Speaking of proposals with gaping holes, if not blatant contradictions, in their reasoning, “key lawmakers and other major players in the state’s law and order community” offered Governor Carcieri some suggestions as to how he might free up some space in the ACI as part of attempts to decrease the state government’s deficit. Apparently:
31 percent of released prisoners are reincarcerated within a year, a rate that is 10 percent higher than the national average. Within three years, the number that return to the ACI is 50 percent.
Yet, every single one of the proposals that the Providence Journal reports focuses on making it easier for inmates to get out and harder for them to get back in, including this gem:
Target probation supervision to the first 12 months after release, when people are most likely to reoffend, and limit felony probation — which can now extend over 10 years or more — to 3 years “except for offenses punishable by life imprisonment.” Estimate: 27 fewer inmates.
If I’m reading this correctly, 27 incarcerated criminals would not currently be in prison under the proposed rules because they would have gotten away with crimes committed after their supervision ended or would have been sentenced with no consideration of their previous records, after probation ended. This strikes me as nearly the reverse of an effective focus.
Why is not a single proposal from these important folks in the “law and order community” targeted at making ex-cons more wary of doing things that might land them back in prison? If Rhode Island’s reincarceration rate is 10% higher than the national average, I can assure you that it is not because we make it too difficult for convicts to get out from behind the bars.
Lawrence Purtill’s education aid op-ed isn’t the only recent Projo op-ed guilty of trying to convince people that a contradictory set of recommendations can be combined into sound public policy. In last Thursday’s Projo, Dr. Joseph Chazan presented this dud of a suggestion for containing healthcare costs in Rhode Island…
Government controls and regulators should recruit new insurance companies to enter and compete in the marketplace and mandate that everyone receives needed care regardless of ability to pay as part of the cost of doing business.I really don’t think that “Use your gains in other states to subsidize big operating losses in Rhode Island” can become the basis of a successful recruiting campaign. How exactly can you recruit companies to come to Rhode Island while demanding that they give their product away for free or below cost? What precisely are the “recruiters” supposed to pitch as the advantage of doing business here?
Dr. Chazan’s attitude towards individuals is even more frightening than his attitude towards business…
Recognize that individuals demand all the advances that have occurred in medical technology and prescription medications without concern for their costs. It is unlikely that health-care costs can be contained without some limitation or rationing of services. However, this will require a frank debate and the acceptance that to contain costs, not every patient can receive every available service.Translation: “People have a survival instinct and want to live, so government must teach them to manage and suppress that instinct”. That’s not a business that government should be getting into.
Before we start talking about giving government regulators, who have have a difficult time controlling costs without killing whatever economic sector they are trying to regulate, absolute power to decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t, shouldn’t we at least give an expansion of consumer-driven health plans a chance? After all, as another of Dr. Chazan’s recommendations explains (quite inadvertently), consumer driven plans are the best fit for a pluralistic, democratic society like the US…
Finally, permit a robust, honest, forthright, uncensored debate to occur among parties: government, regulators, providers, insurers and consumers included.Dr. Chazan has the right principle in mind here, but what he and other advocates of a government takeover of healthcare never seem to grasp is that people need real choices if a robust, honest, forthright, uncensored debate is to matter. When individuals have a choice of healthcare options, they will talk to potential insurers and talk to their healthcare providers. That talk will have real ramifications, in terms of compromises on costs and on coverages and treatments offered. How can debate get any more robust than this?
Unfortunately, because of our employer-based system of health insurance, that debate is too restricted now because (save for a few forward-thinking companies like this one) employers have a big voice in the healthcare debate, but employees have almost none. And in strong-government schemes, the problem will become even worse, as government regulators, big-insurance companies, and well-organized special interests will become the only voices that matter, freezing ordinary people completely out of the debate.
Finally, Dr. Chazan reminds us that just because you think you’re debating doesn’t mean that you’re making sense…
About 20 years ago, Rhode Island had one of the most regulated and controlled health-care systems in America. State laws required the Health Services Council and the head of the state Department of Health to approve the opening of virtually any new health-care facility (“certificate of need”). That sustained the status quo by delaying or preventing competitive facilities from operating but failed to control increasing costs.Er, why should anyone be surprised that heavy regulation in order to reduce supply led to increased costs? [Open full post]
Today’s Projo editorial on the uncertain future of the European Union isn’t terrible, but its focus on economics obscures the real source of EU weakness that has been painfully demonstrated by the ongoing situation between Great Britain and Iraq.
In case you’ve forgotten (and you probably have, given the EU’s weak reaction), the 15 British sailors being held hostage by the Iranian government are citizens of the EU, as well as being British subjects. In spite of this, the EU has made no serious moves to use its considerable economic muscle in the Middle East to come to the aid of those who are supposedly are its own people.
If the EU doesn’t think that its citizens are worth vigorously defending, for how long will those citizens think that the EU is worth vigorously defending?
Has Lawrence E. Purtill, president of the National Education Association’s Rhode Island chapter, figured out a magical way to increase government spending without increasing taxes? The text of his letter to the editor in Monday’s Projo certainly implies that he has…
If The Journal wants to take bold action [on improving educaton], it should join with us in changing Rhode Island’s formula for state aid to education in an effort to increase overall aid while lessening the burden on the local property taxpayer.But if the burden on taxpayers will be lessened, then where will the money for additional state aid be found? Mr. Purtill and his organization could, I suppose, be endorsing huge increases in business taxes to replace and supplement lower property taxes. Or Mr. Purtill could be using sloppy rhetoric, saying that he supports reducing the burden on property taxpayers, when he really means that he supports reducing the property tax burden on property taxpayers — while jacking up their income tax burden to make up the difference!
By the middle of his letter, however, Mr. Purtill has found his inner fiscal conservative, and criticizes the recently approved Utah statewide voucher plan for increasing state spending on education…
In fact, if the Utah plan were implemented in Rhode Island, education costs would rise, not fall.So Mr. Purtill is opposed to increases in education spending that give more power to parents but favors higher spending that increase the monies going directly to bureaucracies. How do you read this and not conclude that maintaining strong bureaucratic control of education is a higher priority to Mr. Purtill than increasing resources to education? (It should also be noted here that a Utah-style voucher plan doesn’t necessarily increase education spending, but that a total aid increase was built into the Utah system as part of a political compromise to get it through the state legislature).
Finally, in maybe one hopeful section of his letter, Mr. Purtill says…
Rhode Island’s suburban and rural schools have performed and continue to perform as well as if not better than their peers throughout the Northeast and the country.Does this mean we can count on Mr. Purtill to oppose any strong regionalization scheme intended to take educational decision making away from communities that have demonstrated the ability to run good school systems and move an increased number of students into systems controlled by dysfunctional urban bureaucracies? [Open full post]
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is set to visit Syria for a meeting with a regime that the Bush administration has called a state sponsor of terrorism. Needless to say the White House is not exactly pleased.
The best way to explain the logic of the White House’s displeasure is to recall a scene from The Godfather. The Tattaglia Family, a rival to the family of Don Vito Corleone, has proposed that the Don enter the narcotics business. A meeting is scheduled, attended by the chief spokesman and assassin for the Tattaglias—Virgil “The Turk” Sollozo—and for the Corleones, the Don, his sons Fredo and Sonny, as well as the Don’s lieutenants, Clemenza and Tessio, and the Corleone family lawyer, Tom Hagen.
The Don is an old line Mafioso and rejects the proposal.
“I must say no to you, and I’ll give you my reasons. It’s true. I have a lot of friends in politics, but they wouldn’t be friendly very long if they knew my business was drugs instead of gambling, which they rule that as a – a harmless vice. But drugs is a dirty business…It makes, it doesn’t make any difference to me what a man does for a living, understand. But your business, is uh, a little dangerous.”
But during the meeting, Sonny reveals his disagreement with his father’s decision when he blurts out his enthusiastic support for getting into the drug business.
Clemenza and Tom are dismayed by Sonny’s outburts. The Don diplomatically reprimands Sonny in Sollozo’s presence: “I have a sentimental weakness for my children, and I spoil them, as you can see. They talk when they should listen.”
After Sollozo has departed, the Don rebukes Sonny. “Whatsa matter with you? I think your brain’s goin’ soft (from too much sex)…Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again.”
The Don realizes that Sollozo believes that the Corleones would cooperate if Vito were to be eliminated. He is, of course, correct. It is not long before the Don is gunned down by the Tattaglias.
The lesson for us of Pelosi in Syria is not that the United States is a big crime family (although that is certainly an accepted view on the American Left), but that divided counsel may lead an adversary to believe that he can hold out for a more favorable deal. The principle lies at the foundation of the decision by the American Founders to create a unitary executive, capable of energy and dispatch in foreign affairs. The Senate certainly has a role in foreign affairs, but the president has the lead. Pelosi’s attempt to carry out an alternative foreign policy cannot help but undercut the country.
We went through this in he 1980s. I worked for a US Senator when the Democrats were pushing their own foreign policy in opposition to that of President Reagan in Latin America and vis a vis the Soviet Union. I still believe that the Democrats prolonged the Cold War because the Soviets thought they could wait for a better deal from Reagan’s congressional opponents.
As the New York Sun editorialized on April 2,
“Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria, due to take place today, raises the question of whether the Democrats are prepared to seek a separate peace. When America was serious about war such a trip would have been seen as a scandal. At Casablanca, say, Roosevelt and Churchill decided, as one U.S. government Web site recounts, ‘that no peace would be concluded except on the basis of unconditional surrender.’ Roosevelt wanted ‘to assure the people of all the fighting nations that no separate peace negotiations would be carried on with representatives of Fascism and Nazism and there would be no compromise of the war’s idealistic objectives.'”
By the way, Sonny Corleone ended up a casualty of the gang war he helped to precipitate.
Many were surprised when Common Cause of Rhode Island flipped on the question of Voter Initiative and became an opponent. That happened under Phillip West, but Common Cause, under new executive director Christine Lopes, still opposes Voter Initiative. In this, they share a position with the state Association of Fire Fighters, the AFL-CIO, National Education Association/Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals. Last week, Common Cause also joined the ACLU and came out against Voter ID legislation. Now, I don’t want to jump to any conclusions about any perceived patterns I may be detecting. After all, I also remembered this from a Charlie Bakst column a month or so ago:
You might say Christine Lopes, new executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, has come to the right place.
The state’s air is filled with talk of political corruption — convictions, indictments, gossip — and Lopes smiles and says, “I’m sure I’ll have a job for awhile.”
Lopes, 31, grew up in Massachusetts, which also has had its share of scandal. Last week she made her first splash at the State House here, presiding at a news conference/rally of Rhode Islanders for Fair Elections. Common Cause is part of the coalition, which backs a bill to dramatically expand public financing of campaigns….
This daughter of immigrants from Portugal and Cape Verde, she was in the student government of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, including a term as president. She testified and huddled with lawmakers at the State House in Boston on such issues as budget and fees…Her major was the study of the roles of class, race, and gender in political thought. She’s working on a master’s in public administration at Suffolk University….In Massachusetts, she worked as a staffer for Democratic pols, but in Rhode Island she says she’s avoiding partisan ties.
At least officially. Add in the recent high-profile (though probably proper) pillorying of the governor for his re-appointment of Judicial Committee members, and it seems that the Commonality of the Causes are tilting in a certain direction, doesn’t it? At least if we are to judge by where the focus seems to be these days.
Unfortunately, the opposition to Voter Id seems to be of a piece of the national organization’s stance, at least if we are to judge by the Common Cause blog. Check out this feature on the “Voter Fraud” and the Administration:
The Bush Administration appears to be hoisted on their own petard–yet again. The scandal that’s erupted regarding the fired U.S. attorneys winds back in part to the conservatives’ partisan attempt to claim that rampant voter fraud has infected our election system, thus warranting measures such as requiring proof of citizenship and photo identification in order to vote.
Someone, somewhere, had the brilliant idea that a good strategy for victory in elections is to limit those who can vote — to, in effect, choose their own electors. It worked quite well in Florida in 2000 with the purged “felon” rolls. And the goal was not just to limit voters, but to whip up public fears about those who might vote illegally (coming from the group of usual suspects: minority voters, the poor, non-English speakers, undocumented workers) and thereby grease the slides for legislation that would supposedly catch transgressors but also net other “less desirable” voters — at least less desirable to those trying to manipulate the system.
Sounds pretty non-partisan to me! But besides that, do Republicans (St. Louis! Seattle! Wisconsin!) and Democrats (Florida! Ohio!) really believe that voter fraud is just no big deal? Do Rhode Islanders? Well, according to Common Cause, you’re all wrong. Tell me again, whose Common Cause are they fighting for?
[Open full post]Scott MacKay’s immigration piece in the Sunday ProJo was a good piece of historical writing. However, and inevitably, it will be used by some as proof for their arguments in the contemporary illegal immigrant debate. Namely that the U.S. has “historically” allowed all immigrants, whether illegal or not.
My first thought after reading the piece was that, while historically accurate, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the situation that confronts us now. To be fair, though, this was only the first in a series (at least according to the ProJo), so I don’t want to take MacKay to task when I don’t know what else is forthcoming. However, I do suspect that there is an attempt to link the past with the present rather too directly–and some of MacKay’s writing has the air of polemic rather than reporting.
Perhaps the issue that stirs the passions the most is that the primary difference between the immigrants of then and now is that the U.S. did not have the current social welfare apparatus in place. As such, the tax dollars of American citizens didn’t go to support the immigrants of yesteryear. Instead, the immigrants worked hard for what they got. Were the conditions deplorable? Yes. Did they face racism and xenophobia? Yes. But to conflate then with now is simply not accurate.
MacKay writes about how French-Canadians were resistant to be assimilated into the U.S. culture and society. That is entirely true and I deal extensively with it below. He seems to be emphasizing this for the sake of invoking compassion for today’s immigrants–and by doing so he conflates the legal/illegal distinction–but there is another way to look at it. Instead of using it as an excuse for today’s immigrants, the difficulties encountered by the French Canadians as they attempted to cling to la survivance can also be used as an object lesson.
I don’t think anyone will argue that chances are that the quicker an individual can acclimate to our culture and learn our language, the quicker he can succeed. That does not mean that Americans should denigrate or dismiss the various cultures of the immigrants–and we must keep in mind that there are waves of immigrants, which can obscure any acute progress in cultural education that is being made–but it does mean that we shouldn’t let our compassion or forbearance be taken for granted. Today’s immigrants should learn the “American way” as soon as possible and be encouraged to do so. That does not mean that they will be or should be somehow forced to forget their own culture.
Another point is that there was no such thing as “illegal immigration” until the U.S. passed laws saying so. MacKay deals with this, and although he certainly ascribes nefarious motives for the passage of the these laws, they were passed in reaction to a specific problem. Americans believed that too many people were coming in, too fast. Regardless of the ofttimes despicable reasoning behind the original passage of these laws, they are still the law and most Americans want to keep it that way.
By limiting immigration, the laws–if properly enforced–would actually reduce the current level of acrimony. They help to throttle back on the “incursion” of “the other” (to use a favorite academic term)–they make the waves smaller–and make it easier for those immigrants who enter the country legally to assimilate into the U.S. If these laws weren’t so popular amongst Americans–including legal immigrants–then I don’t think that some illegal immigration apologists would so consistently conflate the difference between illegal and legal immigration.
Overall, I find it interesting that much of this recounting of history is deemed pertinent because it apparently supports the argument that goes something like this: we’ve always had these immigration problems in the U.S. so why is it such a big deal now? What’s missing from MacKay’s accurate re-telling of history is any sense of learning from the lessons of the past. (Though, as I indicated, perhaps that will be present in the next story). Since when have progressives taken to premising their arguments upon the notion of “that’s the way it’s always been…” to argue for what it should be now? Usually they take what they know of history and try to identify a better way of dealing with the problems that were encountered. In this case, it seems like they’re really just saying that everything is fine, let’s move on.
In the extended portion of this post, I’ve tried to elaborate a bit on some of the unsaid implications in MacKay’s piece by calling upon my own research into French-Canadian immigration during the post-Civil War era. To do this, I’ve excerpted liberally from a 4-part series on the topic that I’ve posted at Spinning Clio. (For important background–and full sources–see these posts on French-Canadian immigration before the Civil War and French-Canadian involvement in the Civil War, portions of which are included in this post).
Am I alone in finding the attitude expressed towards the Providence Rescue Mission expressed by “some members of the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless” in Linda Borg‘s Saturday Projo article to be outrageous…
Last night, Sean Carew greeted his guests the way he always does, with a firm handshake and a warm smile.A corresponding report from WJAR-TV (NBC 10) suggests that it is not just the “foisting of religious views” that is of concern to the Coalition, but the fact that charities that provide relief to the homeless within a religious context exist at all…
Carew is the executive director of the Providence Rescue Mission, which expanded its Cranston Street shelter and opened its doors to 40 more men yesterday. Although twice as many visitors were expected, only 15 men took advantage of the new wing for men. Perhaps, Carew says, the spring weather persuaded some to sleep outside, but he wonders if others were put off by the mission’s Christian affiliation. The non-denominational mission is supported by a network of area churches….
Some members of the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless are concerned that a faith-based mission will foist its religious views on people who have nowhere else to go, but Carew said the shelter does not push religion on anyone, although it does ask its guests to attend a short daily chapel service.
[Homeless advocates] question whether a faith-based shelter is the best place for homeless people who might come from diverse religious backgrounds.Faith based charities need to be homogenized, so that the homeless can feel like they have more choices? That doesn’t make sense. Different options have to exist in order for a choice to be possible. I don’t think that Mr. Ryczek is doing a very good job of expressing what it is that bothers him about faith-based homeless shelters.
“It’s easy for us to assume that they will be grateful,” said Jim Ryczek, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. “But homeless people have so many options taken away from them. Any choice that they can make that is solely their own is meaningful.”
Sean Carew, the executive director of the Providence Rescue Mission, said all visitors will be treated well regardless of religious affiliation.
“We treat people like they are a guest,” he said. “We have chapel at 5 p.m. and we ask that you attend. It’s all about dignity. We don’t ask what people believe in. We never ask if they are Christian. These folks have had a tough day. They need someone to give them a little affection, a handshake, a welcome. Most folks we work with are glad to go to chapel. They’re glad to have someone to listen to them.”
The shelter is a non-denominational Christian mission supported by 30 local churches.
For the sake of truth in advertising, the Coalition for the Homeless should consider changing its name to the Coalition for Imposing a Particular View of the Role of Religion in Society and Dictating to Faith-Based Charities How They Should Be Allowed to Carry Out Their Mission and Once Done With That, Getting Around to Helping the Homeless. [Open full post]
With all due respect to Andrew Sullivan, Dan Shaughnessy‘s cranky Boston Globe column about Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling’s blogging indicates nothing beyond what New Englanders have known for years — that Shaughnessy writes cranky columns using whatever material he can find.
With Red Sox season starting today, he’ll at least be able to turn his crankishness to events on the field.
The posts by Justin and Marc on Conservative Political Methods logically lead to the fundamental question: what, exactly, is “conservatism?” The problem here is the word itself: “conservatism” is concerned with “conserving,” but conserving what?
Many years ago, the Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) and dean of the “Austrian School” of economics, Friedrich von Hayek, wrote an essay entitled “Why I am not a Conservative.” Many readers were puzzled because the Austrian School was always described as conservative. Hayek preferred the term “liberal” (as do I), but unfortunately for truth in packaging, that term was hijacked, at least in the United States, in the early twentieth century by social democrats. That meant in practice that conservatives could be portrayed as defenders of the (bad) old ways, who stood in the way of (good) progress.
The meaninglessness of the term “conservative” is best captured by the case of the Soviet Union. As Gorbachev moved to liberalize the USSR, the US press began to call the hard-line Stalinists who opposed him “conservatives.” So Ronald Reagan was conservative and so were the hardline communists. What utter nonsense.
“Libertarian” doesn’t solve the problem because it divorces action from principle.
I wish we could recover the word “liberal” from those who hijacked it. After all, it traditionally referred to those who were committed to “liberty.” That’s what I believe is worth conserving. Since the word is probably beyond saving, I now describe myself as a “Declaration of Independence” conservative. That’s the best I can do. I want to conserve the principles of the American Founding.
But this doesn’t please everyone who calls themselves conservatives. Right now over at “No Left Turns,” the blog of the Ashbrook Center, there’s a nasty row going on. The spark was a “podcast” of Harry Jaffa discussing the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Defenders of the Old South denounced him as a neo-con “nutjob” and called Lincoln a left-wing tyrant comparable to Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
Well I am a son of the South who was raised in a Lost Cause household. I once believed that the South represented the essence of liberty, but one can only believe this by ignoring the institution of slavery, which constituted the basis of Southern society. My epiphany on road to Damascus occurred when I read the speech by Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, that he delivered in Savannah on March 21,1861. He never once mentions “states’ rights” the term always invoked by defenders of the Old South, but he does spend a grat deal of time talking about African slavery, which is says is the natural result of the inferiority of the African race, and the “cornerstone’ of the new Confederate Constitution.
The Old South is not what we should be defending. Until there is some fundamental agreement on principles, “conservatism” will continue to lack real meaning.