Remember
Pawtucket, Rhode Island; May 28, 2017
FIND GREAT CONTENT
Search through articles, research, and policy papers. Search by keyword, tag, author, date range, and category.
Entries by Carroll Andrew Morse
Fish on Fridays
Nothing symbolizes the supposed arbitrariness of religion to those predisposed towards skepticism towards religious belief more than does the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays during the season of Lent. I’ll admit to having asked myself, especially on Good Friday, what connection is there really, between not eating meat and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And then there is the philosophical paradox. If my soul is lost after I’ve eaten meat on a Lenten Friday, does that mean I’m free to commit worse sins without making my situation worse? But if the rule doesn’t really matter, then why follow it? And on and on and on and on…
Here’s what I do know. With the wide variety of fish and other meatless options available to a 21st century American, abstaining from meat on Fridays is about as small a “sacrifice” in a material sense as can be asked for. But honoring the rule does require me to make some conscious choices that run contrary to what the surrounding culture tells me are cool and sensible. And if I am unable to make this small sacrifice, because I find it too inconvenient, or because I’m afraid to explain myself to others who don’t share my belief or who might think that I’m being just plain silly, then on what basis can I believe myself to be capable of taking a stand in more serious situations, when the choices might be a little harder and the stakes a bit higher?
Slightly edited re-post of an April 6, 2007 original.
Father Marciano’s Homily and the Care of His Soul and Ours
The headline above Katherine Gregg’s Providence Journal story on Father Robert Marciano’s recent Presidential election homily, “Warwick priest: A vote for Clinton would put ‘immortal soul’ in peril“, fails to convey an important detail about what Fr. Marciano actually said (though the story itself does provide an accurate quote). While the headline refers to the soul in a general way, Fr. Marciano in his homily referred only to his own…
I cannot vote for Mrs. Clinton since my immortal soul would be in peril by cooperating in the destruction of innocent human life.
Fr. Marciano follows the powerful example of St. Thomas More — who was martyred, by the way, for refusing to say what the government of his time wanted him to say — in speaking explicitly of the danger to his own soul. St. Thomas More’s understanding of the soul and the role of individual conscience is captured beautifully in a famous exchange from the film “A Man for All Seasons“…
The Duke of Norfolk: “Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage [of Henry VIII] was lawful or not but – dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!”
Thomas More: “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”
(The line is based on correspondence attributed to St. Thomas More).
To a believing Catholic, the conscience spoken of by St. Thomas More does not allow for unconstrained individual choice. A properly formed conscience must follow God’s laws and every individual bears the responsibility of learning those laws and following them to the best of his or her ability. Ultimately, whether one has done enough in forming and following one’s conscience to gain entry into heaven is decided by a single judge: not a priest, bishop or even the Pope, but God Himself.
As to what can be known about the state of souls prior to God’s judgement, theological debate is ongoing as to whether many people are able to fulfill the requirements for salvation, or whether only a few make it to heaven.
But it is precisely because no one on earth can say with absolute certainty who is saved and who isn’t that a priest has a responsibility to move as many people as he can towards a greater chance of salvation by encouraging everyone to more closely conform their consciences and their actions to the teachings of the Church. And if a significant danger to the salvation of many arises in the form of political leaders who pursue their own earthly gains by ignoring and even opposing church teaching, then a priest has an unavoidable responsibility to point out that cavalierly following such leaders may indeed lead away from the path of salvation.
We should take Fr. Marciano at his word, when he says that his understanding and acceptance of Church teaching means that he would have to violate his own conscience to vote to place into positions of influence certain candidates who strongly oppose key Church teachings. And because Fr. Marciano cannot know the precise state of anyone’s conscience but his own, we should also take him at his word when he limits his certainty of knowledge of when conscience has been violated to himself, while at the same time he encourages his congregation and his community to move in a direction where the salvation of as many souls as possible is most assured.
Trading the scare-quotes in the Projo headline for two additional characters, i.e. “Warwick priest: A vote for Clinton would put my immortal soul in peril” would have much more accurately conveyed this tradition of Catholic belief that Fr. Marciano is a part of.
Rhode Islanders Killed Serving in Afghanistan and Iraq
Sgt. Gregory A. Belanger
Sgt. Charles T. Caldwell
Staff Sgt. Joseph Camara
Spc. Michael Andrade
CW5 Sharon T. Swartworth
Capt. Matthew J. August
Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Mancini
Master Sgt. Richard L. Ferguson
Lance Cpl. Matthew K. Serio
Lance Cpl. John J. Van Gyzen IV
Sgt. Christopher S. Potts
Lance Cpl. Holly A. Charette
2nd Lt. Matthew S. Coutu
Sgt. Dennis J. Flanagan
Cpl. Brian R. St. Germain
Staff Sgt. Dale J. Kelly
Sgt. Moises Jazmin
Lance Cpl. Eric P. Valdepenas
Sgt. Michael R. Weidemann
Spc. Agent Nathan J. Schuldheiss
Sgt. Kyle J. Harrington
Lt. j.g. Francis L. Toner IV
Pfc. Kyle J. Coutu
Staff Sgt. Thomas H. Oakley
Sgt. Michael F. Paranzino
Spc. Dennis C. Poulin
Spc. Dennis P. Weichel Jr.
Lance Cpl. Abraham Tarwoe
Staff Sgt. Timothy R. McGill
Master Sgt. David L. Poirier
1st Sgt. Peter Andrew McKenna Jr.
Remember
Boots on the Ground Memorial
Roger Williams Park, Providence, Rhode Island; May 29, 2016
In Rhode Island, Cruz is the Choice for Stop-Trump Voters
Given the results in last night’s New York Republican primary (Trump 60.5%/Kasich 25.1%/Cruz 14.5%), and assuming a degree of similarity between the New York Republican electorate and the Rhode Island Republican electorate, the most important question relevant to the Rhode Island Republican primary has become this: Is Ted Cruz a lock to get 10% of the vote or not?
Projecting the New York numbers ahead and applying Rhode Island’s (reasonably clear, by the way) delegate selection rules provides a great illustration of this. Suppose Rhode Island’s numbers in next Tuesday’s primary are similar to New York’s, and both Congressional districts roughly parallel the statewide totals. If that were to be the case, of the 16 delegates to be selected in next Tuesday’s RI GOP primary…
- 8 would likely go to Donald Trump (6 statewide + 2 Congressional),
- 5 would likely go to John Kasich (3 statewide + 2 Congressional), and
- 3 would likely go to Ted Cruz (1 statewide + 2 Congressional)
However, if Cruz misses the 10% threshold, even if Kasich gets all of the votes that Cruz would have, Trump will still do better than he would if Cruz gets to 10%. With only two candidates receiving delegates, i) Trump gets 2 of 3 delegates from each Congressional district (unless Kasich outright beats Trump in one or both districts, which seems unlikely), and ii) the statewide delegate that Cruz would have won goes to either Trump or Kasich, depending on the exact apportionment formula that’s used.
When the votes are finally counted, the difference between Ted Cruz getting slightly more than 10% of the vote and slightly less than 10% of the vote will be either 2 or 3 fewer delegates for Donald Trump.
In other words, contrary to some of the conventional wisdom out there, for Rhode Island voters whose primary goal is to “stop Trump” ahead of anything else, voting for Ted Cruz at this point, to make sure he gets over 10% regardless of whether you want him to be the nominee or not, makes more sense in Rhode Island than voting for John Kasich.
A Republican Primary Primer
As we head towards Presidential Primary Day in Rhode Island, Anchor Rising/Ocean State Current would like to do its part to reduce the number of surprises that people might experience during the Republican primary and corresponding delegate selection process. So, be aware that…
1. Republican Primary voters will be voting in 3 elections, not 1.
The Continuing Easter
Let us not stay imprisoned within ourselves, but let us break open our sealed tombs to the Lord so that he may enter and grant us life. Let us give him the stones of our rancour and the boulders of our past, those heavy burdens of our weaknesses and falls. Christ wants to come and take us by the hand to bring us out of our anguish. This is the first stone to be moved aside this night: the lack of hope which imprisons us within ourselves. May the Lord free us from this trap, from being Christians without hope, who live as if the Lord were not risen, as if our problems were the centre of our lives.
Beyond the Symbolism of the Easter Vigil
“God deposits the great gift of Himself into the middle of history, and also removes the intervals of time between Christ’s life on earth and other events of His choosing, allowing humans across the millennia to share all at once in the Divine presence….The Easter Mass — indeed every Catholic Mass — is the nearby entrance to the connection across time that has been opened directly by God….”
Read the whole essay at GoLocalProv.com
Fish on Fridays
Nothing symbolizes the supposed arbitrariness of religion to those predisposed towards skepticism towards religious belief more than does the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays during the season of Lent. I’ll admit to having asked myself, especially on Good Friday, what connection is there really, between not eating meat and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And then there is the philosophical paradox. If my soul is lost after I’ve eaten meat on a Lenten Friday, does that mean I’m free to commit worse sins without making my situation worse? But if the rule doesn’t really matter, then why follow it? And on and on and on and on…
Here’s what I do know. With the wide variety of fish and other meatless options available to a 21st century American, abstaining from meat on Fridays is about as small a “sacrifice” in a material sense as can be asked for. But honoring the rule does require me to make some conscious choices that run contrary to what the surrounding culture tells me are cool and sensible. And if I am unable to make this small sacrifice, because I find it too inconvenient, or because I’m afraid to explain myself to others who don’t share my belief or who might think that I’m being just plain silly, then on what basis can I believe myself to be capable of taking a stand in more serious situations, when the choices might be a little harder and the stakes a bit higher?
Slightly edited re-post of an April 6, 2007 original.
One Weird Trick to Make Your Anti-Trump Article Better
If you are thinking about writing an anti-Donald Trump editorial or op-ed, and really want to convince people who are thinking of voting for him not to, let me offer you a piece of practical advice:
If you can drop the sentence…
“Even if it means you will have to accept decades of crushing socialism, you must fight against Trump”.
…into your anti-Trump screed without disrupting its flow, then it’s probably not going to convince any of the people that you need to convince, and is need of a rewrite.
Alas, Robert Kagan’s anti-Trump op-ed in today’s Washington Post doesn’t pass the test.
The New York Times Prints a Parody News Site Quote from the Pope, Believing He Really Said That!
At the end of last week, the New York Times published a column by Mark Oppenheimer on the identity of God which included a radical statement on the nature of Jesus Christ attributed to Pope Francis …
Most of the time, variations on “We all pray to the same god” are uttered as feel-good pieties by politicians urging us all to get along. For example, in 2003, President George W. Bush, referring to Muslims and Christians, said that “we worship the same god.”
Clergy members, too, are fond of such constructions, which serve a role in interfaith dialogue. Last year, Pope Francis offered a version, saying that “Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah” are “all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world.”
If during the past several years you have become a tad skeptical about mainstream media reporting on short quotes from Pope Francis, in this case you are wholly justified, because the quote is not real.
The source of the the Papal quote linked to in the Times article is a website called nationalreport.net — which according to its disclaimer is a satirical news-site…
National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental….
According to Snopes.com, National Report is indeed the primary source of the quoted material, but perhaps the statement that “any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental” led a columnist for the Times to think that National Report belonged to the same genre he was working in.
* * *
Since we have been given the opportunity (perhaps by the monotheistic God, working with us humans in strange ways), let’s take a few moments to discuss the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on this subject, but using of reliable sources, of course. In several Vatican II documents, the Church has indeed expressed that the Creator the universe, God the Father almighty, is also the God of some non-Christian religions. For example, section 16 of Lumen Gentium (the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”) states that…
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God….the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
This idea is reiterated in section 3 of Nostra Aetate (“Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”)…
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.
However, the worship by different religions of the one God who created the universe does not imply — as the Times has accidentally suggested — that the three persons of the Trinity are commutable. Within Christian theology, it cannot be said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all “distinctly the same”, and that truth cannot be changed by using different names to describe the Creator.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that Pope Francis is aware of this.
A Quick, Admittedly Impressionistic, Cheat-Sheet on where the Presidential Candidates Stand
Bernie Sanders: Federalize everything (e.g. healthcare, local policing, community college), immediately.
Hillary Clinton: Overload existing government structures until they don’t work anymore. Then Federalize their function. Maybe local policing needs to be Federalized right away.
Jeb Bush, John Kasich: Manage existing government structures really well. Leave Federalization to the Democrats, next time they’re in office.
Donald Trump: Existing government structures will work so much better when I’m President, we won’t ever need to Federalize anything ever again. It will be huuuge.
Ben Carson: Thanks for mentioning me in your review. We don’t need to Federalize anything new.
Ted Cruz: Don’t Federalize anything new. Modify or even eliminate existing government structures like the IRS that aren’t working. (Upon reading the 2nd part sentence, some establishment Republicans begin to run around, waving their arms in panic, stepping around the Democrats who have already passed out and shouting “It can’t be done! It can’t be done!”)
Marco Rubio: Is he closer to Ted Cruz (with potentially more electoral appeal) or Jeb Bush (with potentially more electoral appeal)?
A Reminder of the Simple Rules Reform Needed at the RI Legislature
With the removal of Representatives Raymond Hull, Raymond Phillips and Joseph Solomon from major committee assignments, apparently for voting against the truck-toll bill (though we cannot only be 99.9% sure of the reason, since the single individual with absolute control over all committee assignments under current House rules, Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, has not said why), this is a good time to re-up the 3 rules reforms that are absolutely necessary to set the Rhode Island House of Representatives on the path of becoming a legitimate democratic body once again, with special emphasis on the first…
- A prohibition on members being removed from a committee, without their consent, after they’ve received their initial committee assignment from the Speaker (this is so non-radical a proposal, the Rhode Island Senate already does it).
- Creation of a clear procedure — that everybody understands exists — for rank-and-file members to use to recall bills “held for further study” and place them on committee agendas for up-or-down votes.
- Tidying-up the discharge petition procedure for freeing bills from committee, removing the current rule preventing their use until 50 days into the session, and removing any ambiguity about the “only one petition to be presented for a public bill or resolution during the course of a session” clause in the rules meaning one petition per bill, as opposed to one petition per year.
Bear in mind that leadership can only be partly blamed for the fact that committee reassignment can be used as punishment, as the total control that the House speaker has over committee assignments is not something that is etched in stone, but is a rule that the members of the Rhode Island House of Representatives themselves vote for, every session.
House and Senate rules however can be amended at any time, just like regular laws. And think of the interesting debate we might witness as part of a rules-reform bill — which Rhode Island representative do you think would make the dimmest-bulb statement of “We need to be controlled by the Speaker, because if you let committee members like me have actual freedom to decide on legislation, there will be chaos”.
One other note: It looks like Speaker Mattiello’s promise that “this House will be run by the Representatives themselves” has expired. Plan accordingly.
The Car-Toll Referendum is a Perfect Example of Something that Belongs in the State Constitution
Subtitle: A rebuttal to Governor Gina Raimondo’s appearance on Newsmakers.
And which concludes with…If Gina Raimondo and Rhode Island lawmakers truly believe that tolling passenger vehicles should be placed beyond the reach of the legislature and are not merely slipping a few words into the law as meaningless political theater, then according to the most basic tenets of constitutional democracy, the referendum requirement needs to be placed into the constitution. And in the absence of a constitutionally-required referendum, it is entirely fair to describe legislators who support the current truck-toll legislation as supporting tolls on trucks now, with a legislative option for tolls on cars later.
Constitutional Amendment Limiting New Tolls to be Heard Alongside the Rhode Works Bill
Today, the Rhode Works plan, which creates a system for tolling trucks across the network of Rhode Island highways, will have its first hearing in the RI Senate Finance Committee….the Senate Finance Committee will also hear a bill today to send to the voters a constitutional amendment which would require that any future car tolls be directly approved by voter referendum….and there is no reason why both bills shouldn’t move through the legislative process together — unless, of course, the plan all along has been to use truck tolls as a stepping stone towards car tolls.
Any legislator who votes for the Rhode Works bill without also voting for the constitutional amendment will be voting for truck tolls now with an option for car tolls later.
Quick Thoughts from a Rhode Island Republican, on the Presidential Primary Vote
Really quick thoughts: Saying no to Donald Trump, and choosing between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
The New Toll Plan Will Still Be Challenged in Federal Court
If getting bond investors their interest payments construction underway as quickly as possible is of the utmost importance, Rhode Island’s political leaders will need to consider how much of a risk of a lawsuit they are willing to take in order to get the local carve-out; a case like this would take years to work it’s way through the Federal courts and the whole tolling-plan might possibly be enjoined during the litigation process. Of course, an injunction against the toll-plan would mean no money for bond payments road-repairs right away.
On this issue, Rhode Island’s legislators would be wise to keep in mind the lesson of Gordon Fox: Because Rhode Island’s Democratic leadership can play fast-and-loose with interpretations of rules and laws while inside the statehouse (e.g. nullification, revolving door judgeships) does not mean they can extend that power very far outside and forgetting about this can lead to unfortunate consequences.
The legal analysis that leads to this conclusion is in the main post.
Judge Taft-Carter Says the Lawsuit to Stop Pension Reform Probably Would Have Failed
It should not be overlooked that, in her 68-page opinion approving the legal settlement surrounding the state’s 2011 pension-reform law, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter states several times that the suit to overturn the law probably would have failed at trial.
The main statement of this is on page 59 of the opinion…
In particular the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success at trial is low considering (1) their heavy burden of proof; (2) the strength of Defendants’ position that the Enactments were for legitimate public purpose; and (3) the fact that many other Courts have upheld pension reform, including changes to COLAs.
It’s then repeated on pages 61-62…
Here, as stated earlier, the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success is low. First, the Plaintiffs bear a high standard of proof in that they must establish that the Enactments are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt…
Additionally, while many Objectors stress the fact that they have a contractual right to their pension benefits, the existence of a contractual relationship is but one element of the Court’s constitutional analysis. Specifically, a statute may still “pass constitutional muster under contract clause analysis so long as it is reasonable and necessary to carry out a legitimate public purpose.”
…and again on page 66…
In addition to the Plaintiffs’ low likelihood of success, the underlying pension cases have been pending, in one case, since 2010 and in most of the other cases, since 2012, during which time all the Plaintiffs’ rights have essentially been in limbo, to say nothing of the ultimate financial situation of the State.
That the suit was unlikely to succeed was a significant factor in Judge Taft-Carter finding the settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate”.
End of the Sessioner #2: To Bond or Not to Bond, Questions About Priorities in the Governor’s Toll Plan
What Rhode Island’s Governor and legislature decide in the next couple of weeks with regards to highway tolls depends on what their policy priorities are, by which I mean…
1. Despite the fact that a case for funding a decade or more of highway construction with a revenue bond, instead of saving money on interest and spending the savings directly on construction, has not yet been presented to the public,…
2. …a revenue bond financed through tolls seems to be an integral part of Governor Gina Raimondo’s transportation infrastructure plan.
3. Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello is concerned about the impact highway tolls would have on the local economy, which is a reasonable concern, and has signaled he’d like to see some kind of local-relief plan implemented.
4. However, Federal case law based on the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause clearly looks askance upon local carve-outs when it comes to highway tolls/user-fees/whatever you want to call them, meaning that…
5. …if a tolling plan did include a local “discount” in its structure, there is a risk it would be immediately enjoined (with the help of ground-transportation trade organizations which appear to have some pretty good lawyers).
6. And, of course, if a tolling program were enjoined right away, a bond sale probably couldn’t proceed until the case was resolved, which would probably take several years, at least.
What to watch for is this: if the priority is issuing the bond, something without anything resembling a local exemption that could bring the court-system into the process needs to be passed soon, and a special session in the later half of the fall might be too late to get bonds issued for this tax-year. If, on the other hand, the bond itself is less of a priority, the timeline is not quite so immediate, and some explanation to the public of why interest payments associated with a bond make sense is in order.
But bond or no-bond, it’s going to be difficult to construct a local preference for vehicle tolls that survives Federal court scrutiny. Based on the proposal already submitted, we know this won’t prevent the Governor from supporting tolls. Will the Speaker eventually come to share to the same attitude?
End of the Sessioner #1: The Firefighting Bills and the Withering Away of Rhode Island Democracy
Unfortunately, some members of the General Assembly want to reinforce the marginalization of democratic control over public services that is sadly acceptable to both union leadership and to Rhode Island’s insider and managerial elites, via a pair of bills that would deny elected municipal authorities the power to set policies concerning platoon structure and overtime policy. Instead of making decisions, civil authorities would be reduced to asking for deals when trying to exercise basic command authority in these major areas. Try to imagine a system like this working further down the chain-of-command where, for example, a captain has to make a deal with members of his platoon when he wants something significant done. It wouldn’t work very well.
In Rhode Island parlance, this is frequently labeled as an issue of “management rights”, but that is an overly business-bourgeois conceptualization of the problem, and fails to capture the true magnitude of what is at stake. The real issue is whether we are a society where basic democratic control is exercised over the government chain-of-command or we are something else and something worse.
Full post below the fold….
A Baseball Analogy for Understanding How a Fire Platoon Change By Itself Won’t Change Total Hours Worked
Sometimes sports analogies are appropriate, and do not belie the seriousness of the underlying issue.
Say that it’s necessary to have a group of baseball teams play a set number of games every week.
Initially, each week is covered with 4 teams of 9 players. That’s 36 players in total. At some point, it’s decided to move to a three-team structure. Now, there are 3 teams of 12 players, but still only 9 players can be in the lineup at any one time.
Though not necessarily in any one week, over the long run, everyone’s playing time will stay the same, because on the 3-team plan, 3 players have to sit out every 4th game (we’ll assume a coach who is scrupulous about keeping everyone’s playing time equal) because, again, only 9 players can be on the field at one time.
In the three team structure, there is now an added possibility of using a DH every game, i.e. using 10 players in the lineup at one time, in which case the total amount of playing time needed to fill a given week would increase.
The non-analogy version of this is to point out, whether you have 3 platoons or 4, that if the number of firefighters on a shift doesn’t change, because the number of hours in a week doesn’t change, the number of hours worked across the department as a whole stays the same. Total hours can only increase, if the number of firefighters per shift increases.
So what’s the Mayor of Providence’s actual plan for the fire department?
Coming up in Committee: Thirty-One Sets of Bills Being Heard by the RI General Assembly, June 1 (Today) – June 4
1. S0876/H6181: Legislative implementation of the pension “settlement” created outside of the legislature. (S Finance; Mon, Jun 1 & H Finance; Wed, Jun 3)
2. Late-entry budget article: Tolling of mid and large size commercial vehicle on Rhode Island highways budget article. (H Finance; Tue, Jun 2)
3. S0952: Sets a 20-year schedule of property tax exemptions in the I195 redevelopment district. (S Finance; Thu, Jun 4)
4. S0384: Bans “any candidate for state or local office who has outstanding campaign finance reports or fines due the board of elections” from running for office “until all such reports are filed and/or all fines are paid”. (S Judiciary; Tue, Jun 2) Likely unconstitutional, on the grounds that qualifications for office are established at the constitutional level and cannot be altered by statute.
5. S0458: Removes a fiscal stability act budget commission’s authority over a school superintendent and over basic educational matters . (S Education; Tue, Jun 2) According to knowledgeable sources, likely related to protecting a school superintendent favored by the Mayor of Woonsocket but not in favor with the city’s budget commission.
Toll Discounts for RI Companies Would Almost Certainly Be Rejected by the Courts
In 2009, US District Court Judge William E. Smith decided a lawsuit (Cohen v. Rhode Island Bridge and Turnpike Authority) about whether non-Rhode Island residents could be charged a substantially larger toll ($4.00) for using the Newport Bridge than residents were charged ($0.83).
Judge Smith centered the substance of his ruling on a three-part test from a 1994 Supreme Court case, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Mich…
“A levy is reasonable under [Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc.] if it (1) is based on some fair approximation of use of the facilities, (2) is not excessive in relation to the benefits conferred, and (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce.”
In arguing that the Newport toll structure violated the third part of the test, the plaintiff cited Oregon Waste Systems v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, where the Supreme Court in 1993 had ruled…
“We have held that the first step in analyzing any law subject to judicial scrutiny under the negative Commerce Clause is to determine whether it “regulates evenhandedly with only ‘incidental’ effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce”….As we use the term here, “discrimination” simply means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter. If a restriction on commerce is discriminatory, it is virtually per se invalid.”
However, Judge Smith upheld the Newport toll structure, in part, because he found that the plaintiff had assumed a connection between a residency requirement and interstate commerce which was left unproven…
In this case Plaintiff has failed to identify a specific in-state commercial interest that is favored by the Newport Bridge toll discount at the expense of particular out-of-state competitors, so it cannot demonstrate that the discount discriminates against interstate commerce.
Suffice it to say that in the case of a substantial in-state versus out-of-state toll differential on commercial vehicles, in-state commercial interests favored at the expense of particular out-of-state competitors will be readily identifiable, and the test cited in Oregon Waste Systems that looks unfavorably on differential treatment will be applied.
Coming up in Committee: Tax Bills Being Heard by the RI General Assembly, Today, May 28
1. Proposed retirement-income tax exemptions:
- (H Finance; Thu, May 28)
- H5000: Exempts “all income received from federal, state and local governments’ retirement plans, social security retirement and disability benefits, military pensions, railroad retirement benefits, private pension plans, and deferred-compensation plans in the public and private sector” from the RI income tax, restricted to people 65 years of age or older.
- H5055: Exempts “all income received from federal, state and local governments’ retirement plans, private pension plans, and deferred-compensation plans in the public and private sector” from the RI income tax.
- H5056: Exempts the same income sources as H5055 plus “social security retirement and disability benefits” from the RI income tax.
Below the fold are…
- Even more income tax exemptions,
- Proposed changes to the Rhode Island estate tax,
- Proposed changes to the minimum business tax,
- Proposed tax-incentive plans for promoting economic activity,
- Proposed new upper-income tax brackets, and
- A few other tax odds-and-ends.
Coming up in Committee: Non-Taxation Bills Being Heard by the RI General Assembly, Today, May 28
1. S0598: Establishes a legal regime for physician assisted suicide in Rhode Island. (S Judiciary; Thu, May 28)
2. H5074: Minimum wage increase; likely to be amended at the committee session. (H Labor; Thu, May 28)
3. S0318: Prohibits medical health insurance premium rates from varying based on gender (excluding policies for “hospital confinement indemnity”, “disability income”, “accident only”, “long-term care”, “medicare supplement”, “limited benefit health”, “specified diseased indemnity”, “sickness of bodily injury or death by accident or both” and “other limited benefit policies”. (S Health and Human Services; Thu, May 28)