Rhode Island's Future - Front Page

Are they serious?

Tom Sgouros — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:59:05 GMT

Last week, Congress finally passed an extension to unemployment benefits, after about five weeks of debate in the Senate. The final vote in the Senate was 98-0, but the bill had to overcome three Republican filibusters along the way. In other words, zero Republican Senators were brave enough to vote against the bill, but dozens cooperated in delaying and stalling it.

In other Congressional news last week, Republicans in the House trumpeted a new bill to be their version of health care reform. It's an assemblage of some old ideas: limits on malpractice lawsuits, eliminating barriers to interstate competition in health insurance, promoting healthier lifestyles, and creating "risk pools" where people who have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions can have a second try.

The problem, of course, is that few of these ideas have anything like evidence in their favor, even if some of them sound plausible. There are states with lots of insurance competition, states with lots of joggers, and also states with strict limits on malpractice lawsuits, and you know what? Medical costs routinely drive people into bankruptcy in those states, too. Essentially, this plan is good for healthy people who already have insurance, but no one else.

The Congressional Budget Office agrees with me. They scored it, as they have scored all the Democratic plans, and according to their score, the plan would be more expensive, and cover fewer people than the Democratic plan it's meant to "improve" upon. According to the CBO, about 17% of Americans don't have coverage, and after ten years of the Republican plan, they predict that about 17% of Americans still won't be covered.

The CBO report essentially tells us that the Republicans are not serious about solving this problem, just as the legislative shenanigans in the Senate showed us they are not serious about providing unemployment benefits to people who need them. These are serious problems. Our economy, our government and our families are being devastated by a health care crisis brought on by decades of spiraling prices. We also face two wars, a maimed economy and the prospect of drowning our coastal cities before the century is out.

Really, "serious" hardly begins to describe it, but in the face of all that, we have a minority party on the national level that seems utterly uninterested in anything except maneuvering for partisan advantage. (Abetted, of course, by a small number of Democratic senators and representatives who imagine that "centrism" is a higher good than addressing actual problems.) This is simply not a serious way to govern.

At the state level, the picture isn't really so different, in some ways. Our state is facing a nearly unprecedented fiscal crisis at both the state and municipal levels, brought on by years of poor policy choices combined with the tanking economy. And yet, there are a large number of legislators who simply are not serious about addressing it. The problem here is that party labels are little help in understanding the action.

So here's my guide to telling whether someone is serious about solving our problems, or if they're just posturing. First test: if they say anything like "we can't raise taxes" -- they're not serious.

Now I don't like to pay taxes any more than anyone else. But people who say stuff like this want you to ignore the fact that -- even in the face of a still-escalating budget crisis -- we're still planning to cut the taxes of our wealthiest citizens next year. No joke. In fact, your leaders are planning a more expensive cut this coming year than in the past year, but it only benefits people who earn more than about $200,000 a year.

Second test: If they talk about "spending less" and won't say how, they're not serious. You'll hear a lot of talk about unions and labor contracts, but little of that is serious, either. You can only get just so much blood from any particular stone. I have no doubt the Governor will try to squeeze more from state employees, but we're looking at deficits of around a quarter of the entire state payroll. State employment is already lower than it's been in a couple of decades. Can it go lower while we still pretend we're not cutting services?

Third test: watch out for the "big idea." We've seen lots of magic bullets proposed and passed -- early retirements, Medicaid waivers, off-books borrowing -- and their record is pretty mixed, at best. Putting your hopes in a single leaky basket is another sign of not being serious. Over the past week, the Governor has floated the idea of selling the Central Landfill in Johnston, and Rep. Douglas Gablinske (D-Bristol,Warren) suggested selling our bridges. Privatizing these state assets would give the state a shot of cash, but money doesn't fall from the sky. A private bridge operator would immediately establish or raise tolls to pay for their investment. A private landfill operator would either raise the rates cities and towns pay or dump so much trash so quickly the landfill fills up. Long term, the only people who would benefit would be the new owners, and the Wall Street financiers who always seem to net millions off deals like these.

Our state took several years to make this catastrophe. We did it with policies and laws that were popular at the time, but that have not served us well. Getting out of trouble will be long, slow work. I do not believe the task is hopeless, but it will take serious work and serious people to carry it out, not facile analysis or magic bullets.

Stick to your guns, Patrick Kennedy

Sean South — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:14:15 GMT

Update by Matt: For those of you following the Kennedy - Tobin soap opera, WRNI's Scott MacKay has a must read piece on the WRNI blog:

There probably isn't another major institution in this state whose all-male, unmarried hierarchy has as little understanding of the actual day-to-day lives of women as the Catholic Church.
As Tobin threatens on the talk radio circuit to send the Eucharist police after Kennedy, it is perhaps ironic that the church continues to ask Kennedy for help in securing federal money for its affiliates. Kennedy has brought hundreds of thousands of dollars to Catholic medical facilities in Rhode Island and he secured federal financial suppoprt of more than $1 million to support a nursing program for Salve Regina University.
Of course, Kennedy isn't the only Catholic political figure to support legal abortion. Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island's most popular Catholic politician, has much the same stance on the issue as Kennedy.
Kenndy has been elected to office in Rhode Island every two years since 1988. He has not had a race that was even close since his first election to the U.S. House in 1994.
Bishop Tobin attacked Kennedy, saying his support for legal abortion is "scandalous'' and that Kennedy "continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of Rhode Island.''
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It doesn't pretend to be. But Rhode Island is. So it's fine if Bishop Tobin wants to score Kennedy for baing a bad Catholic. But the judgement on whether the Congressman is a good citizen is up to the voters, not a cleric who increasingly acts like a frustrated pol.

Indeed, as America seeks to undermine the influence of clerics overseas on other nations and groups, people of conscience should condemn Tobin's inappropriate attacks on Kennedy -- especially considering the fact that we are - after all - in the land of Roger Williams.

Original Post: While the Bishop may put on one face in the health care debate, this is the face encouraged by the Catholic Church. C'mon Bishop...where is the condemnation of these Catholic groups? This is a little ditty from CatholicVoteAction.Org.

Reflecting on the Judicial Selection Process in Rhode Island

Matt Jerzyk — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:48:49 GMT

From my legal blog... congratulations to RWU School of Law and Professor Michael Yelnosky for having a great forum on the process by which judges are selected in Rhode Island:

The percentage of state judges who earned degrees from Suffolk University Law School has grown since the state overhauled its judicial-selection process to be based on qualifications, not political connections, 15 years ago. The percentage of lawmakers heading to the bench dropped during the same period.
Likewise, the percentage of judges to attend elite law schools fell, while the percentage of native Rhode Islanders donning judicial robes grew.
Those were some of the facts that emerged Friday at a forum on Judicial Selection in Rhode Island: Assessing the 15-year Experience with Merit Selection at the Roger Williams University School of Law. The figures were presented by Michael J. Yelnosky, the RWU law professor who led the session.
Opinions were many, but one consensus was clear: It’s impossible to remove politics from the process altogether, despite the best efforts.

But, he said, the system will only work if its players — commission members, legislators and the governor — are committed to excising politics.

This reflection on the state of judicial selection in Rhode Island comes 15 years after the the process was reformed in 1994 - creating the 9-member Judicial Nominating Commission - after scandals forced the resignations of Supreme Court Chief Justices Bevilacqua and Fay.

Rhode Island is now 1 of 32 other states that employs some form of a merit-based system, 1 of 9 other states to publicly interview applicants and only 1 of 5 other states whose nominating committee publicly votes, according to this Providence Journal article.

Yet, politics still pervades in the judicial selection process in Rhode Island since the Governor ultimately nominates a candidate and the Senate must approve lower court appointments and both the House and the Senate must approve Supreme Court appointments.

There is a perception, said panelist Alan S. Flink, a former JNC member, “if you don’t have a political sponsor don’t bother to apply. …

For its faults, Rhode Island's process is still much better than those states employing judicial elections, where politics and money play a much larger and more dangerous role (as Caperton v. AT Massey Coal showed).

Sheldon Whitehouse on the Rachel Maddow Show

Pat Crowley — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:41:38 GMT

American Hero

Pat Crowley — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:04:50 GMT

Maybe Governor Carcieri can learn a lesson from this brave ten year old boy.

Will's family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they've been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They've been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.
“I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all.”
After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

And what does he get for his courage?

“In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they've been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It's always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Debating Immigration: Three Proposals for Reform

Brian Hull — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Tuesday, November 17th at 6pm
Barus & Holley - Room 166
182 Hope Street, Providence

How should America approach the challenges of immigration in the context of globalization? Should we close the borders? Should we limit the number of those who are allowed to come? How should we select new immigrants? Should uniting families or bringing in the most talented foreigners be our guiding principle? What should be the rights of immigrants once they arrive in the U.S.?

Brown students and a panel of Rhode Island dignitaries will discuss three immigration reform proposals. Our esteemed panel will include:

Grace Diaz, Rhode Island State Representative
Scott Avedisian, Mayor of Warwick RI
Robert Corrente, Former U.S. Attorney
Roberto Gonzalez, Former Judge and Immigration Attorney
Dr. Rev. Don Anderson, Rhode Island Council of Churches
Dr. Wendy Schiller, Brown University, Taubman Center for Public Policy

The event is open to the public and audience participation will be welcome. Participate in an exchange of ideas on this very important topic for the nation and for Rhode Island.

For more information contact Alexandra_filindra@brown.edu or call 401.863.9582.

In case you couldn't make it...

Pat Crowley — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:42:00 GMT

here is my song selection from tonight's OSA Rock the Boat!

Governor Carcieri and "Traditional Marriage"

Brian Hull — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:51:12 GMT

Update 11/13: Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts is getting in on the action now as well. In a letter sent on Friday the 13th, she writes:

It is a fundamental right in our society to grieve for the loss of a loved one in a way that matches personal beliefs and honors the deceased. Respect for rites of passage surrounding death is one of the few instances in which there is virtually universal acceptance of the principle that comfort and compassion should be paramount. Nearly every facet of society, whether governmental, commercial, or social embraces and supports the need for human beings to have self-determination in their expressions of grieving. We now know that the laws of the State of Rhode Island are out of sync with this societal need, at least as it relates to domestic partners' ability to fulfill the final wishes for funeral observances of a loved one. This year, the assembly wisely moved to close that gap and provide a compassionate solution that allows a person in a committed, interdependent relationship to make funeral arrangements for a deceased loved one.

She finishes the letter by commending the Senate for passing the legislation, and urging an override of the veto.

Please override the Governor’s veto and secure this basic human right for all Rhode Islanders.

It’s my understanding that the 2009 legislative session isn’t technically over, because they did not adjourn the session. Perhaps before the next legislative session begins on January 5th, the General Assembly can override the Governor’s veto on this and other important legislation.

Update: Representative Frank Ferri issued the following response regarding the Governor’s veto.

Frank G. Ferri of Warwick delivered a letter to Governor Donald L. Carcieri today sharply criticizing his actions in response the governor’s veto of legislation that would have afforded rights to all Rhode Islanders related to funeral arrangements of loved ones.
“It is extremely unfortunate the governor continues to believe certain Rhode Islanders should be afforded more civil rights than others,” said Ferri. “This legislation was about simple human dignity and once again the governor feels comfortable denying certain Rhode Islanders equality based on his own personal religious beliefs.”

RI Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch issued the following statement also:

"While I recognize that Governor Carcieri does not share my belief that all hard-working, taxpaying Rhode Island citizens are entitled to equal respect and protection of under that law, I find it astonishing that he would take this draconian and dramatic step to deny a person in a committed relationship the right to help make final arrangements for a loved one.
The governor's veto was not only mean-spirited and disrespectful, it demonstrated the lengths to which he will go to place his own political agenda ahead of compassion for people coping with the reality of such a significant loss.
It can now be said, without question, that this governor is infinitely more interested in serving at the pleasure of the far right than he is doing the right thing. I encourage the House and Senate to convene at the earliest possible opportunity to override this veto, and pass this much-needed bill into law."

The Patrick Lynch campaign issued the following statement regarding the Governor's veto.

Today, candidate for Governor and current Attorney General Patrick Lynch blasted Governor Carcieri’s veto of legislation that would give domestic partners the right to claim the bodies of and make funeral arrangements for their loved ones.
“I can only describe the Governor's veto as cruel and heartless," Lynch said. "By vetoing this bill, he has demonstrated that he believes gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders are second-class citizens. If this bill comes before me as Governor, I will sign it immediately."
Lynch is the only candidate in the Democratic Primary for Governor with a long track record of taking a leadership role in working to advance the issue of equality for gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders. His record includes:
Lynch was the first Attorney General in the United States to issue a legal opinion advising that the state should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Lynch has argued that same-sex couples employed by the state should receive the same benefits available to other married couples.
Lynch created the position of Civil Rights Advocate within the Office of Attorney General whose role is to promote civil rights and prosecute hate crimes.
Lynch has twice prosecuted cases of people who targeted or discriminated against individuals only because they were gay.
“It takes more than just talk to demonstrate a commitment to equality for all. It takes action,” Lynch said. “I have a record of proactively fighting for equality for gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders and I pledge to continue this fight as Governor.”

Original Post: As referenced to by David Segal, Governor Carcieri today vetoed legislation that would have allowed domestic partners to make funeral arrangements for the deceased. This isn’t very surprising, since it seems he makes it a point to offend the gay community whenever he gets the chance.

In his message issued with the veto, Carcieri evokes the homophobic argument that the bill “represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage." I always cringed when I hear that phrase because it’s generally empty and meaningless. Why do we let jackasses like Rudy Giuliani or Brittney Spears marry and divorce to their hearts content and never talk about how that is destructive to “traditional marriage?”

As a warning, some will find this video offensive, but I post it anyway to demonstrate the irony of “traditional marriage.”

Interestingly, Carcieri also states that if "the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of RI decide."

This is an excellent idea. But rather than just putting funeral rights on the ballot, let’s have a ballot initiative for same-sex marriage rights. Unfortunately, both Speaker Murphy and Senate President Paiva-Weed are opponents of same-sex marriage.

Murphy has a standard answer to the gay marriage question. “A marriage, in my eyes, is between a man and a woman.”
Paiva Weed is also firm on her opposition, but has said she would consider recognizing civil unions.

Since the perennial 12-year battle over same-sex marriage ends the same way each and every year, the legislation granting it dies in committee, let’s bring it to a vote among Rhode Island’s residents. If the State House leadership has abdicated its authority to come up with a budget that is actually balanced based on real numbers rather than outrageous optimism, or forcing the Governor to do things the State House doesn’t feel like doing, then they can abdicate their legislative authority to the people, and we can grant civil rights to the thousands of Rhode Islanders who want to express their love by marrying their same-sex partner.

Additionally, same-sex marriage supporters also can be hopeful that with the change in leadership in the House from anti-gay Murphy to openly-gay Fox, the issue of same-sex marriage can come to a vote in the full House. That, however, doesn’t ensure positive movement in the Senate. It would be a step in the right direction though.

Well this explains it!

Pat Crowley — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:18:17 GMT

I think this may be the source of our problems in Rhode Island...

Come Dance the Night Away on Friday

Brian Hull — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:22:48 GMT

Ocean State Action is having its 5th Annual Rock the Boat for Justice Dance Party on Friday, November 13th from 7-11pm

Rosinha's Restaurant
999 Main Street (Hope Artiste Village)
Pawtucket, RI

Tickets $25 / $10 for students or low-income (tickets also available at the door)

Dance to the Music of Guest DJs:

Representatives Joe Almeida and Ray Sullivan
Pat Quinn and Camilo Viveiros (SEIU/RI Jobs with Justice)
Karen Malcolm and Tom Sgouros (departing OSA leaders)
Pat Crowley, Brian Hull, and Matt Jerzyk (RI Future.org progressive bloggers)
Teresa Tanzi and Hannah Watson (RI NOW/American Medical Students)
David St. Germain and Nancy St. Germain (Healthcare activists)
Annie Costner and Ben Jones (environmental allies)

You can sponsor the event or buy tickets by calling 463-5368 or donate online.

It's going to be fun!

Providence Recycle - No bin no barrel

North End Chick — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:37:59 GMT

"Whoever came up with implementing this has no common sense" Councilman Joseph Deluca (Providence Journal)

As most Providence residents found out this week the City implemented the "no bin no barrel" program. The concept is simple: place one green, one blue, recycle bin for each 60 Gallon trash barrell on garbage day.

In September there was a press conference by the Mayor announcing the new program. Coverage was given by the Providence Journal. However, this week two of the three major tv stations went out to interview residents that were complaining. Today the story was on the front page of the Journal.

I don't think recycling was on the top on anyone's list and residents didn't think the Mayor was serious. He is.

Three forms of promotional material was issues to homes receiving City Garbage removal. They were bilingual as well.

Recycling is not a new concept to the City, it was never truly enforced. Upon moving to Providence my father went to pick up his 60 gallon city issued trash barrel. He explained he would like two, there were four adults living in one house at that time. He was told, you won't need two, as long as you recycle.

This program is currently working in other cities and has been successfull saving money and increasing the recycling number.

I believe that many people sho sho recycling. No amount of education would have eliminated bumps in the road. I hope that the City Council and the residents realize this is what is best for the City. The alternatives will cost everyone more money and that was what we, as the committee, wanted to avoid.

This was not an idea that was taken lightly and not researched. I was the only person in the committe was not actively involved with an enviromental cause, so I don't feel anyone lacked "common sense".

It is not often I stand behind the Mayor, but he has my backing with this. By backing down it won't change anything. I believe the residents of Providence can make this work, as they have in other major cities in the state.

The Love Boat Torpedoes Providence's Maritime Economy

Matt Jerzyk — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:19:00 GMT

With Rhode Island facing a “California-like budget crisis” and an unemployment rate now predicted to reach 14.1 percent, what are Providence officials promoting for economic development?

Hard to believe, but yes, a “Love Boat” cruise terminal and bail out for Pat Conley's "Poisoned Piers?”

According to the Recovery Providence website, the city has applied for a $2.7 million federal stimulus grant to build a cruise terminal, marina, and office complex at Conley’s failed Poisoned Piers project on Allens Ave.

Someone needs to throw Mayor Cicilline and the (What Is Providence) Planning Department(?) a lifesaver. Our economy is sinking and this is the best they can come up with for a prime piece of working waterfront property on our recently dredged 40ft marine superhighway?!

As Sunday’s Belojo editorial argues, the city has it right to be promoting industrial port growth at ProvPort but:

This is exactly what the mayor should be doing, and not for only ProvPort, but for the entire port, including the threatened northern section of the waterfront. Hotel and condominium developers would love to get a hold of that, to the detriment of several long-established businesses and any future development of Providence’s venerable and profitable port.

I say protect Allens Ave for industrial waterfront growth and build the boating and restaurant destination at the old Shooters site. That’s exactly what Fox Point residents want, but of course the city is pushing for yet another luxury condo tower there too.

NOTE: This story is one in a series of stories. Past stories here, here, here, here, here and here (to name a few).

RI Foreclosures up 55% in October

Brian Hull — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:09:49 GMT

From the Providence Business News

Foreclosure filings in Rhode Island rose 55 percent in October compared with a year earlier, according to real estate tracking firm RealtyTrac Inc.
Lenders filed 704 notices of foreclosure sale and repurchased 199 foreclosed homes last month, RealtyTrac said Thursday. The total was 8 percent below the number in September.

Another sign that the RI economy will be in the tank for quite a while.

No Garbage Burning

Brian Hull — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:39:15 GMT

The state’s 15 year ban on garbage incineration remains in place.

The head of the state agency that disposes all of Rhode Island’s garbage at the Central Landfill says he is no longer interested in building a waste-to-energy plant to consume the state’s refuse.

Legislation submitted by Peter F. Kilmartin (H6053A) will create a commission to study the viability of a waste-to-energy incineration program in the state. Right now, it’s all about the money. Research conducted by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. finds that a waste-to-energy plant in Rhode Island would charge about $80 to $85 for each ton of garbage it incinerated. Currently, the state charges cities and towns $32 per ton.

The cost difference is what made Michael O’Connell, the director of the Central Landfill, balk.

“We’re not supportive of waste-to-energy. It would triple the fees [charged to communities],” Michael O’Connell told a regional business group Tuesday. “The chances of that are slim to none.”

The issue, for now, looks like it is dead. If, however, the pricing comes down, it’ll probably be something that resurfaces. My question is, do we really want to be burning garbage in Rhode Island?

Jack Reed on Afghanistan and Health Care

Brian Hull — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:13:27 GMT

From the Chicago Tribune:

Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island and a West Point graduate, was fresh from a meeting at the Pentagon this morning when he was asked about the decision that President Barack Obama faces about troop deployments in Afghanistan.
"He has to do this in the context of both Pakistan and Afghanistan,'' Reed said. "I think he is quite right to put this in a much broader context.''
Asked about the likelihood of getting a health-care bill out of Congress, Reed said this: "I think we're close to passage.''
Asked about the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan advising against a boost in forces in light of the state of government in the nation, Reed said: "I think he is pointing out what the president already understood... A large part of these (considerations) is local governance... Even if (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai was enthusiastic, the reality is that, beyond Kabul there is very little governance anywhere.''
"This is what makes the president's job very difficult... He's the only one... who has to take in not only military capabilities.''
With a steady rain falling on Washington and the Capitol looming in a northern window of the Newseum, Reed joined the political, business and military leaders addressing a Bloomberg Washington Summit running today and Friday. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command and architect of the "surge'' of U.S. forces in Iraq, also will speak here today.
"I think there is a consensus that additional training of forces is necessary, and that will require additional troops,'' Reed said about the decision the president now faces in Afghanistan as he heads to Asia today for a 10-day tour. "The numbers are less compelling to me than the justification and rationale...''
Is the House's health-care bill "dead on arrival'' in the Senate, and will the Senate's bill include a public option?
"I was here in '93 and '94 when we couldn't get a bill out of any committee,'' Reed said. "We now have a bill out of the House... I think at this juncture, my presumption would be, we're going to pass a bill. It's hard to focus in on the specific language. It's going to be part of the legislative process.''
Can Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid get the 60 votes which he needs to advance a health-care bill to a debate and vote? (Reid (D-Nev.) has set the stage for that vote as early as Tuesday.)
"I think he can,'' Reed said. "The pressure is building... We're in the most severe economic situation since the Depression. If we don't get our hands around health care, we might come out of the recession but we won't have dealt with long-term liabilities... This is probably the most critical economic and social issue we're going to face. I think we're close to passage.''