VoteHealey

2008-04-28T10:24:00.002-04:00

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

As noted before, our Rhode Island veterans need to be recognized for their sacrifices regardless of how one perceives warfare. These folks have been assigned a duty and they have performed it. If people have a problem with those duties, it should be addressed politically and not individually.

That said, we need to seriously consider what we are doing as a state to aid veterans and their families. The most glaring area is the way we provide health care to those who have served.

As a state we operate veterans’ homes, a system by which those who have served have the ability to receive health care in a retirement setting. While we are making an effort, we are not operating up to par.

The problems of funding and care are often raised. This demonstrates the fact that the state cannot really operate a health care system for veterans. If this is true for this small group, how can the state even possibly consider a full blown universal health care program?

The needs of returning veterans are often taken care of on the federal level through veterans’ hospitals operated by the federal government. The state is largely left to supplement this care, largely through a nursing care facility.

The state has an obligation here, especially where there is a need created by service to the state and country.

But with tightened budgets and the need to minimize staffing, the care of this group may be falling into a state of disrepair.

While the goals of these programs are most noble, the state has failed in its end of the bargain. By not recognizing the obligation it was undertaking, the state’s politicians wanted to woo the veteran vote by making promises to them. Such promises were little more than political pandering, but they are still state obligations that must be met.

The fact that budgetary constraints are pressing makes this even harder. Either the state must take the position of triage funding or it must make cuts that expose it to the reality that political actions are not good faith promises.

Of course, there is always the possibility of tax increases to cover these costs. It is a strong tug at the heart. No one wants to make cuts in programs designed to help the young or infirm. The problem is indicative of the nature of politics. The guy who gives away the money is remembered fondly, but the guy who is saddled with the reality of making tough cuts is damned.

Still, I am of the position that promises are to be kept to the extent that they are realistically capable of being kept. People have relied on these promises, although likely in a very unwise way.

This said, we need to continue to fund our veterans’ programs, making cuts where appropriate with a spirit of keeping the unrealistic promises made by politicians. We own these veterans that much and more.

2008-04-12T10:00:00.002-04:00

HIGHER EDUCATION

Given the current budgetary problems facing Rhode Island it is time to consider whether or not there are any savings that could be had as a result of consolidation of our higher education system.

Granted, as it currently exists, our higher education system functions, but the issue is whether or not it functions at its optimum efficiency. The real issue is not the delivery of education but whether we are doing it is the most cost effective manner.

The consolidation of the system of higher education has had its fits and starts in the past. Each school or univeristy in the state system has a different mission and therefore, it is not as easy to consolidate the system without forethought.

We have a community college system. That system functions to get students into a college mode. It provides education services at a more local level to those in need of education but are either not fully prepared for college or for those who have other obligations that prohibit them from taking a full college load.

Similarly, Rhode Island College has emerged as a commuter school, having its roots in a normal or teaching school. From its beginning, Rhode Island College has been a school that prepared many of the state’s, and nation’s, educators. While it’s role has expanded, it is still in that mode of providing a solid four year program that caters to the needs of a commuter student base.

The University of Rhode Island is more of the traditional institution of higher education. The mission of URI is more aligned with those of other state universities.

Acknowledging the differences in the populations served makes this discussion a bit easier to understand in terms of consolidation. It does not preclude any benefits from consolidation however it makes the task far more different and difficult.

The savings could be found in examining duplicate efforts and programs that are not carrying their weight. The reality is that savings are usually found in consolidation of administrative staffing. This should be examined first.

Duplicated efforts in course offerings, program sharing between the institutions, the interchangeability of programs within the system, and a serious need to prove the worth of each offering should be examined.

Of course, the latter requires contractual flexibility. This perhaps would be the thorniest problem in that there would likely be some staunch opposition from the labor unions, but it is not insurmountable.

If we can maintain the missions of each of the state’s institutions, we have an opportunity. Will the savings end the budget crisis? Hardly. It is unlikely that these changes will produce enough savings to salvage a sinking budgetary ship, but it is just one area where minor changes can make a difference.

The old saying is that if you watch your dimes, dollars will take care of themselves. This logic needs to be the dominate logic in all state programs.

Further, by initiating consolidation on a state level much can be learned that can then be applied to the public education system that direly needs direction and consolidation on a statewide basis.

The system is not broken. The system merely needs tweaking. While this is perhaps the harder task, it is time to do it. A leaner more effective system of higher education in Rhode Island would not only better service its constituents, it would better serve the taxpayers of the state.

2008-04-05T10:27:00.002-04:00

THE JUDICIARY

The trend of legislative interference with the judiciary is still troubling in Rhode Island. The idea of having magistrates instead of judges appears on its face to be a method of the legislature taking control from the judicial branch.

Magistrates, while they do have a function, are appointed through a legislative process and not through the traditional appointment from the executive branch.

Now this does not absolve the Governor’s office from its foot dragging in the appointment to fill judicial vacancies. The slow as we go approach has put great strain on the judicial system.

But, even with that said, the underlying argument still exists. Rhode Island is over burdened by the fact that it is over regulated. The need for the court system exists as a direct result of the legislature criminalizing all sorts of behaviors. The underlying reason for the judicial burden is the fact that every legislator wants to politically demonstrate he or she is “tough on crime”.

The judiciary must deal with the fallout of those legislative actions. The fact that the judiciary is little more than a processing factory for the most part is a clear tribute to the legislature’s over-extension.

The naming of magistrates is a solution to the problem, but it is not getting at the root. The addition of several more judges does little more than the same.

There is a place for the third branch, but the problems plaguing it are not necessarily of their own devise.

This is not a defense of the judiciary. They have stood silent as the cottage industry of crime has expanded. They have shirked responsibility to call the public’s attention to the fact that the legislature is being too active. This silence, while self-serving to the judicial branch, is a disservice to the people it was designed to serve.

The needs of the judiciary need to be met, but the judiciary cannot see itself as a tool of either the legislature or the executive branch. This sadly has been the history of the Rhode Island judicial branch.

Still, by letting the legislature name magistrates with sweeping powers, the legislature is knowingly crossing over into another branch of government. Separation of powers, a long standing Rhode Island concern, oddly doesn’t really speak to this issue.

The judiciary is also to blame. The allowance of administrative law to grow is at the door of a lazy judiciary. Instead of hearing legal matters, it has become customary to allow for administrative hearings, and those results are then limited on appeal. Is that real justice?

The fact that the judiciary has deferred to the executive in administrative hearings is equally as dangerous as the legislative interference into the appointments to the courts.

It is time to untangle this Gordian knot. Until this occurs, there is little chance of having a free and independent judiciary.

While it is hard to argue that the judiciary is not doing its job, it is easy to see that the problems in the system is a direct result of the judiciary’s failure to maintain its integrity in light of the executive and legislative branches.

The judiciary can claim its independence all it wishes, but until it is truly free from the executive and legislative influences, it is only free in its own words and not in reality.

2008-03-29T07:26:00.002-04:00

THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

The last time I wrote on this topic, I reported that the situation of personal liberties under the Rhode Island Constitution was limited. While the document purports to grant various rights and freedoms, the Rhode Island Supreme Court through various opinions has limited the scope and application of those provisions.

As I wrote before, former Supreme Court Justice Flanders was very active at that time attempting to sound a call to action to allow for these constitutional rights to be enforced by anyone impacted, however, such calls seemed to have subsided as he now focuses on education in Rhode Island and the reality is that the party will go on as usual.

The idea that a constitution fixes rights but only allows them to be claimed if specific legislative action allows for an individual to bring action seems on its face a ludicrous position, but such is the case.

Given Rhode Island’s historical development as a state government, this interpretation of law is not so far fetched, but it is certainly dated. Still, since the near omnipotent legislature controls the gates, it is beyond the average citizen to gain entry. This is bad policy in this day and age, but enough said.

The Rhode Island Constitution is in itself an interesting document. It is not a verbose text. It is quite clear and to the point on several areas and it has a reasonable provision for its amending. The problem is that the people governed by that document haven’t the slightest clue as to how it interacts in their very existence.

Far be it from me to attempt to educate the public on this matter. I have tilted at that windmill for over two decades. I have worked the mines of public edification only to come up with a mere handful of fool's gold.

The people get a government they desire and one they deserve. While I do not personally agree with the people who enjoy the status quo, until the public can muster enough support to make something different a reality, it will continue to exist, much to my consternation.

There have been various constitutional conventions, most of which were really puppet shows in which the legislature played a significant role behind the scenes. Many elected as delegates were thinly veiled representatives of the legislator in the district being represented at the convention.

Additionally, on several occasions there has been a rejection of the ballot referendum that would call a constitutional convention. I suspect that much of this was the work of special interests and lobbyists who have much to preserve by keeping this system as it is.

The fact is that if the people aren’t bright enough to get out of the rain, why spend time trying to sell them umbrellas? Even in the times that presently exist, with a full blown budget crisis, the people are living in ignorance. The only time that there was ever a near revolt was when people were personally short-changed by credit unions. This shows that people really do not care for the system, they care about themselves.

Until the people of Rhode Island wake up and demand constitutional changes that would create a more functional government, the situation will not improve. Electing a new face does not alter the underlying structural problems of Rhode Island government.

The reality is that structural reform is needed, but the reality also is that it will never occur. The powers that be have no real interest in relinquishing control for the betterment of the state. A true constitutional convention, with real reform, would be the perfect physic for Rhode Island. The likelihood, however, is zero.

2008-03-20T09:23:00.001-04:00

LABOR

As the budget mess unfolds and the legislature is working to plug gaps instead of correcting the problems, we are now looking at a situation, which was predictable, in which public labor is pitted against social programs for government tax dollar funding.

It is interesting as to which group will have greater sway over the legislature. In the past the two groups co-existed, however, as of late, the two groups are now fighting each other for the precious few dollars that are on the table, that is, unless there is a sweeping tax increase.

The lobbying efforts of public sector labor and their infiltration of the General Assembly through holding elective office seems to put them in better stead to take the few dollars that are available, but there is a great push from social service groups. Their lobbyists are not slouches either, especially when they can pull on the heartstrings of the public.

But the reality is that there is not much money and that public sector labor must concede some of its benefits.

The reality is that by creating this bureaucracy in order to feed political supporters, the legislature is directly responsible for the over-sized government labor. Additionally, it should be noted that by granting various benefits under state law, the legislature has also strapped the hands of local municipalities that are fighting the same battle.

Whenever there is a cry for more government action, a legislator thinks of how many jobs it will supply for friends and campaign supporters. There is very little concern as to whether or not the program is needed or whether it is merely a knee jerk response to some perceived problem in society. The legislature rarely finds a program it doesn’t like.

Therein lay my concern. I have long advocated for a smaller more effective government. I have long noted that the intrusion of government has been the bane of Rhode Island’s existence, even if the electorate is too ignorant to acknowledge it. But, saying it doesn’t solve the problems.

The public sector labor interests cannot be easily avoided. They have a large voting network. Politicians are fearful of this voting strength and therefore avoid angering the base. The irony is that they created the monster they now fear.

Public sector labor was once a secure refuge. It rarely paid well, but there was a great deal of job security and benefits. Now that we are paying public sector on a scale similar to that of the private sector, the added protections and benefits are making it cost prohibitive.

There is a viable need for public sector employment. The issue is just how far the government needs to extend itself and to what extent it will tax its residents for the providing of government jobs.

We also must note that government jobs do not bring new money into the state. It does have a circulation impact in that the people earning the money pay taxes and buy locally, but the reality is that such use of public funds is not growing an economy. By adding public sector employment, we are not doing much to increase the tax base, and, may in fact be creating a situation that has a negative impact.

In days past, government labor forces would shrink when there were times of prosperity in the private sector. Because they were under-paid, these employees would be seeking to get a private sector job. But now that wages are comparable and the benefit packages too good to leave, even if there were private sector jobs available, many would not leave. This only compounds the problem.

As we have seen in former Governor DiPrete’s early retirement plan and recent attempts at early retirement in New Jersey, the savings that are often assumed never materialize. In going down that road, we are not looking at ways to correct a bloated government, but rather we are looking, like Rhode Island legislators often do, to plug a gap and pass the buck to the next generation.

As I have indicated on many occasions, I do not fault the public sector laborites for their tenacity and their seemingly undying effort to secure pay and benefits for its membership. I personally place the blame on spineless legislators and the fact that they will put political careers and personal interests over the general welfare of the people of the State of Rhode Island.

I will discuss this further the next time I write on labor. In the meantime, don’t hope for much in terms of real or structural reform emanating out of the legislature. The monster is bigger than they can handle on their best day.

2008-03-13T23:44:00.000-04:00

ENVIRONMENT

The last time I wrote about this topic I indicated I would try to better link the need to balance the environment with the needs of economic development. This balance is what will make or break the state.

To under-develop is to miss various opportunities. To over-develop means that we are sacrificing our natural wonders on the altar of the almighty dollar. Neither is a wise nor winning approach.

Balance is the key in this particular area. The lack of restraint is equally as dangerous as complete control. Thus, we are in a particular subject area that requires the most give and take and a keen eye focused on the long term and short term needs of the people and of the state.

We are all desirous of maintaining the beauty that is Rhode Island, but to what extent must we suffer economic depravity to achieve that result? Similarly, if we just develop for the sake of creating work and pay little heed to the needs of our environment, we are doing a complete disservice to ourselves and those who will inherit our bounty.

We must consider smart growth concepts if we are to continue to grow and maintain our beauty.

The problem with this area is that is can be seen in very polarized terms. There are groups that will give no ground to development, and there are developers who will pay no heed to the environment. Both share in creating a problem rather than focusing on a mutually acceptable solution.

More than any other area, there is a need to have all minds sit at the table.

The problem is that Rhode Island and its law makers have long failed to pay much attention to the problems that surround this. It is too often used as political fodder to enhance candidacies rather than be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

Too often the approach here is that the environment will take care of itself, much in the manner that water seeks its own level. The reality is that there are many positive steps that can be taken in the area, and, if there were a more comprehensive planning approach, Rhode Island could have a much better grip on this problem.

There is little need to reinvent the wheel. But there is a need to pay attention to the person who has developed a better wheel. We need to get our state to have a more focused approach in this area. We need to realistically project a five and ten year plan for where we need to grow and how much growth is really necessary to sustain the state’s viability without impacting on its beauty.

To divide ourselves on these types of issues is a disservice to the state and to our fellow citizens. We need to communicate and resolve differences if we are ever to make Rhode Island a place that will have both growth and charm.

2008-03-06T09:45:00.003-05:00

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

When I speak of government affairs I am always aware of the need for Rhode Island to have a system of voter initiative.

While there are many that have vested interests in keeping the present system of legislative exclusiveness due to the fact that they can better control the legislature through paid lobbying efforts, there is a real need in Rhode Island to allow for the citizen to propose change.

Certainly a citizen can ask that a Representative or Senator introduce legislation on a particular subject, but even if the politico is responsive to the constituent, it is frequently, if not always, lost in the legislative maze.

There is little support for citizen initiated bills in the General Assembly. There is a closing of ranks that makes the voice silenced.

To counter this there should be a system of voter initiative. It works in more than half the states, and, to many people’s surprise, it is available to many Rhode Islanders on a municipal level.

The reason it is allowed on the municipal level and not the state level provides much for questioning. If it is good enough to propose municipal law, then why is it bad to propose state law?

The answer is that municipalities are weak in Rhode Island. Any effort that passes in a municipality can easily be trumped by the state legislature, assuming that the municipal law is within the realm of the restricted area of municipal regulation.

The fact is that politicians fear voter initiative. So do lobbying groups that are primarily concerned with maintaining their spot at the budgetary trough.

Those opposing voter initiative frequently use the fear card to scare these politically vested interests into having their constituents lobby against such efforts.

Statewide voters want voter initiative. They have said so, but the politicians turn deaf ears.

I would venture to say that if voter initiative had been enacted when I first spoke about it twenty-five years ago, there might have been a far different governing system today and we may well have avoided the budget crisis we now face. But it just didn’t fit in with the political games that are played out on Smith Hill.

Instead of having a government responsive to the people, we have a self-serving bunch that answer only to lobbying interests. The whole system, much like a fish, rots from the head down.

The fears of bad voter initiative had been ironed out in the legislature, and yet the bills recently proposed have all gone down in flames. The voter initiative movement has been thwarted by the very people we have elected and the people now suffer. Interestingly, we fought a revolutionary war over the issue of taxation without representation. The irony is that taxation is no better with the respresentation we have.

Voter initiative is not anywhere near as ominous as the opponents suggest. In fact, the concept itself came about when business dominated legislatures were denying various rights and privileges to its people. One example is how Wyoming used voter initiative to secure voting rights for women prior to the United States Constitution being amended.

The point is that the people who control the government fear voter initiative, and probably rightly so. True voter initiative would keep politicians in their places and protect the people from a runaway government.

2008-02-28T07:39:00.002-05:00

CRIME

When I last touched on this issue I discussed the need to restructure the criminal system to prioritize and to review sentencing. I indicated that there is a great need to reform the system so that it is more effective and efficient.

Once we have made the steps in that direction, we must then look to the court system as to whether or not it serves its function or is merely an impediment to the process.

The court system in Rhode Island is plagued, in my opinion, not by the judiciary, but by the system that has been mandated upon it by the legislature. There is some blame that lies at the feet of the court system, but the larger culprit is the over-regulation of society that then puts an inordinate strain on the court system.

The Rhode Island court system is straining under the burden and is beginning to show signs that it will take the path of least resistance and become a mere foot soldier in the war. The court system is beginning to take to the idea that crime can be a cottage industry, providing employment opportunities and featherbedding of this branch of government.

The criminal justice system is a maze that doesn’t really service the public that well. The constant “processing” of crime and the information that relates to it make the system of swift justice near impossible.

The fact that court rooms are packed, the current lack of justices to fill the ranks, and the constant imposition of sentences that are less than “justice” make for a system that is merely a ‘take a number’ approach.

The more people processed, the more the system grows. The lack of justices has put a strain on the system, but it may also have a positive effect of forcing a downsizing in the processing of caseloads. This, however, is yet to be seen.

The daily cattle call of the arraignment calendar and the expanding need for violation hearings concerning past criminals that have re-offended makes any observer ask whether this is really working.

As I indicated in an earlier statement, real time and real crime should be the focus of the system. There is a need to fully sentence. There is a need to realistically state criminal offenses. There is a need to streamline the system from within.

Are low level drug possession cases really worth the approximately four court days it takes to fully adjudicate a matter? What about all the charged cases that are eventually dropped for failure to appear on the part of a complaining witness? How about all the civil matters that could be resolved by mini-arbitration hearings?

While crime is always a topic for potential office seekers, being tough on crime by statute does little if the circuit is not completed fully by an effective judiciary and corrections system.

The public needs to see through the “tough on crime” talk. This is not to say that criminals should be given a free hand; in fact, it stands to the contrary. When society wants to get tough on a certain “crime de jour” then it should be prepared to make the appropriate allocations throughout the entire system. Filling prisons for the sake of filling them is as ridiculous and letting real criminals out early.

2008-02-21T07:50:00.002-05:00

PROPERTY TAXATION

As was noted earlier, one of the major problems related to local property taxation in Rhode Island is that it is used inefficiently to fund education.

By using local property taxes to fund a major portion of the education budget there are several concerns. If the local communities were given a free hand at implementation of labor contracts by the state, then there possibly could be a sensible approach to this issue, but the fact is that the state law actually hamstrings locals in labor matters, yet it expects so much of them under state law and regulation – expectations that are not paid for by the state.

In essence the state level of government has created a set of rules for locals and has not paid for them.

In order to meet these state mandates, the locals must tax, and their logical alternative is to utilize the property tax.

In the last session of the General Assembly I had legislation introduced at my request to change the funding away from local property taxes and shift the burden to the state via a 90% payment through income taxation.

This concept was soundly rejected in that it would require too much effort on the part of the State. It would require that the state actually work to have a functional economic development plan, that the state would have to better implement its mandates, and that the special interests in the legislature would not be satisfied.

An income tax based education formula seems most logical in that it allows for uniformity. In essence, a state education labor contract coupled with the funding responsibility in the state’s hands seems the most logical and fair, but then again, this is Rhode Island.

Instead, there is no real move to shift this burden. Instead, it will only increase as the state continues to impose regulations and other unfunded mandates.

With a tight budget there is an unlikely possibility that locals will get increased state aid to education. If so, then where is this funding coming from other than the local property taxes?

The fact is that the legislature needs to either relinquish control over education to give locals a free hand to negotiate its labor contracts or take the entire matter into the state’s responsibility. This bi-level government approach is little more than a recipe for failure, finger pointing and constant consternation.

Truth be told, the State needs to seriously revamp and restructure its entire taxation system. The piecemeal approaches and stop gap funding schemes of the last twenty years or so have done little to help. It functioned, albeit poorly, during good times, but it is ready to cease during this harder economic climate.

Education and taxation are clearly related to economic development. They serve as a triad. They must be perfectly balanced and continually adjusted to meet the current circumstances presented to government. The problem is that we have left these responsibilities in the hands of buffoons who really have little, if any, clue as to how these matters inter-relate.

We can put all the study groups in the state together to come up with an answer, but the fact remains, a camel is merely a horse made by a committee. We need a solid, well reasoned plan that restores prosperity. Instead, we look to the people who brought the state to this level to resolve the problems. Who’s stupider than we are?

Barring some heroics in the Assembly this session, I am sure this topic will return to a later discussion.

2008-02-14T08:23:00.001-05:00

TRANSPORTATION

I have long been an advocate for mass transit in Rhode Island, the problem is that the money that could have been used for such an endeavor has been wasted.

Transportation funds are largely related to federal funds. The federal government, in its attempt to by-pass state sovereignty granted state’s under the United States Constitution, provides transportation funds, usually with strings attached. In doing so, the federal government can exert its power over the states that receive funding.

It is a trap that Rhode Island, and all states for that matter, has fallen into. That said, there is very little that can be done in terms of major transportation projects without the involvement of the federal government.

Still, state governments are not absolved of responsibility. The states propose various uses of the transportation funds. Unfortunately, Rhode Island has used these funds to target auto-centered projects and not mass transit.

As a result, Rhode Island’s ability to fully utilize its capability for mass transit is sorely limited. Yes, we have a bus system that runs statewide, but that is far short of what could be done with mass transit.

Given Rhode Island’s size, its urban population centers, and its use of urban cores to locate businesses, Rhode Island is ripe for a good mass transit system. The reality, however, is that this may never come to fruition.

The past squandering of funds, coupled with the budgetary crisis related to mismanagement of funds in other budget areas, has made it next to impossible to implement a mass transit system of the type that would actually work. Sure, there could be a piecemeal plan, but the reality is that unless a high grade system is constructed, there will be limited use. Limited use makes this an unrealistic option.

Mass transit must be safe, reliable, easy to access, and operational at times when it is needed. People all over the world use mass transit systems, but the ones that are the best get the most use. People are moved by price and ease. If a system is constantly running, it can fulfill the needs of the users. Once any of the major components breaks down, the system is doomed.

Rhode Island needs mass transit. It has the compact service area and it surely has the transportation problems that would be alleviated by such a system. The only problem is that the operation of such a system would require an education effort and money, neither of which is among Rhode Island state government fortes.

2008-02-07T20:39:00.000-05:00

EDUCATION

Much has actually happened since the last time I addressed this issue. There has been a severe budget crisis that has just about forced the local governments to re-evaluate the funding mechanism for education.

Also, since the last writing, the Board of Regents, under the direction of Robert Flanders, has been making some interesting in-roads. While I am not sure that Flanders fully understands the socio-demographics of education, I am quite encouraged by his efforts to bring the matters to the public’s attention.

Flanders recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Providence Journal (February 1, 2008) in which he outlined what he has as the vision for the Board of Regents over which he presides. While much of it was the same old tripe that is as predictable as the sunrise, there was at least a tone of sincerity. I got the feeling that he was naïve but truly thought that he could better the education system. For that I give him some credit, that is, credit on top of the credit for publicizing the problem.

Unlike most before him, he actually attempted to outline a course of action. Whether or not this proves sound is left to the future, but it should be noted that he has made a solid attempt to understand the problem. My only criticism of this is that it fails to take the reality of education into the equation.

Children from homes that respect the value of education will attempt to perform to a higher level. Those from homes that put lesser value on education will suffer. It is the real dirty little secret of the education world. We can train people, but we do a miserable job of educating them.

The outline by Flanders included a frank discussion of the need to consider pension reforms, education work rules that reflect the modern school room instead of the outdated entrenched system, and the attempt to bring economic development components in line with education objectives.

The reality is that there will probably be little success. The fact of the matter is that the over-reliance on property taxation to fund schools needs to be abolished and a statewide wage rate established. There needs to be a greater flexibility in the operation of the schools by the local school boards, but only after they are freed from the responsibility of contract negotiations.

The need for reform is glaring, but the system did not get to where it is overnight nor will it be able to right itself in such a short period. The need to look at longer term solutions in education is often thwarted by the silly regulatory nature of government. Until we can curb our governmental regulation appetite, we are no more likely to solve our education problems as we are to solve our budgetary woes.

By the next time education comes up for discussion, we will have a sense of the proposals argued by Flanders. I hope for success, but I think that I will be returning to the subject with the same commentary that we are continually spinning our wheels speaking of education reform and not achieving it.

2008-01-31T08:17:00.000-05:00

THE FUTURE OF RHODE ISLAND

Contrary to what people may think, I actually believe that there is a potentially bright future for Rhode Island. I am quite negative about much of what is, but that does not preclude me from being positive about what Rhode Island could be.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Pollyanna about such things and I certainly do not see the Rhode Island landscape through rose colored glasses, but I do believe that the sinking ship of state has the potential to be righted.

As I mentioned in earlier pieces, I see the current crisis in Rhode Island as a wake up call. It is a situation whereby Rhode Island can rise from its ashes, that is, assuming Rhode Islanders have the commitment to do so.

Rhode Island is different from other states in many ways. We have a strange demographic which leans toward older, less affluent people. We are situated in the Northeast and we are between New York and Boston, a factor that keeps pricing for goods and services higher than the rest of the nation.

Still, as a state we are quite poor at managing money and economic development. We educate our children, and pay dearly for it, only to have them leave the state for employment. We not only lose a viable economic engine, we pay the education costs of our competitors.

The current budgetary crisis is a direct result of spending from the heart and not from the head. We are poor planners and we are suckers for a cause. This is not all bad, except when it reaches extremes. That is where Rhode Island is at present.

The need to rein in the budget and to prepare a plan for the future is essential. Quite frankly, I am not so sure that the current administration and the presently seated legislature are up to that task.

The need to relinquish local control, the need to reasonably fund social welfare programs, the need to avoid quick fixes to balance a budget, the need to avoid further taxing an already over-taxed population, the need to create a better system of governance and the need to stop the wastefulness of government are all critical at this point in time.

Rhode Island’s future will depend on how these issues are dealt with in the legislature. If Rhode Island fails in this attempt, it will have a long future of being a second rate state, a laggard in many respects.

Sure, Rhode Island is beautiful. And sure, it is a great place to live. And so forth, but that doesn’t really pay the bills. A reliance on tourism and being a great place to live is not the sole basis for competition in the world of economic development.

Rhode Island has been presented with an opportunity. As my mother would always remind me, it is always darkest before the dawn. This is true here. The question is whether or not Rhode Island will make the requisite adjustments to bring about a dawning of a new day or whether the dawn will bring rain.

Therefore, I can only conclude that there is much potential for Rhode Island’s future. This potential is only limited by the dolts that occupy government. The people, having been purposely kept unaware of matters (assuming that they could understand them if they were presented), will continue to be the downfall of Rhode Island.

Until we can replace the ignorance and apathy of the voting public, and until we can rid Rhode Island of the “I’ve got mine” mentality, this state will continue in a downward spiral or at best maintain itself in its current state of dismal malaise.

If I were a betting man I would not put my money on Rhode Island gloriously rising from its ashes. I think it is an even bet that there will be quick fixes that are bandages for the problem. There are no smiles in Mudville.

2008-01-24T09:16:00.000-05:00

THE BUDGET

In Rhode Island budgeting, the Governor proposes and the Legislature disposes. That said, there is often a misconception as to where the fault in the budgetary process lies. In reality, there is more than enough blame to go around.

The Legislature has long been wild in spending. The seemingly unsatisfied spending spree of the Assembly has clearly gotten us to where we are today. The Assembly always thought that there would be more money coming in and that the ride would never end. It did.

Now that the budget has been stretched to its furthest extent, the State must now consider what to do in light of the uncertain times and limited funding. That begs the question, what needs to be done?

The bottom line is that government revenue is governed by three factors: spending, raising money from taxation, or expansion of the tax base. There are no other factors in this equation.

The ability to expand the Rhode Island tax base at this time is speculation at best. It would be nice, but since it is speculative, it is more like spending in anticipation of winning the lottery. Such is impractical. If the base is expanded, it should not be spent in anticipation. It should be a seed planted for a future fruit.

That leaves taxation. It is a difficult budget position to argue for a tax increase in light of the fact that Rhode Island’s current tax situation puts its residents in the highest of brackets in most tax categories. Thus, the more tax option is an unlikely solution.

This then makes the reduction in spending as the sole option for budget reform. Now each and every special interest group will complain that their ox is being gored, but the reality is that a difficult financial time requires a tightening of the budget.

The real issue is whether or not the budget cuts are being done with reason and with effectiveness. Bad budget cutting decisions will only exacerbate the already terrible situation. To make decisions on programs require work to consider effectiveness in a per dollar mentality.

It is hard work, especially when it can be so manipulated by the special interest groups determined to maintain their domains at any cost. Such resistance, while expected, must be countered logically. Sure, everyone wants everyone else to have a healthy, happy life. Sure, we all want children and elderly to live comfortable lives. The only problem is that this is not paradise and money doesn't grow on trees. To fund a program for someone else means that money has to be taken from another.

A budget without a heart is difficult, but a budget without a head rings a death knell for the state. A budget cut will not necessarily result in the safety net of society being withdrawn. These social advocates can still raise money privately, it is just far more difficult than having the government seize money from people for their programs via taxation.

There is clearly a need to reform the spending methods of Rhode Island government. The idea of capping spending and pegging growth to the cost of living, along with a process for increased budgets in emergencies, may be a creative way with working with social program spending.

Another idea is the deregulation of Rhode Island. By deregulating the state, there will be savings, if only on the need to retain people to enforce the regulations. This will stop the dog from chasing its tail.

The difficult budget cycle is a good for Rhode Island. It can provide for the rise of the Phoenix from the ashes of its budget woes. The needs of Rhode Island must come before the special interests that control the legislative process. I have long argued that the voter initiative process could have stripped these special interest lobbyists from their control, but, alas, the special interests have prevailed on this issue as well.

Rhode Island must now confront its budget crisis. The time is now. The belt has been expanded over the years; now it needs to be contracted.

2008-01-17T08:32:00.000-05:00

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

I am one of those who have long contended that the Governor of Rhode Island is one of the least powerful governors across the nation. It evolved that way through the quirks of Rhode Island governance. That said, I do think there is a strong role for any Rhode Island governor who can master the bully pulpit.

It is certain that any executive who is not given the full power to execute stands at a distinct disadvantage, but there are many ways to minimize that handicap. The idea is to reach out to the people.

We have a tradition of governors in recent times that have played ball with the legislature to get along. Some enter the office full of vim and vigor and actively seek to confront the problems facing the state only to be put into place or otherwise get beaten down by the existing power structure.

The large problem here is that these governors are forced to operate in a political system governed by political parties. The old saying that you have to dance with the one who ‘brung’ you is most appropriate.

While there is a need to operate in such a manner there will never be a true governance in conformance with the needs of the state and the desires of the people. To rectify this there needs to be a reasoned, if not complete, abandonment of political party politics and use the office to go directly to the people of the state.

Of course, this requires an informed population, an issue I discussed in earlier writings. The people, if given all the facts, are much more likely to either support or reject any particular issue. The Rhode Island people, I contend, are only ignorant of state affairs; they are not simply stupid when it comes to government.

If one is not given a complete picture, one must utilize the facts one has in reaching a conclusion. Thus, an ill-informed or un-informed population is the greatest enemy to an impotent governor.

To fully empower the governor, the governor must act in a manner that makes governance translucent if not completely transparent. There is, in my view, a place for state secrets, but that place should be severely limited. All public business should be conducted openly and with a constant eye to informed disclosure to the people.

If that is ever attained, then a governor can seek the assistance of the people in supporting programs that may be different from those of the legislature and the judiciary. Until then, a governor is merely spitting into the wind.

The people will support a policy that is in their best interest over special interests when it is clearly demonstrated that the special interests are damaging the society. It is not real rocket science.

Therefore, the first step for any governor is to free himself or herself from the binding ties of politics. The second step is to seek a complete and simplified disclosure of the matters of state. And the third step is to bring the people around through the use of constant public discussion of issues.

This requires much heavy lifting. Most find the path of least resistance to be a far easier course to follow, but it is not what the people need to fill such a weak office. The people need a visionary that is willing to work to fully educate the population and then seek their support.

In the future I will discuss the more technical aspects of the Executive branch and explore in more detail my concept of what a Rhode Island governor should be doing in light of the office’s position compared to the other two branches of government.

2008-01-10T07:57:00.000-05:00

OPEN GOVERNMENT

When I speak of open government, I mean having government that is capable of being understood by the common person. If we allow universal voting, then we cannot possibly expect a truly educated electorate unless they are totally informed as to the inner workings of government. It is not brain surgery.
To that end I have long advocated an open government process. I have long advocated for budget reforms that would mandate that the budget be written in a manner that is capable of being understood by a person with an eighth grade education level. I have long advocated for programs that bring voter awareness of pending legislation. And I have argued for reforming the system to eliminate politics.

I willingly admit that many of these changes have begun to be implemented. There is far greater access to legislation that is pending, although the ability to access information is not as easy as it could be. Further, there is a move afoot to make public spending records available to folks. The real problem is that these efforts are not widely publicized and therefore are largely wasted.

The need for people to be able to immediately consult a budget and know exactly where their public funds are being spent is a no-brainer. Further, the actual pay-outs need to be fully disclosed, along with a purpose for the expenditure.

The fact that government is in budgetary shambles is reflective of a system that minimizes actual public scrutiny. The public, largely unaware of what is actually happening until after the fact, makes it far too easy for shifty politicos to do grave damage to the system.

There has been some progress towards full disclosure of special interests, and there will probably be a bit more concern for conflicts as a result of pending legal actions against various unscrupulous legislators, but this again comes too little, too late.

The fact is that we say that our election system works and yet we look at an electorate that hasn’t a clue. We want to expand voting, but we are not willing to give the full picture to the voter. By creating ignorance in the voting population, we are certainly assured of having much more of the same in the future.

To have a completely accessible and readable budget would be a step in the right direction. To then put it into the education curriculum would be an even better step. To have a readable budget on line would be good. To publicly disperse this information with a public awareness campaign would be fine.

Many of these ideas are bantered about during elections but they rarely come to fruition after the election fades into the collective memory. We need to have these small steps taken before we can logically walk into an election booth as informed citizens. Without it, we are simply reliant upon a clueless electorate to vote in people based on personality instead of performance.

Such behavior is just downright stupid. It allows our leaders to tend to the public’s needs in a manner that is overly paternal. It robs the people of their freedom as well as their tax money.

In the next touch on this topic, I will attempt to further explain what a readable budget would consist of and make it clear why such an effort, albeit costly and time consuming, could actually benefit the operation of the State of Rhode Island.

Also, I will try to consider other options for opening up state government for a wider understanding of its proper role in regulating its people.

2008-01-03T06:44:00.000-05:00

ENERGY

Somewhat surprisingly Rhode Island is becoming innovative in the area of energy. While it may not be exactly what Rhode Island needs, it is clearly a step in the right direction.

The recent embarking on a course of wind energy may prove there is at least some effort being given to the future needs of the state. The problem with this is that these types of projects are not often moved to completion.

Alternative energy for Rhode Island makes good sense. The issue of how to come to the conclusion may be at issue, but it is hard to fault those who may be at least trying to make the dream come to fruition.

A wise energy policy, especially for a New England state, if proven successful, could lead to a major surge in productivity in the region. Additionally, by leading the way in the use of alternative energy, Rhode Island would stand poised to capitalize on this market should it result in success.

While it may seem foolish to plan an alternative energy policy during a period of difficult financial times, such thought needs to be dismissed by the potential it contains. When in the darkest times one can complain or light a candle. This effort may be challenged by funding in the near future, but if it proves its worth, such funding may be considered innovative.

The use of wind and ocean power seems only logical. The need to effectively and efficiently harness this type of power is the real issue. It can be accomplished under present technology, however the real concern for government is the structuring of the plan so as to provide the best deal for the people of Rhode Island and not for the sheer benefit of the investment community.

By lessening our reliance on oil, especially foreign oil, we are making our state far more independent from the strings of both national and international policy. We are in effect fashioning our own destiny.

Certainly Rhode Island needs to consider the trade offs related to such energy development. There needs to be environmental safeguards and there needs to be a policy for the proper development and use. Consideration must also be given to how this will impact the state’s economic well-being.

For decades Rhode Island industry has been challenged by high electricity rates. This factor, albeit one of many, has caused industry to leave the state. By looking at a new way to manage energy there is no guarantee that the industrial base will ever return to Rhode Island, but by eliminating one of the several obstacles in the way of industry, we can at least position ourselves to seek its return.

A revitalized energy policy may in fact spawn other more efficient energy developments in this state. That all said, it is in our best interests to wisely develop and continue to support energy policy that seeks to free us from the high cost of energy in Rhode Island.

In the future I will try to further expound on the use of such power and then explore just how the energy policy will drive the economic development policy in Rhode Island.

2007-12-27T07:17:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-12-20T05:38:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-12-13T06:03:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-12-06T07:24:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-11-29T07:25:00.000-05:00

LOCAL GOVERNANCE

I am a strong believer in the idea of local government, however given the manner that it has been created and implemented in Rhode Island, I am less inclined to defend it as it is presently constituted.

Locals know what they want and should have the power to get it. The closer government is to home the more likely it is within the grasp of an individual. Big government is allowed to exist and grow only because it is so far removed from those being governed.

Federal government and state government are both guilty of saddling the locals in terms of government. The federal and state lawmakers and regulators have made local government a farce. The locals have been so hamstrung by federal/state law and regulation that the mere existence of local government is little more than a dog and pony show and a means to appease a population.

I serve up as an example, state education policy. The locals are largely responsible for implementing state policy and, at least in the suburbs, pay a large part of property taxation to accomplish state set goals and mandates. There is labor and education law in place making local control just shy of impossible.

Aside from the issue of over-regulation in a society, there is also a dearth of talent on the local level to adequately defend local turf in the inter-governmental wars. In bygone days, local officials were more powerful and took the role of statesman rather than politician. Today, given the reality of political life, such a role as a statesman is growing extinct.

Local government, within a society that is highly regulated, becomes a costly and somewhat needless operation. As Rhode Island falls greater and greater into debt, the idea of having thirty-nine separate local governments, in addition to fire and water districts with taxing authority, all makes a weave that is both inefficient and superfluous.

Consolidated services would make much more sense, but it is unlikely that such a trend would be easily accepted. The political payback system would be severely impacted by such a move and so it is unlikely that the General Assembly would ever seriously consider impacting its local political bases.

There is great irony in that there is a Home Rule provision in the Rhode Island Constitution. Home Rule is mostly language. The ability of a city or town to self govern is completely lacking.

The days of local government may have passed us by. I, for one, will miss them, but what value is having them if they are not effective? Thus, we have two options in Rhode Island. Either give local governments far more autonomy in policy or consolidate to minimize costs.

Countywide taxing, building and zoning, assessments, education, and even safety services could be well served on a county or half county basis since most of these areas are currently highly regulated by state law and in the case of the cities, largely paid for through state taxation.

In the future I will discuss the benefits of local governance. I will discuss the need to consolidate services and I will speak to the issue of specifics related to the need to deregulate, especially where the state and local governments meet.

2007-11-22T08:53:00.000-05:00

GAMBLING

Gambling is little more than a tax on the mathematically challenged. The odds of winning are skewed against the player and yet the draw is tremendous. The psychological need to be considered "lucky" is a part of the human existence, and as such, perpetuates this losing bet.

This is not a tirade against gambling. If a person wants to lose his or her shirt playing poker, the ponies, or pitching pennies, far be it from me to tell that person not to do so. I believe in individualism, and as such, I believe that we all have the right to be stupid as long as the gambler understands he or she must pay the consequences of this stupidity.

I grew up in a family that enjoyed gambling. I spent many a day and night at various race tracks. My father enjoyed the races. We never missed a meal, and I have to admit that he gambled responsibly. I never saw him lose more than the share he had allotted to lose for the night. He wasn't a compulsive gambler; he just gambled.

As with all things, too much of anything leads to ruin. Gambling is no different. Done responsibly, it is a pastime. Done irresponsibly, it is a disaster. Moderation and self responsibility are the key, no more and no less.

I saw the gambling spectrum very young. Having visited most pari-mutual tracks in New England before I was seven, I could recognize those who were social and tell them apart from those who had a problem. My uncle, a house painter, would have me, as a kid, run into the pool hall to drop off a hot meal to his workers who had lost a paycheck at the horses and was spending the night sleeping on a pool table. Even though they had lost their last buck, I could see the glimmer in their eyes when they talked about the bet that almost won.

For me, I rarely gamble. If I do gamble, I bet at random, and have little or no desire to win. I do this because I fear that if I chose to gamble on something lacking randomness in its selection, I think my ego would think that I could “beat” the house or the odds. Cards for fun, certainly; cards for money, never. But that is my personal distinction and not one that I would care to impose on the world.

Now that you understand my personal approach to gambling, I can discuss what I see as the gambling situation in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island is, sorrowfully, hooked on gambling. To solve its budget problems for the last two decades, it has grown reliant on gaming. Instead of doing the heavy lifting to create viable employment opportunities in the state, the government has sat back and let good jobs be supplanted by gambling and tourism.

Gaming revenue is not a bad thing, that is, it is not a bad thing if you don’t rely on it. If the state had utilized its gaming money as pin money instead of income, we would be doing quite well. Gambling revenues used for one time expenditures, especially capital expenditures, is a logical and sound financial approach.

Instead, Rhode Island has been hooked on gaming and now needs the money to survive day to day. This reliance cannot be good for Rhode Island’s future. With higher levels of gaming competition, the decline in disposable income, and the general weariness with this form of entertainment, Rhode Island may be poised to pay a high interest rate as a result of its reliance on this fast money.

Consider this, Rhode Island actually gets a really high percentage from its in-state gaming parlors. Imagine if it didn’t get such a good deal.

In the last round of gambling initiatives, the proponents shot themselves in the foot by teaming with the Legislature to promote a casino. The greedy hands of legislators soured the deal for many, even those who like myself, have no real aversion to allowing gaming and would have voted for a casino if it had been cleanly presented.

The fact of the matter is that a well designed, well regulated, and fiscally sound approach to gaming is not automatically a bad thing for Rhode Island.

In the future I hope to review the gambling situation in Rhode Island. I also wish to consider the need of Rhode Island to seek such revenues and the proper way to use them if they come about. I further wish to look at how a gaming effort may be too little, too late -- in short, looking at how the legislature’s inept attempts at promoting gaming have hurt more than helped Rhode Island successfully harness a revenue stream.

2007-11-15T07:46:00.000-05:00

HEALTH CARE

Health care is a topic that is best severed into smaller portions. The sub-sections are quality, cost, universal coverage, and a peripheral issues surrounding health care in general.

Rhode Island will be the focus of this discussion, but Rhode Island does not operate in a political vacuum. It is part of a national system. To the extent the two could be separately discussed, I will try to do so.

As to the quality of health care, there is little doubt that American health care in general leads most of the world. The American legal system has kept the system expensive as all hell but has succeeded to a goodly extent in making sure that just about every test has been completed to avoid a potential malpractice claim.

The reality is that the legal system has destroyed the cost effectiveness of health care. But, don’t blame it all on the lawyers. The doctors have a share in the related costs of health care. A friend once said “If doctors weren’t in it for the money, they’d be social workers” -- an interesting point to ponder.

This all leads to a system that is up to the highest standards and at the highest costs. With the exception of college costs, there is probably no area where costs have increased so dramatically. But high cost and high quality do not necessarily equate to efficiency.

The solution to any public concern over health care therefore must include a review of costs and procedures and a restructuring of the medical malpractice laws so as to retain it in concept while adopting a more reasonable standard for health care that is not considered inferior treatment.

Where there is a duty to treat in our hospitals, it is little wonder that those without health care coverage end up at the emergency room for treatment. As just about any idiot can tell you, time in the emergency room is both costly and wasteful. Hospitals are going broke. But, to address this problem, there needs to be available, affordable alternatives. Without this, why bother?

The question of universal coverage, then, becomes a political issue. The reality is that it is government that has created this situation and now it is considering such stupidity as forced insurance on everyone. The reality is that the state has extended its coverage beyond its means, expanded the ability to file malpractice actions, and now claims error. It is like a boy who shoots his parents begging mercy for being an orphan.

The facts generally demonstrate that health care in Rhode Island is available. It is of good quality. It is expensive. But it is available universally, that is, depending on the availability of money to pay for it. The problem for the government is that it has found itself in the role of paying party.

People enjoy the protections offered by ads for trial lawyers during the afternoon television schedule. All people like to be healthy and make money. That's a given. But the solution is not universal health care insurance. To indirectly tax people to pay for this is merely the same old government policy of "screwing up the works" and then putting the bill on the taxpayer, in this case not by direct tax, but by indirect mandatory insurance (a tax in disguise).

In the future I will try to expand on these thoughts, using this framework. The next installment is likely to address the holistic approach that is required to “solve” this government condoned crisis.

By standardizing care, by freeing up the system from questionable litigation, by providing for alternative care, and by getting the government as far away as possible, there may be a chance for recovery.

2007-11-08T05:58:00.000-05:00

STATE TAXATION

Rhode Island is taxing itself out of existence. It is sad to say, but there are few taxes that Rhode Island ever saw that it didn’t implement. There are the basic straight forward taxes, the less obvious gasoline and tobacco taxes, the sales taxes, the hidden taxes called fees, and the various other business licenses, estate taxes, property sales taxes, and so on.

To operate a state government, there must be money. The money must come from taxes.

There are only three scenarios to minimize a tax burden. Take in less taxes, thus curtailing what can be spent. Spend less money, thus minimizing the need to tax. Or create a new revenue source, i.e. expand the pie, usually through job creation and not through a wider tax net.

As our so called political leaders have shown, it is easier to use these methods against each other rather than to provide real progress in terms of tax burdens.

Rhode Island is one of the least friendly tax states. This is due partly to the poor spending practices of the government for decades. These spending practices are just now catching up to the taxpayers.

By providing services, government expands. By regulating activities, government expands. By giving employment to cronies for election security, government expands.

The reality is that Rhode Island must restructure itself to minimize government. Small government should be the goal, but it is not.

Instead, we have politicians proposing stealth taxation in addition to the taxes that currently apply. For example, by putting a mandatory health insurance plan in effect, the government will control the application, the people will be forced to have the policy (and pay for it), but the government can say that this mandate is not a tax.

The real objective of Rhode Islanders should be to seek a smaller government. There is a real need to forego extensive regulation. There is a need to forego extensive government services and benefits.

This is not an argument for abolishing government. It is an argument for a reasoned government, a balanced approach to spending that emphasizes the need for and rewards greater individual self-reliance.

The problem is that everyone wants everything. The problem is that there is an over-reliance in the state on public employment. The problem is that the General Assembly hasn’t gotten off its asses to make employment opportunities through an attractive business climate.

In short, we are taxed to death because we accept the stupidity that parades itself as government.

This is little more than an argument for a streamlined, freer government that forces self-reliance on its people. This does not mean that government must be cruel. It means that people have to realize that they are pumping money into a stinking rat hole because they are apathetic. We need to re-evaluate what it is we want from our government. We need to put logic into our current applications of government. I may just be that simple. The hardest part is to convince the thick-headed majority of voters that they really aren’t getting the best representation when they blindly vote in candidates based on party affiliations.

In the past I have warned about the over reliance on a property tax. I have argued against the fleecing of the people via the licensing process. I have advocated for a fair progressive form of taxation, largely through the graduated income tax. I have proposed several methods of saving taxes through a more effective government. But alas, I have wasted my time and energy. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

In following discussions on this topic, I will discuss a plan to better tax the people of Rhode Island, giving a full discussion to the need to refine its method of taxation and the need to use taxation to facilitate policy instead of to pay bills.

2007-11-01T06:15:00.000-04:00

ELECTIONS

Elections, if fair, provide a sense of direction. Like communication, there are two components. In communication there is speaking and listening that are both required to convey the actual message. Similarly, in elections there is a need for a fair election system and an electorate.

A fair election with an ignorant electorate is unlikely to produce a positive result, although a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. An informed electorate with an unfair system will also produce a less than positive result. The difference is that an informed electorate would never tolerate an unfair election system. This calls into question the various outcomes of Rhode Island elections over the years.

Popularity contests are more appropriate names for Rhode Island elections. The electorate, lacking any political acumen, chooses candidates by long standing family names or because of a party affiliation. This is an outcome predictable in a third world nation, but should be rare in an educated population.

The problem with the stupid voter concept is that they elections result in long standing allegiance to an established political machine. The people, having voted, feel content in their determinations, but the reality is that they are merely blindly effectuating the status quo. As such, government lacks honest debate of ideas and is allowed to wallow in a cesspool entrenched special interests. Sound familiar Rhode Islanders?

Whether or not it is the role of social leaders to encourage an educated electorate is worth of debate, however few political figures make a valid attempt lest they risk their power base. The ability to keep the power out of the unwashed masses has many advantages for operating a government. If unanswerable to the people, the government, and more importantly, the political figures running the government, can act as it chooses, left unchecked by the stupid electorate. Even dictators hold elections, they just employ a different method maintianing political loyalty.

Historical records of election results that rarely move beyond the same old same old are indicative of the fact that the electorate is either satisfied with its choices or that it has no real choices, or both. Why domesticate a swine so as to live in a house when it is happy in the mud?

As I grow old I look back over the last 25 years of attempting to reform elections. I have advocated for several legislative bills that would have made the system more equitable and more responsive to the electorate. I advocated for instant run-off voting. I advocated for the elimination of the primary system and allowing a blanket race for the seat. I advocated for state funding of election campaigns. All for naught. For all that talking, I realized that there was no listening.

After my last run for Lt. Governor it became readily apparent that it may not be the system that is deficient. It is the voter. By not being able to get out of his or her electoral way, these people are targets for governmental charlatans.

It can be no surprise that Rhode Island’s malaise and its governmental atrophy is what it is. The people voted for this.

When you exist with an ill informed electorate, you can only expect the standard result regardless of whether or not you have the best system of voting in place. I don’t know whether to express sorrow or contempt, but I know that it is this very ignorance in the people that is Rhode Island’s Achilles heel. The winds of change must reach hurricane force to bring about a sustainable positive change. During a hurricane we will see just how many Rhode Islanders will get out of the rain.

While I will attempt to address various election issues in the future blogs, it is unlikely that any of the proposed reform will replace the blame that is at the voter's door as the culprit behind the downfall of Rhode Island.

2007-10-25T06:11:00.001-04:00

WELFARE

For purposes of this discussion “welfare” shall be considered in the broadest of terms. It shall include direct welfare (payments to those deemed needy) and indirect welfare (entitlements to corporate tax breaks).

The notion that the government needs to provide for the individual in place of the individual providing for himself or herself is troubling. There is definitely a role for charity and good deeds, but to what extent does that role belong to government? Therein is the probative question.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, the country on a whole has embraced a socialist mentality. Government is the provider of all things, replacing individual self-reliance. This has, in turn, led to a society that is far more dependent on “government” to survive.

While we could spend endless hours debating the practicality of having government serve “in loco parentis” (“in place of parents”,although it could also be argued as “crazy parents”) that argument can be had at a later date. For now the focus of this is to understand the derivation of the current socialistic welfare state that has shadowed our society.

The Depression, along with longstanding business leader practices of labor abuses, led to the people wanting to pay high taxes to be protected. This government implemented protection scheme (likely a RICO violation if devised by anyone other than the government) ranged from worker protections, social security, public welfare and more. The government would supplant the family and the various charitable organizations as the source for help.

Great on paper but difficult in practice. Ironically, during this period of mounting socialism in the United States, the people were convinced that they were at risk from communism. The proof of the pudding is that there is clear and convincing evidence that the communistic brand of socialism, with it totalitarian control, failed. Still, our society is, like a moth, drawing ever closer to the flame. While eschewing socialism we grew more socialistic than any other time in our nation. And there is no end to this idiocy.

In our prime our society believed that it could easily solve all the problems related to individual poverty by throwing money at the problems. This led to a wide expansion of the social net. Government welfare balloon and everyone, from the poorest single mother of ten to the corporate titan, wanted his or her piece of the government’s largess.

Politicians, realizing the situation, capitalized on this master-servant style relationship, campaigning to “protect the interests of (your cause here)”. By joining in the parade, these political figures were not statesmen but cheap political hacks. “Every man a King” was not an invitation to Eden but a death sentence.

The rapid expansion of government and its protective role remains unbridled. The government now is expected to have or create a solution for every problem. The unfortunate reality is that the people operating the government are not elected because of ability but because of personality. By putting power in the hands of these “personalities” it is inevitable that the government will fail to implement a proper solution but instead it will opt for a political one.

Thus, we are left with the present system of government “entitlements”, a euphemism for “welfare”. The society, including those that were raised to believe in self reliance, have all become convinced that they are not taking a “hand out”, but instead they are claiming what they are “entitled” to from the government. A mere word has destroyed generations of pride.

This is not an argument to end the ‘entitlement system’. Such a system took societal controllers years to build at the cost of millions to convince the people to relinquish their personal pride to a government. This will not go away anytime soon barring a complete meltdown of government. So, to rectify this situation, the tide must be turned and there must be a resurgence of personal responsibility and the programs that would encourage that type of behavior.

As an aside, it is interesting to note from a political perspective that the Democrats are looking to use socialism to control the people while the Republicans are looking to use surveillance and liberty curtailment to do the same. I leads one to speculate as to whether or not there is a mutual goal that transcends political parties.

For those who despise this government policy of mollycoddling there is resentment that a government would expend sums to maintain control, both political and governmental (something of a ‘bread and circuses’ policy). These folks despise politicians, probably recognizing them for what they largely are – panderers to the weak –physically, mentally, monetarily and more.

For those who are receiving an “entitlement” there is little incentive to give up a benefit. They are oblivious to the need to maintain a functional society and are more self-centered in as far as what they “get” from the system than what they contribute. They love politicians who promise more to them.

While the political battle rages between these two polarized factions, the system goes to shit. Promises for more welfare subsidies and promises to abolish the welfare system win votes for both sides but do little to resolve the burning issue.

There is likely an honest desire in society to help its most needy. I personally share that desire, although through a more private sector based vision. The problem is in defining what is “needy” in a society so complex that it defies classification. Is needy a person at or below the poverty line? In Rhode Island there are many “programs” that define such eligibility at 200% or more above the poverty level. If most people realized this, they would be outraged, but most are too stupid to make coffee and so how can they be expected to contribute anything toward a realistic solution?

As budgets get tighter, politicians become more and more active in their pandering. The mere fact that political action is “vote me and I will protect your benefits” is demeaning and detrimental to the very promise of the “land of opportunity”. Without a doubt, welfare reform is needed.

In the future I will explore the Rhode Island welfare system, the system of corporate welfare and the ever expanding role of government as God. I will also seek to expand on what I believe is needed to save the system.

2007-10-18T07:43:00.000-04:00

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Veterans’ affairs are largely a federal issue, but due to the fact that the state operates a national guard, there is this and several other areas of state governance that impacts on veterans.

The state, through its guard, provides several functions, in terms of disaster relief and service in time of civil strife. Most recently it has come to represent service to the nation in terms of troops being sent to war. While many blur the issue of warfare and soldiers, I do not. Warfare is a governmental decision; soldiers are to loyally enforce those governmental decisions.

Thus, in asking them to serve, our society indebted itself for such service. It really is that simple. We, the state and its people, have an obligation to the men and women who have served this state in terms of military participation.

There are various state programs for our veterans, but increasingly we are finding that they are lacking. We need to make certain that our veteran’s homes are properly maintained and staffed. We need to make sure that these veterans are getting the treatment that they deserve. Promises need to be met.

Military service is a sacrifice. As part of a repayment for their sacrifices those who served deserve what was promised. It is a social debt that needs satisfaction.

During their service, when active, the military men and women are away from their families, most earning military pay instead of their standard civilian pay. They are asked to serve when there is an emergency that requires action on behalf of the society as a whole. They are asked to put their lives on the line.

For those of us at home, we can choose to ignore their sacrifices. But we should not. I believe that it is true that if we do not pay the proper homage to our soldiers, we will never be able to depend on their being there in the future. A world without a military is idyllic but unlikely and misguided.

In speaking with veterans, the main concerns are taking care of families of those currently serving and honoring the efforts of soldiers during past calls to duty. It really is that simple.

Not being a veteran, I am not fully aware of their feelings, but I can understand that they pervade the military family circle. There is a sense of “military as family”. It is an interesting dynamic, but it came about as a need. While not outcasts in a society, they are not your typical family. Because of this, military families tend to band together in a mutual aid society.

These military families have a reliance on each other, a bond that is indescribable, but existing. These families live a different lifestyle. It is incumbent on those of us who have the comfort of not being in the military to respect the service they provide. And to do this we must consider the needs of the military family and support it through our government.

While various wars range in terms of popularity, there needs to be a clear distinction between the supporting the war and supporting the troops. While I have heard the argument that to support the troops one must support the war, I am not so moved by that logic. To me there is nothing so politically repugnant than using either troops or children to make political points.

Decisions to go to war should be kept in the political realm. Support for the people that are required to go to fight these political decisions should not waiver and should not be political. The troops did not bring on the war, government, elected government, did. Troops follow orders. It may not be a successful defense to simply follow orders, but it doesn’t shift the burden of war creation either.

It is for these reasons that I support programs within the state to give our veterans recognition. Our government asked (rightly or wrongly). The soldiers gave (blindly). Our government owes (greatly).

When we return to this subject, I will discuss the nuts and bolts of the state’s role in military affairs, the role of the military in state governance, and the future role of a state military force.

2007-10-11T06:29:00.000-04:00

HIGHER EDUCATION

Much like the way California is known for its agriculture, the Northeast is known for its institutions of higher learning. Rhode Island is part of that mix. We have a long and rich tradition in terms of higher education, both public and private.

As such, the state has a stronger value for higher education and has made great efforts to educate the people, giving them the opportunity to advance.

When speaking on the topic of higher education, there are several areas that deserve consideration. The first is the role of higher education within the state. The second is the system itself and its functions. A third is the manner in which it benefits the people of the state. And yet another is how all these roles fit together to create something of value instead of merely making the effort.

Broken down, this simply states that higher education has its political and legal functions, its business functions, and its education functions. Once these parameters are marked, the observer can judge how well or how poorly a state has cobbled together the varied functions.

In this statement I will leave to a future day the individual areas noted above. This piece will examine how Rhode Island puts together the pieces.

State institutions, and particularly the higher echelons of management of the public university system have always maintained a particularly closed political gene pool. Many of the people in Higher Education have come from politics, largely from legislative pay backs, gubernatorial pay backs, or buy offs from running and/or political payment for running and losing. This is not to say that these people are horrible, but it does have an impact as to operations. Many are not dopes, but it needs to be remembered they are also not there because of achievement in the education field.

This may or may not be all so bad, if it were not Rhode Island with its political inbreeding and if it were over some sort of safety net. It is good to have education leadership reflecting the community. After all, education achievement is only a reflection of the society itself. A society merely transfers its values to the future generation through education.

But, there are good and bad ways of operating a system, regardless of its make-up. From my perspective, it is best when there is a realization that there is a symbiotic relationship existing that needs to be nurtured. We need to have leadership that will look to the interaction of higher education and economic development within the state.

It does us limited good to train people at our institutions for jobs that do not exist in our state. It would behoove us to chart an economic development course, specifically target various industries, and educate our children to allow for employment in those jobs.

To do otherwise is to court disaster. By sending our educated children to other states to seek employment, we have armed our economic enemies at our own cost. If we could retain the talents we have paid to instill, we could be reaping the benefits instead of another state.

As I mildly alluded to earlier, in order to survive in the Northeast, an education institution must swim in deep higher education waters. The quality is brought up by the competition. History has clearly demonstrated that even political hacks can oversee such a system without fully running it into the ground or completely astray.

Thus, while we need to focus on what we can do. This is saying that we need to meld our system of higher education into our programs of economic development. We missed the boat on educating nurses as our state’s employment demanded more and more health care professionals. We have missed oppotunities by not educating people in the trades and found ourselves short during several recent building cycles. In a few words, we need to attempt to envision the future economic trends, possibly a task too great for political appointments or possibly a lack of vision and energy by primarily recent Governors, and to a smaller extent the Legislature. Vision, tempered by hindsight, is the best course of action.

Whatever the case, in the future I will try to better explore the linkage for which I am advocating. I will try to avoid my own fascination with the political in favor of the economic trends and the need to incorporate higher education into a long term growth plan that is designed to create jobs for Rhode Islanders.

2007-10-04T06:51:00.000-04:00

THE JUDICIARY

First and foremost, I admit that I am a licensed attorney in Rhode Island, but I also note that this has never stopped me from being critical of the judiciary and its works. This cuts both ways. I feel that being involved in the system has given me an understanding of legal concepts that may appear wrong to the public, but they are based on solid legal principles. Still, as an attorney, I am susceptible to claims that I am just covering for the system.

The reality is that like almost anything in life, there is a good and bad side. For the most part, I find that we have a solid judiciary. I cannot claim it to be the most intelligent or the most effective, but it is better than most. Our judiciary problems are usually results of our shooting ourselves in the foot.

When we use judicial appointments to satisfy social goals or to pay off political (or bar association political) debts, we are not working in the interest of the judiciary. We compromise and thus, we are lost. That said, the pool of legal talent in this state makes it difficult to make a bad appointment through the existing system. It happens, but not as often as one would believe.

Still, our system, while not perfect, is good. It is better to have an appointed in the first instance judge in place of an elected one, at least on the Superior and Supreme courts of Rhode Island. Other inferior courts could possibly be elected, but that just adds another layer to the system. I also have long argued for a system of retention elections of judges, in essence a reconfirmation after ten years for judges below the Supreme Court, but such an approach is actually more of a safety valve allowing removal rather than an appointment mechanism.

While I find that the judicial talent is sufficient, I must say less and less about the administration of justice under this system. We have clogged courtrooms, unreasonable calendars, a broken sentencing system and more.

For anyone that has tangled with the legal system it is evident. There are standing room only courtrooms, no parking for the facilities, forms and procedures that bog down the system in the name of justice, and a general feeling of lack of accomplishment. And since the system is not limited to criminals, landlords and tenants, business interests and small claimants are forced to swim in a pool that hasn’t been chlorinated in years.

The plea bargaining system has turned the criminal process into horse trading. The lack of the ability to quickly and efficiently service the public has lead many to put civil cases into arbitration instead of waiting for the legal process, even though calendars have been shortened in recent years. As you can see, the problem is in the system itself.

I can honestly say that in the near twenty five years of practice, I have been before a good percentage of our judges and I disagreed with many as to their legal decisions, but I am hard pressed to say that more than three were too stupid for their position; even most of the politically connected appointments have been minimally competent jurists. But a capable judiciary cannot save an ill-fated judicial system.

In the future I will discuss how the Legislature can make the Judiciary more effective. I will attempt to demonstrate how the over-regulation of society is the real menace to swift and fair justice. I will also make an attempt to demonstrate how a more realistic legal system could reduce state tax money being spent on the cottage industry called law enforcement.

Until Rhode Island confronts its predilection for an over-regulated society, our justice system will always serve as an inefficient system of monitoring its population instead of a means of providing justice.

2007-09-27T04:49:00.000-04:00

THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

The Rhode Island Constitution is a moderately interesting document, but it really doesn’t fully deliver what it offers. As former RI Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders has pointed out on various occasions before the Legislature, in judicial opinions, and at various public meetings related to the understanding and interpretation of the Rhode Island Constitution, the document is not regarded as self-executing in that it may not allow an ordinary citizen to seek enforcement of various parts of the document.

The gist of Flanders’ argument is that the RI Constitution, based on Supreme Court opinions, often falls short when attempting application. The Court has held that many rights granted to the people in the Rhode Island Constitution are, in essence, subject to the Legislative approval.

The enforcement of various protections by individuals under the RI Constitution is limited to what enforcement has been granted by the Legislature. In short, the document is not self-executing and quite often a member of the citizenry is found lacking proper standing to seek redress. Therefore, the expressed rights of the people are at times limited unless the legislature expressly grants the enforcement.

This may seem to be inconsequential, as well as highly technical, to most readers, but the fact is that this is probably one of the most important issues of constitutional interpretation facing Rhode Island. The fact that the people are granted rights that cannot be easily enforced is a farce, and yet people pay little time or attention to the matter.

It is important that we learn more about the argument that Flanders proffers. This is really in the interest of all Rhode Islanders and is just plain old good government being responsive, not to mention responsible, to the people it serves. There is no reason that people should be denied rights because it is left to the legislature to enable enforcement. This is a warped sense of freedom.

And there are far more Rhode Island Constitution issues. As most everyone knows, I have a grave concern over the provision for a utterly impotent Lieutenant Governor's office that has less powers than any other full time Lieutenant Governor in the entire United States. The price of this inefficiency is paid by taxes.

There is a problem in that the people have not fully secured separation of powers. There is a concern that the people do not have voter initiative as is found in more than half of our sister states. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition our government for redress as is guaranteed. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition for constitutional change, except at the behest of the Legislature or by a vote every ten years.

I will readily admit that much of my view of this topic is tinged by a taste of sour grapes. The system doesn’t run the way I would like and so I would like to tinker with the system. Granted. But this does not mean that it is wrong to seek changes in a system that has not properly served the society.

Why should we perpetuate rules that keep entrenched power entrenched? There is little reason we should tolerate bad governance, corruption, and poor or inadequate protections simply because the "rules are the rules". Rules are made to be changed. Rules should always provide guidance drawn from experience, but should not be made so inflexible that they complicate rather than effectuate. I am a proponent of such change. I would prefer an effective, efficient, more tolerant, honest, equal, and constituent oriented government. Sorry if that offends you.

The changes that we make are usually hard-fought and are reluctantly granted by the powers that be. Even good government forces have learned to play the game and have often traded on their good name to effectuate policy that leans in a particular direction. They have learned to swim in the cesspool that is the legislature. This is disheartening at best, but often required if they are to get any policy changes. This should not be.

Next time I discuss this topic, I will most likely return to the issues raised in the paragraphs above, but give them a deeper examination, along with the current status of the fight to get them implemented. Until these changes occur, most Rhode Islanders will continue in their life of uninformed bliss and not make any effort to improve their government or their situation beyond what the government provides for them. That is the epitome of a sorry state.

2007-09-20T07:57:00.000-04:00

LABOR

Recent labor actions by school teachers have focused much of the public on the issues of labor and the state. Rhode Island has long had a love affair with its public labor unions. As a result, the private labor unions are given some deference but not the strong level of attention that has been lavished on the public sector.

In short, Rhode Island’s labor union control is largely concentrated in the public sector labor. In the years of labor’s decline, the general labor movement has been crippled, but the public sector has remained vibrant.

The public labor movement in Rhode Island has a long history of very good planning on the part of the unions. They worked hard to organize the public sector and then urged members to take part in governance. Once entrenched in government, the unions, mostly through lobbyists, have taken strong control of many facets of governance.

Rules and regulations that would seem inane in any private industry are allowed in the public sector. For example, a teacher living in one community and teaching in another can serve on a school board in the community in which he or she lives. Sure, it is good to bring the expertise to the board, but when they are discussing salaries of teachers, and those salaries will be used when negotiating with the community in which the teacher is employed, is there a conflict? One would think yes.

But such rules are minor. The public sector has long been seen as the place where there was less pay but security. Today, in Rhode Island, the pay is equivalent or better than pay and benefits in the private sector and there is still the security of public employment. This has created a budget crisis in Rhode Island.

This is not a diatribe against state workers. The State has determined that it has a function intruding into just about every facet of a person’s life, and, in order to do this, needs to employ thousands. A clear majority of state employees work long and hard, have a level of expertise in their fields, and try to serve the public’s interest. But a majority is not all.

Still, instead of picking on the work force, the real culprit is the created need for such employment. The passage of laws and regulation, the creation of bureaus and the make-work jobs for friends of Assembly members are the true villains. We have allowed our political system to grow obese. We have allowed our political system to waste. We have allowed our political system to be used for political rewards. This is where the real problem exists.

In order to curtail this abuse, there is a need to deregulate Rhode Island. No, not anarchy, just a clear understanding of the need for government intrusion into a person’s life. The need to reduce staff will be an inevitable consequence, but this should be a stated goal and there needs to be economic development which can be used to transition these people back into the private sector.

Surely in a state as small as Rhode Island there is an expected higher than average concentration of those in state employ, but Rhode Island is far more than the weighted average would allow. This is a symptom of bad government policy by our leaders. The fact that government sponsored employment is preferred to private sector employment speaks volumes on its face.

The pawn in this mess is the public service worker. To keep their employment they are maintained. The politicians in Rhode Island play to them and capitalize on their fears. Without amply available private employment, each job becomes precious. In turn, each attempt to create a more efficient government can be perceived as a threat to the very existence of a public employee.

Work is created to fill the job. It has been this way since someone hired another to decorate a cave. The idea is to make an adequate effort to encourage private sector employment opportunity. Without it, there is little chance of moving away from a public labor based work force.

Once private sector is allowed to efficiently enter into the Rhode Island marketplace, then, and probably only then, can we seriously look to limit our public sector employment. Deregulation again is the answer. By making it easier for private employment to exist, the competition for public labor will increase.

Of course, this is not real good news for politicians who rely on the dependency of the public workers. But, it is good for the workers and the state in the long run. The problem in Rhode Island is that the people are far too concerned with themselves and the politicians are far to concerned with themselves. No one can sacrifice for the benefit of the state as a whole. Therein lay our demise.

In future blogs I will attempt to further outline and flesh out the concept of how a deregulation and private sector employment could serve the state. I will also attempt to point the finger more directly at the Legislative and the Executive branches for their less than stellar efforts at improving this situation.

2007-09-13T06:22:00.000-04:00

ENVIRONMENT

Rhode Island has been doing fairly well in relation to the environment, but there is much that is left undone. We are committed to open space. We are doing more in terms of our recycling efforts. We have been consistently working to save our bay. We have been expanding our greenways.

Now, what is it that we haven’t done. We haven’t fully committed. We need to work to reduce our reliance on petroleum, thereby using more and more available local power sources such as those related to wind and ocean. To say that there is a problem here is to make an issue where one doesn’t exist.

What needs to be said is that we as a state are going to stand for a future that will continue to seek to maintain a quality of life that makes the state special. We need to proceed with vision and insight while not stagnating our growth potential.

Every time a municipality limits building, there is a trade off. There is an open space being created at the expense of a property owner. As a libertarian, this quite honestly offends my sensibilities. I am personally committed to the outcome, but I am somewhat offended by the method used to attain it.

Unlike most libertarians, I am not overly offended by the government holding large parcels of land in the public’s interest. But, as a libertarian, I am offended when a public body uses law to enforce a taking of a property by restriction instead of paying for the right to regulate the private property of the citizenry.

This does not mean that I favor a complete disregard for the environment, but it does indicate a particular balance that is needed between land use regulation and private property rights.

I do believe that people vote with their feet. If there is an over-regulation there is a shortage of available land, which results in higher taxation, which results in less opportunity for those without means. With all the government subsidizing of property there is little long term investment. This hurts Rhode Island.

In any artificially defined marketplace, there is a skewing of the real value of property and, as a result, of wages and other factors that make long term business investment attractive.

This is not to say that there should be a box store on every corner. In fact, it argues to the contrary. To have a reasoned plan that locates development rather than limits it is the optimum of any community to establish growth.

Environmentally friendly development, in addition to reasoned growth, makes a perfect compliment to any environment. The idea is to look to the future and encourage development of innovative concepts that are environmentally friendly. If it is inconvenient to utilize alternative transportation, people will continue to use fossil fueled autos.

The current trend of wind and solar power are a good start, but we must look to this with extreme scrutiny. To enter into the development of this type of technology without a sense of where it will eventually go and with factors that really pertain to the current marketplace will leave us with an expensive but somewhat obsolete effort.

Encouraging recycling is great. Having a market for the recycled products is better. The basics of supply and demand are often ignored when we consider our environment. This needs to be explained and understood by the population if we are ever to educate the people as to the value of environmentally friendly government.

Environmental concerns do not exist in a vacuum. They are holistically connected to the entire economic fabric of the state. To miss this fact is to miss the value of the reason to protect the environment.

Education in environmental matters is relatively inexpensive and effective. In thirty years there has been a major decrease in litter. People have been made to understand, through education and not through punishment, that a clean highway is an important part of the general well being of the state.

We cannot ignore the concerns of the environmentalists, but we must approach them with reason rather than emotion. Policies that are based on junk science are far more detrimental to the environment in that they create expenditures for unneeded protections while creating skepticism in the public when the science gets debunked.

In the future I will further discuss the relationship between economic development and planned growth. I will also better link the transportation issues to the environmental concerns. And I will attempt to define a policy that can bring us into a future that can be profitable, safe and logical.

Suffice it to say that the basis of any environmental plan is to make it part of a symbiotic approach to governance.

2007-09-05T16:08:00.000-04:00

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

Given the broad nature of this topic, I must first outline the area of discussion. I have much to say about various parts of governance, but suffice it to say that for this blog I will only look to areas of open government and the need for transparency.

While we are made to feel good by Open Meetings laws and similar regulations, we do not enjoy a visible government. The system of legislative grants, the lack of a coherent budget that can be easily deciphered by an average citizen, a system that fails to list outstanding warrants, a short circuiting of the legislative process through last minute, late night bills, and much more, all would lead one to a contrary position.

If a government is to truly operate for the benefit of the public, then when there is a public expenditure, the people should be aware of all the specifics. Too often this is not the case.

The budget for the state is formidable, both in size and readability. How hard is it to clearly define employees and their salary and benefits? How hard is it to put filled positions where they are assigned in the budget? How hard is it to clearly define what is being spent where?

While I understand that the General Treasurer’s office is attempting to make the budget more accessible to the public, I need to ask, why hasn’t this been done already?

The obvious answer is that in secrecy the government can do its dirty work. If you knew where the money was going, you, the taxpayer, would probably be more concerned about government. Instead, if you are given a nebulous account without any realistic means of assessing the data, how could you begin to argue intelligently against anything?

It is not the job of the newspapers to bring us data about how much certain employees make, it is the governments. If you work for any employer, that employer knows how much you are getting paid. Here, if you as a Rhode Islander are the employer (lip service to this position aside), then you should have the same type of information.

I am not advocating that all employee records be made public, but I do think that anyone employed by or receiving benefits from the state should be readily identifiable as to their name and address, the amount of the wage or benefit, and the position or purpose for such a payment. Why not, it is public money that is being spent.

I don’t need to know their social security number or their health problems, but I should know what I am footing in terms of social security payments on their behalf or how much I am funding for their health care. We, as a society, have kept public business private in the name of privacy rights, but we have moved far from reasonable access to public record to some insane position that we cannot disclose what we pay to whom.

Then there is the hidden world of the legislative grant system. Various organizations, through their Senators and Representatives, seek additional money for programs they deem worthy or that are located in their local districts. These grants are largely at the discretion of the leadership. In turn, given that power, they are used to horse trade legislation.

A member who is not of the governing party is often shorted. A member of the ruling party that has been non-compliant with the expressed desires of the leadership is also a likely candidate for retribution in that grant money requested will fall short. Those who follow the leader invariably get rewarded, some with bonuses, for their votes.

Now, I do understand that this is the role of the legislature to horse trade, and I understand that in attempting to form any type of coalition behind any piece of legislation there needs to be a carrot and stick approach, but such a need for this cannot justify the way this system is operated.

That is, if legislative grants were voted on individually, then the people would have the ability to look at the vote of each legislator. Instead, it is voted as a whole pie and then sliced by the leadership. A grant by the legislature should require a roll count vote. It is that simple and in doing this, it would make the process more visible. It would not change the horse trading aspect of the legislative process, but it would remove its secret nature.

The other branches of government are not immune from this public scrutiny. For years I have advocated the need to have a printed version of the outstanding warrants list published much in the same way the Treasurer publishes the money being held in trust by the state. Anyone with an outstanding warrant would be identified. Notice prior to the original publication would allow for people to “check-in” with the authorities in an attempt to straighten out the situation prior to publication.

Along with the outstanding warrants listing, there should be a publication of the amounts owed from court imposed sentences. Unpaid fines and assessments represent money belonging to the people of Rhode Island, why should they not be accessible in a simple public document?

The Governor could also be helpful in this matter. What would stop the Governor’s office from putting out a weekly hired list that would name each new job filling by name, pay grade, and other compensation and benefits?

This is also an indictment of the Governor for failing to adequately utilize the bully pulpit of that office. I recognize that the office of Governor of Rhode Island is below the Speaker of the House in terms of power, but it is not in terms of prestige and leadership. The office can be better utilized if it were to make extended, and personal, efforts to educate the people. To think a press release or a few radio appearances will convince a largely tuned out society is just plain stupid.

And, let us not forget that the Assembly has a habit of introducing pet bills at or near the end of the session and voting on bills that few have even read. Why would we need a full time legislature when all the legislation is currently done in one or two days anyway?

By creating the Open Meetings regulations our law makers have done little more than make it appear they are committed to this issue. The reality is that they are not. The Lima amendment to the budget (07 Assembly Session) demonstrates the fact that legislation gets passed without full notice and consideration of the public -- or legislators for that matter. While such an amendment may not technically violate the open meetings notice requirement if you buy the argument that it was germane to the budget consideration, it clearly violated the underpinnings and reasoning for having a visible government as supposed under an open meetings law.

In the future, this topic will consider other timely government matters of interest, but will also look at matters of inter-related matters that result from a three branch government and such topics as separation of power and voter initiative.

2007-08-30T08:53:00.000-04:00

CRIME

When we discuss crime, we are really discussing the system that is required to manage the underside of our population. Our criminal justice system needs to be reformed to reflect the reality of Rhode Island.

Criminal punishment for social infractions is the job of the state. As a fair and just society, we are often seen to be pampering of the criminal element, however, even giving up those positions, it is evident that there are some simplistic reforms that could be made to eliminate danger to the public, realistically manage the criminal population, and reduce costs to society.

We are often told of crime rates rising or falling, but those statistics rarely give a true picture of the present. A zero percent increase in murder in a high murder rate city is not an accomplishment, yet the statistics are bantered about as though they have real meaning.

What has more meaning to criminal statisticians is the population’s numbers in terms of men between the ages of 18 to 30, the rate of unemployment and other societal statistics. These statistics are now being more and more applied in a gender neutral sense, encompassing women in that same age group. These are the real predictors as opposed to historical markers.

Crimes are more likely to occur in certain determinable populations. Crimes are more likely to occur when there is a larger concentration of young males. Crimes are more likely to occur where there is drug traffic due to the societal desire to prohibit various modes of conduct concerning drug use. Property crimes and murder are more likely perpetrated by people in the same neighborhood or family. It really isn’t brain surgery. There are clear trends in criminology that we continue to ignore when setting legislative policy.

Perhaps the best starting point to get a sense of how this problem came to be, we need to look to our do-good legislators. In an attempt to show the public just how tough they were on crime, they generally criminalized a host of behaviors that gave them political points. Drugs, a traditional whipping boy for law and order types, along with prostitution accounts for much of the crime that occurs in Rhode Island. Our prison populations across the nation are filled with 20 to 25 percent of people serving for drug related offenses. We fill our courts with these criminals. We give them a record, make them less likely to get gainful employment, re-arrest them for more drug use or sales, or worse a breaking and entering charge. Eventually, after clogging the courts for eight or ten occasions, they are incarcerated, only to be released early.

The cycle creates employment in the police-court-prison system, but is it truly serving the best interests of the people, creating employment disincentives in the communities that traditionally serve up drug and prostitution convicts?

We need to put a priority system in place. Violent offenders should not be tolerated. Convicts with firearms should be prosecuted relentlessly and, if convicted, made to serve out their full sentence. Convicted rapists and child molesters should be put away from society rather than use some system of registration. If they are in prison, we know where they are.

What needs to occur is a complete review of the crimes and the sentences that are attached to them. By realistically prosecuting major crimes, by requiring realistic sentences, and by mandating that all sentences shall be served in or near full term, we are sending a message as to crime.

At present, we are not really sending a message other than our system is completely broken. We have people arrested only to let them back on the streets. We give light sentences to multiple offenders.

We need to stop crime. We need to punish offenders in a manner that teaches them that the laws of the state must be obeyed or a punishment needs to be inflicted. It is that simple.

It is too simplistic to say we need to build more prisons; the real response is that we should be housing the prisoners who are the most physically threatening to our social well being.

This does not mean that I advocate giving the non-violents a free pass in the legal system. They are still offenders and need to feel justice. We could utilize creative sentencing for these types of matters. What is wrong with allowing a modified release program to only those fully paid back restitution and are willing to pay the state to monitor them? Such a system would be equally applied to all not convicted of a crime of violence. It is really the predatory types that physically injure people that we need to keep from law abiding citizens. It is all about a reasoned focus.

Rapists and child molesters are given light sentences and then let out on parole only to try to enforce some crazy system of sex offender registration. If the crime is as outrageous as the public deems, then it should be punished accordingly. The registration after the fact is both illogical and a legislative effort aimed to placate voters in light of the fact that it was the legislative sentencing mandates that were easy on these offenders in the first place.

This is not a platform to advocate that we need to abolish punishment for drug offenses or outside prostitution or other largely victimless crime. What we need to do is look at the criminal justice system as one would administer any other triage operation.

There are priorities. There are sound policies related to crime. But, there is the politician who cannot resist the temptation to overly criminalize behaviors. Still, as any parent can tell you, no matter how many rules you make, unless you enforce them in a quick, efficient and fair manner, all the rules are worthless.

We need to focus punishment efforts on murder, sex crimes and other crimes of violence. Then we need to focus on property crime. And then we can work with the niceties of other petty offenses.

There is a significant distinction that needs clarification here. Focus on punishment is distinct from policing. In policing efforts, every little crime should be treated as a priority. It is how we punish these crimes that is in need review.

It is understood that many police departments use the arrest on the smaller charges to attack what they see as a larger offender. But this approach is not really policing but instead is a created justification to remove people from the streets who have been released by an inadequate punishment system. It may look like good on the arrest sheets, but the realistic part of the equation is that it inefficiently uses the system.

While I understand that it is not the police officer’s duty to question the law, it is the politician’s job. The police are merely carrying out the idiotic policy created by the legislature (not denying the argument that the number of criminal defense attorneys in the legislature makes certain that crime pays).

Given the structure of our criminal system, we are not doing justice to the perpetrators and we are surely not doing justice for the taxpayers who pay for this system of utter foolishness.

By having realistic sentences and enforcing those sentences according to the terms of their imposition, we can operate a more efficient system that would have a clearly defined system of punishment. The Romans would clearly state punishments for various crimes. If you did the crime, you knew you would do the specified time. Today, with creative sentences and shortened sentences, there is no sense of deterrence. Quite frankly, no one really knows what a sentence will be, but most will be unrealistic – some being too lenient with others being too draconian, neither with a rational relationship to the actual crime committed.

There is no reason for society to tolerate criminals in its free population. We have institutions for a reason and we should apply reason in using them. I am not against spending money to build and operate prisons, so long as the prison system is working to its highest efficiency and effectiveness.

In the future I hope to discuss how to better utilize tax dollars appropriated to the courts and the criminal justice system. I hope to further discuss the relationship between crime predictors and the way we police our state. And, I want to expand on the need to restructure our system to maintain real law and order at minimal cost and with fairness.

2007-08-23T05:06:00.000-04:00

PROPERTY TAXATION

Property taxation is taxation on ownership. It is favored by States in that it taxes something that is largely unmovable. Land, houses, cars, business inventory are all property that is susceptible to this type of taxation.

Rhode Island has made efforts to reduce these types of taxes, having reduced car taxes and inventory taxes, but it is still far too reliant on the property taxation mechanism to fund local government and education.

Suburban communities largely support their education through local property taxes. Urban areas, probably due to their strength in the Legislature, have an extraordinary large portion (if not all) paid for by the State through various other taxes, much of which is from residents of suburbia.

Urban centers argue that they provide some nebulous off-set to the people who live outside the city and therefore, they deserve this education money in that they are using their property tax base to fund the basic operation of the cities. Interesting argument but not so clear cut.

Cities are terrible in controlling a purse and as such, these education “subsidies” are really bandages for mismanagement of city government and its labor relations. The reason why property taxation hurts is that it is not properly applied.

As I have written in the past, much of the property tax burden should be shifted through a statewide education employee contract negotiated by the General Assembly before adjournment in election years. My proposals that were submitted in legislation in the 2007 session, would allow local taxation to be used for no more than 10% of the operational budget with a cost of living increased pegged to set rate.

Given the nature and make up of the Assembly, it died. Not even Mayor Cicillini, a supposed advocate of a statewide teacher contract to eliminate property taxes, came to testify. While he claims that he favors such a system, such talk is mere talk. He would never take a stand that would upset any chance of support from the teacher unions. Who is he kidding?

Property taxation to fund education is no longer a viable funding source. It can barely handle the payment for local government. The costs related to poorly negotiated contracts for public service, especially in their generous nature in retirement benefits and pensions, have created a nightmare by having delayed the cost of government. These local bodies have obligated the taxpaying base of the community to decades of future costs just because they preferred current placating of interests during their administrations.

But it is not all local blame. The General Assembly and its leadership are well versed in governmental buck passing. By the use of unfunded state mandates, the Assembly requires by law certain actions. The locals, forced to fund, increase the taxes. The State then says they want local property tax relief and that communities could re-negotiate contracts (knowing the most are not up for renegotiation and not giving the locals authority to force re-opening of such contracts). It is a somewhat sophisticated game of three card monte, little more.

As early as my first campaign for Governor in 1986 I advocated for the need to reform the property tax system. Then, it was an observation of an impending train wreck. Now, the train is approaching the stalled vehicle and there is little chance that anyone will escape unscathed. The sad part of my political efforts is that by not getting elected, the only option for me is to demonstrate how I had the foresight to govern, if only I had been given the chance.

Property taxation is an easy to implement tax that doesn’t require any heavy lifting by the elected officials. When imposing a tax increase, the locals simply throw up their hands and say that they are strapped by the Legislature. The Legislature can point fingers at the locals. Meanwhile, both are guilty of failing to address the basic foundation of the problem.

To minimize the property tax system requires real legislative leadership. If, for example, the education funding were the responsibility of the state, it would most likely be raised by income taxation. That said, the Legislature would be required to work much harder to make Rhode Island friendly for economic development. It would force the Legislature and the Governor to actually work for Rhode Islanders. It is often harder to light a candle than to complain about the darkness.

Property taxes discourage economic development, especially when the state must compete with other states that do not have such taxation. Why would a business person, acutely aware of expenses, locate a business in a place where it needed to pay a yearly tribute to the city or town in order to locate a business there? Business people do not get rich by being stupid.

Rhode Islanders want provincial governance and so they maintain 39 cities and towns in the smallest state. Okay, but if that is what you want, you must suffer the tradeoffs. This peculiarity of Rhode Islanders is an embracement of inefficiency, but it is arguable. But the enhancement of such an ineffective system of governance should not be tolerated. We know it denies us the ability to purchase everything from labor to toilet paper in bulk. We know it creates a multiplication of efforts in having 36 to 39 of everything. Fine, but why should this be allowed to grow?

Since the education budget impacts most communities the hardest, it needs to be addressed first in any effort to minimize property taxation. Local property tax caps, such as those passed by the General Assembly, need to be implemented without exception. These caps are traditionally put in place only to be exceeded by exception or exemption or court order related to a labor contract. Why bother with the caps if they are not mandatory in any significant manner? If the General Assembly were serious, it would have declared that any contract of the city or town that created a cap violation was void under law. It would make the cap meaningful, but that is not what the union lap-dog Legislature wanted to accomplish.

In future discussions of property taxation, I intend to demonstrate the need to address the education budget aside from local property taxes in a meaningful manner, I will also discuss the operation of a local budget that creates inefficient, albeit politically expedient, government, and I will look at how the state could allow more effective local government instead of encouraging wasteful spending.

2007-08-16T08:38:00.000-04:00

TRANSPORTATION

It often takes a tragedy to force people to focus on what should be in the forefront. Such is often the case when it comes to transportation issues. Almost all Rhode Islanders use some form of transportation in their daily existence, yet they leave it to others to ensure its safety and maintenance.

Rhode Island’s transportation infrastructure, for lack of a better word, sucks. According to some surveys, Rhode Island ranks last in quality of its roads. Its drivers are frequently amongst the lowest in terms of operator safety. Rhode Island’s bridges have seen their share of neglect. Our public transit system, which really is little more than a public bus line, is frequently crying for more funding. The gasoline tax used for roads is among the highest in the country. And we are just getting warmed up.

As is usually the case in any exploration of a public issue, we must first state the problem, and before we can consider realistic solutions, we have to understand just how we arrived at this point of distress.

Much of the problem dates back into the onset of Rhode Island’s reliance on roadways. There are two parts to roadways. The initial laying of the road and the maintenance of the road once it is there. Both have been a bane to the taxpayers of Rhode Island.

Early road construction, often lacking any real engineering oversight due to favorable government treatment, has produced a foundation that often demands repair. The basic under-surface of a road will determine whether or not it can sustain frost heaves and other natural abuse. People often point to New Hampshire’s roads in a comparison with Rhode Island’s pot hole laden streets. For my money, I will bet the road bed difference is the key.

But, Rhode Island, being far more urban than New Hampshire, has other matter with which it must contend. Due to the urbanization, our secondary highways are highly traveled. In addition, we utilize in-ground utilities that course through the middle of our roadways. The aging utility infrastructure is often in need of repair and in turn, results in a pock-mocked highway.

Rhode Island could easily solve the later problem by merely putting more engineering enforcement into the utility cuts. Repairs that have sunk or result in other deficiencies could be charged against the utility making the road cut. How hard is that?

As for the restructuring of the road bed, that is far more arduous. It is unlikely that we can rip up most of our main roads without tremendous cost or inconvenience. This means that we need to improve the methods of maintenance and learn from our earlier mistakes in awarding state contracts.

Rhode Islanders in general, and their leadership in specificity, are short-sighted when it comes to infra-structure issues. They frequently vote for bonds to finance the efforts, but fail to actively evaluate whether that spending has been put to good use.

Take for example the I-Way project. Yes, it will free up some city space that could make a nice profit for some investors in the area, but the project is expected to do little, if anything, to alleviate the traffic congestion that has plagued the 95-195 intersection for decades. Your transportation dollars at work.

You see, for years Rhode Island government, in conjunction and with the support of the labor unions, have lobbied the public for these projects. For labor the benefits are obvious. For government officials, the benefits are more subtle and less apparent, but still there.

By using highway funds, Rhode Island government is less on the hook to create other types of employment. Political support for such projects often results in campaign support or donations, or both. The hand washing hand approach, typical of Rhode Island politics, is a great motivation.

Every recent Governor has had an on-going transportation “wish list” that delineates various projects. That list is compiled to enable the state to access federal highway funds, but it is not always prioritized according to need. Who wants a shirt for Christmas when you could get an Ipod? It is that basic.

But, back to the earlier discussion, Rhode Island is now faced with servicing what it hath wrought. It is not glamorous to put tax money into fixing what exists. For the most part, it is not seen and cannot be related to the public as an “accomplishment” during a politician’s term in office. “I built this new bridge” provides far more political capital than “I made sure there were fewer pot holes on Route 138”. And therein lies the problem. The electorate prefers candidates that build new bridges.

A realistic transportation plan for Rhode Island should prioritize maintenance. A realistic transportation plan should seek to leap frog technology. For example, when I first visited Uruguay, the people there had few telephones. Land lines, made of copper wire, were both expensive to install in a largely rural nation and often susceptible to theft. Few rural areas had reliable in-home telephones. Today, most Uruguayans have a telephone – a cellular telephone. In short, they have leap-frogged in terms of technology. It is this type of thinking that I would expect in our transportation planning. To build not for today, but for tomorrow should be our objective.

As a small state with population centers existing in clusters, it is almost unforgivable to think that we do not have a viable system of public transportation that would encourage use by all segments of the society. Large urban centers in the United States, and most world class cities elsewhere, have strong public transportation systems. In Buenos Aires, for example, there are inexpensive taxis. In London, there is the tube. In Japan, there is a reliable, clean, albeit overcrowded, subway system. Here, we continue to blindly rely on our personal automobile.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating the abandonment of the auto. I am, however, advocating the limited use of that auto. It can be done, but it needs to have a committed effort on the part of government and the people. I personally find occasion to use the public bus system, but I know that I would utilize it far more often if it met my needs. If the bus had a greater frequency, I would use it more often, but to provide a greater frequency, there must be more riders. It creates the famous catch 22 of public transportation, but it is real.

Still, we fail to attempt to solve the problem and wish for better public transportation whenever the price of gasoline goes up. Light rail projects are frequently topics of discussion, but it all stops there. We need to look to where we need to be 20 years from now instead of where we are today. Until we do that, Rhode Island’s transportation problem will continue to exist.

In subsequent discussions of transportation I will discuss the relation of transportation to taxation, the use of alternative transportation modes, and the concept of clustering for better management of transportation and land. I will likely culminate this effort by an overview that reviews Rhode Island’s transportation spending in light of the points made in earlier blogs.

2007-08-09T19:51:00.001-04:00

EDUCATION

Aside from social spending, Education is one of the more costly endeavors of state and local government. Rhode Islanders are generous in the amount of taxation that goes to educating our youth. Yet, while we consistently spend liberally on education, we find that our education dollars are not purchasing the education we expect.

I always approach education issues from the point of view of socio-demographics. As a licensed teacher, holding my first Masters degree in Education (Boston University) and having done my Ph.D course work (Columbia University) in the field of Comparative Education, along with my years of service as the Chairperson of the Warren School Committee, I feel fairly well versed in education issues.

What my training and experiences have taught me is that all education relates to the socio-demographics, end of story.

If a child is from an affluent two parent family that values education, the child’s likelihood of success is almost absolutely certain. There is a stable education program for the child. The family values an education and intellectual achievement. There is no concern related to finances (health care, food, housing). There is a positive peer group among the other school children. Affluent parents tend to have a more extensive vocabulary, are less reliant upon television as a means of amusement, and have expendable wealth for cultural enhancements.

A child from less fortunate circumstances presents greater challenges to educators. This does not mean that this child is unable to attain an education, but it does mean that the system needs to look at the child and make appropriate adjustments to make education a success.

American education’s history presents itself as being the smoking gun as to how we got to where we are today. Worldwide, education systems vary, but are generally categorized along two distinct lines: the American style system and the French style system.

The American system allows for greater freedom granted to the instructor as to lesson plans and classroom management. The French system is designed to have every classroom in the entire system to be on the same page on the same day. The latter does not allow for the “creative” and “variety” enjoyed by American style instruction methods.

As is often the case in education, there is no right or wrong answers, but that does not mean that the issue avoids analysis. Later, these two distinct styles will be explored as to their relevance to Rhode Island education, but for now it is sufficient to realize the difference.

American education, largely under the guidance of social innovators such as Henry Barnard and others, was designed to be a public school system. This concept was furthered by John Dewey’s views on education in post-World War II America. Dewey had argued for pragmatic education. America embraced this and started various programs of education to allow for such innovations as guidance counseling and industrial/vocational education.

These concepts, however, were somewhat perverted in their application. The labor unions, reluctant to relinquish control over the ancient apprentice system, crippled much of these efforts related to vocational training. Additionally, the need to have every student to be “college bound” has made a mockery of such alternative education programs.

To approach education from a perspective that everyone will be an eventual college graduate is a misdirected effort. As such, education efforts with a single track focus have done a great disservice to education and to those funding education. It is both incapable of success and difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

Since the 1950’s the suburbs have attracted the more affluent families in their flight from the cities. This leaves the urban areas to struggle with the problems related to the less fortunate, and as such, relates directly to the urban education system.

For purpose of example, let’s consider a typical urban student in relation to a typical suburban student from a statistical perspective. The child is likely from a family at or below poverty level. The child is more likely to be from a single parent family. There is a greater likelihood of having more siblings than his or her suburban counterpart. There is a far greater likelihood of school movement due to the rental nature of the family. There is less likelihood that his or her parent(s) has advanced education degrees. There is far less of a support system available to this child.

Affluent families are likely to have advanced degrees. As such, they speak proper English and correct their children when they speak improperly. These children also avail themselves to the benefit of a peer group that comes from a similar background. I usually offer this as an example: When I was a child, I grew up in a blue collar/factory worker family. I did not know the distinction between the proper use of “good” and “well” until I went off to college. A similar child from an affluent family would not be allowed to say “He did good”, but that type of language goes unchallenged in a less educated household.

What difference does this make?, you may ask. The answer is that when it comes time to test for basic language ability, to the one that has been forced to speak properly, the answer comes naturally. To the uncorrected speaker, to get the proper answer requires a thought process to choose the correct answer. Multiply this a few thousand-fold and you can understand the greater difficulty that faces those on the lower levels of the socio-demographis scale.

The one true predictor of education success throughout the world is the education level of the father (in the U.S. it is of the parents due to the enhanced role of women in the society). It is not brain surgery and it is not one hundred percent reliable, but I would venture to guess it is probably 95% reliable.

Armed with this knowledge, how can anyone justify the Rhode Island system of education and expect that it would successfully serve its residents? Instead of attempting to ignore the socio-economic differences in an attempt to implement an egalitarian “feel-good” we are all equal policy, Rhode Island should focus on applying this acquired knowledge to create a positive education environment.

There are some simple solutions. Why should the Rhode Island Department of Education allow for an American style curriculum to be taught in urban areas? Since children in urban systems frequently move from one school to another, usually within the urban areas, why not use a French style curriculum in the urban centers? If a child moves to another school, the lesson is consistent with the one he or she just left behind. Not only is it logical, it is a change that would require little or no funding increase, yet it could provide significant improvement in the school performance of our urban youth.

Education has frequently been misused to implement social policy. We do not value academic excellence, but instead we reward the mediocre. We somehow feel that we need to abandon education goals that reward scholarship and use the system toward a more egalitarian end. If you abandon logic and reason, you are educating for “feelings” and not for “intelligence”.

By confusing these we blur the mission of education. Realistically, if the government were to call what passes for education today “indoctrination”, it would be far more accurate.

Our government leaders have realized that the school system is the easiest method to tap every member of the society. Most have a minimal contact with the schools, and therefore, it became the foundation to implement social policy in place of academics.

Schools serve breakfasts and lunches. They provide psychological counseling. They teach sex education. They provide suicide prevention services. The schools are centers for health programs. They provide after-school daycare services.

In short, schools have absorbed the role of the parent. The state is now the family. American’s criticized this exact behavior of the Soviet communist state a mere fifty years earlier and yet they pushed headlong into adopting this model for itself. This has done little other than entrench the reach of the state but has also accelerated the decline in the family and social support systems.

All this education philosophy aside, Rhode Island also faces a problem related to the funding of this system of so-called “education”. Rhode Island relies on property taxation for the greater part of the funding of suburban schools. Through state taxation, these suburbanites also fund the bulk of the education efforts in the urban areas. This system is both unfair and illogical.

I have advocated on many occasions to have a statewide teacher and education labor contract, negotiated by the General Assembly before adjournment on election years. This system would also shift the burden (90%) to income taxation and away from the property taxation that plagues the state.

In the future I will discuss the relationship between education and taxation, but in order to understand the financial aspects of education, we first have to understand the rationale behind our education efforts and that is why we start here.

In the future I will articulate some education aims that are obtainable through small changes in the system. I will also discuss the role of organized labor in the education process.

In the future I will also define a plan to make Rhode Island’s education system perform to a level that both services the population and meets the needs of the society in terms of economic development and taxation.

2007-08-08T10:57:00.000-04:00

WHEN RESPONDING TO A BLOG, PLEASE NOTE THE BLOG NUMBER SO THAT PROPER REFERENCE CAN BE MADE.

To the reader:

In an effort to fully explore all the issues that may be relevant to the 2010 gubernatorial election, I have decided to utilize this blog to write a weekly statement related to state issues. Since it is a blog, I will also personally respond to comments and questions related to the topic.
For the next 170 weeks or so, I will comment, on a rotating basis, on the following topics:

EDUCATION
TRANSPORATION
PROPERTY TAXATION
CRIME
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
ENVIRONMENT
LABOR
THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
HIGHER EDUCATION
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
WELFARE
ELECTIONS
STATE TAXATION
HEALTH CARE
GAMBLING
LOCAL GOVERNANCE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SERVICES
IMMIGRATION – STATE ROLE
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
ENERGY
OPEN GOVERNMENT
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THE BUDGET
THE FUTURE OF RHODE ISLAND

Your comments will always be welcomed and suggestions will be considered. If we are to make Rhode Island work for the people, the people must want Rhode Island to work.
I urge you to read this and seek out any inconsistencies in my positions. I have written extensively on these issues in both the 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, as well as the 1986 effort. The 94 and 98 documents are found on this web site for reference. The 86 documents were not as extensive, but should also be consulted.
If nothing else, this site will allow for people to consider and respond to issues of state governance.
Robert J. Healey, Jr.
Candidate for Governor 2010