What's this? A Book!
Or buy here: Light Publications, Powell's, or Bn, Amazon A look at the lousy situation Rhode Island is in, how we got here, and how we might be able to get out. Featuring
Now at bookstores near you, or buy it with the button above ($14, or $18 with shipping and sales tax). Contact information below if you'd like to schedule a book-related event, like a possibly entertaining talk on the book's subjects, featuring the famous mystery graph. Join the RIPR Mailing List! For a weekly column and (a few) other items of interest, click here or send an email to ripr-list-subscribe@whatcheer.net. RIPR is a (paper) newsletter and a weekly column appearing in ten of Rhode Island's finer newspapers. The goal is to look at local, state and federal policy issues that affect life here in the Ocean State, concentrating on action, not intentions or talk. If you'd like to help, please contribute an item, suggest an issue topic, or buy a subscription. If you can, buy two or three (subscribe here). Search this siteAvailable Back Issues:
Subscription information:
Contact:For those of you who can read english and understand it, the following is an email address you are welcome to use. If you are a web bot, we hope you can't understand it, and that's the point of writing it this way. editor at whatcheer dot net Archive:
Links:Links pageRSSRIPR is primarily a print publication (yikes! how 20th century!), and the work it represents is supported by its subscribers. Feel free to use this link to an RSS feed for the blog, but the real meat is in the newsletter, so come back and subscribe when you have a chance. Responsibility: Tom Sgouros
|
Sat, 27 Dec 2008
How much does it cost to live in Rhode Island? That's a hard question to answer, so here's another: how much do you have to earn so that you're not poor in Rhode Island?
Since it was first developed (by Mollie Orshansky, a researcher at the Social Security Administration, in 1963), the federal poverty level has been controversial, subject to misinterpretation and manipulation. Originally based on typical food budgets, the poverty level has crept up with food prices over the years, but not with the changes in the way we spend money, leaving it a poor measure of being poor.
14:09 - 27 Dec 2008 [/y8/cols] link
Sat, 20 Dec 2008
I got a press release last week from the Governor's office. It seems that he's organized what they're calling a small business stimulus package. Well that's the kind of thing we need right now, so I clicked right over and looked for the details.
Sadly, what was on offer was something else entirely: a package of measures intended to make it more likely that Rhode Island businesses who need credit will get it. Apparently the Governor's office organized a bunch of local banks to pledge specific dollar amounts in local business credit and a variety of other ways to get credit to small businesses. This is a good thing, and I'm glad it's happening. The measures, all told, are cheap ways to use the government's power to get things to happen. Credit is the life blood of many businesses, and current events in the financial markets have jeopardized it, even for businesses in no danger of default.
But what of this word, "stimulus?" I'm afraid it's become a little overused, sort of cheapened by wide use this year. What is stimulus?
15:57 - 20 Dec 2008 [/y8/cols] link
Sun, 14 Dec 2008
Last week the Governor's "Blue-Ribbon Panel on Transportation Funding" issued its draft report about how we're supposed to pay for rebuilding our roads and bridges. The report says we need $639 million a year to rebuild our roads and bridges and to put RIPTA on a solid footing over the next ten years. This is about $285 million more than is going to come from the federal government or the existing array of taxes. This is a lot of money, even in these days of hundred-billion-dollar bailouts. It's enough dollar bills to blanket our sections of I-95 and 295 with them, including the breakdown lanes and bridge abutments.
The report isn't shy about revenue, which is a refreshing change -- not because I welcome paying more money, but because I welcome honesty from my public officials. It suggests a variety of tolls, taxes and fees to pay for the maintenance and reconstruction of what we've got. More about them in a moment.
The report recommendations are separated into the more frugal "Scenario 1" and the more expensive "Scenario 2". I gather that the intent is that we find some happy compromise between the two, but as I perused the report and its findings, I found it hard to imagine finding contentment anywhere between these two.
15:01 - 14 Dec 2008 [/y8/cols] link
Sat, 06 Dec 2008
Missed today's mail pickup, so it will be in Monday's.
- Housing First, a new approach to homelessness (that appears to be working), by Eric Hirsch
- A look at the proposed ALCO TIF deal, by Judith Reilly
- Book review: You Can't Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America by John MacArthur
Didn't you mean to subscribe already?
18:30 - 06 Dec 2008 [/y8/de] link
Affordable housing is still a problem
I was looking over some data about homelessness last week. It seems that the number of homeless people using shelters from July 2006 to June 2007 was about the same as the year, before, which seems like good news only until you compare it to the years before that. Shelter nights in 2006-2007 were up over 70% from 2000. The most recent year's data is still being compiled, but with unemployment up and rents not down, there's no obvious reason to think things have improved.
Homelessness is a complicated thing, with many reasons behind it, but high rents are a principal cause. Right now, the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is about four times what a disabled person receiving Social Security (SSI) support receives. Sure, those people aren't necessarily shopping for median apartments, but show me the units that rent for $200 a month, which is about what they can afford. And that isn't the only problem.
18:26 - 06 Dec 2008 [/y8/cols] link
Mon, 01 Dec 2008
Via a friend, here's a provocative look at the Jevons paradox. What's that? It's the propensity for the economy to use more of a resource once the consumption of that resource is made more efficient. For example, when James Watt made steam engines more efficient, consumption of coal in 19th century Britain went up, not down, because the efficiency gains were offset by increased use. To draw out a comparison that should be obvious, there is no real reason to expect that the development of green technologies alone will inevitably lead to a cleaner and cooler planet.
Along with the Jevons paradox, there is this other economics sucker bet that says that long-term the price of oil is not going to go up. That is, the history of pretty much every commodity out there is that long-term, the price declines. Now oil plays such a central part in the economy that it might be the first commodity to break the rule, so I wouldn't go too far out on a limb with this, but what it tells me is that the people who say our salvation will be that peak oil will mean a rising price of oil which then provokes increasing use of green technologies which will then reduce warming and pollution are probably wrong in multiple ways.
We're not going to get a cooler planet without green technology, but we're also not going to get it if we rely only on technology to save us.
Ads and the like:
(A funny book you should own)
