Don Roach

Brian Hull of RI Future recently wrote:

I wish more legislators understood that tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing more than drain critical money from government. They don’t create jobs.

This was in response to Rep. Chris Fierro’s recent appointment to the House Finance Committee and his pledge to work to repeal the flat income tax. Rhode Islanders should have a lot of problems with Hull’s comments. Many of us are hardworking people who are seeking to provide for our families. In these tough economic times do you want people in power who think “tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing more than drain critical money from government”? I thought that the money I worked for was my money not just money I’m borrowing from the government to then be given back to Uncle Sam. Yet, Hull seems to think that cutting taxes for the wealthy drains money from government. It seems he is not coming to the table from the perspective that it’s our money and that we’re freely relinquishing some of it for a greater good(e.g. fire & police protection, snow plowing, decent schools). Were those services “free” what purpose would we need to fund the government? Or better put, if there was a private company that could perform these services to our satisfaction what need would we have of the government? In all, this is the principles progressives are floating out as fact and we need to make sure to call them on it and also make sure our society does not come to the point where we forget that the people who worked for the money should actually keep it!

Speaking of morality…this is one issue that I have scoured RI blogs over the last few years to see if any liberal/progressive can come up with a good reason to oppose the 24 hour waiting period bill that is introduced over and over in the RI house. While we focus on teachers’ union contracts, tax cuts for the rich, and all the other cliche topics of the day there are many women and young girls getting pregnant who need options.

I’ll save for another day my disgust with laws that don’t allow parents to make decisions for their children in these matters while at the same time holding them accountable for other actions their children may take, but suffice it to say it bothers me that the 24 hour waiting period bill does not get enough support.

Essentially, and I haven’t seen this year’s bill, the bill requires a waiting period of 24 hours to decide whether or not the woman would still like to go through the abortion. She would be afforded information regarding alternatives available to her and it would allow her to make a very, very reasoned decision.

Seems simple to me, yet I have not seen any liberal type come out in support of it. Planned Parenthood – an oxymoron if there ever was – actually wrote this about the right to know act last year:

Despite its deceptive name, H. 5334, the “Women’s Right to Know Act,” doesn’t tell women anything they’re not already being told.  Instead, it imposes a 24-hour waiting period, intended only to make it more difficult for women seeking an abortion to receive the care they desire.

Yeah, that’s the desired result of the bill to make it more difficult for women seeking the abortion..er…care they desire. Come on! Is that all you got?

To me, an organization with the name, Planned Parenthood, should be all over this bill seeking to help “parents” better “plan” what to do in unplanned situations. Instead, their “hood”-winking us by trying to tell us that a bill asking a woman to wait a day to think about the abortion is somehow going to make it extremely difficult for a woman to get an abortion.

Let me ask you this, how many quick decisions have you made only to think back and wish you had taken a moment to think about it a little longer? I can think of a few……..dozen.

Going back to my earlier posts, liberals try to win the semantic arguments in all morality based issues. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric. Make the decision yourself. I’m being up front with you that I believe women will make more informed decisions if they wait 24 hours and I hope that some may choose not to have an abortion. But at minimum, at least we would have provided them an opportunity to fully understand all options available to them.

It would seem liberals don’t want that.

You’ll often here that come from the mouths of liberals who believe that “morality” should be outside the bounds of governmental oversight. Out of the other side of their mouths, liberals will then tell you we need a government sponsored health insurance. Why? Because we cannot have millions of people without health insurance. Why not? Because, as the richest country in the worlds it’s “wrong” to have anyone die or suffer because they have inadequate access to health care.

Ok, I think I have. The government should not legislate morality – except if its the morality of the left. Now things are becoming more clear. If the left thinks its right, by golly it must be right. Not only is it “right” it is “a right” something that is inalienable to all people.

Or so goes the thinking.

But I’m getting tired of the liberals shoving their morality down my throat and then saying I have no right, justification, et. al. to put forth my set of morality to be judged by the populous. For example, I’m an ardent pro-life guy. My morality says everyone person who is about to be born has the right to be born. That right outweighs the woman’s right to decide whether that baby fits within her life paradigm. Liberals will tell me in one breath that the government shouldn’t legislate my morality and then say we should legislate homosexual marriage? Huh? Their reply would be that marriage is a “right” for all people.

See where this is going? Liberals like to phrase their morality in language that makes it less a moral precept and more a universal human right. It’s a good tact to take if you’re able to redefine the semantics in the debate. People begin to think, “wow, I think every one is entitled to human rights…maybe any kind of marriage is a right to all humans.” On the flip side, they start talking about discrimination, bigotry, and the like referencing their opponents position. As a nation still hung over from the hundreds of years of minority oppression such tactics still resonate with a populace looking to “not harm” more than “do good”. Some folks who lived during the era before the Civil Rights movement still lament many of the deplorable actions of that time period.

But it’s all fools gold. Liberals want to legislate morality as much as conservatives do. Just visit RI Future and read the following:

• America is addicted to an unsustainable way of life – a nice little diatribe to make people feel bad about themselves because we’re killing the environment.
• Frank Caprio and same-sex marriage – Is “conservative” Catholic Caprio really for the redefinition of marriage? He better be so say liberals
• Bill Lynch and tax cuts for the rich – What? You made the money and you think you have the “right” to keep it!? Heck no, say the liberals.

So next time any liberal tells you that we can’t legislate morality, just remind them that everyday they are trying to do just that and would be more honest in admitting that fact.

One of my favorite songs as a kid was LL Cool J’s, Mama said knock you out. In the song LL says:

Don’t call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon
Listen to the bass go BOOM
Explosion, overpowerin
Over the competition, I’m towerin

This song should definitely be the background music every time a Rhode Island Young Republican walks in a room.

“Ah, here comes Travis Rowley”

Don’t call it a comeback…I been here for years

“I think those Young Republicans are looking to shake things up here in Rhode Island.”

Rockin’ my peers and puttin’ suckas in fear

That’s essentially what we’re trying to do as the Young Republicans. We’re trying to – as they say – change the game. I have never been excited about the Republican party in this state until now. Despite what you read in the Projo about internal strife at the state party level, I can tell you that there is a growing number of Young Republicans who are very intelligent and are mobilizing in an attempt to bring core Republican ideals to Rhode Island in tangible ways.

Progressives be on alert because…Mama said knock you out!

So I learned that Dan Harrop is running for mayor from, guess who, Rhode Island’s Future. You know the left wing blog begun by Matt Jerzyk and personal vomit-zone for Pat Crowley. This got me thinking.

Anchor Rising is certainly the conservative Rhode Island blog. But, where is the Rhode Island GOP blog? Where’s the blog telling you all the news that comes from the Republican party? Who’s running for this? What issue needs to be supported?

RI Future has done an excellent job of pushing the progressive agenda and keeping it front and center even if their positions are not held by a majority of Rhode Islanders much less RI Democrats. They are doing analysis on Democratic candidates in this year’s races, but where can I go to find the GOP info? Apparently, RI Future (first reported by the projo FWIW).

And thus far, the only comment to Harrop’s announcement post on RI Future deals with him favoring marriage as it is currently defined. RI GOP, we have to do better. I’m going to make some inquiries to see if we can’t start shaping the conversation a bit better.

Schwing:  An expression of immense satisfaction, to be used in the event of exteme good fortune.

That’s the feeling Rhode Island Republicans must be feeling right now with the announcement that Patrick Kennedy will not seek reelection. A few months ago, I wondered if the RI GOP could maintain its scant representation in the General Assembly much less having an opportunity to take Congressional seats from the Democrats. Thanks to the ineptitude in Washington by a Democratic President and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, they’ve opened the door for a Republican comeback much sooner than I imagined.

However, I’m still left wondering if such national angst can translate at the local level and cause a revolution in the General Assembly where the Democrats have been running the show for seven plus decades and still find time to blame the Governor for most of the problems in Rhode Island.

Could this be the year that all changes?

Could this be the year Rhode Island Republicans become relevant again?

Could this be the year Republicans win a Congressional seat in Rhode Island?

Could this be the year voters reject Democrats en masse?

We’ll have to wait and see.

Jumping off from Tuesday’s contentious RI GOP meeting, I decided to dive a bit deeper into the situation. Here’s the issue from both sides:

The case for closing the primary

First, with a closed primary you’ll have Republicans electing Republican candidates. It’s not a stretch to see why Republicans would want members of their own party to elect their candidates, no? In fact, after moving here and realizing Rhode Island had an open primary I always thought it was a bit odd and a little dubious as each side could try to influence the other in certain elections.

We definitely saw this in the 2006 Senatorial race between Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey. In my opinion, there are no philosophical holes with this argument. To get the most supported Republican candidate elected, the primary should only be open to those who are Republicans. Period. Again, I don’t find fault in this principle at all.

Oh, but it may not be that simple

The case against closing the primary

There’s a political reality in Rhode Island. Namely, independent voters outnumber Republican, Democratic, Moderate, and Green affiliated voters. Elections do not hinge on affiliated voters but the independents. And Rhode Islanders have demonstrated independence in that they have voted for Republican governors in recent years all the while allowing the Democrats to maintain a choke hold in the General Assembly and Congressional delegations.

So pragmatically, it doesn’t make sense for Republicans to close their primaries because while a candidate may be able to win amongst the 72,000+ Republican members they still need to convince about another 600k+ voters most of whom are unaffiliated. An open primary allows for the candidate with the broadest appeal – the theory goes – to win and give the Republicans the best chance of winning statewide. Closing the primary may get you virtuoso Republicans who are not electable in such a diverse populous.

My thoughts

There’s the issue in a nutshell and you can see why there is such a divide within the RI GOP. There are competing interests on either side of the argument and while I thought I was in the closed primary camp the more I think about the issue the more interested I am in actually winning November elections versus September ones. But, that may be the cynic in me in thinking that a true conservative Republican can’t win statewide. I think it would be difficult but certainly not impossible. However, you can get a decent gauge of a candidate’s statewide appeal via the open primary and I think that’s worth something. But, the question is is it worth diluting the Republican-ness of the primary?

…despite teetering on the verge of the same.

Last night, I was in attendance at the State Central Committee meeting. Not my first foray into state party politics and probably not my last either. However, I was amazed at the cast of characters in the room.  You had the governor, formerCranston Mayor Steve Laffey, current Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, Warwick Mayor Avedesian, and a veritable who’s who of Republicans. I hadn’t ever seen so many high profile Republicans at this meeting before. Ever.

The topic as many of you know surrounded closing the primary and removing Gio Ciccione from his office as State Party chair. The meeting started off with a bang as motions were made to suspend the rules and allow the vice-chair to run the meeting. This debate went on for about 20 minutes and resulted in the state’s Parliamentarian resigning. Next, the agenda was not approved by the members and so Ciccione stated that we were in for a free for all. Ultimately, he followed the agenda – based upon the recently resigned Parliamentarians opinion on meetings without approved agendas – and the meeting was able to move forward.

The Governor spoke about party unity, his successes in office – namely reducing the size of government and co-shares for government workers, and that he believed the primary should be open. The Governor received respectful applause but left the meeting after his comments.

Next, we had committee chairs present and everything was pretty ho-hum until the report from the committee chairs caucus arrived. And that’s when things got really interesting.

First though, I made a comment on my Facebook page that asked if Republicans would cut out their heart to spite their eyebrow. I am of the opinion that battling this issue right now is just a bad idea. It’s just way too easy to be spun and in a moment in time when Northeast Republicans have an actual shot at winning elections this cycle couldn’t come at a worst time. Again, my opinion but what’s also evident is that Ciccione has made some enemies within the party and it doesn’t appear that he’s too concerned about placating them…at all.

Ok, well after some interesting debate which you may here on the Dan Yorke show (he was in attendance) a vote was taken to determine if the state delegates had confidence in Ciccione as chairman. The results were 48 had no confidence and 75 had confidence…or didn’t lack confidence I should say. You could hear collective sighs from portions of the crowd whereas the Young Repbulicans, myself included, were please with the results.

As to the matter of closed primaries, it requires two meetings one where the amendment is read and another where it is voted upon. This was the meeting where the amendment was read. In April it will be voted upon, however, that may be too late to actually close this year’s primary because of some rule I’m unaware of regarding changes being made within 180 days of the primary. So, in effect, the issue is dead for this year so it would appear.

However, I spoke to Will Ricci an ardent proponent of closed primaries and one you all know well in the blogosphere. He advised there may yet be ways to get this measure done this year. We’ll see.

What’s your opinion on this? Should primaries be closed? Is Ciccione a good chairman?

UPDATE: Tonight the city council voted and approved this resolution. The only council members voting against the resolution were Councilmen Navarro and Lupino. I spoke with Councilman Livingston prior to the meeting and he expressed concern at that time and during the session. However, he voted in favor of the resolution ultimately. Score one for the taxpayer.

Cranston Mayor, Allan Fung, will be introducing a resolution against a proposal to utilize binding arbitration during negotiation with teacher’s unions. Before I get to the text of the Mayor’s resolution, can I just say that it is incredulous to think the General Assembly would pass such legislation and I would think that this Council, given their penchant to want to be intimately involved with the contract negotiation process, would never consider such a proposal. It makes no sense whatsoever to utilize an arbitrator when the city is paying people to fill such roles. This past August, however,  House Majority Leader Gordon Fox gave a strong endorsement for binding arbitration when he said:

Any version of the bill that I would support … Would have a binding arbitration process that would save communities from spending money on attorney fees while eliminating the threat of teacher strikes or work-to-rule situations, which harm students

This just doesn’t make sense. Let’s say for sake of argument that binding arbitration does save taxpayers money what’s the point of electing officials when unions will have the ability to go to arbitration if they do not agree with the local city or town versus fighting it out through the normal legal process? Many credit card companies decided to go to binding arbitration versus the courts because:

[...] the credit card issuer is giving notice that if the cardholder has a dispute with the company (including identity theft, fines, penalty or late fee disputes, interest rate guarantees, etc.) he or she can’t sue the card issuer in court. Instead, they must take the case to a private arbitrator or judge.

And that makes a lot of sense…for the credit card companies and makes just as much sense for the unions. Unlike what Fox tried to spin, it doesn’t make sense for the taxpayer as you remove the checks and balances within the system and instead give overall authority to non-government people. They’ll decide what happens with your and my tax dollars in union disputes. At least with the current system if you do not like how a contract was resolved and you thought your local councilman had done the wrong thing, you could vote him or her out (same goes for the school board) but in this scenario it won’t matter who’s in office, it just matters who the arbitrator is. Ultimately, the Rhode Island taxpayer won’t control that process.

That, again, just does not make sense for the Rhode Island Taxpayer and has led Mayor Fung to present the resolution below at next Monday’s City Council meeting:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Cranston City Council respectfully requests the Rhode Island General Assembly to reject any and all binding arbitration legislation currently being considered for teacher contracts.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City is hereby instructed to submit a copy of this resolution to the City of Cranston’s State Senators and State Representatives in the Rhode Island General Assembly seeking their consideration and support of.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE BELOW

I’ve created an online petition as I plan to attend next Monday’s Council meeting. It would be interesting to get a lot of signatures for this and hopefully present it to the Council. Please sign if you agree with what I’m talking about here and also live in Cranston.

What happens when you don’t have enough money to pay your bills? You stuff gets repoed, your credit gets shot to H-E-double hockey sticks, and things you enjoyed before mostly like get cut. Facing a governor who was (finally) willing to say, “We can’t afford everyone, we either are going to have to ‘cut’ certain employees or you take this deal”, the Council 94 finally blinked and faced reality.

On Wednesday, the presidents of the 23 local unions within Council 94, American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, rejected Carcieri’s proposal, urging the governor to return to the bargaining table.

But Carcieri refused, saying he had no alternative but to begin wide-scale layoffs. And on Thursday, the leaders of the state’s second-largest union — the Rhode Island Alliance of Social Service Employees [Local 580] — agreed to allow their members to vote on the proposal, putting pressure on Council 94 to reconsider in the face of hundreds of potential layoffs.

On Rhode Island’s best known liberal blog, RI Future, you can probably see the ever ‘interesting’, Pat Crowley, going bananas as Council 94 recognizes that it’s better to have a job than no job at all in a very poor economic climate.

Now the issue goes to the union members whom I hope will chose this plan over not having a job. It’s unfortunate the economy is this way, but it is what it is. The only thing you can do when you don’t have enough money to pay is cut out some of your spending. The union now has the choice of taking some paper cuts or facing the machete called wide-ranging layoffs.

I know what I would choose.