I previously said that McLaughlin is no rocket scientist but I think you're taking his quote a little out of context. It's true, having no money doesn't mean you're bankrupt. I get paid on the last day of the month. If on the 29th, I'm completely out of money, I'm not bankrupt. I think that was McLaughlin's point. Bankrupt is when you have no money and no realistic chance of paying off your debts. I think McLaughlin wanted to see if there were any inefficiencies in the system that had been overlooked. He's not the type that is in favor of raising taxes, in spite of the D next to his name, so I can't speak for him, but I'm not sure that he was referring to raising taxes, either. Heck, we've seen how bad some of the CF city hall was at doing their jobs, maybe the tax collectors are equally bad and haven't collected the revenues that are due to them.

Patrick,

I know Rep. McLaughlin is sympathetic to the Northern Rhode Island fiscally-conservative Democrats and maybe even a full-fledged member, who doesn't overtly want to raise taxes. The problem is that he expects a huge sum of money to more-or-less magically appear to solve the problem he is concerned with. That's his commonality with the Warwick School Committee.

But Andrew, it does magically fall out of nowhere. Don't you know your Rhode Island history? There was the tobacco settlement for some free money, lead paint settlement for free money, federal stimulus funding for free money. It always just works itself out. So why wouldn't it now? You give a stray cat a meal every day for a week, what else would the cat expect on the eighth day?

And a good response for McLaughlin would be,

"You're right, but the fact that our bankruptcy filing was accepted DOES mean that we're bankrupt."

Does anyone know if the FBI is still investigating Moreau? Is that ongoing? I'm still waiting to see Charlie do the perp walk.

I guess Warwick wants to be on the fast track to bankruptcy. Did these people just see what happened in CF?

It really does make you wonder who the school committee really represents.

With all respect, I don't see what is "valid" about a contract that says I have to work until I am in my 70's at a job I don't love, and probably die on the job, and pay a large percentage of my income in taxes, so that a guy who drove a cruiser around for 20 years--following his "calling"--can spend endless days fishing, going to the beach, playing with his grandkids, visiting Disney World. Just doesn't feel like a valid contract to me. Especially when the contract was negotiated in collusion between city employees (mayors) who were beholden to the union they were negotiating with. But yes, some judge may uphold it. At some point of course everyone who doesn't want to pay for this moves to another state and there is no one to pay for the guy who thinks he is entitled to enjoy the good life from age 50 on.
I am not saying this guy did anything wrong, but the system he took advantage of is breaking and expectations are going to have to change--just ask the Central Falls goverment retirees