THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

There is always a great deal of power in any legislature, but the Rhode Island legislature is constitutionally endowed with power that makes it even more powerful than most. This power largely comes at the expense of the Executive branch of government and derives from the way the Rhode Island Constitution was formulated.

That being so, the legislative branch can and does impact Rhode Islands general welfare in ways that may be somewhat foreign to most other states. While we do have a three branched government, the roots in our legal history do not make it similar to the way we normally consider a three branched government such as the federal government of the United States.

It is not that it is completely different, but the subtle differences make a large difference when governing. A weak Executive branch must make far more concessions to the governing legislature and as a result, clear and decisive policy is often the victim.

In Rhode Island the biggest function of the legislative branch is the approval of the budget. This budget is prepared and submitted by the Governor, but the two chambers of the legislature, and especially the House, have great control over it due to the need for it to be approved by that branch.

While I am not commenting on the separation of power it provides in a setting that has a viable two party system, the Rhode Island political landscape is largely one sided with much of the power concentrated in the Democrats. A century ago the same situation appeared in the reverse with a concentration of power in the Republicans. In both cases, this is not a healthy environment for a three branch government.

The legislature is controlled by the whim of the people in a manner that is far less accountable on the whole. That being so when the legislature spends money on policy it does so without full accountability. This has led to much of the fiscal problems related to the Rhode Island economy.

The legislature has the power to tax. A governor has a power to veto. But in Rhode Island there is no line item veto and so the governor must accept the packaged budget whole or reject it whole. This means that the governor has little say in what gets funded, excepting, of course, any recommendations that might occur in the budgetary preparation process.

The legislature is ruled by special interests and lobbyists. That is the nature of the beast. The think otherwise or to even consider arguments that such influence is trivial is sheer folly. Money for political campaigns comes from lobbyists. Lobbyists in turn stalk the legislature. Power is measured in money and voting block support.

The legislature in Rhode Island has steadfastly refused to give power to its citizens through the voter initiative process. Voter initiative is staunchly opposed by voting blocks that already have a lobbying interest in the legislature. Coincidence? I personally think not.

Still, the legislature has the power. The power to write law is a power to control the population. The overuse of the power borders on tyranny. The fact that law is being used on a regular basis to control the personal behaviors of Rhode Islanders is appalling, but until the people take action, there is little hope for change.

In the future I will attempt to expand on the areas set forth above. I will try to discuss ways that would make the system more responsive to the people. I will try to add to the thoughts on voter initiative. And I will speak to the entrenched lobbying interests that make Rhode Island politics so warped.

IMMIGRATION – STATE’S ROLE

Immigration is a topic that can generate quite a bit of debate, but it is largely used by various groups to create issues where there are none. The use of immigration to divide is nothing new. Xenophobia comes from the ancient Greeks and surely existed well before that era.

There is a societal need to get exposure to other cultures. There is a greater good served by migrating populations. There are many advantages from outside contact. Similarly, there are dangers. Disease can be brought from one outside population to another. Culture clashes abound. But, in the long run, this is part of the story of human movement.

The key to any of this is to strike the proper balance. A society that is too fluid gets quickly diluted. A society that is too rigid may reason itself out of existence. Thus, there is a need to create a policy that regulates the influx of people into a society or country.

That said, and hopefully understood, the next step is to create a policy. Immigration is usually an issue of nationality. This, at least in the United States, puts the policy in the purview of the federal government. While the federal government is largely in control of the borders, it has been left to the states how to access and cope with the aftermath of federal policy.

The federal government has not secured the borders. It is that simple. Even in light of government proclamations of fearing terrorism, the borders remain porous. The fact that thousand upon thousands of people illegally enter (and return) each day demonstrates this point.

The federal government may be to blame, but the government is merely an extension of political policy. The Democrats want a pool of voters that they can manipulate. The Republicans want a cheap source of labor. Both parties, for widely different reasons, have no interest in securing the borders.

This then puts inordinate pressure on the state governments. Illegal immigrants are then left to flounder in the country. They are pandered to by political special interests in the form of access to state benefits. Meanwhile, they are abused in the workforce by unscrupulous employers looking to capitalize on cheap labor.

It is important to consider my personal point of view in this before going further. I am very much pro-immigrant, or should I say I am very much pro-legal-immigrant. The federal failure to secure the borders has placed many in the position of what to do with people who, with good intent, came here for a better life, albeit illegally.

Thus, the first and foremost issue is to have the federal government secure the borders. Without that, any immigration policy on a state level is sheer folly. Once the borders have truly been secured, then there can be a discussion of policy. Personally, I favor relaxed immigration laws whereby people can legally enter the country.

While each state has taken a piecemeal approach to illegal immigration, the approach is short-sighted. The liberal benefit package offered by some states and not by others only serves to create a magnet for illegal immigrants. It then snowballs into the public paying higher taxes to service this segment of the population, which, is not really here with “clean hands”. It further creates a strong anamosity toward immigrating populations.

State policy should not gear itself to supporting illegal immigration. These people, while worthy human beings, are not citizens. To create a welfare society that encourages illegal immigration makes no real sense for a state government. While it has its positives, in general, the negatives, especially in terms of state budgets and tax rates make such a policy unrealistic and, as we see, unable to fully sustain itself. Generosity is nice when it comes from private giving, but a state mandated generosity via taxation is quite different in that it eliminates the personal desire to give to a worthy cause.

In the future I will write about the need for a fair, but stern policy in approaching state immigration issues. Suffice it to say, however, that no matter how a state manages this issue, it is shoveling shit against a tide unless the borders are first secured by the federal government and a more liberal entry policy is adopted.

PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SERVICES

When discussing public property and services one can speak about so many different areas. For this discussion, I will focus on the actual buildings and public property owned by the State.

It seems that Rhode Island has a propensity to rent or lease buildings from people who are known political contributors and other related friends. The leases are not always clear and are not as transparent as they should be.

It would seem logical that when the State needs to occupy space, it should, where all possible, buy it. While it would be nice if the State had a policy that would allocate money for one time expenditures, thereby making funds available to for such purchases when required.

In Rhode Island we like to spend all our windfalls on operating budget items and thereby continuing our renting instead of buying mentality.

Once we find ourselves with a need for space, if we purchase it we could dispose of it once we have finished with our state use. Instead, we pay for leases on "make do" buildings, make repairs on them while we are paying high rent, and then just leave to another lease/deal.

By being in this position of renting, we create a downward spiral. Instead of using money in better times to begin a program of buying instead of renting, our leaders squander it on operating budget projects. It would be like someone renting a house putting in a built-in pool.

We are now unable to do much to get out of the situation. We are stuck with rental and lease options with no realistic chance of ownership barring a steep increase in taxes.

There is an argument that this is not all bad in that we can barely take care of the infrastructure we own already, but the reality is that we pay to repair and maintain our rental properties to an extent already.

As long as Rhode Island continues on this course, political friends will continue to enjoy rentals from the State, but the true business of State will not get much better.

In the future I will explore more of the service areas, the cost of regulation and providing those services, a better way of delivering services statewide, and the topic of open space.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic development should be among the top priorities of any state government. Jobs are the best public welfare policy. Employment opportunity keeps the state vibrant and keeps the citizens in competition for higher wages.

But, economic development requires heavy lifting. For years, Rhode Island has taken the course of least resistance in terms of economic development. Token efforts and trendy policies have helped to avoid the real issue.

Rhode Island, like most of the northeast, lost much of its manufacturing base over the last forty to fifty years. Instead of attempting to fill that void with similar industry, Rhode Island took the course of increased public sector employment, reliance on tourism and gaming, and the courtship of transient employment such as jobs in the financial sector. This, coupled with a uncertain plan to grant tax breaks without measurable goals and outcomes and specific tax credits, all led to the current lack-luster business climate.

First and foremost, we must understand that public sector employment is nice, but it doesn’t really grow the economy. By using tax dollars to pay people who then pay taxes to the state is not growth but a mere circulation of currency.

It is far easier for the legislature to create regulations and thereby creating a need for more personnel to enforce the regulations than to sit down and seriously consider what Rhode Island would require to compete for private sector employment opportunities. And so the system starts its downward spiral.

By putting a reliance on tourism and gambling to sustain the operating budget instead of using these types of revenues for one time expenditures, the system is put further at risk. A downturn in the economy means that fewer people will travel. A slump in disposable income and greater competition for gaming dollars makes reliance on this simply silly.

Finally, the use of tax breaks without a reasoned approach is merely a rewarding of some and not others. This is a great policy for those seeking political contributions, but it is a slow death to economic prosperity. When business is not given a proper environment and a level playing field, business looks elsewhere. The only business that then comes is a business that is not out of the long term benefit of the state but out to make its bottom line look good until it is ready to exploit some other stupidly organized state.

It is hard work to grow an economy, but it is not brain surgery. Businesses can be made to understand the benefits of stability, but they need to know that they are being considered. To ignore the existing businesses in hopes of attracting a new one is a recipe for disaster.

Therefore, the first step in any economic development plan is to understand and respond to the needs of local business. The next step is to make a climate that is attractive to long term business commitment. This is followed by utilizing the education system to work in conjunction with the economic plan, and if there is no economic plan, one should be devised pronto.

Rhode Island is a beautiful state, but that is only secondary in analysis of where to locate a business. The investment driven world doesn’t really care that there are beaches when they are producing widgets. These businesses are interested in maximizing profits and therefore must be shown a reasonable and predictable taxation system, a population educated to meet the employment needs, a sound infrastructure, and a government that is largely free of corruption and scandal.

Until Rhode Island is ready to pick up the gauntlet the state will remain among the highest personally taxed states. Rhode Island will continue to attract non-skilled labor. Rhode Island will continue to see a mass exodus of its best and its brightest. In short, Rhode Island will ride its downward spiral to its conclusion.

When I spoke of education in an earlier blog, I noted the need to match education with economic development. When I spoke of gaming, I indicated the problems associated with operating budgets being reliant on such revenue. And when speaking of taxation I noted that the over-reliance on property taxation was a burden to economic development.

Politicians can talk themselves blue about what needs to be done. Everyone is mouthing the words of “structural reform” yet few have set forth any consolidated plan. In times of budgetary crisis, there is the same old lame talk, protectionism, and the lack of any real courage to initiate a bold alternative to the status quo.

In the future discussions on this topic, I hope to be able to further explore the needs of attracting solid businesses, the need to have an extended five and ten year plan or statement of state objectives, the need to coordinate our taxing policy with both our education and economic development needs, and to generally speak to how Rhode Island could begin to accomplish these goals.