In my first post in this series, I sarcastically contrasted two headlines that seemed to sum up the current state of RI economic development. In the second post, I noted that ProJo columnist Edward Achorn had also noticed the contrast and wrote on the topic. Achorn was especially critical of the state’s reliance upon gambling revenue to foot thebill. Now Governor Carcieri has responded with a point by point rebuttal to Achorn. He explains why he’s against a container port (not enough interest by private business), against an LNG facility in Providence (safety concerns), why he supported the expansion of slots at Lincoln Park (and went along with the legislature’s 11th hour expansion at Newport Grand so the deal wouldn’t get killed) so that the burden on RI taxpayers could be lightened, and that the Electric Boat layoffs had more to do with Department of Defense policy than Rhode Island’s business climate. The Governor also noted that there was progress being made:
Almost three years ago, I set an ambitious goal of creating 20,000 net new jobs during my first term as governor. Today, Rhode Island is on track toward achieving that goal. Through November, we have created 14,600 net new jobs — one of the best performances in New England. Further, last month Standard & Poor’s upgraded Rhode Island’s bond rating to AA, citing our economic progress, pension reforms, and overall financial management.
. . . Rhode Island already has a good base to its economy, and we have been working very hard to further strengthen and diversity it, with particular emphasis on biotechnology and other life sciences.
As governor, I have been pro-growth. I will continue to champion economic development and job growth in Rhode Island. I will continue to make the tough decisions to secure our state’s future. And I will continue to protect Rhode Island citizens from unnecessary risks to their safety. Contrary to Mr. Achorn’s misplaced criticisms, that is the correct strategy for moving our state forward, and it’s working! We are removing impediments and Rhode Island is beginning to flourish.
The Governor has a right to be proud of the economic development he’s fostered, especially given he’s a lone-wolf Republican running with a pack of Democrats. Though I may disagree with him on individual issues (gambling and the container port), overall his policies have been a benefit to the state. Most importantly, he is a valuable check to one party power and has sought to be the representative of the people of Rhode Island: not the lawyers or lobbyists, not the unions, not the insurance companies. For the coming year, let’s all focus on trying to give him a little help in 2006.
[Open full post]Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online is reporting that Senator Lincoln Chafee has joined with the Democrats (including Senator Jack Reed) to filibuster this year’s Defense Department appropriation until a provision allowing oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is removed.
By the way, to read a more sensible approach to energy policy, click here.
UPDATE:
The Associated Press confirms ANWR oil-drilling as the reason for the filibuster. (h/t Kathryn Jean Lopez).
[Open full post]Katherine Gregg had an aritcle on Sunday’s Projo concerning an accounting rules change affecting state and municipal government. PLEASE STAY WITH ME FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER PARAGRAPH OR TWO, DESPITE THAT INCREDIBLY DULL FIRST SENTENCE. The rules change should not really be controversial; it simply requires public entities to disclose how much they owe their retirees in health-care benefits…
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….The money has to come from somewhere, so knowing how much you will need seems like a good idea, right?
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.
Not everyone agrees. Here’s the Rhode Island Policy Reporter on the subject (h/t RIFuture.org)…
The important difference between a private business and a government is that a private business can go bankrupt and disappear. In that case, it’s important that there be financial backing to the commitments it has made to its customers and employees. This is why it’s inappropriate for a private business to pay for pension costs out of current revenues, and why a corporation’s “unfunded liability” — the difference between what they owe and the cash they have on hand — is such a big deal.In a rather Orwellian twist, RI Policy Reporter defines “fiscally responsible” as making big commitments today without having any real idea if you will be able to pay for them tommorrow.
The same is not true of a government. Social Security, for example, has happily paid benefits out of current revenues for decades, and there’s no reason it can’t continue into the foreseeable future. But this accounting rule change will make this kind of perfectly responsible fiscal management appear to be mismanagement, and will cause thousands of governments across the country to raise taxes or cut services in order to pack away huge sums of money so they can appear more “fiscally responsible” than they really need to be.
The progressive position appears to be that government doesn’t need to be honest with citizens — in fact, government shouldn’t be honest with its citizens, because they might demand (traditionally defined) fiscal responsibility. Government can’t “go out of business” for spending more than it can afford, so saddling future taxpayers with huge liabilities doesn’t matter.
Am I my missing any part of the progressive argument? [Open full post]
According to Providence Probate Court Judge John Martinelli, cases similar to the case of Madeline Walker, the 81 year old Providence woman evicted from her home for failing to pay a sewer bill, are more common than they should be…
At a Providence Probate Court hearing yesterday, Judge John Martinelli looked out into the packed courtroom of lawyers, reporters, and community activist groups and noted that while the crowd was unusual, such a case was not.The report comes from Amanda Milkovits in the Projo, who also provides a quick summary of the inintial tax-lien sale of Ms. Walker’s home…
“I’m happy everyone’s on board now, but I must tell you, there are numerous cases like this,” Martinelli said. “I’m disappointed this case has gone this far without any activity by this court.”
The lien was sold for [$836.39] in November 2003 to Cobble Hill Development LLP, whose managing member is John E. Shekarchi.At the start of last year, several Rhode Island legislators proposed adding at least one additional step to this procedure. In mid-February (Senate)/early March (House), a bill was introduced that would have, among other things, made notification of the Departement of Elderly Affairs a binding requirement in certain tax-lien sales involving senior citizens. However, sometime between the bill’s introduction and its passage through committee, (late June in the Senate, early July in the House), the binding notification requirement was removed.
Private companies or individuals can buy the tax liens on properties. They pay the lien and seek to recoup their expenses, plus interest, from the homeowner. If the homeowner doesn’t repay the buyer within a year and a day, the buyer can charge legal fees as well and file a court petition for ownership of the property.
Something else happened in that time period, perhaps just a coincidence. On March 31, 2005 — during the interval of time when the strong protections in the tax-lien bill morphed into weaker ones — the aforementioned John E. Shekarchi gave a $200 campaign contribution to Rhode Island Senate President Joseph Montalbano. In other words, an active tax-lien speculator gave a campaign contribution to the Rhode Island Senate President at the same time the Rhode Island Senate was considering imposing tougher rules on tax-lien speculators. Do you think that Senate President Montalbano will be touting Mr. Shekarchi’s support in his upcoming election?
Other recipients of Mr. Shekarchi’s campaign cash include Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, the State Democratic Leadership Committee, and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian. [Open full post]
Although this isn’t something that I expected ever to write, the coming year’s Republican primary in Rhode Island is already a subject for blazing passions. That, in itself, strikes me as a healthy turn of events. Still, I remind commenters that Anchor Rising will insist that their conversations be civil. I should also clarify my current thinking so as to avoid being lashed (laughably) to “liberal lightweights” and accused (insultingly) of choosing my ground based on an event-lurker’s bruised ego.
I do not support Lincoln Chafee’s reelection. Long-time readers of Anchor Rising and, especially, Dust in the Light will not be shocked to hear me opine that Chafee, simply by virtue of his being a United States Senator, does damage to our nation. His being so prominent among local Republicans does further damage to both the party and the conservative movement in Rhode Island. Indeed, playing some role, large or small, in his removal from office would bring me not a little satisfaction.
Furthermore, I’ve long held, and continue to believe, that Steve Laffey brings to the table many qualities that Rhode Island needs. Allow me to restate with emphasis: that Rhode Island needs. Most significantly, that means a courage for disruption. It also means the good sense to understand the general dynamics that brought about our current circumstances and the clarity to cut through to their cores.
As Cranston’s mayor, Laffey has operated with a mandated and clear objective to clean up the municipal government and return the city to functional status. But the U.S. Senate requires a broader political and social philosophy than I’ve heard Laffey articulate — much less prove. Where will he stand on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, or the next matter that the world thinks to heave upon its moral burden? I don’t know. More importantly, I don’t know what foundation would be informing his decisions. I’ve heard that he’s pro-life; why? On what grounds? If he will be driven on social matters by the pragmatism that drives his civic policies, then he, too, may prove damaging to our nation.
None of these questions, on their own or in aggregate, would lead me to question Laffey’s suitability as a means for unseating Chafee. However, little signs of character and personality, gathered from the news and (admittedly limited) personal experience, tilt my ambivalence toward concern. Not least among those signs is the fact that Laffey was unable to find — or wait for — a second step for his political career within the state’s borders. That inability is at least suggestive of an impatience, perhaps an arrogance, that is fundamentally at odds with the approach to government that I believe to be essential toward arresting our society’s spiral into either chaos or mechanical depravity.
That Laffey is what Rhode Island Republicans have come up with as an alternative to our unacceptable incumbent suggests to me that we are still in need of shaking up and creative turmoil. Perhaps a loss of one of their most treasured possessions — a seat in the national legislature — will force the local party operatives to reassess the necessities of success. In that process, it is not inconceivable that Steve Laffey will develop and articulate a more encompassing vision and emerge as a candidate whom I could enthusiastically endorse.
In the meantime, perhaps I’ll write in “George Herbert Walker Bush.”
From the December 19, 2005 issue of BioCentury, a biotechnology industry publication available only by subscription, comes a story entitled “FDA seizes imported drugs.”
[Open full post]FDA said that in 1,700 parcels intercepted at three U.S. airports over a few days in August, only 15% of drugs that were promoted as “Canadian” actually originated in Canada. The agency said many of the drugs were not adequately labeled in English to assure safe and effective use, and that 32 of the pharmaceuticals sampled were determined to be counterfeit. The agency did not say how many drugs were sampled. FDA said the findings suggest that drugs ordered from Internet sites that consumers believe to be Canadian are not drugs of known safety and efficacy.
Madeline Walker is the elderly Providence resident who lost her home for failing to pay a $500 sewer bill. A law proposed in the legislature earlier this year would have given Ms. Walker and others in similar situations a better chance to learn that their houses were being sold out from under them. House bill H6020 and its companion, Senate bill S478, would have required mandatory notification of the Department of Elderly Affairs during tax-lien sales involving residents with elderly abatements and explicitly invalidated tax-lien sales if Elderly Affairs was not notified.
Here’s the irony, or coincidence, or maybe something worse. In the Senate, the first Representative listed as a sponsor on the mandatory notification bill was State Senator Harold Metts. Senator Metts represents District 6 — the Senate district where Madeline Walker lived (122 Chester Ave, Providence).
In the House, the first sponsor listed on the mandatory notification bill was State Representative Joseph Almeida. Representative Almeida represents House District 12 which is, yes, that’s right, the House district where Madeline Walker lived.
This is quite a coincidence. Apparently, Senator Metts and Representative Almeida had reason to believe that their elderly constituents needed some extra protection from tax-lien sales. And, it turns out, they were right.
So, what was it exactly that motivated Senator Metts and Representative Almeida to press for changes in tax-lien sale procedure at the start of last year? And who in the legislature convinced them to water down their changes, making taking advantage of an elderly citizen like Madeline Walker much easier than it should be?
Believe me that I tried, as the comments on the Laffey Photoshop controversy trickled in yesterday, to convince myself that I was making a flaw out of a quirk. Believe me, too, that I’m not altogether happy about the contrast between these posts and the more substantive ones that others are publishing around them. Nonetheless, I can’t shake the feeling that there’s something just, well, off about doctoring those photos. Perhaps not doctoring them so much as keeping them available on a campaign Web site after having done so.
I’m far from tepid in my desire to unseat the faction of Rhode Island Republicans who hold on to what power they have in part through convenient definition of what a Senator — specifically, a Senator for Rhode Island — “needs to be.” But there are certain qualities that a prominent representative must project in order to be effective. Maturity and a modicum of magnanimity are among them; such representatives must have the ability to coat their barbs with an intelligence and cleverness that ups the rhetorical ante, rather than lowering the political dialogue.
The two times that I’ve heard him speak, Mayor Laffey evinced a fondness for comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. It’s a comparison that many of his supporters long to be accurate, and I worry that, in our desire for a conservative stalwart to succeed by making the case for policies that we believe to be just, effective, and even compassionate, we may be marrying our cause to the first candidate to successfully identify that political opportunity. In local races, the flirtation was enough. When it comes to the U.S. Senate, we should husband our growing political capital until the real thing comes along.
Rhode Island conservatives aren’t there yet. I happen to believe that allowing Linc Chafee to lose his seat will bring us closer to our goal, but I’m not so sure that attempting to give it to Steve Laffey isn’t setting us back.
After Mayor Laffey had given his speech at a gathering of Portsmouth Republicans back in February, event organizer Deborah Mitchell Young introduced him to the two bloggers whom she’d invited: me and Rocco DiPippo. After a minute or two of observing Rocco being his magnificently exuberant self, Laffey grabbed Deborah’s arm and pulled her a few steps away as if to discuss some minor scheduling detail that would be of no interest to the rest of us. A moment later, the transitionary move having been made, he simply slipped away.
He was enough of a politician to know to step away from those who offer only gusto in a room full of the influential. But he was not enough of a politician — and not genuinely interested enough in his potential base of supporters — to find a way to leave behind a sense of having been acknowledged, rather than left hanging.
As a movement, Rhode Island conservatives aren’t yet sufficiently corporeal that we can afford to be pixelated.
Short version of the Iraqi elections…
High turnout, including in the Sunni areas.
Lots of people celebrating, literally, their right to vote.
Pajamas Media has a roundup including on-the-ground reporting from bloggers who are there.
While the ProJo Editorial board thinks Senators Reed and Chafee are on “safe,” though borderline, foreign policy ground in trying to obtain discounted heating oil from the state-operated oil company of Venezuala, Citgo, they do offer some familiar sounding warnings:
[Open full post]A close ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Mr. Chavez famously declared that the U.S. brought the attacks of 9/11 on itself, and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has spoken out against Venezuela because she lusts after Mr. Chavez — but that he is not interested in her sexually! He also accused President Bush of trying to assassinate him. South American politicians often find it useful to scapegoat the United States, deflecting attention from their own failings, and from sometimes painful remedies for problems at home.
It appears that Mr. Chavez is hoping, through deals with U.S. politicians, to embarrass the richest country and position himself as the hemisphere’s champion of the poor. He is making some progress in achieving these aims.
The Venezueland president is counting on the world to ignore that while he is giving away something to Americans with one hand, he is taking away much more with the other. While apparently showing concern for America’s poor, Mr. Chavez is working, through the OPEC cartel, to drive up oil prices. His dream of $100-a-barrel oil could obviously hurt the poor much more than limited reduced-price programs would help them.
When it comes to demagogic politicians who befriend dictators, some skepticism is usually in order.
