What is a Constitution?

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the behavior of a state. The word “ought” expresses a duty or obligation but is not the same as a rule.  The US Constitution does not have one occurrence of the word “ought” in it. 

But the word “ought” appears six times in the Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1. eg;

• “the burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens”  
• “Every person ought to obtain right and justice freely”. 
• “punishments ought to be proportioned to the offense”.

Our constitution should follow the US Constitution and state the rules clearly and positively with no ambiguity.

• “the burdens of the state shall be fairly distributed among its citizens”  
• “Every person shall obtain right and justice freely”. 
• “punishments shall to be proportioned to the offense”.

would be language befitting our constitution.

Maybe it's just me.

Who votes against good bills?

When reporting on the votes on Bills to the General Assembly I would urge the reporter to list the names of those who voted for and against.  Perhaps if legislators knew that the public would see in print who voted against popular bills such as Ethics Legislation they might think twice.  We might get better legislation too.

American Exceptionalism

There was a letter to the editor in the Providence Journal on Friday, Apr 3, "Students right to defend their pride in America ", which said in part: "Moreover, if the fools to whom we entrust our posterity’s education can’t let go of their screwball ideological positions long enough to actually teach our kids the truth about who we are and what we stand for as a nation, then maybe it’s time to get some new teachers!".

It reminded me of an incident which happened many decades ago when my children were small.  My middle daughter came home crying because she told us that our next door neighbor's son fought with her and beat her up.

I called the neighbor and told her that her boy beat up on my daughter and came home in tears.  Her response was that she would always support her son, no matter what, right or wrong.

Sounds like the letter writer believes the same thing about our country. The great truth about our country is that when we find something wrong we are willing to fix it. I don't believe that's a "screwball ideological position".

In some respects the property tax is the best tax.  When a town sets a budget it knows exactly how much it will need from the citizens (the tax levy) and no other tax method can produce a specified amount as this can.  But is the property tax fair to all property owners every year?

By valuing all property, a rate can be set to produce the tax levy. 

Until 1998, revaluations were required once every 10 years.  Back then some towns revalued even less  often and some tax assessors were actually unable to tell me the date of their last revaluation.  But towns still collected the required tax levy every year.

During those early years property values remained fairly stable and most people saw their taxes change in step with the changes in the budget. But things changed dramatically in early 2000 and property values escalated.  People were buying property at increasing values and being taxed on older assessments.  Property owners rightly felt this was unfair.

The solution was to require triennial revaluations. New owners would now pay taxes based on fair market values.

But what was the impact on the rest of the property owners? Were their property tax increases used for the tax levy or for something else?

Let's imagine that one year, say 2007 which was a revaluation year, North Kingstown did not increase its tax levy.  NO tax increase.  The taxes would have looked like this:

For residential properties up to $100K the average tax would have increased 64.5%

For residential properties from $100K to $200K the average tax would have increased 13.6%

For residential properties from $200K to $500K the average tax would have decreased -0.4%

For residential properties from $500K to $1M the average tax would have decreased -5.4%

For residential properties from $1M to $5M the average tax would have decreased -11.6%

In 2007 owners of the lower priced properties would have received large tax increases which did not go to the town but merely lowered the taxes of other tax payers, in this case the owners of more valuable properties.

How can anyone call this fair?  We can have a system that taxes both new and existing owners fairly every year.  There is a solution. 

For more see R.I.G.H.T.

In the  Washington Post, November 26, 2014 Joann Weiner writes “The evidence is overwhelming. Diversity – gender, racial, ethnic, whatever – is good. Companies that put a priority on innovation are worth more when women hold top leadership positions. These companies are $44 million more valuable, on average, according to a multiyear academic study of Standard and Poor’s top 1,500 firms.”  But is diversity the real reason?

I believe when women get those leadership positions they must be more aggressive, more talented and more qualified than the men who had held those positions. This is still a man’s domain and I suggest that these women are just better in their jobs and that diversity alone has little to do with the success of those companies. They have better managers.

Global warming, real or fake?

There has been so much in the news about global warming and whether it is real or a hoax.  My opinion won't change any minds but I'd like to suggest the following to help us make a sensible and beneficial choice.

The argument swirls around which side is right, the climate deniers or the climate scientists. I suggest that we instead use a different approach: the consequences one side or the other being wrong.

If the believers get their way but are wrong, we will have spent multiple billions of dollars on non-polluting renewable energy sources at the cost of huge financial burdens on current energy suppliers. But we will have a higher quality of air and water and thus will our overall quality of life benefit. Oil imports will plummet reducing or eliminating the influence of mid east oil on our economy and foreign policies.

On the other hand, if the deniers prevail but are wrong, we will have saved billions of dollars, but rising waters will devastate shorelines throughout the world, temperature extremes and severe weather will continue to increase, ocean temperatures will rise, marine and animal life will be significantly affected with major extinctions likely. Agriculture will be severely altered increasing the likelihood of mass starvations worldwide.

Perhaps this simple thought exercise might help some to decide which is the better choice.

Exactly what's the problem?

Here on the beach we have a wonderful facility for our citizens.

To keep things clean we have a sign posted:


This morning I was walking along the beach and came across this lovely sight.

It wasn't dogs. Should we modify the sign?

How are we doing?

In an article about Rep. Gordon Fox's resignation in the Providence Journal, March 24, Rep. Nicholas Mattiello was quoted as saying that his "biggest concern is uniting and unifying the House".  Is that necessarily a worthy goal? In 2013 one party held 93% of the House seats and it's been this way for too many years.

I'm an independent voter and it seems to me that such a dominance of one party over the other makes for a greater chance for poor government not better government, regardless of party.

I'm reminded of Ed Koch, ex Mayor of NYC, who used to ask "How am I doing?"  I too have to ask, "How are we doing"?

Must be hard to be a lawyer.

In the Journal today (March 14, 2014) was an article, "Mother of molested teen urges change  in assault law". It seems there was a "loophole" that allowed her son's attacker to get off because there apparently was no "surprise" when he reached into the boy's shorts and touched his genitals as the boy was taking pictures on the East Bay Bike Path.

The new law might now enable conviction if the state can prove one "engaged in a sexual act against a person's wishes through force or coercion or through surprise for the purpose of sexual gratification".

Please forgive me for being so radical but isn't engaging in sex against a person's wishes enough? The perpetrator has to surprise the victim and be gratified too?  Are we crazy?

Pesky facts

Facts can be funny things.

“Minimum-wage hike = minimum sense”, Jay Ambrose’s  Providence Journal on December 6, 2013, got me thinking about how we react to what we are told are “facts”.  Some “facts” in the article:

   FACT: ”... under 3% of the workforce get the minimum wage”. 

This implies that it really wouldn’t wouldn’t be such a big deal. I think it would be a pretty big deal to those 4.6 million people.

   FACT:... “Hike the minimum wage and some people do get more, but others get fired or get fewer hours a week.”  

Maybe a fact but can’t we do better? Perhaps we could lower the exorbitant executive salary increases somewhat instead of firing the low end workers and moving business offshore.

   FACT:   “In the end, the minimum wage is a charade that interferes with rights of employers and employees to enter into contracts of their own choosing.”

This implies that both employers (Walmart) and employees (minimum-wage workers) can bargain on an equal footing. Does anyone really believe that?

   FACT:  “During the same half century since the March on Washington, more than a score of major studies have verified that basic economic theory is right: The more businesses are forced to pay, the less likely they are to have as many jobs as they used to have.”

Indeed. But they do manage to see that top executives’ pay has never been higher, and even if a CEO is fired he or she often leaves with astronomical benefits packages. Ah, that basic economic theory.

Facts can be funny things.

   

Will we ever get smart?

Shortly after the horrendous Newtown massacre the head of the NRA suggested that the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It’s all too easy to take complex and serious problems and try to solve them will simple minded answers.  Let’s look closely at this almost childish response which has become a mantra among the NRA supporters.

Since 1966 there have been 22 incidents of mass murders.  In no case did the perpetrator escape. In eleven cases the perpetrator committed suicide, in seven cases the perpetrator was killed, and four were either found mentally, incompetent or sentenced to death.

In the seven cases where the “good guys with guns” killed the perpetrator, there were 103 innocents killed.  Sounds like a terrible price to pay for the NRA’s solution of bad guys with guns.  

The answer to bad guys with guns is bad guys with no guns.  Background checks, background checks, background checks.  What's wrong with us?

Is it Any Wonder?

There has been much in the paper about property taxes lately, mostly regarding the impact of revaluations  on tax payers. There's a good reason, and it's not the size of the budgets alone.

Take a moment and follow this scenario:

Town A did NOT increase the tax levy one year.
But it had it's required revaluation, resulting in:
Property Owner Smith's taxes increasing $8,500
Property Owner Jones's taxes decreasing $8,500
The town did NOT receive more taxes.

In effect, owner Smith paid $8,500 to lower Jones' tax bill by $8,500. Can you see that a revaluation creates tax increases (and decreases) for large numbers of tax payers that have nothing to do with budget needs? If you see nothing wrong with this, stop reading.

Is it any wonder the thousands of property owners are upset with property taxes?

Slashing budgets, cutting services, juggling tax rates among owner occupied properties, non owner occupied properties, small businesses, large businesses, using different formulas for revaluations, none of these gets the the root of the problem - the UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION of the tax levy burden.

We do it this way because we have always done it this way.  Is this really the best we can do?

It's way past time to take a hard look at property taxes and to devise a better, less costly, more efficient system where all property owners pay only their fair share of the tax burden, whatever it is.


Please visit the Rhode Island Gets Honorable Taxation website and let your voice be heard.

Guilty and Not guilty

From today's Providence Journal:

"Lawyers for Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes formally told a judge Monday that he wants to change his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity after outside experts diagnosed his mental illness."

If everyone agrees that an act was committed (the definition of guilty) by someone does it make any sense to say that the act wasn't committed, yet isn't that what the above verdict says?

I've always thought that instead of Not guilty..., the plea should be "Guilty by reason of insanity", but I'm no legal expert.

The Master Lever

Just a couple of comments about the Providence Journal front page article, "Senate panel holds master-lever bill." Aug 3, Page A1 where lawmakers said it needs more study.

1. Let's be honest. How often are bills actually studied after being dumped into the "further study" bucket? It's just a euphemism for "RIP".

2. If it's really too hard for a person to vote for each candidate on the ballot then maybe that person isn't qualified to vote. In fact it might even be a better qualification test than just having a picture ID or an electric bill to be allowed to vote.

Language can be tricky

Will people ever understand that supporting something is not the same as allowing something to happen?  I doubt that Catholics "support" Judaism or that Jews "support" Catholicism but is there any doubt that each wants the other to have the right to practice their beliefs?

Revalue Revaluation

Many problems facing Rhode Island taxpayers appear to be self inflicted.  For example, the huge deficits in union pension funds. City officials, taxpayers and union leaders ignored obvious funding deficiencies for many years creating crushing deficits that now threaten to bankrupt local communities.  Everyone loses yet we continue to do it.

One would expect that pocketbook issues producing increasing tax burdens would inspire taxpayers to act in their own best interest, but it doesn't seem to happen.  Why?

Revaluation might be partly to blame.  Revaluation to market values is considered a necessary part of the Property Tax because it is expected that it will distribute taxes fairly. Revaluation does ensure that a new owner will pay a fair tax on the property just purchased but is it also fair for the majority of taxpayers? Perhaps not.

With every revaluation there are many taxpayers who will receive tax increases but also many who will not. Think about it;  this means that just some, not all, taxpayers shoulder the full burden of any tax increase. And they aren't necessarily the owners of the more expensive homes or the wealthiest in the community. Those increases are just as likely to fall on the backs of owners of lower priced homes. That's just how real estate markets work.

Looking more closely at the data we find that the total increase paid by all these taxpayers exceeds the total tax levy increase, often by millions of dollars!  Thus, not only are these taxpayers paying the entire tax increase for their community but they are also paying for the lower taxes enjoyed by the other property owners! And tax roll data show that those with lower bills are just as likely to be owners of the most expensive properties. That's just how real estate markets work.  

In fact, revaluation disconnects our tax bills from the tax levies they are supposed to support. Despite increased local expenses, many thousands of taxpayers get lower bills, and when people don't feel the financial pain, they simply don't care! 

This presents a dilemma for local government: how to combine the fair tax a new owner receives after a revaluation with a fair tax for everyone else that's in harmony with the needs of the community, the tax levy. See one idea to address this problem at http://righttax.org.

And if we can involve all taxpayers fairly and reasonably it might even lead to better government overall.

What's a majority anyway?

Regarding “When a majority is not a majority” Commentary in the Providence Journal, December 26, Dan K. Thomasson wrote about the effect of Senate rules, especially the filibuster, on the Senate's performance  He feels, correctly I believe, that they make a mockery of the principle of majority rule.

The issue goes deeper than Senate rules however.  The problem lies within the party system itself.  Our founders had serious concerns about the political party system.

      “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

JOHN ADAMS  Oct. 2, 1789 

     “Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.’

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Jul. 27, 1795

They would be horrified to know how much worse it is than they feared.  Our elected “leaders” appear not to have the courage to do anything that might risk party disapproval. When we see a party leader on TV before a microphone surrounded by party members, one really sees faceless people playing follow the leader. Rarely does a party member have the guts to stray from the party line.

That being the case we could save an enormous amount of money if instead of people, we choose numbers according to party.  Each voter in electing senators would simply  have two votes - two Democrats, two Republicans, one of each, one or none;  not people, just numbers. That seems to be what we essentially have in the Senate anyway.

The use of the filibuster, to prevent the majority party from essentially riding roughshod over the minority, is laudable and in keeping with the very idea of the Senate, to give each state equal representation by providing two votes per state regardless of size. 

But it has been perverted in its application and simply must be corrected, now. Today, just threatening a filibuster effectively changes the meaning of the word majority from 51 votes to 60 votes of 100 member senate.  

H.L. Menken was right:  "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."

How clever we are, let's have teachers carry guns. NOT

It is more than understandable that there has been so much written about guns since the terribly sad events in Newtown, CT. last week.  We all want answers.  Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA suggested that the only answer to " a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".  In the Providence Journal on Saturday, Dec. 22, a writer agrees, "Good guys with guns are the solution to bad guys with guns."

I suggest that you consider a better solution to "bad guys with guns" - "bad guys with NO guns".

And if we really are serious, arm the teachers with more and better mental health resources for students.

Tyranny of the Labels

There was a piece on the editorial page of the Providence Journal on Friday, November 2, 2012, “Another scary oversight failure” by JoAnne Fitzpatrick which caught my attention.  It dealt with the failure of quality control at a state run (Mass.) pharmaceutical monitoring lab, similar to the failure at Framingham, MA company, New England Compounding Center, (NCCC) resulting in up to 28 deaths throughout the United States from 328 fungal infections. 

When the problem was discovered new rules were swiftly put in place. At first read, the story appears to be a discussion of  too much regulation vs not enough regulation.

But I see a “Tyranny of the Labels”.

To illustrate, let’s call Label 1   “Big Government / More Regulations”. People with this label ordinarily respond to problems by creating new laws and/or more regulations, distrusting business to do what’s in the best interest of most or all the people. Business’ #1 priority is profit, everything else is secondary. 

Label 2 can be identified as “Small Government / Less Regulation”. Those with Label “2” believe that government regulations generally stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, that less government regulation is always better and that free markets, independent of government interference, will always provide the best and most economical solutions to problems.

Marketers have been paid many millions to convince legislators and the public that only one label is right and the other is pure evil. And it seems that millions of us have accepted it. 

In the above story, clearly there were laws in place before the contaminations were discovered. Do we really  need more laws and more regulation to address the failures, or do we need better people to administer the laws already in place? While new laws can give the appearance that legislators are doing their jobs, is it more of a “feel good” exercise that merely makes it harder for business to function and survive? 

On the other hand, by letting the marketplace decide what’s right, are we saying that we will tolerate some deaths and disease until the market can weed out the offending businesses and that we accept these tragedies simply as a cost of doing business? 

We have been conditioned by slick marketing firms to make choices according to the label that makes us more comfortable instead thinking deeper and deciding who or what is the best choice in each situation, thus avoiding the “Tyranny of the Labels”.  

A depressing instance of labelling is the “Straight Party Ticket” choice on our ballot which suggests that the individual means little, that the label is far more important. It's a shameful practice and should be abolished now. 

I recently attended a local candidate forum and was so disappointed to hear some good candidates suggest that the audience vote for the members of their party - a suggestion that it was the most important consideration. Ironically that party has been the victim of the “Party Ticket” choice at the state level for years.

This is not a simple issue. Until we choose the best individuals, regardless of labels, we will suffer from Tyranny of the Labels, and the United States will continue to lose respect even among its own people. 

Hard earned money

Is anyone else tired of hearing about how tax hikes will hurt "hard working" Americans and take your "hard earned" money?  Guess what.  There are lots of people who don't work hard for their money.  Donald Trump inherited a fortune from daddy; hard earned money? I don't think so.

Taxes take money from everyone, hard working and the not so hard working.  The most important thing is to know whether taxes are used for the benefit of the public or for the benefit of a chosen few who often aren't very hard working at all.