- [Jim] Coming up on this week's "A Lively Experiment," the long-awaited state budget emerges from the House Finance Committee.

We'll tell you the winners and losers, and don't expect the new Washington Bridge to be finished anytime soon.

- [Announcer] "A Lively Experiment" is generously underwritten by- - Hi, I'm John Hazen White, Jr. For over 30 years, "A Lively Experiment" has provided insight and analysis of the political issues that face Rhode Islanders.

I'm a proud supporter of this great program and Rhode Island PBS.

- Joining us on the panel, National Committeewoman for the Rhode Island Republican Party Sue Cienki, attorney and former State Representative Nick Gorham, and Steph Machado, "Boston Globe" reporter and contributor to "Rhode Island PBS Weekly."

Hello, and welcome to "Lively."

I'm Jim Hummel.

With the Rhode Island House poised next week to vote on a proposed $14.3 billion budget for next year, the home stretch of this year's General Assembly session is slowly coming into view.

Who benefited and who lost out?

And what major pieces of legislation still hang in the balance?

Steph, you've been in the middle of every major story the last week, and of course, you were there for the budget.

They still do it where it comes warm off the printer.

Do you actually get- - Oh, yeah.

- The budget?

- Oh, yeah, warm off the printer, and you know, we, just to like peel back the curtain, reporters were sort of summoned at 9:00 p.m. "Okay, we're ready."

We do a sort of, we get briefed by the speaker, and the majority leader, and finance chair on what's in the budget, but they said they had literally finished it 15 minutes prior.

So a lot of the details, you know, they said, "Okay, this is in, this is out.

"We did this, we did that," but we didn't really, they didn't really have the numbers on hand.

It was, literally had just been finished.

So then you go down to the House Finance Committee, where they're hearing about it for the first time from the fiscal staff, and it's coming off the printer, and they're handing it out to us as it comes off the printer article by article, and you're furiously flipping through to see exactly how many dollars the Taylor Swift tax is gonna be, and it's not online yet, or anything like that, and then they vote on it.

I think it was around 11:30 p.m. that the Finance Committee voted on it.

It does have to then sit for a week before the House can vote on it, so there's some time for people to read it and object, but it is a very last minute, rapid situation.

- So that's how the sausage is made.

What's in the sausage?

What did you like, what'd you not like?

- What didn't I like?

The two-cent gas tax that is going to RIPTA.

I think RIPTA needs to be reorganized and re-figured out.

That, they said it's going to produce $15 million.

Well, they're about $34 million in the hole.

- So what do you do?

- Yeah, so what do you do?

I mean, you really need to reorganize, and figure out what's going on there.

They're offering free rides to the soccer stadium where no one's going to.

So I think that it's, again, your budget is your best guess of what's gonna happen.

I think that's a miss there, and again, they have to really, I think, start looking at how they're spending money.

You know, the Democrats believe in tax and spend.

"Let's just tax people more money," and it's just not a sustainable model anymore.

For just about 1 million people, you're talking about $14,000 on each and every resident.

It's becoming not sustainable anymore.

And then the Taylor Swift tax, I mean, are we talking about cottages in Narragansett that are gonna be taxed?

I mean, you're really- - We should explain what that is.

It's a tax- - Thank you.

- New tax on homes- - Second homes.

- They're second homes- - Vacation homes- - Valued over a million dollars.

The tax, the first million is exempt.

The tax begins after a million.

- Right.

- Right, but look at what's happened- - Thank you.

- To the property taxes.

I mean, in my neighborhood, homes a couple years- - [Nick] Yeah, a million's not a big deal.

- A million's not, I mean, it's insane.

I don't think they're worth that, but they are taxing people on smaller homes than a million dollars.

So it's going to impact a lot more people than they think.

- When the government starts taxing empty homes for being empty, you know they've got problems with money.

- Yeah.

- The government, and that's just one of many, many things you're doing, and I agree.

That budget goes up every year.

It's never gone down.

They're tapping people for more money than ever before every year, and most of it is because the way we structure government.

We just make it more and more expensive.

We provide too many inducements for people to come here, and they come, and you can't blame them.

They're blameless.

- Yeah.

- But Rhode Island's on the wrong track, and the budget proves it, proves it more than ever.

- I thought it was interesting, Steph, that they, you know, there was the big effort by a lot of advocacy groups to tax the wealthy on the upper end, and I think the speaker's kind of keeping that in his back pocket, because they don't know what's gonna go on with the federal government.

So it's not that that's not that that's ruled out totally, but it's like we don't wanna, we don't wanna, you know, use that now, and then what if you have hundreds of millions that you need to fill up?

- Right, and I think we all know people who choose to spend six months and a day living in Florida, because, so they don't have to pay income tax.

So increasingly, the income tax on the wealthy in Rhode Island might just push them to do that.

That's always been the argument that, you know, you don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy so much that they leave.

And so, I do think the Taylor Swift tax, as they call it, because she has a million dollar vacation home- - You think Taylor Swift knows- - A 28 million- - You don't think she knows it's been named after her?

- She's gonna be thrilled- - You know what?

- You're plugged into the Taylor Swift scene- - I do think she knows.

I think she knew at the time, back, 'cause it was back when she was first got her house here- - Right.

- That this was first, this tax was first- - "Oh, they named something after me.

"Oh, it's a tax"- - If I'm remembering correctly, so it was kind of named after her in a derisive way, and I think she's- - Right.

- Exactly.

- I think she's very closely in touch with criticism against her, so, but- - I sense a song coming out about this.

- [Jim] Oh, man a song about the tax!

- To be clear, she has a song about the house- - Yes, so- - In Westerly, so no mention of the tax- - $126,000 more- - Right.

- And what do I get, right?

- Right, exactly, and so, you know, my thing about this particular proposal is that it was not vetted during the budget process, because it was not in the budget proposal until Tuesday night.

So it didn't get a hearing, there's no fiscal note, they have not said how much it's going to raise, which is why they're actually not using it to balance the budget.

They're putting it into a fund for housing, which might work out well, but normally, when you have a budget proposal, you have details about at least how much it's projected to bring in in revenue, and we don't have that projection for this new tax.

- Nick's shaking his head knowingly.

- No fiscal note- - The rules go out the window in the last two weeks.

- Why count the money first?

- Right.

- Again, it's a best guess- - Yeah.

- Start taxing- - And why put a fiscal note on something, you know?

It's insanity.

- We- - And you know what?

This is a vast improvement over the way they used to do it.

I mean, at least now you have a week to look at the budget and- - Right.

- To really pull it apart.

- [Nick] Ah.

- But the entire session is based on budget, passing the budget.

So any bills that are left languishing out there, it will get your bill through- - Yeah.

- If you vote yes on the budget.

- Well, we skipped over one of the headlines was, and we've talked about this a lot on this show, about shoring up healthcare.

So they did, Peter Neronha put on the big push for increased reimbursement for Medicaid, hospitals, nursing homes.

So it's in there, they were listening.

- Yes, that is a huge get.

I think that that's something that we should all be fighting for.

The reimbursement levels for physicians, doctors, nurses in this state is abysmal.

It's about 30 to 40% less than what it is in neighboring states.

You're losing physicians.

You know, just in my own neighborhood, there are several doctors that are picking up and leaving, because it just is not a sustainable model here anymore.

We're in trouble.

- Yeah, so what about that?

The speaker talked a little bit about that.

- Yeah, I mean, he said he even doesn't have a primary care physician, because his retired, and he hasn't been able to find another one.

So this is something that I think it's affecting the people in power.

It's affecting all of their constituents.

They are hearing about it day after day.

I know at my doctor's office, if you call now for an appointment or something, the first thing on the voicemail is, "We are not accepting new patients," like, "Stop calling us to try to become a patient."

So there's really, really a crisis in primary care, and we know that this affects people down the road, right?

If you don't have primary care, you're not getting any regular healthcare, you're gonna have more expensive healthcare later on in your life.

So they're putting 45 million into primary care, which includes the federal match, and then also some money into hospitals and nursing homes.

But there's some uncertainty on the federal level on what's gonna happen with Medicaid.

And so, there's been talk about maybe they'll have to come back for a fall session if there are federal changes to healthcare.

- Here would be a great app for the, bet for the sportsbook.

Will the bridge be built first or Steph get a primary care doctor?

What you think?

- I have a primary care doctor.

- Oh, oh, oh, well, Joe Shekarchi- - Joe Shekarchi doesn't have one.

Mine did move away, and they fortunately assigned me- - You found another one?

- Well, they assigned me to a new one at the practice- - You take what you can get.

- Thank good, yeah, whoever it is, I don't care, but yeah.

- 'Cause look what happened to Anchor Medical- - [Jim] Medical, yeah, 25,000- - 25,000 people- - People, and particularly pediatricians, and we've thought about this.

Can you imagine you're having a child and you can't find a pediatrician for all those appointments you need early on?

Well, what about healthcare?

It looks like the investments, it's a good start anyway, right?

- Yeah, there's just, again, there's just not enough money for all the people we attract to this state that don't have the money to pay for healthcare.

That's really the principal problem, and that's why the reimbursement rates aren't as high, because they don't, the government doesn't have enough money, the companies don't have enough money, and it's just really starting to cave in, I think.

You've got to make some kind of changes to the way we provide inducements in this state, you know, that bring people here who are very typically poor.

- So you- - It's prioritizing what your budget process is about.

We've gotta do a better job of prioritizing what are, what the government should be doing.

You know, what is the government's role?

You know, I believe in a limited government.

I am a fiscal conservative, and the state could make you crazy, because they spend money where they shouldn't, and then they don't spend money where they should, and the bridge is a great example.

- Yeah.

- You're not taking care of your infrastructure, and now we are stuck with a half a billion dollar project here.

- Well, the state did what Joseph Shekarchi said that he did not plan to do.

He wanted to make investments with the ARPA money rather than one-time spending, and a lot of that one-time spending made it into the budget.

Sue made a good point that once the budget gets passed, then the floodgates kind of open or not to the end of the session about legislation.

Really the last big piece of it is the assault weapons ban, and you were listening, there was, we're taping on a Friday morning- - Well, yeah, so, and everyone should go read my colleague Dan McGowan's column about this from Thursday, when he points out that the one person that will decide whether the assault weapons ban fails or passes is the new Senate President Val Lawson, because right now, it's stuck in a committee, where it doesn't have the support to pass, but the conventional wisdom is that it does, would have the support to pass on the Senate floor if it made it there.

- Would it pass in that committee if she and the majority leader went and voted in favor?

- Well, but the Republicans can do the same, the Republican leaders- - [Jim] Oh, so they cancel each other out- - Yeah, they cancel each other, 'cause presumably- - Ciccone would- - Ciccone, if Ciccone's a no, and- - This is where you don't know where the deals were made to- - Yeah.

- Get the presidency, right?

- So what happened on Thursday night, not to get like too much into the inside baseball procedural drama, but the Senator Lauria on the floor tried to get the bill moved outta the Judiciary Committee to a more friendly committee, and the Senate president ruled against her and said she was out of order, and then they took a vote about whether or not Senate President Lawson was correct in voting her out of order, and the vote was, I think, 20 to 17, which I think was actually remarkably close for a Senate that's so overwhelmingly, you know, elected, not so overwhelmingly, but that, you know, had just elected her to the presidency.

And so, just like a little bit of internal turmoil about this particular bill and the procedure that I think is really interesting, and indicates to me that it doesn't seem like it's going to- - [Jim] She's a sponsor on the bill!

- [Steph] Make it over the, well, right- - She ones of the sponsors!

- She's got a different role now, and it's a- - Right, she had to make a deal to become the president.

Let's put it out there, right?

- It's a tenuous role.

- Oh my goodness- - And what is gonna happen- - She's denied that, by the way.

- Yeah.

- Of course she did!

What was she gonna say, "I sold my soul to become the president"?

- It's conjecture at this point.

- Yes.

- It is definitely conjecture about what deals were being made, and she's in an absolutely different role now, and you've gotta, they have rules and procedures that you've gotta follow.

They all voted on the rules at the beginning of the session.

So I'm appalled at 17 members of that Senate that said, "The heck with the rules, we don't care about the rules."

- That happens all the time.

- You know, and it's, but that, and it shouldn't, you know?

If you have an institution that you believe, "Hey, these are the rules, we're gonna follow the rules," and then they just go, "Yeah, well, we don't care, "because for us"- - A good institution.

- Yes, a good institution- - We don't have that.

- We don't have it.

It's a failure of government, and that's why people get so aggravated, I think- - What do you make of this, Nick?

- I think it's looking like a mess eventually.

The Senate President really has a problem with, you know, the fact, whether it's blessed or not by the appropriate authorities that she can be both the president of the NEA and the President of the Senate, it's gonna bog her down forever.

It's never, they're never gonna let it go.

The media's all over it, and it really is a conflict, I think.

She shouldn't be doing it.

Why would you wanna do that?

- Yeah, well, and Dominick Ruggerio, the precedent was he stepped down- - He stepped down, right- - Because, and so, she, and I think if for perception, and now, look, maybe she needs the money, maybe she needs the job, I don't know what her personal situation, and she said, she had some pointed comment saying like, you know, "The Ethics Commission," I love the word blessed, there, you know, the whole class exception thing needs to be looked at, but she said, "As a perceived conflict "as opposed to a real conflict," and I just, I agree with you.

I think it's gonna dog her.

- Yeah- - Continually.

- I think it will, you know, the state spends more than a billion dollars on education to local school districts every year, and it obviously deeply affects all of the teachers who she represents in the union.

We have a system in Rhode Island where you are a part-time legislature.

They do not make a living salary, so they all have day jobs, and a number of them work at City Hall.

A number of them are teachers in fact.

- More than a quarter.

More than a quarter are in the public sector.

- There you go.

I mean, there's people who are lawyers- - Employment, I mean- - And who- - Public sector employment, excuse me.

- Sure, sure, lawyer, you know, Speaker Shekarchi is a, you know, land use attorney.

I mean, there are these inherent conflicts, and I think the, as the president, she is now in a position where she has a lot of power, and she'll really need to be careful and recuse, or else she will continue to have stories written about her, about her conflicts each time a bill comes up that affects education.

- Final thought on that?

- Yeah, I think that the Ethics Commission is gonna be very busy with her, and they are going to rely on the class exception, which is outrageous.

I mean, she is going- - It is.

- To financially benefit from any education bill that comes up.

They're gonna use that excuse they did.

We had already filed, the Republican Party had already filed an ethics complaint against her.

We thought it was wrapped up.

Everybody said, "Oh, she's in trouble," and they used the class exception, which was outrageous.

- The class exception has eaten the Ethics Commission in its entirety.

Every important vote is now eaten by that.

- Yeah.

- The exception.

- All right, Steph had a great story for "Rhode Island PBS Weekly" about budget cuts that are hurting, well, (mumbles), higher education institutions all over, but there are eight what they call independent, they're basically like the private schools in Rhode Island.

We'll name them afterwards.

We'll have a little quiz as well.

We are all trying to come up with that.

Dan Egan heads up the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

Steph had a chance to sit down with him and get his thoughts about what's going on with the federal cuts.

- Started right off in the first 100 days with a number of executive orders by the administration focused on DEI, pausing research grants, just to name a few, and then culminating this week with aggressive crackdown on foreign students, and blocking foreign students from attending our institutions.

Clearly, there's a desire to change the way higher education operates, and I think at this point, coupled with the impending reconciliation and the budget bill, there will be an opportunity, or there will be a chance that great harm will be inflicted on the sector going forward, and for long-term damage, quite frankly.

I think when you look at the New England landscape in the next 10 years, it's gonna look very different in terms of the number of institutions providing higher education in New England across the six New England states, and I think that it's troubling, and I think people should be aware.

We jokingly say that you go to, you know, you go to an office in Rhode Island, they always have these old books of, you know, the old mill buildings when we were a manufacturing giant.

You know, I'm fearful someday we're gonna have a book of old universities, because we don't protect what we have, and in some ways we, you know, we're gonna kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

- And if you wanna see Steph's entire interview, just go to the RI PBS YouTube page.

You can check that out on YouTube.

Steph, I do think, and you wrote a piece for "The Globe," too, it was interesting, because you said, "You know, it costs a lot of money "to go to school these days.

"What about that?"

- Yes.

- And I thought Dan Egan did a little bit of a pivot on that, 'cause I think that's the criticism now.

That's the criticism, whether you agree with it or not, coming from Washington- - Yeah.

- Is you're spending a lot of money.

What's it going toward?

- Yeah, and the thing with private colleges is they say, like, "No one really pays the full price tag, "because of all the scholarships and the aid"- - [Jim] It's like going to a car dealership, right?

- Yeah- - You gotta chip 'em down- - The price tag they list on the website is not, is often not what you end up paying with aid and everything else.

But yeah, I don't think there's a ton of sympathy, and I said this to him.

People say, "Oh, Brown University is "this elite Ivy League institution.

"It has so much money.

"It has such a large endowment.

"Like why should we be worried about their finances?"

And his argument is, I mean, this is, they are a huge factor in the economy in the city of Providence.

They employ a great number of people who live in the city, who shop at the coffee, you know, go to the coffee shop, shop at the stores.

You know, the university itself spends millions on, you know, supplies for their research.

You know, a lot of money is being spent by the universities.

He even called the payment in lieu of taxes to the city a gift, which I think will ruffle some feathers.

- [Jim] Do you see the steam coming off Sue's- - Yup, yup- - Head right now?

She's been sitting there patiently wanting to dive in- - But their argument is really that they're such a big factor in the economy that they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

So hit us with your rebuttal.

- Yeah, my rebuttal is $93,000 a year to go to Brown, and when you talk about we provide jobs for a lot of people, yes, for every two students, there's one administrator up at Brown.

I mean, they really have to start looking at how they spend the money, and in terms of grants, I mean I'm old school.

I remember the Golden Fleece Awards, how the government gives grants to people.

There's a financial audit, there's a performance audit.

I mean, I think the good thing about what President Trump did is now we're all talking about it.

How are these institutions spending grant money, and is there anybody, is there an IG that is actually holding them accountable for how they spend the money?

No one's gonna argue that if a university such as Brown and their medical school is getting grant money to look at Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, that is great money being spent, but some of the other stuff that they're getting grants for is ridiculous.

That's our tax dollars.

- You know, the president fired all the IGs, you know, just to make that point.

- Yeah we need one- - We need the IG- - We need one here- - Yeah, well, apparently you need one in the federal government, too, and he fired them all- - Yeah, yeah, yeah- - What do you think?

- Well, on the other hand- - Well, are they doing their jobs?

Because that's the problem.

Are they actually showing up and saying, holding these universities accountable for what they're doing?

And you'll see that a lot of them were not.

- But I think the problem is you're take, the chainsaw analogy, you're taking the chainsaw to where you really should have a scalpel.

There's absolutely waste.

They should get rid of it.

- Yes.

- You're canceling HIV research, you're canceling, you know, heart (mumbles), all that type of stuff that really needs- - And again, that's a conversation that we should have.

Like, "Hey, let's go back "and look at what are the good things that we're doing "with this grant money as opposed to the nonsense."

- Right.

- Well, lest we forget, when our healthcare system was failing, who stepped in?

Brown University, which is now, it's now Brown University Health.

I don't know what would've happened if Brown didn't do that.

So, you know, it's a very complicated issue, but I think in Rhode Island we have a lot to be appreciative.

We should be very appreciative of some of the institutions, certainly Brown, for the things they've done.

Really, the health, I, as a vendee of Brown University Health, I have to say it's much better run than it's been run in a long time.

The healthcare system, the portion of it that they have subsumed and taken over- - But we wanna make it sustainable, and if it's not sustainable, 'cause we're wasting money- - Well, the, but the only entity that could've stepped in is an institution like Brown that had billions and billions of endowment and the resources to do it, and- - Well, I think that's- - They're doing a much better job.

- I think that's where the rubber's gonna hit the road.

You have a lot of smaller schools that maybe don't have the endowment, they don't have the niche to bring in the students, and plus, the international students now, they pay full price at a lot.

Some of those schools might not make it, so- - Yeah, and we talked about that in the interview, that the international students are the ones who pay that sticker price, 'cause they're not eligible for student aid.

Johnson & Wales has announced that they're gonna be doing layoffs.

Their enrollment has not bounced back.

Enrollment overall, you know, similar story at Wheaton College over in Norton, Mass.

Enrollment is gonna be a big problem totally separate from the Trump cuts, but the Trump cuts are not making it easier for them to absorb the loss of tuition, because enrollment is down in the Northeast.

- All right, let's- - That's the irony though.

They're harming institutions like J&W.

I don't know if they have an ideology, do they?

You know- - Good cuisine?

(panelists laughing) - And hospitality.

- Hospitality, right- - Yeah, and business.

All right, let's do outrages and/or kudos, and then I do want, what would a show be without the Washington Bridge?

We'll use that as (mumbles) today.

Nick, do you have an outrage or a kudos?

- I have an outrage that the Ethics Commission found that President Lawson did not have a conflict as President of the Senate.

That's absurd, and that's why the last president stepped down, because he knew he had a conflict.

- What was your phrase?

"The class exception is eating the Ethics Commission"?

- Yes.

- Having it for lunch.

- Well, yeah.

- Yeah.

- That proves it.

- [Jim] Yeah, Steph, what do you have?

- [Steph] I wanna go with the reporters being nailed with rubber bullets- - Oh- - In Los Angeles, and I, you know, I'm not saying that all reporters are angels who never get in the way, and whatever, but the video of the officer who just looked up and pointed the non-lethal weapon right at the journalist was completely unnecessary, and, you know, it really does put a chilling effect on journalists who, if they're no longer safe at these protests, then they can't cover them, and they can't show the public what's going on.

- Maybe that's the intention.

- Mm.

- Right?

- Interesting, Jim- - A little investigative eye.

Sue, what do you have?

- I'm gonna go with the Ashley Kalus story this year about what happened in the 2022 election, where some false information came out and was used against her.

I think it's okay for politicians to go after each other on policy, but when you make up lies, and you use them, and you know that they're not true, I think that that harms everybody, because you're not talking about the issues.

You know, stop talking about personalities.

Let's get to policy issues.

I know that's Pollyanna, but- - Yeah.

- Strongly believe in that.

- Okay, Steph, you were also right in the middle of the, it's been a week, so we're a little bit behind the curve, but they announced the bidder for the Washington Bridge rebuild right after taping last week, the Walsh Corporation out of Chicago.

They've built other bridges in New England.

I think the headline for everybody is somehow the governor spun it as a win that it's gonna be November of 2028 before this is built, and he said that's great.

- We were, I think we have finally now been given a more realistic- - Yeah.

- Timeline and cost- - Cost, yup.

- But it comes, you know, after we had been given an unrealistic timeline, it said it was gonna open in 2026, and obviously, an unrealistic cost, because now we know it's gonna be much more expensive than they originally projected.

So it is my job and my colleagues' job to obviously track the money, and track the progress, and see if it is done.

You know, November of 2028 is five whole years since the bridge closed, so hopefully, it will get done quicker.

There's some incentives in there for the vendor to get it done quicker.

So it'll cost more money if we get it done quicker, but at least the drivers will have the bridge back.

- But I gotta tell you this, so maybe it's Pollyanna on my part.

I'm thinking of this 'cause I was actually traveling last week, and I was listening to the press conference on the way up.

Maybe you under-promise and over-deliver, because you have incentives.

Now, it's not gonna affect the 2026 election and whether McKee will be around, but you say November of 2028, they built in a lot of incentives, so you finish it six months early.

Maybe that's being optimistic, but the two years is still, it's hard to swallow.

- I will be surprised if it's even done by- - [Jim] Oh, come on!

November '28- - Really?

- Yeah.

- Three, it's more than three years from now.

- Yeah, I know.

- [Jim] How long does it take to build a bridge?

- Yeah, well, that's the question, isn't it?

- We should rename it the Waterloo Bridge- - I tend towards what you're saying, which is that I think they put out a timeline that was more realistic, because then if they beat it, then it's- - Right?

And, "Hey, look"- - Then you celebrate that you beat it, yeah- - It's much better.

But don't you think, Nick, this is gonna come into the election in 2026?

I mean, don't you think McKee's gonna get pounded on this?

- Yes, (mumbles).

Pounded is a mild word.

I think it's a real problem- - He's lost the entire East Bay.

He should basically just concentrate on the West Bay.

- But yet, I don't think- - He should be punished.

- That he can get reelected.

- Yeah.

- He can get reelected in this state.

If there are multitude of candidates that jump into the Democratic Primary, other than Helena, he doesn't need that much to win the Democratic Primary, and he's got the unions in his pocket.

- 20 seconds, where does this fit in, do you think, to the election cycle?

- Well, I think as long as he gets to do a groundbreaking of the construction beginning, he will use that as something that's celebratory.

But all of his opponents are going to hammer this on him for the entire campaign- - You look like maybe you've done that before, Steph.

You got good shoveling.

Have you ever, did they ever let you do the shovel or not?

- No, never.

- All right- - Cutting a huge ribbon is still gonna be followed by misery.

- Yeah, exactly- - So I- - One day of good and 500 days of not good.

All right, folks, it is a quick show.

That's all the time we have.

Sue, and Nick, and Steph, good to see you.

Folks, if you don't catch us Friday at 7 or Sunday at noon, catch us online.

Go to the station's website, ripbs.org/lively, where we archive all of our shows, or Rhode Island PBS's YouTube page.

You can catch that at either or wherever you get your favorite podcast.

Come back next week as we wrap up the General Assembly session, and have a full analysis as "A Lively Experiment" continues.

Have a great weekend.

(lively upbeat music) - [Announcer] "A Lively Experiment" is generously underwritten by- - Hi, I'm John Hazen White, Jr. For over 30 years, "A Lively Experiment" has provided insight and analysis of the political issues that face Rhode Islanders.

I'm a proud supporter of this great program and Rhode Island PBS.