I see that Marc beat me to mentioning that Tom Coyne piece. When I first spotted Coyne’s headline, on Saturday, before I realized who the author was, I smirked; in Rhode Island, even the mantra that the “politics have got to change” has been corroded by endemic apathy.
The most proximate cause of my delay was time spent reading a long comment to my post about teachers’ salaries. In short, a recent transplant to Warwick from Minnesota has a whole lot to say about the Ocean State’s political culture, and she gives a face (so to speak) to Coyne’s suggestion that “the voting patterns of these new residents will be very different from what we see today.”
If anything, Coyne underemphasizes this factor, because he equates new residents and “private-sector commuters,” who earn their incomes in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although perhaps commentators can be forgiven for overlooking new residents who actually work here, too, one would think that citizens with both feet in the saltwater marsh that is the Rhode Island polity would be even more vehement in their desire to drain the swamp.
The Warwick commenter mentions that she’d been a teacher-union supporter back in Minnesota, but that Rhode Island has changed her view, which brought to mind a rough calculation that I’d posted at Dust in the Light in September 2003:
The fact remains, however, that, in 2001, the average public-sector employee in Rhode Island earned 32% higher than the private sector average. Using the corrected data for the number of private sector employees per public employee (in 2000), on average, every 7.4 private-sector workers in Rhode Island pays for one person to earn more than they do. Simplifying the numbers, take the average individual income in the United States to be $25,000. The public sector average in Rhode Island would therefore be $33,000, requiring each private sector worker to pay $4,460 (by force of law) to support one public worker, leaving the private workers with $20,540.
The calculation was spurred by an Edward Achorn piece that isn’t available online any longer. Achorn, as it happens, is also a stunned Rhode Island newbie:
WHEN I MOVED to Rhode Island four years ago, I was struck instantly by its pinched and starveling economy, its oppressive taxes and poor government services. Most striking of all to me, perhaps, was the brazen sense of entitlement displayed by many public employees. They seemed to feel that they had a perfect right to drive the state into the ground, and they didn’t seem to care about the consequences to themselves or their own children — never mind to their neighbors’ children.
I ended that post skeptical of “my ability to fight, if I stay.” A little more than a year later, now a homeowner writing on this new blog, I’m somewhat more optimistic. Whether we look at all immigrants or emphasize those who work elsewhere, I increasingly suspect that each incredulous new arrival — for whom the quirks of corruption aren’t an endearing character flaw of the state — counterbalances more of the endemic apathy than numbers alone suggest.
[Open full post]Tom Coyne of RIPolicyanalysis.org wrote on Saturday that politics in Rhode Island will change, it is merely the pace and manner in which this change occurs that is in question. He offered that either the voters will decide to bring about, via the ballot box, a more equitable political system or will the state go bankrupt as a natural result of one-party rule in which there is no check on spending.
In Rhode Island, the public sector, ie: government, has taken an increasing amount of the overall dollars earned in the state. This money comes from the pockets of those who earn their’s in the private sector. (Justin’s chart in a previous post is a simple, graphical representation of this sort of thing as it relates to teachers, a narrow section of the private sector.) If the public sector becomes too large and demands too much of the private, then those who comprise the private either vote for change or leave. If the latter ocurrs, then budgetary shortfalls become endemic and bankruptcy will follow unless the state government takes steps to forestall such an occurrence.
The recent election seemed to indicate that Rhode Islanders, as of yet, have not reached a point of disenchantment with current system as they did relatively nothing to alter the balance of political power in the state. However, Coyne offers an interesting observation about political change:
Since the Nov. 2 election didn’t do much to advance this result, then change will probably have to be brought about by the accelerating replacement of long-time Rhode Island voters with new residents who commute to jobs in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Unfortunately, this change process will be more painful. Because these new residents earn their income outside Rhode Island, as they increase in number our state income-tax revenue will decline….
Change will happen because the voting patterns of these new residents will be very different from what we see today. For example, someone new to Rhode Island won’t vote Democratic simply because his cousin works for the state. Private-sector commuters want honest, efficient government, and will try to remove from office those representatives and senators whose voting records show that they want something else. For example, don’t you wonder how many of the voters who turned John Harwood out of office in the primary were relatively new to his district?
However, Coyne also warns that those coming into the state with new political attitudes may still not be able to exceed those leaving the state who have already given up, much less gain a majority over those who continue to vote for the same tax-and-spend offenders. If such is the case, then the road to change will be through bankruptcy as public sector demands increase at the expense of a shrinking public sector.
Municipal bankruptcies are triggered by the recognition that it is economically impossible to service the public sector’s liabilities: debt repayment, pension obligations, municipal salaries, etc. After some point, there are no public-sector assets left to sell, and further tax-rate increases simply force people to leave the jurisdiction — resulting in lower, not higher, tax revenue.
There are some root causes as to why the private sector in Rhode Island is shrinking. According to Coyne:
According to Bloomberg Personal Finance Magazine, Rhode Island’s taxes are already the worst in the nation for people who are retired and/or affluent.
Additionally, as was noted today by the editors of the ProJo
Two new studies suggest that Rhode Island is on the wrong track if it wants to attract new business and thus tax revenues. Politicians must start focusing on creating a vibrant economy in the Ocean State, to bring in the jobs that will help to pay for the government services citizens want.
The Washington-based Tax Foundation rated Rhode Island fifth from the bottom in creating a favorable climate for business through its tax policies….The Tax Foundation rightly argues that states should stop trying to lure businesses by making sweetheart deals with short-term tax abatements and exemptions — which has very much been Rhode Island’s approach in desperately trying to bribe businesses to remain. Rather, the foundation argues, states should create a “level playing field” for businesses, have simple and transparent tax systems, and restrain government expenditures so that tax dollars are spent more efficiently.
Another new study offers even bleaker evidence that Rhode Island is discouraging the very thing it should be promoting: small businesses. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked Rhode Island a dismal 48th in its “Small Business Survival Index” for 2004.
Ocean Staters are right to be willing to pay relatively high taxes for good services and compassionate government. But without job creation, Rhode Island cannot conceivably have enough money to do all the things citizens want to do: provide for the poor, create top-notch schools, invest in roads and bridges, and a thousand other things government does.
Given this last, then, it seems that the majority of the voters in Rhode Island suffer from a disconnect between the thickness of their own wallets and their desire to fatten those in the public sector. [Of course, one obvious point is that it is not really a a disconnect because many of the voters in this state are either directly employed by, or benefit from, the public sector]. As a result, I fear that Coyne’s Option 2, state bankruptcy, may be the most likely path to political realignment in the state.
[Open full post]In Sunday’s ProJo, M. Charles Bakst, erstwhile stakeholder of the political commentariat of Rhode Island, took Sen. Lincoln Chafee to task for his waffling on both supporting fellow Republican President Bush and staying a Republican at all.
His flirtation with bolting the party — and, more especially, his decision not to vote for George W. Bush and instead write in the name of the president’s father — has been an excruciating episode that has done the senator no good in Rhode Island or in Washington.
He has been in these matters the picture of indecision, and his dithering has been a distraction that has needlessly punctuated political conversation.
Indeed, all Senator Chafee has managed to do is to further call into question his own suitability as a responsible member of the Senate.
A spectacular low point came on the eve of the 2004 Republican National Convention. (He would make only a brief appearance on the New York scene.) Chafee said he supported Mr. Bush’s reelection but wouldn’t commit to voting for him. He looked ridiculous, and Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, more conservative, more combative, and a possible challenger in a 2006 Senate primary, could barely contain himself, asking in an interview:
“What does that mean? Usually, the people you support you vote for. Would you vote for one you wouldn’t support? Or is he saying he supports two people?
Then Chafee, distancing himself further from the president but also wanting to stay away from Democrat John Kerry, hit upon the solution of writing in the name of the president’s father, an old family friend whose policies he like better.But, in declining to choose between candidate Bush and candidate Kerry, Chafee didn’t make a decision, he avoided a decision. Citizens look to leaders to lead. Chafee is often accused of wanting to have things both ways. This time he outdid himself.
He certainly did. In trying to be all things to all people, he seems to take few principled stances except for the few instances (environmental, War in Iraq, Tax Custs) that find him at odds with his own (ostensibly) party. This is exacerbated by the perception that he lacks critical thinking abilities and is not the best at offering well-reasoned arguments for some of his postions.
He is who he is, not the most polished operator, but a bright guy, an honest guy, moving as best he can through the political jungle. He has plenty of interests in life, and he and his wife, the former Stephanie Danforth, have a ton of money, and he is very competitive, but he doesn’t need this job, and when he’s through, or when voters decide he’s through, he’ll find something else to do.
I suspect that in 2006 Lincoln Chafee will be the former Senator from Rhode Island.
[Open full post]The President and his conservative coalition, as a matter of principle, do not like activist judges, i.e. judges who use their power to go beyond just interpreting the law. Here is uber-conservative and Bush supporter Phyllis Schlafly on the subject…
“Finally, we have a president who comes right out and targets ‘activist judges’ as the enemy of traditional values and urges us to use ‘the constitutional process’ to remedy the problem….Bush called on Americans to defend the sanctity of marriage against activist judges who force ‘their arbitrary will’ by court order ‘without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.'”
Alas for Ms. Schlafly, conservatives have a poor track record of limiting the power of activist judges. The above quote shows why. Almost always, conservatives pick a hot-button issue — gay marriage, flag burning, ‘under god’ in the pledge of allegiance — to advance the cause of placing limits on the power of the judiciary. By the time the debate reaches the public sphere the issue of activist judges generally gets lost in the more visceral substance of the case being decided. For better or for worse, people respond more strongly to ideas about ‘traditional values’ and ‘the sanctity of marriage’ than they do to ideas of ‘activist judges’.
Because the Taricani case is not the usual kind of case people have in mind when they hear talk of ‘activist judges’, it an ideal circumstance for a President concerned about activist judges to step in. This case does not involve a hot-button issue. If the President were to announce a pardon for Taricani, the civic debate that ensued would focus on the President’s power to limit the actions of the judiciary. And the President would be the one broadening rights and expanding freedoms that the judiciary wants to limit… [Open full post]
Rhode Island just passed a separation-of-powers referendum on the state level. But do we have it at the Federal level? Separation-of-powers means that a legislative branch of government makes the laws, a judicial branch of government interprets the laws, and an executive branch of government enforces the laws.
At the moment, Jim Taricani is being denied the protection that separation of powers is supposed to provide. What law did Taricani break? Well, it was not a law exactly, it was a “court-order” not to release information. And who is enforcing this court-order? Well, it is a “special prosecutor” appointed by the judge who issued the order. In other words, in the state of Rhode Island, an American citizen may be imprisoned by his government for violating a rule made by judge Ernest Torres, interpreted by judge Ernest Torres, and enforced by judge Ernest Torres.
This is a clear breach of the principle of separation-of-powers. Fortunately, the Federal constitution anticipated excesses of judicial authority, and provides a remedy — the Presidential pardon.
And, for a variety of reasons, President George W. Bush should be inclined to use his power of the pardon in this case…
Providence Journal media writer Andy Smith has an update on the Jim Taricani situation in Sunday’s paper.
For those unfamiliar with the events, here is the background. Jim Taricani is a political reporter for the local NBC affiliate, WJAR-10. In 2001, about two months before the (former) Mayor of Providence was indicted on federal corruption charges, an anonymous source provided Taricani with a videotape showing one of the Mayor’s aides taking a bribe. Taricani showed the tape on WJAR.
The judge presiding over the case, Judge Ernest Torres, ordered Taricani to reveal his source. Taricani refused. Beginning in March, Torres imposed a $1,000-a-day fine on Taricani. This Thursday, Taricani goes to trial for criminal contempt, and, according to Smith, could face six months in jail.
There is a solution to this problem, though it will not fully please everyone. The case is a federal matter. As such, it is possible for President George W. Bush to use his power of the pardon to end it. This week, I will lay out the reasons why President Bush should pardon Jim Taricani…
While we’re in the midst of our first weekend content lull, it seems as good a time as any to republish a vlog post of mine from January 2003 (mostly so it’ll be in the archives here). In the surrounding weeks, I made a few short blog-like videos, but the time it took to make them became too costly for the payoff in viewers. It is, however, something that I’d love to take up again if the fruits of blogging begin to cover the expense in hours.
This time around, the vlog goes on the road… literally. (And the vlogger realizes that, if he’s going to make these things on a regular basis, he’s going to have to begin getting his hair cut more than once a season — like he did when he was single and didn’t work at home.) I’ve used some new tricks, so please feel at liberty to let me know what you thought and to offer suggestions.
Click the picture for the interactive RealMedia version that makes my head look wide (for which you’ll need the free RealOne player available on the right side of this page). Click here for the plain ol’ high-bandwidth, thin-headed Windows Media file, and here for the low-bandwidth Windows Media file.
Transcript
I don’t know if this holds true for others at the tail end of Generation X, but it seems as if I’ve frequently been just a bit too late or a bit too early. And I mean more than being born just in time to model plaid bellbottoms for the family photo album.
In grade school, renovations were just beginning while traditional activities were being canceled. In high school, dances and proms had become shadows of the glory days pictured in teenybopper movies. The University of Rhode Island, when I attended, was in the process of shedding its party-school image but had barely begun its efforts to improve its academic reputation.
Out in the “real world,” the economic boom began to contract just as I entered the job market, and the teacher shortage that promised to land my wife a job has yet to materialize. Now, we’re beginning to look into buying a house just as rising property taxes are forcing residents of our income level to sell, while the healthy real estate market has kept the prices out of our reach.
Mackey Ervin of Midland, Texas, recently made news by trying to sell a $100,000, four-bedroom house once inhabited by the Presidents Bush on eBay for $250,000. Within the past few years, real estate in my neighborhood has jumped that much even for cramped homes with no presidential history: $200,000… $269,000… $325,000… $449,000.
And I live on the less-expensive side of town. I don’t even want to know how much these houses go for. Back in New Jersey, we used to call such areas “yuppie developments.” They always remind me of the firstPoltergeist movie.
But that’s midtown. The jaw-droppers are in Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s neighborhood. Combining prices in the multiple millions for these houses and the fact that I can’t even afford to live on the “wrong” side of the tracks, a natural impulse is to cry foul. Somebody of Kennedy’s ideology might feel the need to “do something” about it.
Maybe it’s a result of conditioning, but I can accept that this is just the way it goes. The rich have a right to raise the level of the municipality. Personally, I’d prefer to see property taxes arranged in such a way that locals wouldn’t be thanked for helping to build the community by being forced to leave town. But that wouldn’t help me; I came too late to grab a plot of land back when prices were in the five digits.
People in my position will have to do what we’ve always had to do: forge on. We can rent sheds with plumbing and enjoy the waterfront… only below the mean high-tide line. Or maybe we should move across the river, where the land is more reasonable, and build communities there, perhaps one day to sell our houses for many times our investment.
The world changes, often cyclically. Just as nature reclaims abandoned land, perhaps this town will once again be accessible to new families and regular folk. Change always brings as well as takes, so maybe you’re never too late. As for being chronically early, the remedy is as simple as having patience.
Commenting to a post by Marc, Rich from East Greenwich offers several specific questions that he might ask if mediating teacher contract disputes there. Among the considerations that he proposes is a comparison of teachers compensation with the median for the town.
Although not addressing East Greenwich, Marc and I worked through some of these sorts of questions on our personal blogs (pre–Anchor Rising). The following figure, which tells nowhere near the whole story, provides a baseline beyond which the picture only gets worse:
Arianna Huffington has an article on her blog nominally analyzing how Kerry’s reluctance to talk about foreign policy contributed to his defeat, yet in her detailed tactical description how foreign policy came to be muted, she doesn’t tell us what she thinks that the Kerry campaign should have been saying. She attributes the avoidance of foreign affairs to “the old obsession with pleasing undecided voters”. The question is: if she didn’t want Kerry to court undecideds, whom did she want him to go after?
The possibilities are 1) turn out the base with a more stridently anti-war position. But all the anti-war voters were already vehemently against Bush. Were there that many more votes to be found on the hard left?
By default, the other possibilty is to 2) convince Bush voters to switch sides. This option breaks down into two sub-options…
a) Push the “competence” angle, i.e. I’ll fight the war better than Bush. Do this, however, and the pro-war talk drives voters on the left away, probably in greater numbers than the gains in the middle.
b) Talk about the war as unwinnable, and say the best you can hope for is an open-ended truce. Convince the public that a detente with Islamist terror is the only “reasonable” option.
I fear that this position is going to gain strength as the Democrats redefine themselves in the coming election cycle. Remember where you heard it first.
