Yes on a ConCon

/by

With very few exceptions, the Westerly Sun editorial board was correct when they wrote…

Taken together, most of the arguments advanced against Question No. 3 on the November ballot constitute an insult to the intelligence and integrity of Rhode Island’s voters.

(One exception worth reading, if you are genuinely interested in the substantive case against a constitutional convention, is Brian Bishop’s GoLocal article on the subject, linked here).

But in the end, it comes down to this: If you think there are changes to the state constitution that should be made, you should vote to hold a constitutional convention.

If you think the fundamental structure of Rhode Island government cannot be significantly improved, and that changes at this time are likely to make it worse, you should vote against holding a constitutional convention.

Any changes proposed by a constitutional convention would have to be approved by the people, and the premise that the Rhode Island General Assembly is the best of all possible gatekeepers when it comes to evaluating and amending basic^H^H^H^H^H any structures of governance, is just insane.

I’m voting yes on 3 today.

Read more

Peter Kilmartin, Riding His Cluelessness About 38 Studios All the Way to the End

/by

Amazingly, at this late date, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin still doesn’t seem to understand what he voted for when he voted as a state representative to approve the loan guarantee program used to finance the 38 Studios deal. During an appearance this weekend on WJAR-TV’s 10 News Conference, Kilmartin tried to compare a non-payment of 38 Studios bonds to a Federal default on general obligation bonds.

Although most Current-Anchor readers will be aware of the facts that follow, since Rhode Island’s Attorney General apparently isn’t, I’ll summarize them once again; the 38 Studios bonds are not general obligation bonds, i.e. they are not backed by the full faith-and-credit of the state. They are only moral obligation bonds. According to the state constitution, bonded debt over $50,000 cannot be made the responsibility of the taxpayers of Rhode Island, unless approved by voter referendum. Because of this, there is no obvious way for non-payment of a moral obligation bond to severely impact general obligation borrowing rates, in the absence of Wall Street collusion.

Kilmartin said at one point during the Channel 10 debate “if there’s a problem with Wall Street, then I’m not afraid to go after it”. Well, there is a problem. Wall Street wants to ignore significant legal differences between moral obligation and general obligation bonds, which are clearly codified in laws specifically intended to protect Rhode Island taxpayers from leadership debacles like 38 Studios — but the Attorney General is unwilling to take the side of the people of Rhode Island on this matter, giving every appearance of being unwilling to go against the interests of his political insider constituency and their Wall Street benefactors.

For Peter Kilmartin not to see any problem here is for him to be ignorant of the law, or ignorant of his responsibilities, or afraid of Wall Street, or probably all of the above.

Read more

Will Their Votes Count?

/by

Will the ballots involved in a State Police investigation be counted on Tuesday, or are they seized as evidence? And how closely does the Board of Elections examine the signature on mail-in ballots?

Read more

Gee. Wonder Why Some Politicians Support Illegal Immigration and Lax Voting Rules

/by

I had to chuckle at the Powerline headline, “How Many Elections Will Democrats Steal Next Week?“:

How extensive is voter-fraud, especially among non-citizens? Just bring up the question, or suggest we need to have voter-ID at the polls like every other advanced democracy, and the answer will be instantly supplied: You’re a racist. But as Dan McLaughlin points out over at The Federalist, Democrats seem to win a suspiciously high number of close elections, well beyond what a random statistical trial would suggest.

At the internal link, in that quotation, we learn that Democrats have an uncanny ability to win close races.  The Powerline article goes on:

The authors [of an academic study] think that non-citizen votes not only tipped the 2008 Minnesota senate race to Al Franken, but also tipped North Carolina’s presidential vote that year.

The reason I chuckled is that, even as busy and disconnected from some of the election news as I am, I’ve gotten the impression that the Providence mayoral race has picked up an aspect of competing vote fraud schemes.  When a place is as institutionally corrupt as Rhode Island, one gets to ask questions like:  Is it really fraud if stealing more votes is simply another part of the competition?

To be frank, overt fraud is merely one of the ways in which political insiders have arguably made our electoral system invalid in Rhode Island and (to various degrees) across the nation, given the Constitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government,” which above all requires the consent of the governed.  Having just filled out some campaign finance reports in order to put out some signs and print post cards supporting some of my Tiverton neighbors, it’s especially clear to me right now the many ways in which our government discourages participation and limits competition.

That’s the larger, more-fundamental challenge to our democracy, which makes the overt fraud seem like a subset — the last, insurmountable straw for people who might otherwise become politically engaged.

Read more

Gina Raimondo and Rhode Island’s Preemptive Surrender to the Threat of Collusion

/by

Gina Raimondo could stand with the people of Rhode Island on the 38 Studios matter and, with her venture capitalist background, could be an especially forceful advocate for the principle that the laws apply to everyone, from big bondholders to regular citizens. Instead, she has chosen to stand with big finance against the people of Rhode Island, taking the cavalier attitude towards representative democracy and the rule of law that has become the hallmark of Rhode Island’s political establishment.

Read more

They’re Getting What They Didn’t Ask For

/by

Am I surprised that at least one outside political group isn’t following Rhode Island’s campaign finance laws? Not at all. Based on our recent history, why should they?

Read more

About the Journal’s Endorsements

/by

The Providence Journal said they want change. I think they missed a great opportunity to advocate for change in at least one of their endorsements.

Read more

How Rhode Islanders Feel About Their Government

/by

Read more

Fear Mongering the Constitutional Convention

/by

Don’t let people scare you into what “could” happen at the Constitutional Convention. Vote YES on Question 3 and let’s take this opportunity to fix the government and improve the way Rhode Island works.

Read more

Rep. Lally’s Opposition to a Constitutional Convention

/by

My clock for blogging has run out, already, today, but an opinion essay that Representative Donald Lally (D, Narragansett, South Kingstown) sent out through the legislative press office merits a quick response.

The essay, which does not appear to be online, yet, expresses concern about the cost of a Constitutional Convention and about the possibility that “special interests… could hijack the convention and call for changes to the Rhode Island Constitution that actually weaken the rights of the citizens of our state.”  Moreover, he says, “supporters of a Constitutional Convention… tend to also be detractors of the General Assembly.”

While considering Lally’s comments, Rhode Islanders (especially voters in Rep. Lally’s district) should note three things.

First: Lally’s Freedom Index score, from the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, was -56.6 for 2014, ranking him 73rd in the whole General Assembly.  According to the interactive Freedom Index Live, Lally’s three-year average score is -60.1, which is handily the worst of any legislator from either town that he represents, including progressive stalwart Teresa Tanzi.

Second: A look at Rep. Lally’s political donors shows he’s got no problem taking money from “special interests.” Here are his top 10 donors since 2002:

  • NRA Political Victory Fund PAC: $3,850
  • RI State Association of Firefighters: $2,700
  • NEARI PAC (National Education Association of RI): $2,450
  • RI Laborer’s Political League: $2,400
  • ATU Cope Special Holding Account (Amalgamated Transit Union): $2,300
  • Brian Goldman (of Goldman Law Offices Attorney/Lobbyist): $2,250
  • NECSA (New England Convenience Store Association): $1,650
  • Realtors PAC of RI: $1,650
  • RI Dental PAC: $1,600
  • Fund for Democratic Priorities: $1,575

It’s enough to make one wonder if Lally’s largest concern is actually that his contributors will have another option for their political donations for a couple of years.

Third: According to the Secretary of State’s candidate list for the General Assembly, Rep. Lally had no competition in his primary and has no competition in the general election in a couple of weeks.

In short, Rhode Islanders who aren’t happy with the laws that Rep. Lally has helped to put in place to weaken their rights and who fear the influence that his special-interest donors have over him have no other option than a Constitutional Convention.

Read more

Nation-Leading Teacher Pay… and the Constitutional Convention

/by

With Rhode Island leading the nation in government-school teacher pay, it isn’t surprising that the union would court gun-rights advocates to kill a constitutional convention.

Read more

Oversized Signs

/by

Why is one mayoral candidate allowed to flout city ordinances with oversized campaign signs. It’s not the biggest problem facing Providence, but it is indicative of his lack of interest in following laws.

Read more

ConCon Ahead in the Brown Poll, 42 – 27

/by

Here’s a result that shouldn’t be overlooked in the Brown University statewide poll released today…

Each state has its own constitution that is separate from the United States Constitution. Would you vote to approve or reject a convention to amend or revise the Rhode Island Constitution?
  • Approve 42.3%;
  • Reject 26.8%;
  • Don’t know 30.9%

Read more

10 News Conference Wingmen, Episode 45 (Secretary of State Debate)

/by

Rob Paquin and Bob Plain discuss a debate between candidates for RI Secretary of State and related topics.

Read more

Rhode Island’s Ghoulish Government

/by

An article by Lynn Arditi in today’s Providence Journal, “Report: Too many teens in state care,” looks likely to be one of those dry, bureaucratic-process-related matters that many readers probably skip over.  That would be a mistake:

In her testimony, Field described a system where overloaded caseworkers who don’t have the time or resources to help families are increasingly removing teenagers from their homes and sending them to live in group homes. And group homes are paid only by the numbers of beds filled, so “you’ve got incentives for providers to keep kids to keep those beds filled,” [Tracey Field, director of the child welfare strategy group at the Casey Foundation’s Center for Systems Innovation in Baltimore] said.

To summarize in one sentence what appears to be going on:  The state government of Rhode Island is taking children away from their parents in order to maintain a government program, in part because its priorities have led the state government not to adequately fund a responsibility that it arrogated to itself.

That’s a long sentence, and the second half of it goes into the process stuff on which politicians like to focus because they can muddy the water.  It’s the first part of the sentence, though, that’s important: “The state government of Rhode Island is taking children away from their parents in order to maintain a government program.”

You don’t get much more ghoulish than that, and you don’t get a much better representation of the progressive style of governance.

Read more

The Expanding Nature of Government “Investments”

/by

Here’s the latest word on the major public works program related to the land in Providence formerly occupied by Route 195:

It’s the kind of project the I-195 Redevelopment District Commission and state economic leaders have long said they hope to foster on nearly 20 acres of prime real estate. In the spring, [Lawyer Timothy H.] Ehrlich’s team submitted a bid to the commission to create [a biotechnology] incubator.

But after working all summer, Ehrlich is convinced the project needs financial help from the state, and that the help must be more than the life-sciences tax credits outlined in the state law that created the commission.

No doubt a variety of people would jump at the chance to tell me I just don’t understand how these things work.  Government must invest in economic development.  Biotech is a growth sector, and an incubator will attract all those “well-paying jobs” that we hear about.  Every other state is subsidizing this industry.  And yet, somehow Rhode Island will become a hub, even though small and late to the game.  Yadda yadda yadda.

Indeed, the article has Marcel Valois, the executive director of the Commerce Corporation (which was formerly the Economic Development Corporation that invested in 38 Studios), insisting that “the project would ‘absolutely’ help the economy.”

Still, I just can’t get past the plain-language description of this whole process.  The government invested in a project to move a highway because it would free up all sorts of “prime real estate” that could be sold to raise money and make economically productive use of the land.  Now we’re “investing” in the process of luring organizations to the property.  Next, those organizations will need massive subsidies to get off the ground.  And then the start-up companies that this particular project attracts as clients will need additional subsidies to afford its services.

I ain’t a biotech-investment guru by a long shot, but this has all of the common-sense markers of a bad way to go about economic development and all of the common-sense markers of a scheme for empowering government agents and enriching connected individuals.

Timothy H. Ehrlich is, according to Kate Bramson’s Providence Journal article, “very encouraged by gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo’s knowledge and background as a venture-capital investor.”  He’s so encouraged, it appears that he’s given Raimondo’s campaign $1,500 since May 2013, although the campaign refunded $250 of that two weeks ago.

The name on the campaign reports is “Tim Ehrlich,” but the address given belongs to this $1.4 million property in Concord, Massachusetts, which is owned by “Timothy H. Ehrlich,” matching the article.  The article also calls Ehrlich a “lawyer,” and the campaign finance reports list the donor as employed by Boston law firm Gunderson Dettmer, where partner Timothy H. Ehrlich “focuses on the representation of start-up, emerging growth and public companies in the information technology, biotech and medical device industries.”

Read more

Unpaid Campaign Finance Fines

/by

Why do lawmakers get away with having unpaid campaign finance fines? Why don’t we actually enforce the laws that they were elected to create? This is an affront to all voters and taxpayers of the state.

Read more

Beware the Simple Controversy

/by

Folks who pay a whole lot of attention to politics and policy (myself included) can be astonished at things that don’t take off as controversies.  Manipulated studies about casino gambling.  Pension reforms that give the legislature’s authority away to a union-heavy board.  Development of plans that seek to undermine property rights and individual liberty (while using supposed outreach meetings to find local activists).  An unnecessary government start-up healthcare broker intended as a gateway to increasing the people addicted to government programs.

None of that registers, mostly because it’s complex, and there’s too much space between the walls for politicians and insiders to fill with smoke.

Tom Ward highlights the dynamic on a smaller scale, in Woonsocket, with a view from the perspective of a controversy that actually did catch on — Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt’s political jobs program:

Why was this clumsy move such a bombshell? Because it’s so easy to understand, that’s why. While it may be difficult to decipher funding kindergarten and water treatment plants, everyone understands that their own kids got the short end of the stick. In fact, there are unemployed adults who would have been grateful for the work! They know where they stand with her now, and it’s on the outside, looking in.

What is even more striking is the mayor’s ethical blind spot and lack of any contrition.

Too often, we wait until hubris brings on the obvious corruption.  One can’t help but wonder what it looks like from the politicians’ perspective.  Hey, they got away with all of these huge power grabs and political maneuvers.  A few thousand bucks of straight-up corruption shouldn’t matter if all that didn’t.

Read more

Keeping up Negotiations Under a Supreme Court Cloud

/by

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Harris v. Quinn, which found that personal assistants for disabled recipients of state aid in Illinois could not be forced to be part of a labor union.  They aren’t state employees, and the state isn’t their direct client.  The people for whom they care are their clients, and they are a disparate group, not an entity with which they can negotiate as a collective.

That ought to have frozen efforts to implement a new Rhode Island law requiring child care providers to be part of a union if their clients receive state subsidies, and yet today’s Providence Journal Political Scene reports that negotiations are ongoing:

This was the initial answer from the Department of Administration’s policy director, Allison Rogers: “The negotiations are ongoing. Subsequently, the department is unable to provide any further comment at this time.”

When pressed recently on why the negotiations are still going on a year later, she said: “This is not an unusual length of time for negotiations, especially for a brand new contract.

It’s good that the reporters are keeping tabs on the progress or lack thereof, but it’s strange that the article doesn’t mention the cloud of unconstitutionality under which the negotiations are happening.

Read more

Why Rhode Islanders Have No Hope, Judicial Branch

/by

I frequently state my opinion that there’s basically no rule of law in Rhode Island.  An article in today’s Providence Journal about a lawsuit concerning an “affordable housing” development illustrates why.

The basic point is that citizen groups almost never win.  Either the government agency appeals to the department under which it works, and that department rules in its favor (as with a school committee appealing to the Dept. of Education) or some quasi-judicial agency, like the Ethics Commission, waves the language of the law away, or the courts carry the water.  The foreclosure of that route to reform and civic engagement leads people who might otherwise become more politically active, perhaps even running for office, to give up totally, sometimes directing their efforts to an exit strategy from the state.

I didn’t realize (but probably could have guessed) that Maya Angelou, the poet, has precedential weight in Rhode Island courts:

In his written decision, filed Wednesday, Procaccini opened with a quote from the late Maya Angelou: “ ‘The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.’ As this Court considers the case before it, it keeps Maya Angelou’s wise words in mind.”

Whatever the law says, the ruling class of Rhode Island will find it to say whatever they feel is right.  There’s no way citizens can work to craft language that will actually do what they want it to.

That’s not the rule of law.  It’s an aristocracy.

Read more

Four Thoughts on the Anti-ConCon Commercial

/by

The union-driven group that’s spending a bunch of money to oppose the mere possibility of a constitutional convention in Rhode Island is out with this slick commercial:

Four thoughts come to mind:

  1. The possibility that Rhode Islanders will insist on a route to changing the status quo that goes around the General Assembly must really, really scare our state’s special interests.
  2. What, them fearmonger?
  3. Rhode Islanders shouldn’t miss the fact that the first people out with a slick commercial concerning the constitutional convention are the special interests warning that other special interests will spend money to influence their votes.
  4. If you think about it, the messaging is really bizarre.  They want voters to reject the possibility of a constitutional convention, but they ignore that voters will ultimately have to approve any changes to the state constitution.  Do they worry that people gullible enough to believe their anti-concon commercials will be gullible enough to vote against their own beliefs in the future based on other commercials?
Read more

AG Candidate Hodgson Tackles One of Rhode Island’s Big Problems

/by

Dawson Hodgson, candidate for Rhode Island attorney general, is attempting to enforce ethics through the only system that might still work in the Ocean State — politics.

Read more

AFL-CIO Nee’s Penchant for Contradiction

/by

The most humorous contradiction in RI AFL-CIO President George Nee’s recent Providence Journal op-ed about the potential Rhode Island constitutional convention is the part where he insists he’s not a “fearmonger.”  It’s funny because Nee starts by declaring:

We stand on the brink of a dangerous precipice. If Question 3 is approved, the floodgates will be opened to out-of-state special interests, and our Constitution could be radically altered and our rights stolen.

After saying he’s not “fearmongering,” Nee proceeds to end his paragraph with a double-barrel of exclamation points:

Do not be fooled! They do not support our best interests!

What? Him fearmonger?

The more telling contradiction, though, is the notion that Nee speaks for the working class.  According to the Rhode Island AFL-CIO’s 990 report for 2012, Nee collected $171,731 from his organization and “related organizations.”  Not a bad gig for a spokesman for the working class.

That’s a lot of motivation for the union fat cat to forget that, no matter what the delegates to the constitutional convention should decide, the people of Rhode Island will be able to approve or disapprove of any change.  Let me write that again, with emphasis:  The people of Rhode Island will be able to approve or disapprove of any change to the state constitution.

If you want to know whom George Nee represents and what he’s concerned about, try this mental experiment:  Imagine the state of Rhode Island were to implement policies that resulted in an explosion of high-paying jobs that were not unionized.  That would be devastating to the very-highly-paid Nee.

Now imagine the state of Rhode Island were to maintain the policies that are currently draining the state of economic vitality and private-sector jobs, thus increasing the prominence and reliance on unionized jobs that can be imposed by the force of the law — whether in government or dependent upon government.  Mr. Nee’s services would then be so valuable to people who don’t want to leave the state that he might be able to negotiate his way over the $200,000 mark for his own income.

One has to wonder about Nee’s statement that “they” are against “our best interests.”  By “our,” does he mean wealthy union organizers?

Read more

Coalition Radio Introduces Three Fiscal Topics into the 2014 Campaign

/by

Issue 1: Do any candidates for Rhode Island Governor or Rhode Island General Assembly support modifying or repealing Governor Chafee’s Wall-Street-first law regarding municipal priorities?

Issue 2: Will any of the candidates for Governor of Rhode Island have their fiscal staffs look immediately into the possibility of a Providence receivership. Will they tell us if they do?

Issue 3: Buddy Cianci, according to some research done by Michael Riley, once advocated for pension obligation bonds to help finance Providence’s pension system. Might he do so again?

Read more

Final Word (Maybe) on the Bob Healey Thing

/by

Wrapping up some threads from my Matt Allen appearance concerning Bob Healey’s surprise run for governor.

Read more

Want Success? Get Government Out of It

/by

Yeah, I know, file this under confirming your bias if you want.  I’d present it as affirming my conclusions:

The above chart shows how respondents categorized various elements of the American business environment and how they have shifted since the original 2011 survey. Among those elements described as a “strength and improving”: capital markets, corporate management, universities, property rights, supply chains, and entrepreneurship. Among those elements described as a “weakness and deteriorating” are the K-12 education system, the tax code, regulation, and the efficiency of the legal system. …

… In a 2011 McKinsey report on the US economy, the consultancy highlighted the low-productivity public sector as a key drag on growth. Public and regulated sectors such as health care and education represent more than 20% of the US economy. Cutting in half the estimated efficiency gap with similar private sector organizational functions would generate annual savings of $100 billion to $300 billion.

I don’t know how any sane person who isn’t a political operative could look at the way we elect the people who run our government and think that government should do more than the bare minimum for a healthy, advancing society.

Of course, one frequently gets the impression that those who support larger government would prefer to change the way we elect our leaders so that it relies more on their judgment.  History suggests that doesn’t work out too well, either.

Read more

FIND GREAT CONTENT

Search through articles, research, and policy papers. Search by keyword, tag, author, date range, and category.

YOUR CART
  • No products in the cart.
Subtotal:
$0.00
0