Why I support the Raimondo plan: 

As the Joint Finance Committee of both the House and Senate ready for a vote on the pension bill tomorrow, I wanted to offer my thoughts on the proposed pension reform legislation that the Assembly expects to vote on in the next week or so.  I plan to vote for this reform package as I've come to know it over the past several months.  Any major structural changes made by the Joint Finance Committee however, could cause me to reassess my position.

Why I support the Raimondo plan:

For as far back as the end of the 60's, we in Rhode Island have collectively stuck our heads in the sand and tried to pretend the looming pension crisis did not exist.  We are not alone in that regard as other states across the country face similar problems - but ours is one of the worst.  The Raimondo plan, although not perfect, will go far toward fixing this problem.  It will help right the fiscal mess we face and send a signal that for once Rhode Island state government is acting in a fiscally responsible manner.  If given the opportunity, I would make some revisions to the proposal.  Some of the changes on the judicial side of the plan could - in my opinion, be a bit deeper than what is in the current plan.  I think another way of tightening up some of the expectations from the overhaul would be to take a closer look

at the new retirement age and see if there are ways to make it occupation appropriate - as some jobs are more physically taxing than others.  There are some other changes I would make as well and we may see these things in the final version that is set to be released to the House Finance Committee Thursday the 10th.

There are several reasons to support this reform, but on the most basic level it boils down to this; If we do nothing, then starting next July, the State must pay an additional $300 million into the pension fund on top of the $300 million we paid this year.  We do not have that money.  Further, Coventry alone will have to pay $12.8 million more, Foster $0.78 million and Glocester an additional $2.2 million.  This is on top of the contributions we already make.  Every other town faces the same prospect and these are just the increases for next year, let alone future years.  Where is that money to come from?  We have already slashed municipal services to the bone and our schools suffer from a lack of educational programs.  While these figures are difficult to comprehend for those of us who manage our household budgets using hundreds of dollars, rather than millions of dollars I can state that Foster and Glocester are relatively well funded. Coventry is in a slightly less desirable position - but there are other towns and cities that are far worse off than District 40 at large.

At the state level, to close that $300 million gap, if we increased the sales tax by two percentage points from 7% to 9%, even without factoring in all the damage that would cause our economy and the monstrous hit we would put on business owners, we still would only raise $242 million on a straight line projection - not enough to pay just next year's increase to the pension fund.  That amount, even assuming that some of it would be paid by out-of-state residents, still comes to over $200 per person.  Income tax increases on the "rich" will not do the trick either.  In each of my three years in the House, 2009, 2010 and again in 2011, during each budget session, the House defeated attempts by certain Democratic legislators to raise the income tax.  These attempts varied but even under the most punitive projection, one which would raise Rhode Island income taxes to the highest in America, the projected increase in revenue was $190 million per year.  A more modest proposal, which would still jack up rates on "the rich" but not elevate us to 50th in the country would bring in $88 million.*  Even coupled with just a 1% potential increase in the sales tax, we still do not raise enough money to fill the budget shortfall just in the next fiscal year. This does not even factor in the lasting damage to an already fragile private-sector economy such increases would cause or the burden they would place on our residents, including public sector workers and retirees as well.

*(In both these options "rich" was defined as those making more than $125,000 which would include, for example, a dual teaching couple at top step and a host of other people who do not consider themselves as wealthy. The income tax hit alone for a pair of teachers would be on the order of $5,000 a year in additional income tax).

So, to take rough numbers, a typical retired couple in Foster will face a potential average tax increase of $325, a retired couple in Foster would see a $325  increase next year, and in Glocester the increase would average $915 - and we still don't solve the problem, the unfunded liability will continue to worsen.  Now if one of those people is a retired state employee with the average base state pension of approximately $25,000, the COLA they are foregoing in Foster amounts for that same year to $750, essentially only reducing their income by $425 rather than $750.  In Glocester, a retired couple would forgo a $750 COLA increase, but on the other hand forego a tax increase of $915, essentially saving them $165 in the first year.  Coventry is a unique situation because of the much larger unfunded liability.  If taxes were to go up to fund the unfunded liability, they would equal $4,580 more per year.  Obviously higher than the $750 that the COLA would provide. As you can see by these three different communities, retirees may actually lose considerable money if we keep the COLA.  While that may not be the typical case, as for many the COLA is larger, even for those who will still come out ahead, the price is much higher than many realize - and of course for everyone else who does not collect a benefit, not to mention the state's business climate and potential to generate private sector employment, the price is simply too high.  It is for this reason that we must act.

by Mike Chippendale

CCFD Fire Tax Meeting Ends Prematurely Due to Charter Discrepancies

By simply taking a look at the parking lot of the Coventry Town Hall Annex shortly before 7 p.m. on Monday, it was apparent that it was not going to be a normal meeting. Hundreds of citizens that reside within the Central Coventry Fire District showed up at this year's annual Board of Directors meeting to vote on an increase in fire taxes.

The meeting that was scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. did not start until after 8:00 due to the largely unexpected number of voters that had to register in order to have their votes counted. Despite the rainy evening, the line of residents wrapped partially around the building for the better part of an hour, making for a near-capacity audience.

In order to quell some of the major questions and concerns that many of the attendees had, the Board decided to hold an informational section before discussing agenda items. About a dozen members of the community shared their concerns with the Board, speaking out against their tax rates and how they are calculated, showing concern for how District's money is spent and several residents suggesting that the town merge all its fire districts into one.

CCFD Chief Bob Seltzer and Board President Girard Bouchard Jr. attempted to answer each of the questions, explaining points like how the new tax rate would be calculated using the most recent property revaluation figures, and therefore would vary from resident to resident. Seltzer also explained the District's need for its most recently purchased ladder truck that several residents spoke out against, as well as expressing his advocating for having one fire district for the entire town.

In a packet handed out to voters as they arrived, the Tax Rate Resolution stated "a tax of not more than $4.45 for commercial and industrial properties and not more than $2.55 for residential properties, on each $1,000 of ratable real estate, be levied and assessed...residential property on leased land will be taxed at the residential rate (including mobile homes)..." Last year's residential fire tax rate in the district was $1.82 per $1,000.

After several residents expressed the fact that members of the Town simply do not have enough money to pay higher taxes, Seltzer reminded them of their right to vote for or against the proposed budget.

"We were very sensitive to that when we came up with the budget," he said. "If you want to vote it down, you can. If the audience wants to propose a different rate or budget, we are open to that. We have a very open Board of Directors that meet every month, and quite frankly, no one comes to our meetings. We always welcome input and my door is always open."

After the informational section of the meeting came to a close at 8:45 p.m., the Board began making its way through the agenda, with the voters passing motions to accept the minutes from last year's meeting as well as the tax collector, treasurer and chief's reports.

Agenda item number nine, if passed, would have elected two new members to the Board of Directors. A fierce discussion between Board members and the voters began when resident Leo Blais moved to elect officials after the budget discussion, bringing the meeting's progression to a screeching halt. Blais and resident Conrad Burns then brought to the attention of everyone present, discrepancies in the language of the Town Charter that would essentially yield any and all decisions made at the meeting void.

Chief Seltzer later explained that when the charter was changed in 2007, residents had voted in favor of changing the annual meeting from September to the first Monday in October. He went on to explain that at some point between the voters' decision and the General Assembly, the decision was never passed.

"In the past, if it is a 'meeting of the people', like tonight's meeting was, the Attorney General usually sides with what the people want," Seltzer said. "Rulings in the past have shown that annual meetings do not have to follow Open Meetings Laws, so no one saw a problem with holding this or any past meetings. It is all being changed and corrected based on the will of the people. It was nobody's mistake - it happened during the process and nobody did it on purpose. We did our best to stay with what the people want."

Blais suggested to the Board that it allow the two current members to continue holding their positions until their replacements have been elected at a special election meeting six months from now. Coventry resident and owner of several mobile home parks, John Assalone, also put forward for consideration that the Board adjourn Monday's meeting and vigorously attempt to collect the $859,000 in unpaid taxes from the prior year in lieu of another tax increase.

"I suggest no tax increase for at least six months, so you can get your house in order and get an attorney that is going to deal with the people that haven't paid their share - another $800,000 in hand is going to solve most of your problems," said Assalone. "Get that money in here, get your new members, postpone the meeting for six months and move forward."

Before adjourning the meeting, the Board of Directors explained that the tax bill being sent out this year will contain the same rate as the 2010 bill, which includes calculations based on the 2009 evaluation, not the most recent revaluation in which property values were significantly decreased.

The rescheduled CCFD tax meeting and board member election will take place on Monday, April 2, 2012.

From Coventry Patch - October 4, 2011

A Choice and a Voice forRhode IslandTeachers

National Education Association (“NEA”) official Lou Rainone’s outrageous assault on State Rep. Brien is significantly disturbing and becoming much too common here in our tinyOceanState.  Rep. Brien was berated simply because he stood in support of Rep. Gablinske who allegedly had been stalked by John Leidecker – Assistant Director with the NEA.  The NEA strongly detests Rep. Gablinske and successfully ousted him from the House of Representatives as punishment for his positions on labor matters, or shall we say, for failing to be yet another Minion of the NEA.

After being elected to the Senate in 2010, my eyes were opened wide to the tactics of the NEA:  bullying, intimidating, threatening and stomping its feet all in its effort to preserve the stranglehold it has secured over our State’s coffers.  This most recent assault by Mr. Rainone is not an isolated incident, rather an outburst representative of the chronic behavior of the NEA.  This organization undermines the very spirit of our educational system, harming the reputation of many fine teachers and placing our children at the bottom of our priority list.

Just for a moment, ponder this.  Here inRhode Island, a majority of state legislators enacted a law which requires union membership for every public school teacher! Now how about that?  Teachers are forced to join and pay Union dues, or they may not obtain employment in our public system.  These dues amount to millions of dollars each year essentially extorted from employees and used to ensure that NEA Minions get re-elected (or ousted for non-cooperation).  NEA Minions have a mission: to protect traditional non-performance based salaries, large unsustainable benefit packages, and job security for all – even those that fail children!  As Rhode Islanders, it is time to push back.  This “Minion” system simply does not support excellence in education.  In fact, it is simply not at all about children or education.  It’s about adults, money, power and influence, all at the expense of our children and ultimately our future.

We CAN change all of this and bringRhode Islandback to a State which offers the finest public education anywhere in our country.  Teachers inRhode Islanddeserve a choice and a voice.  The NEA would have us believe its entire membership supports the “Minion” system.  We all know better.  How many of us have been touched by a teacher?  You know, the kind of mentor who sparked your imagination with their passion, knowledge and desire for a particular subject.   EveryRhode Islandchild deserves to be exposed to this experience in every subject.  We should strive to create a reward based system which supports talented, passionate individuals, rather than a system that requires membership in a union unsupportive of these fundamentals.

For all of these reasons, the law requiring union membership for public school teachers MUST be changed.  EveryRhode Islandteacher should have a choice to opt out.  School Committees would then have the freedom to attract new talent at salary levels appropriate for the skill & background they seek, keeping and encouraging high performers.    Eventually, a system like this could be a game changer.  The alternative to do nothing, and continue to support the Minion system which rewards/protects mediocrity and under performance, is simply unacceptable.

In January, I intend to sponsor legislation giving teachers inRhode Islanda choice and a voice.  The choice of opting out of Union membership and the ability to voice their opinions without fear of reprisal.  This will undoubtedly be a piece of legislation vigorously opposed by the NEA and its Minions.  Leadership will attempt to quietly kill the bill in committee.  The NEA will use the same tactics we are witnessing today in the Rainone incident, but the results can be different.  We, average Rhode Islanders, can prevail if we step out and stand together.  Call your Senator and your Representative today and tell them you want your teachers to have a choice and a voice come January.

by Nicholas D. Kettle

Senator District 21

Coventry, Foster,Scituate

Home Rule Charter Changes -

"the will of the people"

Last November, voters in Coventry overwhelmingly voted in favor of changing several Home Rule Charter items, which included Town Council review/approval of union-negotiated contracts (similar to East Providence) and non-partisan elections (which could result in run-off elections). These changes have been approved by RI Senate, under a bill submitted by Nick Kettle (R-40), by an overwhelming margin. However, Reps. Scott Guthrie (D-28) and Lisa Tomasso (D-29)---both Coventry Democrats---heavily backed and financed by the unions---have conspired to forestall and defeat approval of these measures. They are using the language and apparent misinterpretation by voters relating to the non-partisan election changes, as a guise to defeat these changes, which would heavily affect the way unions negotiate their contracts with Coventry, etc. This is an absolute outrage, as it would defeat the will of the people---which is the basis for a democracy. This is yet another instance how the unions have taken a tyrannical control of our local government.

History of Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it.  Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

It is no longer voluntary.

 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.

Now it’s 7.65% on the first $90,000.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

It is no longer tax deductible.

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into  the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security  Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

Under Johnson the money was moved to the “General Fund” and spent.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under the Clinton and Gore administration up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed!

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social  Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people knew this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.