R.I. Senate won't block raises for Governor McKee's Cabinet
Advertisement
On Thursday, Senate President Valarie J. Lawson, an East Providence Democrat, issued a statement, saying, 'I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the Speaker, particularly with regard to optics during a challenging budget year.'
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
But Lawson, who was
She said that the salaries of some directors have fallen behind the salaries of the staff in the departments they oversee.
'The Senate leadership considered whether this action by the executive branch warrants a highly unusual intervention by the legislative branch,' Lawson said. 'We determined it does not.'
Advertisement
As a result, the following pay raises will go into effect:
Department of Administration Director Jonathan Womer, from $185,589 to $194,888
Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals Director Richard Leclerc, from $175,344 to $184,111
Department of Business Regulation Director Elizabeth Dwyer, from $162,737 to $170,874
Department of Corrections Superintendent Wayne T. Salisbury Jr., from $174,593 to $183,323
Department of Children, Youth, and Families Director Ashley Deckert, from $185,400 to $194,670
Department of Environmental Management Director Terrence Gray, from $167,619 to $176,000
Department of Human Services Director Kimberly Merolla-Brito, from $160,473 to $168,497
Department of Labor and Training Director Matthew Weldon, from $173,512 to $182,188
Department of Revenue Director Thomas Verdi, from $163,963 to $172,161
Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti Jr., from $188,164 to $192,000
Department of Public Safety Director/State Police Superintendent Darnell S. Weaver, from $195,000 to $196,000.
On Wednesday, McKee spokesperson Laura Hart said, 'When Governor McKee first came into office, many Cabinet members had not received raises in years, and their salaries had fallen below the standard for their roles. Providing small, incremental increases over time will help Rhode Island maintain competitive salaries without causing a significant impact on any one budget year.'
On Thursday, Representative Charlene M. Lima, a Cranston Democrat who spoke out against the raises, said, 'It's not whether they deserve the raises. The issue is now is not the time to give out raises.'
Rhode Island is facing a significant budget deficit, Lima said. 'And we are in a precarious situation with federal funding, not knowing what is going to happen,' she said.
Lima said the state will end up either cutting 'good programs' and/or raising fees to 'nickel and dime people.' She said the state should instead put that money into creating an inspector general position to ferret out waste and fraud.
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries
It's June in California, which means the jacarandas are magnificently in bloom, joyous graduates overfill school auditoriums and the weather is utterly unpredictable. Oh and one more thing: As of this week, we are exactly a year out from the 2026 primary election. Here's what you need to know. California is a country within a country — a cultural and economic behemoth where the future happens first. And with term limits forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom out, the world's fourth-largest economy will be picking a new leader at the end of 2026. There is already a crowded field of prominent Democrats vying to replace Newsom. They include former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Rep. Katie Porter, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa). Two notable Republicans are also in the fight: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. The biggest question mark remains whether former Vice President Kamala Harris will enter the race, a decision she plans to make by late summer. That waiting game has stalled the Democratic field: Candidates are continuing their frenetic campaigning, but many activists, donors and elected officials are holding off on further endorsements until Harris makes up her mind. (Though some are growing more frustrated with Harris, and the implicit message that governing California is a consolation prize that she can toy with for months.) California's affordability crisis — and varying views on how to solve it — will probably dominate the long slog of campaigning ahead. But given the wilderness the national Democratic Party currently finds itself in, competition for California's top job will also probably double as a referendum on the broader question of what a winning Democratic leader should sound like. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in California. And what about billionaire Angeleno Rick Caruso, a relatively recent entrant to the Democratic Party? The Grove developer has been flirting with both a gubernatorial bid and another run at the Los Angeles mayor's race but remains undecided. His personal fortune affords him the luxury of some extra time, though self-funding a statewide campaign will be far more expensive than a mayoral one. Still, there could be a lane for a business-friendly centrist running California's sclerotic political system. And speaking of Caruso, he also looms large over the 2026 Los Angeles mayor's race. As of now, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is the only serious candidate in the race, meaning the first-term mayor could glide to reelection. But the former congresswoman has also taken a political beating in recent months. A catastrophic firestorm put her leadership under a national microscope, a bruising budget crisis left her in a no-win political puzzle and her strong-arm authority on homelessness has been threatened. Which is a long way of saying that Bass could certainly be vulnerable if a real challenger gets into the race, be it Caruso, or someone else. But that remains a big if. The nightmare scenario for Bass is a landscape that looks less like her predecessor Eric Garcetti's reelection romp in 2017 — where he ran virtually unchallenged and leapt to victory with more than 80% of the vote — and more like then-Mayor James K. Hahn's reelection dogfight in 2005. Hahn, a badly wounded incumbent, only barely eked his way into second place in the primary and ultimately rode a wave of voter discontent right out of City Hall, losing to Antonio Villaraigosa that May. Beyond Caruso, a few other names have been bandied about as potential challengers to Bass. As my colleague David Zahniser and I reported a few months ago, that list includes Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (an iconoclastic force who has been openly critical of Bass), L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath (another politician who has sparred with the mayor) and City Controller Kenneth Mejia (a digitally savvy leftist who, you guessed it, has also taken shots at the city's current direction). Whether any take the leap remains to be seen. Read some of the best stories from our archives Few stories published by the Times in recent years have hit a nerve as forcefully as Julissa James' essay from 2021, 'Lonely in L.A.? These 21 places and experiences will help you embrace it.' Julia Wick, staff writerKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew J. Campa, reporterKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
