We must not surrender to fear. We must not let progress be erased. We must hold the line.
Advertisement
Our policymakers in Washington must hold the line and strongly reject the misguided plan by out-of-touch leaders in Congress that will lead to more people struggling to pay their bills, afford groceries, and keep access to lifesaving health care. Rhode Islanders deserve better, and we need an alternative plan that lowers costs and helps people afford the basics, so they can build the lives they want for themselves and their families.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
These proposals are not about fiscal responsibility. They are about dismantling economic security and civil rights protections while delivering yet another tax break to billionaires and millionaires. Rhode Island depends on federal funding for 36 percent of its budget and is already facing a
$220 million deficit. Shifted to our state, these cuts and costs will send shockwaves through our communities, exacerbating inequities and pushing more Rhode Islanders into financial distress.
This is not just about dollars. It is about our true values and democracy. Deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, a federal funding freeze, threats against nonprofits, the termination of civil servants, and proposals to eliminate agencies like USAID, the Department of Education, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have devastating consequences. At the same time, the nationwide assault on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives is part of a larger strategy to starve social programs, eliminate civil rights protections, strip vulnerable communities of their legal rights, erase progress, and silence entire communities.
Advertisement
Our Rhode Island General Assembly must hold the line and protect the people of Rhode Island by raising revenue instead of disinvesting in critical services, defending the values of DEI and adopting equity impact statements, supporting nonprofits and microbusinesses, strengthening consumer protections against predatory lending, and enacting policies that ensure that Rhode Island remains a place where every person — regardless of background — can thrive.
Fellow Rhode Islanders, we cannot afford to be quiet and sit this one out. If we do not stay informed and fight back, decades of progress will be erased under the guise of budget cuts and deregulation. The Economic Progress Institute will continue to fight for a budget and policies that protect, not punish, Rhode Islanders. This is a moment that demands bold, strategic, collective action — not silence, not hesitation. We must stand together as the small and mighty state that we are, raise our voices, and demonstrate that Rhode Island stands for fairness, economic security, and justice for all.
We must not surrender to fear. We must not let progress be erased.
We must hold the line.
Weayonnoh Nelson-Davies, Esq., is executive director of the Economic Progress Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
43 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Scott Galloway has bold prediction on Social Security, US economy
As workers in the United States approach retirement, it's natural for them to worry about Social Security and how it will support their financial well-being in their post-career lives. Notable entrepreneur Scott Galloway, the popular podcaster and New York University professor, offers his views on the future of Social Security - and another looming threat that serves as a growing problem for the U.S. economy. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Recent reductions in staffing appear to have caused inefficiencies in the federal program, leading to issues such as extended wait times for phone assistance, raising concerns among both current and future Social Security beneficiaries. An even greater worry is long-term financial stability. Without intervention from lawmakers, Social Security's trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2033. If this happens, monthly payments may be cut to roughly 80% of what recipients currently anticipate. Related: Scott Galloway sends blunt message to Elon Musk The Social Security Administration reports that the average monthly payment stands at $1,976 - amounting to around $23,712 per year - which falls short of the financial security many retirees seek. Adjustments for the cost of living (COLA), designed to increase Social Security payments, do not always keep pace with inflation. Additionally, economic uncertainty - especially during market downturns or recessions - can heighten concerns that individuals may rely on Social Security more than they originally planned. Galloway discusses Social Security solvency and increasing worries about the U.S. national debt - particularly regarding the political stalemate that fuels inaction on solving the problem. As we discussed, action from Congress is needed to avoid Social Security recipients losing out on about 20% of the expected value of their monthly paychecks. But in his book, "The Algebra of Wealth," Galloway explains that he does not believe that is likely to happen. That is because he believes politicians on Capitol Hill are very well aware of the fact that people nearing retirement or already receiving Social Security benefits are more likely to participate in elections than those of other age ranges. "Old people keep living longer, and they vote, so we're more likely to get rid of schools, the space program, and half the Navy before we fail to fund Social Security," he wrote. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey sounds alarm for Americans on Social SecurityScott Galloway warns Americans on 401(k), US economy threatShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has message on Social Security, 401(k)s Galloway also addressed another looming crisis for the U.S. economy: the national debt. And the future of this growing concern is in the hands of legislators right now. Related: Dave Ramsey sounds alarm for Americans on Social Security The ambitious "Big, Beautiful Bill" currently working its way through Congress faces pushback from multiple fronts. After narrowly clearing the House, the debate in the Senate is becoming increasingly tense, driven by opposition from Republicans, influential tech figures, and policy experts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade. Beyond fiscal concerns, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Yale have cautioned that reductions in Medicaid and nursing home funding proposed in the bill could result in an additional 51,000 deaths annually, according to Galloway's Prof G Markets newsletter. The bill's threat to the national debt is not surprising, Galloway explained, citing his understanding that it increased by $8 trillion during President Donald Trump's first term. Galloway credits Elon Musk with drawing attention to the conversation about the deficit. "Still, no one in this so-called deficit debate is talking about raising revenues," Galloway wrote. "If we want to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way, we have to be honest about the trade-offs. That means raising taxes on the wealthy, or cutting back on large-scale programs like defense and Social Security." "But no one wants to say that out loud," Galloway continued. "So, instead, we get this sideshow - rage tweets, personal feuds, and performative austerity - instead of a serious conversation about how we fund the government." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary sends strong message on Social Security The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Southern Baptists target porn and ‘willful childlessness'
Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of same-sex marriage. The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization's public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn't extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions. Southern Baptists narrowly reject formal ban on churches with any women pastorsIn a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid. Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics. The 1985 showdown was 'the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,' said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination's rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985's, but that meeting's influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members. Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support. A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family' and to oppose laws contradicting 'what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' To some outside observers, such language is theocratic. 'When you talk about God's design for anything, there's not a lot of room for compromise,' said Nancy Ammerman, professor emerita of sociology of religion at Boston University. She was an eyewitness to the Dallas meeting and author of 'Baptist Battles,' a history of the 1980s controversy between theological conservatives and moderates. 'There's not a lot of room for people who don't have the same understanding of who God is and how God operates in the world,' she said. Mohler said the resolutions reflect a divinely created order that predates the writing of the Scriptures and is affirmed by them. He said the Christian church has always asserted that the created order 'is binding on all persons, in all times, everywhere.' Separate resolutions decry pornography and sports betting as destructive, calling for the former to be banned and the latter curtailed. At least some of these political stances are in the realm of plausibility at a time when their conservative allies control all levers of power in Washington and many have embraced aspects of a Christian nationalist agenda. A Southern Baptist, Mike Johnson, is speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line to the presidency. At least one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, has called for revisiting the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Other religious conservatives — including some in the Catholic postliberal movement, which has influenced Vice President JD Vance — have promoted the view that a robust government should legislate morality, such as banning pornography while easing church-state separation. And conservatives of various stripes have echoed one of the resolution's call for pro-natalist policies and its decrying of 'willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate.' Some preconvention talk has focused on defunding the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm, which has been accused of being ineffective. Ten former Southern Baptist presidents endorsed its continued funding, though one other called for the opposite. A staunchly conservative group, the Center for Baptist Leadership, has posted online articles critical of the commission, which is adamantly anti-abortion but has opposed state laws criminalizing women seeking abortions. The commission has appealed to Southern Baptists for support, citing its advocacy for religious liberty and against abortion and transgender identity. 'Without the ERLC, you will send the message to our nation's lawmakers and the public at large that the SBC has chosen to abandon the public square at a time when the Southern Baptist voice is most needed,' said a video statement from the commission president, Brent Leatherwood. A group of Southern Baptist ethnic groups and leaders signed a statement in April citing concern over Trump's immigration crackdown, saying it has hurt church attendance and raised fears. 'Law and order are necessary, but enforcement must be accompanied with compassion that doesn't demonize those fleeing oppression, violence, and persecution,' the statement said. The Center for Baptist Leadership, however, denounced the denominational Baptist Press for working to 'weaponize empathy' in its reporting on the statement and Leatherwood for supporting it. Texas pastor Dwight McKissic, a Black pastor who shares many of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative stances, criticized what he sees as a backlash against the commission, 'the most racially progressive entity in the SBC.' 'The SBC is transitioning from an evangelical organization to a fundamentalist organization,' he posted on the social media site X. 'Fewer and fewer Black churches will make the transition with them.' An amendment to ban churches with women pastors failed in 2024 after narrowly failing to gain a two-thirds supermajority for two consecutive years. It is expected to be reintroduced. The denomination's belief statement says the office of pastor is limited to men, but there remain disagreements over whether this applies only to the lead pastor or to assistants as well. In recent years, the convention began purging churches that either had women as lead pastors or asserted that they could serve that role. But when an SBC committee this year retained a South Carolina megachurch with a woman on its pastoral staff, some argued this proved the need for a constitutional amendment. (The church later quit the denomination of its own accord.) The meeting comes as the Southern Baptist Convention continues its long membership slide, down 2% in 2024 from the previous year in its 18th consecutive annual decline. The organization now reports a membership of 12.7 million members, still the largest among Protestant denominations, many of whom are shrinking faster. More promising are Southern Baptists' baptism numbers — a key spiritual vital sign. They stand at 250,643, exceeding pre-pandemic levels and, at least for now, reversing a long slide.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bill enacting nation's strictest limits on corporate health care influence signed by Gov. Kotek
A doctor works at a pharmacy. Corporate investors eyeing local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. () Corporate investors hoping to take over local health care facilities in Oregon could soon face one of the hardest markets nationwide. Senate Bill 951, which was quietly signed into law by Gov. Tina Kotek on Monday, sets the strongest regulations on private and corporate control of medical practices in the nation, according to industry lawyers. A similar effort failed in the Legislature last year amid pushback from Republicans that prevented the bill from meeting key legislative deadlines. The governor told reporters at a news conference Monday that the bill should be a model for other states and for Congress. 'We need to make sure that our health care providers and our delivery system stays local and is controlled locally,' she said. 'That's what that bill is trying to do.' The legislation was opposed by companies such as Amazon and the statewide nonprofit Oregon Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an industry group, where executives see private investment as vital to their business strategy. 'We universally agree that the way to protect clinics from closure and maintain the broadest patient access to outpatient care is to keep the existing, and multi-ownership models alive and well,' wrote Ryan Grimm on behalf of the association and the Portland Clinic, a private multispecialty medical group, in a March letter to lawmakers. 'In some communities, there is no hospital to swoop in to the rescue, or no hospital in a financial position to save a clinic,' he wrote. The bill does not go into effect immediately and it contains a three-year adjustment period for clinics to comply with the restrictions. Institutions such as hospitals, tribal health facilities, behavioral health programs and crisis lines are exempted. 'We're at an inflection point in this country when it comes to the corporatization of healthcare,' wrote House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, in a statement May 28 following the bill's passage in the Oregon House. 'With the passage of this bill, every Oregonian will know that decisions in exam rooms are being made by doctors, not corporate executives.' The signature from Kotek deals a major victory to local providers and doctors, who sought to wrest back control over their practices in key decisions such as spending, staffing levels, physician ownership stake, and the price of services. The legislation would close what supporters say is a loophole in state law, which mandates that doctors hold at least a 51% stake in most medical practices, but which companies have taken advantage of by employing their own doctors — sometimes from out of state — and putting them down on paper as clinic owners. Then the company itself, or a hired management service, is brought in to handle payroll, accounting and other services, shifting away control and revenues from the clinic to the company, and from what was once a locally operated business. The bill limits the control such companies can have in a clinic's operations and would ban noncompete agreements used by companies to prohibit doctors from taking a job at a different practice. Support for the bill coalesced around the takeover of the Eugene-based Oregon Medical Group by the health care giant Optum, one of the nation's largest employers of physicians. The surrounding area lost dozens of doctors, leaving over 10,000 people without care, according to a Frequently Asked Question's document from Sen. Deb Patterson, D-Salem, after Optum required its doctors to sign non-compete contracts. Optum reversed course after pressure from lawmakers in May 2024. 'This bill is about preventing the kind of takeover that happened at the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene,' wrote state Rep. Lisa Fragala, D-Eugene, in a May statement. 'When we see consolidation in the healthcare market, we see three things happen: higher prices, negative effects on the quality of care and decreased access to care.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
