Maybe It's Just Me

So You Don't Like Change?

2012-02-03T07:25:00.001-05:00

I've been advocating a change in the Rhode Island Property Tax laws for ten years. (see righttax.org) One aspect of that change deals with tax exempt property. We propose a method that would have helped Providence and other towns with a significant proportion of tax exempt property.

Using the numbers printed in "A FISCAL CRISIS" on Page 1 of the Journal, February 3, 2012, with the proposal of R.I.G.H.T., the city of Providence would receive $40 million from tax "exempt" properties. Would that help?

If the state legislators had, at the very least, discussed some of the proposals of R.I.G.H.T. we might never have reached this awful situation in which we find ourselves. But, as a town official once said to me after I presented our plan, "I don't like change". See where that has gotten us.

Aren't You Tired of This Yet?

2012-01-08T21:52:00.002-05:00

On Sunday, January 8, 2012, on page A14 of the Providence Journal there was a report by staff reporter Jennifer Jordan ("Is Achievement First a better model?"). In it was a statement that makes one gasp. According to the article, opponents of charter schools apparently said "Give the local schools decent financing, and they'll improve." Really?

According to the National Education Association, in 2009 Rhode Island spent $18,729 per pupil, highest in the country. But state performance rankings from the National Center for Educational Statistics for 8th grade reading revealed that we were only in 36th place nationally. In 2010 the spending dropped to $15,803, fifth highest, but our students were still low, in 29th place. Clearly Rhode Island local schools do receive decent funding - and if student performance were first or fifth it would be money well spent.

Decent financing is apparently not the problem given the above numbers. But neither is high stakes testing the answer, nor being able to fire poor teachers nor giving money to poor people. There is no single answer and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a disservice to the students and the people of Rhode Island.

We need a comprehensive approach involving first and foremost, the mothers and fathers of low performing students such that they improve their attitudes and expectations. NOTHING will work without that. We need to listen more to our many good teachers and enlist them in this crucial battle. We need to stop the partisan bickering about whether Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals, union officials or school committees, public or private schools have the answer.

While we sling mud and point fingers our children suffer. If we don't work together and restore the backbone of our great nation, an educated public, shame on us all.

Treat the diseases too!

2012-01-03T12:14:00.028-05:00

When we experience symptoms such as pain, dizziness or shortness of breath, we seek medical help. We want relief from our symptoms but we also expect the doctor to diagnose the underlying illness and treat it.

Our state and communities have lots of serious issues; high unemployment, crumbling roads and bridges, high taxes, unfunded pensions, population loss and political corruption to name a few. Are they diseases themselves or are they symptoms of underlying illness?

Like the doctor whose waiting room is filled with patients needing attention, legislators scramble to put out a myriad of fires all at once. Despite their efforts, (in some cases, because of them) the underlying illnesses are often never fully diagnosed or treated.

~ ~ ~

GOLOCAL Prov lists ten big issues for the New General Assembly. Are they symptoms or are they diseases? A few examples:

PENSION REFORM's $2 billion unfunded liability. A symptom or disease? If we miraculously received $2 billion, the immediate problem would be relieved, but have we achieved a cure or just alleviated the symptom?

Governments and unions, when crafting pension contracts, MUST work together for the benefit of everyone instead of their own constituencies and narrow interests as they have often done in the past.

A start might be to publish the names of those people who craft all employee contracts so that the public always knows who was actually responsible for them.

Perhaps if people knew that their prior actions would not fade with time, they might think more carefully about their legacy and future reputation.

JOB CREATION GOP director Patrick Sweeney said, “The ... issues I believe that are most pressing.... addressing the business climate in this state which means helping out small business to help create jobs”. I would respectfully disagree with this assessment. Businesses don't create jobs. They create services and/or products and if people want them and can afford them, businesses will hire more workers. In other words PEOPLE create jobs.

Any business that hires workers it doesn't really need because of a tax break will let them go when the tax break ceases or they'll soon be out of business. Yet another example of treating a symptom and not the disease.

EDUCATION: Rhode Island per pupil spending is higher than 45 other states but student performance is just in the middle of the nation. Symptom or disease?

“If we focused on waste, we could provide more resources to our children in the classroom” says one party spokesperson.

But we're already spending much more than most every other state with only mediocre results.

“We need to stop treating corporate education like it is special and we need to stop giving corporate CEOs tax breaks. Reversing these two trends will be key to revitalizing Rhode Island” says an NEA director.

Nearly every conversation about education focuses on lack of funds, teacher quality, poverty. These all are extremely important but none will have an impact equal to that of parents who value the importance of their child's education. It's certainly far more difficult to deal with this issue but avoiding it is a tragic mistake.

A crucial element in a child's academic success is the attitude of parents and family. Until and unless this is addressed, financial investment alone will fail to achieve the desired results. When our children grow up in a home environment that values education, nothing will hold us back.

~ ~ ~

Changing our habit of treating symptoms instead of diseases isn't going to be easy and all sides need to listen to one another. We have to take the best ideas, regardless of whose they are, and working together, use them to do the right thing for all of the people.

These are only one person's ideas after hearing the same tune played over and over. I'm hoping we at least change the station. They did it in Tahrir Square. I hope we can do it here.

Continuing to take only aspirin for that chest pain might be a killer.

Maybe it's just me.

A New Political Tactic?

2011-12-16T08:18:00.008-05:00

The current rhetoric in the debates and in Congress sounds more and more like:

"Support whatever Obama opposes
and oppose whatever Obama supports".

Now listen to Mao Tsetung: "Interview with Three Correspondents from the Central News Agency,

the Sao Tang Pao and the Hsin Min Pao" (September 16, 1939), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 272.

"We should support whatever the enemy opposes
and oppose whatever the enemy supports."

Is this really the best we can do?

Rethinking the Property Tax

2011-12-09T10:06:00.001-05:00

It used to be a great idea; fund local government by taxing property. Before the industrial revolution the only significant source of income was land. The owners of land, essentially royalty or the church, received income from lands in the form of rent or directly from the production of that land whose value was considered to be 20 years of derived income.

Thus it was sensible and fair to tax the value of that land as a source of local revenue. During that period, land values were quite stable. If one's land were worth twice another's land it remained twice the value year after year and he paid twice the tax.

The result was a system of property taxes that was transparent, related fairly to one's ability to pay and was easy to assess.

Read more »

Here's an Idea

2011-12-07T09:57:00.000-05:00

We in North Kingstown have recently had some modest public works projects completed or nearly completed. The parking area in front of the Town Hall was changed, traffic pattern was changed etc. Also the town beach area was modified including construction of a new bandstand.

As I view these projects I find that I have some questions and comments about their design. While I am not an expert and would not want such projects to require voter approval, I do believe that the public would benefit greatly if the projects were posted for voter review and comments before they are begun. Certain issues might have been overlooked and citizen comments prior to construction might make a significant contribution to the final results. The town would be under no obligation to accept or even consider the suggestions but they would have to be posted along with the images, schedules etc.

Perhaps someone might introduce legislation requiring (non binding) posting such municipal projects (and possibly state projects) with visuals of intended outcomes so the public might have input beforehand and avoid some of the complaints after the fact.

Using the internet the costs would be minimal but the benefits could be very great.

But Maybe It's Just Me

Should we bail out underwater mortgages?

2011-12-02T13:14:00.057-05:00

It's somewhat difficult to understand the efforts to address the plight of homeowners who are declared "underwater", that is who owe more than their homes are worth. Neither walking away from one's mortgage obligation nor foreclosing on a property is the best answer.

The value of ones home has nothing to do with one's ability to make mortgage payments. A mortgage is a loan, an obligation that must be discharged. If the value of the mortgaged property tumbles, it has no more to do with one's ability or obligation to repay the borrowed money than if the value rises above it's original amount.

No one would tolerate a bank, or any lender writing the following note:

Dear Mr. Homeowner,

We notice that the value of your asset (house) has increased in the past two years and the Federal Government has given us permission to increase your monthly payments.

We will let you know the new terms of the loan and your new payments soon.

Sincerely,
Your Friendly Bank.

A homeowner can have trouble making mortgage payments due to illness, job loss or some other legitimate reason and compassion dictates that banks and borrowers try to work out terms to their mutual satisfaction. If the original sale or mortgage were based on deception and/or misrepresentation then that too would be a proper basis for voiding or at least re-negotiating a contract.

But it's wrong to force wholesale rewriting of contracts because of falling market prices. Otherwise we could require the corporate issuers of stocks and bonds to buy them back at their original value when the market goes down and our retirement plans drop in value as a result.

Those who hate government regulation of financial institutions and other business would be more correct to blame their successful deregulation efforts, (repeal of Glass - Steagall), for the disaster that engulfs Americans today.

We need more regulations but they must be more intelligently crafted and properly enforced if our goal is to prevent another disaster driven by corporate greed. And people need to understand that if they consider their homes solely as investments, well, investments aren't guaranteed. That's just the way it is.

Maybe It's Just Me

An Easy Question

2011-11-23T11:04:00.003-05:00

With all the tax talk, arguments, posturing, I'm loath to pose this question; Would you be satisfied if your town were able to avoid any property tax increases for the foreseeable future? Dare I say that most of us would be ecstatic. Legislators, town councils, mayors, school committees, union leaders, would pat themselves on their backs and bask in the glory of a "job well done" especially at Thanksgiving season.

Now that everyone is smiling and content, another question. What would be your reaction when your town is revalued and from one half to three quarters of you receive rather impressive tax increases? If your town receives no more revenue, where do those increases go? The answer is that other property owners will pay lower taxes. Such is the reality of even a 'perfect' revaluation. Properties change in value differently and since we tax those values, some people will pay more, some people will pay less, regardless of what happens to local spending, municipal union contracts, towns' expenses, towns' outside incomes.

With each revaluation, millions of dollars change hands, money flowing from one group of owners to another group of owners, completely unrelated to incomes, ability to pay, or any rational measure. And that's with normal revaluations. What happens with irrational ones? Anyone remember the recent financial meltdown?

The system must be changed to realize the true goal of any municipal tax; that everyone pay their fair share in direct relation to a community's needs. You can learn more at http://righttax.org

It's not a game.

2011-10-29T18:32:00.000-04:00

Pension reform can create serious hardships for the thousands of public employees who worked hard and played by the rules. Union employees believe they are entitled to their negotiated pensions as promised.

There is some real merit to that position, as stated by union leaders and public employees who resent trying to fix the budget crisis "on the backs of hard working union workers".

There are even more taxpayers, retired and not retired, both unemployed and employed, struggling to make ends meet, who also resent having to pay those benefits to union employees; taxpayers who also play by the rules (has anyone seen the rules?) and who also resent those very generous benefit payouts levied on their hard working backs.

So what we have here is a contest, like a baseball game, where there can be only a winner and a loser. In fact a recent quote by a union leader, when asked about his strategy in dealing with the upcoming pension solution to be laid out by Treasury Secretary Raimondo, responded that he wouldn't reveal his strategy just as any team manager wouldn't reveal strategy before a game.

A game. It's what our public policy battles have been reduce to - a game, a battle between powers where, if there's a winner there must be a loser. Is this really what produces the best result for our citizens?

Truth is that most legislators act like they're playing only for their "team", Republicans v Democrats, liberals v conservatives, Progressives v Tea Party when instead they should be "playing" for the fans, all of them.

Sure there are greedy, dishonest, obscenely wealthy business men and women, but there are also wealthy people who are incredibly generous with their wealth, who support charitable organizations, who have helped grow and guide huge companies that provide employment and security for millions.

In the same vein there are dishonest police and lazy teachers who care nothing for their students, and welfare recipients who would simply refuse an honest job if it were offered. But there are also police who would give their lives to protect you, teachers who pay for student supplies themselves, and people truly deserving of unemployment benefits who would do anything to have a job to support their family.

Our politicians, and we too, are squandering the wonders of this great nation.

Maybe it's just me.

Create Jobs? Really?

2011-10-25T12:19:00.001-04:00

In reading a Providence Journal Commentary, "Could Occupiers become next generation of entrepreneurs?", by John Robitaille, Friday, Oct. 21, Mr. Robitaille suggests that government should 'stop treating business owners as "revenue generators" and begin treating them as job creators'. Well, firstly, no companies, large or small, create jobs. Jobs follow an increased need or want of either a company's products or services. Jobs aren't widgets to be created.

Before we can see real change, businesses must stop thinking of themselves as "revenue generators" and start thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as providers of services or products that are of value to the public or other businesses. I'm afraid some businesses act as if the public exists for their benefit, to provide them with revenue.

As I occasionally had to remind myself and my staff, we must never forget that our patients do us a favor by seeking our help, not the other way around; we exist for their benefit, not they for ours.

Maybe it's just me.

Written in 2007. I still believe it.

2011-10-05T15:08:00.001-04:00

Government is supposed to provide the services we can't provide for ourselves, like defending the country, maintaining roads, public education, public health etc.

How's it working?

We know for instance, that health care costs are skyrocketing. We in the U.S. spend more per capita than any other country in the world.

Unfortunately we also have millions of people with inadequate or no health coverage at all.

"Polarization"

2011-08-02T09:13:00.002-04:00

To read the newspapers one would think that everyone in the county is hard working, honest and ambitious. The "Wikipedia" entry for hard working is revealing, very informative and worth reading.

Hardly a day goes by that doesn't contain a newspaper article lamenting the plight of the "hard working" people who can no longer afford to pay for entitlement programs. One is left with the impression that all welfare recipients are leeches, living off the taxes of others, all of whom are hard working.

Truth be told, there are people who receive government assistance who are less than deserving; people who spend their benefits on alcohol and cigarettes, on candy and lottery tickets and whose children suffer as a result.

By the same token, there are tax payers who don't work all that hard. Drive by a work site and it's soon clear that not everyone is working very hard, if at all. The policeman sitting in his cruiser, lights flashing, receiving regular pay, maybe even overtime pay. When was the last time an officer was actually needed to enforce some traffic violation? He could be replaced by civilian volunteer and a blinking lantern - maybe even just the lantern. But a union has made sure that won't happen regardless of the actual need for public safety.

It's no surprise then that a vocal backlash has emerged, powerful enough to have a significant impact on the direction of our government. Sadly such polarization can have a terrible impact on what America is becoming.

We are thus faced with a choice. Given that our laws are often poorly written and inadequately enforced, often to protect one group at the expense of the whole, we have to choose between paying for things we really don't need and can't afford on the one hand or hurting people who truly need and deserve government assistance on the other.

Lawmakers must help all the people instead of special interests. A few areas that need some help:

If a less costly means (e.g. of traffic control) can do the same job, use it. Too often the job is just "make work" and not essential. That goes for administrative duties as well.
If people on assistance are able to work, make work a requirement to receive benefits. They might even monitor a work site.
Provide free or low cost child care for such parents receiving assistance so they can work.
Regularly review laws to determine their effectiveness and costs. Sometimes lawmakers can make a mistake.
If a person receives disability benefits make sure they are disabled. Why do I even have to write this?
Decide if there's a difference between taking an illegal drug and killing someone. Killers have been sentenced to long sentences with less time to serve because jails are filled with petty drug convictions. Recent story in the Providence Journal where the sentence for murder was 15 years and the murderer was released after 6 1/2.

Surely there is much room for improvement in our government. Or have we become too incompetent or too stupid to govern ourselves?

Maybe it's just me.

"Time for a New Caucus?"

2011-07-25T07:53:00.000-04:00

After reading the profiles of the newest members of the General Assembly it occurred to me that the most important characteristic they shared was their youth. One might hope that a caucus based on a fresh perspective, enthusiasm, optimism and cooperation might be far more productive than one based on traditional views, entrenched positions and predictable philosophy.

I hope that they might work together in a New Caucus, free from the tyranny of authority, before they simply fade into the traditional behavior that has resulted in the stagnation we see all around us.

But maybe it's just me.

"Unintended Consequences"

2011-06-28T07:05:00.002-04:00

In Tuesday's Providence Journal, ("Soda tax is good for us", June 27, Pg B7), Dr. David Maude says the soda tax "generates needed revenue for a bankrupt state, at the same time discouraging the intake of empty calories".

This presents a paradox. If in fact, the tax does what is hoped, discourages the consumption of a product of little value and does harm, then it will fail in its other goal, to raise revenue. These two goals are in direct opposition to one another and mutually exclusive. I'm in favor of the tax but let's be honest about it, we'll either reduce consumption or raise revenue, not both.

As happens all too often in politics and life we don't think things through and we miss some of the consequences of our actions. Why didn't our leaders, in government and unions, anticipate the terrible problems created by their actions in past contract negotiations? Surely they didn't intend to destroy our cities, did they?

"Risk? What Risk?"

2011-05-28T11:10:00.001-04:00

The news has been replete with examples of requests for protections against risk.

Insurers, especially health insurers for example, want to minimize exposure and look for ways to reduce risk by being selective in those they insure. It's natural and understandable if they want to maximize income. The costs of such 'guarantees' are borne by their customers of course. People at greater risk pay higher premiums or maybe can't even get insurance.

Mammoth corporations whose demise could devastate the economy claim that they are too big to fail and maybe they are right. They too have requested and received guarantees in the form of emergency TARP funds while smaller companies receive state, federal and local tax breaks to entice them into an area.

Oil companies justify their huge tax breaks by pointing out that they take enormous risks and deserve to be compensated for those risks. Meanwhile they have announced the highest profits in history.

The Providence Journal recently mentioned legislation to protect municipal bond holders in the event of bankruptcies (Friday May 27, Page A7 "Senate approves bill on municipal bankruptcy"). Reducing the risk of buying bonds would help access to credit markets, it is believed.

What do all these have in common? Risk. They are all efforts to reduce the inherent risk involved in what is, in many ways, gambling.

However, when the risk takers can reduce risk through various tax incentive programs, the people who provide those incentives with their tax money have a right to share in those huge profits that result. Those people however are struggling today, while the profits of the largest corporations and their executives' compensation packages have never been greater. There is something wrong with this picture.

The far right in this country howls that free enterprise is at stake, our very capitalist system is in danger if people, through their government, claim some of those profits. They characterize such efforts as harmful and suggest that companies will stop creating jobs, that rich people will move to places that don't require them to share those unheard of profits.

Sorry folks. If corporate America accepts the people's money to help them reap historically high profits, then those corporations and their stockholders owe part of those profits back to the people who made it possible.

To be completely realistic one must acknowledge that special interest influence is not limited to corporate interests. Big labor has become what they were founded to counteract, just another group interested in only their own welfare.

Maybe it's just me.

"Tax Exempt Property"

2011-05-10T10:47:00.000-04:00

From the RIGHTTAX website

There are many worthy organizations and businesses that do good works; churches, hospitals, universities and colleges and charitable organizations, all provide humane and important services and are rewarded with tax exempt status.

In such cases the property owned by these organizations and used in the performance of their routine functions is not taxed. Most agree that it is only right to provide support for these worthy organizations and the other businesses and residents, through their property taxes, pay the share of the tax exempts which also receive those benefits of road maintenance, fire and police protection, maintenance of public spaces etc.

Communities obviously vary in population, infrastructure, size, and industrial density. Because of this, some communities are more attractive to tax exempt organizations. On July 21, 2008, Providence City Council President Peter Mancini, in a special section to the Providence Business News said "We’re almost at 50 percent tax-exempt real estate". This means that just 50% of the property owners are paying 100% of the tax levy - their portion plus the portion of the tax exempts.

This is clearly unfair to the property owners of Providence and other towns with the larger percentages of tax exempt property.

One approach would be to charge fees to various organizations but it produces ill will and resistance and some groups will always feel they have been unfairly and unreasonably taxed. There is a lot of push back to efforts to authorize new local taxes on private colleges, universities and hospitals.

And if the extra revenue is used to fill holes in the budget instead of being used to bring relief to beleaguered tax payers, they too will feel betrayed. This piecemeal approach fails to deal with the underlying problem of unfair distribution of tax burdens.

It is for this reason that the following plan is offered for consideration:

The General Assembly shall require municipalities to determine the percentage of the total assessed value represented by tax exempt property hereafter referred to as 'favored' property.
Favored properties shall pay a percentage of the standard property tax equal to the percentage determined as above.
For example, if the total value of favored property is 14% of the value of all property then the tax on 'favored' properties shall be 14% of the normal tax.

Wouldn't it be better to have a known and transparent system rather than what we have now, individual mayors and town councils working out a variety of different arrangements of PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes) that vary from town to town, inconsistent and unpredictable?

Taxes would be levied in a manner that is sensitive to the value tax exempt organizations bring to a community while not unfairly burdening others whose property is not tax exempt.

The actual numbers used shall be determined by careful analysis so as not to be unreasonable to any of the involved parties while standardizing the process for all. The General Assembly can also provide for different rates depending on the nature of the organizations. Some could even remain tax free.

I've been thinking about this for a while...

2011-04-26T08:48:00.003-04:00

Do the most successful entrepreneurs become wealthy and create those jobs we all hear about, because of tax incentives or because they are who they are, their values?

If they were taxed more and earned just half their billions, would they have been less successful?

Would Bill Gates have created fewer jobs if he had paid higher taxes? If his taxes were doubled he'd be worth only $28B now, so did he do it for the money?

My question is, Are we too focused on the impact of taxes and not focused enough on the impact (or lack thereof) of role models and values?

I heard Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, interviewed a couple of days ago and he spoke passionately and enthusiastically about the 'race to the top', the Bush tax cuts, the unions, taxes, but not once did he mention parents, discipline, cultural values, arguably the most important factors in whether or not we can educate our children.

That is not to say that taxes play no role in our success, of course they do. But the future of this country will be determined less by money than the breakdown of values like integrity, honesty, honor, education etc. All the boring stuff.

That Snooky, Snoop Dog, Rap, Crap, Lohan, Lady GaGa, Charlie Sheen and Donald Trump get so much public attention is far more indicative of our real troubles.

Maybe it's just me.

Is it a duck?

2011-04-19T13:12:00.003-04:00

There's an old expression that says, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"

This is a story about Google and me. I don't know if it's discrimination, a violation of fair trade practice or simply an error but I'll tell you what happened and let you decide.

I invented a marine product some years back and for the past 18 years have sold it exclusively on the internet. Being retired I was very wary of investing our retirement money in this venture so I have been trying to minimize expenses as much as possible and I run the business on a shoestring. I'll never get rich from it but I enjoy doing it because my buyers really like the product.

About a year ago I tried a marketing strategy called Google AdWords. For a fee, Google will display a website link when people enter relevant search words; the more you pay, the closer to the top your ad appears.

It didn't seem to make much of a difference so I closed the campaign, paid what I owed and that was the end of the story.

Recently I thought I'd try the campaign again so I re-activated my account. The campaign appeared for a day and then I got a notice that it was being suspended because of a violation to their policy.

I tried to find out just what that violation might be but couldn't. I restarted the campaign and it was suspended again after a few hours, again with no explanation.

This happened three times, once even after I received a voucher inviting me to sign up for AdWords!

The person who answered the help line could not understand what was happening either and did some 'research' with me on the line. He came back and said he had no further information and could not give me any more than I already knew.

Then, believe it or not, I got an email asking if I would fill out a satisfaction survey. I did.

Perhaps my name is linked to some terrorist group, maybe they don't like retired dentists, maybe they don't like boaters, maybe they think I'm really Rep. Henry Waxman (my name is Harvey Waxman). Who knows? They probably legally can refuse to accept a customer for any reason but aren't people entitled to at least know the reason?

In any case I smell something fishy and I can't get to the source of the smell. It seems only right that a company as huge as Google, which essentially is a monopoly on search engine technology and usage, should provide at least the courtesy of an explanation to the people whom they refuse to serve, even though they function nearly as a 'public utility' in their business practices. If they were the phone company I suppose I'd be using smoke signals.

In any case I wanted to share this with everyone about Google.

Is Deceit Legal in the General Assembly?

2011-04-04T19:40:00.000-04:00

We all have heard about bills that are "held for further study". Is there any record of or minutes of committee hearings that can reveal just when that study took place, who participated in the meeting, results of any actions, votes, etc?

If, as I suspect, these bills are never discussed again does this mean that the committee essentially deceived, lied to the public as well as the bill's sponsor?

Is it a violation of any state statute to deliberately misrepresent the future actions of a committee by such committee simply not doing what it had publicly stated it would do?

I'm just asking.

Adoptee Compromise

2011-04-03T11:35:00.003-04:00

I agree with the Providence Journal's editorial position, that adoptees have a legitimate interest in knowing their past health history, "Adoptees deserve to know", Aug 3, 2011. I also believe that biological parents have a right to their privacy.

Why not modify the proposed bills (S0361 & H5453) to allow adoptees access to pertinent and important medical information only? Upon the request from a registered health professional, the biological parents would be requested to provide only the medical information relevant to and necessary for the welfare of the adoptee. They would be assured that their identity would be protected but also would have the right to refuse. This would preserve the anonymity of biological parents while providing important information to adoptees.

But maybe it's just me.

All Men Are Not Created Equal

2011-04-02T10:40:00.003-04:00

With all due respect to Thomas Jefferson, all men are not created equal.

There are people who will become great athletes, artists, musicians, singers, poets, writers and mothers, teachers, plumbers, builders, etc. Others may never achieve more than the more menial jobs in our society.

Our task as a democratic nation, which prides itself on fairness and opportunity and often brags about its exceptionalism, is to be certain that everyone has an equal opportunity to reach his or her goals.

In fact, what makes this country great among nations, is that we believe, or at least are supposed to believe, that all, even the "less equal" among us, shall be treated with respect and dignity.

I fear we are in danger of falling from that honorable position. When I hear folks holler "We want our country back", I wonder from whom they want it back?

"Those Pesky Averages"

2011-03-23T16:27:00.002-04:00

One and one are two. Always have been, always will be. We trust numbers and we make decisions, make choices, and cast votes based on them because numbers don’t lie. We hear numbers from those trying to make points, to promote ideas and policies and to convince us. But do we really understand them?

While numbers don’t lie, they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted and even misused. Arguably the most abused function is the "average". While very useful to show overall trends, averages can be very misleading when it comes to the actual pieces that make up the data.

For example, let’s say that you're giving a talk at the local high school on, "Starting A Small Business". Attendees were asked to give their ages on the signup sheet and when you learn that their average age is 46 you're very optimistic.

At the lectern you look into the audience and see only very elderly people and lots of young children. Where is that 46 year old audience? Well, half the audience are 85 year old men and each brought his seven year old grandchild with him. The average age is indeed 46 but not the audience you had in mind.

An example closer to home is Rhode Island Law S-3050, property tax legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2006, which places a 4% limit on the annual increase in the property tax levy by 2013.

Like our speaker expecting lots of 46 year olds, we reasonably expect that our property tax bills will soon be limited to a 4% annual increase. But like our speaker, we'd be dead wrong.

The reason is that we revalue property every three years. After any revaluation, while the average increase for all property owners will indeed be limited to 4%, individual property tax bill increases actually have NO limits. The 4% limit has effectively no meaning to individual property owners in a revaluation year. Like our 46 year old audience, a 4% limit is not exactly what it seems.

We believe that all property owners' tax bills should enjoy the same limits as the tax levies they pay for.

We can't help our speaker, but we can fix our property tax bills. Visit http://righttax.org to see how.

Danger to Democracy?

2011-03-06T09:05:00.001-05:00

The Providence Journal online posted a poll question about how we feel about Gov. Walker's effort to strip unions of collective bargaining rights. I found myself conflicted. There is no doubt in my mind that negotiations with unions have resulted in unaffordable pension benefits which threaten communities all over the country. But is the solution to strip bargaining rights from unions?

The way I see it negotiations are similar to elections. Candidates argue for their side and we voters make our decisions in an election. If the results turn out to be disappointing we have the opportunity to do better at the next election.

If Governor Walker were in charge, his answer would simply be to do away with elections. Bad results from union negotiations are the result of bad decisions by those whom we have elected to do the best for us all. It is these people who must challenged and brought to task for their decisions, not negotiation itself.

Instead, I recommend that public union negotiations be made public - recorded and streamed for all to see. Governor Walker's solution is a threat to the democratic process.

A community or an investment club?

2011-02-17T07:45:00.007-05:00

A good local tax system has two requirements -(1) to raise funds to be used for the common good and (2) tax in a manner that distributes the burden fairly.

The first goal is met better by the property tax than any other tax. Calculations based on property values always produce the needed tax revenue. Whether values rise or fall, the tax rate adjusts to meet the need.

The fair distribution of the burden however falls miserably short.

I asked an economist once if he thought it was fair to use property value to determine one’s fair share of the tax burden. He answered, ‘maybe not but it is easy’. The truth is that our present method is more like an investment club where those whose “investments” don’t do well one year are compensated for their “loss” by the ones whose investments did better.

In a non-revaluation year property owners are taxed in direct proportion the the needs of their community - as levies rise, tax rates rise to provide the needed funds, and everyone is taxed proportionately. While it may be more than we'd like, it’s rational and it's fair.

But as values rise, new buyers were taxed on old, often lower assessments, and this is clearly unfair.

The solution we use is a triennial revaluation. New buyers will now pay a tax based on the market value of their property, which is fair, at least every third year. The effect of reassessments on the rest of the population however, is troubling.

Rational increases that reflect tax levies are not possible with a revaluation. Instead, there are swings in tax increases and decreases that boggle the mind with some owners getting 50-100% increases!

One result of such onerous increases is a breakdown in morale and community spirit and people react in the only way available to them. They blame excess spending and they question the accuracy of their assessments, when in fact, the ancient method of reassessing everyone is much more to blame.

We use a system of taxes that effectively takes money from some tax payers (the ones with increases greater than the levy) and transfers it to others whose values didn't rise as much. This transfer is of no benefit to the community, costs a lot to calculate, (revaluations are expensive), and most often, the transfer has been from the owners of lower valued property to those with higher valued property - not exactly fair or rational.

Let’s make up our minds - shall we tax using a system that treats our homes and properties as merely part of an investment club, or shall we all share the tax burden in a manner that’s good for the community fairly and reasonably?

It's about time Rhode Island adopts a Property Tax system to be proud of.

To see how, please visit http://righttax.org

"An excuse to do nothing."

2011-02-15T09:22:00.003-05:00

I received this letter from a Rhode Island Representative whom I contacted about an issue:

"I understand how hard you have worked on these ideas over the years. I really wish I could offer you some encouragement but the Assembly just isn't ready for it. Sorry to disappoint,"

This was my answer:

For me the "Assembly" is people, individuals. Unless individuals are ready, of course the "Assembly" won't be ready. I'll keep trying, one at a time.

One of my least favorite phrases is "We as a society", as in "When we as a society demand action on.....something.....then something will get done".

It's a cop out. Society is people. When people want to do something about litter for example, they'll pick up litter, individually, when they see it. Waiting for "society" means I don't have to do anything until everyone does it. And the results are everywhere around us. Just an excuse to do nothing.

So far I have had no response.

Maybe it's just me.

"Better, better, better, better"

2011-02-07T09:03:00.000-05:00

In a recent front page article "Taking aim at state spending", the Providence Journal quoted a tea party member who said "My thing is cut, cut, cut, cut". I'd like to suggest a new slogan: "Better, better, better, better".

As we know, Rhode Island has among the highest property taxes in the nation, about fifth highest. However, if our student performance were best in the nation, if we had among the best roads, bridges and infrastructure in the country, those fifth highest property taxes would be a bargain.

Cut, cut cut, cut is a mindless, thoughtless reaction to a complex problem. Both the left and the right are guilty of a tunnel vision solution to every problem we face and we must share in the blame for letting legislators, both local and national, get away with it.

Off to see the wizard

2011-01-06T08:49:00.000-05:00

The front page article in the Journal, January 6, 2011, "Graduation rules face initial test" was breathtaking. The percentage of students in the lowest achievement categories was beyond discouraging. Anyone unconcerned is a character from Oz, either the "Scarecrow" or "Tin Woodsman" - no brains or no heart.

As I think about graduation criteria raised in the article it makes me also question merit pay as a litmus test for teachers.

I see a dedicated, talented, hard working teacher in one of the worst performing schools, not earning as much as a teacher working half as hard in one of the most affluent towns.

On the other hand there are teachers who show up every day, uninterested, bored but due to seniority, have little fear of losing their jobs. They need to be dismissed.

We humans prefer simplicity, sharply defined edges, black vs white choices. I remember how much more I preferred multiple choice exams to essay questions. So much easier.

Well that's too bad because life just isn't that easy and pretending it is produces what's all around us; people behaving as simpletons, demonizing anyone, any group, different from them. It's as true in Washington as it is locally, maybe more so.

Perhaps when we understand ourselves better we might make better decisions and better choices and better laws and find the yellow brick road. I sure hope so.

Making it Easier to Hate

2011-01-02T11:06:00.003-05:00

There is a line in one of my favorite Broadway Musicals, South Pacific, that says, "You've got to be taught to hate and fear...,". Indeed, that's how we make it easier for our soldiers to kill. Part of the technique is to remove ambiguity. By creating a one dimensional image of the enemy it is much easier to encourage the desired behavior toward them. "Japs", "gooks", "chinks", "krauts", all words designed to dehumanize, to remove individualism, to make it easier to hate.

In a recent Commentary in the Providence Journal on January 2, 2011, the author makes the case that "some interpretations of Islam" are responsible for 9/11. While this might be strictly true, the implication, the unsaid words, coupled with our need for unambiguous direction, clearly point an accusing finger at the 'enemy' - Muslims and Islam.

"Conservative wing-nuts", "Pinko liberals", "Commie progressives", "Tea-bagger Nazis". Makes it so much easier doesn't it?

This apparent need to make one's point by painting with too broad a brush, by demonizing the "other", by trying to reduce the complexity of issues to the fewest elements, by trying to eliminate or at least reduce ambiguity, is evident everywhere, from local politics all the way to Washington and the results are painfully obvious.

Worried about huge deficits and spending? You're anti-worker, anti-union.
Want to assure fair wages for workers? You must be a Socialist or a Communist.

Wake up before we do something really stupid. Nuclear war anyone?

Open Letter to the NK School Committee

2010-12-23T13:51:00.000-05:00

To the NK School Committee,

Clearly the US is falling behind globally. If we expect better scientists we need to improve science education. If we want more talented engineers and mathematicians we need better math and physics courses.

I would like to ask you if our schools are preparing students to become our best politicians and legislators? Is the educational system preparing them to become the political leaders our cities, states and country need to succeed in the future?

I can recall as a high school student that the most boring class I took was called 'civics'. Perhaps we are witnessing the consequences of that mistake. Is the school system creating excitement and respect among our students who will become our future leaders? Are we creating an atmosphere that excites and inspires?

I looked through the online curriculum at the NKHS Social Studies section and found nothing that relates to local government and contemporary local issues. Instead I found history. Certainly important, but it's not anything that will engage students with their real world as it surrounds and effects them today.

Perhaps I've missed something. I would love to be corrected.

Respectfully,

Just Wondering

2010-12-14T09:43:00.004-05:00

I think of myself as a pretty liberal guy but the Virginia judge had a point when he ruled against the federal requirement that all citizens buy health insurance. Perhaps the only constitutionally acceptable requirement would be for those people who use federal health insurance such as the VA.

On the other hand those who complain that it is wrong for young people to have to buy insurance so older people can have health care seems to indicate a certain level of, forgive me, stupidity. Do they really not know that is exactly how insurance works? Insurance companies make tons of money by collecting premiums from enough people who don't use it to pay for those that do, plus a tidy little profit.

Still there might be a legitimate constitutional argument against the federal government mandating insurance.

Perhaps instead the federal government can make it a requirement for federal reimbursement for health care contingent on a certain level of mandatory insurance required by those states. If they refuse to require health insurance for its citizens then they will risk forgoing federal reimbursement for health care.

Can't have it both ways.

Maybe It's Just Me.

2010-12-02T11:10:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's just me but the placement of two letters to the editor in the Thursday Dec. 2, 2010, Providence Journal caught my eye for two reasons; first, the 'right' position was on the left side and the 'left' position was on the right side. Just a coincidence?

But the second, more important reason was, that here, in two letters, side by side, we see a larger national problem.

One author paints the unions as the victims of greedy corporations, doing the same as they do.
The other author paints the unions as villains out to destroy private enterprise and the public.

The facts suggest that there is truth and blame on both sides.

Public sector unions have made it difficult for municipalities to deliver services that people can afford. Compared to the private sector, their retirement benefits are most enviable and in some cases rather outrageous.

Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.

The corporate world complains that unions make it impossible for them to compete and that the unions are responsible for outsourcing jobs. Still, their profits are the highest in history.

Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.

One of the pillars of America is our court system. It is an adversarial system where justice requires the presence of a judge whose job it is to be sure the rules are followed and fairness prevails, and an impartial jury whose job it is to render a verdict after hearing both sides.

It isn't working well in the public arena. We are the 'jury' but we clearly don't listen openly to both sides of an issue; and the laws, which, like judges, try to assure the rules are followed, have failed miserably, replaced by lobbyists and donations from both sides.

Let us hope that both sides soon wake up and take a hard look in the mirror.

Surprise

2010-10-31T20:00:00.002-04:00

Do we spend too much locally? You betcha.

Should we spend less? Naturally.

Property taxes will be ok now, right? Nope. Look here

Who is US?

2010-10-25T07:49:00.004-04:00

The laws that govern us reflect our notion of "US".

Are we a mass of people, a "society"?

Or are we millions of individuals?

Our political parties offer us a choice.

But we are both, and our laws need to reflect that fact.

It's not easy.

"It's the Economy Stupid"

2010-10-23T12:19:00.004-04:00

When Bill Clinton ran for president his campaign strategist, James Carville, made that phrase famous.

Today everyone complains about property taxes and how high they are. And they are indeed high.

All our energy is spent trying to "reform" property taxes with all manner of gimmicks, circuit breakers, exemptions, levy limits. The fact is that what we are really doing is trying to fix spending using our property taxes as the tool. A worthy goal but it doesn't truly re-form Property Taxes.

Even if successful we will have failed most property owners because, with all due apologies to President Clinton, "It's the Revaluation, Stupid".

Revaluations are required to assure that buyers pay fair taxes on property they buy. It's fair for new buyers and should be done at least annually. (Triennially is better than every ten years but it's still not enough).

For existing owners however, revaluation means that thousands of homeowners could get tax increases even if spending is lower than the prior year. This is gross injustice to all existing owners and is simply unreasonable.

We can solve this apparent dilemma but it requires a willingness to revisit and re-think some antiquated ideas.

Please look at this 5 minute video and see if you don't agree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdEU_aDr9XU

"Too Tired to Vote?"

2010-10-20T09:07:00.005-04:00

It's election time and we are about choose the people that will govern us until the next election. It is both a privilege (one that too few people around the world have) as well as a responsibility.

Each check we make on the ballot deserves careful consideration and it's easy to do; the pens and markers don't weigh twenty pounds. Choosing the "master lever" implies that it is just too much work to mark each candidate. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew, and I'd be ashamed to admit using it.

I'd go so far as to say it's this type of mindlessness or laziness that is responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves, both locally and nationally. We have only ourselves to blame.

So now we hear "kick the bums out". It's surely tempting and understandable, but it is just as wrong headed as that master lever. Being a newcomer or "outsider" is no assurance of integrity and competence, just as being an experienced politician is not an assurance of unethical behavior or incompetence.

Are all members of one party good or evil? Are all members of any group the same? Would my only qualification for a friend be that he or she is a member of a particular group? Heaven help us if so.

We have a duty to ourselves and our country to think about each candidate and vote accordingly.

When will we get it?

2010-10-01T16:44:00.004-04:00

Rhode Islanders pay more in property taxes than 45 other states, according to a recent article in the Providence Business News. It is no small wonder then, that reducing spending is on everyone's to-do list.

But there is another issue than no one on Smith Hill seems willing to take seriously, an issue that has a much more profound effect on our property taxes - revaluations.

Let me say at the outset that we need to revalue regularly. In fact we should revalue every year instead of every three years, as we do now. Revaluation is the only way we can assure that when someone buys a $1 million dollar property they pay a fair tax on a $1 million dollar property.

But the impact on existing owners is anything but fair. To illustrate, let's imagine that we froze the tax levy in North Kingstown, so that in 2004 it was the same as it was in 2003. Rational people might expect that no one would pay any more in taxes. In fact, if it were 2003 instead of 2004, no one would have paid more in taxes.

But there was a scheduled revaluation in 2003 for the 2004 fiscal year. The result was that in 2004, 49% of the taxpayers would have received a tax increase averaging 23%! The total additional taxes paid by nearly half the property owners would have been just under $2.4 million dollars.

Since our scenario froze the tax levy, no additional money was received by the town. The $2.4 million merely offset the tax reduction of the other 51%. Does this seem fair to anyone? Does it seem reasonable to increase taxes for some people solely to lower other people's taxes? But that's what revaluations do.

It gets worse. The average property value of the people got the increase was $154,000. The average property value of those whose taxes fell was $228,000. People owning more modest homes paid millions to people with more valuable homes. What's wrong with us that we allow this to happen, over and over?

I performed this same revaluation scenario for North Kingstown's 2007 and 2010 fiscal years, Barrington's 2009 fiscal year, West Warwick's 2003 fiscal year, and Cranston's 2006 fiscal year with eerily similar results.

To repeat; towns can freeze budgets and hold levy limits to a zero percent increase and still, thousands upon thousands of tax payers would get onerous tax increases for no rational reason, simply because of a reassessment of property value.

So we face a dilemma; how can we tax existing owners fairly and, at the same time, tax new buyers fairly on the values of their purchases?

There is a way outlined on the Rhode Island Gets Honorable Taxation website. We can tax both existing owners AND new buyers fairly and reasonably, every year, fund levies as we do now, and eliminate assessment appeals for existing owners.

Only when we get this fixed can we expect real results from any tax decreases. Or maybe we just don't care care?

Drugs in School

2010-09-09T08:14:00.001-04:00

Senator John Tassoni wrote in a commentary Sep. 9 in the Providence Journal that we need to bring a "recovery high school" to Rhode Island to help students avoid falling back into drugs in regular high school.

I agree with the senator that it's time to fight back against the prevalence of drugs in schools but setting up yet another school system for ex-addicts seems more like avoiding the root problem rather than facing it.

Maybe we would do better to revisit our drug policy and the consequences of bringing drugs to school in the first place.

Polarized Express

2010-08-11T19:37:00.002-04:00

This group is pro-business. That organization is pro-union.

The sad truth is that "pro-business" is actually code for anti-union and "pro-union" is code for anti-business.

Is it any wonder that we're stuck with such poor governance? To be the best we can be we have to become pro-business AND pro-union. Once upon a time, long ago, it was called working together toward a common goal.

And speaking of goals, do you think we spend too much energy and time fighting over the means, which seem to have replaced the ends, the true goals of America. Our representatives in government would do well to spend far more energy on discussing the ultimate goal(s) of this great country.

Maybe it's just me.

"Providence Property Taxes"

2010-06-22T19:44:00.002-04:00

Regarding The Providence Journal's front page on Monday, "Steep Drop in Value" about Providence's revaluation there are several statements which are misleading or should at least prompt questions. Here are some.

1."A potential 30% drop in the city's ... assessed property value ... could mean a significant loss of revenue" makes no sense. If the total value goes down the rate will compensate to provide the needed tax levy. The strength of the property tax is that it always produces the revenue. It's simple math.

2. "Cicilline has pledged not to raise the property-tax levy — the total amount the city raises in property taxes — over this year’s $274 million." The article then goes on to say that he has not ruled out an increase in the tax rate. It's simple math once again. If the levy remains the same but values have dropped, the rate MUST go up or the money raised must be less. Unless he has found a way to bring in more revenue from other sources.

3. With regard to Finance Chairman John Igliozzi's comment regarding the redistribution of taxes resulting from the revaluation, "The values are being reset to what they should be", how do we determine "what they should be"? Since we have accepted that market values shall determine our taxes then we have to accept that they are what they should be according to what the market says. But.

I share Mr. Igliozzi's concern when our housing market shifts the burden from poorer areas to wealthier ones. However, his gratitude when the shift is back in the opposite direction is misplaced. He must realize that it will shift back again one day. That's how markets work.

It is this reliance on markets that must be corrected and I have been trying hard for the past several years to do just that. Please visit http://righttax.org.

"Did I do it or not?"

2010-06-18T06:58:00.002-04:00

"Not guilty by reason of insanity" appears to be a verdict that causes problems for the court. The term itself suggests a paradox. The person did do something but didn't do it too. Might the plea be more truthful if it were "guilty by reason of insanity" which admits to the act but acknowledges mitigation as well? It seems a much more realistic and honest plea.

A bit like expungement of criminal records where something that happened didn't happen.

We're sure confused.

"What Will it Take?"

2010-06-04T05:54:00.004-04:00

What will it take to turn on the proverbial light bulb? Revaluations are at the heart of the property tax problem, not local spending. Revaluations are always responsible for the perennial outcry from tax payers, that their "taxes have gone up more than the tax levy", and they are right. Of course, the people whose taxes go up less than the tax levy are silent, as any of us would be.

The only reason to revalue is to assure a fair tax rate for owners who have just purchased their home, NOT for anyone else; market values are valid for taxation only for people who purchase at market value.

We will never be fair with property taxes until we admit this truth. For more see my website.

Maybe it's just me.

Special Interest v Common Interest

2010-05-22T07:00:00.003-04:00

I read an editorial in the Providence Journal on Saturday, May 22, dealing with legislation that would "lock in place pension benefits for public employees..." My comments are not related to the relative merits of the legislation but rather to this part of the editorial - "Mr. Lally, for his part, said he repeatedly filed the bill, originally at the request of the teachers unions - The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers."

It is this latter part that caught my eye. Exactly why should a lawmaker submit a bill to become a law? Call me crazy but it seems to me that a lawmaker has as his or her duty, to do what's best for the people whom he represents - all of them, even those who voted against him.

When any group asks a legislator to introduce a bill, the only question to answer is, Is it in the best interest of all my constituents? In my own case, I have been active in promoting changes to property tax law in Rhode Island and was pleased, flattered even, when my town council directed our local representatives to introduce supportive legislation. I do not know if the bill's sponsors agreed with the proposal or if they even fully understood it but this morning's editorial reached me - they should have agreed with it's goals and actively supported it or they should have refused to introduce it.

How many bills are introduced solely for the benefit of the people who lobby the legislator? I cringe at the thought. Let's face it, special interests aren't even special any longer. They're common, too common.

Legislators can't be expected to know everything - their staffs have to help them sift through volumes of data and information. Lobbyists have to present the views of those 'special interests' and that's ok too. The legislator's obligation to his or her city, county, state, nation, is to process all this information and before deciding, answer the question - Is it best for us all? Only then should he or she act. Only then.

Sweet Tax is Sour

2010-05-18T19:31:00.005-04:00

I too hate to see people abusing themselves by being so overweight so I can understand why legislators would like to curb obesity. But the tax proposals before the RI House and Senate miss the mark.

If we really want to improve Rhode Islanders' health the law would require that the tax money generated would be used solely for increasing education, nutrition and exercise programs. Adding a few cents tax to sweet drinks will simply further burden and mostly for the people who can least afford it.

It won't take too long for the added cost to become 'normal' and any possible behavior modification will slowly return to pre-tax levels.

Be honest. It's at least as much a fund raising effort as an effort to improve the public health. If we were seriously trying to improve health perhaps reducing the cost of those items we find beneficial would be more effective. How about targeted income rebates for milk, fruits, vegetables? I suspect it would be far more effective in changing eating habits in the long run.

We all know that the sweet tax will simply find its way into the general revenue stream for cities and towns and the people will remain overweight.

On a slightly different note I think there is a better way to inform people about the sugar content of foods. Instead of the abstraction of calories I'd recommend indicating sugar cube equivalents. It's much more impressive to see that a cup of apple slices contains 2 1/2 sugar cubes and a Snickers bar is like eating 13 1⁄2 cubes of sugar.

Why We Hate Property Taxes

2010-05-05T06:33:00.006-04:00

Because Rhode Island has among the highest property taxes in the nation we expect that spending cuts will fix our high taxes.

Not so fast.

An overlooked but vital aspect of the property tax problem is that there are two principles of fairness regarding property taxes that are mutually exclusive.

#1 A person who buys a $1 million dollar home should pay a fair tax on a million dollar home.
#2 The taxes people pay should reflect the budget needs of their town; e.g. if a town eliminates tax increases, property owners should not expect tax increases.

These basic principles can not co-exist because of REVALUATIONS.

Existing owners' property taxes can reflect the tax levy (Principle #2) but only when there is no revaluation. Buyers of properties of (usually) increasing value however, are taxed too little on assessed values thus ignoring Principle #1.

To correct this inequity for new owners, we revalue every three years. As a result, existing owners will pay taxes unrelated to tax levies.

In fact a town could even declare a moratorium on tax increases yet over 50% of existing property owners would pay higher taxes due to revaluation, violating Principle #2.

The typical reaction to high taxes is to look for spending cuts but as I've explained, the results would disappoint the majority of tax payers . This does not bode well for peace, harmony and enthusiastic citizen participation and cooperation.

Bernie "Madoff" with other people's money

2010-05-01T06:42:00.001-04:00

The lead article in the Journal on Saturday, May 1, concerned investing West Warwick pension money and whether or not the pension board made a prudent decision. "The local unions whose pensions are a stake are taking a wait-and-see attitude".

Don't we get it yet? Investments are gambles. It's risky business. If you bet your pension money on a horse race and won would that make it a good decision? Come on people. These are gambles and it's the the risks not the outcomes that must determine whether the decision was appropriate or not, especially when you are responsible for other people's money to be available for their pensions.

Thinking out Loud

2010-04-28T08:11:00.001-04:00

If we increase taxes somewhat on the wealthy they will cease working hard, produce less and the tax revenues will decline. This assumes that the wealthy, the successful, will change into low achievers and stop trying if they earn less.

That's as simple minded as the assumption that bestowing benefits on the poor will change them into entrepreneurs and high achievers.

We can't change the nature of people simply with money incentives alone.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

2010-04-21T11:48:00.006-04:00

Just read an interesting piece in the NYT about the Goldman Sachs debacle. In it the author says: "Many more people now know that synthetic C.D.O.’s are a simple wager." Well, duh.

I'm reminded of the famous line in the Casablanca when Claude Rains feigns shock that there is gambling going on.

Capitalism has become so enmeshed and dependent on Wall Street that it risks transformation from a model of providing quality goods and honest services to a model based on simple (or not so simple) gambling. And sometimes the dice are even loaded.

Maybe it's just me.

It's a Choice

2010-04-05T15:45:00.004-04:00

Theodore Gatchell's article in the Providence Journal on health care reform made several legitimate points that highlight the choices between the conservative right and the liberal left.

"Over time, however, rules become a way of shielding bureaucrats from having to use judgment. For every problem that arises, the answer is a new regulation."

Indeed. Who can deny the truth of this statement? The income tax code is a perfect example of government's infinite ability to complicate our lives. Of course it isn't only conservatives who pass these laws although one could get that impression from the article.

"More rules inevitably require more bureaucrats to interpret them with an attendant higher cost. If you think health care is complicated now, wait until the bureaucrats begin to crank out the reams of regulations that are certain to come."

Again, there is much truth in this statement which also serves as a mantra for those who resist and object to all governmental involvement not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Tea Baggers?

It appears that the conservative right believes best arbiter of what's right and wrong is the free market and when bureaucrats interfere there results inevitably inefficiency, waste, corruption and a disregard for the Constitution.

Again, much is true.

When we consider which beer, which movie, which sneaker shall succeed in the market place, the free market is probably best left alone. The public should be allowed to make free choices in a free market to determine winners and losers in such contests.

If all decisions were only so trivial, so superficial. But they're not. In the process of free market competition the corporate bottom line dominates the decisions made by business executives and without government intrusion, important data may be hidden as people choose among things much more important than which oven cleaner, which detergent, which hairspray shall win out.

Was it the free market that publicized the link between lead based paints and brain damage? the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer? the link between saturated fats and heart disease? Would corporations competing in free markets print this information on its products unless required by government?

Or is it more likely that millions of people would have to become ill or die before people could make informed choices in an unregulated free market?

The struggle between the right and the left seems to boil down to this:

Is it worth the cost in human sacrifice to respect the sanctity of privacy and let people, unfettered by intrusive and inefficient government rules and regulations, use their free market choices to provide the best ultimate decisions for themselves?

Or should we accept the inefficient, intrusive and expensive government bureaucracy to protect the public from harm that could otherwise result from a private sector where the fundamental obligation is to its executives and stockholders?

It seems that the right favors the first and the left favors the second.

Maybe it just me.

Property Tax POLL

2010-04-03T09:15:00.005-04:00

I'd like to poll the sentiment of property owners and others regarding property values and fair tax bills. Perhaps ask some friends to read this too.

Assume your town has managed to freeze the tax levy indefinitely.
Assume your tax assessment is accurate.

The next year, after revaluation, your tax bill increased by 62%.

Question: Do you feel your higher tax bill is proper and fair? yes no

You can email your answer or just post a comment.

Thanks.

Take Your Pick

2010-03-11T11:21:00.003-05:00

Rhode Islanders pay among the highest property taxes in the country and our per pupil education spending is even higher nationally.

We have been obsessing about lowering spending and it's easy to see why. But I pose this question:

Should we lower education spending to match student performance

should we improve student performance to match education spending?

If our students were #1 nationally, our education spending would look like a bargain.

2010-03-08T19:03:00.003-05:00

The Public Option Question

If our nation will fail without an educated population can the same not be said about a healthy population?

Shouldn't it therefore be a public obligation to provide for both?

Can We Talk?

2010-02-28T13:28:00.002-05:00

At a recent meeting with the Chief of the Rhode Island Division of Municipal Finance, to propose an idea for changing from a market value base property tax to a 'taxable' value based property tax, I was presented with some of the very serious issues facing the state and its municipalities, in effect challenging whether the proposed change would help the property tax problem.

Some of those issues were, (1) the large increase in foreclosures, (2) those who simply find it increasingly difficult to make their skyrocketing tax payments, and (3) the concern that the proposal would mean people might be living in identical homes paying different property taxes.

Each of these deserves an answer.

1. Foreclosure occurs when the owner of a property can't meet his/her mortgage payments. Those mortgage payments are established at the time the mortgage is created and is simply a loan using the property as collateral. The borrower and lender (bank) choose a mortgage that will satisfy the borrower's ability to make the payments.

There are things than can change the ability to make payments; job loss, unexpected medical bills, either of which could reduce one's ability to make mortgage payments. The actual market value of the property has little to do with the mortgage as described, unless...

There are other situations however, when the owner of a home that has appreciated in value is tempted by a lender to take out a second mortgage to finance say, a vacation or a new car. The increased value is treated as if it were like money in the bank and, if necessary, the owner can sell for the higher value and pay off the loans, maybe with some money left over. Tempting. As unscrupulous salespeople urged buyers to take out these loans these mortgages proliferated like crabgrass in August, producing enormous profits for the people who pushed paper from one place to another.

Too often the "free money" added to monthly payments more than the owner's ability to meet obligations. Add in increased property taxes based on the higher market values and we have the makings of a serious problem: people began selling their homes to reduce monthly payments. The increase in selling forced down market prices as more people began to panic. They to tried selling their homes quickly to grab those 'high' market values, only to find they weren't there. Their homes in some cases weren't even worth what they paid for them and many were forced to declare bankruptcy.

This downward spiral only increased the disaster that was beginning to unfold as the banks holding those mortgages found themselves with worthless paper (toxic assets) and their incomes fell as more and more people defaulted on their loans.

And yet the market values of homes are assumed to be the best and fairest metric upon which to tax people to pay for municipal services. Incredible.

The RIGHT proposal of using 'taxable' values instead of market values will not immediately fix the above problems. Of course, neither will the continued reliance on market values. But going forward one must consider if we will be in a better place if we make the transition to a taxable value based system or if we continue using market values.

2. This brings us to the individual who is simply struggling to pay taxes on an increased property value. With the expected drop in values one might expect some tax relief, but this is anything but certain. If values drop town wide, as they have recently, the tax rate will simply rise to produce the needed revenue. In fact revaluation to market prices produces thousands of people whose taxes drop as those whose taxes are too high, regardless of the overall increase or decrease in property values. It's the nature of swings in market values.

The more important question is this: Would we be in this position at all if we were taxed on 'taxable' values for the last twenty years instead of market values? It would be much better to pay taxes limited to 4% increases for the next twenty years rather than continue with the market based system which brought on current problem in the first place. It seems we have an opportunity to rewrite history: today is the future's past.

3. Now for the last concern, that under a taxable value based system there would be people living in houses of equal value, possibly side by side, paying different taxes. Quite true. For many it is hard to accept and seems unfair.

Consider. If Bill and Joe buy property at the same time for the same price, they should pay equal taxes.

But what if Bill sells his house to Nate for a much higher price than he and Joe originally paid? Should Nate simply pay the taxes that Bill was paying? Of course not. Nate should be taxed based on what he paid, just as Bill and Joe were, and to make sure Nate pays a fair tax on his market value we must use a rate calculated from the market value of the entire town.

But now he and Joe will not be paying the same taxes would they? Nothing wrong with that. But our reevaluation system insists that everyone be reassessed to market values. If Joe's property increased in value the same as Nate's, Joe will pay the same tax as Nate. The reassessment has decided that Joe is in fact the same as Nate, but he is not. Assessing someone's property greater than (or less than) the one he bought, doesn't make him equivalent to the person who just spent that amount.

The use of 'taxable' values instead, would increase the value of Joe's house and every other current owner, the same percentage as the tax levy, not the market place. For example, a 3% tax increase would increase everyone's tax bill by approximately 3% while new owners would pay based on market value. Both owners are treated fairly. The following year the new owner becomes an existing owner.

There is nothing inherently unfair about people in similar homes paying different taxes to support government; we do it all the time. We pay for state government and federal government differently despite living in similar homes and there is nothing immoral or unfair about doing the same for local government.

Is the proposed system perfect? No. Will it be better and more just for everyone? Absolutely. Check the RIGHTTAX website for more.

Organizing some thoughts

2010-02-06T07:39:00.004-05:00

Conservative view:

The free market is the best, most efficient way to allocate resources. The best ideas succeed, others fail. The best people succeed, others fail. Government should stay out of the way and let markets work because they have produced the most successful and powerful nation in history.
The government has no business deciding how my earned money should be allocated. Politicians pretend to be concerned about the people but they act in their own self interest - to get reelected is their highest priority.

Liberal view:

People are neither commodities nor resources and should not be treated as such by market forces, which will neglect (even abandon) the weakest among us. Governments are necessary to insure the welfare of those who might not have the resources or ability to succeed.
If social decisions are left to individuals, the least productive, least powerful face neglect. Government must make these decisions and allocate resources to protect the weakest.

I see truth in each position. Will a battle for dominance of one philosophy over the other result in the best outcome? I don't think so.

Free Speech

2010-02-02T07:58:00.002-05:00

I too, strongly support the First Amendment but Ed Achorn's Commentary, Feb 2, 2010, on the recent Supreme Court's First Amendment decision seemed to me to miss the real point of the controversy. The question before the court was whether corporations enjoy the same protections of the First Amendment as people. In other words, are corporations the same as people? The court decided yes in the case of First Amendment protections.

However, can a corporation be subjected to the death penalty? Can a corporation even go to jail?

I submit that corporations are not the same as people and therefor are not automatically conferred with all of the same rights and protections as people by the US Constitution.

These differences needed to be considered when applying Constitutional protections to corporations and I believe that the Court was wrong in its recent decision.

Term Limits

2010-01-14T08:02:00.002-05:00

Edward Fitzpatrick's piece in the Providence Journal ("Here's something for which to be thankful", Jan. 14, 2009) is on target. The judiciary must be independent of external forces and make judgments based on law and not be influenced by outside interests.

It seems to me that those very laws themselves should be also be made with the same principles in mind.

To paraphrase Judge Bruce Selya and Mr. Fitzpatrick, if a legislator has to stop and think, every time he or she decides an issue, about how that decision is going to play with the voters, that's got to be a substantial and negative influence on the decision making process. What's more, elected officials often raise campaign funds from lawyers and others with a vested interest in the outcomes of legislative deliberation which can be a corrupting influence that we really don't need.

It seems we have a huge challenge here. How can we remove the corrupting influences from democratic elections? Is it possible? Is it time to have a serious debate on term limits?

Not Pretty

2009-12-18T13:37:00.007-05:00

BURRILLVILLE , CENTRAL FALLS, EAST PROVIDENCE, JAMESTOWN, JOHNSTON, LINCOLN, LITTLE COMPTON, NEW SHOREHAM, NORTH KINGSTOWN, NORTH SMITHFIELD, PROVIDENCE, SCITUATE, SMITHFIELD, SOUTH KINGSTOWN, WARREN, WARWICK, WEST WARWICK, WESTERLY

These are the Rhode Island towns that had revaluations in 2009 and will tax their property owners on their reassessments in 2010.

Since Governor Carcieri has announced major reductions in state aid this year in an attempt to balance the state budget, these unfortunate property owners will be facing a double whammy; not only significant tax increases because of reduced state revenue but because revaluations produce their own dramatic shifts in tax burdens regardless of what happens to municipal budgets and tax levies.

In a typical revaluation year, from 1/2 to 2/3 of owners face tax increases far greater than necessary to fund the tax levy. It's an unjust and unfair system that lawmakers can fix if we and they are serious about being fair to Rhode Island property tax payers.

You can read more at the RIGHTTAX website: http://righttax/org

Makes religion look bad

2009-12-10T14:47:00.006-05:00

I'm not a religious guy but for those who are, I'd suggest that if you accept as evidence of a supreme being a sort of weird cross on the shell of a chicken's egg or on a heifer's forehead your standards are pretty low. Do you think so little of G_d to believe he'd show his presence in such trivial ways? C'mon now.

But if you do need proof, the story Bob Kerr wrote about in the Providence Journal about someone giving his coat to a man wearing only a sweater pushing a shopping cart along the street on a cold winter day, or the story about the three men who pulled a fourth from icy water at Waterplace Park might provide far better evidence for you. I hope so.

Those Pesky Averages

2009-12-03T11:11:00.015-05:00

Imagine you're asked to put one finger in each of two substances whose average temperature is 52°. No problem, right? But what if one glass contains boiling water at 212° and one contains dry ice at -109°? Would you accept this as a fair request?

Averages can be misleading.

Not much different with property taxes after revaluations. Data often deals with averages. The RI law called "S3050" sets the annual limit for local tax levy increases. When it drops to 4% (in 2013) it means that the when all the taxes of all the property owners are combined, the average increase will be 4%. Looks good - on paper.

The reality is that in town after town, despite the 4% limit, about a third of taxpayers get increases much above 4%, some as high as 100%, while others actually pay lower taxes. That's right, lower taxes, even as the tax levy just increased. In reality there are two kinds of taxpayers: those who pay too much and those who pay too little.

Until this unjust distribution of the local tax burden is acknowledged and fixed, all the posturing, the complaining about assessments, about the 'greedy' public employee unions, about graft and corruption, will produce little relief for those who have to pay the bills based on market values.

We must convince our legislators to discuss a new paradigm, where taxes for existing property owners are based on a system of "taxable" values producing tax bills directly related to budgets instead of the marketplace, where new owners will receive their first tax bill based on the market value of their purchase, instead of after a two year wait for revaluation, and where the limits on tax levy increases will apply to individual tax bills as well.

Please visit http://righttax.org for an in depth discussion on this most important issue. Please talk to your legislators and ask that they at least think about this proposal. If you do, they might listen and we can get fair and just property taxes, at last.

Are we too stupid?

2009-11-19T19:15:00.002-05:00

The highway signs informing us that "Texting" while driving is illegal made me smile. I can see it now:

Judge: "Mr. Jones, you have been charged with texting while driving. How do you plead?"

Accused: "Not guilty, your honor."

Judge: "Officer Smith says he watched you texting on your cell phone for several minutes before stopping you"

Accused: "Officer Smith was mistaken. I was not texting. I had just filled up with gas and was using my phone's calculator to figure out how much mileage I was getting. That's not texting, your honor. "

Judge: "Case dismissed".

Maybe we just need a few more laws, like "Crocheting while driving is against the law" or "Spreading mayonnaise on a tuna sandwich while driving is against the law".

A police officer should use his or her judgement to determine if one is not driving with appropriate skill, attention and equipment. This is beyond silly.

We're Too Lazy

2009-11-17T07:14:00.008-05:00

Facts can be deceiving at times. Recently the Providence Journal had a front page article about Rhode Island's high property taxes. Being fourth highest in the country isn't anything to be proud of . But what if our student performance were the best in the nation? Those property taxes would be a real bargain and a source of pride, as I see it.

The point is that spending (or any one single thing) in itself is not the only consideration when we form our opinions about our taxes or government or anything for that matter. There are often other, equally or even more important considerations which should be considered.

It's so easy to be lazy when we read the headlines and form our opinions and we pay a terrible price for this laziness.

Maybe it's just me.

Are you with us?

2009-11-16T07:42:00.002-05:00

Laura Lederer, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center should know better. In her letter in the Providence Journal, November 16, "Defeat for prostitution" she writes, "while others (more than one might think) are anti-trafficking and pro-prostitution". She characterizes those who would legalize indoor prostitution as PRO prostitution.

Ms. Lederer makes the same mistake that so many of us make, that everything can be viewed as an either-or position. "You're either with us or against us" might have done more harm to our society than we will ever know. Can she not see that one could favor legalization of an activity between consenting adults and not therefor advocate or promote it?

Might I prefer that a woman have the legal right to decide on an abortion and still prefer that she make a different choice? Is it too hard to imagine that I could favor equal treatment for homosexuals and not, at the same time, personally prefer heterosexual relationships? Can I not personally avoid alcohol yet allow others to legally indulge?

The legislators who voted against the recent anti-prostitution law did not do so because they advocate prostitution and to suggest otherwise is an example of the same old canard, "You're either with us or against us". A law professor should know better. We all should know better.

3 Questions

2009-10-30T07:19:00.001-04:00

One would have to have been asleep for the past few years not to know that Rhode Island has a money problem - we spend too much and receive too little. It is laudable therefore that the General Assembly will have a conversation in December to talk about these problems.

With regard to the high property tax issue (5th highest in the nation) I would urge the legislators to consider the following questions:

1. Do changes in one's property taxes always reflect the changes in the tax levy of their community?

2. Do new owners always pay taxes based on the value of the property they have purchased?

3. Do all owners always receive a limit on their tax increases the way S3050 limits the growth in the tax levy?

The answer to these questions should be a solid "yes" but sadly, the answers are "no".

Until this is addressed, controlling local spending alone will not produce the beneficial results for the taxpayer that it should.

Replace the property tax with an Owners' Tax and we will be able to answer "yes" to all the above questions and save some money too.

Still Crazy?

2009-10-24T06:39:00.007-04:00

"Gang leader gets lengthy prison sentence" read the headline on Saturday, October 24, in the Providence Journal. A federal judge sentenced a Laotian gang leader to more than 18 years in prison for agreeing to participate in an armed home invasion. And just who will emerge from prison in 18 years (or maybe sooner with parole)?

You can make a good guess from the fact that he just completed a four year prison term for .... a home invasion!

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

On a more positive note, someone isn't crazy. An educational practice that doesn't work for the welfare of the students needs to be ended. Education Commissioner Deborah Gist wants to stop using seniority as a basis for teacher assignment and promotion. Bravo and congratulations to her.

Maybe it's just me.

Don't Forget

2009-10-09T06:37:00.006-04:00

There were times during my forty years practicing dentistry that patients could be demanding, late for appointments, and sometimes even rude. Those, especially, were the times that I had to remind myself, and my staff, that people don't exist for us to have someone to practice on. We are there for them. That is not to say that we had no right to expect certain levels of behavior. We do. But without the people, we have no purpose.

The corporate world, those exalted executives, those "too big to fail" banks, other financial institutions, especially the largest ones, corporate lobbyists, union leaders, politicians, all seem to have forgotten something; that without the people, us, they would cease to be. They are there for us, not the other way around. On the other hand, if they ceased to be, we would replace them. We should not let them forget it. Unless we too, forgot.

The Right Tax

2009-09-22T10:10:00.006-04:00

Today's Providence Journal carried a story about a Barrington couple who "say that town officials knowingly withheld public records in violation of the state Access to Public Records Act" and have lodged a complaint with the state attorney general. People must have easy access to public records particularly if they directly effect the person making the request. We wish them well.

Sadly, even if they are vindicated they will achieve little more than a moral victory. Their complaint deals with the accuracy of house appraisals which determine one's tax bill, the assumption being that a fair appraisal will produce a fair tax, a right tax.

But is the right tax the one resulting from an accurate assessment? Traditional thinking says yes and people often appeal their assessments when they think they're too high after revaluation.

Now imagine Barrington resident, Mr. David B., sitting before the assessment review board having been shocked that his new tax bill is 42% higher than the prior year while the tax levy increased just 3.96%.

He felt that his property value increase of 30% was far too much. The board listened patiently and agree to a reduction in value of $35,000 bringing the increase to only 15%. David, happy with the board's decision, left satisfied.

In the afterglow of his victory David didn't realize that his new tax bill, while less than before, is still 25% higher than the year before. So, is David now paying the right tax? My concept of fairness says that David, and every other Barrington resident, should be paying 3.96% more to fund the 3.96% tax levy increase. That is the right tax but no existing owners will receive it because of the revaluation itself, which is fair only to new owners who choose the price of the house they buy and are correctly taxed on that market assessment, at that time.

It's wrong for everyone else.

Read more at the Righttax website link to the right.

Learning From History

2009-09-17T07:36:00.008-04:00

In the ongoing conversations about American involvement in wars across the globe reference is often made to what is arguably our most important war, World War II.

In a recent article in the Providence Journal the writer referred to Japan's attack of the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1941. He drew a parallel to our current involvement in Afghanistan suggesting that we need to apply the same resolve now as we did then, when we fought the Japanese.

I would like to ask what might have been different if, as we fought and killed Japanese soldiers (and civilians, as happens in all war) there were created more and more Japanese soldiers? I know this is a silly question to ask about fighting Japan or Germany back then.

But it isn't so silly now. The number of terrorists and terrorist attacks appear to be increasing rather than decreasing according to every survey in an internet search. So one has to ask, should we change our strategy in the face of this evidence or continue to apply the World War II model to the present "war on terror"?

Maybe It's Just Me

There's a black man in the White House

2009-09-16T11:41:00.005-04:00

With that pronouncement many feel really proud about how far we've come in our fight against racism and discrimination. Yet the statement itself shows how much farther we have to go.

President Barack Obama's genetic racial background is more white than black yet he still is described as a "black man". I guess it's better than being called black for one drop of African American blood but it's a far cry from where we need to be.

We have a long way yet to go.

Maybe It's Just Me.

Just Who Are They?

2009-09-14T09:00:00.004-04:00

You know those folks that show up at the town hall meetings with those "We want our country back" signs?

I'd like to ask them, "Back from whom?" When they say 'our country' just who is the 'our'?

Do they want the country for white Christians? to get it back from blacks and foreigners? to take it back from the poor and needy? the unemployed and sick?

So just who is America anyway? And who is it for?

Are Corporations People?

2009-08-24T08:07:00.009-04:00

It would be no exaggeration to suggest that Free Speech is fundamental to our American Democracy and one of the most basic rights protected by the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A continuing controversy persists about free speech when it relates to political speech however. For example, is a political contribution an exercise of free speech? Can contributions be excessive such that they might exert improper influence on the outcome of an election? If indeed, political contributions are considered the exercise of a First Amendment right can there be placed a limit on such contributions in the name or protecting free speech?

It gets even more murky when the 'free speech' is being exercised by a corporation. Are corporations people? In an April 2007 ruling Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro found that corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights that would be infringed . . . ." in a case involving doctors and drug companies.

It is no secret that corporations spend a lot of money in the support of particular candidates or legislation that is in their best interest. Is this free speech too? Should such campaign financing therefore be protected as free speech in such cases?

Central to this discussion is the decision in the late 1800's that established "the doctrine of corporate personhood -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings".

One might have serious doubts about such an interpretation of the First Amendment when one considers the different treatment of people and corporations in a court of law. One has to ask if a corporation has ever been or could be sentenced to life in prison (or even executed) should its deliberate and/or negligent actions be found to be directly responsible for the death of an individual, as would a person on trial in similar circumstances.

There is no shortage of articles describing corporate behavior which has directly caused serious injury or death of employees and customers. Tobacco, lead paint, mining disasters come to mind. Negligence in aircraft maintenance has been in the news recently with its tragic consequences.

In some cases individual executives have been singled out and punished but the standard response of courts has been some sort of fine or reprimand for the corporation.

Corporations do enjoy the privileges of 'personhood' but they certainly have few of the responsibilities or obligations of real people.

Clearly corporations are not persons and it's about time we stopped pretending that they are.

Maybe it's just me.

2009-08-14T06:23:00.008-04:00

New job opportunity: Director of Fear Mongering

What in the world is going on around the country? Have we just become gullible and lazy or have we always been so? Sarah Palin calls a provision of the health care bill a "death panel", Sen. Chuck Grassley worries that people might think that the government can coerce an older person to choose to die so he advocates removal of the provision in the bill that offers to cover end of life consultations.

And many people believe them!

On the other hand, since when does a medical consultation have to include anything in particular? It's a voluntary private conversation between a doctor and a patient, isn't it? And they're covered by Medicare so why in the world did the drafters of the bill even have to bring it up?

Foolish decisions all around.

A Crime Against Integrity

2009-08-07T06:34:00.009-04:00

Amazing.

So Rhode Island's Attorney General agreed on Thursday that there were two "bad checks", city employees behaved in a manner that was "unprofessional", "misguided", and "inexplicable" , and the superintendent of the state police called their behavior "unsettling".

On the same front page, the Board of Elections, also on Thursday, concluded that the Attorney General, in an unrelated matter, had not violated state statute by calling $9000 in his campaign spending "petty cash" when the law limits petty cash spending to $25.

In both instances complaints were dismissed and no crimes were found to have been committed.

I submit that there was a crime committed, a crime against integrity, a crime against the people who deserve to have admiration and confidence in their government.

I'd recommend that all involved read Stuart Chase's, "The Nemesis of American Business", written after the crash of 1929 during the Great Depression, especially Chapter 2, "The Luxury of Integrity"

Maybe it's just me.

Racism, Still

2009-07-21T14:21:00.007-04:00

The Gates story is inflating beyond control. For anyone who doesn't know, it seems that a distinguished Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct during a confrontation with a Cambridge, MA police officer investigating a reported break-in attempt at Gates' home.

From the newspaper account and the police report it would appear that Mr. Gates became outraged that a police officer would question him about the alleged break-in.

On the other hand the police office was indeed called by someone who witnessed two black men on the front porch apparently trying to break into the home on Ware St. in Cambridge.

Mr. Gates allegedly yelled at the police that the only reason he was questioned was that he "was a black man in America". In my view Mr. Gates was overly sensitive to his race as the precipitating factor in the officer's behavior which angered the officer.

On the other hand the police office should have used more common sense, and as soon as Prof. Gates' identity was confirmed he should have simply apologized for the misunderstanding and left the premises.

My take is that they both were guilty of feeling insulted and not accorded the respect to which each felt entitled.

All in all, a petty and provocative reaction by a Harvard professor and an over reaction by the police officer. In any case the latest news is that the charges have been dropped. Good.

There is plenty of real racism against which to fight without diluting and trivializing what in my opinion, is still the biggest problem facing this country, true racism.

The President didn't help either. He should have taken the opportunity to encourage dialogue on this most important issue facing the nation. Instead he took sides after saying he didn't know all the facts in the case. A missed opportunity, in my view.

Just Do It

2009-07-13T09:28:00.005-04:00

Just how can any thinking person object?

I suggested some time ago that the Secretary of State modify the Voter Handbooks that are distributed prior to elections to include more information about the Proposals that appear on the ballot. Currently the information is expressed in limited terms, too technical and confusing to the average voter and neglects to present any possible negative consequences of the proposal.

I propose that the Handbook shall present explanations of each proposal, pro and con, drafted by supporters and opponents using language that is acceptable to the Secretary of State as being objective representations of each position.

Do we choose to know little or nothing about the matters before us or do we prefer making informed decisions on the matters that concern us?

If we read this and do nothing we have made our choice.

Needs Saying Again

2009-07-07T07:14:00.004-04:00

I apologize to readers for bringing this up again but I believe that ethical government is the foundation of democracy without which everything else is window dressing.

Our Supreme Court has shown contempt for both Rhode Islanders and common sense in its recent 3-1 decision (William V. Irons v Rhode Island Ethics Commission).

It seems to me that unethical behavior of a legislator is of the greatest concern precisely where the Court claims it is no one else's business, during "speech and debate".

In 1986 the people passed by a huge majority, ethics legislation which amended the Rhode Island Constitution and the people have been ignored.

Tell Them We're Mad

2009-06-08T06:34:00.002-04:00

The editorial in the Journal on Monday, June 8, illuminated a puzzle; why do we keep sending poor legislators back year after year? One observation was that many candidates run unopposed. When voters are faced with such an option there is no way to express dissatisfaction other than to leave the candidate's name unchecked.

I'd recommend another option. I'd like to see an option to vote against an unopposed candidate; a check box or arrow that indicates a NO vote. It would be much more meaningful if the votes for an unopposed candidate elected with 2,400 votes looked like this instead:

YES 2,400

NO 4,400

We the people should have the opportunity to vote our dissatisfaction during an election other than by silence for an unopposed candidate. The candidate would still get elected but at least will know that people are mad.

Maybe it's just me.

Sound of Silence

2009-06-04T21:23:00.006-04:00

Today's (June 4, 2009) North East Independent carried a story about the poor performance of North Kingstown High School. It is one of about 15% of Rhode Island Schools that have missed NCLB targets for multiple years.

Several people and groups were referenced in the article including Superintendent Dr. Phil Thornton. There were statistics on different student groups in several areas of learning, especially math and reading and writing and they were deficient in most.

There was not one word mentioned about the teachers' union and its position on this critical topic. From their website:

The National Education Association North Kingstown is a professional organization dedicated to work for the welfare of school children, the advancement of education, and the improvement of instructional opportunities for all.

The news article was about the very issues to which the union claims to be dedicated yet their silence is deafening. If the article were about changes to retirement, work hours, salary, medical co-pay or tenure would they be silent?

They should be out front on this issue but I don't see any participation or suggestions. Why?

A Bump in The Road

2009-05-27T07:08:00.008-04:00

There was a commentary in the Journal today, May 27,2009 by Charles Chieppo and Joseph Giglio, "In Mass., user fees best way to pay for roads." In it, the authors advocate that people who use roads the most should pay the most for them and they recommend that we use electronic technology to charge people accordingly.

The authors write, "When it comes to roads, most agree that how much you pay should be commensurate with the benefits you derive."

I'm no professor or professional public policy writer but I do have some serious questions about their assumptions and suggestions.

For example, if the Johnson family drives every Sunday from Boston to Cranston to visit their elderly grandmother Mabel, exactly who benefits the most from the use of the roads, grandma Mabel or the Johnsons?

When the trucker delivers his load of fresh produce to the market is he the beneficiary of good roads or is it the market owner, or is it we the consumers, who benefit the most? It's pretty clear to me that good roads benefit everyone, just as do efficient police protection and fire protection and public education.

This is a poorly thought out idea, which is in fact, just another way to provide more revenue for cash strapped states. I agree that the revenue problem is serious and needs to be solved but let's not delude ourselves by pretending that this suggestion is in some way a fairness issue. It isn't.

There are those who see government as a necessary evil and others who see government as the answer to our problems. It is neither and it is both. Our task is to define, as carefully and precisely as possible, what role government should play in our lives.

Maintenance of public roadways and infrastructure is one of those roles and should be paid for with public funds. Our challenge is to guarantee that government spends our money wisely and with greater care and respect for the taxpayer.

Tax Exempt Property 101

2009-05-25T10:18:00.005-04:00

There are many worthy organizations and businesses that do good works; churches, hospitals, universities and colleges and charitable organizations, all provide humane and important services and are rewarded with tax exempt status.

In such cases the property owned by these organizations and used in the performance of their routine functions are not taxed. Most agree that it is only right to provide support for these worthy organizations and the other businesses and residents, through their property taxes, pay the share of the tax exempts who also receive benefits such as road maintenance, fire and police protection, maintenance of public spaces etc.

Communities obviously vary in population, infrastructure, size, and industrial density. Because of this, some communities are more attractive to tax exempt organizations. On July 21, 2008, Providence City Council President Peter Mancini, in a special section to the Providence Business News said "We’re almost at 50 percent tax-exempt real estate". This means that just 50% of the property owners are paying 100% of the tax levy - their portion and the portion of the tax exempts.

This is clearly unjust and unfair to the property owners of Providence and other towns with the larger percentages of tax exempt property.

One approach would be to charge fees to various organizations but it will produce ill will and resistance and some groups will always feel they have been unfairly and unreasonably taxed. There is a lot of push back to Mayor Cicillini's efforts to authorize new local taxes on private colleges, universities and hospitals.

And if the extra revenue is used to fill holes in the budget instead of being used to bring relief to beleaguered tax payers, they too will feel betrayed. This piecemeal approach fails to deal with the underlying problem of unfair distribution of tax burdens.

It is for this reason that the following plan is offered for consideration.

The General Assembly shall determine the *percentage of tax exempt property that any community will be required to support. For simplicity let's assume that percentage is 10%. In this case the remaining 90% of the community will pay the 10% tax exempts' share, who pay nothing.

As the percentage of tax exempts increases they will begin to share in funding of the tax levy through a tax on their property according to the following simple formula: Their property tax shall be a percentage of the standard property tax equal to the difference between the percentage of tax exempt property in the community and the 10% allowed by law.

For example, should a community actually have 16% tax exempt property each tax exempt property will be taxed 6% (16% minus 10%) of the normal tax on said property. As the percentage of tax exempts increases so shall their contribution to the tax levy. If, as in Providence, the percentage reaches 50%, the tax exempts would pay 40% of the normal property tax an their property (50% minus 10%).

*The actual numbers used shall be determined by careful analysis so as not to be unreasonable to any of the involved parties while standardizing the process for all. The General Assembly can also provide for different rates depending on the nature of the organizations. Some might even remain tax free.

The taxes would be levied in a manner that is sensitive to the value tax exempt organizations bring to a community while not unfairly burdening others whose property is not tax exempt.

Maybe It's Just Me

Time For And

2009-05-18T08:31:00.002-04:00

In a recent Projo Commentary, "RI should stop trying to pick winners", a main theme was that markets are the best and most efficient way to determine whether policies are working. A fundamental premise of markets is reliance on "cost benefit analysis to guide... policy".

To most of us, cost benefit analysis emphasizes the amount of money spent compared to the amount of money earned. While this is undoubtedly important we must acknowledge that there are "costs" and "benefits" other than financial. For this 'human' analysis, markets are not very good judges.

The more conservative view places most of its faith in the traditional market view while the more liberal view emphasizes the human factors.

We seem to fight about which is the right view, the best view, and insist on EITHER/OR solutions. We desperately need "AND" solutions.

Saving money is important to commercial and residential taxpayers AND it's also important that we care for the needy and the homeless.

Good benefits and pay for union members are important AND it's important for taxpayers to be able to pay their own bills as well as for those benefits.

For far too long this bipolar paradigm, that only one viewpoint is the right one, has stifled our potential and it's high time to stop this "either / or" battle. We can do better.

Ethics

2009-05-14T06:34:00.002-04:00

There has been a lot of print devoted to government ethics these past weeks. In particular, Sen. William Irons claims that his conviction is faulty because he is protected from the Ethics Commission probe by the Rhode Island Constitution's Section 5. "For any speech in debate in either house, no member shall be questioned in any other place."

This seems a bit odd to me, a non attorney, but isn't unethical behavior of most concern to taxpayers precisely where Mr. Irons claims it is no one else's business?

The solution appears to be that the Legislature investigate the case brought to its attention by the Ethics Commission. If it refuses, then it would fail to perform its duty under Section 4. of the Constitution, "-- No member of the general assembly shall take any fee, or be of counsel in any case pending before either house of the general assembly, under penalty of forfeiture of seat, upon proof thereof to the satisfaction of the house in which the member sits."

The Senate must take responsibility to police its own members.

Are They Limits or Targets?

2009-05-05T15:44:00.005-04:00

The Rhode Island legislature has passed a law (S3050) requiring town tax levy increases to have annual limits gradually dropping to 4% by 2013.

This puts towns who have tried hard to limit costs in an awkward situation. If a town were able to hold the levy to a low or even zero percent increase for example, the following year's allowable increase will be based on that low levy. On the other hand, were the town to increase the levy the maximum, it would be entitled to the same percentage increase the next year but based on a higher amount.

A town which is conscientious in holding expenses can effectively be punished by that decision creating an incentive for the town to request more than it really needs, just in case. The limit becomes a target.

Wouldn't it better to amend the current law so that towns can "bank" the unused portion of any allowable increase? This amount of money could be made available to increase the limit in the event of a shortfall in a subsequent year, subject to certain restrictions and time limits upon application to the state. This could also reduce or eliminate litigation involved with a Caruolo action.

In this way a town could try its best to hold down taxes while not being punished in future years should real need arise.

But maybe it's just me.

OK to Lie?

2009-05-01T08:45:00.002-04:00

In a recent Providence Journal article the writer mentioned legislation which a committee of the General Assembly would "hold for further study". It occurred to me that there must be hundreds of bills languishing in committee, being held for further study that never actually get further study. In fact, they lied.

They simply pat us on the head when we introduce bills through our elected representatives and senators, telling us, "Now, now, that's very interesting and we'll look into it, now go outside and play like good little children".

I believe that lying to a legislative committee is a pretty serious offense and can even get a president impeached. How come the committee can get away with it?

Maybe it's just me

Photo-Op, Cheap

2009-04-29T13:22:00.003-04:00

How dumb can one be not to realize the impact on New Yorkers of a low flying jumbo jet? And what about the cost? $328,000!

I did it for free and never left home.

From Intolerance to Fear

2009-04-24T08:14:00.005-04:00

In a recent Providence Journal letter to the editor, "Can't be natural and unnatural" Apr. 23, 2009, the writer notes that some people believe homosexuality is a 'natural occurring anomaly', and he compares it to other natural anomalies such as "robbing a bank, raping a child, or killing your wife and children".

Is there no limit to the level will people sink to justify their intolerance and hatred and fear of someone different?

Can anyone explain how any homosexual marriage might threaten, not just traditional marriage but the "perpetuation of the human race" as the writer suggests?

For homosexual marriage to indeed threaten the perpetuation of the human race it would, by definition, have to become natural law and replace traditional marriage. I think we can rest easy.

To Torture or Not To Torture

2009-04-22T17:18:00.003-04:00

There's been a lot of talk on the cable networks, talk radio and newspapers about what is and what isn't torture. There was even a recent report about the training that our personnel received where they are subjected to the very techniques in question; waterboarding, sleep deprivation and others so that they might be better prepared for possible capture.

The conclusion in this study was that since these folks didn't suffer permanent psychological or physical damage that the techniques didn't rise to the definition of torture. They investigators were influenced by this in particular: "For survivors, torture often leads to lasting mental and physical health problems."

The investigators concluded that since the Americans who were tortured as part of their training didn't suffer lasting harmful effects that such techniques did not constitute torture under the definition. I'm no psychologist but what level of intelligence would not see the difference between Americans being 'tortured' by Americans as part of training and people being subject to the identical techniques, isolated in a foreign country by sworn enemies? Are they fools?

This brings me to the latest flap about releasing the CIA memos and holding those in charge, responsible for torture policy. Former Vice President Dick Cheney (he brings an expanded meaning to "vice") insists that there were productive results from the techniques in question and thus they were justified.

I'd like to ask Mr. Cheney if he believed that tearing the arms out of a terror suspect might produce useful information would he allow it?

From his talking points it seems he would. If this represents America, may heaven help us all.

Is Segregation the Problem?

2009-04-14T19:22:00.009-04:00

I just finished reading "The Shame of The Nation" by Jonathan Kozol. In it he documents the de facto segregation of public education in America, apartheid if you will. His statistics are numbing and depressing. And this unofficial segregation today is as bad as it ever was before Brown v Board of Education, 1954 and the Civil Rights Act, 1964.

That Blacks and Hispanics in America perform poorly in public schools will come as no surprise to anyone. Mr. Kozol implies that the underlying cause for this is first and foremost, segregation and second, unequal spending on students in these segregated schools. Additionally he believes that the emphasis of No Child Left Behind on strict education by specific protocol and accountability testing actually harms hoped for outcomes. Again, here his observations are persuasive.

When I finished the book however, I was plagued by a sense that something was missing.

The primary emphasis was that segregation in schools in poor neighborhoods produced inferior education for their students with dropout rates of as much as 40% for black students. According to Mr. Kozol the all white schools in affluent neighborhoods rob the poorer schools of critical funding, siphon off the best teachers resulting in superior outcomes with the vast majority of students in these schools graduating and going on to college.

But aren't these also segregated schools? Has segregation hurt them?

So should we segregate schools? Of course not. It is not only illegal, it is reprehensible and immoral. Conflating the education problem in America with segregation, however tempting, is an oversimplification. Requiring integration of schools will not improve student performance of primarily non-white schools in poor neighborhoods.

Another of Mr. Kozol's observations is that poor neighborhood schools are underfunded. This is undeniably true. The conditions in these schools are too often deplorable and must be rectified. Students can not learn without books, study materials, a safe environment, clean surroundings and a sense that people care about them. Teachers are being asked to do the impossible, teaching in the typical minority school with its faulty bathrooms, oversized classes, lack of study supplies, peeling paint and leaky windows. This is a disgrace and must be reversed, yesterday.

However, if anyone believes that sprucing up these facilities to match the more affluent schools will fix education for the disadvantaged, they are foolish. It may make lawmakers feel proud that they did something wonderful for their constituents, but did they? You can rent Boston Symphony Hall, hire the Boston Pops, put Keith Lockhart on the podium, dress me in an Armani tuxedo, sit me down in front of the most expensive Steinway in the world, and you will have thrown away a lot of money. I never learned to play the piano.

No, Mr. Kozols observations, while not exactly untrue, lead him to only partial solutions. We can never really fix the education problem doing only what he suggests since he skims over what I believe is the fundamental problem.

Until we come to grips with the fact that the children most at risk have already begun to lose the battle long before they ever get to school we are doomed to more of the same disappointment and failure. None of Mr. Kozol's suggestions include the parents and families of these kids.

Who are the children's earliest teachers? How frequently do the most disadvantaged children come from homes with no father, mothers on welfare and uneducated themselves, with little or no work ethic or work experience, with no tradition of independence and productivity?

It is my belief that when any child is perceived to have a problem in school, parents and family must be involved if this child is to have any chance at survival, any chance to realize his or her potential, any chance to escape a bleak, too often abbreviated future.

No laws, no amount of money, will work until the social and cultural deficits are acknowledged and addressed. We have to stop expecting our schools and teachers to be parents and, especially in the preschool years, we have to help parents learn how to be teachers.

So, do we have an education problem or do we have a family problem? Yes.

You Aint Seen Nuthin' Yet

2009-03-28T13:27:00.010-04:00

Property tax increases are in the news once again. This time it's Barrington, RI where the citizens have finally said enough! The ire has been directed at Vision Appraisal who did the revaluation last year.

The fact is that even with perfect appraisals, the distribution of the tax burden will always be unfair to large groups of owners. And that's because individuals can get as much as a 100% tax increase while the law limits the total tax levy increase to 4.75% this year. And if you look at the data you will find that as most people get increases greater than 4.75%, thousands of people will pay lower taxes.

So the anger and outrage will continue.

But to quote Al Jolsen, "You aint seen nuthin yet".

Try to imagine what will happen after the next revaluation when people get lower assessments yet still see higher tax bills. And make no mistake, this will happen. Why? Because values don't change uniformly whether markets are on the way up or on the way down and there are always people who will get higher tax bills to make up for the ones who get lower tax bills.

Some neighborhoods will drop in value less than others and these owners will get the larger tax increases while the other owners will get smaller increases and thousands will even get decreases. If the multi million dollar home values fall more than the more modest homes, the owners of the more modest homes will be the ones to take up the burden with higher taxes. No one knows for sure which houses will go up or down the most. It's a crap shoot and it's the way we've been doing it for years. One thing is sure however, there will be wide variations in the changes, and the outrage will be even greater.

This is a system that continues to utilize the flawed model of taxing property values over time, that has taken our economy for a joy ride for decades, but the ride is over.

On our website you can see the impact of revaluations in Cranston, West Warwick, and North Kingstown after recent revaluations and compare those traditional taxes with the taxes produced by the RIGHT plan. The differences are striking.

We believe it is a much better way to pay for local government. Fair taxes for new owners, dependable revenue for towns, limits on increases for all existing owners. Visit http://righttax.org

Have Capitalists Killed Capitalism?

2009-03-13T09:14:00.056-04:00

Capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

It might be said that the goal of any economic system is the production of goods and services which a population values and wants. If those products are priced fairly the consuming public will purchase them, the producers will make profits which can then be used to grow their businesses, hire more people and expand the economy, creating more wealth, and so on...

So what just happened?

Maybe we lost site of the goal: to produce products which have value for the consuming public. It seems the more ethically challenged of Wall Street and our financial markets thought they had achieved the alchemist's dream; they found a way to create something out of nothing, which they then sold at a profit. And this is how they did it.

They convinced gullible and/or naive buyers that the rising home prices will continue and that market values are no different than real money, just like money in a bank. These buyers then borrowed on that so called "market value", often more than they could afford to pay back, believing that if they got into financial trouble, they could always sell their homes at a higher price, and come away with a profit.

(NB. The only time the market value is real is when a willing buyer buys from a willing seller. That agreed upon price is generally considered "market value". )

The predators in the financial and banking industries then took these mortgages, bundled them together so that they were impossible to analyze and price fairly, then sold them as 'investments', taking their cut of course, thus creating wealth for themselves without actually producing anything of true value. They even gave them important sounding names like - Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps etc.

The goal was no longer the production of products or services to produce a profit; it now was only the creation of capital, money, for their own benefit. That nothing useful was produced in the process was of no importance. Gordon Gekko lives. For the cinematically challenged, Gordon Gecko, in the movie "Wall Street" pronounced "Greed is good!"

And worse still, it was based on an illusion, a Ponzi scheme - the idea that the market value of anything is no different than real money, instead of what it actually is; a best guess, a hope, a gamble. We have built our financial markets on illusions, a gamble and we are now suffering the consequences of that pipe dream. We've been "Madoffed". (The illusion, the market price of property, also serves as the basis for funding local government. Property taxes based on market prices are responsible for the incredibly unfair distribution of the property tax burden after every revaluation. )

I hope we can return to our original goals - making high quality things and providing high quality services that people want and can afford. The profits will follow.

The economy, what else?

2009-03-03T10:37:00.005-05:00

It seems to me that the government is using an indirect approach to fix our ailing economy. If the infusions of cash to failing banks and lending institutions do make it possible for them to lend money, then to whom do they lend it? Businesses that have no business? Retailers who have no customers? If the consumer stops consuming, everything grinds to a halt, credit or no credit.

Maybe consumers could be given a percentage off of certain retail purchases for say, a year. They could submit sales receipts (automated at the register) to the federal government who would immediately reimburse consumers directly, instead of giving the trillions to the businesses who have been so badly run in the first place.

This direct action will have immediate effects, would quickly stimulate business activity and unstick the economy. For example, the total retail and food services expenditures (excluding autos and parts) in 2006 was $3.9 Trillion dollars. An instant 10% rebate would cost about $390 Billion. Sounds like a better option than giving $390 Billion to AIG, GM, Bank America.

Maybe its just me.

Cancer: Lemons to Lemonade

2009-02-27T09:20:00.009-05:00

Cancer is the diagnosis no one wants to hear. For some, treatment is getting better and survival rates are rising; for others it can be a death sentence. Still others find themselves in a sort of limbo, receiving chemotherapy, not getting much better, not getting worse. For much of the time, between chemo treatments, it's poor sleep, nausea, joint pains, general malaise, extreme fatigue and worse. The rest of the time the severity of the symptoms can lessen but they're never really gone.

Do they have to continue this way forever? What if they stop the chemo? Can they reduce the frequency? Can they reduce the dose? What are their options? Not unreasonable questions, are they?

Patients would welcome some guidance, some help in making a choice. If they ask their doctor, "What do the statistics show?" The answer will most often be, "We don't know"!

I have contacted the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, The FDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services trying to get these answers. Essentially they all said the same thing, they don't use historical hospital data. Eli Lilly, the maker of one recent cancer drug, Alimta, said the same thing adding only that the "standard dose is to be delivered every 21 days". When asked if they follow up hospital records to assess benefits or effectiveness of long term use they replied, "We don't have that data". After 6 months can the dose be safely reduced? "We don't have that data".

Surely patients have already made such choices in the past. Where is the information about those choices?

The sad truth is that the data is there, in every hospital, in patient records. It simply is not coordinated and analyzed. I asked an oncologist at the Dana Farber Cancer Center, one of the worlds finest cancer hospitals, if they pull their past data together to help answer these questions; "We don't have such studies." Individual doctors of course can review their own cases and try to draw conclusions but doctors are very busy treating patients and don't have the time or expertise to consolidate this data in a way that is scientifically useful. How ironic.

Pharmaceutical companies spend millions doing prospective studies on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs but once the drugs are brought to market there apparently is no effort to evaluate effectiveness after prolonged use. There should be follow-up. These questions deserve answers.

What if certain cancer drugs become less effective over time? These are not innocuous chemicals. They are toxic, they kill good cells along with the bad cancer cells, they make patients feel awful, and they cost a fortune. And when asked if their effectiveness diminishes over time we're told, "We don't know".

The federal government has announced a push to standardize and computerize patient hospital records to reduce errors and cut costs. This is a good thing.

And we should build on this and make it possible for investigators to access this data to analyze continued effectiveness of various treatments for cancer as well as other diseases. If the records were designed with a standardized format to include all data necessary for a scientifically valid retrospective analysis it would provide an enormous amount of information for doctors and patients. We have an extraordinary opportunity here in Rhode Island to do this. The data is there, waiting, in our hospitals and across the country.

What if we found that some long term treatments can be significantly reduced without danger? Think of the savings, think of the benefits to patients. It be wonderful for the Rhode Island Department of Health to embark on such a mission - to standardize and digitize all patient records while respecting patient privacy.

Rhode Island currently does keep track of cancer and related diseases (see Hospital Association of Rhode Island), but the reporting is not exhaustive and does not systematically track individual changes to treatment and their effect on outcomes.

This initiative will require creation of a team drawn from the Rhode Island medical community, including hospital and medical school staff, whose task it will be to standardize medical records, gather, analyze and publish the results in journals and on-line. This effort could serve as a model in which Rhode Island's medical community leads the way and helps our doctors provide even better medical care for our citizens.

Are We Doomed to Self(ish) Service?

2009-02-13T11:42:00.005-05:00

You're either with us or against us is the philosophy that has gotten us where we are and it's a lousy place to be.

But the evidence abounds that this "either/or" mentality rules and when it comes to union issues it seems most visible.

When members of a private sector union are asked to sacrifice benefits for a company, they know that those sacrifices will benefit stock holders, executives, the company bottom line and their lenders - not necessarily bad things, but not something that will appeal to a worker's altruism and better nature.

When a municipal union member is asked to sacrifice benefits, is it because the stockholders want more profits, the executives need more compensation than their already obscene pay, or the city isn't wealthy enough?

Of course not. It's because the city, with the available revenue, is having trouble providing the services expected by everyone. If it's not possible to reduce costs then reduced services will surely follow.

If we don't see a difference, then our unions are in danger of becoming no better than their original foes - the selfish business owners who didn't want to give an inch to their employees. Only now it's the unions who won't give an inch to their employers, the property tax payers. We have to do better.

Will We Ever Not Be Stupid?

2009-02-07T10:48:00.005-05:00

Read the blogs, read the papers, listen to talk radio, watch TV. It's the same everywhere.

The [you choose: right, left, Republican, Democrats, unions, businesses, liberals, conservatives] are un-American and think only of themselves. They are clueless and if you listen to them they will destroy this country we all love (except them, of course)

Can it be that we're really so dumb as to believe that only one side has exclusive access to the right answers and all the others are wrong?

Will we ever be able to stop and actually listen to each other. When (if) we finally do, we will benefit from the combined wisdom of our people and be the America we once were.

Maybe President Obama will let it happen. We can hope.

Dick Cheney's Comments

2009-02-04T17:37:00.003-05:00

Dick Cheney was quoted in an interview with Politico.com on his views on terrorism and the Obama administration;

"The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected.”

Mr. Cheney is at least partly right but I don't believe he's using the words he really means. I think he has conflated respect with fear and really means we must be feared if we are to be safe from a terrorist attack. Fear results from displaying power and military strength, being ruthless and flexing muscle.

Mr. Cheney, respect has to be earned by our deeds and principles. When we have once again regained the respect that we once had we will indeed be safer than we are now. On the other hand, fear spawns mistrust and even hatred which is exactly what the last eight years have given us.

So, Mr. Cheney, you are right. We need to be respected. If only you understood the difference between respect and fear.

When is investing not investing?

2009-02-04T14:53:00.010-05:00

Most everyone is affected by the recent financial meltdown in the stock market and the economy in general. Millions have seen their investments in their retirement plans lose a huge part of their value and they are justifiably worried.

Since you have no influence on stock prices once you purchase them, are they really investments or should it more accurately be called gambling?

Some definitions of gambling include:

1) anything involving risk or uncertainty

2) take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome

This sounds much more like what we do when we "invest" in the stock market. In fact when we buy a house with the goal of making a profit when we sell it aren't we doing the same thing? Indeed, we are gambling.

On the other hand if one buys a house to live in while raising a family or to enjoy retirement, we are more like the business owner who invests in his business. We too, maintain value by keeping our home well cared for and updated. We even may increase its value and if and when we decide to sell the home it may even be at a profit. So much the better.

But if our home is worth a little more or even less when it comes time to sell, have we not enjoyed our 'investment' all the years we have owned it and lived in it? This is a true investment.

We need to rethink our notions of investments and gambling. When we buy stocks and lose money on them we need to understand that we have lost a gamble; we made a bet and lost. If the price goes up our bet has paid off. It's a gamble not an investment. Our so called investment is actually a crap shoot and the most we can expect is that the dice aren't loaded.

If our pension plans 'invest' in the market and lose value we can be disappointed but don't whine about it. We lost a bet. If you don't want risk, don't gamble.

It's an ugly truth that transparency, oversight and basic honesty have been in short supply, and those in charge on Wall Street and in Congress need to be taken behind the woodshed. Despicable, greedy, dishonest behavior needs to be stopped, and punished and soon.

But the bottom line is that our economy has been built on gambling, and as any good gambler knows, you have to "know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em".

And let's not be stupid - always keep some 'real' money in the bank for emergencies. (preferably a bank that isn't getting a bailout)

But maybe it's just me.

Did you see this?

2009-01-21T14:34:00.006-05:00

Did you catch this in President Obama's inaugural on Tuesday?

"It is the. . . selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose a job that sees us through our darkest hours."

When I recently suggested in a letter to the editor that teachers' union concessions would help ordinary Rhode Islanders, not corporate executives and shareholders, to weather this financial storm, I was trounced by union members suggesting I was just anti-union.

Why aren't they criticizing President Obama?

Some good news for Rhode Islanders?

2009-01-21T06:42:00.003-05:00

Tucked away on page B3 of the Projo, January 21, 2009, was an article, "Supreme court to hear ethics appeal", which is certainly good news for Rhode Island citizens. In fact the Supreme Court decision may have a greater impact on us than the hugely important Inauguration of President Obama.

I hope that all Rhode Islander follow this case, which can determine whether or not RI lawmakers can be held to some standard of ethical behavior instead of ignoring the people. The current "speech in debate" clause is an impediment to honest and just government.

Politics v Ethics

2009-01-02T14:24:00.005-05:00

Robert Benson Jr., in his Providence Journal, Jan. 2, Commentary, "Legislators can ignore ethics law" asks "Where's the outrage and protest?"

His concerns are real and frightening for every Rhode Islander no matter what party. Article VI, Section 5 of our state constitution says: "For any speech in debate, in any house, no member shall be questioned in any other place." Judge Francis Darigan has ruled that this provision means that a State Senator can not be prosecuted by the State Ethics Commission for his actions (read; votes) in the General Assembly.

The response in the local blogs to this piece was about whether more Democrats than Rebublicans were being held up as bad examples. This serves only to deflect attention away from an extremely important and serious decision by a Superior Court judge and turns it into nothing more than partisan posturing.

That's not what is important here. This is not a political issue, it's an ethics issue.

If current language in the Constitution insulates Senators or Representatives from charges of ethics violations, then that language must be changed, either by changing the Constitution itself or a challenge before the Supreme Court. As it stands now, this makes a mockery of our ethics laws.

Mr. Benson is right. Every one of us should be outraged.

Private v Public Unions

2008-12-24T13:48:00.001-05:00

I believe our best teachers are underpaid, yes, underpaid, and that our very high per pupil costs come from other than teacher salaries. This must be remembered when we try to address a very serious problem facing cities and towns.

It is no secret that our cities and towns are struggling to pay for services and also stay within the tax levy increase limits. As revenues from the state are lower than last year, towns need to replace that lost revenue. One easy answer is to increase property taxes on a population that is already paying among the highest in the country. This will not sit well.

Another choice is to look for cost savings, and unions, especially teachers' unions, will surely be asked to re-negotiate contracts. This of course, will be met with resistance. But I hope everyone will keep the following in mind in these tough times.

When private sector unions make concessions, their sacrifices will go to companies whose executives often make millions in salaries and to shareholders whose dividends can benefit from those concessions.

When a public sector union makes concessions the beneficiaries are not high priced executives but the people, the homeowners, the citizens of Rhode Island. That is an important difference.

I know this will not make me very popular in some circles but I believe it needs to be said. It's not us against them. We have to work together and we'll get through this.

Let Teachers Teach

2008-12-14T14:48:00.015-05:00

In the Commentary in the Dec. 14, Sunday Journal, "Great Public schools belong in R.I." by Daniel McKee, mayor of Cumberland, he makes some excellent points, first and foremost, that public education is arguably the most important issue we face both locally and nationally.

I think most people will agree that our students are our most valuable and precious treasure and that quality education is our most important goal.

The article suggests that the answer is to bring in new education models such as Mayoral Academies, which claim to consistently outperform Rhode Island's public schools by wide margins.

We should do whatever we can to improve student performance. But is bypassing the existing public school system the best, most cost efficient way? Would it not be better to utilize the existing teacher and educator expertise and let them work with others to develop and implement the changes needed to reach the goal of academic excellence?

However, I do see one enormous obstacle - the Teachers' Contract.

In North Kingstown's contract there are 26 Titles and 2 Appendices. All of them deal in some fashion with the obligations of the schools to the teachers. Not one paragraph specifies the obligation of the teachers to student performance.

There are no requirements for example, that student performance be improved in any measurable way. There are however four pages specifying limiting class size and teaching hours. There are eleven pages regarding sick leave and absences but not one defining teacher responsibilities and performance.

The entire contract is weighted heavily in favor of teachers' wishes ignoring the school department, students or taxpayers. At first blush it is easy to blame the unions for this lopsided document but in truth the unions are doing their job. Their first obligation is to the teachers, despite their frequent battle cry, "It's for the kids". That is simply a ruse; it's for the teachers and that's what they have been hired to do.

It's the School Committee that has failed in its obligation to provide the best education for our children and has simply bowed to union demands whenever "for the kids" conflicts with "for the teachers". For example, if the School Committee were to close a school due to drop in enrollment saving the cost of fifteen teachers, they could only eliminate ten because the contract sets the number to ten. We'd have to pay for five unnecessary teachers. "For the Kids"? Hardly. I'll bet if teachers were able to work with planners without union influence they could come up with an outline that would be far better for both the taxpayers and the children.

The Town Council should establish an Education Panel to outline needs and goals and, together with the School Committee, set forth an agenda which would include, at minimum, major consolidations, reduction of and restructuring of the bureaucracy, pay increases for the better teachers and the introduction of merit pay.

Before adding another educational system give the current system one year to satisfy that goal. If it fails then we can move on.

The Elephant in the Room

2008-12-05T16:45:00.005-05:00

I recall some months ago when the automakers requested money, some congressmen wondered out loud whether it was a good idea to send money to help the very people that were responsible for the auto manufacturers' problems.

Watching the hearings over the past few days no one has had the guts to make this a condition for the 'bailout'. They were outraged then but now they seem afraid to require that the CEO's hand over control to someone else who will change the direction of the industry as a condition for receiving $Billions of our money.

Just an observation.