In February 2018, Rhode Island’s ranking on the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) moved not at all, remaining 47th. Although six of the seven datapoints that changed for this iteration were positive, they were apparently driven by national trends that affected other states, as well.

Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI), February 2018 Slow and Steady Stays in Place

As 2018 got its footing in February, Rhode Island’s ranking on the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) moved not at all, remaining 47th. Although six of the seven datapoints that changed for this iteration were positive, they were apparently driven by national trends that affected other states, as well. Rhode Island’s relative position therefore stayed the same.

Employment was up from the first-reported number for January, by 528, while labor force was up 738. RI-based jobs increased by 1,200. SNAP (food stamps) also improved, with a reduction of 4,288 enrollees, although complications with the state’s Unified Health Infrastructure Project (UHIP) may be affecting this datapoint for technical reasons unrelated to the economy.

Total personal income in Rhode Island (including various forms of investment) increased 1.95%, or $852 million. However, total state and local taxation increased 2.11%, or $69 million.

The first chart shows Rhode Island still in the last position in New England, 47th in the country. Regional leader New Hampshire is still in 2nd place, nationally, behind Wyoming, and Maine held its 18th position. Vermont regained the spot it lost last month, returning to 20th. Massachusetts held on to its position of 33rd, while Connecticut’s descent paused at 43rd.

The second chart shows the gap between RI and New England and the United States on JOI. In both cases, the Ocean State closed the gap a little. On the official unemployment rate, RI again lost ground against both regions.

Results for the three underlying JOI factors were:

  • Job Outlook Factor (optimism that adequate work is available): RI held on to 18th.
  • Freedom Factor (the level of work against reliance on welfare programs): RI remained 41st.
  • Prosperity Factor (the financial motivation of income versus taxes): RI remained 47th.
The legislative onslaught by insider protectionists continues, this time seeking to ban a promising area of technological innovation of ocular telemedicine in order to block competition.

Center Names “Ocular Tele-medicine” ban as Progressive Bad Bill of the Week; Rips Senator for Dismissing Testimony in new VIDEO

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 26, 2018

Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bill of the Week: Protectionist ‘Ocular Telemedicine’ Ban

Progressive Committee Chairman “Dismisses” Testimony of Conservative Nonprofit CEO!

Providence, RI — The legislative onslaught by insider protectionists continues, this time seeking to ban a promising area of technological innovation that blocks competition.

Tabbed as the “Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week”  in a new post by the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, H7608 and S2404 would impose a virtual ban on the emerging industry of tele-medicine; specifically on online ocular tests for lens prescription refills that can save consumers time and money, and that could reduce Medicaid costs.

Even more troubling, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, Joshua Miller, who oversaw last Thursday’s hearing on the legislation, said, after interrupting the testimony multiple times, that he would “dismiss” the testimony of the Center’s Mike Stenhouse. “It is a common tactic of progressives like Senator Miller to seek to shut down open and honest debate from those they disagree with, by pretending that their views, and only their views, merit discussion,” said the Center’s CEO.

GoLocalProv.com broke the story over the weekend of the disturbing behavior of the Senator, who was also criticized in the article by Common Cause RI.

See Stenhouse’s video commentary on the legislation here.

See the video of Stenhouse’s actual committee testimony – and multiple interruptions – here.

Other Bad Bills: An interactive table of other progressive bad bill candidates, as well as posts and video commentary on previously tabbed “progressive bad bills of the week” can be found at RIFreedom.org/Bills.

Ocular Telemedicine Ban: Progressive Bad Bill of the Week

In blocking technological innovation, by seeking a virtual ban on the emerging and promising “ocular tele-medicine” industry, Senate bill S2404 and its House companion, H7608, have been dubbed the Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week.

One reason why Rhode Island has such a dismal business climate and reputation is precisely bills like these that stifle innovation and increase costs on patients, all because existing national and local optometry associations and practitioners are asking for protectionist policies that block competition.

Perhaps even worse, Senate committee chairman, Joshua Miller, who oversaw the hearing on the legislation, said he would “dismiss” the testimony of the Center’s CEO, Mike Stenhouse. It is a common tactic of progressives like the Honorable Senator Miller to seek to shut down open and honest debate, because they believe their views, and only their views, deserve discussion.

See Stenhouse’s video commentary here.

See the video of Stenhouse’s actual committee testimony  – and multiple interruptions – here.

Read the GoLocalProv article, where even Common Cause RI criticizes the Senator for his intolerance.

Red below for Stenhouse’s 2017 OpEd on the issue …

****

2017 OpEd: Rhode Island Should Encourage Eye Care Innovation, Not Protectionism

Every Rhode Island family should have multiple choices to select the affordable, high-quality health care that’s best for them. And as new federal healthcare laws are debated in Washington, D.C., Rhode Island needs to have its own debate about insurance mandates and other protectionist policies.

In the case of eye care, Rhode Islanders often pay above market rates for glasses and contact lenses. However, new technology has the power to change this inefficiency by lowering prices and increasing convenience for consumers – that is, unless new protectionist legislation is passed into law.

Optometrists are unique in that they are some of the only medical professionals that sell what they prescribe. Oftentimes, they conveniently forget to provide copies of vision prescriptions to patients, or they advise them to purchases lenses directly from eye care offices at inflated prices. The prescriptions that optometrists write are often brand specific – usually for Johnson & Johnson’s Acuvue lenses. The reason is simple: Johnson & Johnson produces over 40 percent of the world’s contacts, and as a way of furthering a monopoly, they give eye care professionals kickbacks on every sale made within their offices.

Federal legislation has attempted to bandage the problem by making it illegal for eye doctors to hold back prescriptions, but, as we all know, there is only so much that government enforcement can do to stop cronyism.

Fortunately, the free market has recently developed a new solution whereby optometrists’ office visits can often be bypassed. New technology accurately allows consumers to measure their prescription strength from the comfort of their own homes, a process known as “ocular telemedicine,” via their smartphones or computers, whereby they can take an eye-test approved by a board-certified ophthalmologist.

Patients can then use that e-prescription to purchase lenses or glasses wherever they choose, typically at much lower prices. With this technology, healthy adults only need to visit a brick-and-mortar eye doctor once every two years for a full eye health exam (as recommended by the American Optometric Association) instead of every time a lens refill is needed, or for specific eye problems.

Although this innovation is saving consumers time and money, it is causing quite an uproar in the optometry industry. Like the hair-styling and cosmetology protectionists who are trying to block natural hair-braiders like Jocelyn DeCouto from practicing their harmless trade, the vision industry is hoping to see through a usage ban on this new technology.

Washington lobbying groups like the American Optometric Association (AOA) are pressuring state legislatures to introduce bills that will ban most uses for ocular telemedicine. On the national level alone, this group is spending nearly $2 million a year in lobbying.

In banning a technology that can provide affordable, high quality eye care for Rhode Islanders – particularly for poor and rural residents – these two bills are an assault on the free market, innovation, and common sense.

Thankfully, this type of legislation has fared poorly in other states. In the past year, similar protectionist bills that kill competition and cost eye care customers more time and money have been shot down across America; New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez issued a veto as did then-Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, who stated the bill, “uses health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry … putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation.”

Rhode Island lawmakers need to see through the optometry cartel’s attempts to kill innovation and competition. At-home vision testing technology can empower Rhode Island families and individuals to get the prescription vision-aids they need at lower cost and with more ease than ever before.

 

In response to a call from the Rhode Island Speaker of the House, and following the lead of the executive branch, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, in a new report, calls on lawmakers to enact regulatory reform to the state's overburdensome mandates.

Center to Testify for HAIR BRAIDER FREEDOM Against International Special-Interest Lobby

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 20, 2018

Hair Braiders Should Have the #RightToEarn a Living

National Hair Salon Chain Lobbies to Protect Profits

Providence, RI — A prominent local lobbyist has been hired by a national hair salon chain to preserve ridiculous protectionist laws that inhibit natural hair braiders from earning a living.

The Toni and Guy Hairdressing Academy, an international corporation with a location in Cranston, RI, has retained prominent area lobbyist, Andrew Annaldo, to maintain the myth that natural hair braiding provides some kind of public safety risk that requires thousands of hours of training and hundreds of dollars of fees to obtain permission from the government to work. Conversely, the RI Center for Freedom & prosperity believes every Rhode Islander should be afforded every opportunity to engage in gainful work.

“There are no chemicals or sharp tools involved in this twisting of hair art form,” commented Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center, who will testify at House and Senate hearings this week. Without any evidence of actual consumer harm, this licensing burden is prohibitive to many people who would prefer to start new careers and earn paychecks instead of receiving welfare checks. “It is clear that established hair salons are seeking to preserve crony policies that protect their profits by thwarting potential competition. Does anyone really think that this international chain is truly interested in protecting the safety of Rhode Islanders?”

After many states have acted in recent years to remove similar licensing burdens for natural hair braiding, Rhode Island remains among the vast minority of states that still maintain such onerous laws; most likely because of special-interest lobbying by the hair salon industry.

The Center believes that every Rhode Islander has the #RightToEarn a living in a vocation of their choice, without undue interference from government. In a major report by the Center – The RIght to Earn a Living – issued in January, Rhode Island was cited as ranking as one of the 10 most onerously burdened states when it comes to occupational licensing. Additionally our state already suffers from bottom 10 rankings on the Family Prosperity Index (FPI), overall business climate, and on Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI).

It is precisely because of heavy-handed licensing mandates, such as those imposed on natural hair braiders, that RI has such dismal national rankings. Recognizing this specific problem, Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, in his remarks to open the 2018 General Assembly session, said that reducing regulatory burdens should be a priority this year. This legislation would advance the Speaker’s agenda.

In 2017 Rhode Island ranked low in ‘entrepreneurship’ according to the national Family Prosperity Index. Per the Center, unfair and unreasonable occupational licensing restrictions must be repealed if we want more Rhode Islanders to have a chance to improve their quality of life and engage in entrepreneurial commerce.

House bill H7565 and Senate Bill S2323, which will be heard in the House Corporations and Senate Commerce committees, today (Tuesday) and this Thursday, respectively, would exempt natural hair braiders from the requirement to be licensed as hairdressers or cosmeticians, while also defining the safe practice of natural hair braiding.

The new year did not bring any change in Rhode Island’s ranking of 47th place on the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s January 2018 Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI). The five of 12 datapoints that changed for this iteration split between positive and negative developments.

Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI), January 2018: Year Not Off to an Auspicious Start

The year 2018 did not bring any change in Rhode Island’s ranking of 47th place on the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI). The five of 12 datapoints that changed for this iteration split between positive and negative developments.

Employment was up from the revised number for December, by 330, while labor force was up 334. RI-based jobs increased, from their pre-revision number, by 400. Medicaid enrollment worsened, however, adding 2,380 enrollees, while SNAP (food stamps) also increased,
by 804.

The first chart shows Rhode Island still in the last position in New England, 47th in the country. Regional leader New Hampshire is still in 2nd place, nationally, behind Wyoming. At 18th, Maine remains ahead of Vermont, which slipped a spot, to 21st. Massachusetts held on to its position of 33rd, while Connecticut fell one spot again, to 43rd.

January 2018 Jobs & Opportunity Index Race To First

The second chart shows the gap between RI and New England and the United States on JOI. In both cases, The Ocean State gained slightly on the U.S. average but slipped slightly against New England. On the official unemployment rate, RI lost ground against both regions.

2018 Jobs & Opportunity Index New England And US

2018 Jobs & Opportunity Index New England And US Unemployment

Results for the three underlying JOI factors were:

  • Job Outlook Factor (optimism that adequate work is available): RI held on to 18th.
  • Freedom Factor (the level of work against reliance on welfare programs): RI remained 41st.
  • Prosperity Factor (the financial motivation of income versus taxes): RI remained 47th.
Once again unions are pushing for legislation that would give them even more leverage when it comes to negotiating Collective Bargaining Agreements for government workers. House bills 7198, 7633, and 7634 would grant all or some public employee unions underhanded perpetual contracts.

NEW VIDEO: “Perpetual Contracts” legislation named the Progressive Bad Bill of the Week

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 14, 2018

Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bill of the Week: Perpetual Contracts 
Are union-progressives seeking to evade the expected US Supreme Court ruling?

Providence, RI — The legislative onslaught continues by progressive-Democrats against taxpayers and, now, against union workers. Once again, labor unions are pushing for perpetual contracts as an overt money grab, even as the US Supreme Court may soon rule against them.

Tabbed as the “Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Weekin a new post by the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, three related bills, H7198, H7633, and H7634, would give unions an unfair negotiating advantage when it comes to Collective Bargaining Agreements for government workers. Worse, there may be an even more devious motive behind these bills, even though similar legislation was vetoed by the Governor in 2017.

The Center suggests, if passed, this legislation could potentially subvert the expected June 2018 landmark ruling in the Mark Janus vs AFSCME case, which was heard by the Supreme Court Justices in late February.

Under one likely Supreme Court ruling scenario against unions, and with the goal of lessening the immediate financial impact on unions, the Justices may allow for forced dues and fees to continue to be collected for those government workers under an existing collective bargaining contract. And that such employees could exercise their newly-granted freedom to opt-out only after those existing contracts expire. But if Rhode Island’s state and municipal contracts are “perpetual” – and could never automatically expire – then Rhode Island public employees might never have the chance to opt out.

“Not only are union bosses desperate to keep their political coffers and their personal compensation packages well funded, but they may be seeking to actively deny workers new freedoms that may be granted to them by the Supreme Court,” warned the Center’s CEO, Mike Stenhouse. “We call on the Governor to once again exercise her veto powers.”

In recent years, government worker unions and progressives have banded together to promote centralized-government-control and a high tax political environment. These three bad bills are the result of this powerful union-progressive partnership.

For decades, unions and their political cronies in statehouses across the country have seemingly found every possible way to extract money from taxpayers – as well as their own members – so that their financial and political power can be maintained.

“At a higher level, in this fantasy world of perpetual contracts, unions would never have to bargain in good faith, even in the worst of possible economic times, as they would be able to just sit back and continue to reap in their overly-generous benefits,” added Stenhouse. “In the real world, your local taxes could never ever go down.”

Stenhouse’s related Youtube blog can also be viewed on the post.

Other Bad Bills: An interactive table of other progressive bad bill candidates, as well as posts and video commentary on previously tabbed “progressive bad bills of the week” can be found at RIFreedom.org/Bills.

Once again unions are pushing for legislation that would give them even more leverage when it comes to negotiating Collective Bargaining Agreements for government workers. House bills 7198, 7633, and 7634 would grant all or some public employee unions underhanded perpetual contracts.

Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bill of the Week: Perpetual Contracts

They’re back!

Once again unions are pushing for legislation that would give them even more leverage when it comes to negotiating Collective Bargaining Agreements for government workers.

House bills 7198, 7633, and 7634 would grant all or some public employee unions an unfair advantage by keeping in place all existing collective bargaining provisions until a new contract has been agreed to by the parties – we call these “perpetual contracts” … and thus these three bills qualify as our “Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week”.

In recent years, government worker unions and progressives have banded together to promote a centralized-government-control and high tax political environment. These bills exemplify this relatively new union-progressive partnership.

In living in this fantasy world of perpetual contracts, unions would never have to bargain in good faith, even in the worst of possible economic times, as they would be able to just sit back and continue to reap in their overly-generous benefits. In other words, your local taxes could never ever go down.

But wasn’t this issue decided last year? Yes it was. Despite the opposition from dozens of mayors and town leaders, the union-controlled House and Senate passed perpetual contract legislation in 2017. Thankfully, Governor Raimondo, who understands the real world when it comes to this issue, seemingly put the issue to rest by vetoing the perpetual contracts legislation.

But, the Rhode Island perpetual contracts legislation is back again this year! Why? What has changed?

In my opinion, unions are increasingly worried about how they will preserve their power, if the US Supreme Court rules against them in the Mark Janus case, which was heard by the Supremes in late February. In the expected June decision, the Supreme Court could grant government employees – such as teachers, police, and firefighters – the freedom to choose whether or not they can be compelled to join a union or pay union fees. Right now, public employee unions enjoy a negotiating monopoly and can force workers to financially support the unions’ political agenda.

Conventional wisdom believes the Supreme Court will rule against the union position. But what does this have to do with perpetual contracts? As it turns out … a lot.

Under one speculated Supreme Court ruling scenario, designed to lessen the financial impact on unions, forced dues and fees might be allowed to continue for those government workers under an existing collective bargaining contract. And that such employees could only opt-out once those existing contracts expire. But if contracts are “perpetual” – and would never therefore expire – then employees would never have the chance to opt out.

This means unions could continue to force people to have dues and fees automatically deducted from their paychecks.

This is a brilliant, yet devious maneuver. And this is how unions and their political cronies in statehouses across the country work: Finding every possible way to continue to extract money from taxpayers – and their own members – so that their financial and political power can be maintained.

As taxpayers and voters, everyone of us should be outraged that unions, and their legislative friends, conspire to devise such underhanded ways to pre-emptively evade what might be a landmark Supreme Court decision.

In our state’s progressive land of make believe, there is little doubt that the House and Senate, spurred by the desperation of public employee unions, will once again pass and send “perpetual contracts” legislation to the Governor’s desk.

It’s an election year, and the political pressure on her will be enormous, but once again, we must hope that the Governor, rooted in reality, will not be fooled or persuaded by this overt money grab by unions.

To find the balance between protecting civil rights and the public when it comes to solving the puzzle of how to prevent mass shootings or excessive gun control, we advises a multi-level solution--- including a cultural discussion of the breakdown of the family.

Center Cautions Against Gun Control Focus of Pending Legislative Hearings

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 6, 2018

Center Recommends Comprehensive vs Narrow Approach to Mass Shootings Puzzle

Cultural Implications of the Breakdown of the Family Must Be Part of the Conversation

Providence, RI — In seeking to find a balance between protecting civil rights and protecting the public when it comes to solving the puzzle of how to prevent mass shootings, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity advises that such a multi-level problem requires a multi-level solution, including a cultural discussion of the breakdown of the family.
“It is obvious that the slate of bills to be heard today are largely intended to restrict the capacity of – and access to – certain firearms,” said Mike Stenhouse, the Center’s CEO. “If we are truly interested in protecting the lives of students, rather than advancing an extreme political agenda, such a focus on guns will not solve the puzzle.”
While the it supports common-sense reforms as well as the underlying concept of proposed new “red flag laws” in Rhode Island, the Center is concerned that civil rights protections may be far too lax and that the bar for the seizure of private property are being set too low, and that cultural considerations are being ignored.
Any new law must set a high enough bar to justify the nullification or restriction of an enumerated constitutional right. “The clear agenda of the progressive-left is for firearms to be regulated as much as possible and confiscated from as many people as possible. This approach will solve little, and they should be called out for seeking exploit recent tragedies to advance their extreme political agenda.”
The Center suggests that a rigorous and comprehensive public debate ensue. It recommends a multi-phase approach that includes:
  • Securing school buildings and classrooms.External and internal physical security should be funded, potentially by public and private dollars, as well as armed personnel, whether professional law enforcement professional or teachers who volunteer. To lessen the burden on tax-payers, the Center recommends consideration a tax-credit program for corporations or individuals that wish to donate money or security devices to public and private schools.
  • Family Prosperity Angle: One clear takeaway from national Family Prosperity Index is that family stability impacts economic and criminal outcomes. What must be openly debated is how the social and cultural implications of a lack of family structure and paternal influence, may lead too many unstable young men free to roam in our society. As a society, how the family unit has become so marginalized, and how we medically or psychologically care for troubled young people, must be re-analyzed.
  • Limiting Access to Firearms for Unfit citizens. Many individuals who suffer from mental illness or who have a criminal background should be permanently or temporarily stripped of their right to legally own a firearm. “Red flag” laws can help to address one aspect of this issue, so long as fair due-process provisions are co-established. Transparency and penalty provisions should be strengthened to discourage individuals from presenting false or overtly frivolous evidence during the process of filing of the petition.
  • Intensified background-check process. A more thorough background-check and permitting process should be conducted when purchasing certain firearms by certain people. Some police reports that do not result in an arrest or conviction should be flagged to appear on such background checks. Similarly, government agencies must be made to share related information with each other.
  • Medical “red flag” Process. Mental health professionals should also be able to “red flag” patients, for background-check purposes only, who are deemed to be a potential risk to themselves or to society, without fear of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws. State and federal governments should also consider if the re-institutionalization of certain mentally ill patients should be revisited.
  • “Green Light” provision for law enforcement. Law enforcement officials should be afforded greater latitude to preemptively investigate, question, and potentially detain individuals who have threatened to perpetuate public harm, without fear of civil rights violations.
  • Restriction of certain firearms accessories. Devices such as “bump-stocks”, or other devices that gratuitously increase the firing capacity of any firearm, should be  banned.
  • Media Lionization of Murderers. While no new law is suggested, public pressure should encourage media outlets to voluntarily agree not to inadvertently glorify mass murderers by pasting their name and image all over their news feeds.