RIREPUBLICAN.COM - Personal Liberty, Fiscal Conservatism, and Self-Reliance

Westin employees face a difficult situation

2010-03-18T00:43:00Z

The Westin Providence hotel and its employees have been locked in a labor dispute since their contract expired last year. Today, the Westin made some drastic changes to their employee's compensation. Here are some of the details:

According to the company and the union, the new terms would cut union salaries by 20 percent. Employee contributions to health care would increase to 43 percent of the total premium cost.

For those on the Blue Cross & Blue Shield family plan, that means $101.64 a week; for individuals, it’s now $35.79 a week. Originally, union members paid about $44 a week for the family plan and $9.75 a week for the individual plan.

The union says that members would also have to pay a $500 health-care deductible for the first time. “It’s a double-whammy of a pay cut and a health-care increase,” says Lavendier, who said he stands to lose $200 a week in pay.

A 20% pay-cut, insurance contributions tripling, and the implementation of a deductible. There's no doubt that those are some drastic changes in compensation, and I wouldn't blame the Westin's employees if each and every one of them gave their two weeks notice and found a different job. Of course, we're talking about unionized workers, so they feel as if they're entitled to these jobs.

If you think about it, wages are a simple matter of supply and demand. If every one of those workers left their job, could the Westin replace those employees at the reduced pay and benefit rate? I believe they could, which means that's what those jobs are worth. On the other hand, if employees feel that they are worth more than their reduced pay rate, then they could easily find a job paying them what they are worth. The equilibrium would be reached. Of course, this won't happen with union interference and a group of people who feel they are entitled to a job.

They might not have noticed, but millions of people in the United States don't have health insurance, and Rhode Island's unemployment rate is almost 13%. A steady job and insurance for just $35.79 a week? If those employees did leave, I have no doubt their jobs would be filled quickly.

A twisted view of the Central falls situation

2010-03-18T00:02:00Z

     Not surprisingly, I usually disagree with Providence Journal columnist Bob Kerr. In his latest column, he addresses the firing of teachers at Central Falls High School. Basically, the entire column attempts to portray the Central Falls teachers as victims. Not surprisingly, he left out a few facts.

     Let's start with teachers complaining about having mutual planning time for an hour or two per week, some professional development during the summer, and eating lunch with their students one day per week. He seemed to forget to mention that the teachers were going to be paid to take part in professional development and planning time. Central Falls Superintendent Frances Gallo offered $30 per hour, but the Central Falls union insisted on $90 per hour.

     I think $30 is an excellent hourly wage, but if you think about it, teachers make substantially more than that. Let's do some math: A teacher who works 6 hours each day for 39 weeks works a total of 1170 hours in a school year. If they have an annual salary of $70,000, that comes out to almost $60 per hour. I guess they picked $90 because they see the "extra" work as time-and-a-half. By the way, I know this is a very rough estimate, but it certainly illustrates the point.

     One more thing: I remember some teachers complaining about having to eat lunch with their students one day each week. Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't these dedicated professionals be thrilled to spend informal time with the students they claim to care about? The teacher's lounge must be quite a place if they're that angry about leaving one day each week.

     Last but not least, Mr. Kerr takes aim at evaluating teachers by bringing up the horror known as performance reviews. Teachers take every opportunity to mention their professionalism, yet they don't want to truly be treated like professionals when it doesn't suit them In most professions, employees have performance reviews at established intervals.   These performance reviews determine whether you keep your job, and the level of compensation you receive. Public school teachers are completely different. The longer you stick around, the more you make.

     By the way, I'd just like to mention that I teach kindergarten at a privately owned school. We used to have biannual performance reviews, where the director would critique our job performance.   I actually suggested an alternate method called a 360 performance view which would have combined reviews from the director, colleagues, and customers (anonymous parent surveys). I knew I was doing a good job, so I didn't have anything to hide. How many unionized teachers would make the same suggestion?

The NAACP wants to fight racism with racism

2010-03-17T22:12:00Z

Providence's most recent recruiting class consists of 26 people, including 21 white males and 5 women and minorities. None of the 5 minorities are black, which has caused Clifford Montiero, President of the NAACP-Providence, to criticize Chief Dean Esserman for not increasing the racial diversity of the force. In order to remedy the situation, Montiero has some suggestions:

* Fire Dean Esserman and appoint "a minority person as public safety commissioner as a gesture of good faith to the minority community."

* Hire a full-time recruiter “who looks like the community that you’re trying to reach.”

Clifford Montiero made some interesting statements. Where do I begin? Let's start by the inherent racism in his call to limit the search for a public safety commissioner to a minority. Couldn't a white commissioner do a good job getting the word out about upcoming police training academies? Probably not. Will a recruiter who "looks like the community" he's trying to reach victimize residents from other groups? According to Clifford Montiero, that seems like a distinct possibility.

He implies that it is necessary for a recruiter to "look like the community." Does that mean we need to hire a white recruiter for potential white officers, a latino recruiter for latino officers, a black recruiter for black officers, and an Asian recruiter for Asian officers? Sound ridiculous? Of course it does, but according to the implications of Clifford Montiero's request, the typical person doesn't have the capacity to look beyond race. If you don't think so, check out this excerpt from the article:

Police hiring is especially important to minorities, he said, because the police have the power to harass and arrest.

“Policemen beat people who don’t look like them,” Montiero added, alluding to the alleged assault of the handcuffed suspect.

Policemen beat people who don't look like them. Interesting. Now, does that only apply to white officers? As a white male, should I fear being pulled over by a black, Latino, or Asian police officer? I never have, but according to Clifford Montiero, I should. After all, I "don't look like them."

I have a great idea that would make the Providence police force more diverse: Bring back residency requirements. Another would be to encourage community organizations to get the word out to members of the community. If they are already involved in recruiting, perhaps they're not doing enough. I think they're good ideas, but Clifford Montiero probably wouldn't like them. After all, he probably wouldn't think I look enough like the community.

Will Patrick Kennedy Run Against Scott Brown?

2010-03-12T19:21:00Z

It looks like Patrick Kennedy's decision to leave politics is a sabbatical, not a retirement. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Kennedy discussed the possibility of running for a Senate seat and mentioned plans to keep $500,000 in a campaign account. Here are the two big questions: When will he run, and which seat will he pursue?

Kennedy was quick to praise both Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island's two Senators. He is similar to both ideologically, so it's doubtful he would challenge either one. My guess is that he will move to Massachusetts and challenge Scott Brown in 2012 for his father's old seat. Patrick Kennedy was born and raised in Massachusetts, moved to Rhode Island to attend Providence College, and ran for office shortly after arriving. I always felt his decision to come here was carefully calculated, since Rhode Island is one of the bluest states in the country, and his father was just a short drive away to offer campaign help. Now that he doesn't need the boost provided by Rhode Island's demographics, I expect him to bolt as soon as it is politically expedient to do so.

There are certainly more competent candidates to challenge Scott Brown, but if Kennedy does challenge Brown, it would automatically become one of the most competitive races in the country. The question for me isn't if Kennedy will pursue the seat, but when he will announce the decision.

Running for office? Check out candidate school

2010-01-22T20:40:00Z

     For those of you thinking of running for office, Operation Clean Government is offering a candidate school for those looking to gain some campaign knowledge. The school will be held at the Quonset O Club on Saturday, March 6th from 7:15 5:15. Here's the schedule for the day:

MORNING PROGRAM

7:15      Full Buffet Breakfast – Welcome: Larry Valencia, OCG President

                                               Candidate School Founder: Bruce Lang

           Speaker: John DePetro, WPRO 630 Morning News

8:30     Deadlines; filing requirements, campaign finance & reports The Honorable A. Ralph Mollis, Secretary of State

9:10     Ethics Commission rules   Jason Gramitt, Education Coordinator/Staff Attorney for the Rhode Island Ethics Commission

9:50     Structuring Your Campaign – Making the decision to run; brief overview of what you need to run an effective campaign including selecting a Campaign Manager.   Professor Victor Profughi, Adjunct Professor at University of Rhode Island, Owner at Quest Research, CEO at Quest Research Public Opinion, Public Policy Surveys

10:30   Fundraising, Wise Campaign Spending and Pay Pal     Seth Klaiman, SMK Enterprises

11:00   Print, Radio and Other Media – Press Releases & effective print advertising. Presenters: Tom Ward, Publisher of The Valley Breeze and Dave Layman, Layman Communications

AFTERNOON PROGRAM

12:00 Lunch - Speaker: The Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor
BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Choose the session that will be most important to your campaign

1:15 Session #1

A.     State Issues – for candidates for State offices & General Assembly Presenter: The Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor

B.     Municipal Issues – for candidates for local office Presenter: The Honorable Joseph Larisa, Mayor of East Providence

C.     Strategy – Targeting potential votes – Identifying the votes you can win – Don’t waste your time!     Presenter: Richard Foley, The Prince Group

1:50 Session #2

A.     How to beat an entrenched incumbent. Moderator: Dave Layman, Layman Communications. Panel: The Honorable Ed O’Neill, Senator (I); The Honorable Deborah Ruggiero, Representative (D); The Honorable Brian Newberry, Representative (R)

B.     Know the Issues and How to answer questions honestly while not alienating half the room! Presenter: The Honorable Arlene Violet, former RI Attorney General

C.     How to Get Out The Vote (GOTV), targeted for campaign Staffers.   Presenter: Ernest Carlucci, Campaign Chairman for Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis

.

2:30 Session #3

A.     Women candidates / Getting the women’s vote Presenters: The Honorable Arlene Violet and Deborah Perry , Executive Director of the Northern RI YWCA

B.     Minority candidates / getting the minority’s vote Presenters: Angel Tavares, Esq., specializing in election law, and Sandy Riojas, political advocate, political commentator, & educator

C.     Branding yourself – What do you stand for - Campaign Theme / Image. Presenter Gregg Perry, The Perry Group, Reputation Management & Strategic Communications

3:10 – 3:25 BREAK

Special Presentations for all

3:25 Using the Internet – Webmedia; YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. Etc. Gregg Perry, The Perry Group, Reputation Management & Strategic Communications

4:15 – 5:15 Education Roundtable -- an issue for every campaign Moderator: Dave Layman, Panelists: Bob Walsh, RI NEA; The Honorable Dan McKee, Mayor; Anthony Carcieri, President, East Providence School Committee; Harry Staley, Chairman, Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC).

For more information, vistit Operation Clean Government's website: http://www.ocgri.org/candidate.html

Close the GOP primary

2010-01-13T00:19:00Z

     If you follow local politics, you probably know that there is a major disagreement in the Rhode Island Republican party. Some in the GOP want to close the primary so that only Republicans who have been registered for at least three months can vote. Others want to keep the current system, where unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote, then disaffiliate before leaving the polling place. I find it hard to believe there can even be disagreement on this issue.

     A political party's primary should be closed to anyone who has not been a member for a specific period of time. Failing to do so undermines the purpose of a political party and allows those who are not committed to the party's goals to interfere. If you need proof, just look at the 2006 primary between Steve Laffey and Lincoln Chafee.

     Some might argue that a closed primary doesn't foster a sense of inclusion and openness, but this is nonsense. Unlike a general election, where the party and candidates should court unaffiliated voters, a primary should be solely for dedicated members of the party to choose the best candidate. If voters would really like to vote in the Republican primary, perhaps they should consider becoming a registered Republican.

John Loughlin is 'on the radar'

2010-01-12T23:28:00Z

     For those of you who have been waiting patiently for a strong candidate to challenge Patrick Kennedy, it appears that the wait is over. The Providence Journal is reporting that John Loughlin is "on the radar" of the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), due to meeting fundraising targets and having a strong organization.

     This is a significant development for the Loughlin campaign for many reasons. For one thing, it recognizes his campaign as having "significant momentum", and helps bring the race closer to the national political spotlight. This can only help his fund raising and name recognition, which are two things that will help him defeat Patrick Kennedy.

     With the exception of Patrick Kennedy's first Congressional election against Kevin Vigilante, Kennedy hasn't had any strong challengers. This has led to Kennedy controlling the race. For example, you may have noticed that Patrick Kennedy never debates his opponents in a well-publicized public forum. Doing so would only give publicity and name recognition to a candidate who lacks any, while exposing Kennedy's lack of intellect for all to see. Instead, he takes the coward's way out and refuses to debate. This year, Patrick's familiar election script will likely have to change.

     A competent, well-financed candidate will be able to get his message out, gain support, and strike a chord with voters. If polling shows that the race is close, Kennedy will likely have to debate to avoid criticism, or at least make more public appearances. Once this happens, his incompetence will be on display for all to see. This will only help John Loughlin. Combine this possibility with an anti-incumbent sentiment, and you might have the makings of a major upset.

John Robitaille is in; Steve Laffey is out

2010-01-12T22:17:00Z

     If you're a Rhode Island Republican, you should be worried about the 2010 election. It appeared that Steve Laffey was considering a run for governor, but he put those rumors to rest yesterday. Basically, he feels that the typical Rhode Islander isn't ready for the tough decisions that would be necessary to turn the state around.

     Laffey's decision leaves the GOP with John Robitaille as the only announced Republican candidate. Robitaille, who announced yesterday, is the governor's director of communications. I know very little about John Robitaille, so I'm going to reserve judgment until he starts to discuss his vision for the state. With that said, I'm about as excited about his candidacy as I was about Rory Smith's.

     The big problem is that Robitaille lacks name recognition and money. Maybe he can over come these deficits, at least initially, by having an exciting plan, and an excellent handle on the issues. Of course, this will only get his foot in the door. The true test will be whether he can energize the party and independent voters in the months leading up to the election. If he can't, and if no one else decides to run, the party will be in trouble.

Lincoln Chafee: 'Is this guy a nitwit?'

2010-01-05T04:44:00Z

It's official: Lincoln Chafee is a candidate for governor. If his press conference is any indication, it will be an interesting campaign. Unlike many candidates, who often avoid getting into details, Chafee shared his plan to reduce the property tax burden. Normally, this would be great. Unfortunately, Linc wants to avoid raising one tax by increasing another.

Chafee's plan is to have a two-tiered sales tax, which would tax items that are currently exempt at a rate below the current 7% sales tax. This would mean a tax on food, clothing, and over-the-counter medicine. The scary part is that he's serious. Here is his rationale for raising the sales tax:

In his own defense, Chafee said: “At least I am putting out my two-tiered sales-tax idea. I haven’t heard anybody else say how we are going to close this deficit.”

Asked what he would say to critics, he said, “It’s dishonest to say [you] are not raising taxes when you are.”

At least “you have choices on the sales tax. You can spend $50 on groceries, or you can spend $40.… You can buy the Cadillac or you can buy the Chevrolet. You have those choices. With the property tax, you don’t,” he argued.

     Well Linc, if people can spend less on a car to avoid additional sales tax, then couldn't they also spend less on a house to avoid additional property taxes? By the way, is it just me, or is the suggestion that people spend less on groceries a bit appalling? If people are already avoiding brand names and buying the bare essentials, how much more can they cut out? Spoken like someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

     I could go on criticizing Lincoln Chafee, but the Providence journal had some great quotes that sum up my thoughts:

“A stunning move — we’ll tax the poor to fix our addiction to spending.… This is not a ‘new way forward,’ but the same old backwards path to buying union votes by raising taxes on regular Rhode Islanders.” GOP Chairman Giovanni Cicione

“I think this is a further example of how Lincoln Chafee has lost touch with the average Rhode Islander, and quite frankly, with reality,” Democratic Chairman Bill Lynch

“You can’t come out and run for governor and have your first words be, ‘Let’s raise taxes.’ Is this guy a nitwit?” Tea Party member Doreen Costa

     By the way, to answer Ms. Costa's question: Yes, he is.

Rory Smith will not run for governor in 2010; WIll Steve Laffey?

2009-12-12T23:09:00Z

Riordan "Rory" Smith has decided not to run for governor in 2010. In a statement to the media, he had this to say:

“After spending the last few months considering a run for governor, I have decided to suspend my campaign and return all campaign contributions. While I am deeply appreciative of the support of those who know me well, I have come to the conclusion that as a newcomer to politics, my limited political experience and political network in Rhode Island will keep me from running a fully competitive campaign,” he said in a statement released to the media Friday afternoon.

This leaves the GOP without a candidate for governor in 2010. Here's my prediction: Steve Laffey will announce his candidacy by the end of January. It's just a guess on my part, but I would be shocked if it didn't happen.

Illegal immigration: The distortions continue

2009-12-08T19:25:00Z

     The Providence Journal published an editorial by Alexandra Filindra which conveniently ignores facts related to illegal immigration and Governor Carcieri's executive order. Here is the editorial in a nut shell: There's nothing wrong with illegal immigration, and if you try to do anything to stop it, they'll get even. Of course, it is also peppered with distortions that need to be addressed.

     Ms. Filindra begins by discussing the fear among foreign born Rhode Islanders. I find this hard to believe, since I don't know one foreign born Rhode Islander who fears the Governor's executive order. It could be because my friend's are a little smarter than the people Ms. Filindra knows. They are well aware that the executive order does not apply to naturalized citizens and legal residents. They are here legally, they have nothing to fear, and they know it. Ms. Filindra and the ministers council should spend more time actually educating their friends and congregations about who the executive order affects, rather than misrepresenting the Governor's intent. Of course, there are probably many illegal aliens who are rightfully fearful of the executive order. If this is the case, perhaps they should move to another state or their country of citizenship.

     One of Ms. Filindra's problems with the executive order is its reliance on E-Verify. As a fellow at Brown University's Taubman Center, I would have assumed that she would be familiar with E-Verify's true effectiveness. Ms. Filindra states that E-Verify is an "error-prone federal program." This couldn't be further from the truth. Nearly 97% of those who are checked by E-Verify are approved to work immediately. Of the 3% who are not, they tend to be people who either don't know they can contest the finding, or are illegal aliens. Again. education about the process will solve the problems that exist.

     Finally, we have this disturbing assertion regarding the 2010 Census:

Rhode Islanders may soon pay dearly for the scorn that the governor showed to his immigrant and Latino constituents. A vocal minority within the Latino community is counseling Latinos to boycott the Census, due to take place next March and April. According to the Rev. Eliseo Nogueras, of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (NCLCCL), immigrants should sit out the Census as punishment for political leaders such as Governor Carcieri who have shown little regard for the community’s issues and concerns. If Rhode Island loses a seat in Congress, the argument goes, state leaders will start taking immigrants and Latinos more seriously.

The threat of a Census boycott is one that state and local leaders must take very seriously not only as an indication of the prevailing mood within the Latino community but also because of the consequences it can have for Rhode Island.

Ms. Filandra also goes on to acknowledge the importance of the Census when she goes on to write:

Rhode Island’s schools, hospitals and low-income families depend on Census numbers for the determination of federal funding. A substantial undercount in the 2010 Census will hurt all of us, but it will be especially devastating for poorer neighborhoods and school districts. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that as a result of the 1 percent undercount in the 2000 Census, Rhode Island stood to lose more than $4 million in federal funding between 2002 and 2012. If the undercount is larger next year, the state will lose a lot more funding. These are funds that our children absolutely need.

Of course, if we lost a Congressional seat and federal funding, it would't be the fault of illegal aliens who boycott the Census, it would be Governor Carcieri's. On one side we have people who break the law, and on the other we have a man doing what is right for the State of Rhode Island. Who do they blame? The guy following the law, of course.

Of all the troubling aspects of this editorial, the worst is the liberal tendency to throw everyone into one group. Ms. Filindra talks about the foreign born people affected by the executive order. This is nothing but a ruse to confuse the argument. The executive order has nothing to with foreign born citizens or legal immigrants. It is a way to make Rhode Island inhospitable for illegal immigrants in order to raise the standard of living for the rest of its residents.

With one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, Rhode Island's legal residents are in need of jobs. If it weren't for an influx of illegal immigrants who ignore our laws, perhaps they would be employed.

It's good to see standards increased

2009-12-07T23:53:00Z

     I'm glad to see Education Commissioner Deborah Gist is going to move forward with her decision to raise teacher standards. The increase in standards was supposed to happen next year, but instead, Gist will phase the changes in over two years. Rhode Island currently has one of the lowest cut-offs for test scores in the country, right there with Mississippi and Guam. Once the standards are raised, they will be among the highest in the country. This should be a source of pride, but instead, it has been criticized.

     At Rhode Island College, 30% of students typically fail Praxis 1. Once the cut-off is raised, the failure rate will rise to 54%. I see this as a way, of ensuring that only the best students are able to teach, but those who prepare teachers seem to disagree:

Increasing scores to 179 in a single year “would have decimated us,” he said. David Byrd, director of URI’s School of Education, said he is comfortable with boosting the cut score requirement. URI already requires higher scores than the state. But Byrd said he is not convinced that it is necessary to make the scores the highest in the nation.
“Being in the range of 173 to 176, I think gives you confidence in the overall skill level of the teacher, but above that level, it no longer predicts the quality of the teacher,” Byrd said. “These are tests that evaluate your ability to do math, not to teach math.”

     Byrd is correct in stating that a high score on the Praxis doesn't measure teaching ability, but it's rather foolish to minimize the importance of having the intellectual capacity to excel in your field. Think about this: With the new standards, RIC's failure rate will almost double. This means that over the years, there are many Rhode Island teachers who wouldn't have been allowed to teach in other states. By raising these standards, we will raise the quality of Rhode Island's teachers.

The Hispanic Ministerial Alliance votes to boycott the 2010 census

2009-12-03T21:57:00Z

     The Hispanic Ministerial Alliance has voted 14 to 4 to join a national boycott of the 2010 census. The group will encourage undocumented workers not to take part in the census, even though they are required to take part. The purpose of the boycott is to attempt to strong-arm legislators into approving comprehensive immigration reform.

     Isn't it odd that a group of ministers would encourage people to break the law and commit an act that will be detrimental to the community? Of course, ignoring the law is nothing new for these "undocumented workers" aka illegal aliens. They have already trespassed into the United States and spit on our laws. What's one more violation from someone whose life is full of such actions?

     Hopefully, any comprehensive immigration reform bill will include increased enforcement and penalties for illegal aliens and the businesses that employ them. It would be nice to take control of our borders so that illegal aliens are disuaded from coming to the United States. Then, the ministers wouldn't have to worry about all the "undocumented workers."

Stimulus money wasted on phones

2009-12-03T00:09:00Z

     The Providence Police handed out 92 Blackberry Curves to supervisors recently. The phones, which include 2 years of service, will cost $95,000. So, how is a city with financial challenges able to afford such a luxury? Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of course! If you think that's a waste of money, check this out:

About 30 top-echelon command staff have had BlackBerrys for months, but beginning in early November the department distributed upgraded BlackBerrys to those supervisors plus new BlackBerrys to the rest of the supervisors.

     Let's get this straight: The department purchased 30 BlackBerries a few short months ago, but they already feel a need to replace the phones? If these phones cost $300 each, that's a $9,000 expense. These phones aren't a necessity, they're a gimmick. By the way, wouldn't it be nice to know what the deparment's policy is in regards to personal use?

     It's also shameful that stimulus funds were used to pay for this dubious expenditure. Does this create jobs or put people to work? It's another waste of money, and another reason why our deficit is heading into the stratoshpere.

The recycling program: You can't blame David Cicilline

2009-11-18T19:23:00Z

     It isn't very often that I side with Providence Mayor David Cicilline, but I have trouble finding any problems with his handling of the city's "no bin, no barrel" program. In case you haven't heard, Providence residents are required to place a blue and green recycling bin next to their city-issued barrel. If they don't, their trash won't be picked up. As was expected, many people didn't recycle and their trash was left on the street.

     Since this strict enforcement began last week, there have been those who have criticized the city for failing to notify them. Unfortunately, this is a poor excuse. Residents received mailings and stickers on trash containers, along with outreach efforts at neighborhood events. In addition to these methods, David Cicilline made a Youtube video, and it has been discussed on local blogs. If I remember correctly, I also read about it in the Providence Journal. Since the first day of enforcement last week, there has also been front page coverage in the newspaper, along with regular coverage on the news. How could people say they don't know?

     As you might expect, I don't have any sympathy for those who didn't have their garbage collected. It's a citizen's responsibility to educate themselves and familiarize themselves with the issues facing their community. They shouldn't be blaming the city for their ignorance.

     I'm glad to see that the city is enforcing the recycling problem by refusing to pick up trash, but they need to go further. Many residents are leaving their trash cans on the sidewalk, then simply throwing garbage beside their barrel. Besides being unsightly, it is also a breeding ground for rats and other vermin. There are ordinances on the books to prevent residents from keeping their trash on the sidewalk. These ordinances need to be enforced swiftly in order to bring this problem to an end.

     One last "problem" concerns the cost of the recycling bins, which are $5 each. Some residents and Councilmen have complained about the cost and suggested giving the bins away. This is ridiculous. First of all, it shouldn't be the city's responsibility to provide bins. If residents can't afford $5, then they can use any waterproof container. If one isn't available, then perhaps they need to sacrifice in order to make the purchase.

     We need to stop coddling people. A new rule went into effect that will save taxpayers $300,000. Residents need to quit their whining, do their part, and clean up their sidewalks!

The Colbert Report addresses Rhode Island funeral bill

2009-11-17T23:50:00Z

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Skeletons in the Closet

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

Legalize or decriminalize marijuana in Rhode Island

2009-11-17T19:09:00Z

It's good to see the state move forward on potentially legalizing marijuana. The commission set up to study the issue is set to release a report by January 31, 2009. Among the questions they will attempt to address:

Other topics to be explored are the effects and costs of Rhode Island’s prohibition of the drug, except to sick people; whether adult use has increased since it was banned in 1918; whether its sales are financing drug cartels and fomenting violence; and its current availability to young people. The group will also look at how states and countries that have decriminalized the drug have fared.

One of the first subjects the panel will examine is Massachusetts’ experience since voters there overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in November 2008 that decriminalized possessing small amounts of marijuana. People caught with less than an ounce face a $100 civil fine, but not criminal charges.

     It appears the commission will be addressing all the major issues. Although, I have a feeling I know how many will turn out:

* By legalizing marijuana, the state will save a tremendous amount of money on costs associated with law enforcement and incarceration.

* Fewer people will have a criminal record for engaging in this victimless crime. This can only help their future prospects.

* Availability to young people probably won't be any different than it is now. I doubt there are many teens who want it and don't know where to get it.

     Legalization is a great idea, but I do have a question: Is legalization even possible with marijuana illegal at the federal level? I was under the impression that it could be decriminalized, but that actual legalization would be out of the question. I also wonder how tax collections would occur, since it would entail the creation of legal producers and points of sale. Once this occurs, any tax placed on the marijuana would have to bring the cost in line with illegally purchased marijuana. If not, users would likely skip legal avenues and continue to feed money to illegal distributors.

     Done right, legalization/decriminalization could save money, result in fewer incarcerations, and most importantly, preserve personal liberty by allowing individuals to make choices for themselves. We could continue to keep it illegal, but where has that gotten us?

Don Carcieri's disgraceful veto

2009-11-11T23:07:00Z

Governor Don Carcieri has vetoed a bill that would have allowed domestic partners to claim the bodies of their partners and make funeral arrangements after their death. The legislation seems reasonable to me, and I hope to see the General Assembly over-ride the Governor's veto. Here is Don Carcieri's rationale for the veto:

“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide,” he wrote.

He took issue with the definition of a domestic partner as “a person who, prior to the decedent’s death, was in an exclusive, intimate and committed relationship with the decedent” for at least a year, saying a year “is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals ... [relative to] issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.”

He also questioned “how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year” since there is “no official or recognized form” of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island.

As far as I know, there are no laws requiring married heterosexual couples to wait a year before being eligible to make funeral arrangements for their spouse. A year isn't a long time, but heterosexual couples married less than a year are able to make such arrangements, why not same-sex couples? Of course, same-sex couples don't have the same legal recognition of their relationships, but that isn't their fault. Leaders in the General Assembly won't allow a same-sex marriage bill to come to a vote, and many of our reps and senators are too gutless to put House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President Theresa Paiva Weed on the spot.

I would like to see Rhode Islanders have the opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage. Some would argue that the legislature is the best way to address the issue, not by placing the question on the ballot. I'm inclined to agree, but with so many gutless, closed- minded legislators, a question that allows them to pass the decision on to Rhode Islanders might be the best chance of legalizing same-sex marriage. It's not the perfect solution, but it is probably the best one.

What's the point Patrick?

2009-11-10T19:17:00Z

Like many Rhode Islanders, I was raised as a Catholic. I was baptized, received penance, and made my first communion. I never made my confirmation because I thought it was ridiculous. Even at a young age, I disagreed with the church and had difficulty "confirming" my place as a member. I know many people just go through the motions because they feel they are supposed to, but I just couldn't. Unlike many of my peers who also disagreed with the Church's teachings, I disagreed and refused to make a mockery of the proceedings. Many people seemingly don't care and are content to go through the motions. Who do you think takes religion more seriously?

One of those people you could certainly call into question is Patrick Kennedy. He loudly criticized the Catholic Church last week and received more criticism from Bishop Thomas Tobin this week when he fought to allow government funding for abortions. Kennedy stated that his views and actions didn't make him any less of a Catholic, but the Bishop disagreed. Here is his response to Kennedy:

“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,” the bishop said in a letter issued just two days after Kennedy was among a group of minority lawmakers who attempted to block tough new restrictions on abortion that were added Saturday to the House’s health-care reform legislation.

“Although I wouldn’t chose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion,” the bishop declared.

Kennedy’s office did not respond yesterday to phone and e-mail requests for an interview on the bishop’s letter.

Bishop Tobin raised the question: What makes Kennedy think he’s Catholic? “Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?”

Being Catholic involves much more, he said, including acceptance of essential church teachings on matters of faith and morals, belonging to a parish community, weekly attendance at Mass and regular reception of the sacraments.

And support for abortion rights is not in the same category of those who struggle with sins of anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty and then fail, the bishop declared.

“Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category — it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will, a conscious decision that you’ve reaffirmed on many occasions.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to ‘an imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church….

“I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God.

“But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late to repair your relationship with the church, redeem your public image and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”

I'm glad to finally see the Bishop call out Patrick Kennedy on this issue. I've always been troubled by people who claim to be Catholic (or any other religion), then hold views and live their life in a way that is counter those teachings. They try to be everything to everyone, then end up looking like a fool. Of course, the Church isn't blameless in this. For proof, just look at Ted Kennedy's funeral and the plethora of bishops at his service. This is a man who was also strongly pro choice and lived counter to the Church's teachings, yet he was treated like a king. What was the Catholic Church thinking?

I support woman's right to choose, gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, I oppose excessive spending on social services, and I support tough enforcement of our immigration laws. All of these views are at odds with the Catholic Church's positions. Because of these differences and many more, I can't see myself following the Catholic faith. If you are going to ignore the teachings, why bother being a part of the religion?

District 10 candidates and e-verify

2009-11-04T19:15:00Z

Brian Hull of RIFuture.org had an interesting post today. It asked the three candidates for the district 10 House seat 7 questions. One question that particularly caught my attention focused on e-verify. It certainly wasn't the most important question asked, but I was struck by the ignorance of all three candidates on this issue. Here is the question, along with the answers from each of the three candidates:

In 2008, Governor Carcieri issued an executive order for all state contractors to verify the legal working status using the federal E-Verify database. Do you support or oppose the Governor’s decision? Additionally, do you support or oppose expanding the use of the E-Verify program to include private businesses in the state?

Scott Slater (D):
I do not support the Governor’s executive order because all it has done is further separate the two sides in the immigration debate. It also places an unfair burden on small businesses like we have in our district that would face added expenses to participate in such a program.

Wilbur Jennings (I):
I oppose E-Verify for a number of reasons. One, the federal government is trying to bring the state back into the enforcement of immigration laws (after 80 years) without giving our law enforcement agencies any money to carry that task out. Two, the E-Verify system is not reliable and it has causes workers who are otherwise eligible not to receive proper verification. Three, the state of Illinois has passed a law prohibiting companies from using the federal database because of concerns of accuracy. Four, the Arizona law mandating E-Verify is being challenged in federal court, and this law is being blamed for the already tight and shrinking labor market in Arizona.

Maurice Green (R):
I have doubts about the accuracy of the E-Verify database. I do not want legal residents being denied jobs, due to errors in this database. In the long term, the only solution to our immigration problem is for the federal government to close the Mexican border with a real fence, and allow our immigrant population to become assimilated.

     I really don't know where to start, but let's focus on businesses. Scott Slater seems to be concerned about the burden on business. I might be wrong, but Mr. Slater seems tax happy. Most businesses would probably rather spend a few minutes checking a worker's background than paying additional taxes. If Scott Slater really cares about the burdens businesses face, he'll take that into consideration.  Wilbur Jennings points to the possibility of creating a tight labor market. I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out to him, but we currently have an unemployment rate of 13%. We could disqualify every illegal alien from working in Rhode Island, and businesses would still have their pick of good employees.

     Wilbur Jennings and Maurice Green also call E-Verify's reliability into question. It isn't perfect, but it's certainly close. Statistics show that 96.9% workers are confirmed immediately, or within 24 hours. Of the remaining 3.1%, 0.3% receive confirmation, and 2.8% receive a final nonconfirmation. It looks rather reliable to me. Of course, some people choose to ignore these numbers because it runs counter to their preference for open borders, or is unpopular to support when you are running for election in a district that has a large number of immigrants.

     Governor Carcieri's executive order was an excellent first step, but it needs to be extended to private businesses. By doing so, we will discourage illegal aliens from moving to Rhode Island and ensure that there are more jobs for legal residents who follow the law. Unfortunately, none of the candidates seem to firmly grasp this important goal.