Areas of concern for RIILE are highlighted in bold text!
From the Phoenix
State House status
In a purportedly liberal state, the Rhode Island General Assembly has a stubbornly conservative bent. But can progressive politics make a dent in 2010?
By DAVID SCHARFENBERG | August 12, 2009
|
THE LEFT:
Sullivan, Handy, Ajello, and Guthrie.
|
Rhode Island voters, for all their supposed insularity, are an increasingly progressive bunch.
Barack Obama won a landslide victory here. The most Catholic state in the union is overwhelmingly pro-choice. And a recent survey out of Brown University found fully 60 percent of voters in favor of same-sex marriage, with just 31 percent opposed
Rhode Island is not merely a Democratic bastion. It is, by many measures, a liberal one.
And yet, the State House remains a curiously conservative place. Republicans have had a near monopoly on the governor's office for the last two decades. And the General Assembly, the most Democratic state legislature in the country, often seems as if it is doing its best GOP imitation.
Rhode Island remains the only state in New England that fails to recognize gay marriage. There is an odd obsession with illegal immigration on Smith Hill. Leading Democrats speak, with surprising fervor, about the importance of tax cuts for the Ocean State's wealthiest residents.
"You'd get laughed out of DC if you proposed that in Congress as a Democrat," said Matthew Jerzyk, a liberal lawyer and activist who has been haranguing the state legislature for years.
The General Assembly's conservative bent owes something to the power of incumbency: old-school pols, often resistant to generational shifts on prickly social concerns, have had little trouble winning re-election here. And in a legislature known for its centralized control, a relatively conservative Speaker of the House, William J. Murphy, has managed to keep a lid on ideological ferment.
But now, for the first time in memory, a progressive ascendancy is in view. And a State House long to the right of the electorate could, in a year-and-a-half, reflect something approaching the will of the people.
Governor Carcieri, a conservative Republican, is terming out of office and the leading contenders to replace him include two Democrats and an ex-Republican, Lincoln Chafee, who is arguably as liberal as his rivals.
Meanwhile, new Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed is shaping up as a friend to progressive legislators. And with Murphy widely expected to step down at the end of the 2009-2010 legislative session, despite his public pronouncements to the contrary, the House seems on the brink of change.
Majority Leader Gordon Fox, an openly gay Providence liberal, is the heir apparent for the speakership. And the Progressive Caucus, a loose assemblage of 12 to 20 lefty legislators centered in the House, seems positioned to move from agitator to insider.
But the left, for all its promise, is hardly assured of primacy.
The progressive wing of the legislature, if emergent, is still small. And it took a blow in the last couple of weeks, with the death of State Representative Thomas C. Slater and State Representative Elizabeth M. Dennigan's announcement that she will challenge Congressman Jim Langevin in a Democratic primary next year.
Moreover, the imminent shift in Smith Hill leadership may not be the panacea it would appear. And the swirl of national events, so helpful to the local left in the last couple of years, could prove a problem in the not-so-distant future.
THE OBAMA FACTOR
President Bush was, in many respects, a godsend for Rhode Island Democrats.
His failures helped the party pry a Senate seat away from Chafee, in his Republican days, three years ago. And in November, deep disenchantment with the Bush administration led to big GOP losses in the state legislature.
It is, of course, difficult to imagine the current commander-in-chief provoking anything like the enmity his predecessor inspired. Indeed, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found the public continues to blame President Bush for much of the nation's economic strife.
But the same survey suggested the gloom is rubbing off on the new administration. President Obama's overall approval rating has dipped below 60 percent for the first time. Faith in the stimulus package is eroding. Concern about the deficit is growing.
And if the push for major health care reform falls flat, Obama's progressive, interventionist approach to the economy could take a serious tumble in the public estimation.
"The new openness to an expanded role in government is entirely dependent on the government's success," said Darrell West, a former Brown University political science professor now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
Indeed, a backlash to Obamanomics has already cropped up in this state. A new conservative think tank is churning out white papers. A passel of bloggers is beating the drum ever louder. And a protest group known as the Rhode Island Tea Party has proven remarkably adept at grabbing headlines in recent months.
Of course, that conservative impulse has little chance of ushering in an era of Republican rule here. This is a deep blue state, after all. But it could mean trouble for the most liberal Democrats — if not at the polls, then at least in the State House corridors, where policy is made.
Indeed, with the state's budget deficits running into the hundreds of millions of late, there is a clamoring for fiscal discipline that does not bode well for progressives hoping to expand the state's safety net.
None other than General Treasurer Frank T. Caprio, widely considered the frontrunner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, is building his nascent, still unofficial candidacy around a message of fiscal responsibility.
He has pushed to rein in state pension costs and made little secret of his plans to create a "competitive" tax structure that will attract wealthy types who might invest in Rhode Island's struggling economy. And it is not just his economic policy that has raised eyebrows in progressive circles.
Caprio, who voted for same-sex partner benefits several times while in the legislature, has nonetheless managed to turn off some liberals with his lukewarm support for gay marriage — he says he "won't stand in the way" of the legislation as governor.
His rival for the Democratic nomination, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, has fared a little better with the liberals' chattering class, declaring firm support for gay nuptials.
But Lynch labeled himself a Blue Dog Democrat, in the mold of Southern and Midwestern moderates, in a recent interview with the Phoenix and has faced criticism for his stands on some civil liberties issues.
Fox, the openly gay majority leader, has also disappointed some on the left — coming under fire for a cautious approach to same-sex marriage legislation and a general propensity to cater to the moderate and conservative wings of the party.
The majority leader and many of his progressive supporters in the legislature say he has little choice but to be a leader for the whole party — center and right included. But his big-tent approach suggests something less than a liberal breakthrough should he beat back challenges from Stephen R. Ucci, of Johnston, Gregory R. Schadone, of North Providence and any others who would vie for the speakership.
STRATEGIC PATIENCE
The majority leader is hardly the only figure on the left who treads lightly in a centrist legislature. The Progressive Caucus, if more willing to poke and prod, has engaged in its own brand of cautious politics at critical junctures.
With Governor Carcieri sure to veto any gay marriage bill that would land on his desk, for instance, liberals have been reluctant to push hard for the measure. They say moderate legislators, nervous about voting on a controversial bill, will have little incentive to go out on a limb if the same-sex marriage legislation seems destined to fail. Better to wait for the election of a new governor amenable to the cause.
Progressives have taken a similar approach to electoral politics. The caucus, unwilling to alienate moderate and conservative colleagues, has made it clear it will not back challenges to sitting legislators — preferring, instead, to protect its own and recruit candidates for vacant seats.
The strategy makes some sense for a small faction hoping to build coalitions with colleagues issue by issue. "I would not appreciate one of the Neanderthals backing someone else in my district," said State Senator Charles Levesque, a liberal Portsmouth Democrat, making affectionate reference to his more conservative colleagues.
But the approach means a slow build for a progressive contingent that may have reached its pinnacle some 16 years ago, when liberals cobbled together 39 votes in what was then a 100-member House for the left-leaning leadership team of Russell Bramley for Speaker and Nancy Benoit for Majority Leader.
Representative John Harwood, forging an alliance with Republicans, wound up winning the speakership that winter. And progressive influence waned in the years that followed.
Liberals drifted out of the legislature. Candidate recruitment lagged. "A lot of progressives ended up in the dissident category," said State Representative Edith Ajello, a long-serving liberal Providence Democrat.
REVIVAL
But if the progressives have remained outsiders, the last few years have amounted to a comeback of sorts.
In the state Senate, the arrival of Cranston Democrat Joshua Miller has buttressed a veteran, liberal cohort. The House has seen an infusion of progressive talent: Arthur Handy, David A. Segal, Christopher M. Fierro, Raymond J. Sullivan, Jr., and Edwin R. Pacheco, among others. And the new left, whatever its limitations, has managed to flex its muscle on occasion.
The signature moment came this spring when about a dozen progressives holed up in the House Labor Committee room, amid powder blue curtains and bound volumes of state law, and negotiated changes to the sort of major spending bill the chamber's top brass normally controls with an iron fist.
Some liberal legislators caution against reading too much into the mini-coup: it was built, after all, around plans for a sudden, mid-year elimination of $55 million in aid to cities and towns that provoked an unusually broad rebellion among rank-and-file legislators — and gave the progressives an unusual bit of leverage.
"It was a moment," said Handy, the caucus chair. "I don't know that they come up very often."
But the victory, which included partial restoration of the funds, was undoubtedly significant. Sullivan, the Coventry Democrat who negotiated on behalf of the progressives, recalls a certain amount of disbelief in that Labor Committee redoubt when it became clear that a deal was struck. "It was almost like being in the room with a bunch of Red Sox fans after they won the World Series," he said.
And the uprising, however unique, contained the seeds of something larger.
The progressives' ties to the majority leader proved vital in securing the deal. And the caucus managed to prod the leadership without threatening its authority: Fox, in a recent interview in his office, said he trusts the motives of House liberals in a chamber too often teeming with intrigue.
Keeping faith with the man who would be speaker could mean committee chairmanships and other leadership positions that would give liberals a power beyond their numbers.
And in the meantime, the budget coup has established the progressives as a force. "There is a need for the leadership, now, to consider the left," said Segal, a Providence Democrat.
But Messrs. Murphy and Fox are not the only figures who would be wise to look left. The budget coup, if a discrete event in some respects, could also be viewed as a sign of things to come.
Public opinion on abortion and same-sex marriage seem destined to catch up with the state's political class soon, particularly as a new generation of voters with live-and-let-live views comes to maturity at the ballot box.
And if the economy rebounds in the coming months, if President Obama can deliver a victory on health care, Rhode Island's power brokers may have to recalibrate more quickly than they imagined.
David Scharfenberg can be reached at dscharfenberg@phx.com.
_____________________________________________
DID THEY KNOW?
RIILE estimates the following figures to be the cost of Social Services for Illegal Aliens to the State of Rhode Island for 2008. 1) Education- According to the U S Census Bureau 2000 (latest numbers available), estimates there were 8,740 students in Rhode Island schools who were Illegal Aliens or the U.S. born children of Illegal Aliens. At a cost of $ 23,000 annually per student in 2008, the total cost is $ 201,000,000. If we include the additional cost of Special Needs students, 20.1 % of the total student population with Special Needs (highest % in the United States) at an additional cost of $ 22,000 per student, we estimate another $ 38.6 million for a total of $ 239,600,000. Looking at this problem from another view you will find that in 2008, according to the R I Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, we have 9,516 ELL ( English Language Learning ) students in our schools. The School Departments refuse to divulge the actual number of those students that are not Illegal Aliens. At a cost of $23,000 annually per student equaling a total cost of $ 218,000,00 and adding to that the 20.1% that have Special Needs or another $38.9 million, the result is a total cost of $256,900,000 to the taxpayers of Rhode Island. RIILE chooses to use the lower of the two figures. 2) Incarceration- According to the A C I Director, in 2008 we had over 200 inmates at the A C I who are Illegal Aliens at a cost of $ 43,000 annually per inmate, totaling $ 8.6 million. The federal Government reimburses the State $1.2 million equaling a net cost of $ 7.4 million dollars to the State of Rhode Island. 3) Medical Services- In 2002 the Providence Journal estimated that 35% of Rite Care recipients were "undocumented" (their term for Illegal Aliens). Remember the 666 number usage? It is a number used by Social Services to circumvent the Social Security number requirement revealed in 2005 (6,274). That year 35% of the Rite Care budget ($ 356 million) was $124 million dollars. If we fast forward to 2008, the Rite Care budget was $357 million. Such a miniscule increase, $1 million dollars, was due to the changes implemented by the Governor and the Department of Human Services, resulting in a total cost to the State of Rhode Island for the "undocumented" (Illegal Aliens) of $125 million dollars. -MORE- 2 of 2 The State of Rhode Island paid $138 million dollars (state budget figure) to Rhode Island Hospitals for uncompensated care in 2008. The Hospitals requested $175 million dollars. RIILE is stymied in this area by the refusal of the hospitals to divulge the number of U S Citizens and Legal Immigrants receiving this uncompensated care. This would reveal the actual number of Illegal Aliens for whom they are providing services. Their services are restricted by Federal Law to EMERGENCY medical service. If we were to use as little as 50% of that cost we have another $69 million dollars. The total cost of Education, Incarceration and Medical Services together equal $440 million dollars. In 2005 RIILE estimated these costs to be $356 million dollars. That's almost a 25% increase in three years. RIILE intends to use $400 million going forward in notifying the Public. If Illegal Aliens were unable to get jobs there would be no incentive for them to remain here or for any additional Illegal Alien to attempt coming to Rhode Island thereby easing the strain on our Education System, our Environment and most importantly our Economy. I would hope that these figures are alarming enough to warrant at least a mention of Illegal Immigration in the new Republican Platform or any other Political Platform for that matter. Terry GormanExecutive Director -0- ___
Posted by: Brian Hull in Patrick Lynch on December 18, 2009 
In the third installment of Drinking Liberally’s Race to Replace, Attorney General Patrick Lynch spoke to a full house on Wednesday night at the Wild Colonial. I went into the Lynch event with a deep desire to hear something great. And largely, I left unsatisfied, but not disappointed either.
Patrick Lynch was very approachable for most of the night, talking to attendees before and after his speech. For most of the night, he seemed comfortable, although he was off his game during his speech, even before the drunk woman started heckling him. The largest applause of the evening was when the heckler, who also happens to be a supporter of Frank Caprio on her Facebook page (no incrimination intended), was told to shut up and stop being a “penny ante dictator.”
Now for the good news: Lynch was great on several specific issues. His unqualified support of same-sex marriage and civil rights is heartening, especially since same-sex marriage legislation has been held up in the General Assembly for several years by the leadership in both the House and the Senate.
He offered his full support for a state-wide education funding formula. This would go a long way to addressing many of the imbalances in educational attainment in Rhode Island’s communities. The question still needs to be asked, what would Lynch’s funding formula look like?
When asked if he would rescind the Governor’s executive order on immigration, he unequivocally answered “yes.” This would greatly relieve the stress placed on immigrant communities throughout the state.
He did not hesitate when asked if he would sign legislation repealing the alternative flat tax. He said he would. On these issues, he is very much in line with the progressive community.
Lynch, unfortunately, had some tepid answers as well. When asked about decriminalizing marijuana, he said that he would be interested in looking at any proposals that come out of the General Assembly. In situations like this, there’s a vast chasm of difference between not getting in the way of legislation versus being an advocate for something.
Similarly, while Lynch was strongly “supportive” of judicial discretion, it was difficult for him to directly answer questions regarding mandatory minimum sentences (which essentially are judicial discretion). Read Bruce Reilly’s post for more details on this.
Most of the evening, honestly, was a discussion of how a leader (i.e. the next Governor) needs to bring everyone together and have a sit-down discussion about the best approach to solving problems. How a leader needs to change the tone, to reach out to everyone involved, etc. He sounded like he had just finished studying from the Obama playbook on how to win an electoral campaign. I do not begrudge him for this, because to a large degree I can see the merit in talking to as many people as possible. We need to get the right information and to diagnose the problems correctly in order to solve them. But when prompted for specifics on how to fix the state’s failing economy, he was largely evasive, either unwilling or incapable of clearly articulating a strategy.
I understand the problems are complex; this was stated by Lynch many, many times. Diving into the discussion will be difficult for anyone. It was frustrating, however, to listen to platitudinous remarks and the various (justifiable) criticisms of Governor Carcieri, because what I was really hoping to hear was a coherent set of policies which would extricate the state from its current morass, or at least a rough framework to work from. If we want to fix the state’s economic woes, the next Governor needs to have his plan ready on day one, and not begin the discussion next January.
The General Assembly is doing its part, looking into the multiple components of the budget to try and fix the $235 million hole – not just for this year, but for the long term. While Lynch did recognize the fundamental revenue problem in the state needs a better solution than cuts, cuts, cuts (for that I commend him), each of the gubernatorial candidates needs to be a part of this discussion, offering their own suggestions about what would be best for the state.
All in all, Patrick Lynch did an OK job, but more specifics would have been nice. If Lynch wants the support of the Progressive community, than he has to be a strong advocate for progressive issues. Otherwise, we’re likely to sit it out.
____________________________
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor,
On December 12, 2009 your Newspaper carried an article by Alexandra Filindra, a Research
Fellow at Brown University titled "Carcieri should drop his order on Illegal Aliens". She refers to
the Governor's Executive order on Illegal Immigration Control or E-Verify. I'd like to offer a
few comments and clarifications.
First, the State of Rhode Island may have become a less hospitable place for only 5% of the
foreign born population, the Illegal Alien population, not the entire 13 % of the foreign population.
Second, the Obama Administration and Homeland Security are currently using E-Verify in the
same manner as our State with few related problems. Also, the Governor in no way sidestepped
the Legislature. It is the perrogative of our Governor to create Executive Orders without
legislative approval. In addition, when the Governor introduced the order, the House of
Representatives had overwhelmingly passed an E-Verify bill and there was a companion bill
awaiting Senate hearings.
Third, Ms. Filindra's imagination runs away with her when she cites the Governor' supposed
scorn for his Immigrant and Latino constituents. Does she not remember the Executive order she
refers to is titled " Illegal Immigration Control" not Immigration Control in general or Latino
Immigration Control.
Fourth, she actually puts her finger on the source of the supposed fear in the Immigrant
community, The National Coalition of Latino and Christian Leaders and their Rhode Island
Representative the Reverend Eliseo Nogueras. The Reverend not only creates and stokes the
flames of fear and unrest in his community but has been protecting lawbreaking Illegal Aliens
and now is encouraging them to boycott the 2010 U S Census. He is using this boycott to punish
(his words), our Governor and other Political Leaders who do not agree with his stance on this
issue. I'm vehemently opposed to someone in such a prestigious position as Ms. Filindra's
conveying threats to our Governor.
I was pleased to see Ms. Filandra refer to the Reverend as a "vocal minority". Thankfully she
goes on to properly identify problems that would be created by such a boycott. Possible
problems could be a loss of a Congressional seat not to mention a loss of millions of Federal
dollars that our schools, hospitals and low income families depend on, especially when our State
is in such difficult financial times.
Fifth, her accusation of intransigence on the part of our Governor is completely
unfounded. He has been very specific on this issue. His concern is with Illegal Aliens not
Immigrants in general.
Sixth, the State Police will not be trained as Immigration Enforcement Agents. They will be
trained how to properly interact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they
encounter Illegal Aliens in the course of their regular duties. Again, the fear she cites in the
Immigrant community is being created by certain Leaders of that very community.
Seventh, Ms. Filindra is 100 % correct in her last paragraph when she encourages the Latino
Leaders to reconsider and ask their community to do what is best for our entire community and
cooperate with the 2010 Census Census.
Terry Gorman
Execective Director.
Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement
( RIILE )
_________________________________________________________________
____________________________-
Senate leaders criticized for again killing E-Verify
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
December 8, 2009
DID THEY KNOW?
RIILE estimates the following figures to be the cost of Social Services for Illegal Aliens to the State of Rhode Island for 2008.
1) Education- According to the U S Census Bureau 2000 (latest numbers available), estimates there were 8,740 students in Rhode Island schools who were Illegal Aliens or the U.S. born children of Illegal Aliens. At a cost of $ 23,000 annually per student in 2008, the total cost is $ 201,000,000. If we include the additional cost of Special Needs students, 20.1 % of the total student population with Special Needs (highest % in the United States) at an additional cost of
$ 22,000 per student, we estimate another $ 38.6 million for a total of $ 239,600,000.
Looking at this problem from another view you will find that in 2008, according to the R I Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, we have 9,516 ELL ( English Language Learning ) students in our schools. The School Departments refuse to divulge the actual number of those students that are not Illegal Aliens. At a cost of $23,000 annually per student equaling a total cost of $ 218,000,00 and adding to that the 20.1% that have Special Needs or another $38.9 million, the result is a total cost of $256,900,000 to the taxpayers of Rhode Island. RIILE chooses to use the lower of the two figures.
2) Incarceration- According to the A C I Director, in 2008 we had over 200 inmates at the A C I who are Illegal Aliens at a cost of $ 43,000 annually per inmate, totaling $ 8.6 million. The federal Government reimburses the State $1.2 million equaling a net cost of $ 7.4 million dollars to the State of Rhode Island.
3) Medical Services- In 2002 the Providence Journal estimated that 35% of Rite Care recipients were "undocumented" (their term for Illegal Aliens). Remember the 666 number usage? It is a number used by Social Services to circumvent the Social Security number requirement revealed in 2005 (6,274). That year 35% of the Rite Care budget ($ 356 million) was $124 million dollars. If we fast forward to 2008, the Rite Care budget was $357 million. Such a miniscule increase, $1 million dollars, was due to the changes implemented by the Governor and the Department of Human Services, resulting in a total cost to the State of Rhode Island for the "undocumented" (Illegal Aliens) of $125 million dollars.
-MORE-
2 of 2
The State of Rhode Island paid $138 million dollars (state budget figure) to Rhode Island Hospitals for uncompensated care in 2008. The Hospitals requested $175 million dollars. RIILE is stymied in this area by the refusal of the hospitals to divulge the number of U S Citizens and Legal Immigrants receiving this uncompensated care. This would reveal the actual number of Illegal Aliens for whom they are providing services. Their services are restricted by Federal Law to EMERGENCY medical service. If we were to use as little as 50% of that cost we have another $69 million dollars.
The total cost of Education, Incarceration and Medical Services together equal $440 million dollars. In 2005 RIILE estimated these costs to be $356 million dollars. That's almost a 25% increase in three years. RIILE intends to use $400 million going forward in notifying the Public. If Illegal Aliens were unable to get jobs there would be no incentive for them to remain here or for any additional Illegal Alien to attempt coming to Rhode Island thereby easing the strain on our Education System, our Environment and most importantly our Economy.
I would hope that these figures are alarming enough to warrant at least a mention of Illegal Immigration in the new Republican Platform or any other Political Platform for that matter.
Terry Gorman
Executive Director
Valley Breeze
First and foremost I'd like to sincerely thank the members of RIILE and their friends and neighbors who called and sent e-mails asking their legislators to support E-Verify legislation again this year. Unfortunately, our state Senate leadership showed their true colors again and let Sen. Marc Cote's E-Verify bill die on the vine for the third consecutive year. They did not even have the common decency to provide their constituents any reason for not considering it.
They're just so above us all. This is just another display of the in-your-face use of the tremendous power they lord over the citizens of this state. The power wielded by Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and delegated to her puppets, Senate Majority Leader Daniel Connors, (D-Cumberland and Lincoln), and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Michael McCaffrey, (D-Warwick), in my eyes has become nothing short of abusive! I fail to see how any of the three can look the citizens of Rhode Island in the eye after preventing this legislation from seeing the light of day, especially when we have 77,000 unemployed in our state and we have approximately 22,000 illegal aliens with jobs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau formula.
A recent non-scientific poll done by our local WPRI-TV 12 found that 92 percent of Rhode Islanders favored E-Verify. So much for government of the People, by the People and for the People in Rhode Island.
The Senate leadership knows that the only segments of our state that would be adversely affected by passage of E-Verify legislation are illegal aliens and the unscrupulous greedy employers that hire them. I guess it's easy to see who the Senate leadership is looking out for and where their loyalty lies. They could care less about their oath to serve, support and protect the citizens of our state, especially those that are unemployed.
We must expose these abuses to the voting public, especially since 2010 is an election year. I'm asking the public to become even more involved than ever before as RIILE continues pushing for enforcement of our immigration laws and supporting any new laws that will help eliminate the $400 million cost of Social Services to illegal aliens in our state, a sum nearly equaling the state deficit. We all need to continue to be at the Statehouse to testify or simply for support, to carry our signs, display our banners, make our calls and send our e-mails. Finally, I guess even the "Change" that President Obama promised and actually fulfilled in this case by supporting and enforcing E-Verify on the federal level failed to sway our "all-knowing" Senate leadership.
Gandhi once said; "First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they fight you, Then you WIN."
Please remember, silence is consent.
Terry Gorman
Lincoln
--
