Rhode Island Center for Law and Public Policy

This article was written by Geoff Schoos, President and Founder of RICLAPP.  It appeared on August 19, 2010 in his column in the Cranston Herald.

Open Letter to William J. Clegg III, Elizabeth Dennigan, Michael J. Gardiner, Ernest A. Greco, James R. Langevin, Donald F. Robbio, and Mark S. Zaccaria.

Two weeks ago, I wrote a column discussing the 2010 election. In that column I wrote that over the coming weeks, I would be asking the candidates for specific offices questions that I find important. I decided to pose my first question to you as each of you faces a primary in September.

Before I ask my question, I’d like to provide some context. Forty-two years ago, Robert Kennedy spoke extensively about the violence that was seemingly endemic in our society. In his comments, he differentiated between the physical violence, with which we are all familiar, and the less obvious and more subtle and insidious violence of institutions.

This violence of institutions of which he spoke included government, corporations, education at all levels and health care providers. These institutions impact the daily lives of all Americans. They can be forces of good or ill. Increasingly, these institutions have failed those who rely on them.

Over the past 20 years, we have endured an economic disparity not seen since before the depression of the 1930s. Income disparities abound. According to economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkley, the total share of income for the top 10 percent of wage earners is higher than the previous peak of 1927.

Moreover, in the 14 years from 1993 to 2007, the average real income growth for the top 1 percent of wage earners was 5.9 percent, capturing a full 50 percent of all wage growth during that period. Compare that with the other 99 percent whose wages increased only 1.3 percent over that same period. Put another way, the incomes of the top 1 percent of wage earners increased by 122 percent over those 14 years while the wages of the remaining 99 percent increased by only 35 percent.

Another way to demonstrate the imbalance of wealth in our society is to look at the changes of income distribution over the years. According to a study conducted by Shapiro and Friedman for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the distribution of income flowing to the top 1 percent in 1979 was 37.8 percent of all income earned throughout the economy, while the share flowing to 80 percent of wage earners was 23.1 percent. In 2003, the share of wages flowing to the top 1 percent of wage earners jumped to 53.7 percent of all income earned in the economy while the wages of 80 percent of wage earners dropped to 12.1 percent of all wages earned.

This disparity of wealth has resulted in a loss of purchasing power, increased debt as most workers use credit to supplement declining wages and purchasing power, and ultimately a lower standard of living, as they can no longer afford items that they once took for granted.

The disparity of wealth between those at the top of the economic ladder and those on its bottom rungs could not be greater. Poorly housed, often ill educated by failing schools, often lacking essential health services, the poor live lives so desperate as to be too often devoid of any hope. This should not be surprising. According to the Federal Reserve Board, in 2004 the bottom 40 percent of our population controlled only 0.2 percent of the country’s wealth.

Add to the disproportion of wealth in America the unabated and pervasive unemployment problem. Last week we learned that the economy lost 131,000 jobs and the national unemployment rate remained at 9.5 percent, due in part to the 1 million workers who dropped out of the workforce over the past three months.

Meanwhile, those who recently lost their jobs and those who struggle to hang on to theirs have seen their savings erode and, too often, their retirement funds disappear. In contrast we see corporate earnings increase from quarter to quarter, obscenely generous bonuses given to the architects of the current economic disaster we find ourselves in, yet few jobs are being created for people eager to work.

More and more, private corporations have placed a greater value on profit over people. The drive to increase the bottom line and handsomely compensate their executives has come at an egregious cost. That cost is the livelihoods of millions of workers and the well being of their families.

There is something terribly out of balance. Millions of Americans look to the government for help, only to receive empty promises. Since 2009 we have received a stimulus program that has stimulated little economic activity, a health program that fails to provide coverage to all Americans, government bailouts of banks, financial institutions, and corporations because they were too big to fail, and timid reforms implemented to remedy the practices that caused the recent economic collapse.

Every week I see clients who have been victimized, through no fault of their own, by the institutions that they willingly supported. I see men and women who worked hard for their entire lives only to see their jobs exported overseas or disappear altogether as part of the carnage left by the increasing imbalance of wealth in our economy. Left with no alternatives, they exhaust their savings, take lower wage jobs and suffer a lower standard of living, or both. They fear the loss of their homes and see little hope for a better future for their children. The emotional toll that is taken is incalculable.

Our political processes are broken. Running for office has become more about triangulating issues and constituencies, demonizing opponents, pitting one group against another, and pandering to special interests for campaign contributions. This travesty of democracy is compounded by the tragedy that once elected, no matter how well motivated a candidate once was, s/he now finds that s/he’s boxed in by promises made and positions taken during the campaign in order to get elected.

This is the politics of destruction that not only destroys opposing candidates and parties, but also destroys any sense of community. And historically it has been this sense of community that has been the bedrock of our society. But how can people come together when the interests of one side are pitted against another in some dysfunctional zero sum game? How can decisions be made and policies implemented in the best interests of the people when both electoral and governing politics have become nothing more than a scorched earth exercise?

What is the effect of this system, one that rewards bluster and swagger, on our kids? What does this bode for the future when success is achieved not through cooperation but through total conquest and domination?

This is the violence of institutions. This is the pervasive, all encompassing and debilitating violence of institutions. Yet, I have hope. I have the honor to work with good people who try every day to reach out to those who are victims of this institutional violence. We are beginning collaborations with other like-minded individuals and groups to reach out and provide help wherever we can.

But our collective efforts are not enough. We need your help. So here’s my question: will you help in combating this institutional violence, and if so, how? I ask this not for myself or for my colleagues, but for the thousands we collectively serve and the thousands more we cannot reach. In order to achieve any level of success in meeting the needs of people, we need to act collectively and work together.

So again, what are you going to do? And please, if you answer, do not give your 12-point platform on (fill in issue here). I don’t want abstract platitudes in an attempt to address the real issues and challenges facing many of your potential constituents. Besides, if you try to recycle any or all of your existing 12-point positions, my editor assures me you will be billed for an ad.

What I want is simple - a specific answer that addresses the concerns I have for the future of our state and our country.

Read more: Cranston Herald - A Different Drummer Fighting institutional violence

This article was written by Geoff Schoos, President and Founder of RICLAPP.  It appeared on July 29, 2010 in his column in the Cranston Herald.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” - Won’t Get Fooled Again by The Who.   For those of us who like geezer rock (and let’s be honest: who doesn’t?) that riff by The Who not only brings back old memories, but also brings into stark relief the challenges of the current election season. Because of the uncertainty of the times, along with the palpable anger of the electorate, most offices at all levels of government are being contested. This is a good thing. No longer will incumbents receive a pass in an election year because nobody had the temerity or resources to challenge them.

However, there’s no doubt that some challengers, seeing an opportunity, are running to trade in on the public’s fear of and anger with the current state of our economy. These are the guys who will have the easy answers to complex problems. They will place the blame on “them” and then point the finger at who “them” is.

Most challengers are in an enviable position. Most often, they have no public record to scrutinize and evaluate. They are the proverbial blank slates, which require a different level of analysis of their credentials and qualifications to hold office. Voters will need to ask and evaluate what they’ve done in their professional lives. What have been their successes and their failures? What do they stand for and what have they done to demonstrate their commitment to their beliefs?

And this is the key question. What do they offer in the way of proposals to tackle the complicated and pervasive issues that confront us? Do they speak in slogans, or is there a depth to their thoughts and proposals? Do they articulate simplistic approaches to complex problems, or do they evidence an understanding of what is really at stake? Do they represent the general interest or do they hope to advance a narrow special interest?

Incumbents are in a completely different position. They have a record. Their job is to sell that record to voters. This year, that’s a tough sell. At the federal level, incumbents have to sell a record of massive deficits, high unemployment, reform programs that don’t reform very much, and two wars that seem to be never ending.

At the state level, incumbents are saddled with structural budget deficits, a collapsed economy, an educational system that is too often mediocre, astronomical pension obligations, and a general lack of creativity to deal with these and other problems. At the local level, incumbents have to sell a record of increased taxes and decreased services.

One thing we can be sure of is that each incumbent officeholder will tell you that all the bad stuff is not his/her fault. Like their challengers, they will point to their own version of “them” to blame for what’s wrong in our country/state/city.

After all, our politics has been reduced to a contest between “them” and us. And that’s the problem. There’s no “we” anymore. Politics is too often a battle against the forces of virtue and light seeking to prevent the barbarians from overturning the established order.

For example, look at the Tea Party folks. They often rail against “big, out of control government” while using words like “socialists” to describe their opponents. Incumbents are often depicted as megalomaniacal modern day Machiavellis who seek only to retain and expand their own power. Tea Partiers run against<$> government, thus giving rise to the question of why they would run to serve in a government that they hate.

How are the Tea Partiers viewed by their “socialist” opponents? As a bunch of yahoos with no clue about how the world works. These folks are viewed as uninformed (read: stupid) demagogues who will say or do anything to seize power. Or worse, they are depicted as willing dupes doing the bidding of unseen manipulators behind the curtain as if this is some latter day version of Oz.

In too many instances, this is what our politics has become - a zero sum game where one side has to lose for the other to win. One side beats the other through implementation of a scorched earth strategy. The problem with a scorched earth strategy is that there is nothing left worth winning.

Is it any wonder that governing is becoming increasingly more difficult? Is it a mystery why consensus about policies is impossible to achieve? Is it impossible to understand why the real needs of real people are not being met?

I for one am sick of it. In my job, I see too many people who have been devastated by too many problems that have gone unaddressed for too long by those we empower to act on our behalf. Behind every political promise and every policy and program is a real family, person or kid who depends on the delivery of that promise or the performance of that policy and program.

This election, let’s try something different. Let’s make this election not about power, but about people. And not just about those few who contribute to and influence those in power, but about the unseen but very real people who depend on government services and programs for their security and sometimes their very lives.

I know, this is radical but I think it’s worth trying.

I’m a voter. I’m going to vote in a primary and I will vote in the general election. I understand that I’m just one guy, but my vote is just as important as anyone else’s. Who knows, in a tied election, I may just be the tiebreaker.

So, as a voter who could well deliver a tie-breaking vote, here’s what I don’t want from a candidate. If you’re an incumbent, I don’t want to hear about what you did as though all the other “bad” stuff didn’t happen on your watch. You were there. You have some level of responsibility. If you’re going to try to own some of the good things, then you also need to take responsibility for some of the bad as well. If you made a mistake, admit it. Hey, although I try to be as non-partisan as I can, if an incumbent admits making a mistake, I’ll cut him or her a check just to encourage the behavior.

Moreover, don’t tell me what you voted for or supported while in the (fill in office here). Telling how you voted and what you supported is kind of like trying to take credit for someone else’s work. I know that governing at its best is a collaborative effort and that it’s important to collaborate with others to get things done. But, what did you do, what did you propose, and how did you entice or otherwise convince others to collaborate with you on your proposal in service to the public?

If you’re a challenger, I don’t want to hear a diatribe against your incumbent opponent. Explaining why you’re making the race is one thing. Painting your opponent as an incarnation of the beast-master is quite another. Please don’t come talking wistfully about low-taxes, good schools, safe streets, and restoring government as the founders originally intended.

And please leave the slogans home.

Instead, let’s try talking about real solutions about real issues that affect real people. Let’s take the gamesmanship out of the election just this once. Let’s talk to people like they’re adults.

Over the coming weeks, I intend to be more specific as to what I’d like to see from those running for office. I’d like to do this by focusing on various races starting with the Second Congressional District. It seems that there’s a primary in September and I’d like to raise issues that I think are important to me. As that race is heading down the stretch, I have some questions I’d like answered. Who knows, maybe the candidates will grace the pages of this paper with their responses.

Over the coming weeks I intend to ask similar questions targeted to other races in which I have an interest. There are all the state general offices, the city offices as well as the legislative offices. I’m not trying to sandbag anyone or stalk for one candidate over another. To be blunt, I could give a rip about someone’s party. The stakes are too high for that kind of nonsense.

I’m a voter and I want answers to my questions and concerns.

Read more: Cranston Herald - A Different Drummer Won’t get fooled again

This post was researched and written by Karen Taylor, Volunteer Paralegal

 On August 4, 2010, Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling in federal court that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.  Proposition 8 is the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.  The case is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first, and from there up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Walker’s ruling states in part, that “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”  Walker also issued a temporary stay which prevented his ruling from immediately going into effect to allow supporters of Proposition 8 time to argue why Proposition 8 should remain in effect while they were pursuing an appeal.  Walker lifted the stay on August 12, 2010, thereby allowing same-sex marriages to be performed as of August 18, 2010.

Order Finding Prop. 8 Unconstitutional: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Order on Motion to Stay: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/Final_stay_order.pd

On July 28, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereinafter “the Court”) entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Arizona from enforcing certain provisions of its new immigration law, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” hereinafter “S. B. 1070.” The injunction will last until such time as the Court can make a final determination as to the constitutionality of S.B. 1070.

The Court ordered a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the following sections of S.B. 1070:

• Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
• Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers
• Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work
• Section 6 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court did not enjoin S.B. 1070 in its entirety, noting that S.B. 1070 contains a severability clause, which provides that, “[i]f a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.  S.B. 1070 § 12(A).”  

On July 6, 2010, the Obama Administration had filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070 and on the same day filed a motion requesting the above- referenced preliminary injunction.  In order to obtain the preliminary injunction the Administration was required to establish that the U.S. was likely to succeed on the merits of its case, that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities was tipped in the U.S.’s favor, and that an injunction was in the public interest. 

The Administration’s principal argument in their law suit challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070 is that enforcement of the Arizona law would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which provides that the Constitution and federal law take precedence over state law.  This is known as the preemption doctrine.  The Administration asserts that the Constitution vested the federal government with exclusive power to regulate immigration and that the Arizona law would interfere with and subvert federal immigration law. 

In ordering preliminary injunction, the Court found that “[i]f Arizona were to enforce the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court has found a likelihood of preemption, such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy.”

 On July 29, 2010, Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, filed an expedited appeal with the Ninth Circuit requesting that the court lift the injunction and allow the enjoined provisions to be enforced pending a decision on the merits of the case.

 The full text of the Court’s holding on the preliminary injunction: http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement

Rhode Island Governor Carcieri and Massachusetts Governor Patrick signed a Memorandum of Understanding (”MOU”) yesterday in which they agreed to coordinate and collaborate in the potential development of offshore wind energy in a 400 square mile area beginning 12 miles southwest of Martha’s Vineyard and extending 20 miles westward into Rhode Island Sound.

According to the MOU, any project in this area of mutual interest (”AMI”) must be approved by the governors of both states and the economic benefits must be able to be shared by both states on a fair and equitable basis before the states can seek federal approval of the projects.

“The shared waters between Rhode Island and Massachusetts hold the key to the future of offshore wind developments along the East Coast and the country. It is in the best interest for both states to work together to expedite the federal permitting process through this collaborative effort,” said Governor Carcieri. “We share mutual interests in developing offshore wind projects, bringing greater economic development activity and economic security to the region. Working together, we ensure Rhode Island and Massachusetts will continue to lead the nation in offshore wind.”

For the past two years, Rhode Island has been planning for offshore wind development in adjacent federal waters under a Special Area Management Plan (”SAMP”), which is subject to approval by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (”NOAA”). The SAMP identified areas in Rhode Island and nearby federal waters that are suitable for large-scale offshore wind energy development.  In the MOU, the governors agreed that the SAMP, as adopted by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, would be the governing planning and assessment document for the AMI.

This past June, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the governors of ten East Coast States, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which established an Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium to promote development of wind power on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Comments on the Rhode Island Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) will be accepted until September 24, 2010 and should be directed to:
Grover Fugate
RI Coastal Resources Management Council
Oliver Stedman Government Center
4808 Tower Hill Road, Suite 3
Wakefield, RI  02879

 Memorandum of Understanding:

http://www.governor.ri.gov/documents/RI%20MA%20MOU.pdf

RI Press Release: http://www.ri.gov/press/view/11879

Secretary of the Interior’s Press Release: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Signs-Agreement-with-10-East-Coast-Governors-to-Establish-Atlantic-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Consortium.cfm

On Tuesday July 7, 2010, the Obama Administration filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Arizona asking for an injunction to prevent Arizona’s new immigration law from taking effect on July 29, 2010.

One hotly contested provision of the Arizona law requires state and local police to determine the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop or detain, if they reasonably suspect the detainee of being an illegal immigrant.  In addition, if there has been an arrest, reasonable suspicion is not required prior to determining immigration status.

In their suit, the Administration argues that enforcement of the Arizona law would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which provides that the Constitution and federal law take precedence over state law.  The Administration asserts that the Constitution vested the federal government with exclusive power to regulate immigration and that the Arizona law would interfere with and subvert federal immigration law.  They claim that, “Arizona has crossed the constitutional line.”

In support of their argument, the Administration contends that the Arizona law would undermine United States foreign policy goals; lead to harassment and incarceration of foreign nationals, lawful resident aliens, and U.S. citizens; drain federal resources needed to target dangerous aliens; and result in a “patchwork” of state immigration laws. According to the Administration, Arizona pursued “only one goal of the federal immigration system - maximum reduction of the unlawfully present aliens - to the exclusion of all other objectives.”

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer responded to the lawsuit by releasing a statement in which she asserts that “[t]he Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

To read the brief filed on behalf of the Administration: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pi-brief.pdf

To read Governor Brewer’s Statement made in response to the suit: http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_070610_StatementGovBrewer.pdf

In an attempt to combat fraud and protect the identity and credit of all Puerto Rican born persons, the Puerto Rican government passed a law that invalidates all birth certificates issued prior July 1, 2010.  This law will go into effect on September 30, 2010.  It had been originally scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2010, but the Puerto Rican Government extended its timeline to account for citizens who may need a birth certificate for an upcoming transaction and to provide a three-month window to apply for and receive a new document.  

            Rhode Island may require a birth certificate to be presented to receive a marriage license or to request any changes to birth, death, or marriage records in the state. As a result any Puerto Rican-born person who needs a birth certificate for a transaction which occurs after September 30, 2010, must apply for a new official copy from the Puerto Rican Government. The Puerto Rican government has not commented on the length of time needed to process requests so applicants must plan ahead.

            If you are age 18 or older and were born in Puerto Rico, you may apply for a new copy of your birth certificate online at the E-Government website www.pr.gov.  There is a $5 fee for all applicants; the fee can be waived for those with veteran status or applicants over the age of sixty.

 http://www.prfaa.com/birthcertificates/

http://www.ri.gov/press/view/11723

On Wednesday, June 23, 2010, Governor Carcieri signed into law the Foundation Level School Support Act.  For the first time in almost two decades, Rhode Island will have a statewide school financing formula for public schools. Prior to the signing of this bill, Rhode Island was the only state in the country without a formula.   Supporters of the formula argue that this formula will equitably fund districts that serve a large number of students from low income households.  In effect, the bill will shift funds away from some districts and into others.     The bill was introduced by Representatives Costantino, Hearn, Mattiello, E Coderre, and Giannini.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText10/HouseText10/H8094Aaa.htm

http://www.projo.com/news/content/funding_formula_bill_signed_06-24-10_HEIVJ0E_v43.183a7fe.html

This post was researched and written by Kathryn Weaver, Intern and Volunteer Captain. 

On May 25^th Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts announced the formation of the Healthy RI Implementation Task Force.  The group, which includes physicians, nurses, insurers, patient advocates, business leaders, legislators and other policy makers, will address federal health reform law in Rhode Island.  It is tasked with readying the state to take advantage of opportunities available to Rhode Island, as well as addressing issues the state will face as the new federal law takes effect.  Stakeholders serve on one of four issue-based work groups that will prepare proposals for statewide implementation.  Work groups include: insurance market reform and coverage expansion; a health insurance exchange for more Rhode Islanders to get affordable health insurance; payment and delivery system reforms; and accessing federal funding for reforms.  The task force’s next meeting will be held this Friday, June 11^th.  In September it will issue an Implementation Report with the findings and recommendations of the work groups.

According to a Rhode Island Foundation study released in March of this year, 140,000 Rhode Islanders are without health insurance. Providing healthcare to the uninsured costs at least $604 million annually.    

http://www.ltgov.ri.gov/taskforce/

http://www.rifoundation.org/News/NewsReleases/140000RhodeIslandershavenohealthinsurance/tabid/704/Default.aspx

This post was researched and written by Kathryn Weaver, Intern and Volunteer Captain

On Tuesday, by a vote of 66 to 1, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill guaranteeing loans for expansion projects to businesses in the knowledge and technology sectors.  The House legislation would allow the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation to issue up to $125 million in guarantees on such loans, which banks would lend.  The bill gives priority to companies creating permanent, full-time jobs that pay more than 250 percent of minimum wage, or at least $18.50 an hour.  It also allows the EDC to charge participating companies a small percentage in fees to protect against loan defaults.  The bill now seeks Senate approval.

R.I. House Backs Loan Guarantee Bill