The Risen Doctrine: If a Government Department is Not Working, Where do you Look to Find the Problem?

Last week, Insight on the News (a conservative weekly affiliated with the Washington Times) ran an item alleging a serious rift between Newt Gingrich and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice…

Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration’s national security and foreign policy agenda.

The conservatives, who include Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle and leading current and former members of the Pentagon and National Security Council…

The reference to Gingrich was based on a quote from Gingrich’s July 16 appearance on Meet the Press …

Mr. Gingrich agrees and said Miss Rice's inexperience and lack of resolve were demonstrated in the aftermath of the North Korean launch of seven short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles in July. He suggested that Miss Rice was a key factor in the lack of a firm U.S. response.

"North Korea firing missiles," Mr. Gingrich said. "You say there will be consequences. There are none. We are in the early stages of World War III. Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude."

Robert Bluey of the Human Events Right Angle Blog was skpetical of Insight's interpretation of Gingrich's meaning. The jump from the direct quote -- where Secretary Rice is not mentioned -- to the anti-Rice meaning implied by Insight was a large one, so Mr. Bluey contacted Gingrich’s staff in order to clarify. They confirmed that Gingrich's criticism of the bureaucracy was not intended as criticism of Secretary Rice…

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler disputed a story from conservative magazine Insight on the News ….“Newt is supporting Rice,” he told HUMAN EVENTS. “So far she is saying and doing the right things.”

A response to Mr. Bluey from Insight editor Jeff Kuhner explaining his magazine's interpretation of Gingrich's remarks included this fascinating (at least to me) statement…

Condi Rice is the head of the State Department. If [Gingrich is] not happy with the policies of the State Department, then I don't see how he could be happy with Condi.

In Mr. Kuhner's response, we see another case of a journalistic assumption we can call the Risen Doctrine: what happens within government bureaucracy, below the level of the leadership, is either beyond reproach or maybe just not worth reporting on; failures within a government departments should always be assumed to be failures of leadership to set proper policies, and never to be poor execution of the policies set by the leadership.

It’s not breaking news to say that no respectable journalist accepts the reverse of the Risen Doctrine -- assume first that problems within a government department originate from the bureaucracy’s inability to properly execute, and not from the leadership’s bad choice of direction. Journalists would argue (quite rightly) that leaders not continually called upon to explain and correct their errors in public inevitably become sloppy and inefficient and probably worse.

But the same sloppines and worse will happen to permanent bureaucrats never held accountable. Problems in the bureaucratic execution of policy will not be corrected if the public never learns about them. And the public will not learn about the problems bureaucracies have turning policies into effective actions for as long as the mainstream press remains thoroughly uncurious about them.

Karl Rove Offers Hope...or not?

At first, being of a cynical mind this morning, I wondered if Karl Rove (via Dale Light) had ever been to Rhode Island when I read his recent statements at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management. But upon further consideration, I think he truly hit on one truism, which I've highlighted:

"There are some in politics who hold that voters are dumb, ill informed and easily misled, that voters can be manipulated by a clever ad or a smart line," said Rove, who is credited with President Bush's victories in the 2000 and 2004 elections. "I've seen this cynicism over the years from political professionals and journalists. American people are not policy wonks, but they have great instincts and try to do the right thing."

Rove said it is "wrong to underestimate the intelligence of the American voter, but easy to overestimate their interest. Much tugs at their attention."

I'd offer that here in RI that interest in local politics is also proportional to how much the average RI thinks they can make a real difference. In other words: Not Much.

At this point, RI citizens have--for the most part--simply gotten used to putting their "attention" elsewhere than politics. Wrong or not, they seem to think that, for the most part, their everyday lives aren't affected that much by the actions of the General Assembly or local school committees and town councils. The irony, of course, is that this attitude of "They're all the same" is just about as self-perpetuating as it gets.

I guess the task for those of us who want to change the political climate in this state is to get the attention of the average Rhode Islander. Calling them ignorant certainly won't endear them to our cause, after all, and it also happens to be a cop-out. It takes hard work to change minds. The obvious fly in this ointment is that maybe, just maybe, the status quo here in Rhode Island is exactly what the average Rhode Islander wants....and if that's the case, maybe we're all just Ocean State versions of Don Quixote. But perhaps people are only satisfied with the status quo because that's all they know.

The Latest FEC Fun

It’s been a few weeks since we’ve had an exciting new Federal Election Commission matter to discuss, so let’s lead with that this week. According to John E. Mulligan in Sunday’s Saturday's Projo, the FEC has warned the Chafee campaign about a potential violation of campaign finance law…

The Federal Election Commission has asked that Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee's name be removed from the title of the organization that sponsored First Lady Laura Bush's May visit to Providence to raise money for Chafee and Rhode Island's Republican Party.

In one of a series of letters to such groups, known as "joint fundraising committees," the FEC said "enforcement action" may be taken against them if they do not comply with the election campaign rules in question…

The FEC's letter to Chafee-Rhode Island Victory 2006 said the senator's name cannot be used because the group also represents a "multicandidate committee" -- meaning the state party, which assists many Rhode Island Republican office-seekers.

Multicandidate committees have to support five candidates for Federal office to qualify for their multicandidate status. I believe the FEC's position is that an organization can't be a true multicandiate committee if it says in its title that one of its candidate is more equal than the others. Of course, you could also approach this from a “truth in advertising” perspective and say if a single candidate is all that a particular PAC is really interested in, why not let them be up front about it?

Another part of Mulligan's article doesn’t match with current campaign finance rules. According to the “Campaign Fundraising for Dummies” documents available on the FEC website, multicandidate committees are limited to contributing $5,000 per candidate, per election. Mulligan, however, writes about a much bigger sum of money…

The Chafee-Rhode Island Victory 2006 group was formed to run Bush's Rhode Island fundraiser and pass the proceeds on to Chafee and the state party. The committee gave almost $110,000 to the senator's reelection campaign and $63,500 to the Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee, according to its midyear report to the FEC.

I suspect what Mulligan means is that $110,000 in individual contributions to Senator Chafee were collected and bundled by Chafee-Rhode Island Victory 2006, then passed along to the candidate.

Aren’t you glad we have all of our current campaign finance laws on the books making this transparent for you?

Who Was Supposed to Benefit from the DuPont Lead Paint Settlement?

There is a new development in the Rhode Island lead paint case.

Last summer, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch dropped DuPont as a defendant in the case in return for DuPont agreeing to donate $12,500,000 to various charities. However, not all of the charities involved in the DuPont "understanding" (DuPont doesn't want it called a settlement) were lead-paint related. Mealey Publications, a legal newswire affiliated with Lexis-Nexis, is reporting that $2,500,000 of the $12,500,000 DuPont understanding is slated to go to a hospital with no lead-poisoning program. According to Mealey's...

The three organizations selected to receive money from DuPont were Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, The Children's Health Forum in Washington, D.C., and the Brown University Medical School in Providence, R.I.

BWH has no lead-poisoning prevention program.

Mealey's is also reporting that Attorney General Lynch implied that Brigham and Women's Hospital was included in the DuPont payout despite its lack of a lead-poisoning program because a law firm involved in the prosecution of the case owed money to Brigham and Women's...

When Lynch was asked in his deposition if one of the purposes of selecting BWH was to credit the $2.5 million as having come from Motley Rice in satisfaction of the pledge that firm had made to the hospital, Lynch said: "That it may."

Motley Rice is the firm hired by the Attorney General's office to prosecute the lead-paint case on a contingency basis. But is a law firm hired by the state supposed to be using the public process to make deals to settle its debts?

This matter is a separate matter from the state ethics commission's investigation of Attorney General Lynch's acceptance of campaign contributions from lawyers representing DuPont around the same time he was negotiating the understanding with DuPont.

Stem Cell Misconceptions

This short passage from Froma Harrop's stem cell column from yesterday contains one of the misconceptions that Senator Tom Coburn talked about last weekend...

Adult stem-cell research is promising -- but already fully funded. And only embryonic stem cells can be turned into other types of body cells to replace damaged tissues. That's why researchers are so intent on using them.

Current research indicates that embryonic stem cells may not be the only cells that "can be turned into other types of body cells" (the technical term for this is "pluripotency"). Researchers in California claim to have created pluripotent cells by reprogramming human "germ cells", cells taken from the reproductive organs of adults...

May 9, 2006--Publicly addressing the company's breakthrough in stem cell research, PrimeGen Biotech LLC (www.primegenbiotech.com) today announced that its principal investigator will present data showing the isolation and therapeutic reprogramming of adult germ-line stem cells into pluripotent cells -- cells that have the potential to turn into any cell line of the body.

The PrimeGen research is still undergoing peer review. Also, back in April, Reuters reported on a research group in Germany that has created pluripotent cells from the germ cells of mice, though not from humans yet.

At this time, therapies using "pluripotent germ cells" are only potential, just as therapies using "embryonic stem cells" are only potential. So what's needed to turn the potential into reality? Well, almost every summary of the topic that I've found so far (including Senator Coburn's remarks) says that the biggest roadblock to the theraputic use of embryonic stem cells is the issue of rejection. If pluripotent cells can be created from germ cells, the rejection issue is solved, as the material needed for celluar therapy can be created from the body of the person needing the therapy. If there is a more promising path around the rejection issue, no one is talking much about it.

Finally, I am unsure of what the meaning of "already fully funded" is in the context of adult stem cell research. Does this mean that everything scientifically that can be done is being done? Or does it only mean that we've hit a politically-determined limit on how much is spent on adult stem cell research?

Re: Sheldon's Scaring the Seniors

You've gotta love political mathematics. Sheldon Whitehouse, from Marc's post below:

We can protect Social Security too. We just need the courage to tell the voters we’re going to lift the limit on Social Security withholding from $90,000 to $120,000. That makes a lot more sense than cutting benefits and we can keep Social Security solvent for decades to come.

I haven't looked at the specifics in a while, but I don't recall anybody suggesting that the looming Social Security crisis is any nearer than "decades." (The number that pops into my head until problems start to arise is 2027, with the true crisis some time after that, but I don't have the time to research it right now.) In other words, I could declare that all we need to do is nothing to "keep Social Security solvent for decades [plural] to come."

The Israel Non-Sequitur

The foreign policy non-sequitur of the week seems to be believing that Israel would not have been attacked by Hezbollah if the United States hadn’t deposed Saddam Husein. Sheldon Whitehouse more or less says this directly to John E. Mulligan and Scott MacKay in today's Projo...

Whitehouse said that the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq have created some of the problems in the Middle East and made it more difficult for the U.S. to spearhead a peace process in the volatile region. What he called the Bush administration's "disasterous strategy and decision to invade Iraq has cast a pall across the entire Mideast."

I don't see the connection. If Saddam Husein was still in power, Syria would probably still be overtly occupying Lebanon, Arab Sunni and Shiite radicals would feel better about cooperating with one another than they do at the moment, and Hezbollah would have even a freer reign in Lebanon than it does now. Hezbollah’s tactical postion against Israel would be much stronger.

The only way that you reach the conclusion that Hezbollah wouldn’t be launching rocket attacks and kidnapping soldiers across the Israeli border from its stronger tactical position in a Saddam-is-still-in-power universe is if you believe that not just actions, but intentions of states and militias are essentially reactions to the United States. In other words, believing that Hezbollah wouldn’t attack Israel if the United States was more quietist in tolerating dictatorships and violence requires believing that a more passive American policy could cause Hezbollah to change its very reason for being.

The key operating assumption is that the goal of destroying Israel and spreading violent revolution shouldn't be treated as innate to an organization like Hezbollah or the current regime in Iran, because violent goals are only created as a reaction to the actions of the United States. This assumption is a restatement of blaming-America-first.

Sheldon's Scaring the Seniors

Sheldon Whitehouse is engaging in that time-tested, liberal Democrat method of winning the senior-citizen vote: scare the hell out of them:

I met a woman who asked me fearfully if the Republicans were really trying to do away with Social Security. It made me sick to have to tell her she may be right.

Over the last several months, a series of Republican leaders - from George Bush and Karl Rove to several others - have signaled that they’re planning to push for Social Security privatization if they retain control of Congress. I don’t have to tell you that that would be a disaster for Rhode Island seniors....Republican efforts to privatize Social Security will break this promise we made to seniors and force thousands of our fellow Rhode Islanders into even more precarious financial straits than now.

We’ve got to stop that from happening. Let’s keep our promise to Rhode Island seniors and make sure that the Republicans don’t have the chance to privatize Social Security.

Any honest person knows that the President's plan for Social Security Reform is concerned with future expenditures, not current.

Social Security is sound for today’s seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers – our children and grandchildren. The government has made promises it cannot afford to pay for with the current pay-as-you-go system.

* In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.

* Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.

* In 2008 – just three short years from now – baby boomers will begin to retire. And over the next few decades, people will be living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically. By the time today’s youngest workers turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.

o Under the current system, today’s 30-year-old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.

Instead of scaring seniors with false claims about "possible" Republican efforts to cut Social Security for today's seniors, Sheldon Whitehouse should be responsible enough to offer his own comprehensive plan. But that's too hard. It's easier to demagogue the President and "the wealthy." Note his solution:

We can protect Social Security too. We just need the courage to tell the voters we’re going to lift the limit on Social Security withholding from $90,000 to $120,000. That makes a lot more sense than cutting benefits and we can keep Social Security solvent for decades to come.

See, it's that easy? Now, I'll grant Whitehouse this: his "comprehensive" proposal could be part of a larger solution. But it'll take much more than that to vouchsafe Social Security for future generations. Of course, those future generations aren't present-day voters, are they?

UPDATE: In addition to this post by Don Hawthorne, the Heritage Foundation is a good resource for info on the entire Social Security debate. For instance, here is more info on when/how much the shorfall will be. And here is more on how the current Social Security Reform debate is about FUTURE, not PRESENT expenditures. In short, today's senior citizens have nothing to worry about when it comes to their own social security. They'll continue to get much more than what they originally paid in....

Don't Put Those "New" Unaffiliated in the Chafee Column Just Yet

Nathan Gonzales at the Rothenberg Political Report has done some analysis of those new unaffiliated voters for which Senator Chafee received so much credit for turning a couple months back. Not so fast:

...a Republican who is pulling for Chafee...[told] me that most of the changes in registration weren’t generated by Chafee’s effort. “The Chafee campaign did bump up the number of switchers [from Democrat to unaffiliated], but the lion’s share of those changes were routine,” the GOP source said.

But how could 13,596 Democrats switching to unaffiliated be “routine”? Why would they have switched except to vote for Chafee in the primary? Unfortunately, I’ll have to offer a few more numbers to explain why Chafee has received too much credit for the switches.

While most of the focus has been on Democrats switching registration to unaffiliated, a total of 3,768 Republicans also switched to unaffiliated. We don’t know why they switched, but nobody is suggesting that they did so to vote in the Democratic primary or because of an orchestrated effort to get them to switch. I suppose that means their switches were “routine” — they simply no longer wanted to identify with the GOP.

Interestingly, the 3,768 Republicans who switched to unaffiliated constituted 5.3 percent of the roughly 71,000 registered Republicans in the state at the June 13 deadline for switching party registration. The 13,596 Democrats who switched to unaffiliated constituted 5.4 percent of the roughly 250,000 Democrats.

In other words, there is little statistical difference between the proportion of Republicans and Democrats who switched to unaffiliated; they switched at the same rate. Given that, it hardly seems logical to read the switches from Democratic to unaffiliated as a dramatic development that will be a huge advantage to Chafee.

(via Greg Pollowitz at Sixers)

Michaud's Pretend Voters

I realize that this is just too easy and that Dennis Michaud has gone way beyond irrelevancy at this point, but the fact that he so obviously screwed up his voter petitions--dead people, forgeries--is interesting. You see, it can be taken as proof that:

a) There was a definite insider game to get Michaud on the ballot at all costs so that he could be a pain in the a** to the Governor, or

b) He was doing this on his own, which is why he screwed it up so badly. If he had real political insider help, he wouldn't have made these mistakes.

I wonder, which was it?

The Real Life Disrupted When the Government Claimed Her Home, Part 1

At the Northeast Conservative Conference of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies held this past weekend, Susette Kelo told the story of the government seizure of her home so that the land could be given to a private developer. Eventually the United States Supreme Court ruled that transferring private property from one owner to another is a legitimate use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London [2005]).

Most of us have been lucky enough to learn about the increasingly broad of the use of eminent domain from reading about it in the newspaper. Susette Kelo did not have that luxury. Here, Ms. Kelo tells the story of how she learned of the government's broad view of eminent domain from a series of notices delivered to her demanding that she sell her home...

Susette Kelo: I�d like to thank you for having me here today. Hardly a day goes by when I'm working in my garden or having a cup of coffee in my kitchen, both of which overlook the Thames River and the Long Island Sound, that I don't ask myself the same question. If I had to do this all over again, would I? Even on my worst day, and there have been many, especially now that I know that I have to find a new place to move my home or lose it, my answer is always the same: unequivocally, yes.

It was in February of 1998 that I first heard the news that Pfizer was coming to town. I remember having the thought that this was going to be a problem for me and my neighbors in Fort Trumbull. Little did I know how prophetic that thought would become. I immediately called then Mayor Lloyd Beachy, who was extremely sympathetic, and Kathleen Mitchell, then the neighborhood organizer of the neighborhood alliance.

Since that day eight years ago, Lloyd, Kathleen, hundreds of others, thousands of individuals have become my sounding board, my comrades in arms and my new best friends. But I'm getting away from the subject I know you want to hear about, and what I've come to talk about -- my feelings and thoughts a year after the infamous Supreme Court decision.

Let me give you a little background on myself and my home. In 1997, I started looking for a house, and finally found a perfect cottage with a beautiful view of the water. I knew when I first entered the cottage that I was meant to be there. Maybe that was also prophetic. I was working as a paramedic and was overjoyed that I was able to find a beautiful place on my salary. I spent every spare moment fixing it up, creating the kind of home I had always dreamed of. I painted it salmon pink.

About a year later, when Pfizer announced that their global headquarters would be built on this little peninsula next door, my neighbors and I received letters from the real estate agent representing the New London Development corporation. We didn't even know what the New London Development Corporation was, but we would learn fast enough in the next few months. The letters informed us that we had to sell our homes at their price -- or they would be seized by eminent domain.

Eventually these letters turned out to be true, but at the time we received those letters, not one word was mentioned about eminent domain. There were no plans which anybody had seen. The initial plans, we found out later, were prepared on the state level under former Governor Rowland with lobbyist Jay Levin leading the way. The United States Supreme Court can try to justify its actions by determining that this was a carefully considered plan which had cleared the necessary hurdles after a lengthy public and lawful process, but that simply was not true.

When the plan finally came down to New London, everything was done in secret and not in an open public process as the law requires. Many homes were acquired long before the plan saw the light of day. Our neighbors, many of whom were in their 80s and 90s, sold because they had the threat of eminent domain hanging over their heads. I don't blame them; they were afraid. Those who contacted lawyers were told you can't fight the big guy, so just take the money and leave. In the small town of New London, many lawyers did not even want to take the case.

Later on next year, when the New London Development Corporation contacted me again about selling my home by the beautiful water, after all the work was done, I simply told them I wasn't interested.

In late 1999, after graduating from nursing school, I became a registered nurse and began working at the Backus hospital in southeastern Connecticut. Early in 2000, public hearings were eventually held and the plan was finalized. Our homes were not part of the plan and by that time I had met a man who shared my dreams. The two of us spent our spare time and money fixing up our home. We got a couple of dogs, I planted flowers, I created my own rugs, and we had antiques which were just perfect for the home. And Tim, who is a stone mason, did all the stonework around the house.

When I first bought the house, it was run-down. Today, it is finished.

On the evening before Thanksgiving 2000, the sheriff taped a letter to my door stating my home had been seized. Thanksgiving was not the happy family holiday we had planned, and every Thanksgiving since has been bittersweet for all of us....

Coming in Part 2: Susette Kelo's case goes to the Supreme Court...

This past year, several bills were introduced to the state legislature that would prevent this sequence of events from occurring to any homeowner in Rhode Island, but the House and Senate could not agree on a single reform bill, and the bills passed in each chamber were too vague to be meaningful. If you have the chance during this campaign season, ask your legislative candidates if they support clear, unambiguous eminent domain reform. And if a candidate is an incumbent, ask why it didn't pass this session.

The Other Coast on Hangin’ With the Conservatives in Rhode Island

A resident of the other coast has posted his impressions of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies' Northeast Conservative Conference held at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick this past weekend. Two Rhode Island speakers made a strong impression on Steve Frank, a contributor to the California Conservative blog. One was Steve Laffey...

I met the Mayor of Cranston, Steve Laffey. He is running a strong race against Senator Lincoln Chafee–the deciding vote in favor of McCain-Feingold. Laffey, is very articulate, an MBA from Harvard and a successful businessman in the finance field. He is solid on the issue, believes we need to secure the borders first, cut taxes, in order to increase revenues and the assets you have already paid taxes on should go to your children and family, not to the government. This is going to be a winner, on September 12 and in the November election.

…and the other was Dave Talan…

But, if you want to hear about a tragedy, listen to what happened in Providence, Rhode Island! Several years ago, they created 4 charter schools, each has become among the top rated schools in the city. So what did the unions do? They got the City Council (sic) to put a moratorium on the creation of any new charter schools….On the east side of Providence, one area has 2200 kids eligible to be in K-12. But, the Republican candidate for Mayor, Dave Talan, noted that only 60 of them actually go to public schools. This is a rich area, so the families get the best education they can buy. Of course, almost no kids on the south side go to private schools, this is the minority area of the city. Private schools which rate academically higher that the public schools in the area, cost on the average of $4,000 per student per year. Public schools cost $12,000. In a district of 36,000 students, over 8,000 have left for either private schools or charter schools–more would leave if they could afford it.

Senator Tom Coburn on Healthcare Reform

At the Northeast Conservative Conference of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies held this past weekend at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, I asked Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma what the Federal government's first step towards reforming health insurance in America should be�

Senator Tom Coburn: You can't tinker around the edges anymore. We have X-amount of resources to give to healthcare. The more of our total national income we put in healthcare, the less competitive we will be in the world. So how do we deliver healthcare best? We create a consumer driven, transparent healthcare market. The first thing we should do is pass John Shadegg and Jim DeMint's bill so you can buy your insurance anywhere you want.

I'll give you an example. In Oklahoma you can buy a family policy with a 500 dollar deductible for a year for 1200 bucks. That same policy costs 5900 dollars in New Jersey. Why should it cost 4 to 5 times as much? It's because they have 155 mandates that must be covered in New Jersey. What if I don't want to buy that?

We haven't allowed market forces to allocate resources. That requires some changes. That doesn't mean you give up state lines. The health industry is going to still have to report to the states, they will still have to pay into uncompensated funds in the states, but freedom should be given back to individual Americans. That will create innovation. That will get a lot of people insured who can't afford to buy insurance in New Jersey today -- they will have catastrophic coverage.

We're going to be introducing something in October and November that totally reforms healthcare across the country.

What you don't do is allow the Federal Government to try to design interoperable standards for healthcare IT, which they've been doing for two years to the tune of 160 million dollars and don't have anything yet. What you do is put 3 or 4 great software companies in the country in a room and say here's the money, go fix it and get it back to us. What they tell me is they could have something in 4 months, if we gave them 10 to 15 million dollars to do it, yet the government has already spent 2 years and 160 million dollars. Health IT is one of the places where we would save lives, cut costs, and increase innovation even further, but we've decided that government must design the system. Why?

Re: How Things Work on the Hill

In the previous post, Marc relayed the contents of an interview with two retiring State Representatives who were describing the inner workings of the RI Legislature, and how the leadership is able to almost effortlessly kill things that most of the legislature supports. I have two suggestions for reforming the process. These suggestions, by themselves, won’t fix everything -- procedural reform by itself never can -- but they will improve the chances of passing legislation that is good for most citizens but opposed by small but powerful special interests.

Here are the suggestions…

1. Make the committee votes on every bill available online, in the same manner as floor activity is available in the online House and Senate journals.
2. Reform the House and Senate Rules, so the power to make committee assignments isn’t concentrated in a single person in each body.

1. Technically speaking, the problem in the RI legislature is not that bills can’t get heard. For instance, according to the House rules, every bill is required to be heard in committee, so long as the primary sponsor asks for a hearing…

Upon receipt of a written request by the Chair for committee consideration from the principal House sponsor of a bill or resolution, a copy of which is to be given to the recording clerk, the committee shall grant to said principal House sponsor a hearing on any said bill or resolution within thirty (30) calendar days of the request, and provided further, that said committee shall grant to the principal House sponsor consideration of his or her bill or resolution prior to the deadline for committee action on such bill or resolution.

I can't imagine Joe Trillo or Nick Gorham saying "I won't ask for a hearing on a bill that I've sponsored because I don't want to cause a ruckus".

The problem, as Representative Davey referred to in his appearance on WJAR-TV, is what happens after a hearing. Committee votes and committee amendments are not regularly made available on the legislature's website, making it difficult to find out who voted for or against a measure in the committee stage. There's no easily-available record that indicates whether something that happened in committee was by unanimous vote -- indicating some measure of true consensus -- or whether a bill was voted along partisan lines, or whether one vote would have made a difference.

Without committee votes easily avaiable, the legislature has a place where it can hide actions that benefit politically connected at the expense of the interests of the average citizen. For example, it would be nice to be able to easily look up who voted in favor and who voted against the Senate Judiciary committee amendments that watered down the Senate's version of eminent domain reform.

The solution to this is to make committee votes on legislation available on the internet available in the same way that information on floor votes is available. The staff who puts the floor versions of bills up on the internet does an excellent job of making information about floor action available completely and quickly. The legislature should do what's necessary to let their internet staff work with the committee clerks to make a journal of committee votes electronically available.

2. This second item concerns the fact that, at least on paper, much of the power of the House Speaker and the Senate President is rooted in their power to appoint all committee chairmen AND designate committee assignments for all members. Here, again, are the relevant sections of the House rules...

The Speaker shall appoint all standing committees and create such other subcommittees and committees as may be required from time to time and appoint thereto. All subcommittees and committees shall have proportionate minority membership when feasible. The Speaker, in consultation with the Minority Leader, shall be the appointing authority for minority membership on standing committees and subcommittees thereof, joint committees, boards and commissions. All vacancies occurring in any committee and subcommittee after they have once been named shall be filled in like manner by the Speaker…

The Speaker shall appoint the chair, vice chair and secretary of each committee. In the event that the chair of a committee is unable to serve due to incapacity for medical or other reasons, the Speaker may appoint an acting chair for the period of such incapacity, which acting chair shall have all of the powers and duties of the chair.

Each member's committee assignment is entirely dependent on a single individual -- an individual not accountable to all the voters of Rhode Island, but only to the voters of a single district. So when your state Rep casts a vote, is he or she thinking of the interests of the voters who elected him or her, or thinks of the interests of the single individual who controls his or her committee assignment?

At the start of the year, House speaker William Murphy talked about studying the possibility of making the legislature full-time. I’m skeptical of the value of that. However, the people of Rhode Island should not entertain any suggesting for creating a full-time legislature until the legislature agrees to make its internal workings much more (d)emocractic.

Finally, let me throw out a few more questions with regards to how the legislature really works (at the moment)...

• What are the other powers, in addition to the power to assign committees, that the leadership holds over the legislature?
• Since anybody is supposed to be able to get hearing on a bill they sponsor, what exactly is the power the committee chairmen have to influence the process?

How Things Work on the Hill

Rep. David Laroche (D) Woonsockett and Rep. James Davey (R) Cranston are both retiring from the General Assembly this year. Jim Taricani had them on NBC 10's News Conference (with Bill Rappleye) this past Sunday to talk about how things really operated in the Legislature. Let's just say that things work just how you'd expect. If you don't want to read the following rough transcription, here's what I took away from the discussion:

1) What we thought we knew, we now know for sure: all the power is on the "3rd floor" of the State House where the leadership resides. That's not really anything new, but the degree to which the power is centralized in our legislative body--which is supposed to operate on a more dispersed power model--is a big problem.
2) The fact that Laroche is retiring as both a firefighter and a State Rep. and moving to Florida!!! "Thanks for all the tax dollars toward my pension and benefits folks...I'm going to Disney World!" That's just great...

{What follows is a mixture of a paraphrasing summary with a few direct quotes sprinkled in.}

Davey said he was leaving for personal reasons and would be moving to North Carolina for cost (taxes) reasons. Laroche is a retired firefighter who has bought a home in Florida, which he indicated would be his primary residence. {Yes, soak in the irony of that...MAC}

Then they got into how things work up there:

Davey - Gave example of how submitted a bill that would have required that all collective bargaining agreements for every town be made available on line. The committee chairs thought it was a good idea, but “the third floor” (the leadership) didn’t and no action was taken.

Laroche - Committee hearings are a farce. What really happens is that what the leadership considers important is what gets passed. What people are really doing when they testify before a committee is educating the committee, who are also private citizens and don’t have an expertise in every subject.

Davey - It’s true in a number of cases, but we did adjust a number of bills based on testimony. But the big, important ones don’t get a vote and there is no accountability. In NH or Maine, every bill gets a vote, most (90%) of ours are tabled for further consideration. In Maine, everything reaches the floor and if you want to hold it for further study, that gets voted on, too.

Taricani noted that John Celona had pled guilty to basically selling his office and then asked: How much does this go on at the State House?

Laroche — Maybe on the 3rd floor, but they didn’t call me. We vote on what the chair says we’re voting on and that comes from the Speaker.

Taricani - “And you have no idea where that influence comes from?”

Laroche - “Nope, not at all.”

Davey - “I have absolutely no evidence of any of that in the House. And I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but…my concern more is with the system and with making just a couple of simple changes in the system the Legislative branch could become much more open and accountable. For example, under the separation of powers legislation, we’ve been passing these [executive] boards… have to submit financial reports at the end of the year. The net result is that the people of Rhode Island are going to know more about the Mosquito Abatement Board and the Scenic Roadways Commission than they will the Legislature.”

According to Davey, this is the bottom line: They should report their expenditures and change the committee process so that every bill gets a vote on the merits. Davey sat on the Judiciary Committee, a busy committee, all year and he didn’t get one bill out of committee while one guy showed up two days all year, just to vote. Their ought to be minimum attendance requirements and there ought to be votes on bill.

Taricani - But isn’t the reason they won’t do that [make changes] is because it’s about power?

Laroche - But they already have the power because they stack all the committees so that all of the Speaker’s supporters outnumber everyone else.

Davey - It’s only accountability. If we could make them take a position on tings via an on-the-record vote, it would make a difference.

Taricani - Regarding pensions-why is it that public employees insist on co-pays while every “working stiff” makes them?

Laroche - They received their benefits along the way by bargaining in good faith and did that in lieu of receiving a pay raise.

Taricani - You guys received a pay raise every year!

Laroche - Nope, you're wrong. We’ve worked without a raise before...

Taricani - And many in the private sector have worked for years without a raise and still make a co-pay. Don’t you understand how the public looks at that and says what is it with these guys. Don’t the unions get that?

Laroche - I’m sure they do, but when we go to the bargaining table and get…should we give it away?

Taricani - But times change...

Laroche - Exactly, and I’m sure some Fire Depts are sharing.

Taricani - But not Woonsockett, why are you any different. Believe me, I have a lot of respect for police/fire, you put your life on the line every day, but why, in this context of pensions and benefits, should you have anymore than any other working stiff.

Laroche - I’m not saying we are, we signed a 3 year deal with the mayor…

Davey - There is a trend to paying co-pays, but my concern is that they’re minimal. In Cranston, Teachers went from 0 to5% but negotiated a pay raise that ended up giving them more money in their paycheck..

Taricani - But…in all these contracts, who signs the contract? It’s the very person that’s usually complaining they don’t have a co-pay, the politicians. You can’t just blame the unions.

Davey - No you can’t

Taricani - If you’re an executive, you try to get the best compensation package you can…

Davey - What we need to do, and I had a bill on that too--77% of Cranston’s budget is not subject to the budget process and is covered by collective bargaining (teachers, police, fire)—the bill would require any Collective Bargaining agreement have a fiscal impact statement and a 10 day notice. I will say that under Mayor Laffey we have 10-15-20% copays under this sort of process.

Davey- (In response to question from Rappleye) I have to give speaker credit for changing voting procedure—though only after a lot of public pressure—but now you actually have to be there to vote! The other thing is that now we make legislative grants public. [Legislative grants are basically patronage plums].

Rappeley - They’re moving in the right direction

Davey - There are signs that its worthwhile continuing the difficult schedule.

Rappeley - Why did you want to become rep….is it to serve their own private interests?

Davey - Never was a politician, attended a few city council meetings and saw how the public’s pockets were being picked. And I also ran into the RI attitude that you have to accept it, it’s RI. SO I figured if I ran and beat Montenaro, people would see that an unconnected person could win. Step up to the plate.

Rappeley - Are there bad guys up there?

Neither Laroche nor Davey go so far as to say that anyone up there was using their office for overt personal perks and privilege.

{Note: Made some minor edits in the intro on 7/25/2006. MAC }

Conservatives Invade Rhode Island for the Weekend

This past weekend, over one hundred members of Republican Assemblies from around the nation gathered at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick for the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) Northeast Conservative Conference and National Board of Directors Meeting. The hosting organization was the Rhode Island Republican Assembly.

Here’s a general description of the event and of the Republican Assemblies – both locally and nationally -- from Raymond McKay, President of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly…

The event this weekend was to promote the Conservative movement in the northeast and also to promote the Rhode Island Republican Assembly here in Rhode Island.

The long term goals are to grow the Assembly and to help the GOP become more true to itself and to its roots and to the Ronald Reagan Republicans that made the party great in the eighties. We’ve lost sight of our core principles and the party can’t challenge Democrats if it isn’t true to its own core principles, because if everyone is seeing the same message, and the only difference is that candidates are wearing different suits, then why should the general public care?

In addition to conducting their organizational business, the Republican Assemblies presented a series of speakers and discussions…

• As mentioned in the previous post, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma gave the luncheon keynote where he discussed stem cells, the War on Terror, healthcare, and the philosophy of governance in general.
• Attorney Rebecca O’Dell Townsend delivered the opening keynote, a discussion of how the modern concentration of power in the judiciary is both ahistorical and undermines the protections provided by the separation of powers. Ms. Townsend presented some fascinating examples, like how the contemporary practice of using foreign law in judicial decision making is expressly cited as evidence of tyranny in the Declaration of Independence…

  [The King] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

• NFRA President Richard Engle spent some time discussing faith as a legitimate and integral part of politics.
• NFRA Executive Vice-President Rod Martin gave a stirring speech about why conservatives shouldn't abandon President Bush or the Republican party in the 2006 mid-term elections. In a nutshell, Mr. Martin’s message was a) liberals never stop fighting to expand the power of government, so conservatives can’t afford to take any election cycle off and b) the most important organ of government has become the Supreme Court, so it is important to work towards keeping the President and Senate and Republican hands. Mr. Martin also discussed how President Bush is conservative in some areas where he rarely gets credit, like pursuing missile defense and vigorously defending the idea that the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership.
• Suzette Kelo told the story of the seizure of her home and how it led to the Supreme Court ruling that the government has the right to seize property for economic development.
• Phil Kiver, author of a book titled 182 Days in Iraq, discussed his experiences as a military journalist in Iraq, including some firsthand evidence of weapons of mass destruction he observed.
• A number of breakout-lecture sessions were held, dedicated to subjects like an analysis of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, illegal immigration reform, eminent domain reform, the benefits of the flat-tax, creating a culture of life, and strategies for conservative activism.
• Several regional candidates made their pitches -- Greg Parke running for Senate in Vermont, Mark Shepard running Congress in Vermont, Ken Chase running for Senate in Massachusetts, Rick Barton and Chuck Morse (no relation) running for Congress in Massachusetts. Oh, and some guy named Steve Laffey talked about for running for Senate in Rhode Island.
• Other local candidates who made speaking appearances were Jon Scott and Ed Leather, Reginald Centracchio and Kerry King, Sue Stenhouse, Dave Talan, Scott Avedisian, and Alan Fung
• Jim Haldeman described how he felt compelled during his service in Iraq to step outside the safety of the American compound at Fallujah (in violation of a general order) and offer his personal condolences to an Iraqi General who had witnessed the death of a friend after a tragic misunderstanding, and how the ripples of basic, human acts like that, even in the worst of circumstances, do as much to build peaceful and prosperous societies as does anything else.

At the end of the conference, I asked NFRA President Richard Engle about the challenge of getting people to base their political participation around an idea group like a Republican Assembly rather than an economic group like a labor union or an ethnic identity group, or other types of interest groups with narrower and more short-term focuses…

The best answer that I’ve heard to that is from our District of Columbia Republican Assembly President Grover Norquist. Grover describes our coalition as the leave-us-alone coalition. There are a group of entities out there who are trying “get from”. What the conservative coalition is and what the Republican Assembly is is the leave-us-alone coalition. Leave our families alone, the traditional family is fine. Leave our money alone, I can spend it better than the government can.

Government is here for a certain set of very specific and limited purposes. Protect my life, protect my liberty, protect my property. And protect everybody else’s life, liberty and property. When government is not doing that, then it is acting tyrannical, according to our Declaration of Independence. Government can do those three things. It’s not government’s place to do anything else beyond that, even good things. Not every good thing should be done by government.

That resonates. Just like it resonated with the colonists when they signed off on that Declaration of Independence, it resonates now.

Over the course of the week, I’ll post some more material from the conference, including some more discussion of issues by Senator Coburn and the story of Kelo v. New London, as told by Suzette Kelo.

Left/Right Consensus on Education Reform Emerging?

What do George Soros' and John Podesta's Center for American Progress, New York Gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, former Clinton Administration member Joel Klein, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Enterprise Institute all have in common? They all think that Teachers' Unions are a major impediment to school reform. Morton Kondracke explains:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a project along with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the liberal Center for American Progress and the moderate America's Promise that will start by publishing report cards on each state's progress on school reform. Following up its campaign against trial lawyers, the chamber is likely to target teachers unions that resist reform. The presence in the chamber coalition of the liberal CAP, headed by former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta, could clear the way for other Democrats to challenge the unions.

At the same time, Podesta's CAP is urging correction of fiscal inequities between school systems to accompany higher national standards, which chamber officials say they would consider supporting as part of overall reform.

Separately, the conservative Thomas Fordham Institute has assembled all-star, cross-ideological backing for "weighted school funding," whereby federal, state and local school money would follow children into the classroom and be allocated more on the basis of socioeconomic need.

Besides the chamber and Fordham initiatives, I ran into compelling anecdotal evidence last week in Aspen, Colo., that American elites are fed up with the dismal status quo in education.

A star figure at the second annual Aspen Institute Ideas Festival -- attended by several hundred, mainly liberal intellectual and financial glitterati -- was Joel Klein, the former Clinton aide who is now chancellor of New York City public schools...Klein made a riveting case that teachers-union contracts are the main obstacle to improving urban education.

"The contract protects the interests of adults at the expense of kids," he told a rapt audience, describing how it bars pay differentials based on student performance and service in difficult schools; makes it impossible for principals to fire underperforming teachers; and allows teachers to choose their own professional development tracks, regardless of supply-and-demand needs, such as those for more math and science teachers...

"We're going to look at those people who are impediments to the system," Donohue told me in an interview. "And it's not just the teachers. It's the school boards who hire superintendents but don't give them authority, put the money into bureaucracy instead of the classroom and don't have high standards."

At the same time, he said, "teachers unions in many communities have made it very difficult to change the school structure, the school curriculum, school hours, school management, the pay system. What we need here is a collaborative effort. We need the school boards and teachers unions to support strong superintendents and strong principals."

"I want this first to be a friendly effort," he said. "We want to get to the officials of government, the citizens of the state and the parents of the children. And we want them to look at how they are doing in preparing their children for the future. We want to do that in a collaborative, friendly way and recommend things that people can improve without talking about more money, which in some places may be needed. But there is a lot of money around."

The Fordham initiative, headlined by former Republican Education secretaries William Bennett and Rod Paige, plus Democrats Podesta and former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt, calls for a transformation in the way school funding is allocated..."Buildings, programs and staff positions are not funded -- kids are," the Fordham Institute proposed in a report issued last month and signed by more than 70 bipartisan education experts, though no union officials.

The report proposed that funding from all levels "follow every student to whatever public school he or she attends," that the amount "vary according to the students' needs" and that funding "arrive at schools as real dollars that can be spent flexibly, with accountability gauged by results rather than inputs, programs or activities."

Since the 1983 "Nation At Risk" report, endless efforts have been made to improve U.S. education, culminating in bipartisan agreement in 2001 on President Bush's No Child Left Behind plan. But test scores still lag, and one-third of all students (and 60 percent of minorities) fail to graduate from high school.

At Aspen, Wendy Kopp, founder of the nationally celebrated Teach for America volunteer program, said teacher quality and school leadership are far more important than money in determining student success.

Yet it's hard to attract highest-quality students into the teaching profession -- and keep them -- when starting pay is only $47,000 in New York and $27,000 in Cleveland. Clearly, teachers ought to be paid more -- and get fired if they don't perform, just like people in other professions.

via Glenn and Mickey

Senator Tom Coburn Discusses Stem Cells (in Warwick!)

After delivering a luncheon speech this past Saturday at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was asked what he thought about President Bush's veto of the stem-cell bill. Here is Senator Coburn's answer...

Senator Tom Coburn: I've made it my goal to stay more informed on this issue than anybody in Washington. I've read the science. I've read the reports.

There's some things you should know. We've been studying pluripotent embryonic stem cells for 25 years as a nation and throughout the world. Despite this fact, there is not one treatment available today for anybody in the world from embryonic stem cells. You've spent, of your money, over the last five years, over a half-a-billion dollars on human embryonic stem cell research with no results and no accomplishments.

The second point you should know -- and you should tell to anybody who comes up to you and says Republicans and the President don't care about my child -- is that for every disease group listed in the debate, there is already an ongoing study with great results curing those diseases with adult/cord blood stem cells. That includes juvenile diabetes, that includes lupus, that includes Parkinsons, with ongoing human trials with tremendous results.

The final thing you should know is that the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be available to Americans will be with the taking of tremendous drugs to block the rejection from the body. That's part of the debate. The reasons they want hundreds of thousands of embryonic stem cell lines is to try to deal with the rejection issues in what's called the HLA system of antigens.

The wonderful difference with adult stem cells is you take your own stem cells. There's no foreign tissue. There's nothing foreign, so there's no rejection. With every embryonic stem cell program, there will be rejection. Even if you clone yourself, unless you are woman who clones yourself with your own egg, there will be rejection.

We've have a tremendous untruth spread, without the real facts of what's going on being told. There are 72 treatments and they're growing every day and that's before we get to the latest scientific discovery, germ cells, which are pluripotent (they can produce any tissue in the body) but don't have the side-effects of embryonic stem cells. That's just been discovered in the last six to twelve months.

So do we talk about what the truth is or do we talk about what's politically expedient? I had three members in the Senate after the vote come up to me and say you're absolutely right, but I couldn't vote with you because I had so much pressure from the disease groups and I had already committed my vote. Now think about that character trait. I'm not going to do the right thing, because I'm more interested in getting elected in than in doing the right thing. That's the mindset too often we see in Washington.

More information from Senator Coburn about the science and ethics of stem cells is available at the Senator's website.

By the way, for those curious about what Senator Coburn was doing in Warwick, I�ll be explaining that part later today...

Michaud Officially Withdraws

Dennis Michaud, as quoted by Scott Mayerowitz in the Projo...

"I have made a decision not to ask the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s office for a review or recount of the signatures contained in these nomination papers and will thus end my candidacy for governor of Rhode Island,"

According to Michaud's campaign manager, at least 600 signatures were deemed invalid...

Michaud’s campaign manager, Scott MacPherson, said about 1,500 signatures were collected.

While the Secretary of State’s office says 933 signatures were valid, MacPherson said 960 were deemed valid.

At the risk of disturbing what is now a sleeping dog, how exactly does someone collect 600 bad signatures in a governor's race? Could the problem be that he needed signatures from registered Republicans, but submitted bunches of independent signatures?

Anyone know the rules?

UPDATE:

Will, who I believe has some firsthand experience with these things, says you don't have to be a Republican. Any other theories? Or even a fact or two?

"Fair Share" Healthcare Struck Down by the Courts

At the start of this legislative session, Representatives Amy Rice (D-Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport), Arthur Handy (D-Cranston), Raymond Sullivan (D-Coventry/West Greenwich), Joseph Faria (D-Central Falls), and Joseph Almeida (D-Providence) introduced a bill that would have required corporations with 1,000 or more people to either pay a fixed percentage of payroll for their employees health care, or pay into a state health insurance fund. The bill was passed by the Rhode Island House (H6917) but failed to pass the Senate (S2201).

Even had the bill been approved, it probably would have never taken effect. A Federal Court on Wednesday nullified a similar law passed by the Maryland legislature on the grounds that it conflicted with the section of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibiting states from regulating employer-sponsored benefit plans, including health insurance plans, any more stringently than the Federal government does. The decision will probably be appealed, but the courts have been very consistent in interpreting ERISA to mean that states cannot impose health coverage mandates on employers.

These so-called "Fair Share" plans (Maryland's, Rhode Island's, or any other state's versions) weren't good ones. They avoided any introspection about why problems with healthcare delivery have reached crisis proportions; they were typical of the big-government mentality that holds that if we can't be imaginative enough to facilitate something good for citizens, at least we can force everyone into something equally bad.

A better solution for improving healthcare delivery in America is to allow people more healthcare choices by 1) introducing health savings accounts 2) by decoupling health insurance from employment (by allowing individuals the same tax-breaks for buying health insurance that corporations get for offering it AND by eliminating the noxious provision of ERISA that protects insurance companies that provide employer-sponsored insurance from responsibility for the consequences of poor medical decisions they make and 3) by reducing the over-regulation of health insurance so companies can offer a range of coverages and deductibles tailored to meet individual needs.

Meet Ed Leather, Candidate for U.S. Congress, District 1

Ed Leather is running for Congress in the 1st District for the seat currently held by incumbent Patrick Kennedy. Anchor Rising caught up to Mr. Leather at a recent Young Republican meet-the-candidates event, and offered him a chance to introduce himself to our readers in his own words....

Anchor Rising: Why are you running for Congress and what issues are most important to you?
Ed Leather: I am running because our representation in the first district is terrible. That’s the main reason I decided to run. It wasn’t for anything personal. I just want to do a better job than our present Congressman.

One of my greatest concerns is illegal immigration. I am not against immigration. My father was an immigrant; most of our forefathers were immigrants. But as a U.S. diplomat, I have turned down people for immigration that didn’t fulfill our requirements relating to criminal history or health issues. These people can now come right through our borders. They can bring in TB. They can be terrorists.

Illegal immigrants are a drain on our economy. Any true study will show they are more of a drain than a help on our economy, and they hurt our workers because they pull wages down so that our true working poor have a hard time making ends meet.

Being against this is certainly not for the rich, it is for Americans. What illegal immigrants cost in the state of Rhode Island would balance our budget. You can add up the figures and find that out with what they cost in medical care and what they cost in schooling.

This is not to say that illegal immigrants are all bad people, but they have broken our law and in no case should they be rewarded for breaking the law. I am very much against illegal immigration and in favor of enforcing our current laws. It will go a long way towards solving the problem if we just enforce our current laws.

Yesterday, Anchor Rising posted its interview with Jonathan Scott, who is also running for Congress in Rhode Island's first district.

The Republican Gubernatorial Primary is Over

The RI Secretary of State’s website is reporting that Dennis Michaud has fallen 67 signatures short of qualifying for the Republican primary ballot.

Don Roach (who spotted this first) has called the SoS’s office and confirmed that this is a final result, not just a running count. More info is available at Don’s new Converse it! Blog.

Cranston Mayoral Candidate Interview: Allan Fung

Cranston mayoral candidate, City Councilman Allan Fung, answered a few questions regarding the past, present, and future of Cranston:

1. What do you feel is THE major issue facing Cranston, and how do you propose to solve it?

Taxes are the priority issue in Cranston, and my goal is to make the city more affordable. I have a two part plan to achieve that goal. First, we need to get contractual benefits in line with the private sector. As a lawyer working for a Fortune 100 company, I honed my negotiating skills in the halls of corporate America. I will use my legal and business skills to negotiate contacts that are fair and responsible to the taxpayers. For instance, the city cannot afford free healthcare any longer. We need contracts that are not only fair to our hard-working employees but are fair and affordable to the taxpayers, as well. With fairer contracts, this should bring more stability to the budgeting process.

Second, I want to continue to develop Cranston’s economy. Our city has a good mix of professional offices, retail stores, manufacturers, and a vibrant food service industry. I want to continue to expand our business base by attracting more professional jobs to our city. I plan to use my contacts in the financial services industry to attract these jobs to Cranston.

2. Your campaign slogan, Forward with Fung, what exactly does that mean?

I rolled up my sleeves when I first got on the council during the fiscal crisis and we had to make many unpopular decisions to right a ship that was steering into financial bankruptcy. Cranston is back on track and out of junk bond status. But we still have many financial issues to tackle, including a large unfunded pension liability. The city cannot afford to go backwards and put back into place people that helped steer our municipality into disaster. I intend to move it forward and in the right direction toward long term fiscal stability. I plan to continue the same conservative fiscal principles that we have been using these past four years to help right the city.

3. Do you believe that shortfalls will continue for the school budget? If so, why, and what can be done to fix the problem?

The school budget is approximately 55% of the entire city's budget, and it must be closely scrutinized. Every year the budget is increasing, but it is a constant struggle to get adequate funding from the state. Thus, it keeps falling back to the taxpayers. I plan to work with and have an ongoing dialogue with the new school administration and school committee members to monitor the budget on a constant basis. I will also push for timely audits, including performance audits, as it will provide a good picture into our school system, its fiscal health, and its performance. Also, I will push for the repeal of numerous unfunded mandates at the state level.

4. What inspired you to enter politics?

I entered politics because I was angry at the politicians that were in office who caused a financial disaster of enormous proportions in the third largest city in RI. I love Cranston, as it is the home for myself and my family. I wanted to use my legal and business skills to help turn the city around, and I am glad that I had the courage to run, win, and get Cranston back on track.

5. If you are elected, what do you hope will be your lasting impact on Cranston?

I hope to ensure that Cranston is on sound financial footing for not only the short term, but also into the distant future. Elected officials must be cognizant of the long term ramifications of the decisions that they make in the present.

Fung has been campaigning since he announced his candidacy in March. Some say he started too early and had no need because he's already a recognizable figure in Cranston politics. However, I believe it speaks to Fung's passion for politics, which clearly comes across in his responses to questions posed to him.

(Cross posted with Converse It!)

Meet Jon Scott, Candidate For U.S. Congress, District 1

Jon Scott is running for Congress in the 1st District for the seat currently held by incumbent Patrick Kennedy. Mr. Scott is the endorsed candidate of the Republican party. Anchor Rising caught up to Mr. Scott at a recent Young Republican meet-the-candidates event, and offered him a chance to introduce himself to our readers in his own words....

Anchor Rising: Even to the political junkies of Rhode Island, you are something of a blank slate at the moment. What is motivating your run for Congress?
Jon Scott: I am really running for two reasons. One is to get rid of Patrick Kennedy because he needs to go. The second reason is to put a spotlight on the fact we need to shake-up the Democratic power elite. One of the ways to do that is to put the spotlight on Patrick Kennedy, who is part of the biggest power machine in the Democratic party -- not just locally but nationally.

AR: What’s the one issue most important to you?
JS: My number one issue getting representation for the common man, the working man. Patrick Kennedy is a millionaire, but there’s a misperception that it’s the Republican party that’s the party of the country club and the party of the elite. The funny thing is that Patrick Kennedy is all of that but there’s a perception that he's the one fighting for the common man.

I am the common man. He doesn’t fight for me. I’ve done things; I’ve been through some hardship. I’ve worked -- which is not a hardship, but it might be to Patrick Kennedy! I’ve worked for twelve years in the inner city and I've lived paycheck to paycheck. I’ve adopted a son. I’ve been through bankruptcy.

Three dollars for a gallon of gas matters to me. I don’t think it matters to Patrick Kennedy. I want to help get rid of that perception that this party is the party of elite because the reality of it is that the elites in this state are on the other side of the coin.

AR: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve seen reports where you describe yourself as a “progressive” Republican. What does that mean to you?
JS: I’m a Jack Kemp Republican – I know that reference goes back a bit. Jack Kemp is a very progressive guy socially. I understand the fact, having been there, that we need a safety net. People need our help. There are people who need the help of government in order to get by. I don’t think that needs to be an extended period of time for everyone and I don’t think that the business of America should become social services, but I think social services need to exist. I’ve seen our tax dollars spent in a good way on great things and I’ve seen wasteful spending of our tax-dollars. And I think it takes somebody who can relate to understand that there can be a better structure.

A lot of things that the Republican party does I agree with. I am very much a Constitutionalist and a federalist and conservative in an international sense. But the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of social service programs that need to continue and we need to spotlight that. I’m ready to do that and make sure tax dollars that get spent on the good things and not on the things that waste our money.

Tomorrow, Anchor Rising will post its interview with Edmund Leather, who is also running for Congress in Rhode Island's first district.

Senator Chafee's Foreign Policy Ideology

Once again, Senator Chafee has exhibited his prediliction to blame President Bush. (But thanks for the support Mrs. Bush!). I heard this on Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and now the transcript is up. Sen. Chafee was interviewed by NBC's David Gregory about the conflict going on in Lebanon and Israel.

Gregory says, "In effect the United States wants to allow Israel to have more time to complete what they see as a vital operation. Is that how you see it, Senator Chafee? Is that an important way and the right way to proceed?"

CHAFEE: I disagree with the president on the root cause of what's occurring here. I see the root cause of what's occurring in the failure of the road map. And the president talked the last four years about "a viable, contiguous Palestinian state living side by side with Israel," and the road map was supposed to lead in that direction. And so many missed opportunities I see. The summer of 2003 when we had a great opportunity to push the ceasefire that occurred then, in the summer of 2001. Then with the death of Yasser Arafat and the election, overwhelming majority of Palestinians voting for Abu Mazen on a platform of peace. These were opportunities that we didn't take advantage of.

RUSH: And the next question is: "Do you think that the US is wrong at this pointed to allow Israel to steno?"

CHAFEE: I think there should be a ceasefire and I disagree with the administration on that. I think immediate ceasefire and as this spreads, has the danger of going throughout the Muslim world, uh -- and that's from Morocco to Indonesia, having this unrest spread in the Muslim world...

RUSH: Where's this guy been? We need a ceasefire? All this is Bush's fault? He needs to be defeated. It's about time we get rid of these -- whatever you want to characterize Linc Chafee as being -- out of the Senate. This is absurd. It's Bush's fault! Bush missed the opportunities? There needs to be a ceasefire? All a ceasefire is is a period of time for the bad guys to arm up again and come back with even bigger and stronger and more weapons than they were using before the first time. It's like Bolton said: Ceasefire with terrorists? How in the world do you negotiate that? You don't! All the while, by the way, George Bush is helping Linc Chafee in his reelection effort just as he helped Arlen Specter. But Chafee's fallen five points behind in Rhode Island, and feels he has to come out and bite the hand that feeds him in order to boost his poll numbers up. This is not exactly the display of the execution of core principles.

Actually, I'd disagree with Rush on that last bit. This is exactly "the display of the execution of core principles" on the part of Senator Chafee (to be fair, I believe Rush was referring to the national GOP). Senator Chafee apparently believes that terrorist organizations can be counted on to engage in good faith diplomacy and lumps them in with regular nation-states to boot (something that is becoming all too common). One of Senator Chafee's core principles is a belief in the power of the peace process even when it is shown to be worthless thanks to the intransigence of some of its participants (the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah....Syria). To Senator Chafee, such faithlessness on the part of Hamas or Hezbolla is not to be blamed: the real culprit is the foreign policy failure of the Bush Administration. Thus, Senator Chafee's first inclination is to always blame--or doubt (Afghanistan)--American actions. Yes, sometimes he can be convinced to change his mind (like after a trip to Iraq), but he usually ends up reverting to his first inclination.

The dark spectre of Vietnam lays at the heart of Senator Chafee's foreign policy ideology. He has compared Iraq to Vietnam, telling Dan Yorke that we're in "another Vietnam" and that Iraq is a "quagmire." During a budget debate, he stated: "There are a lot of similarities between the Great Society and war in Vietnam, and the tax cuts and war in Iraq....We are doing it all over again."

These are only a couple anecdotal clues, but I think that they indicate that Senator Chafee has not, in fact, gotten over Vietnam. His entire frame of reference for the contemporary intersection of foreign policy and international conflict has been forever shaped by his personal experiences--and the opinions they helped to form--35 years ago during the Vietnam War. He seems unable to come to grips with the fact that not every war is "another Vietnam," nor, for that matter, is every war time administration "just like LBJ's."

Senator Chafee's foreign policy ideology is a combination of a Vietnam-shaped predisposition to blame America first and an internationalist belief in a peace process that boils down to "process for process' sake." The result is that Senator Chafee never seems to blame those who are truly at fault for a breakdown in peace.

Making Shopping Even More Expensive in Rhode Island (?)

Here's the question for consumers: If you were intending to purchase an item of moderately high price — a flat-screen TV, for example — would you buy it in Rhode Island or head to Massachusetts if you could get a $50–100 mail in rebate in the northern state (on top of the lower sales tax, of course)?* I wouldn't state it as a certainty, but I'd say that such an option is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of this legislation:

Under the law, retailers advertising a manufacturer's rebate on any sale item must apply the rebate amount at the time of the sale and complete the rebate redemption process themselves, rather than requiring the consumer to do it.

The law prohibits retailers from advertising a "net," or final, price for an item that includes a payment from a manufacturer -- unless the retailer gives the buyer the amount of the manufacturer's payment at the time of the sale.

"In many cases, [companies] assume consumers are going to forget all about it," allowing the businesses to keep the money, [bill sponsor Rep. Brian P.] Kennedy said. "Offering a deal and then making the consumer jump through hoops to get it is inappropriate and not all that great a deal." ...

Retail-industry research estimates that 40 percent of all rebates are never redeemed, said John Palangio, director of the consumer protection unit for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch. That rate translated into $500 million in unredeemed rebates last year, Palangio said.

Personally, I'd always assumed that one of the reasons companies offered such large rebates through a mail-in process was that they expected not to actually have to pay a significant number of customers, but it never occurred to me that such a game ought to be illegal. If a rebate amount isn't worth the effort to claim, it seems to me, then it wasn't a decisive factor in the purchase. (Curious that protection of citizens with inadequate self-agency doesn't play, among our legislators, when it comes to preventing the bad deal of gambling.) Making the rebate game illegal seems likely to make it go away altogether, particularly considering that manufacturers and retailers already offer on-the-spot discounts and rebates as a separate category.

How deeply does our society have to dig its myopia-permitted hole before we realize that we — particularly a "we" in such a small area as Rhode Island — can't simply insist that people and companies behave as we dictate, in eschewal of their own interests? Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can't help but wonder whether the legislation doesn't have more to do with the following than with consumer protection:

Last year, Rhode Island joined 39 other states in a federal lawsuit against Young America Corp., a Minnesota company that processes rebates for manufacturers and retailers. State treasurers say the company, the nation's largest rebate processor, improperly keeps unredeemed rebates that should be turned over to the states as unclaimed property.

That lawsuit is pending.

When it comes to lawsuits, the states are becoming a frightening maw, indeed — always in search of rebates, no matter the difficulty of the process.

---

* With the possible added burden of having to receive the check via an out-of-state friend.

Chafee and Laffey on Immigration II, Part 3

There are a numbers of issues regarding border security only peripherally discussed in Katherine Gregg’s Chafee v. Laffey immigration article that need to be noted in any truly “comprehensive” discussion of immigration policy.

1. Senator Chafee voted against an amendment to the Senate immigration bill that would have required the Secretary of Homeland security to certify that the border security provisions authorized by the bill were “fully completed and are fully operational” before any guest worker or amnesty program could be implemented. The Senator did vote for a less-specific alternative requiring the President to find that guest worker and amnesty programs “strengthen the national security of the United States” before implementing them.
2. Senator Chafee voted in favor of an amendment authorizing 370 miles of fencing along America’s border with Mexico. (Senator Jack Reed was one of just 16 Senators who voted against the amendment).
3. However, just last week, Senator Chafee voted against appropriating $1,800,000,000 in Homeland Security funding to build the fence. According to the Washington Times, some Senators opposed funding the fencing because they believed this particular amendment cut too deeply into the Homeland Security budget…

   Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who historically has fought to increase border security and enforcement of federal immigration laws, was among those who opposed Mr. Session's amendment….

   Mr. Session's amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill.

   "We've attempted very hard to increase Border Patrol agents in this bill, increase detention beds," he said. "And, yes, we haven't funded the wall specifically as a result of our efforts to do these increases."

   Whatever the reason, at the moment, border fencing has not yet been funded. Senator Chafee also voted against appropriating $86,000,000 “to hire 800 additional full time active duty investigators to investigate immigration laws violations.”
4. Mayor Laffey has expressed a border-security and enforcement-first position on immigration, saying that “he would support a guest-worker program after the country secured its borders and enforced its laws”. Katherine Gregg's Projo article describes the Chafee campaign’s criticism of the Mayor’s position…

   Chafee's own mailer says Laffey's get-tough rhetoric now is at odds with his February 2005 suggestion on talk radio that "we should recruit illegal labor at the border," and his well-publicized April 2005 announcement that Cranston would accept identification cards issued by the embassies of Guatemala and Mexico as legal identification. Chafee called them: "illegal immigration cards."

   In response, the Laffey campaign points out that foreign nationals who legally enter the country under rules governing guest-workers should not be grouped together with illegal immigrants…

   "Nowhere in the article does Mayor Laffey say he supports recruiting illegal immigrants," she said. "Rather, Mayor Laffey said he would support a guest-worker program after the country secured its borders and enforced its laws . . . much like the legal guest-worker programs we have today. "

   Further discussion on the consular ID issue is available here.

A Reason to Shop at Cardi's

From a Jessica Selby article in today’s Kent County Times…

Nick, Ron and Pete Cardi were one among 1,500 company owners across the nation to be nominated for the Secretary of Defense's Freedom Award, the highest award for employer support of the National Guard and Reserve....

"There are 1,500 applicants for this award nation-wide," said Major General Robert T. Bray, the commanding general of the Rhode Island National Guard and the adjutant general of Rhode Island. "It takes six months to process and, in the end, only 15 awards are presented. This is quite an honor for Cardi's - a well deserved honor."

Cardi's Furniture was nominated by Hope resident Sgt. Gerald A. Pincins, of the 119th Military Police Company, Rhode Island National Guard. Pincins works for the Cardi's Furniture warehouse…

During the last eight years, while employed at Cardi's, Pincins has been deployed twice - the first time to the Balkans in 2000 and most recently to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom....

The Cardi brothers, who continued to pay Pincins's health and dental benefits, contributed to his 401K and equalized his pay while he was deployed to what it would have been while he was with the company, modestly said that they thought nothing of what they did.

"He is there putting himself in harm's way protecting our country," Nick Cardi said. "When you think about what they do for us, at Cardi's we think what we do is small."

Coming Soon: First District Congressional Candidates Jonathan Scott and Edmund Leather

At last night’s Young Republican “Meet the Candidates” night, I had the chance to ask Jonathan Scott and Edmund Leather, both running for the first-District Congressional seat held by Patrick Kennedy, an open-ended question about why they are running and the issues most important to them.

To scrupulously avoid any appearance of bias, I’ll let someone else choose whose interview is posted first. If the PawSox score an even number of runs in their regularly scheduled game tonight, I’ll post Mr. Scott’s answer on Thursday morning. If they score an odd number of runs, I’ll post Mr. Leather’s answer on Thursday morning. The second answer will be posted on Friday morning.

In the meantime, you can visit Edmund Leather’s campaign website here, and Jonathan Scott’s campaign website here.

Chafee and Laffey on Immigration II, Part 2

In addition to their differences over the basic principle of offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, Republican Senatorial candidates Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey have differences of opinion regarding specific provisions in the recently passed Senate immigration bill.

1. The Senate bill applies Federal labor rules that apply only to Americans working on Federally-contracted projects to foreign guest workers working on any kind of project. National Review’s Kate O’Beirne (via Mickey Kaus) explains…

The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.

Steve Laffey opposes the Davis-Bacon extension on the grounds that it “would guarantee foreign workers greater salaries than American employees working in the same industry”.

2. The Senate bill allows currently illegal immigrants to receive Social Security credit for work done while illegally in the US. Here are the short versions of the arguments for and against this policy as provided in the Washington Times by Senators John Ensign and John McCain...

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.

"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill....

"We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

"The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our community," he said. "If this amendment were enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families."

Senator Chafee voted against the specific amendment (offered by Senator Ensign) that would have disallowed work done by illegal immigrants from counting towards Social Security benefits. Steve Laffey has criticized the Senator for this vote.

Chafee campaign manager Ian Lang (as quoted in Katherine Gregg's Projo article) explains the Senator's positions on these aspects of immigration policy as follows…

Lang said the expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act "was brought in as a compromise to get the bill through," and Chafee viewed it as "part and parcel" of a bipartisan compromise that would increase fencing along the border, authorize the deployment of the National Guard and provide a pathway to citizenship.

On Social Security benefits, he said, Chafee indeed supports "the principle that people who have worked and paid into the system for years should be able to get the benefits they paid for" after the payment of back taxes and a fine qualifies them for citizenship.

Coming in part 3: The other one-third of the immigration debate…

Chafee and Laffey on Immigration II, Part 1

Katherine Gregg describes about two-thirds of the immigration debate, within the context of the Rhode Island Senate race, in today’s Projo. I say two-thirds because the immigration "issue" actually consists of multiple issues…

• Will America secure its borders and enforce its existing immigration laws?
• Will America modify its existing laws allowing foreign nationals to work legally in the US?
• What should America do about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here?

Ms. Gregg’s article almost exclusively confines itself to the subjects of guest worker and amnesty policies.

Here's the background. On May 25 of this year, the Senate passed its version of immigration reform. The key provision of the Senate bill is the so-called “Martinez-Hagel compromise” that divides illegal immigrants currently within the United States into three groups. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for more than 5 years are immediately eligible to pay for amnesty with back taxes and fines. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for between 2 and 5 years are able to enter the pay-for-amnesty program after returning to a valid point of entry into the US. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for less than 2 years can only stay if they became "guest workers". The defining characteristic of "guest workers" versus other categories of non-citizens legally in America is that "guest workers" are only allowed to stay in the US for as long as they are employed.

Senator Lincoln Chafee voted in favor of the Senate bill. Steve Laffey, his challenger in the Republican primary, would have voted against...

A spokeswoman for Laffey said he would not have voted -- as Chafee did -- for the compromise bill creating a path to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million people living in the United States illegally that cleared the Senate in May with support from the likes of Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Mayor Laffey opposes the amnesty provisions of the Martinez-Hagel compromise. Under the right circumstances, he would support the creation of a guest worker program. Senator Chafee, on the other hand, voted in favor of an amendment that would have replaced the 3-tiered system with an even looser system -- amnesty for illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States as of January 1, 2006. The amendment failed by a vote of 37-61.

Coming in part 2: Bringing home the Davis-Bacon...

Re: MBTA comes to Warwick

I don't think you're off base, Don. I do think, however, there's a whiff of Rhode Islandism in your thinking.

Rather than shrinking from the seepage of resources that increasing the freedom (of movement, in this case) of our citizens might entail, we ought to ponder why they're inclined to seep in the first place. It may prove that increasing the opportunities for Rhode Islanders to snub the state for anything other than living in will increase the incentive for some internal reflection.

(In know, I know... naive. But I seem to recall a thing called hope that I brought with me from elsewhere.)

MBTA comes to Warwick

From the Projo Blog:

State, local and federal officials are scheduled to break ground at 1 p.m. today on a new intermodal train station next to T.F. Green Airport. The $222.5-million facility, including a parking garage and car rental businesses, will take up 1.5 million square feet and rise six stories. It will connect travelers to the airport through a 1,250-foot elevated skywalk over Post Road. The station will extend Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter service with its scheduled opening in 2009, but Amtrak trains providing service to the Northeast corridor will bypass the station because the state cannot afford to provide the additional tracks Amtrak requires.

Anyone else hear the suck action coming from Rhode Island and going into Massachusetts? As a Rhode Islander who found better opportunities in Mass than in RI, I'm not sure how much I like this move. Am I way off base?

More on Bureaucratic Failure & Iraq

Two more voices have added themselves to the rising chorus saying that America’s government bureaucracies responsible for engaging the outside world are failing in their basic mission to protect the nation.

One of the voices is that of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On this Sunday’s Meet the Press, Gingrich twice made the point that America’s civilian bureaucracies are not effectively supporting the War on Terror…

I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this…

…and…

We need to fundamentally reorganize our nonmilitary bureaucracies to be effective. I mean, part of the reason you don’t have an effective Iraqi bureaucracy is the American inability at the State Department, the Agency for International Development, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department to provide any level of systematic competence is, is almost zero.

Interestingly, neither time that Mr. Gingrich made this point did Meet the Press host Tim Russert follow-up on it. Perhaps bureaucratic reform is too unsexy a topic for top-of-the-pinnacle MSM journalists.

Or perhaps a more subtle bias is at work. “Objective” news reporters have been known to express some very strange ideas about the role of bureaucracies in a democratic government. Here, for instance, is of the New York Times national-security reporter James Risen (quoted via a column by Michael Barone) describing how he believes that elected and cabinet-level government officials should not discuss policies, even amongst themselves, lying outside of parameters determined by career bureaucrats...

Well, I–I think that during a period from about 2000–from 9/11 through the beginning of the gulf–the war in Iraq, I think what happened was you–we–the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down. And you had more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the–the–the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. And so you had the–the–the principles–Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet and Rice and many others–who were meeting constantly, setting policy and really never allowed the people who understand–the experts who understand the region to have much of a say.

Can a reporter with Mr. Risen's odd theory of democratic governance be trusted to be “curious” (to use the favorite word of reporter-journalists) about the failures -- described by multiple sources -- of American’s civilian bureaucracies? Or is a reporter who believes that the government that governs best is a government composed of bureaucrats operating without interference from those pesky elected officials ideologically predisposed not to pursue stories on bureaucratic shortcomings?

The second criticism of bureaucratic effort in the War on Terror comes from Andrew F. Krepinevich (bio) who suggested in Friday’s New York Times that America’s military bureaucracy also bears some culpability for the sluggish American response to the enemy we are fighting. According to Mr. Krepinevich, some of America’s most effective military units are the units closest to their Iraqi counterparts…

Advisers coach their Iraqi counterparts on how to plan, conduct and sustain counterinsurgency operations involving dozens and eventually hundreds of soldiers. They also work to identify and report the corruption in the Iraqi government that can make it difficult to get adequate supplies to Iraqi troops. Unlike the soldiers in American units, who retreat to fortified bases with air-conditioned barracks and other amenities, the advisers live, train, eat and fight with their Iraqi counterparts.

It is not surprising that many Iraqi officers come to treat their American advisers as “brothers,” whereas they view United States units with skepticism. Revealingly, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is in charge of training and equipping the Iraqi forces, reports that Iraqi troops have never betrayed their United States advisory teams to the insurgents.

One problem faced by the adviser corps, however, is that our military bureaucracy does not reward them in proportion to the additional risks they take and the additional hardships they endure…

Sadly, the Army’s best officers avoid serving as advisers if at all possible. The reason is simple: the Army is far more likely to promote officers who have served with American units than those who are familiar with a foreign military.

Because of the resulting shortfall, some Army units have been given the task of augmenting the advisory teams. Yet often these units simply send their “problem children” — their most marginal officers and sergeants — to support the advisers. This places an additional burden on the advisers, who must not only coach the Iraqis but also deal with their less-than-capable American colleagues.

America clearly has soldiers in the field who know what needs to be done and how best to do it. What we may be missing is an upper echelon of officers who place top priority on advancing the current mission rather than advancing within an outdated promotions policy.

Poll Fodder for the Weekend

Taken from the ProJo's 7to7 blog:

A new poll by the independent pollster Rasmussen Reports finds Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, edging ahead of incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, 46 percentage points to 41.

The margin of error in the poll of 500 likely voters was 4.5 percent, according to Rasmussen Reports.

If Republicans nominate Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, Whitehouse would have a larger lead: 57 percent to 29 percent, according to Rasmussen.

The independent pollster has run surveys in Rhode Island for several months. The polls show a positive trend for Whitehouse.

In early June, Rasmussen reported that Whitehouse trailed Chafee by two points. An earlier poll in April showed Whitehouse trailing Chafee by three points.

None of the Rasmussen polls have tested Chafee against Laffey.

The governor's race remains neck-and-neck, with Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, a Democrat, one point ahead of incumbent Republican Governor Carcieri, 43 percent to 42 percent. The two have been within a point of each other in the last three Rasmussen polls.

Supreme Court Won't Review Casino Amendment

The Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to review the proposed Casino Amendment as requested by Governor Carcieri and AG Lynch. Carcieri and Lynch were obviously disappointed:

Governor Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick Lynch released a joint statement this afternoon, saying they were disappointed that the court had declined to offer an opinion...

The court's decision leaves "a constitutional cloud over the casino referendum."

"An advisory opinion from the Supreme Court would have conclusively laid to rest any question about the constitutionality of the casino proposal," they said in the joint statement. "It would have provided the clarity necessary for the voters to make a fully informed decision. And it would have prevented the chaos that the Supreme Court had earlier predicted would ensue if Rhode Islanders were asked to vote on an unconstitutional casino proposal."

Carcieri...told reporters it "doesn't change the basics, that this is just, as far as I'm concerned, and I think a lot of people out there agree with me, a terrible way to put a casino in place in our state. To put in our constitution a no-bid deal for one operator, for Harrah's -- by the way, this is not the Narragansetts, this is Harrah's -- is just terrible. I can't think of anything more outrageous."

Meanwhile, Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas wasn't content to be just content. Obviously emboldened by the decision, he decided to throw down the gauntlet against casino opponents.

Thomas said the casino deal will bring the tribe “benefits and opportunities we have only dreamed of,” millions of dollars that will help the Narragansetts relieve poverty and improve healthcare.

Thomas also said he would not allow casino detractors to attack the credibility or integrity of the tribe.

“I want to put our opponents on notice,” he said. “Attacks on this project, attacks on our effort to establish a tribal casino, attacks on our supporters or our partner will be considered a direct attack on the Narragansett Indian tribe.”

To my knowledge, most opponents of either a Casino in general or this particular Amendment don't wish any ill will toward the tribe. By directly associating the "project" the "tribal casino" the "supporters" and the tribe's "partner" so closely with the Narragansett Indian tribe, Chief Thomas is deliberately trying to stack the debate such that he can portray all casino opponents as "really" being anti-Native American racists.

I don't think people like to be told that because they disagree with the Narragansett's over a casino that they are closet racists and deserve to be attacked. In fact, I'd say most people think that the State should do more to help the Narragansett's, but they just don't think that a Casino is the best way to go about it. Unfortunately for the Narragansett Tribe, the Chief's beligerence probably undermined some of that goodwill. Thus, flush with this procedural victory, Chief Thomas' hubristic declaration may end up being the tactical error that will eventually lose him his Casino war.

Examining the Casino Promises II

Katherine Gregg of the Projo and Ryan Gainor of the Kent County Times reported yesterday on the details that have been released about the deal between Harrah’s and the Narragansett Indian Tribe. According to the summary released to the public, the Narragansetts get 5% of the casino revenue that’s left after the state takes its share. Based on the optimistic revenue estimates released earlier this year, that translates to about $21,000,000 per-annum for the tribe by the 3rd year of casino operation.

According to Narragansett Indian Tribe attorney Jack Killoy (as quoted in the KCT) the 5% that the tribe will receive is not much less than the profit Harrah’s will clear in operating the casino…

[Killoy] emphasized that because the tribe is getting 5 percent of revenue after taxes, it does not mean 95 percent of that money will be making its way to the Las Vegas desert.

"Our opponents are not accounting for the maintenance or operating costs," he said.

Killoy said after those costs Harrah's would make only slightly more than the tribe in profit.

The Projo article mentions a $45,000,000 owners share, which means Mr. Killoy's "slightly more" probably refers to Harrah’s making about $24,000,000 per year in profits, after operating costs are subtracted.

Now, the most conservative figure I’ve seen for the cost of building a West Warwick casino is $650,000,000 (and that figure is several years old). This means, if we take Mr. Killoy at his word, Harrah’s is looking at at least 27 years (650M divided by 24M) to recoup its initial investment.

It is difficult to believe that it takes a casino developer 27 years to break even -- that it is an industry standard for casinos built in 1980 to just start breaking even today. (Would any business owners reading this like to comment on what reaction they think they would get if they presented a business plan to investors that said “under optimistic estimates, we expect to recoup our initial investment 27 years from now”?) Call me cynical, but it seems more likely that the summary that has been presented doesn’t include all of the revenue streams that Harrah’s intends to draw out of Rhode Island.

Constitutional Ideals Undergird Opposition to Casino Amendment

Many are making primarily economic arguments against the Casino Amendment, claiming that the state could get a better deal with competitive bidding. While I recognize the utility and pragmatism of such a tactic, I think the case for opposing a Casino Amendment offered by Brian Casey, owner of the Oak Hill Tavern in North Kingstown, is more important.

Our state constitution, adopted in 1842, contains the words of our most cherished and fundamental rights: freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of assembly, and the rights of the accused. As we go about our daily business, we don't stop to reflect upon what living in a free society truly means.

Stop for a moment and consider the sacrifice and bravery of [Nathanael] Greene, [Thomas William] Dorr and thousands upon thousands of other Rhode Islanders who have, over the course of our history, answered the call of duty -- many to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Now think of today, as we bear witness to such tawdry treatment of our state constitution. Our history and our heroes are dishonored by frivolously amending our constitution by cramming it with language providing for a no-bid casino deal for Harrah's gambling company.

Do we wish to honor our state constitution, our freedoms and our heroes by stuffing this precious and most sacred document with a no-bid casino deal? Are we to ask future generations to defend our freedoms of speech, religion, press and a Harrah's casino?

. . . This document, our constitution, is the repository of the common good, not the cesspool of special interests. Honor our constitution, honor our heroes, honor liberty and freedom. Do not defile our sacred document. Let us respect our state and ourselves. {Emphasis mine}.

Casey is the owner of a business that could be negatively affected by the competition of a large casino, so there can be little doubt that he is at least partially motivated by his own economic self-interest. Nonetheless, his idealistic and proper notion of what our State Constitution should and shouldn't be is the most important argument to be made in this debate.

The Important Stuff Beneath the "Civil War" Headline

The Projo headline over today's John E. Mulligan story describing Senator Jack Reed’s assessment of Iraq blares “civil war”…

Reed describes 'civil war' in Iraq…A "low-grade civil war" is under way in Iraq that could erupt into full-scale war among the nation's rival ethnic and religious groups, Sen. Jack Reed said yesterday.

After Senator Reed’s press conference, at a lecture given at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, was asked specifically to respond to the "civil war" assessment …

Q: Maya Beydoun from Al Jazeera…Senators Biden and Reed today have described what's going in Iraq as a civil war, whereas you are downplaying it now. So, I mean, for the American administration, when will -- how do you define civil war?

A: I believe that this is a matter of definition, of course. And there is a sectarian conflict focused particularly in Baghdad right now. But the state institutions are holding.

The leaders of the different communities are in the government. They say they want to stay in the government. And therefore because of that, because of the desire of the leaders to work together, and they are, and the state institutions to hold together, I do not believe that what's happening could be described in terms of just what I described as a civil war. But there is significant sectarian violence, there's no question about that.

Though they may not agree on what to call it, the Senators and the Ambassador do agree on how the essential nature of the war in Iraq has evolved; sectarian conflict has replaced an insurgency as the key driver of violence. The war in Iraq is no longer a concerted effort to drive the U.S. out, but a fight for control of Iraqi governance. Here are Senators Reed and Biden again…

Over the past weekend, apparently in reprisal for Sunni attacks of Shiite mosques, the militia staged a broad-daylight reprisal that, according to Reed's theory, was partially intended as a show of force for the benefit of al-Maliki and the government....

"If you don't call that a nascent civil war, I don't know what it is," Biden added. "I think it exceeds the danger of the insurgency."

Ambassador Khalilzad sees the same relative danger, with sectarianism eclipsing the insurgency…

A year ago, terrorism and the insurgency against the coalition and the Iraqi security forces were the principal source of instability. Particularly since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February, violent sectarianism is now the main challenge. This sectarianism is the source of frequent tragedies on the streets of Baghdad. It's imperative for the new Iraqi government to make major progress in dealing with this challenge in the next six months….

So if we can agree on what the conflict is (save for whether sectarian violence automatically constitutes a civil war or not), can we also agree on a best course of action?

In broad brush strokes, yes. Senators Reed and Biden and Ambassador Khalilzad agree that Iraq's sectarian militias are not beyond redemption and that many can convinced to pursue their interests peacefully rather than through arms. Senator Biden singles out the importance of reaching out to Sunni sects…

"In the absence of a political solution, the Sunni insurgents are not going to stand down and the [Shiite] militia violence won't stop," Biden said. "We have to cut this Gordian knot. The [Shiite]-led government has to take significant steps to bring the Sunnis in, and they have to move against the [Shiite] militia and guarantee the Sunnis a share of the oil revenues."

Ambassador Khalilzad discusses the government's outreach to Iraq's sects without singling out Sunnis as the most intransigent…

The new government's effort to enhance the unity of the Iraqi people will be channeled through Prime Minister Maliki's National Reconciliation and Dialogue Project. This is a bold initiative which puts all of the toughest issues on the table for resolution.

The central goal of the National Reconciliation Project is to bring insurgent elements who are currently in the armed opposition into the political process. Many insurgents have fought the coalition and the Iraqi government as a result of misplaced fears that the United States was seeking to occupy Iraq indefinitely or was motivated by a sectarian agenda. Now many are considering the pursuit of their goals by means other than violence….

Biden’s remarks, however, tilt uncomfortably towards appeasement – he inexplicably mentions moving against Shiite militias, but not Sunni ones -- while Ambassador Khalilzad is explicit that sectarian groups must renounce violence before entering the governing process...

Prime Minister Maliki understands the importance of reaching out to the maximum extent to groups who are willing to lay down their arms, provided they accept the new Iraqi order and fully cooperate in helping target those who persist in engaging in terrorism. We support this view because it will help to reduce the violence in Iraq and support other measures to defeat the terrorists.

A chasm has been developing between al Qaeda and those Sunni Arabs in Iraq who have been part of the armed opposition. Previously, many Sunni Arab insurgents saw al Qaeda operations as beneficial for their own cause. Now, the Sunni Arabs increasingly understand that the terrorists are not interested in the future of Iraq, and that al Qaeda's leaders see Iraqis as cannon fodder in an effort to instigate a war of civilizations.

Finally, there is one area where Senators Biden and Reed seem to be ahead of the official administration position. Senator Reed reiterates a point he made earlier this week; more non-military resources are needed in Iraq to speed reconstruction and make it obvious that it is our side that is helping to build a better future for the average Iraqi…

Both men stressed that they think there have been significant military and political gains in Iraq -- particularly in the training and equipping of Iraqi forces. They said there remains a pathway to a stable, democratic Iraq -- but one full of pitfalls and requiring a greater U.S. commitment to costly economic rebuilding work….

[Senator Reed] said American military leaders have told him repeatedly that "the single most decisive and effective thing we can do to move toward the most favorable outcome" is to step up the pace of civilian reconstruction assistance to Iraq.

Ambassador Khalilzad also talks about more resources for economic and infrastructure development, but in a not very comforting way. The Ambassador focuses achieving development through old-style international bureaucracies…

In addition, a number of countries and firms, including major energy companies, have approached the Iraqi government proposing to increase their involvement in Iraq, to make investment in important Iraqi economic sectors and to commit to binding contracts. These developments represent a shift reflecting our calculation that the new Iraq is increasingly likely to succeed.

The Iraqi government has secured an agreement with the United Nations to co-chair a process to develop a compact between Iraq and the international community. Under this compact, Iraq will commit to specific goals and timelines for economic and other reforms, in exchange for commitments for assistance from coalition allies, the IMF, the World Bank, and other nations, including those who may have opposed Iraq's liberation but who now have a stake in seeing a prosperous Iraq.

The programs discussed by the Ambassador have histories of being too top-heavy and too hyper-bureaucratic to quickly and effectively get aid to people on the street. Similar programs have failed to produce results in much more tranquil circumstances. A more direct American plan for increasing the flow of non-military aid to Iraq needs serious attention and discussion in this country.

"Money, Money, Money"

Money makes the political world go 'round and according to the latest numbers, the leaders in RI's "Hot" political contests are Governor Carcieri in the Governor's race and Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate race.

In the Governor's race:

The poll numbers may be narrowing, but Republican Governor Carcieri still holds a comfortable fundraising lead over his Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty, according to reports yesterday from both campaigns.

But the Fogarty camp believes it, too, has something to crow about in that the lieutenant governor has now raised enough -- $226,000 during the last quarter -- to qualify for the maximum in public matching funds available to a candidate for governor: $981,000.

"We raised more than we thought we needed," said [Fogarty spokesman Adam] Bozzi of the rules surrounding the campaign subsidy program, which matches smaller contributions at a rate of $2 for every $1 raised and larger contributions dollar-for-dollar up to the fundraising limit. (Participating candidates are also bound by spending limits, which for a gubernatorial candidate this year would be $1.962 million, unless an opponent spends more; then there is some leeway.)

Carcieri campaign manager Kenneth McKay said the first-term governor had "the best-fundraising quarter I think we've ever had," after raising "over $400,000" between April 1 and June 30.

"For the end of the quarter, we will show close to $950,000 cash on hand," he said.

McKay said Carcieri is not seeking matching funds, in part, because "the limits on what you can raise and spend are too tight for us to request it." He said Carcieri had one of his "strongest" fundraising quarters yet because "people are responding to his message and they like what he's been doing."

"The governor has been changing the debate, challenging the system and creating jobs. . . . People are still responding to that," McKay said. "The other side has to rely on taxpayer money to fund the campaign because they don't get the same excitement over the message."

In response, Bozzi cited the 1,570 contributions averaging $140 that, he said, Fogarty raised during the last quarter as evidence "we have plenty of excitement. We are getting a lot of contributions in smaller donations from real Rhode Islanders, regular people who are struggling with rising health-care costs and education costs and who want to see a change."

Republican primary candidate Dennis Michaud did not respond to inquiries made to his campaign press secretary.

In the Senate race:

With receipts of about $1 million during the quarter that ended June 30, Whitehouse has erased the cash advantage of an incumbent who had banked more than $600,000 before anybody else entered the race. Whitehouse reported total cash on hand of about $1.8 million on July 1.

Chafee reported raising about $720,000 -- a personal best for a financial quarter -- with $1.4 million in the bank. He had the help of First Lady Laura Bush, who headlined a late-June fundraiser that netted more than $250,000.

Laffey's campaign said he has between $900,000 and $1 million in the bank, after taking in about $360,000 -- his fourth consecutive quarter in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. So while Whitehouse and Chafee surged, Laffey essentially held steady, suggesting the possibility that he has hit his ceiling as a fundraiser...

Another telling figure for the Republicans is the breakdown of money they have available, under federal election law, to spend in the Sept. 12 primary and in the general election.

Chafee reported that he has $1.1 million for the primary and $300,000 for the general. Laffey reported that he has between $670,000 and $770,000 for the primary and about $230,000 for the general.

The figures raise the prospect that either man, as winner of the GOP primary, would start the general election against Whitehouse -- should he defeat underdog Sheeler -- with a big financial problem.

Robert Novak on Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald

Robert Novak writes:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.

I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

...I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case...

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury...

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source...

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case...

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself...

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

National Recognition for Rhode Island's James Haldeman

The national media has picked up the story of Rhode Island's own James Haldeman, who is running for State Representative in the 35th district (South Kingstown).

Haldeman, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, volunteered for duty in Iraq last year. As a result of his success in building civil-military relationships between Iraqis and Americans, Haldeman is now the only candidate for state legislature in the United States to receive an endorsement from the Mayor of Fallujah, Iraq...

The endorsement from Mayor Dhari Abdul Hadi al-Irssan describes Haldeman, 50, as Fallujah's "favorite USA colonel." Haldeman's translator in Iraq forwarded the endorsement to him by e-mail, said Chuck Newton, spokesman for the Rhode Island GOP.

According to Newton, Al-Irssan said he would support Haldeman for president if he chose to run.

"As flattered as I am, I think that to serve in (House) District 35 will be plenty for me right now," Haldeman said.

To learn more about Jim Haldeman and his reasons for running for office, check out his interview with Anchor Rising and his campaign website.

The Latest Anti-Laffey Tactical Maneuver

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Cranston City Council have made formal objections to a letter from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey that was included in Cranston’s 2007 tax bills. The Cranston City Council has passed a resolution asking the Mayor to reimburse the city for the mailing, while the NRSC objection is in the form of a Federal Election Commission complaint.

The content making this mailing “controversial” (in the minds of some) is a discussion of Cranston's fiscal history and current fiscal situation. Here’s Mark Arsenault in the Projo on what the letter says…

Laffey's letter to Cranston residents promoted his accomplishments in office, and urged residents to watch out for fiscal traps that could affect their tax bills in the future. The letter reads in part: "I am humbled and honored to have served as your Mayor over the past four years. When I signed up for the job, I did so with the sole intent of putting Cranston back on its feet, and I am happy to say that together, we have succeeded beyond our expectations!" The letter also compares the city's fiscal conditions now to four years ago, when Cranston's finances were nearly taken over by the state because of deficits and low bond ratings.

Laffey has sent similar letters to residents in past years, as have previous administrations.

Matt Sanderson of the Cranston Herald goes into a few more specifics…

In the full-page letter from Laffey, who is running for U.S. Senate, he states what he calls his accomplishments in the past four years, such as reducing taxes by 1.5 percent, going from an $11.7 million deficit to a $20 million surplus and going up five notches in bond ratings and being the “fastest turn-around in the nation.” He also praises the 20 percent health care co-pay for city workers, and the new crossing guard program that he says saves the city $500,000 a year.

The letter makes no mention of the U.S Senate campaign.

1. From a self-consistency standpoint, I understand the Cranston City Council’s position. As Democrats, they believe that people should simply pay whatever the government tells them to pay and not expect to receive any information about where the money is going or what the forecast for the future is. Alas, it is all too unsurprising that this has apparently become the national Republican position also.

2. This example shows, despite the claims to the contrary, campaign finance regulation is synonymous with broad speech regulation. The NRSC now wants to use Federal campaign finance laws to prevent local officials from communicating with their constituents on local matters.

3. I have my June 2006 constituent mailing from Senator Chafee’s office. The footer says “Prepared, Published & Mailed At Taxpayer Expense”. The middle section of the mailing says…

I [Senator Lincoln Chafee] have spearheaded a provision which would transfer control of the Fox Point hurricane Barrier to the Army Corps of Engineers, which has the resources and expertise to ensure the barrier is properly maintained. Moreover, I have cosponsored legislation to streamline emergency response communications to ensure that all responders can effectively communicate with other state, local, and federal entities in the event of a catastrophe. I have also cosponsored legislation to allow New England states and Canadian provinces to share resources and personnel in a time of emergency.

And the difference between Senator Chafee touting his Senatorial accomplishments in an official mailing and Mayor Laffey touting his Mayoral accomplishments in an official mailing is?

Note that I am not arguing that the Senator should not be allowed to tout his accomplishments, just that other politicians should have the same rights as Senators. As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out on occasion, our Constitution prohibits the granting of titles of nobility and...

One characteristic of the titled nobility was its immunity from some legal rules laid on the commoners.

4. As techology moves forward, there is a good chance that the the issue of money will become less central to this debate. For example, suppose 30 years from now 90% of people get most of their civic information in an electronic format. Electrons are free. What rationale do you think the NRSC and the Cranston City Council will come up in this scenario for explaining why their elected political opponents shouldn’t be allowed to communicate with their constituents?

Senator Jack Reed on the Situation Iraq…

…or “Reasons to trust your local paper, and not the national coverage”.

The emphasis in the national coverage of Senator Jack Reed’s report following his recent trip to Iraq is very different from the emphasis in the local coverage. The national report (from Reuters) creates the impression that the only issue important to Senator Reed is when the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will begin…

Iraqi leaders and U.S. military commanders there anticipate that American troops could start withdrawing this year, two Democratic U.S. senators who favor such a move said on Saturday after a visit to Iraq.

"The commanders on the ground, and Iraq's political leaders, suggest that it is appropriate to begin a redeployment of American forces as early as some time this year," said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island....

Reed said that among the U.S. military and the leaders of Iraq's government there was a growing recognition that an indefinite stay by U.S. forces would produce as many problems as benefits.

By discussing only a withdrawal timetable and his speculation that U.S. forces "produce as many problems as benefits", Reuters makes Senator Reed sound like an unreconstructed McGovernite who believes the answer to any foreign policy problem is for the United States to walk away.

But contrary to the Reuters report, Senator Reed doesn't believe that the size of the American military presence is the only issue that merits serious discussion with respect to Iraq. According to John E. Mulligan in Sunday's Projo, Senator Reed believes that the major obstacle impeding the reconstruction of Iraq is an inadequate American civilian presence…

Reed and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned that economic and political rebuilding efforts in Iraq still lag dangerously behind the military progress that, in their view, makes significant U.S. troop reductions advisable….

In contrast to the strides taken on the military front, Reed said, "We haven't summoned the resources, will and effort to begin to address the economic problems, the political problems, the social problems" that continue to darken prospects for a stable Iraq.

Senators Reed and Biden are not the first to make this observation. Here are some of the key findings of retired General Barry McCaffrey who made the same essential observation after touring Iraq in April of this year…

The U.S. Inter-Agency Support for our strategy in Iraq is grossly inadequate….The State Department actually cannot direct assignment of their officers to serve in Iraq. State frequently cannot staff essential assignments such as the new [Provincial Reconstruction Teams] which have the potential to produce such huge impact in Iraq. The bottom line is that only the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces are at war. This situation cries out for remedy….

It would be misguided policy to fail to achieve our political objective after a $400 billion war because we refused to sustain the requirement to build a viable economic state. Unemployment is a bigger enemy then the AIF. It is my view that we will fail to achieve our political-military objectives in the coming 24 months if we do not continue economic support on the order of $5-10 billion per year. This is far, far less than the cost of fighting these people.

To make progress in Iraq and to improve the effectiveness of American foreign policy in general, much more than a debate about politically motivated timetables for withdrawing troops, this country needs a debate about why America's civilian government bureaucracies seem unable to effectively support America's foreign-policy interests.

Politicians Among The People

Like many communities, North Kingstown offers a summer series of children's concerts or shows for families to get together and enjoy whilst enjoying a picnic. North Kingstown's are at the Town Beach on Thursday evenings and my family has been going for three years now. It is especially convenient as I work in NK and the proximity to the Town Beach allows some bonus family time for me that would otherwise be spent in my commute back to Warwick.

This past Thursday, the act was the Little Red Wagon troup out of the University of New Hampshire. The five college kids that comprised the troup did a decent job of keeping the younger audience members interested for 45 minutes, despite an inadequate sound system and the periodic rumblings and grumblings of the older audience members. ("We can't hear you!") But the performance itself was secondary to the impression made upon me by a couple random political sightings that evening.

Before the performance, the campaign car (an old, 3-cylinder Suzuki) of Rod Driver greeted those entering the Beach grounds. He was trying to get people to sign a petition so that he could run as an Independent in the 2nd Congressional District against, he presumes, Rep. Jim Langevin (D). However, not content with a passive approach, Mr. Driver also walked through the crowd prior to the show and actively asked for signatures. Always one who believes that someone should be able to run if they want to, I signed. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll support or vote for Rod Driver!

Driver is certainly an interesting character and has run for more offices, more times than I can count. If I recall correctly, he first started out running as a sort of libertarian/moderate a few years ago. In fact, he can probably still claim to be that now, with plans for healthcare, education and campaign finance that would probably appeal to many moderate/mainstream voters. He's also a little quirky in his approach to environmental policy--he touts both his old, 50 MPG car and his solar powered house--but his personal practices lend credence to the policies he preaches.

However, he is most defininely skittering along the fringe when it comes to the Iraq War:

The Iraq War based on lies dominate all issues. The cost in money, lost liberties and especially human suffering is inexcusable. Unless Congress says "no more" and starts impeachment proceedings we can forget the Constitution. [Emphasis mine. Taken from Rod Driver's campaign brochure.]

This stance allows him to tout that "Langevin backs George Bush" based on Langevin's past support for the Iraq War and refusal to vote for a pullout. It's an interesting tactic (I doubt it'll work), but it reveals that Langevin may be more vulnerable from the Left than the Right. In the end, Driver struck me as a nice man, but if he gets it wrong on the big issue, his stances on the little issues don't matter much to me.

That brings me to my second political sighting of the evening. During the performance, and with no fanfare, Governor and Mrs Carcieri quietly skirted the fringe of the audience and made their way to some of their family who were enjoying the show. The Carcieri's seemed to relish the stolen moment with their kin. Eventually, and just as unobtrusively, they left before the show was over. It seemed obvious that they didn't want to distract from the family time of others. In short, they didn't want to make a fuss.

In the abstract, we often let our impressions of politicians be shaped by their ideology or their stance on certain issues. This brief, public glimpse of some private moments shared by the Carcieri family reminded me that politicians are people, too. In particular, it also confirmed to me that the Governor has his priorities straight.

A cynic would say that such a subtle presentation ended up serving the Governor's purpose as proven by the impression it left on someone like me. However, when the Governor's appearance is contrasted with Rod Driver's obvious, if understandable, reason for attending the show, I don't think that politics was Carcieri's motive. The motive was simply family time. In a situation ripe for political exploitation, he made no overt attempt to gladhand and kiss babies. Except, of course, his own grandkids!

So there you have it: two politicians spotted at the same unexpected place within an hour of each other. Both are nice men, regardless of where they stand on the issues. They, like many politicians, are made up of much more than their politics. And aren't we all?

Examining the Casino Promises

In today’s Projo, Katherine Gregg reports on the vague promises being made in support of voting "Yes" in the constitutional referendum that would allow the state to name a private casino operator without a competitive bidding process…

Framed as an open letter to the governor from Gary Loveman, president and CEO of Harrah's Entertainment, and the Narragansetts' Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, the ad states the oft-lamented fact that Rhode Islanders "currently pay among the highest property taxes in the country."

"If voters pass Question 1," the ad says, "they can be confident it will substantially reduce those rates."

But when asked yesterday to be more specific about the kind of "tax relief" a voter could expect, casino-campaign spokesman Jonathan Romano said: "property tax relief."

Asked what specifically that meant, the newly hired Romano said: "What does it mean to you?"

Here’s what it means to me: under best-case assumptions, a 10% cut in property taxes is possible, but using more realistic assumptions, a much smaller cut is likely.

The best-case casino tax revenue figure quoted in this and other reports is $144,000,000 dollars. The most up-to-date data available from the Rhode Island Department of Municipal Affairs website (from 2004) reports that Rhode Island municipalities collect about $1,760,000,000 in local taxes. That figure includes some sources of revenue beyond residential property taxes, like commercial property taxes, inventory taxes, etc. If it is assumed that 80% of the municipal levy comes from residential property taxes, and that the projected $144,000,000 all goes towards replacing residential tax-revenue, a property tax-cut of about 10% is possible.

But $144,000,000 is 1) a best-case scenario 2) that includes the dubious assumption that revenues at Lincoln Park and Newport Grand stay the same as they are now. Because the state gets 60 cents on the dollar from the exisiting facilities, but probably only 25 cents on the dollar from the new casino (under the proposals the legislature favors and will be able to implement with no checks or balances if the constitutional amendment passes), the same amount of people gambling the same amount of money could result in a big loss in revenue for the state.

And as Gary Sasse of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council points out, there is no guarantee that city and town governments will use casino revenues for tax relief rather than increased spending …

"It's hard to see how anybody can guarantee property-tax relief because they don't control municipal spending," Sasse said.

On multiple fronts, casino proponents seem to be promising more than they can deliver.

Ian Donnis Sets Up the Republican Senate Stretch Run

Ian Donnis sets up the stretch run for the Rhode Island Republican Senate primary in this week's Providence Phoenix...

With recent polls showing the two Republicans in a neck-and-neck race, [Steve] Laffey's Senate hopes will live or die on how well he can extend support beyond his conservative base in the state's tiny Republican Party. Most Rhode Island voters are independents and it is they who will likewise decide [Lincoln] Chafee's fate. And with little more than three months until the September 12 primary, the sizzling campaign -- already marked by a steady stream of back-and-forth negative advertising between both camps -- is about to shift into a higher gear.

Despite a few quibbles here and there (for instance, Donnis goes with the "moderate" label for Senator Chafee, when Senator Chafee's record tends to be moderate on tax-and-spend issues, but liberal on almost everything else of importance, averaging out somewhere well to the left of moderate; or maybe Senator Chafee really does seem moderate if you hang out with Phoenix staffers all day long) Donnis' article is an excellent view of what the non-political junkies who make up the bulk of the electorate are/will be seeing as they begin to pay closer attention the Senate race as primary day draws closer. As they say, "read the whole thing".

If readers mention in the comments that they find certain sections especially interesting or important, I'll excerpt them for a more specific discussion.

Bill Harsch on Making Jessica’s Law Work

Governor Donald Carcieri signed Rhode Island's version of Jessica’s law on June 28 of this year…

Certain sex offenders would have to be electronically monitored for life under a law signed by Governor Carcieri today.

"Jessica's Law" applies to child rapists and other sex offenders considered likely to reoffend. It requires state authorities to track them with global positioning software from the time they're released from prison until their death.

Bill Harsch believes that additional changes in the law, as well as heightened public awareness, are necessary to make Jessica’s law effective…

According to the most recent statistics, Rhode Island’s population is approximately 1,076,189 full time residents, with 1,388 registered sex offenders. However, only 42 are listed as Level II and Level III. Contrastingly, Delaware with a population of 843,524 lists 3,067 registered sex offenders, of which 1,864 are listed as convicted Level II and III offenders.

“Either Rhode Island has a rather moral population of sexual predators, or we are not accounting for our total population of Level II and III offenders, Harsch said.” “That is why, today I am also pledging to introduce legislation that will make it harder for convicted sex offenders to escape their state-determined risk assessment. Only once we are able to fully account for our most dangerous sexual predators will legislation like Jessica’s Law be truly effective.”

Mr. Harsch promises to implement the following 4 steps if elected Attorney General…

1. Improve the accessibility of Rhode Island’ Online Sexual Offender Database.
2. Amend the Sexual Offender Notification Guidelines to provide more accurate information regarding the home and employer address of registered offenders.
3. Introduce an online educational initiative to help parents protect their children from online sexual predators.
4. Make it harder for convicted sexual offenders to avoid registration as Level II and Level III offenders.

The loophole referred to in step 4 is particularly troubling. According to Harsch, Level II and III offenders can reduce their status to Level I, simply by entering an appeal process…

Currently, Rhode Island law allows for state-designated Level II and Level III offenders to appeal their appointed classification, at which time they become listed as Level I offenders, and are no longer subject to online identification. Because sex offenders are among the most likely type of offenders to recidivate, it is critical that the state be allowed to make an appropriate determination as to the classification of those offenders, and for notification guidelines be followed until a final appeal regarding a requested change in status is made.

Framing the Education Debate

In case you missed it over the long weekend, Sunday's Projo had a very good column on school choice by Julia Steiny. Read Steiny's column together with the recent Pawtucket Times article by David Casey describing the education reform plan put forth by an alliance of Rhode Island labor groups (the full report is available on the website of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals) and you will have read the two positions that will likely frame the education debate in Rhode Island over the next several years.

The labor groups argue that, from a public policy standpoint, individuals have no meaningful ability to overcome the forces of economic determinism...

If we really want to improve our schools, the first step is to improve the lives of our poorest citizens, and offer their children the chance to have the literacy experiences that middle-class children take for granted....

If the state of Rhode Island really wants to find the will to improve the educational outcomes for poor children in Rhode island, the places to begin are in the places where we can alleviate some of the bad effects of poverty on children.

Ultimately, the position staked out in the labor report is that changes in the way that Rhode Island's public bureaucracies deliver an education are not worth considering, because individuals in any system cannot alter, in a significant way, their educational destiny as determined by their economic status. Therefore, education can only be improved by economically re-engineering society through increases in non-educational social-service spending and a higher minium wage and other such programs.

Julia Steiny argues the opposite -- that education should be the main priority of education reform. Instead of making it government policy to tell students that they are destined to fail, in any system, because of their economic status, Steiny believes in changing the system to give students from lower economic strata the same range of educational options (including the option to escape from a failing school district) usually available only to students from the middle class and above...

The time seems right for Rhode Island to try what's known as cross-district choice. Our school population grew through the late 1990s, but enrollment is now leveling off as the last surge of the baby-boom echo finishes high school. Throughout the state, many elementary and middle schools have excess capacity, which is to say more seats than they currently need. They could volunteer to accept students from their Rhode Island neighbors, creating a wealth of choices parents don't have now.

Steiny uses Boston as an example of a school district that has improved the quality of education it provides by increasing the options available to all parents...

Boston has three different kinds of charter or charter-like schools. The city also has cross-district agreements with several neighboring school systems, allowing city kids to attend suburban schools. And within the district itself, Boston offers a growing menu of viable and ever-improving choices.

Though rife with plenty of remaining challenges, many education-watchers consider Boston to be the best urban school system in the country.

Happy Birthday, America!

In celebration of America's birthday, here are excerpted gems from previous postings about our beloved country - brought together in one posting:

President Calvin Coolidge gave a powerful speech in 1926 on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If you want to rediscover some of the majesty of the principles underlying our Founding, read Coolidge's entire speech. Here are some key excerpts:

There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history...

...Three very definite propositions were set out in [the Declaration's] preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed...

While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination...

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world...

...when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live...

In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignity, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in religious convictions...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish...

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776..that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final...If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people...

In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people...The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guarantees, which even the government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government -- the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction...The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty...

...We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all of our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it...We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed...

This Power Line posting elaborates further on the uniqueness of the American creed:

Knowledge of American history holds the key to much of the current discussion of political issues, such as the ongoing liberal attack on Christian belief and on arguments premised on belief in God...Absent knowledge of American history, one would never know that the United States is founded on the basis of a creed, rather than on tribal or blood lines, in which God plays a prominent part. Absent knowledge of history generally, one would never know that this fact makes America unique.

What is the American creed?...The American creed is expressed with inspired concision in the words of the Declaration of Independence...

But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can be truly deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States."

The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are America's founding laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence...

Professor Jaffa [of the Claremont Institute] teaches us that the Declaration contains four distinct references to God: He is the author of the "laws of...God"; the "Creator" who "endowed" us with our inalienable rights; "the Supreme Judge of the world"; and "Divine Providence." Americans declared their independence, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

The Declaration states the American creed, the creed that recognizes the source (Nature and Nature's God) of our rights.

Anchor Rising's own Mac Owens gave a speech entitled Limited Government to Protect Equal Rights, published on this blog site, which elaborates further on the uniqueness of the American Experiment:

Before the American founding, all regimes were based on the principle of interest - the interest of the stronger. That principle was articulated by the Greek historian Thucydides: "Questions of justice arise only between equals. As for the rest, the strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must."...

The United States was founded on different principles - justice and equality...It took the founding of the United States on the principle of equality to undermine the principle of inequality...Thanks to the Founders, the United States was founded on a principle of justice, not the interest of the stronger. And because of Lincoln's uncompromising commitment to equality as America's "central idea," the Union was not only saved, but saved so "as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of saving..."

"Every nation," said Lincoln, "has a central idea from which all its minor thoughts radiate." For Lincoln, this central idea was the Declaration of Independence and its notion of equality as the basis for republican government - the simple idea that no one has the right by nature to rule over another without the latter's consent...

Indeed, it is the idea of equality in the Declaration, not race and blood, that establishes American nationhood, constituting what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land..."

The United States is a fundamentally decent regime based on the universal principle that all human beings are equal in terms of their natural rights...

...the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government...

Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision...the method by which we justify our political order...liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government...indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish...to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights...provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract...its principles rooted in "right reason"...the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

The powerful words from and about our Founding appeal to timeless moral principles grounded in both our Declaration of Independence and the great moral traditions that preceded our Founding. It is these principles that make America unique and inspire us to be proud, engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

Happy Birthday, America!

Happy Birthday, America!

In celebration of America's birthday, here are excerpted gems from previous postings about our beloved country - brought together in one posting again on this July 4:

Ronald Reagan noted:

The day of our nation's birth in that little hall in Philadelphia, [was] a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words 'treason, the gallows, the headsman's axe,' and the issue remained in doubt. [On that day] 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor...

In recent years, however, I've come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation. It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history. Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government. Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.

President Calvin Coolidge gave a powerful speech in 1926 on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If you want to rediscover some of the majesty of the principles underlying our Founding, read Coolidge's entire speech. Here are some key excerpts:

There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history...

...Three very definite propositions were set out in [the Declaration's] preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed...

While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination...

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world...

...when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live...

In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignity, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in religious convictions...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish...

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776..that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final...If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people...

In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people...The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guarantees, which even the government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government -- the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction...The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty...

...We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all of our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it...We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed...

This Power Line posting elaborates further on the uniqueness of the American creed:

Knowledge of American history holds the key to much of the current discussion of political issues, such as the ongoing liberal attack on Christian belief and on arguments premised on belief in God...Absent knowledge of American history, one would never know that the United States is founded on the basis of a creed, rather than on tribal or blood lines, in which God plays a prominent part. Absent knowledge of history generally, one would never know that this fact makes America unique.

What is the American creed?...The American creed is expressed with inspired concision in the words of the Declaration of Independence...

But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can be truly deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States."

The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are America's founding laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence...

Professor Jaffa [of the Claremont Institute] teaches us that the Declaration contains four distinct references to God: He is the author of the "laws of...God"; the "Creator" who "endowed" us with our inalienable rights; "the Supreme Judge of the world"; and "Divine Providence." Americans declared their independence, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

The Declaration states the American creed, the creed that recognizes the source (Nature and Nature's God) of our rights.

Anchor Rising's own Mac Owens gave a speech entitled Limited Government to Protect Equal Rights, published on this blog site, which elaborates further on the uniqueness of the American Experiment:

Before the American founding, all regimes were based on the principle of interest - the interest of the stronger. That principle was articulated by the Greek historian Thucydides: "Questions of justice arise only between equals. As for the rest, the strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must."...

The United States was founded on different principles - justice and equality...It took the founding of the United States on the principle of equality to undermine the principle of inequality...Thanks to the Founders, the United States was founded on a principle of justice, not the interest of the stronger. And because of Lincoln's uncompromising commitment to equality as America's "central idea," the Union was not only saved, but saved so "as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of saving..."

"Every nation," said Lincoln, "has a central idea from which all its minor thoughts radiate." For Lincoln, this central idea was the Declaration of Independence and its notion of equality as the basis for republican government - the simple idea that no one has the right by nature to rule over another without the latter's consent...

Indeed, it is the idea of equality in the Declaration, not race and blood, that establishes American nationhood, constituting what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land..."

The United States is a fundamentally decent regime based on the universal principle that all human beings are equal in terms of their natural rights...

...the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government...

Roger Pilon wrote the following in a 2002 Cato Institute booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision – the method by which we justify our political order – liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government – indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish – to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights – provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract – its principles rooted in "right reason" – the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Dr. Pilon concluded his essay by writing:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

The powerful words from and about our Founding appeal to timeless moral principles grounded in both our Declaration of Independence and the great moral traditions that preceded our Founding. It is these principles that make America unique and inspire us to be proud, engaged citizens who are vigilant stewards of freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

Happy Birthday, America!

Reflections on the Fourth of July

For all too many Americans, the Fourth of July is just another summer holiday, albeit one that usually features fireworks. Of course, most Americans dimly recollect that it was on this day sometime in the distant past that Americans declared their independence from Great Britain, but they seldom stop to reflect upon the true revolution that the Fourth of July signifies: the Declaration of Independence and the creation of a nation based on a universal idea.

The word "nation" comes from the Latin natio, a noun derived from a form of the verb meaning "to be born." It has traditionally meant a grouping based on such tangibles as race or blood. National movements since the nineteenth century have usually had as their goal the creation of a territorial state encompassing those possessing that common identity. It is this understanding of nationhood that Hitler reflected when he reputedly claimed that the United States was "not a nation (Volk), but a hodgepodge (mischung)." But it is the Declaration, not race and blood, that establishes American nationhood, constituting "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land…"

As Abraham Lincoln remarked in 1859: "All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression."

In a speech delivered just after Independence Day 1858, Lincoln clarified the link between the Declaration and American nationhood. His argument is one we should ponder at a time when "multiculturalists" are advancing the view that the US is not a land of free individuals but instead a conglomeration of discrete racial and ethnic groups.

When we celebrate the Fourth of July, Lincoln told his listeners in Chicago, we celebrate the founders, "our fathers and grandfathers," those "iron men…But after we have done this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—…finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ’We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that the moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are."

In Lincoln’s view, America is a nation by virtue of its commitment to the principle of equality, by which he meant simply the idea that no person has the right to rule over another without the latter’s consent. For Lincoln, what made the United States unique, and constituted the foundation of American nationhood, was the incorporation of this moral principle into the Union. This belief lay at the heart of his opposition to slavery, an affront to the very idea of republican government.

Of course, defenders of slavery such as South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, Georgia Senator Alexander Stephens, and Chief Justice Roger Taney and "don’t-care" politicians such as Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas disagreed. Taney and Douglas argued that Jefferson did not mean to include blacks when he wrote that all men are created equal. Calhoun and Stephens contended that he did mean to include them but that his view was false.

The irony is that while Lincoln’s view prevailed with the Union triumph in the Civil War and was subsequently incorporated in the Constitution via the 13th and 14th Amendments, it is the view of Taney et al that often predominates today. The rejection of Lincoln’s view of American nationhood is visible on both today’s political left and political right.

The main threat to American nationhood is multiculturalism, a notion that would appeal to Hitler: the discredited idea that race defines destiny, that blood determines who we are and what we can become. Multiculturalists reject the principles of the Declaration because they see them as, at best, "cultural imperialism" and at worst, racism.

To argue against multiculturalism is not to reject ethnic pride. I like to joke with my students that since my first name, "Mackubin," my paternal great grandmother's maiden name, is a sept of the Clan Buchanan, whenever I hear a bagpipe, the hair on the back of my neck bristles and I want to kill an Englishman. But then I realize that other of my forebears were English and Welsh, so I would have to kill myself.

In America, ethnicity is an indicator of whence we have come, not where we are going. It is precisely the rejection of ethnic politics and the embrace of politics based on individuality and equality that have created the conditions of civility and domestic tranquility upon which American strength and prosperity rest. The increasing hyphenation of America bodes ill for these conditions.

But multiculturalism couldn’t exist if even those Americans who praise the Declaration didn’t misunderstand its principles. How widely they are misunderstood is driven home by a three-year old piece in the Washington Post by David Broder entitled "A Living Text of Liberty". In his penultimate paragraph, Broder makes it crystal clear that he misses the point. "’We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Is our belief in equality truly self-evident? How does it jibe with the growing inequality of income and wealth and opportunity in this country? And is the pursuit of happiness, as now understood, wedded to the same sense of duty and responsibility that animated the men in Philadelphia?"

To answer Mr. Broder, the equality of which Jefferson speaks is that arising from the equal natural rights all men possess, antecedent to the creation of government, and the political right not to be ruled by another without the his consent. As Jefferson wrote to Roger C. Weightman on June 24, 1826, "all eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them…"

As we celebrate the Fourth of July this week, we should reflect on the uniqueness of American nationhood arising from the Declaration of Independence. We have, of course, not always lived up to the "self-evident truths" articulated in this document, as the history of slavery attests. But these truths constitute what Lincoln called the "central idea" of the American Republic without which republican government will fail and the American nation will dissolve.

The Governor Can Place Non-Binding Questions on the Ballot, Says the RI Superior Court

In a ruling of unexpected scope, Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Fortunato has ruled that the Governor of Rhode Island has an inherent power to place non-binding questions on the Rhode Island ballot. Today's ruling undoes most, if not all, of the effect of a bill intended to limit the Governor's power passed last month by the General Assembly. The Associated Press (via the Boston Globe) describes Judge Fortunato's decision....

Until recently, a state statute authorized the governor to place nonbinding questions on statewide ballots. In May, Carcieri, a Republican, requested that the Secretary of State place two questions on November's ballot...

The Democrat-dominated General Assembly on June 13 stripped the Republican governor of his power to place questions on the ballot, but only after Carcieri had moved to put the two questions to voters....

Fortunato ruled that repealing the state statute does not eliminate the governor's power to put questions on the ballot. He said nothing in the state constitution forbids the practice. He noted that courts in other states have interpreted their constitutions broadly to maximize the electorate's power.

Since the results aren't binding, the referendums don't intrude on legislative power, Fortunato said.

"It's another device for encouraging participatory democracy," he said.

The initial report from WJAR-TV discusses some content limits on non-binding ballot questions that are discussed in Judge Fortunato's ruling...

[Judge Fortunato] left open the possibility that governors can only ask referendum questions related to their duties, which are usually implementing and enforcing state laws....

Fortunato said his ruling doesn't address whether the governor or General But Fortunato's ruling suggested that courts could set limits. Referendum questions shouldn't be personal popularity polls conducted at taxpayer expense, he said.

Fortunato said his ruling doesn't address whether the governor or General Assembly can ask questions unrelated to their government functions.

The WJAR report clearly implies that Judge Fortunato's ruling establishes that the General Assembly, as well as the Governor, has the power to place non-binding questions on the statewide ballot, even in the absence of an authorizing statute.

The unexpected decision raises a number of questions. Here are two...

1. Even if you limited the Governor's power to ask non-binding questions to matters related to his official duties, wouldn't he or she still be able to ask just about anything by phrasing it in the form of "should the Governor of introduce legislation to the General Assembly that would yadda yadda?" or "Should the Governor sign leglislation which, if passed, would yadda yadda yadda?"
2. Though I like the result of the today's decision, I am a bit wary of the reasoning. Is it consistent with the philosophy of limited government to say that state officials have the authority to do something simply because it isn't prohibited by the state constitution?

According to all media reports, lawyers for the legislature will appeal Judge Fortunato's decision to the state Supreme Court.

How to Respond?

This comment from my post on Dennis Michaud has admittedly left me baffled:

Mr. Katz, I am new to Rhode Island and new to the politics of the state. However, I have noticed something that troubles me. You are supporting Gov. Carcieri and several people on this board have spelled out specific offenses, offenses, which you have yet to counter.

I have been living in DC and so I am quite used to the bob and weave routine that politicians and bloggers routinely perform. Please stand up and defend yourself and your candidate rather than pointing fingers at the actions of others.

Additionally, please address Gov. Carcieri's role in the breach of fiduciary responsibility by his appointee at Beacon-Mutual. This to me is a very serious issue. Is your candidate appointing cronies and then using his position to exert inappropriate influence?

How does one respond to such a request? I'm not sure what "offenses" I've yet to counter, and judging from the specific charge in final paragraph, I'd be left in a quandry over them. Either the Beacon-Mutual question is some truly audacious spin or the questioner has somehow not encountered anything other than truly audacious spin.

California Dreamin' - Celebrating Fond Memories of Los Angeles & the San Francisco Bay Area

Business travel last week took me to Los Angeles for the first time in years.

My flight landed past midnight and I immediately turned on KLOS 95.5 FM (more here) after getting into the rental car - only to hear Jim Ladd was the disc jockey:

[Ladd]...is the last remaining freeform rock DJ in United States commercial radio.

Unlike his contemporaries, Ladd personally selects every song he plays. He combines music with atmospheric sound samples and social commentary, often inviting listeners to participate on the air. Most of his music sets center around a theme or storyline, such as Wild West outlaws, beautiful women or fast cars. He often adds appropriate listener requests to his themed sets; sometimes a request will inspire an entire set. His repertoire combines classic rock standards...

Oh, did that bring back a flood of memories from my junior high school (1967-1969), high school (1969-1973), college (1973-1977), and early work years (1981-1983) there during the grand days of underground free-form style of rock music radio. In those years, the Might Met (94.7 KMET) (more here) was THE radio station and Jim Ladd was THE disc jockey:

...To its fans throughout the 1970s and mid-1980s, KMET's progressive rock radio format was what you listened to in Los Angeles if you were to be considered "hip." Evenings were given over to Jim Ladd, whose laid-back philosophical ruminations usually led into a song - often Pink Floyd, The Doors or Led Zeppelin - that underscored his point.

KMET has stood alone in pioneering the free-form style of rock radio. Everything from folk to acid rock to rockabilly to modern jazz to pop to R&B might be heard in one well blended set...

B. Mitchell Reed was another key disc jockey I remember working at the station. So, over the years, were Jeff Gonzer, Cynthia Fox, Mary Turner, and Bob Coburn.

KMET also carried the wacky Dr. Demento show on Sunday nights! How can anyone forget songs like the National Lampoon's Deteriorata or Napoleon XIV's They are coming to take me away, ha, haa!, the latter of which called for opening your dorm room and banging a hammer on the metal door jam as the song played. (Okay, you had to be there!)

Those were truly special days in the world of FM radio music.

Even though some of us were too young to enjoy it at the time, the live music scene was also significant in those years, with LA clubs like the Troubadour making musical history.

During our pre-college years, I have fond memories of spending time at the house of my best friend, Mark, where we used to take special pleasure listening to the music by artists such as James Taylor (Sweet Baby James), Jethro Tull (Aqualung), The Who (Who's Next), the Guess Who (Best of the Guess Who), Black Sabbath (Paranoid), Led Zeppelin (the 4th album), Deep Purple (Machine Head), and numerous other bands. My high school senior prom featured "Stairway to Heaven" and "Smoke on the Water" - when they first came out, not when they were being played for the nth straight year.

Several years later, all of us began attending concerts - with a Led Zeppelin show at the LA Forum being one of the more spectacular ones.

The music scene was not the only hot doings in Los Angeles during those years. The performances of the many sports teams in Los Angeles were world-class, too.

Besides seeing family, I also had the chance to drive by my alma mater, Harvey Mudd College (more here) - which provided me with a collegiate experience for which I will always be grateful.

The week before my Los Angeles trip took me out to the San Francisco Bay Area for a 4-day, 25th reunion of my MBA Class of 1981 at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

What a great time we all had seeing old friends on the beautiful Stanford University campus. With approximately one-half of the class returning to the campus, it was a chance to visit with some very special friends.

As was true even back in our classroom years, though, everyone is defining success to be what they want personally and that creates both traditional successes and unconventional successes. One of the more interesting current stories was shared with us by classmate Mike Murray, who is now involved in a global micro-finance effort to help the world's poor through his latest company, Unitus. What an inspiring idea.

The music scene was also great fun in the Bay Area over my later years in California. I had the pleasure of enjoying shows at classic San Francisco venues like Winterland and the Fillmore West as well as at blues bars all over the Bay Area, with seeing both Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker (with Carlos Santana joining him) as two of the highlights. For several years, we attended the Dixieland Jazz Jubilee in Sacramento. In the later years, we enjoyed many shows at the Shoreline Ampitheather and at the old Paul Masson winery up in the Santa Cruz mountains. Bonnie Raitt's first large-venue concert after hitting it big, Van Morrison joining the Chieftains on stage, Robert Cray opening for Ray Charles, BB King in several venues, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, CSN, Jackson Browne, Fleetwood Mac, the Allman Brothers, etc.

Football was also good in those Bay Area days. John Elway was quarterback at Stanford during my years on The Farm. Bill Walsh and then George Seifert subsequently coached the San Francisco 49ers to five Super Bowl victories, first with Joe Montana and then with Steve Young at quarterback. Who could forget special players like Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott?

And then there was the wine country in Napa and Sonoma counties, a roughly 1-hour drive north of San Francisco. From the first visits in the late 1970's when it was still much more rural until our move back East 20 years later, there were many trips where outstanding food and glorious wines were the norm.

The list could go on. Family vacations driving up the the coast line, stopping in San Simeon and Carmel or driving up the coast north of San Francisco to the giant redwoods. Remembering when Highway 101 was just a 2-lane highway - with stop lights in Santa Barbara and south San Jose - and you simply slowed down in the middle of the state when farm equipment pulled onto the road (there was no Highway 5 back then). Driving up to see my grandparents in the Bay Area. Learning to drive in my parents' 1969 Chevy Malibu with its 350 horsepower V8 - which they still have. Tubing down a river with my buddy, Mark. In later years, living and working in Silicon Valley for 17 years. Trips to Yosemite to celebrate Stanford friends' weddings or anniversaries. Learning to ski at Squaw Valley in Lake Tahoe - as an adult. Then watching my kids begin to ski at the same place - and now be better than me!

Politics was fun over the years, too. I had the pleasure of talking one-on-one in 1982 with Howard Jarvis, the author of Proposition 13, while sitting in Attorney General Evelle Younger's suite at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles. I was also an officer in the (Bay Area) Peninsula chapter of the California Republican Assembly (CRA), a group that served as foot soldiers for conservative politics across the state.

California Dreamin'....a very special place to have grown up and gone to school. Like many places, it is different now from what it was in those prior years. Regardless of those changes, there are many fond memories of wonderful times, memories that were stirred by two delightful trips in June.