Union leaders are now saying that Rhode Island’s wealthy need to pay for the broken pension system. According to the Projo:

Union leaders proposed raising the income tax on wealthy Rhode Islanders Thursday as a means of offsetting the burgeoning cost of retiree benefits crippling cities and towns.

Really? So let’s get this straight, bad pensions negotiated by previous legislators should be paid by wealthy people who are most likely not part of a union….and this is what is called fair?

I don’t think so.

Union leaders juxtaposed raising taxes on the wealthy against the state reneging on contract pension benefits of union employees. Ok, let’s go there. Would a multi-millionaire be significantly hurt if they paid an extra 1-2k per year in taxes? No. Would a typical union retiree who isn’t getting double/triple pensions significantly be harmed if they lost 1-2k in pension benefits? Possibly, but certainly more likely than a rich person paying an extra 2k.

However, what union leaders are forgetting is that is not the paradigm. The paradigm is can the state and its cities and towns afford to support the current pension system as is? That answer is a big he– no!! So, go ahead raise taxes on the rich today, you’re going to continue to have to raise them again and again and again if the system is not fixed. Adding an influx of cash today only delays tomorrow’s pension liabilities.

Thus, the solution is not to further tax the rich. The solution is figuring out how to ease the burden on the state and easing that burden will likely require change in benefits.

Because the real paradigm is not who can afford a tax increase versus a benefit decrease. No, no my friends, the real question is will the state and cities and towns be able to pay 1 dollar of pension costs if the system goes unchanged? I’m sure retirees would rather receive 95% of their benefit today versus zero, no?

I think union leaders need to come to grips with that likelihood. If they don’t they’re in for a rude awakening.

This is what happens when authority is abused, when it exceeds the charge we citizens bestow upon our leaders. I’m not reporting news here that the govenor, through the Higher Education Board, forced the state’s university’s to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

When I heard the news, all I could do was shake my head. Those on my side of political spectrum talked about the additional costs passed onto to the taxpayer as part of the reason this is a bad idea. I’m a bit more practical.

Say you’re an illegal immigrant and you graduate in 2015, what are your job prospects? Say you’re deported in 2013, what’s the point of having for the last couple of years an in-state tuition cost basis while on your way back to you home country?

Unfortunately, the Governor is putting the cart before the horse. Until and unless there is immigration reform such that the millions of people who live here and have for years are integrated into the system, all in-state tuition does is offer a low cost education that will reap about zero economic benefits for the state or the student.

Why?

Because the illegal immigrant will be unable to get a job..because he/she is in the country, well, illegally. I struggle with activists who have fought for this, are fighting for driver’s licenses amongst other items, but continue to ignore the fact that people here illegally are almost by definition 2nd and 3rd class citizens. The rights conferred to them are almost exclusively basic human rights such as the right to hospital care in an emergency or help from the fire department if their house catches fire. Being here illegally forces them to constantly look over their shoulder, take on jobs where employers can only pay under-the-table, and need a Governor to give them access to education at a price they’d receive if they were here legally.

It’s exhausting just to write! Immigration activists need to take a hard look at what’s happening to their constituents and join forces with folks like me who want to make the process of becoming legal less burdensome. Encouraging policies such as this one doesn’t serve anyone, it only creates a false sense of equality. I say false because, the illegal immigrant will be able to pay the same tuition as the legal immigrant…with the caveat that the illegal will NOT BE ABLE TO GET A JOB!!!

To me that’s not a semantic difference, Governor.

I’ve always questioned Governor Chafee’s political acumen. He is the insider’s insider with connections to many powerful people. There’s no doubting that. What I see from time to time is an inability to see what lays ahead and possible pratfalls.

Enter his sales tax proposal (and budget).

GoLocal reported that Speaker Fox has essentially called it Dead On Arrival. Nice, just a few weeks after the Chafee team put out the proposal the Speaker, whom you’d think the Governor would have conversed with prior to his budget announcement, calls it dead.

Chafee sought to unite Rhode Island and so far he’s doing a great job at it. Democrats hate his budget, Republicans hate it too. Score one for Chafee!

I mentioned this last night on A Lively Experiment, that Chafee angry at people who complain as not offering solutions is like the Titanic sinking with the captain suggesting taking all the chairs on board to use them to blug the leak. When no one else offers an alternative, he angrily walks away. The problem? Sales tax isn’t a solution and neither will chairs stacked together plug a hole that grows daily.

Chafee is going to need to return to his Republican roots if he wants to solve this problem. His friends on the left are going to suggest increased taxes, but the problem is average Rhode Islanders have faced hefty property tax increases for years and will face even more this year. The taxpayers are about thisclose to revolting.

I’m serious, I do not think we’re far from folks just saying no to increased taxes.

And, in my opinion, Chafee has overplayed his hand. He didn’t win with 60+% of the vote in November. Instead, over 60% voted for someone else. He has zero credibility with Republicans and Democrats aren’t going to give him as much help as you’d think considering they want to lay claim to the turnaround and put forth a solid candidate in 2014 to take Chafee down. So, he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place with not much in the way of political capital.

I wonder if he’ll complain or do something about it. Your move, Governor.

LOL.

Seriously, though, today I taped a show, A Lively Experiment. It airs on PBS 36 on Thursday’s and Sunday’s. I thought I performed fairly decent given this was my first time on tv in years. Sure, I did a radio show back in college, but I’ve never been on t.v. like this.

It was a pretty cool experience and I’m looking forward to doing this again (GoLocal personalities rotate on the show) and I thought it was great that such a personality as Scott MacKay was also on the show. His personality, made things a lot more comfortable for me.

Dave Lyman and Mark Murphy seemed like old pros and it was great to meet both of them. And the elder statesment of them all, Jim Hagan, was quite lively.

All-in-all a good time. And to Governor Chafee, we need better solutions!! I offered one such solution on the show.

I like Steve Laffey. I think he was a great Mayor in Cranston. I think he would have made a better Senator than Chafee or Whitehouse. I was probably the only black dude in 2006 at his Campaign HQ on that fateful night at the Crowne Plaza.

But, I now understand why Chafee beat him. I couldn’t then but it’s pretty crystal clear to me today. Laffey understands how to run organizations, he understands that in order to get to C, you have to do A and sometimes B. In other words, Laffey takes action to meet a specific end, all else be damned. It’s not heartless, just necessary to achieve a particular end.

That works fine for a guy like me who doesn’t have to be in love with a politician to vote for him, but in Rhode Island is often about who is the most likable versus who has the best ideas.

Laffey doesn’t get that, nor do I think he ever will. I heard him on the Matt Allen show and you could tell he was still upset about quite a number of things that happened in RI, and definitely not the most content with the RI GOP to say the least.

If Laffey had a wee bit more affable personality he would be a superstar in Rhode Island. But I wonder if adding a dash of affability would take a pound of his managerial expertise away? Well, we’ll probably never know. Laffey will probably ride off into the sunset doing something and we’ll only have what ifs.

But as I sat there that evening in 2006 watching Rhode Island Republicans and independents vote for Lincoln Chafee for US Senator, I cringed at the thought of this realization – In Rhode Island it’s better to be a nice guy with few ideas than an abrasive guy with THE ideas.

Politics is a funny thing and if Laffey ever softened his tone, he could be one dangerous man in this state.

One of my favorite shows as a kid was Married…with Children. Protagonist and shoe salesman, Al Bundy, often would say, “Let’s Rock!” just before facing a challenge. I adopted the phrase, using it most prominently when I was a sixteen year old dishwasher for a local Holiday Inn right before large stacks of dishes from a recent wedding reception came my way.

Well, my Philadelphia Flyers are facing a similar (LOL) challenge in the Stanley Cup Finals. Having come back from a 0-3 hole against Boston, fighting back from an 0-2 hole against Chicago, they face their 5th elimination game of these playoffs. They’ve gone 4-0 so far but this BlackHawks team isn’t your mom’s Boston Bruins, sorry Bruins fan. Now down 3 games to 2, I feel like the Flyers are much like the Rhode Island citizen – lose and there is no tomorrow.

As we enter into this election cycle, will we – citizens of Rhode Island – man/woman up and take a stand for ourselves and our children? Will we say no to the politics of the past? And to de-cliche this post just a bit, the question facing us this election cycle is whether or not we have the cajones to try something different and demand accountability from elected officials.

If we don’t then all we can expect and deserve is more of the same crap we’ve gotten for so many years. So Rhode Island,

Let’s Rock!

On Wednesday evening, I was in attendance at Cranston Mayor Allan Fung’s announcement that he planned to seek reelection to the position of mayor. As the mayor pointed out many people in the crowd from union leaders, police officials, regular townsfolk, and GOP candidates, I had this thought, “If all Republicans took the Fung Approach, we’d be able to wrest control away from Democrats.”

Perhaps I’m biased (I am) but no Republican in this state has been more impressive than Mayor Fung in how he has dealt with competing interests, remained a forceful executive despite having no fellow Republicans on the City Council, and navigated a city through various budget landmines with many, many, more on the horizon (thanks, General Assembly!).

And yet, I never hear his blueprint for success mentioned in Republican circles. Often times, Republicans in this state position themselves as anti-union and pro-management allowing Democrats to style themselves as pro-average joe. In Cranston, a Democrat would have a very difficult time doing the same against Fung as he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to negotiate with different unions, winning taxpayer concessions time and time again. Fung has been able to be fiscally responsible AND able to get away from the stigma that Republicans alienate unions. From all accounts, the union/city negotiations are not zero-sum games.

Put it a different way take a look at below and tell me which one rings true to you:

Anti-Union = Statewide Republicans

Anti-Union = Allan Fung

Republicans would serve themselves well in taking a softer stance with unions, and rather labelling them the bain of our state, work to resolve the issues with them as co-collaborators. Novel idea? Sure, but it seems to be working well in Cranston.

Every so often, I’m out in the public talking to folks who say, “Hey Don, I like your blog” or “I’m glad you post a contrarian view on RI Future”. It is at those times I feel guilty for allowing this blog to at times go on unexpected hiatus.

Tonight, I had the pleasure of attending a Log Cabin Republican event in Providence. There is definitely something going on in the RI GOP if gay and lesbians are getting more involved and are moreso embraced by the GOP at large. You all know my stance on gay marriage, but I find when you can find common ground use it – accentuate the positive eliminate the negative if you will.

And the Log Cabins seemed to be pumped to be a part of the re-inventing of the RI GOP. Along with the Rhode Island Young Republicans, the RI GOP is going to be a force to be reckoned with.

Stay Tuned.

There seems to be a theme in my recent posts regarding what I increasingly view as hypocrisy of the left. Make no mistake, there is hypocrisy on the right as well. If it’s something that irks me, be sure I’ll write about it.

Today, I was going through the Projo politics blog and came across this little tidbit:

With controversy continuing to swirl, the president of the largest state employees union has notified the candidates for governor that this Saturday’s gubernatorial forum is off. Over the weekend, the forum morphed from a closed-door event to one open to media coverage, but the invitations to speak — and answer union members’ questions — was still limited to former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee and the two Democrats: Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and state Treasurer Frank T. Caprio.

There is one name that is conspicuously missing, John Robitaille, an announced Republican candidate for governor. You could also include Ken Block as a notable omission as well. The world’s worst kept secret is that unions in this state only support Democrats. One could argue, “well they invited Chafee” and sure, that’s an argument.

However, the point isn’t that they only invited two Dems and a flopper…err..independent. The point is that they didn’t invite other major candidates. You have to ask why not? Most likely, they didn’t feel Robitaille’s aims fit within their own and Block may be viewed as non-viable.

Whatever the case may be, different groups trying to hold forums, debates, or other functions that help us get to know candidates often trip over themselves as they seek to invite only like-minded candidates.

So while the Council maintains that a later forum will be open to anybody, their initial bias was demonstrated in this short circuited attempt. And time and again, groups like these demonstrate that they do not have the ability to be fair, to respect the right of their opposition to speak, and that’s too bad.

Had they invited all the major announced candidates there wouldn’t have been an issue at all. But their political bias didn’t think in terms of fair, only in terms of whatever furthered their own cause. As we enter this political season we need to hold all groups accountable for being willing to allow all people to participate in the process, even if some disagree with the aims of said groups. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility of such events and only stifles the dialogue we need here in RI as we face a critical decision in November.

On Tuesday, Brian Hull wrote a post titled “Stand up for women’s reproductive rights” where he called on voters to oppose or support proposed legislation at the Rhode Island General Assembly that deal with abortion. As noted by previous postings this past week, I’m pretty fired up. Let’s start with one of the two most egregious bills Hull asks us to support:

Support House Bill 7790 – This would repeal an existing law requiring doctors to notify the spouses of married women seeking abortions that the women seek to terminate their pregnancies.

The logic of this bill is misguided at best insulting at worst. Us married guys know that we take on a life partner when we put that ring on our girl’s finger. Indeed, many of our wives are prone to say, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine” placing emphasis on the latter. Of course it then follows that in the decision of whether to abort a child that the husband should be legally locked out of the process. Actually, it makes no sense. I’m tired of the “my body, my choice” crowd minimalizing the role of fathers in their children’s lives. While Hull finds it morally reprehensible to not provide health care to all he does not support the idea that when a husband and wife create a life they both should have say in what happens to that life. Hypocrisy if ever I saw it.

But, this isn’t about Hull really. It’s about a mindset in the progressive movement that as noted before seeks to pummel their concept of morality onto the masses. And I’m sorry, husbands have the right to know if their wives are a) pregnant and b) seeking an abortion. I’d love for someone to argue why men should not have that right.

The other bill that is just as ridiculous is this one:

Support House Bill 7764 – This would permit an internist, family care physician or psychiatrist to determine that if a pregnant woman less than 18 years of age would suffer physical abuse or mental injury if she seeks the consent of parents, guardians or adult relatives to have an abortion then the abortion may be performed without parental consent or judicial authorization.

OK, so physicians are social workers now? Can you say lawsuit? If I were a parent and this bill were enacted and the doctor believed physical harm would come to my child if I were told that she was pregnant, using this law to justify their actions in not informing me of the situation, I’d sue faster than the pen would dry on the consent signed by my underage daughter. It might even be a little faster. Physicians, unless they are also psychologists, have no expert basis to make such determinations and such determinations would always be biased by someone whose very young, very scared, and looking for the easiest way out. In those situations, you need parents and parental guidance. Instead, Hull tells us we should support this legislation. And that’s progressive morality for you.

Again, progressives show their true colors daily. They want two things at any cost.

1. Individual protectionism. Basically this means that you must protect the right of the individual to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it.

Incidentally this is in opposition to their second goal.

2. Government’s purpose is to create a society where individual protectionism is upheld and funded by governmental agencies. Further, government has a responsibility to usurp money from those in surplus and give it to those without.

So an individual has all these rights except one, the right to pursue happiness without government intrusion in the form of taking my hard earned money and forcing me to give it to someone else. Sorry rich person, it’s not “My money, my choice”. And sorry middle income man, your cash isn’t yours either. Progressives, in my opinion, are very underhanded and hypocritical in this regard that they seek a society where anything goes except when it comes to individual pursuit of riches.

With these two pieces of legislation, Progressives are undermining the family concept at its basic levels. What’s worse:  they can neither acknowledge or conceive of it.