative Tuesday as he faces a law enforcement probe, RIPR has learned.
Many of us wouldn’t be experiencing something bordering, frankly, on schadenfreude right now if this didn’t involve a legislator who, in the process of expediting the rushed, non-transparent creation of a highly destructive new revenue source, engaged in the worst kind of closed government conduct by bullying and then shutting down one of his colleagues who was rightfully attempting to get answers on behalf of the taxpayers, residents and businesses of the state.
But he did and we are.
Meanwhile, all eyes on Smith Hill today as these and related events, including a closed Democrat caucus at 3:54 pm, unfold.
The Providence Journal has presented an interesting juxtaposition, between yesterday’s paper and today’s. Today, reporter John Hill gives the Rhode Island Department of Transportation the equivalent of free press-release promotion:
Normally, a department of transportation would be expected to boast about a new bridge that spanned a river, or a new highway interchange. But this week the Rhode Island DOT’s proudest accomplishment is a 100-page report.
It is the first edition of the agency’s newly formatted quarterly report, which lists the hundreds of projects that the agency has in various stages of completeness, their cost and timetables for completion. It is available on paper and at the department’s website,dot.ri.gov/news/rhodeworks.php
Department Director Peter Alviti said the report represents the department’s effort to be more transparent and accountable to the public.
There will also be large plywood-sized signs at every job site clearly marked to indicate whether the project is on schedule and on budget, and we can absolutely trust RIDOT to ensure that the information on the signs is accurate and updated.
Hill’s article allows Alviti to take credit for reforming a dysfunctional department, although two omissions are significant in that regard. First, the findings and solutions that Alviti promotes as if they were his own work largely derive from a report that the department commissioned under Governor Lincoln Chafee (D). In other words, the process of assessing and resolving management troubles in the department was already underway. Alviti and Governor Gina Raimondo (D) are just trying to reap the good PR.
Second, the article offers no context of RIDOT’s current challenges with transparency. For that, turn to yesterday’s op-ed from Republican Representative Patricia Morgan (Coventry, Warwick, West Warwick):
Although the administration of Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo worked to obscure the issue, we now know that the 6-10 Connector makeover was the reason the toll law had to be fast-tracked. Truth is, a plan was in place to fix all our deficient bridges and return maintenance to satisfactory levels. That’s the same 10-year plan that the Rhode Island Department of Transportation is using now. …
The scope and price of that project, which would involve creating a tunnel and a boulevard, is impossible to determine. Not that we haven’t asked. The weaving and dodging are evident. Honest and straightforward answers are simply impossible to come by. It appears that Director Peter Alviti has discovered the value of labeling everything “preliminary.” By doing so, he can avoid supplying forthright answers.
Senator Marc Cote and Representative Daniel Reilly make a sound separation-of powers case for this in Monday’s GoLocalProv.
One of the most important checks involves the legislative branch’s ability to keep the executive branch from spending too much money. …
Essentially, DOT is being allowed to set a tax rate, collect the taxes and spend the proceeds, all without any input from any other branch of government. We see this provision as a violation of the principles of checks and balances and an infringement upon the principle of separation of powers.
The assignment to RIDOT of toll rate authority is clearly in violation of the separation of powers section of the Rhode Island Constitution. Members of the General Assembly must stand up and be counted. Do they stand with and for the state Constitution and the residents of the state? Or do they side with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats against the people?
Partly so readers can feel my pain, as it were, from reading through all of the legislation passing through the General Assembly, I’d like to direct your attention to H8068, which my Freedom Index description characterizes as follows:
to allow wine producers and distributors and gift-basket retailers to ship a limited amount of wine to residential consumers in Rhode Island, with licensing and other requirements
Mainly out of a sense of relief that any legislation would expand what businesses can do, I marked the bill as a positive, but it’s instructive, nonetheless, for a negative reason. Consider that the bill creates a new $200 “gift basket license” that allows the sale of gift baskets that “may include”:
(1) A maximum of four (4) bottles of wine per basket;
(2) Food items;
(3) Non-alcoholic beverages;
(4) Concentrates used in the preparation of mixed alcoholic beverages;
(5) Wine-making kits and products related to wine-making kits;
(6) Ice in any form;
(7) Articles of clothing imprinted with advertising related to the alcoholic liquor industry or the permittee’s gift basket business;
(8) Flowers, plants and garden-related items;
(9) Drinking glasses, bottle opening devices and literature related to wine; or
(10) Gift certificates.
Those aren’t the only regulations, naturally. There are other rules for who can sell, who can buy, and where the sale can be done, as well as reporting requirements.
One would hope that even people who lean toward including government in most of what people do within the society would start to get a little squeamish when we get to the point of regulating what legal products go in a gift basket.
James Kennedy argues that road design, not signage is the key for assessing and handling traffic, and that a 6/10 boulevard design makes for better design than a DOT-designed tunnel.
What is going on at RIDOT? Late last week, Director Peter Alviti confirmed to NBC 10’s Bill Rappleye that RIDOT would be putting up a toll gantry on Route 95 within a year so as to provoke a legal challenge to the state’s truck-only tolls. But now, the Providence Journal reports that
State transportation officials deny reports that they plan to test the legality of tolling big rig trucks by opening a single, lawsuit-enabling toll location before building out the full toll network approved by lawmakers this winter.
“Denying reports”? Like they came from some third party, unconfirmed source? Dude, the head of YOUR DEPARTMENT confirmed that this was the plan.
This flip-flop (if they don’t flip again) will do absolutely nothing to instill confidence in the competency and good intentions of a department (or a Governor) already in charge of half a billion tax dollars annually and which is on course to eventually command the spending of billions more, if/when tolls are implemented. (Sure, tolls are not technically taxes. But de facto, they definitely are.)
If there’s a “conservative case” to be made for dedicated bus lanes, it’s more difficult in an area that’s swamped with a progressive system.
… both at the now infamous “let me tell you something, pal” 6/10 meeting and more generally.
From today’s Valley Breeze.
… it certainly leads the public to wonder about the apparent elitism exhibited by the Raimondo administration where it acts as though it knows everything and the public nothing. A dog and pony show does not alleviate the perception but rather only reinforces that the only hijacker’s in the room are the “public servants.”
Arlene is correct: this is a completely inappropriate attitude on the part of those, both elected and appointed, who have chosen to take on the role of public servant.
For the third year, I’m working on a lower-tax-increase option for Tiverton’s budget for the next fiscal year. In the past two years, budgets for a 0.0% increase and a 0.9% increase that I’ve submitted have won overwhelmingly. This year, the goal is another 0.9%.
As is the case everywhere, most likely, the budget battles in town really do come down to two perspectives on local government. The majority of those who pay very close attention to the activities of local government seem to see little distinction between the Town of Tiverton and the agencies that perform its government functions. Sadly, evidence from the local to the national levels suggests that this is a natural human tendency.
The alternative perspective is that a town (or state or country) is not chiefly defined by its government, but by the people who live there. Moreover, the priority is broader social and economic health, not the comfortable operation of the government.
I say this because the map at the above link shows Tiverton with by far the highest tax rate of surrounding cities and towns, with the exception of Warren, and the 3.5% increase in the tax levy that the town government wants would bring that gap down to $0.30. At the same time, the town’s property values are barely growing, and revenue is dropping from all of those sources that indicate growth and improvement: licenses, permits, and inspections.
Meanwhile, if the town’s taxes had increased at a healthy 2.5% annual rate since the start of the century, rather than twice that, total taxes would be 30% lower. Now, if the town government has its way, the total increase in property value that residents managed, last year, will be eaten up by this one tax increase in fewer than seven years.
That just isn’t sustainable. A town government can’t build multiple buildings each decade (on debt), keep hiring new positions, despite little growth and declining activity, and habitually give out raises beyond the private sector’s capability without hurting the people who actually are the town.
In terms of a budget, that means starting with an assessment of what the people can afford, not what their neighbors would like government to take from them.