Rhode Islands Future: Politics & Culture - Front Page

Conservative group caught in "pay for play" scandal

Pat Crowley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:09:23 GMT

POLITICO has a breaking story exposing how a major conservative group in DC tried to shake down FedEX for $2mil in exchange for right wing Astroturf services:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a $2 million check in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
In return for the $2 million, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and / or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx that was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.

And what a surprise....this all relates to a union issue. One can only image if the same is going on here in Rhode Island with the astroturf front groups on the right.....let's find out.

Raise your hands

Pat Crowley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Really. Honest thoughts.....what do you think?

RI Businesses more afraid of capitalism than socialism

Pat Crowley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:55:07 GMT

AS most astute readers know I am a big fan of Providence Business News. I often do not agree with their editorializing, but as Chomsky once said, if you want to read the real news, read the business section.

One of my favorite features in PBN is the Executive Poll. Last week’s was really interesting. We hear so often from the anti-American right wing in Rhode Island that our taxes and business climate are holding us back. Well, it doesn’t seem the executives on the ground, outside of the ivory tower, agree. What is the most pressing concern for Rhode Island’s manufacturers? Other manufacturers!

What are the most pressing issues facing Rhode Island manufacturers today?
• Competition – 43.8%
• Tax climate – 31.3%
• Work force development – 25%
• Outdated business models – 25%
• Labor climate – 12.5%
• Transportation/infrastructure – 6.3%
• Other – 0%

Its not taxes and unions, AKA socialism in conservative parlance, that is hurting the free market…it is the free market!

Anchor Rising Endorses Frank Caprio?

Pat Crowley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:26:45 GMT

I know politics makes strange bed fellows, but this gushing endorsement from AR for Frank Caprio isn't likely to help in a contested Democratic Primary.

My impression of Rhode Island Treasurer Frank Caprio is that he's an unimpeachably honest guy, and he seems intent on running his campaign for governor in precisely the manner not only of an honest guy, but of an affable one: making up for the disadvantage of clean hands by keeping them in constant motion. During his ubiquitous appearances at state-level events of all sorts, Caprio is always the last to sit down - working the room, as they call it.
In that respect, he (or at least his image) is a welcome relief in a profession characterized by scheming and sleaze. The question is whether it makes him the man that Rhode Island needs in its top executive chair, just now, and his case has yet to be proven. He strikes me as the sort of leader a polity wants when it requires rest from the hard work of cleaning up government - after cleaning up the government. In those circumstances, the "right thing" has been clearly defined, and the society wants a chief who will apply it fairly and openly and recoil from immediate corruption.
Truthfulness is better than deception, of course, and straight laces better than knots. With Caprio, we can add in a better display of the correct impulses, compared with the erroneous ones of his likely competition. But that only makes him preferable - not adequate. What we need is not somebody who's affably honest, but somebody who's contentiously honest.

Is a Strong Public Option Actually in Sight?

BrianHull — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:23:30 GMT

There are some exciting developments concerning the public option in the news lately.

Daily Kos has the tip on the Congressional Progressive Caucus Whip Count for healthcare reform.

A total of 50 CPC members vow to vote against any bill that did not meet their criteria for a public option.

Also, on July 15, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved The Affordable Health Choices Act. Along with the “strong public option” included in the bill,

“It stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It guarantees that you’ll be able to find an insurance plan that works for you, including a public health insurance option if you want it.”

We can thank both Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse for supporting it.

The Senate Finance Committee is trying to figure out how to pay for it, and may actually reach an agreement. Yes, there will be a large up-front cost as the 47-50 million uninsured Americans finally receive coverage, theoretically at least, but that shouldn't stymie efforts for reform. Here’s a little breakdown of the costs and the House’s proposals to pay for it.

Also,

The House Ways and Means Committee voted 25-15 on Thursday to keep the government-run option in the bill, rejecting an amendment by Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan. All Democrats voted to keep the government option and all Republicans voted to remove it.

And even the American Medical Association, who were vociferously opposed to a public option in the past, are now supporting the House’s plan.

The influential American Medical Association on Thursday said it supported the healthcare overhaul legislation moving through committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives and urged its approval.

Baby steps towards real healthcare reform. Slowly, but surely.

Providence Wins Federal Grant to Transform City Trucks into Greener Vehicles

BrianHull — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:35 GMT

Good news for people who like to breathe fresh air. Of course it only applies to 42 trucks, but it's a start. Does anyone know how many city trucks Providence has?

Mayor David N. Cicilline announced that Providence is the only New England city to receive a $565,000 federal stimulus grant to transform 42 City trucks into greener vehicles. He made the announcement at the Department of Public Works garage where 30 trucks will be retrofitted with state-of-the-art diesel emissions technology, reducing emissions by as much as 90% per vehicle.

“This federal grant will enable us to take an important step towards protecting our environment by making smart investments in new technology,” said Mayor Cicilline. “These upgrades will help to improve air quality in our city as we focus on rebuilding our economy for the 21st-century and create green-sector jobs.”

“As the second largest city in New England, we cannot underestimate the lasting importance of Providence's actions today to reduce diesel emissions from its fleet,” said Annie Costner, Campaign Coordinator, Clean Water Action. “Rhode Island's cities and towns as well as our neighbors in other states benefit from this forward-thinking, highly practical approach to pollution prevention that ought to be the norm everywhere.”

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) grant is part of the National Diesel Emissions Reduction Campaign and is being administered through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition to retrofitting 30 DPW trucks, the funds will be used to install emissions control technology in vehicles in the Parks Department, Traffic Engineering, Communications and Recreation Departments.

Based on the EPA’s emissions reductions calculations, the advanced pollution control technology will reduce harmful particulate matter by 3.75 tons, hydrocarbons by 5.27 tons and carbon monoxide by 16.97 over the lifetime of the retrofitted equipment.

The greening of the City’s fleet is line with the goals of Greenprint Providence, a strategic plan unveiled by Mayor Cicilline last year to create a more sustainable city government and accelerate the green economy. Greenprint Providence details the steps the City has already taken to reduce Providence’s carbon footprint and outlines a number of initiatives designed to help position Providence at the leading edge of a green economy poised for explosive growth.

Putting the Labor back in Labor Day

Pat Crowley — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:28:56 GMT

Clinton Buddies Hired By Coup Regime

David Segal — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:22:25 GMT

From Democracy Now. Looks so bad for Hillary...

Supporters of the coup in Honduras have begun hiring advisers and lobbyists with close ties to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an attempt to strengthen support in Washington for the coup. A Honduran business group has hired lobbyist Lanny Davis, who served as White House counsel for President Bill Clinton. The coup government has also hired Bennet Ratcliff, a public relations specialist with ties to former President Bill Clinton.

On Point on Texas vs. California economic model

Bottom Bracket — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:47:16 GMT

This morning’s episode of On Point with Tom Ashbrook featured the rise of Texas and the fall of California in our economy and the “American Dream.” Business is booming in Texas; its state budget is relatively healthy, and its unemployment rate is two points below the national average. Economists attribute Texas’ low tax, low regulation policies to its growth, coupled with the abundance of (almost free) land and real estate opportunities.
As reported on the show, California, on the other hand, is losing businesses and entrepreneurs (primarily to Texas), the state budget is in the trash barrel, and its unemployment rate is two points above the national average. California’s tax burden is among the highest in the country, there are many legal standards on doing business there, and real estate is very expensive.

At first glance, this makes it look like the Texas model is the way to go. But, as Tom Ashbrook correctly points out, Texas has an abundance of very real social problems.

Health care in Texas is the worst in the nation (and health care in Houston is the worst in Texas). High school drop out rates are exceedingly high. Texas is in the top three for childhood poverty. Voter turn out is among the lowest in the nation. There are many more. So basically, to sum it up, the current Texas climate supports big business and wealthy individuals at the expense of democracy, broad prosperity, and a well-educated public.

It should be understood in the opinion of someone who was born and raised in Texas, did business in Texas, worked, bought property, had children in Texas, and considers the Lone Star State home, that the politico-economic culture in Texas, especially in the past thirty years, is very much a state of corporatism. That is, the prevailing concept among politicians and pundits is this myth of free market and independence and that business interests ultimately take precedence in any local and state policies, whether its health care, education, environmental protection, poverty, etc. So, why would this corporatist model be so much more economically successful than a model based on strong principles of education, broad prosperity, environmental protection, etc.?

Perhaps a national and global economy based on the liquidation of resources for quarterly profit growth is ultimately set up to support the most corporatist economic systems in the world. The problem is, resources are becoming scarce, including the most basic resources: land and water.
As I look at state’s that are struggling and the politicians that are looking for the answers, I can’t help notice the lack thereof. One the one hand, do we want to live in a place where business, especially big-business runs the show? Remember, corporations are not democracies. At the same time, how do we afford increasingly expensive health care, transportation infrastructure, energy, education, etc.?

I believe it is a matter of resources. As long as we are dependent of extracting more resources, whether silicon for computers, oil for materials and fuel, wood for paper and construction, land for real estate and fuel, iron for steel, water for fast food kitchens, we are going to continue to go down the drain. Places like Texas that currently have resources to give away to big businesses while letting the average person struggle to make ends meet will be the sites of the latest economic boom.

But places like Texas will run out, and we will inherit a country that has been bled to death for a relatively few wealthy people for a relatively short period of time.

Condoleezza Rice Breaks with Right Wing And Says Pass Immigration Reform

Matt Jerzyk — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:11:00 GMT

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice now says that Congress needs to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform and expressed regret that during the Bush administration, Immigration Reform did not get done.

“We need immigration reform. I don’t care if it’s for the person who crawls across the desert to earn $5 an hour, or for Sergey Brin, who came here from Russia and founded Google. As a country, we can’t have people living in the shadows. It’s just wrong. It’s not only ineffective, it’s wrong.”

Keith Ellison Is One Bad-Ass Organizer

David Segal — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:19:00 GMT

And the Progressive Caucus is really showing some mettle:

I've seen the Congressional Progressive Caucus's most recent whip list for healthcare reform, and it's--to say the least--very encouraging. It's also a testament to the longterm efforts of nyceve and the netroots community to keep healthcare reform alive as an issue for the past several years. As of last week, a total of 50 CPC members vow to vote against any bill that did not meet their criteria for a public option.

The new nattering nabobs of negativity

Pat Crowley — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:08:17 GMT

This is from the latest RIILE newsletter. It must be miserable to live in a world where EVERYONE is out to get you.

Our country is at risk on all fronts—defense, our borders, foreign hostilities, the economy, unemployment, education, government take-over of financial institutions and private companies, the undermining of law enforcement, our Constitution, our families, our religions, our rights, our freedoms, and on it goes. The government spews out policy and regulations without caring how the “ripple effect” is abusing our citizens. This power for the sake of power is destroying our country.

“Global” regulation, “global” agreement, “global” anything means that everything will be the same everywhere—laws, taxes, government control, etc. Governments around the world want and NEED that “globalism” to give them ultimate control of the people. Forget about moving to Florida, Nevada, Texas, or any other state that doesn’t have a state income tax. That will change—as will the regulations on tax havens in other countries. That is only the beginning of what “global regulation” will do.

The collapse of the economy has put the wheels in motion. A recent ProJo article, “RI’s population may grow, but for the wrong reasons,” illustrates the manufactured “immobility” that will not allow people to pick up and leave for a better opportunity. BECAUSE THERE IS NO BETTER OPPORTUNITY. The failure of the stock market wiped out savings, retirement funds, etc., and the “affordable housing” disaster set up the banks for government take-over. The “ripple effect” of these “crises” caused massive unemployment, loss of homes, government control of private companies, and the expansion of government, in general, that removes our rights and freedoms and increases dependency on government. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS INTENDED TO BE.

The United States has succeeded because our enemies fear us. We have the power and the resources to defend ourselves—and we will do it. If our enemies do not fear us, they will not hesitate to destroy us. In previous conflicts, enemies of the U.S. did not take that final aggressive step because they wanted to survive. They knew we would retaliate, and we would win. The enemies we face now DO NOT CARE ABOUT SURVIVING. They care only about DESTROYING THE UNITED STATES AND ALL “INFIDELS” WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR EXTREMIST BELIEFS. They would rather kill themselves and be considered martyrs. That’s what makes them so dangerous.

Whitehouse the workhorse

Pat Crowley — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:59:16 GMT

RI Senator Sheldon Whitehouse got some nice words from majority leader Harry Reid today on the floor of the Senate:

Wise Latina vs. Dumb White Guy

Pat Crowley — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:43:19 GMT

Are you kidding me? A US Senator making Ricky Ricardo comments to the first Latina nominee for the Supreme Court? The GOP, the gift that keeps on giving.

Where's the Affordable Housing in Rhode Island?

BrianHull — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:46:01 GMT

So, I’ve finally had a chance to read the 2009 Fact Book by Housing Works RI and they address some important questions regarding home affordability in the state, and also responded to five persistent myths regarding affordable housing (nice work). Most notable (to me at least) is their analysis regarding the recent decline in housing prices. Unfortunately, this decrease in the median value of single-family homes is attributed mostly to the sale of foreclosed / distressed properties (generally speaking, homes that were vacant and have had the copper pipes and electrical wiring ripped out of them).

While the median sales price in Rhode Island dropped over 26 percent in the first quarter of 2009, the median price of non-distressed properties fell only 8 percent.

This brings up a very important topic that even the progressive community fails to discuss sufficiently: the unsustainability of rising home values in relation to real wage growth. Americans have a societal expectation that home ownership is a pathway to wealth creation, that an individual or family can buy a house live in it for years (or even months), and then sell it for a profit. This theoretical profit generation is based solely on rising property values over time (even including housing busts similar to our current situation – I mean, what a great time to buy!!). As much as this scenario makes people happy, as much as making “free” money puts a smile on everyone’s face, it is not sustainable in the long run. Even eliminating the irrationality of land and property speculation, at some point the equation becomes untenable when the valuation of property outpaces wage growth. This has been the situation in many parts of the country for the past 30 years, and especially during the first five years of this decade. Here in Rhode Island, the median price for a single-family home grew from $126,000 in 1999 to $282,900 at its peak in 2005, a 225% increase. Did wages grow that much? I didn’t think so.

Granted, the first five years of the 2000s were pretty ridiculous, but even in less extreme cases, if the cost of buying a home increases faster than income growth, families and individuals need to spend a larger and larger percentage of their income on housing. This not only depresses home ownership rates among lower-income groups, and even among middle-income groups in certain areas of the country (think Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, etc.), but it also stymies economic growth as the money which flows to banks to pay for mortgages is not spent in the local economy. Some will say that the purchase price of the house does enter the economy because it goes to the previous owner, and I’ll agree to that. The real problem lies, however, in the vast sums of money that are removed from local economies to pay for the interest on the loans. We’re an indebted nation that struggles to stay afloat and housing is a big part of that, especially with the lack of affordable housing available.

So, what can be done? How can we make sure that housing prices stay as low as possible?

For one, we need legislation to tax the hell out of short-term capital gains from real estate speculation. This would have prevented a large part of the problem in certain areas of Rhode Island, especially Providence. By removing the incentive to generate short-term profits by buying houses, removing them from the available housing stock in order to drive up prices, and then selling them at a premium in exactly the same condition, the real estate prices would have stayed lower and would have been more affordable to owner occupants. Yes, there is a tradeoff: the profits of real estate investors versus the lower mortgage payments of homeowners, but I don’t really see much of an issue with benefiting homeowners.

Another factor would be requiring cities and towns in Rhode Island to live up to their commitment to meet the 10% threshold which is required by the Low and Moderate Income Housing Act of 2004. This will increase the availability of affordable housing across the state, and reduce the pressure felt by families who may need to live in communities which are not their first (or second, or third) choice.

Maybe states should also enact “cram down” provisions that were removed from the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. This would allow judges to lower the principle balance of over-valued homes.

More than anything, Americans need to shift their perception with regard to “free” money. Housing is expensive, and I argue it’s too expensive. I hold the iconoclastic view that home values should never increase more than wage inflation, although I do admit that we need to address what it means to homeowners who are relying on that money to retire. I’m not saying that home values should never increase, but we should not have an expectation that our homes will generate substantial wealth for us above and beyond inflation because future generations will be stuck paying the bill. You may be happy about your huge windfall from selling your home, but we shouldn’t expect our children and our grandchildren to either have to pay 40, 50, or 60 percent of their income on housing, or to be denied the opportunity to own a home in the community of their choice. We need to move past this expectation that money is free, because it isn’t.