Whitcomb: Big Breakthrough in Fall River? Time for a WJAR Boycott? Hospital Closings and Epidemics

Robert Whitcomb, Columnist

Whitcomb: Big Breakthrough in Fall River? Time for a WJAR Boycott? Hospital Closings and Epidemics

Robert Whitcomb, Columnist
“The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity at the treasury.’’

 

--The late British economist John Maynard Keynes.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

 

 

Sometimes what might turn out to be a big story is lurking nearby with little attention. Consider the tiny startup company in Fall River called Catalytic Innovations. There, scientist Stafford Sheehan and his team are developing a  reactor system that uses air, water and sunlight (which turns into electricity in the company’s solar panels) to transform atmospheric carbon dioxide into clean-burning ethanol. Carbon dioxide has been ominously increasing with our burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Catalytic Innovations’ work might profoundly strengthen efforts to combat global warming while providing an abundant source of clean energy.

Reuters has a short video on this exciting company.  (No, I do not own stock in it.) To see it, hit this link.

 

 

xxx

 

Rhode Island and many other states have more hospital beds than they need most of the time. So here and elsewhere, some hospitals are being closed or being turned into entirely outpatient operations. Consider the recent closing of the inpatient part of Memorial Hospital, in Pawtucket, with considerable local anger.

 

But what happens when a big epidemic, such as the current flu outbreak, or a sudden disaster, such as the Station nightclub fire, strikes?  That Rhode Island,  and the rest of New England, has an older demographic than most of America and thus a higher percentage of people who could get very sick, makes us particularly exposed.

 

Where do you put all these very sick and/or injured people in times of widespread medical emergencies? Instant hospitals under tents, such as on battlefields?

 

Suggestions appreciated.

 

xxx

 

Lack of affordable housing
More than half the population of Providence live in rental units. Many complain that rents are too high and that the properties where they live are not properly maintained. Drive around South Providence and some other poor neighborhoods and you’ll see the latter.

 

So Direct Action for Rights and Equality wants a new city ordinance to stop landlords from increasing rents more than once a year. It also wants the city to create a board to set rent-increase limits and mediate landlord-tenant disputes.

 

I’m sympathetic: Providence has a lot of poverty. However, rent control, while it might help tenants in the short term, would hurt them in the long run by encouraging many landlords to board up and sell their properties, and leave the city, or confine themselves to the high-end rental business in rich parts of Providence. Worsening the housing scarcity in low-income neighborhoods would obviously drive up rental costs there. At the least, lower rents would encourage even more physical neglect of existing housing.

An unpleasant reality of our market system.

 

 

xxx

 

Jeff Larder wrote a charming piece in the Jan. 19 Hartford Courant headlined “Why I Came Back to Connecticut.’’ It could apply to any place with problems, which means any place. Mr. Larder, who lives in Old Saybrook,  on Long Island Sound, had previously lived in Boston and Cape Cod. He moved back to the Nutmeg State in 2015.

 

There he has found plenty of things to complain about, including a “dysfunctional statehouse” (how many are highly functional?), “an exodus of jobs’’ and the “state full of suburbs flailing in a post-suburban world.’’  Further, the state’s “casinos are gross.’’ Yep, they are intrinsically gross.

 

Of course, some or even all of his complaints could be heard in many other states.

 

But economics isn’t everything. There are many reasons to live someplace.

 

He writes:

“....Connecticut more generally is at the happy middle of a diversity of experiences that comprise life at its best. In the span of a month, I had the best barbecue pork I've ever eaten in Hartford and the tastiest faux-chicken sandwich I've ever eaten at a vegetarian place in New Haven. Rolling farms, open space and hiking trails are minutes from downtown music venues and indie bookstores and record shops. The beaches aren't Malibu-caliber, obviously, but they're calm enough to teach your toddler to love the water….

 

“If Connecticut occasionally feels like an afterthought between two cities, remember that Manhattan is priced for wide-eyed optimists and pulseless corporate assassins, and the cranes in Boston seem hell-bent on building luxury apartments and the world's largest food court. Major metropolises are having trouble keeping around artists and creatives — the same people who make cities exciting places to live and can least afford the rent — and they've long been beyond the reach of middle-class families. Meanwhile, Connecticut's colleges, small and underutilized cities, and proximity to those same high-priced locales amount to an abundance of potential energy.’’

 

Sounds applicable to the cute little state to its east.

To read his essay, please hit this link:

 

xxx

 

Nellie Gorbea
Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea wants to let citizens vote during normal business hours for a 20-day period before primary and general elections, and on the weekend before each election.

 

The first part of the proposal is a bad idea.

 

For a long time, I’ve been worried about the rapidly increasing early voting in the weeks before an election. This means that more and more people are voting without the information that people who vote on Election Day have. A lot of stuff can come out in the last few weeks of a campaign!  

 

As much as possible,  voters should have the same information to use in deciding on which candidate and referendum item to support. Consider the last-minute news before the 2016 presidential election!

 

People stuck at home because of ill health and voters who must use absentee ballots because of, say, travel issues are special cases. But the vast majority of people can bestir themselves to a voting place and together engage in our precious democratic celebration, at a time when democracy is in retreat in much of the world.

 

But it seems that fewer and fewer Americans care.

 

Early voting taking place over weeks is also more vulnerable to fraud than voting all at once. Hello, Moscow!

 

But having elections on weekends is a splendid idea, and has long been the practice in many other democracies. (They mostly choose Sundays for the voting.) That way far fewer people can use the excuse of work obligations to escape voting, although many would come up with other excuses to avoid spending a few minutes to do their civic duty. Such as football on TV.Another, probably good idea from Ms. Gorbea is to move the date for primary elections to the third Tuesday in August from the second Tuesday in September.

 

Ms. Gorbea says correctly that the change would give the state more time to get general-election ballots ready to be mailed to overseas and military voters.

 

She also notes that the switch would end the need to shut schools that are used as voting places for primary elections; school vacation would still be underway. Obviously, they’d still be needed for the general election.

 

And the change would lengthen the time of the official general-election campaign, which might improve the quality of the debate.

 

Whether the earlier primary date would boost turnout is unknown.  For one thing, many people might be out-of-state on vacation. And, again, many Americans are lazy when it comes to participating in our democracy no matter how easy we try to make it.

 

When you don’t vote, you’re in effect voting.

 

“In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some diehard's vote.” 

 

-- David Foster Wallace

 

 

xxx

 

President Donald Trump
Even by Trump administration standards, the president’s “$1.5 trillion” infrastructure program is dubious.

 

The plan would have the Feds provide only $20 billion a year for 10 years, a tiny amount to address what is probably the Developed World’s worst public infrastructure. Trump would have the states and localities, and private investors who would want a big return, pony up most of the money. Here’s how it would work, as described by The New York Times:

 

“Under the new plan, a project is eligible to receive up to 20 percent of its cost in federal funding. That means if a city or state wants to take on, say, a $1 million project, it could potentially receive up to $200,000 in federal funding if it’s able to raise the other $800,000 on its own. But states and municipalities are already paying the bulk of infrastructure costs, and would have limited options if they wanted to increase that spending, especially if they are already strapped for cash or may have trouble raising new taxes. Many would hit spending limits before they could receive all of the available federal funds over the next 10 years.’’

 

All states except Vermont (which does it anyway) must by law balance their annual budgets and many now politically fear raising taxes even more than before because the GOP tax law has limited taxpayers’ ability to deduct local and state taxes on their federal tax returns.

 

Meanwhile, Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget proposal calls for cutting $240 billion (including $178 billion for transportation) in infrastructure spending.

 

There might be a glimmer of hope in Trump’s remark the other day that he’d back a 25-cent rise in the federal gasoline tax to help pay to fix some of our transportation mess; the tax was last raised in 1993. But the Koch Brothers, from whom many Republicans in Congress take their orders, are opposed. 

 

As for the private-sector role in the Trump program, The Times noted:

 

“In this new competition for federal funds, a plan to, say, build a better access road for a luxury development (of the Trump Organization, perhaps?) — a project with the potential to bring in more dollars from private investors — could have a strong chance of getting the green light. By comparison, a critical tunnel overhaul that has trouble getting new money might not be approved.

 

“Instead of the public sector deciding on public needs and public priorities, the projects that are most attractive to private investors are the ones that will go to the head of the line,” said Elliott Sclar,  a professor of urban planning at Columbia University.

 

To read The Times’s piece, please hit this link:

 

Still, there are areas where the private sector should step in more. I think, for example, that in some regions companies should be encouraged to build new rail passenger lines to supplement Amtrak and commuter rail lines.

 

Privatization of previously public transportation infrastructure, such as was done in Indiana, has had a very mixed record. Take a look:

 

Traditionally, the Feds have covered 80 percent of most public-infrastructure programs with an interstate component. But with the new tax law (mostly addressed to the desires of companies and the rich), and federal budget deficits thus swelling even faster before, the administration wants to unload the responsibility for addressing the infrastructure crisis onto others.

 

Too bad because if $1.5 trillion had been dedicated to public infrastructure instead of tax cuts, most everyone in the country would benefit with higher productivity, more and better jobs and a cleaner environment.

 

The president has quite rightly spoken to the need to streamline the regulatory process for approving public-infrastructure projects.  The Obama administration pushed for streamlining, but not nearly enough. The red tape and associated delays vastly increase the cost of projects and keep us sitting in traffic longer and longer, lowering national productivity.

 

Some bridge, highway and other projects take 10 years or more to get final approval. They should take no more than two years!  European nations manage to approve and complete major projects within two years while America seems paralyzed in trying to fix anything. That’s in part, of course, because we have an excessively litigious society. We must find ways to reduce the power of lawsuits, and the threat thereof, to stop needed public projects.

 

(I’m mostly writing about transportation projects here but our water systems and electric grid are also deteriorating rapidly.)

 

One way to speed up things is to consolidate the approval process into as a few agencies as possible and make the regulatory paperwork clear and terse, leaving implementers space to exercise common sense. Common Good (commongood.org), the legal- and regulatory-reform nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has done very impressive research on all this, and come up with practical if ambitious recommendations on addressing the infrastructure crisis.

 

xxx

 

I’m leery of mandatory family-leave programs because they can make running a business, especially a small one, very difficult.  Staff scheduling is often a nightmare already. And the leave program could add a lot more to the national debt. The conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at the National Review, raised some other valid concerns in a recent piece in Bloomberg News:

 

“If the government makes companies eat the cost, it might also make them less willing to promote or hire women of child-bearing age. If the government instead makes taxpayers as a whole pay for leave, then it penalizes families that have chosen to have one parent stay out of the paid labor force to take care of children. This seems especially unfair since those families have lower average incomes than two-earner families.’’

 

But, he has found at least one new way to address the public-money part of the problem.

 

“A new proposal … would … let new parents finance time off from their jobs by slightly delaying the time at which they would collect Social Security benefits. Kristin Shapiro, a lawyer in Washington, explained the idea in a recent paper for the Independent Women’s Forum. She estimates that new parents could finance 12 weeks of leave in return for a six-week delay in taking Social Security checks.’’

 

I’m not sure how workable this idea would be – it might be an administrative disaster -- but something like it should be considered.

 

To read more, please hit this link:

 

xxx

 

I wonder how many students must be murdered on the same day by a gunman with a military-style rifle and vast quantities of ammunition in order to overcome the opposition of the NRA’s servants in Congress to even mild new controls on weaponry designed for mass killings. I’d guess maybe 100 might do it, even in a nation as increasingly barbaric and corrupt as the United States.

 

As usual in these shootings, the alleged perpetrator of this latest massacre (as of this writing) is an angry young white man who found it very easy to get whatever high-powered gun and piles of ammunition he wanted.

 

Researchers whose work recently appeared in the journal Health Affairs found that the United States is “the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.”

 

See here

 

xxx

 

So it surprised many that ousted  Trump’s staff secretary, Rob Porter, handsome, rich, smart, very well connected and with nice suits, might be an abuser of two ex-wives.  (One of his ex-wives has had a protective order to try to shield herself from him.)

 

Why did this man have an interim security clearance that gave him access to top-secret material, despite the danger of, among other things, blackmail? I guess because he fulfilled the image and career-credentials qualifications. You can get away with a lot if you have the right look and an elite CV.

 

Indeed, Porter was by all accounts a very able Trump aide – perhaps the best in the White House. His exit may lead to more chaos there.

 

xxx

 

WJAR's news director's required to donate to Sinclair's PAC
The TV station chain Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has polluted its stations with political propaganda, a few weeks ago gave each of its employees a highly publicized $1,000 bonus and thanked Trump for signing the tax law, which mostly benefits companies (which doesn’t bother me in itself) and rich folks. Now the company is pressuring its employees (including its journalists) to donate to the Sinclair Political Action Group, which supports Trump and other Republican politicians.

It used to be that news-media employees were discouraged from giving to politicians lest they appear to be overly biased. But in the much more corrupt political world following the Citizens United case, of 2010, such scruples are disappearing fast.  It would be nice if viewers of, and advertisers on, Providence’s WJAR (Channel 10) boycotted the station, which used to be well-respected and still has some good people, though it’s hard to understand how any self-respecting journalist would want to work there.

 

xxx

 

As for bonuses, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says that as of the middle of January, only 2 percent of working adults had gotten a bonus or a raise from the tax law’s cut in the top corporate tax to 21 percent from 35 percent (which many companies didn’t pay because lobbyists got them big loopholes). Most of the corporate windfall will go into stock buybacks, dividend increases and even more gargantuan pay for senior execs.

I suspect that very well-publicized  (suck up to the president!) bonuses and not pay increases will be the main way that corporate managements reward lower-level employees.

Why get stuck with new long-term costs?

Good if temporary PR for the GOP. It may well make them winners this November but probably not in November 2020, by which time recession and inflation will have taken their toll on the wishful thinking even of the most fanatical fans of our Maximum Leader.

 

xxx

 

It’s past time that Bryant University and other U.S. institutions kick the Confucius Institutes off their campuses. These are spy and propaganda agencies of China’s Communist dictatorship, and U.S. intelligence officials increasingly worry about them. FBI Director Christopher Wray raised his concerns the other day.

The institute's spy on everything around them. Chinese students at American colleges that host these entities are very aware that they’re part of Beiing’s increasingly Orwellian surveillance system aimed at quashing dissent. To read more, please hit this link:

xxx

 

The Rhode Island State House is gorgeous all lit up in red and green honoring Black History Month. A nice distraction from the boring bleakness of February.


The 50 Greatest Living Rhode Islanders

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.