1. If you read far enough into John E. Mulligan’s column in today’s Projo on the Iraq war resolutions, you will get beyond the sound bytes and into the actual substance…
After a long buildup, the Iraq debate stalled Monday when the Democrats refused to accept a GOP procedural plan for taking up Republican Warner’s resolution of opposition to Mr. Bush’s plan — which was expected to command a strong bipartisan majority. The Democrats balked because the GOP procedure called for a vote on Republican Gregg’s measure to state opposition to cuts in the spending that supports the troops in the war zone.If the Democrats feel that a vote on the Warner resolution is so important, and that it will pass, then why can’t they compromise and allow a vote on Senator Gregg’s proposal too?
2. The most surreal moment in the ongoing debate over the various Iraq resolutions comes courtesy of Rhode Island’s newest U.S Senator…
[Senator Sheldon Whitehouse] responded by devoting his first Senate floor speech to the issue, charging as the debate wound down Tuesday night that the Senate had been “silenced by parliamentary maneuver.”Does it make sense to claim you’ve been “silenced” on a topic, when you’re making a speech on that topic in the legislative chamber of the most powerful country on earth, and that speech gets reported in your home state’s major daily newspaper the very next day? Sadly, Senator Whitehouse’s bizarre claim that the Senate has been silenced shows how deeply the Democrats have internalized the idea that their right to criticize the President somewhow also implies that their own positions must never be challenged.
3. Finally, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is wrong when he says, according to an indirect quote from Mr. Mulligan, “that that argument in Congress is about how best to win the war”. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has publicly stated that victory in Iraq is not her objective…
It’s not a question of victory. It is a question of how we bring a solution to what is in Iraq. Victory has become a diminished option under the policies of President Bush and the implementation of those policies.[Open full post]
While announcing legislation that would “require all public schools systems in the state to provide full-time kindergarten programs,” Sen. Christopher B. Maselli of Johnston offers this bit of manipulative rhetoric:
“It’s incredible how quickly we, as a state, can commit to spend money on new motor vehicle offices and prisons, but we argue about the cost of providing the best educational programs for our youngest children,” said Senator Maselli. “We know that there are positive relationships between full-day kindergarten and later school performance. We know that expanded early learning programs helps with early identification of special needs or learning deficits, which can help children succeed and reduce long-term costs for special and remedial education. And yet the only thing we seem to care about is cost.”
The manipulation comes in the complete removal of any context. Among the RI districts that don’t already offer full-day kindergarten, for example, is North Providence — a district with 3,533 students in the last year for which all relevant data is available, each of whom claimed $11,883 that school year (PDF). That’s a total cost — to the people of North Providence, Rhode Island, and the United States — of $42 million. Every year. Is it really all that incredible that Rhode Islanders might evince some reluctance to push that number closer to the half-a-billion mark?
Moreover, consider that, as Maselli’s own press release acknowledges, some districts offer full-day kindergarten, but with low participation. It may be the case that some place restrictions on enrollment, but it is certainly the case that different districts perceive different needs among their constituents and have different priorities for their resources. Under a mandatory order to provide full-day services, a school would have to pay a teacher whether one student shows up or 20 do. As the above-linked bar chart on school expenditures shows, $6,880 of the $11,883 per-pupil cost in North Providence goes to “instruction.”
Why does the return on investment calculation have to be done in the statehouse? In a state facing systematic financial crises, one straightforward method of controlling costs is to allow local groups to decide that particular programs don’t make sense for them.
Maselli may or may not be seeking to direct more of the funds over which he has partial control toward privileged parties, but the message that Rhode Islanders ought to send is the same either way: stop compounding the money that we are required to spend to advance the consolidation of power in your monolithic and special-interest-controlled government body.
When I read that WPRO had dropped morning host Dave Barber, my first thought was that they must have hired someone new. The only question was: who? Too early for Buddy…Arlene? Now we know, as reported by both the ProJo and Phoenix, former WRKO and WHJJ host John DePetro has joined the WPRO fold. The move makes sense insofar as WPRO probably wants to strengthen its claim as the region’s top local talk station, especially since WHJJ has gone a different way. Of course, the big question is: How is this going to play with Dan Yorke? As most political addicts know, they don’t exactly have a history of getting along.
UPDATE: For the record, Yorke mentioned on his show (around 3:55 PM) that his official reaction to the DePetro hiring was “No Comment.”
From a local Oregon television station, via Drudge…
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.[Open full post]
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist….
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.
Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a “bit shocked” by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.
In an interview he told KGW, “There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don’t believe that’s true.” He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.
By DWC, I mean “driving while conversing.” In New Jersey, you see, talking on a non-hands-free cell phone while driving an automobile is a ticketable offense. Apparently, South Kingstown Senator V. Susan Sosnowski thinks that’s a swell idea:
Citing the many dangers associated with talking on a cell phone while driving, Senator V. Susan Sosnowski has again introduced legislation that would prohibit drivers from using a non-hands-free cell phone while operating a motor vehicle.
“Talking on a cell phone while driving is just plain dangerous, and is the cause of thousands of car accidents a year,” said Senator Sosnowski (D-Dist. 37, New Shoreham, South Kingstown). “Unless we prohibit this practice, innocent people will continue to be injured or killed on our roadways.”
The bill (2007 – S0094) would make exceptions for public safety personnel, such as firefighters, police officers and ambulance operators. Also, any motorist who needs to make an emergency phone call to a 911 operator, hospital, physician’s office or health clinic, fire department, police department or ambulance company would be allowed to do so under Senator Sosnowski’s legislation.
Any individual charged with using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle could be fined up to $100. However, the fine will be waived for a first time violator if he or she obtains a hands-free accessory for the phone.
I haven’t time to look into the vaguely referenced “recent University of Utah study” that represents the sole evidence that such a law is needed, but I wonder: How much have accidents increased since the widespread use of cell phones? And how much will forbidding actual conversations help when such things as dialing are not covered by the law?
I also wonder whether I’ll have to go to the Supreme Court to find out whether I can check my email on the phone. On the one hand, the legislation (PDF) provides:
An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a hand-held mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section.
On the other hand, the proposed language includes this catch-all:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall engage in any activity not related to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of such vehicle on any highway.
So much for disciplining the kids to “pipe down back there.”
ADDENDUM:
Readers may notice that this post is the first under the brand new topic “Under the Government’s Wing,” which I’ve increasingly desired, now that I’m receiving RI state legislature press releases.
Credit (applause, even) where it’s due:
Bills will be introduced in the Rhode Island Senate and House of Representatives that would prohibit the employment or harboring of illegal aliens in Rhode Island.
To be introduced in the House by Rep. Peter G. Palumbo (D-Dist. 16, Cranston) and in the Senate by Sen. Christopher B. Maselli (D-Dist. 25, Johnston), “The Illegal Immigration Relief Act” declares that the unlawful employment or harboring of illegal aliens harms the health, safety and welfare of authorized workers and legal residents.
The bills make it unlawful for any business entity to recruit, hire or continue to employ an unlawful worker within the state. Complaints would be investigated by the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, which would have the authority to request identity information from a business for any persons alleged to be unlawful workers. Businesses failing to provide such information or which actually employ an unlawful worker would have their business license suspended for 30 days and impose a fine of not more than $500 for a first offense. A second violation would carry a license suspension of up to one year, and any subsequent violation would be a permanent loss of operating license. A third violation would be a felony with a punishment of imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to $3,000.
Businesses or individuals knowingly harboring an illegal worker by renting or leasing a dwelling unit in the state would face action by the Office of the Attorney General, with a potential punishment of up to one year in jail and a fine of between $500 and $1,000 for each adult illegal alien being harbored. A subsequent violation would be a felon, with punishment including imprisonment of up to three years and a fine a up to $5,000.
And check this out:
The legislators said they also intend to draft legislation to reform the state’s welfare system, which has long been seen as attracting illegal aliens to the state. Representative Palumbo and Senator Maselli said they want to ensure that Rhode Island distributes welfare support only in the amount appropriated by the federal government.
I may have become too cynical, but I can’t help but muse that proposing legislation is relatively cost-free. If a political party begins to fear that its malignant dominance of the government is threatened by general awakening to reality, it could buy some time by feigning to address the issues that promise to be its undoing. I could be wrong, but we’ll see whether these bills go anywhere.
[Open full post]According to a press release, RI House Speaker Tempore Charlene Lima is continuing her quest to save Rhode Island’s “working families” one quarter at a time:
House Speaker Tempore Charlene M. Lima today introduced legislation that will continue her mission to raise the minimum wage for Rhode Island’s working men and women.
The bill would raise the minimum wage to $7.75 as of January 1, 2008, and $8.00 as of January 1, 2009.
Last year, Representative Lima spearheaded an effort to increase the minimum wage in Rhode Island. Her legislation, which was enacted into law, raised the minimum wage from $6.75 to $7.10 as of March 1, 2006 and $7.40 as of January 1, 2007. Representative Lima said she hopes that this second minimum wage bill will continue to help the working men and women of our state.
The most important part of the legislation, said Representative Lima, will be the provision that, beginning on January 1, 2010 and occurring each January 1st thereafter, the minimum wage will be automatically adjusted by the Department of Labor and Training to maintain employee purchasing power by increasing the minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation.
“My legislation will help workers who are struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy,” said Representative Lima. “The democratic philosophy has always been to help hard-working men and women, rather than cater to wealthy corporations and big business. Therefore, my question to opponents of an increase in the minimum wage is quite simple: Do you feel that the average working men and women in our state deserve a modest raise for their hard work?”
I actually have two questions for Rep. Lima:
- How do you keep a straight face while claiming that another $10 per week every year will help low-paid Rhode Islanders keep up with a market in which “rents… have increased nearly 47 percent and the average price of a home has increased almost 66 percent since 1998”?
- Do you really believe that Rhode Island’s “average” is at the minimum wage level?
These piecemeal minimum wage laws are little more than ineffective gestures on behalf of people who aren’t, as Lima suggested during last year’s debate (as I recall), “the backbone” of the Rhode Island economy. And a more dramatic wage law would be devastating to that economy. So, Charlene, why don’t we get past the easy posturing and figure out what is truly holding this state — and, disproportionately, its working families — down?
[Open full post]Every once in a while–usually somewhere within a long screed extolling the virtues of a more socialistic America–the rhetorical point has been brought up that politically Democratic states pay more taxes than politically Republican states (who, by extension, benefit by getting more tax dallars). Well, the Tax Foundation has done some deep digging and has broken down the taxes paid on the Congressional District level. They provide detailed findings and promise even more soon. In the meantime, here is their summar (via Barone):
[Open full post]Overall, Republican districts have an average effective rate of 11.1%, and districts represented by Democratic members also have an average effective rate of 11.1%. Overall, Democrats tend to represent disproportionately the very low-taxpaying districts, as well as a large share of the very high-taxpaying districts. For example, Democrats represent 29 of the top 50 taxpaying districts, while they also represent 43 of the bottom 50 taxpaying districts.
Editorializing about the “Charitable Conundrum,” the ProJo provides this bit of evidence that some Democrats may (finally!) be learning about basic economic principles:
The opening years of the 21st Century have not been happy ones for many nonprofits in Rhode Island. High taxes have driven many rich people away from the state, for at least more than half of the year, and with them went the charitable dollars that are crucial to helping our neediest citizens and maintaining the region’s quality of life.
Matters were made worse by a 2001 state Supreme Court ruling that found that charitable giving could be used to determine residency for tax purposes. Since then, accountants have been advising their clients who live more than six months of the year in Florida or other low-tax states: If you don’t want to be taxed as if you live in Rhode Island, don’t give a cent here.
Thus, we highly commend Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva-Weed and House Majority Leader Gordon Fox for filing legislation to address this problem. Under their bills, no longer could Ocean State tax authorities use charitable gifts as a weapon against the givers.
It is encouraging to see these State House powers demonstrate such a grasp of reality. They have apparently come to realize that in a free society where people are allowed to live where they want, slapping more taxes on people does not always generate more tax revenue — it may merely prompt the well-off to take their money elsewhere, often to Florida and other Sunbelt venues but also to such lower-tax states in our region as New Hampshire — and, yes, Massachusetts. The apparent decline in charitable giving in Rhode Island underscores the law of unintended consequences.
Ah yes, the “law of unintended consequences”–something that too many liberals can’t seem to grasp. That is why they continue to call for higher taxes on business and individuals to fund their pet programs. It never occurs to them that people will eventually get sick of it and take action to lessen their tax burden and keep more money in their own pockets. Like move away.
For example, in a perfect liberal world, we could tax all corporate profits, say, 50% (yes, I know they’d probably really prefer closer to 100%, but this is just an example). So, if a company made $1 million, well, cool! The state would get $500,000. Awesome! But wait, what if the company decided they couldn’t afford this because–surprise–they wanted to keep more of their money? (It is their money, too. Not the government’s). Such a high tax rate would be a big enough disincentive to convince the company to relocate to, say, Massachusetts. So now, that 50% tax rate is applied to one less company. And 50% of $0 is still $0. RI wouldn’t get anything and all of those programs would be underfunded! Bad company! How dare they want to keep their own money! So, how can we keep companies (or people, for that matter) from moving?
Simple, have a competitive tax rate. It doesn’t even have to be less than our neighbors, just close enough to be competitive. (But if you really want to attract business, you make it less). And, to paraphrase my comment made on an earlier post, it is better for working families if the state becomes more business friendly and tax-competitive. As more businesses come, they compete with each other for RI workers and maybe even attract out of state workers. This increased competition for workers would translate into higher wages. This would lead to higher taxable incomes and, thus, higher revenue. The end result? A broader tax base with steadier revenue from more workers making more money working for more companies. And all of that money could be used to help out those who are less fortunate.
The theory really is that simple. So why can’t liberals grasp this? Despite all of their protestations of being intellectually superior, they continue to betray a particular ignorance of basic economic theory, don’t they? Instead, their first response is always to tax and tax and tax, paying no heed to the aforementioned “law of unintended consequences.” But it takes some time to get the word out the RI is now business friendly. That’s why the State has been offering tax incentives to businesses who want to relocate here. Remember, RI has a reputation to overcome. That won’t happen overnight.
To fully understand what happened in yesterday’s U.S. Senate non-binding Iraq resolution vote, you need to understand that other Iraq resolutions, in addition to the anti-surge resolution, are awaiting Senate action. Here’s the full set, as described in USA Today…
The Democrats want to make the second and third resolutions in the above list disappear without a vote. The Republicans are using a filibuster to refuse to allow a vote on the resolution opposing a troop increase, unless votes are also held on the other two…
- One opposes the president’s plan to increase troop numbers in Iraq.
- A second offers qualified support for the increase.
- A third opposes cutting funds for troops.
[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] said he’s willing to allow a vote on [the anti-troop increase] resolution provided he wins two concessions: a requirement that it get 60 votes to pass, and a vote on the resolution opposing cuts in funding for troops. That resolution is sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.Apparently, in the Orwellian framing of the Democratic party, open debate can only occur if opinions not approved by the majority party are first suppressed!
[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] objected because McConnell’s demands set up the possibility that the Senate would have been on record as opposing cuts in funding for the troops, but not the president’s policy.
That would “divert attention” from a Senate vote on the troop buildup, Reid said.
Senator Reid is not yet giving up, according to the Associated Press…
Following a procedural vote Monday that sidetracked a resolution on the war, Democrats said they would eventually find a way to put each senator on record…How about this for a compromise. Allow a vote on all three resolutions. If Democrats are so sure are on the right side of the issue, in any conceivable sense, then why be afraid to let positions they oppose be brought to a vote?
One other point worth considering: Is Senator Reid’s position that public debates must sometimes be suppressed because they might “divert attention” really the attitude you want from the leader of the party that will be confirming the next Supreme Court justice? [Open full post]
