The bill making it more difficult for the government to sell a house out from under its owner without the owner knowing it was re-introduced to the RI House yesterday. Representatives Joseph Almeida (D-Providence), Grace Diaz (D-Providence) and Thomas Slater (D-Providence) introduced House Bill 6704 which, if passed, would make 3 major changes to the process of tax-lien sales.
1. The bill would give the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation the right of first refusal in tax-lien sales involving residential properties of up to 4 units and asks RIHMFC to develop regulations that give delinquent owners an opportunity to buy back their homes…
Where the property subject to tax sale is residential and contains four (4) or less units, the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation shall have a right of first refusal to acquire the tax lien, and may assist the owner to discharge the lien or take title and acquire the property in its own name pursuant to regulations to be developed by the corporation, consistent with its purposes.2. The bill would require at least two rounds of notification of the owner, one by registered mail and one by certified mail, before a tax lien sale…
Whether or not the person or general partnership to whom the estate is taxed as of December 31st prior to the tax sale is a resident of this state, the collector shall, in addition to the foregoing, notify the taxpayer of the time and place of sale first by registered mail not less than sixty (60) days before the date of sale or any adjournment of the sale, and again by certified mail not less than forty (40) days before the date of sale or any adjournment of the sale…3. The bill would require notification of the Department of Elderly Affairs in cases involving owners who had received tax abatements due to their age. Failure to notify Elderly Affairs in these cases would nullify a tax-sale…
In the event the person to whom the estate is taxed is listed in the records of the assessor and/or collector as having applied for and been granted a property tax abatement based wholly or partially on the age of the taxpayer, then the collector shall also notify the department of elderly affairs by registered and certified mail as described herein. Failure to notify the department of elderly affairs shall nullify any tax sale.
The bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee. All of these provisions were included in a similar version of the bill last year, but were removed sometime in the committee process. We’ll see if they survive this year’s session. [Open full post]
The Projo welcomes Rhode Islanders back to the first work-day of the new year with a bit of regional jingoism that is equal parts inaccurate and ugly. The gist of a Tuesday unsigned editorial is that New England and the Pacific Northwest are so superior to the rest of the country, they need not care what the rest of the country thinks…
If you think of the United States as the upper half of a human body, New England and the Pacific Northwest are its shoulders. And in an economic sense, they are….Now, if you’re going to insult most of the country that you live in, you should have a few facts to back up the points you make, but this editorial doesn’t present the supporting facts — because they don’t exist.
Politicians in the South and the heartland often forget this. They sometimes denigrate the northern East and West coasts as cul-de-sacs: picturesque places of little import. They are so wrong.
America’s two shoulders need not worry about what others think of them. New England and the Pacific Northwest have the best social indicators [and] the country’s upper corners are where much of the money is made.
The unsigned editorial asserts that…
[New England and the Pacific Northwest] both maintain socially liberal traditions of helping the less-well-off, while staying out of people’s bedrooms,but there is no credible consensus that New England is a special place when it comes to helping the “less-well-off”. The Boston Foundation recently conducted a study of state-by-state charitable giving adjusted for local cost-of-living and tax burdens. (In large measure, the study is a response to the Generosity Index, published by the Catalogue for Philanthropy, which consistently ranks New England states near the bottom in charitable giving). Though the Boston Foundation resists the concept of “ranking” states, a few state-level and regional-level conclusions are obvious.
Connecticut is the only New England state to make the Boston Foundation’s top group of charitable givers in the most recent data (from 2002). Massachusetts also does well in the study, but not quite as well as the Southern states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Vermont and New Hampshire rate near the bottom of the study. It’s pretty clear that a superior New England tradition of “helping the less well off” with charitable giving does not exist.
The Boston Foundation’s charitable giving metric places Rhode Island in the middle of the pack. States most similar to Rhode Island are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arizona and Montana. When it comes to charity, RI has a lot more in common with the Deep South than it does with the rest of southern New England.
The editorial makes a second important assertion of questionable basis in reality…
The Northeast and the Northwest are both economic powerhouses, burdened with paying for much of the country’s spending.Again, there are basic facts available which counter this assertion. According to statistics compiled by the Tax Foundation, 3 of the 6 New England states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire — are “donor” states that pay out more in Federal income taxes than they receive. The other 3 — Maine, Vermont, and, yes, Rhode Island — are “beneficiary” states that receive more in Federal taxes than they pay. There is no pattern of New England superiority in matters of fiscal responsibility, and Rhode Islanders, in particular, are not paying for Sun Belt spending. Rhode Island gets all of its Federal taxes back, and then some.
Having twice taken a sloppy approach towards the facts, the editorial then delves into the realm of sloppy philosophizing…
[T]ax cuts engineered by the Sunbelt politicians will, ironically, leave more money up north for local use. After all, the country’s upper corners are where much of the money is made.There is nothing “ironic” about the fact that Federal tax cuts allow people to keep their money closer to home. The core of the argument for reducing both the Federal tax burden and Federal spending is that money is spent most effectively when it is spent by the people closest to problems and not by remote bureaucrats. Now that the liberal bloc of Projo editorial writers bloc has come to realize this, will they be consistent and advocate that Federal spending be cut so that more money can stay closer to home? [Open full post]
According to the Wall Street Journal:
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you’d probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members’ dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA’s recent filings–the first under the new rules–helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students. . .
When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he’s spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA’s $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on “political activities and lobbying” and another $65.5 million on “contributions, gifts and grants” that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
Indeed. Thankfully, the average union member can also find out where some of his hard earned dues money is being spent, too. So, if you’re curious, go here and check it out.
[Open full post]Ross Douthat, guestblogging over at AndrewSullivan.com, provides a fresh (at least to me) perspective on the fundamental problem with contemporary liberalism…
The original aim of the liberal philosophers was to remove the “high” questions, the important-but-unresolvable questions – what is virtue? is Jesus Christ the Son of God? where do we go when we die? etc. – from the political realm, where they had caused so much trouble, and into the private and personal sphere. Politics henceforth would focus on lower matters, and be more peacable because of it. The difficulty, of course, is that over time liberalism lost sight of the fact that the high questions are high, and the low questions low, and came to believe that because everyone could agree, say, that you should respect your neighbor’s property and avoid killing your enemy whenever possible, these were the most important questions facing humanity, and nobody – not even essayists and intellectuals – should sweat the other, harder-to-answer stuff. In early liberalism, governments weren’t supposed to take positions on Christ’s divinity, because the question was too important to be adjudicated by the state; in late liberalism, writers for the Times Book Review aren’t supposed to take positions on Christ’s divinity, because the question isn’t important enough to worry over.[Open full post]
Here’s a little more on why I think Jeffrey Hart’s use of the term “Wilsonian” to describe George W. Bush’s foreign policy obfuscates, rather than clarifies, the debate over the nature of a conservative foreign policy. Hart states that…
George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in [the Wilsonian] tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, “The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth.” Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead.If Jeffrey Hart is claiming that realism is the true conservative path, then it is he, and not George Bush, who is the conservative iconoclast. Hart is certainly aware of “realism” has a very specific meaning when applied to foreign policy. If realism is conservatism, then uber-realists Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger should be counted amongst the great conservative leaders.
Students of conservatism should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here, but I know of very few conservatives who trace the lineage of conservatism through Nixon/Kissinger. Nixon, in fact, is generally considered a major example of the non-conservative Republicanism that troubles Hart so.
At this point you might rightfully ask if it matters how conservative foreign policy is labeled, as long as people understand the ideas being discussed. But that is precisely the point. Because Hart chose to criticize W’s foreign policy for being “Wilsonian” instead of being “idealistic”, I cannot tell if Hart believes that there is any role for ideals in foreign policy. The praise of “realism” implies that he believes that foreign policy should be ideals-free. The fact that Hart chose to criticize a specific version of an ideals-based foreign policy, instead of idealism in general, implies the opposite.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Here is the link to Marc’s detailed summary of the many facets of the Hart debate.
[Open full post]Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch is unhappy with the Projo‘s coverage of his office’s March 2005 advisory opinion concerning open forums and school committee meetings. In the opinion, the AG’s office stated that school committee members should not respond to public comments made during school committee open forums because substantive responses, in some circumstances, could constitute official discussion without advance notice, violating Rhode Island’s open meetings law.
Lynch accuses a December 11 Projo news story by Arthur Gregg Sulzberger and a December 14 unsigned Projo editorial of misrepresenting the content of the advisory opinion…
If ever there was a case of agenda-driven, “gotcha” journalism, this was it. Misinformation at best and disinformation at worst, the story and editorial were, either way, a great disservice both to the many civic-minded citizens who stay involved in our democratic system by attending open meetings and to the people these citizens elect: local officials. Contrary to both the article and the editorial, my office never advised or told anybody that local officials had to sit silently at public meetings.The Attorney General has the beginnings of a legitimate complaint. Rhode Island law, according to Lynch, treats school committees differently from other public bodies. The advisory opinion suggesting that officials not respond to open forum questions applied only to school committee meetings, but the December 14 editorial assumed that it applied to all RI public bodies…
In obsessing over the fine print, lawyers often put themselves in a position of missing the bigger picture. That seems to be the case with Rhode Island Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch, whose office recently offered the opinion that public officials can listen to citizens at open meetings, but cannot generally respond to their concerns.However, Lynch’s blame-the-media strategy goes too far. Sulzberger’s article makes clear that the belief that the advisory opinion applied to all public bodies was spreading long before the Projo published its articles on the subject…
[Jamestown Town Councilman Bruce J. Long] says, “It’s tough to sit there and listen to it without responding.” But, he adds, he is just following the advice of the town’s solicitor.Unless Lynch is accusing the Jamestown Town Solicitor of getting legal advice from the Projo, blaming the media is not appropriate here. Nor is it appropriate for Lynch to blame the Projo for an opinion expressed by Narragansett’s Town Solicitor…
In November, more than three months after Jamestown’s council stopped talking during open forum, Narragansett’s longtime town solicitor reluctantly urged the town to follow suit. “I would caution you that for all future open forums you should . . . not respond, make a request of staff, or express an opinion,” Mark A. McSally wrote in a letter to the council.Lynch’s beef appears to be more with RI’s town solicitors than it is with the Projo. Or perhaps his office needs to write clearer advisory opinions.
In a subsequent interview, McSally said he has mixed feelings about the opinion, which he encountered while doing research on another open meetings complaint.
Adding to the lack of clarity on this issue is the fact that Lynch is now trying to rewrite the meaning of the advisory opinion. Lynch claims (today) that open meetings restrictions apply only in narrowly defined circumstances, even in the case of school committee open forums…
The [Open Meetings Act] OMA states, and my advisory affirmed, that citizens wishing to discuss a previously unnoticed matter can, indeed, discuss it, as long as a quorum, or majority, of the public body does not weigh in. Let’s use the Providence School Board as an example. A member of the public could have an exchange with up to four members of the full, nine-member board on an unnoticed item without violating the Open Meetings Act. The law would only “kick in” if a fifth board member joined the discussion.This spirit of this assertion differs significantly from the spirit of the position expressed in the actual text of the advisory opinion…
Although we recognize that an isolated comment or question from a school committee member may not rise to the level of a collective discussion between a quorum of the members, and hence might not be subject to the OMA, see The Children First Coalition v. Providence School Board, OM 03-03, at the very least, such actions fall dangerously close. In all likelihood, what may begin as an isolated comment could easily be the spark that ignites an ensuing collective discussion by committee members that would violate the OMA if regarding an unnoticed topic.The March 2005 advisory opinion clearly sought to discourage the actions that Lynch now claims it affirms. [Open full post]
Ed Achorn of the ProJo discusses the looming transparency of public sector financial obligations to be required under the new accounting rules:
Taxpayers in Rhode Island — and nationwide — will soon be learning some very unpleasant facts of life about debts the politicians have been running up in their name for many years, in courting favor with public-employee unions. And some union leaders are understandably getting twitchy about the day when the spotlight gets switched on.
The federal Government Accounting Standards Board has ordered states and communities to start reporting, in less than two years, how much they owe government retirees for (often free or low-priced) health coverage.
The true costs — which have been kept hidden from the public until now, since governments have conveniently failed to keep track of the mounting pricetag — are staggering, experts say. Nationwide, the unfunded liability could be $1 trillion.
“This is a huge liability,” Jan Lazar, an independent benefits consultant in Lansing, Mich., told The New York Times (“The next retirement time bomb,” Dec. 11). “If anybody understands it, they’ll freak out.”…
Public disclosure of such costs will have repercussions, some of them alarming. Cities and towns may have such huge liabilities that their bond ratings will plummet, making it extraordinarily expensive or impossible to borrow money. Some may be forced into bankruptcy.
Local taxes — in Rhode Island, already among the nation’s highest — may have to be raised sharply, and services slashed. Citizens are sure to be angry that even more of their money will have to go for even worse government because of deals cut long ago, and never fully explained. Union officials fear the public will pressure politicians to slash benefits…
Of course, those of us in the private sector, struggling to survive in a competitive world, are paying most of the bills for those in the public sector. While we focus on our jobs, paying taxes, and keeping our children clothed, sheltered, educated and healthy, special interests are at work day and night to influence the political system.
In many states, public-employee unions and their operatives have learned to contribute heavily to campaigns, get out the vote, elect friendly politicians, and handsomely pay experienced, full-time advocates to represent their interests at the state house and at city hall.
…Unfortunately, the common good and the public interest sometimes get short shrift, even in the best system, and even when agreements are made “in good faith.”
It’s human nature. Politicians often don’t worry about cutting deals whose costs will be inflicted on later generations of taxpayers, such as offering free health care to government retirees. They won’t be around to suffer the wrath of the voters who foot the steep and rising bills. And politicians can get away with selling out to special interests because the public is too busy and apathetic to notice — or because voters are denied essential information that could help them better understand what is at stake…
Achorn’s editorial expands on some of the points made in Andrew’s previous posting, which highlighted a recent ProJo article:
As a result of a new public-sector accounting rule, Rhode Island — along with every other state, city, and town, water, sewer and school district in the nation — will soon have to disclose to its taxpayers and bondholders the total value of its retiree health-care promises….
While no other specific action is required, the [American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] told its members, the new Government Accounting Standards Board rule “will require employers to calculate and publish the cost of these benefits, which will show up as a liability on the employer’s financial statements.”
“If assets have not been set aside to offset the liability, an ‘unfunded liability’ will be displayed.
I predict that, when the full effect of this previously hidden information becomes public knowledge, it will make any number of corporate scandals of past years look like a walk in the park.
Outlandish and unfunded public sector pension obligations as well as extraordinary healthcare insurance benefits are all a result of outrageous demands by public sector unions rewarded in a competition-free environment by spineless politicians and bureaucrats.
Why does this happen? Because of the misguided structural incentives that drive public sector actions that nobody wants to confront directly. These issues have been discussed previously on Anchor Rising:
Public Sector Issues
Misguided Incentives Drive Public Sector Taxation
Bankrupt Public Pensions: A Time Bomb That Will Explode
Why Truly Free Markets & Timely, Transparent Information Are Needed to Protect the Freedom of American Citizens
RI Public Pension Problems
The Cocoon in which Entitled State Employees Live
The Union’s Solution for the Future: Get More People in Unions
Bankrupt Public Pensions, Part II
How Public Pensions Make People Well-Off at Taxpayers’ Expense
Public and Private Unions
Rhode Island Unions Again Resist True Pension Reform
“Shut Up & Teach”
Union Political Activity
Learning More About How Dues Paid To Big Labor Are Spent
Pension Fund Politics: How the AFL-CIO Violates Its Fiduciary Responsibilities
Now Here is a Good Idea
Paycheck Protection: Allowing You to Keep Your Own Hard-Earned Monies
The big picture of why all this happens is explained in this posting: A Call to Action: Responding to Government Being Neither Well-Meaning Nor Focused on the Public Interest.
Most efforts at evaluating the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court have focused on parsing the Judge’s record (too often looking solely towards the outcomes of cases while ignoring the legal reasoning used). Anchor Rising was provided with an opportunity to approach the question of what kind of Justice Samuel Alito would be from another direction; we had the opportunity to put a few questions to a person who has worked with Judge Alito. Below is a short interview with Susan Sullivan, a former law clerk for Judge Alito (1990-1991), now a solo legal practitioner in San Francisco, CA.
Anchor Rising: We are interested in asking you a few questions about Judge Alito because, as a member of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, you have a resume that’s different from many of Judge Alito’s supporters. Do you believe that, as a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito would gave a fair hearing to the cases and arguments brought by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU?
Susan Sullivan: As a self described social progressive, (a registered Democrat, a pro-choice feminist who supports gay marriage, opposes the death penalty and supports gun control), I am not afraid to have Sam Alito as a Justice on the Supreme Court. Having worked closely with him, I never saw his personal or political views dictate an outcome in a case and I do not believe him to be intent on advancing a conservative political agenda. If he were a conservative zealot there would not be the decisions he has made with so called “liberal” outcomes. There are cases with “pro-choice” outcomes; there are cases favoring plaintiffs bringing discrimination suits, cases that ruled in favor of criminal defendants, or expanded a woman’s rights to seek political asylum on the basis of gender. These are just not the results you would expect to see if he were a conservative ideologue.
AR: What would you say to your fellow liberals who oppose Judge Alito’s nomination because they don’t like the outcome of some of his decisions, regardless of the legal reasoning used?
SS: If George Bush had picked anyone other than Judge Alito, I would probably have the same response of suspicion, fear and distrust as many liberals have had to Judge Alito simply because he was selected by Bush. But because I worked closely with the Judge I do not believe he will reach results based on his own personal views. While, it does not sound very complimentary to say that we could do a lot worse, the reality is that with George Bush in charge, we really could do so much worse and end up with a real conservative ideologue and I find that to be really scary! That is in part why I have said that by opposing Judge Alito, we may be shooting ourselves in our own left foot. I cannot predict the future and there are no guarantees but I’m confident that Judge Alito will be fair and impartial, and that is more important me than having a political ideologue of any stripe on the Supreme Court.
Second, we ask juries and judges every day to not judge someone until after they have heard all the arguments and seen the evidence. Some groups have already declared their opposition to him. I think the better approach is to wait until after the hearings to reach a more informed judgment. So I would suggest we take a careful look over his entire fifteen year record. He heard over 2,000 cases and was involved in over 200 opinions.
AR: What kind of boss was Judge Alito?
SS: He is a really likable, modest guy who treats everyone with respect and courtesy. It was great to work with him. He’s really smart and he’s always open to argument. He’s a quiet and a private person. When a judge down the hall from Judge Alito redecorated her office and placed two rather elaborate stone lion sculptures outside her door, Judge Alito (though he won’t confess to it), placed two pink, plastic flamingoes outside his own door! A coffee shop down the road named a coffee after him “Bold Justice.” Perhaps if he makes it onto the Supreme Court, they’ll rename it “Bolder Justice.”
Hope that’s helpful. All I would ask is that people temper what they are hearing in the mainstream press. Keep in mind that if it is not ugly and sensational, frankly, the mainstream press does not seem interested in reporting it and there is so much at stake, we should give the Judge a fair hearing before reaching any judgment.
