- Is the school department ready, and is the city ready to take this back over?

I don't, I just don't know if that's true.

- So if I was an emoji, I'd bang myself in the head right now and say, "Seven years."

- [Host] RIPTA all of a sudden gets fully funded.

- We have to look at the service that they're rendering.

Is it things that help the commuting public to do?

And is it safe?

Nobody from the suburbs are gonna take the RIPTA bus and land in Kennedy Plaza.

- $15.2 billion.

They take the money and they tack on even more than the governor had asked for.

- I have an idea.

Let's start looking at how can we cut back on some of these social services, not the service themselves, but all of the infrastructure.

(lively music) - And welcome into this episode of "Lively," I'm Jim Hummel.

It's great to be back with you again this week.

This week we have our political contributor, Don Roach, and attorney and former prosecutor Eva-Marie Mancuso.

Well, so much for Rhode Island having a budget crisis.

A key House committee late last week took Governor McKee's proposed spending for next year and tacked on another $300 million of its own for a total of $15.2 billion next year.

That is a 6.2% increase over what we are spending this year.

So we got a lot to break down here.

Don, let's just start with the 30,000-foot view where we are on the budget.

- It looks like we want to continue to tax the rich.

So, it's business as usual for Rhode Island.

You know, we want to tax people who make the most money, make it a less favorable environment for business.

So nothing new there.

- [Jim] Eva.

- I'm a little concerned about that philosophy.

You know, this idea, you know, when you see the visuals of, you know, help Rhode Island tax the rich, like somehow that's a bad thing.

Are we penalizing people for being successful?

I'm worried about that.

- So they decided, there's been, the big battle has been the millionaires tax, three percent on the upper edge... with... earners.

We've had a new speaker, Chris Blazejewski, comes in and says, I'm gonna kind of divide the baby here.

We're gonna do one percent on a phase-in.

So that, I don't know whether that irritates everybody or some people think that's good.

What do you think about the phase-in?

- To me, it's the same thing.

It's the same thing.

- Yeah.

- If I'm making a decision as to whether or not to stay in Rhode Island- - Right.

- Because they value the fact that I'm a philanthropist.

I've done well, I give money back to this community.

I participate in all of the things that we know the people that make that kind of money do.

Then they're looking at it, okay, so it's one percent this year, one next year, one the following year.

It's just the philosophical feeling that the better I do, the more I need to give to government, and I have a problem with that.

- Well, and there was also $233 million more that we got toward the end of the session, and that wasn't enough.

This is only gonna raise maybe $30, $50 million the first year.

- Right, and if you look at Massachusetts, I think they raised their higher-earner income tax rate recently up to about nine percent.

And I was just looking at some studies, and they've seen some of those earners leave.

And Massachusetts has a much better job market than Rhode Island.

And so, I think we've gotta be really concerned about some of our high-income earners leaving the state.

- I'm kind of sick of hearing about Massachusetts and how we need to compare ourselves all the time with them.

We are our own being in Rhode Island, and we just don't treat people who are successful that give back the way they're being treated now.

And, you know, full disclosure, Laurie White is a friend of mine, but her comments are spot on.

We are penalizing people that have done well.

You know?

- She's with the Greater- - [Both] Providence Chamber of Commerce.

- Yeah.

- And, you know, I understand that.

You know, it sounds like a million dollars, and yes, to some people it is a lot of money, but it's not crazy money in this economy when you've put a bunch of kids through college like we have, right?

- Right.

- And look at all of that.

You know, I just don't think, it's the right message to send.

- And the other problem is, we don't have this lever to pull again.

You're not gonna increase taxes for people who make over a million dollars above nine percent.

I mean, there are other states that do do that, but that would just be crazy.

And so, why did we make this decision now?

Couldn't we have found other ways to fund some of the other programs and services within the budget?

So it just feels like we're, we're kicking ourselves in the foot once again.

- That's, that's- - I have an idea.

- Go ahead.

- I have, and my grandson says that to me, "Grammy, I have an idea," I have an idea.

How about we start consolidating services and stop having all of these middle managers, and I would call it that, you know, pork belly fat in the budget, not the people doing the work and not the supervisors, but you have all these middle managers too.

Let's start looking at how can we cut back on some of these social services, not the services themselves, but all of the infrastructure.

And we'll talk more about that when we start talking about the schools.

- $15.2 billion, and they've done this, they take the money and they tack on even more than the governor had asked for.

And that gets written into the budget next year.

So all of a sudden we're gonna, and in the out years we see deficits.

I just don't understand, why not put that in a rainy-day fund because you know the rainy days are coming?

- Because we just don't make great decisions here in Rhode Island.

You look at the Washington Bridge, anything, our decision-making process is not great here.

They also took out the line-item veto, and I just feel like that just says so much about how weak the McKee administration is.

- Inspector General, you had some thoughts on that for years.

Joe Shekarchi said, "I don't want it."

The governor was kind of ambivalent about it.

Now, the new speaker, Chris Blazejewski, not only says, "I want it," he writes it into the budget.

- And it's such a political ploy because there's only this much of the budget that applies to the executive.

And that's the only thing that an Inspector General, created by the legislature, has the constitutional power to do.

- Right.

- They don't have the constitutional power to apply it to themselves.

The auditor general, they could, if they gave the powers- - But the auditor general works for the legislature.

- Works for the legislature.

- Yeah, really.

- So, you know- - He's not gonna be making any waves.

- It's just, it's like anything else, it's like, okay, now everybody's getting their Inspector General, and I laugh at Loughlin like, are you kidding me, what are you gonna do with, you're looking at such a very small part of the piece.

And now, again, we're creating another infrastructure and more money to that, 'cause now you have to have the deputy and the investigator and the lawyers.

So now we're adding more and more and more on, for what?

To look at because we're not happy with the way Peter Alviti testified on the Washington Bridge?

I mean, it's so reactionary that, as Don says, we need to have some real planning about the future.

- But that's just not what we do, so it's, it- - Ah, see, but we can.

- We can.

- We can.

- But we just don't it.

- We can.

Well, I'm always gonna see the cup half full, 'cause I think we have a lot of people out there that do wanna look at it that way.

And we might have to make some changes in voters.

- But for years it was the, you know, they would say, well, the Inspector General, you're gonna add another layer on, and it's gonna cost $2 million.

But when you wanted it, and it's a priority of the speaker in a $15 billion budget, it goes right through.

Now, John Loughlin, you referenced, Republican candidate, said, "I want to turn the Lieutenant Governor's office "into the Inspector General's office."

He's gonna file a bunch of APRA requests, which, you know how far that goes.

- Oh my goodness.

It's so not understanding what government does.

I don't even want to go there.

But when I look at the legislature, if they truly wanted to look at all of the government waste and do it, then they would arm the Inspector General.

- Is there a way they would do it to get around separation of powers?

- No.

- Is there a way to do that?

- They do it with the auditor general.

They give the auditor general the same investigative powers there.

So now the question becomes, what do we need an IG for?

Because that's what we're doing, if we're looking at criminal activity.

You know, if it's just oversight, what have you- - Having a waste, fraud, I mean, there's a difference though between wasting something and criminal intent on fraud.

- I agree.

- Don't you think?

I mean- - I totally agree.

- There are kind of shades.

Do you have confidence that this Inspector General, when it gets up and running, is actually gonna find something?

- Simple answer, no.

- Really?

- Yeah.

- I think, I- - You can always find some... Listen, let's think about our own family budgets, right?

- Yeah.

- They do, you know, distill it down to just the bottom.

If you look and you say, hey, you know, maybe I shouldn't have spent that money on the high-level, you know, lettuce that I wanted this week or what have you.

There's always waste.

I don't think you're gonna find fraud.

I think you're gonna find some, we could do this better, and looking at it, and power to you if you can save money doing it.

I wish they'd start to really start looking at some of these government programs and saying, how do we consolidate them and give better service to people in need rather than bad service?

- But are we gonna just pay someone to say, "Hey, look, we've wasted this money?"

And people are like, "Oh yeah, we did.

"We probably should do a better job."

And then they're gonna just keep doing what they're doing.

- Well, that's what the Inspector General does.

- You know?

- That's exactly what the Inspector General does.

- Yeah.

- They write reports and they say- - Right.

- You know, and it's the blue-ribbon commission, and then we take it- - Yep.

- And we put it on the table over here- - Right.

- And then we go from there.

- I've always been baffled though about the concept that the legislature didn't embrace it because they think we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem, right?

That's always the, "Oh, we don't have a spending problem, "we have a revenue problem."

In their minds, wouldn't you want more revenue?

Wouldn't you wanna say, "Look, we're wasting, "we have 50% more state vehicles than we need.

"Let's consolidate."

That would spring a million dollars right there for all these programs that they want.

So I don't know why they've been so resistant up until now.

- Because everybody thinks at the level they're at.

You know, if you are running in your community as a state rep or a state senator, you're running in your community, you wanna advocate for your community.

That makes sense.

- Right.

- The whole idea is that that's why the synergy of having those discussions and robust discussions and committee meetings is so important because it brings out both sides of it.

I love the process, don't get me wrong.

I'm not being critical of the process at all.

But, you know, to add another bureaucracy and another layer of it, oh my goodness.

- What else about the budget, like, didn't like?

They seem to have addressed healthcare, right, and boosted the reimbursement for Medicaid, saved the Newport Birthing Center, but that seems to be a little Band-Aids, kind of chipping around- - Right.

- The larger issue going on.

Did you have- - Right.

That's the biggest thing.

I mean, the whole primary-care doctor issue that we've talked about here before.

- [Jim] Are we getting at that this year or not?

- I think we're, you know, piecemeal, piecemeal.

- Little tiny bit.

- Not the way we need to.

- Yeah, just a tiny bit but- - Yeah.

- Definitely, I know, I've talked about it before on this show, but just looking at the situation with, you know, for my son, they added some money for DCYF, and my son is autistic, and he's in a lot of adult services programs, and it's just a mess in terms of the support for... people with disabilities and just the programming and all of that in the state is just a challenge.

- And the legislature did restore that, whatever that four, five million dollar cut to DCYF.

- Yep.

- I know that's probably a drop in the bucket, but that was a big thing.

We don't need to be cutting, we need to be helping those services, right?

- Exactly.

And so, but it doesn't seem like the legislature, it just really focused on that population, which I would obviously, biasedly, love to see more focus and attention there.

- RIPTA, which has always gotten the short end of the stick, all of a sudden gets fully funded.

And not only that, they're gonna take an audit of the, they're gonna take some money from the DOT to help RIPTA this year, do an audit of the DOT, and the head of DOT is no longer gonna be the chairman of RIPTA.

Those are some major changes, I think.

- Sure, sure.

Well, first of all, I have a lot of background work on it, having, you know, RIPTA and DOT used to report to me when I was in the governor's office, they were in my portfolio.

You know, it's like anything else.

80% of it runs great, 20% of it doesn't, and that's what you hear about.

I'm thrilled.

Chris Durand has done a great job in leading RIPTA and in the board, but there has to be a synergy between the transportation dollar in our state.

So, you know, not having the head of DOT be the chair of the board, I don't know that that really matters as long as you have people that are working together.

Because that's the biggest issue right there.

But RIPTA, we have to look at, and I think they're looking at now, we have to look at the service that they're rendering.

You know, I mean, is it feasible?

Is it things that help the commuting public to do?

And is it safe?

- Hmm.

- Is it safe?

You know, we still have the Kennedy Plaza issue.

And I don't care what you say, but nobody from the suburbs are gonna take the RIPTA bus and land in Kennedy Plaza.

- But you also can't get from Warwick to Pawtucket.

- Right.

- Without going through... I mean, there's no- - Right.

- Yeah, right - There are no routes- - Right.

- That really, in the real world.

- Right.

- I live in Pawtuxet Village, and I'm trying to get to Fairlawn.

- Right.

- You can't do it.

- Do you remember one of the reporters from "The Providence Journal" did that?

- Antonia Farzan.

- Was, oh, she didn't- - She tried to go only on the bus for a week.

- Right.

- And she had to break down because she had to get to an interview, and there was no way to do it.

- Right.

- But it was really real world.

Or it's like, I'm only going to eat on $25 a week.

- Right.

- I'm only gonna take the bus.

Anything else in the budget that struck you?

- Well, I just wanna stay on RIPTA.

I don't know about 80% runs well, but I would say for myself, years ago I took RIPTA 'cause I used to commute back and forth to Boston, and I would just take it from where I was in Providence or Cranston to Kennedy Plaza, then just walk to the train station but... our, kind of, transportation infrastructure is just terrible, like, this is not 80% working well.

Like that, I feel like, is a problem that we've talked about for years that nobody's trying to solve.

And why can't we try to solve that problem?

- So the reason that I say 80% is because they're focused right now on the people that take the bus, and that's the 80%.

They're not looking at, how do we get- - People who could take the bus!

- Right.

- Correct.

- Right?

- Correct.

- Yeah.

- And that's the 20% of us that, listen, when I lived in Boston, I didn't have a car for five years.

- Yeah.

- I loved it.

- Yeah.

- You know, you had, it's just a whole different vibe and feeling.

- It's easier.

- Easier.

- - We're like a smaller Los Angeles.

Nobody really thinks of public transportation.

Everybody's in their car.

- Right.

- So- - And I would love to be able to have more opportunities like that, and for not only us, but also the next generation.

Right?

- Exactly.

- So we don't have, every kid needs to have a car to get anywhere, and, you know, I'd love to have that opportunity, but it has to be safe.

And Kennedy Plaza, until the bus hub gets moved out of Kennedy Plaza, it's a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.

It's just not a safe place to go.

- Final thought on that?

- I'm just trying to think where you would put it.

You should have your hub.

- Well, they've had like 15 possibilities there.

- Oh yeah.

- Move here and there.

I think because they're kind of overwhelmed, they're just like, "We'll leave it here for now."

- Right?

- Right, right.

- Yeah.

- All right, we will keep an eye as we head toward the end of the session.

The city of Providence finally got what it has been requesting for years.

It is getting control of its school department back.

But is it ready to take the wheel?

In addition to the many hats you wear, you were the former chair of the Board of Education for years, so I know you have thoughts on this.

- I'm glad it's going back to Providence.

It belongs in Providence.

It belongs in the city, you know, in town, that's funding it moving forward, and I think it was important to get it back.

- [Jim] Are they ready?

- Of course they're ready, listen- - Yeah.

- They're never gonna be 100% ready for it because there's so many moving parts.

Until the adults start working together and get the state with their top-down mandates out of the equation, then it's like anything else.

You have to take care of your own.

I mean, we need to get more teachers back in the classroom.

We need to get more control back locally.

So in the schools themselves, those administrators in the schools themselves know who is functioning and not functioning, and that's where the focus needs to be.

- Yeah, I mean, I agree with you in spirit about local control, but I question if they're ready because I feel like the decision, it feels like it was somewhat quick in terms of right now.

And is the school department ready, and is the city ready, to take this back over?

I don't, I just don't know if that's true.

- So if I was an emoji, I'd bang myself in the head right now and say, "Seven years.

"Seven years."

- No, I get that.

But to what Don's talking about, and you know how, this has all played out.

We were off last week, but we played, Angélica Infante-Green saying, "Not ready, not ready.

"It's gonna be next year, it's gonna be next year."

24 hours later, she said- - Right.

- "Now we're giving you the keys to the car."

- Yeah.

- I don't know what happened to get to that, but Don, I said two weeks ago, it's almost like the dog that catches the car.

Now what do you do?

- Right.

- Right?

_ Right.

- Is the infrastructure- - Right.

- I get your point.

It's been long- - Right.

- It's been long, it's been long.

Are they ready to take it back, though?

- There's so many- - With a month?

- There's so many layers.

First of all, it's not taking it over within a month.

There have been ongoing discussions and work from day one.

So it's not like all of a sudden you say, "Okay, here," you know, "Now you gotta go take on and go from there "with no prep or anything else."

Remember, the superintendent was hired by the commissioner, so this is her person that's there, that's carrying out that mandate.

So yeah, and the thing is that we have to get moving on it.

We've gotta get the state out of there.

Look at how long it took with Central Falls.

You know, we've gotta get- - Is Central Falls- - The state out.

- Going back now?

- Yes, yes!

- Fine, it's been 35 years.

Right?

- It's crazy.

- Yeah.

- It's just- - Longer than seven.

- Right, right, and the thing is, is that- - Generations.

- This idea that the bean counters in RIDE and the people that are doing all of the Monday morning quarterbacking and sitting in the armchairs have a better feeling about what's best for these local schools is just wrong.

It's just wrong.

- I don't know if I agree with you.

I don't think that they necessarily know what's best, but I'm not sure I necessarily trust Providence to make good decisions.

Are they gonna keep the superintendent in place?

Are they gonna keep a lot of the infrastructure that has helped the schools?

'Cause they have lower absenteeism than they did before.

Better performance with English and math.

And so my question is, has RIDE said to Providence, or can they say to Providence, "Look, we're giving this back to you, "and you have to keep the same structure "that's in place today?"

- There are some guardrails.

- Okay.

So let me, yeah.

- They put a few guardrails on it.

- And let me ask you a question, right?

Think about what you just said.

Does any teacher or any administration wanna fail?

Why would they wanna go back to chronic absenteeism?

Why would they wanna go back to all of the things that they've worked so hard?

- Right.

- Remember, they did the work.

- Sure.

- As a system, to bring it all together.

And when I say "they," it's the teachers, the parents, the students that have worked together.

I loved the chronic absenteeism focus.

I think- - Well, that's been big, the governor's been- - Yeah.

- Harping on that.

- And you know what?

I think it's wonderful, 'cause you know why?

It's not... It puts the issue where it is.

If you're not in school, you can't learn.

- Right.

- And it doesn't, it doesn't say< "You, teacher, are the reason, "you, parent, are the reason, you, kid, are stupid."

You know, it says, "Listen, "let's get around something altogether that we can work on."

I think it's a fabulous program, and I hope that continues.

- But I think Providence's feet was held, I mean, their feet was held to the fire, whatever the phrase is, and... Oh, let's see, 27 years ago, I did my student teaching in Central High School, and- - You're aging yourself.

- Yeah.

- [Eva] Well, you were 10.

- I was 10, I was 10 back then.

- He was a prodigy.

- And the thing, it caused me not to want to teach because of how the administration treated the students.

The state was coming in to do one of their audits and, of the school building, of all the different services, and they painted over the weekend.

And when you walked into that building, I mean, it just reeked.

And throughout my time and experience there, I just felt like the administrators did not really care about the students, nor did they have any kind of hope for those students to achieve.

Now, I'm not saying that's the case today, but what I'm saying is there was a reason why we had chronic absenteeism.

So what will stop us from going back to that again?

Because we've seen a lot of progress the last few years.

I just want there to be guardrails in place so that it doesn't go back.

- Sure.

- I think part of it is since the Johns Hopkins report, they've done a lot of work on the infrastructure- - Yes.

- That we haven't seen.

- Yes.

- They've built new schools.

- Yep.

- They've rehabbed.

The thing that strikes me, though, is they say, you hear the ed commissioner saying, "We've had great success."

But when you look at the numbers and the goals, now I understand they're goals, but, you know, a third of the kids are proficient in math.

I mean, it's shocking when you see 15%.

- When I was chair of the board... When I was chair of the board, they wanted me to do these press conferences that said, like, "Great, we have like-" - 35%, right?

- Yeah, yeah.

- I'm like, that's not happening.

I'm not going on TV saying this is a wonderful thing that's happening.

- And so that's where we get into the comparison again to Massachusetts, which you don't like.

- Right.

- But I mean, so I don't know, I don't know.

I'm kind of Switzerland on this.

Is it better state control, is it, but I share your concern.

We've lost generations of students- - Yeah.

- That have been failed by the people leading the system, whether it's Providence or the state.

- And I think things are improving, and I like having, personally, the state having some oversight because it seems to have improved.

And what's the benefit of giving it back to Providence that we will not have if the state continues to control it?

- Okay, so it's not, it's, there's always gonna be oversight because we always have- - Yeah.

- The state guardrails, and it's the council, and the chair of the council is a former superintendent, who's amazing.

She's, you know, hands-on, and she understands it, so that's really important.

So it's not like the state's not gonna be involved at all.

- Right, yeah.

- It's just not that, that dictatorship.

- Right, - In terms of, this is what will work, this is what will work.

Remember, it's not the state that made all these things happen.

It's the teachers and the parents and the kids that work together around- - And that's what makes a system.

- Right, around the new systems that came in.

So, I look at that aspect to say, what are we giving up?

I don't think we're giving up anything, giving it back other than an opportunity to say, let's take these and move them to the next level.

- Just quickly before we get to outrageous and kudos, former House Speaker Joe Shekarchi went to the Ethics Commission this week, or he had asked, he had to appear before the Ethics Commission because somebody's filed a complaint against him, Roger Williams professor.

Basically, is it a conflict of interest for him to go to his speaker's role to his Supreme Court justice role?

You're an attorney, what do you think about that?

- I think it's actually settled law.

You know, Erin- - Because of what happened?

- Of course, she's on the Supreme Court.

The best thing is that, you know, if they do render an opinion, the appeal is to the Supreme Court.

And so, what's the Supreme Court gonna do?

- [Jim] How's that gonna go?

- And I look at it, and again, I think it's one of these things, and all of the discussion around Speaker Shekarchi, when they started bringing up, you know, the criminals that were in different positions ahead of time, I just took offense to that.

And I really liked Bob Flanders' article that said, listen, legislators serve a purpose in the judiciary, with that as background.

Let's face it, everybody that gets to be a judge has some political connection.

That's the nature of the beast, right?

But yeah, I think it's settled law myself.

I think it's a constit... It's either a constitutional office that doesn't need the, doesn't require the revolving door, or it's not.

- Yeah, I would agree with Eva that it is settled law, but for me, my reading of the law, I don't understand why they made the, they set the precedent before with- - Because the staff recommended against it, and the commissioner said, we're gonna not pay attention to what you're saying.

- Right.

Well they- - It's a whole different commission now, though, too.

- I understand.

I understand.

- But I don't think they can make, they would have to overturn, well, they can't overturn the decision that they made previously, but they would go against that decision.

- And that's what she's saying, the precedent.

- Yeah.

- But listen, it's not a done deal.

You got people like Laureen D'Ambra who has applied, you know?

I mean, she has great bona fides to be able to get on the court.

So it's not a done deal.

But you're saying about the issue of conflict.

You think it's settled.

- Right.

I just say to myself, you know, we're having all this discussion about it, it's a legal question, and the question is, it's a constitutional question as to what happened.

And when the decision was rendered on Erin Lynch Prata, I agreed with it because I said to myself, listen, the Supreme Court is different than the other courts in terms of the revolving door.

So, again, it's just my opinion, and I'm sure there's other lawyers that have different opinions.

- All right, let's do outrageous and/or kudos.

Don, let's begin with you this week.

- Kudos, just because I haven't been on in a while, is to Mr.

Ed Brady deciding to run for mayor of Cranston.

We've got a lot of issues going on in Cranston.

- You are a Cranston guy.

Yep.

- Yeah.

And Ed's a really good guy.

I think he would actually bring a lot to the table and get the city back on track, and it has gone a little off the rails recently, so I'm excited to see him run.

- Bring us up to date then, Cranston's mayoral race is another two years down the line, right?

- Another two years.

So 2028.

- But people are already jumping in?

- Ah, I don't know- - The mayor's term-limited, right?

- Is he term-limited?

I don't- - Ken Hopkins, I don't think he can.

- I don't, I don't think he's term-limited.

- Has he been there eight years?

- I don't think it's, I'm not exactly sure.

- We'll get back to that for the next show.

- Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

- But you applaud anybody jumping into the arena.

- Not necessarily anybody, I applaud Ed jumping into the arena 'cause I think he would be a really good mayor, and I'm excited to see him run.

- [Jim] Ms.

Mancuso.

- I have an outrage, because I was at the Rhode Island Food Bank this past week, two weeks ago actually, for a, it was a celebration, and I was there, and I took a tour, and there were huge empty racks that I took a picture of.

And it's where all of the federal SNAP benefits would be that were pulled back by the Trump administration.

So, that to me was outrageous.

I mean, food to me is, I mean, that's just basic.

How do you cut people and not have an ability to have food?

So thank God for all the millionaires in Rhode Island that fund these nonprofits.

- Oh, wait a minute.

They leaving- - Including my own.

- Yeah, because of the- - Including my own, you know, I mean, with Close to kids.

- Well, but I'll tell you, it has put, yeah, your nonprofit does a great job, but they've also, it's kind of put the pressure on the local food banks.

And I did a story on this a couple of months back for Ocean State Media.

- Yes, you did.

- And what it shows me is that the public is stepping up.

- That's right.

- But how long can that go on?

- That's right.

That's right.

- I mean, they can step in the gap in the short term, but if you're doing this for years, it's gonna dry up at some point.

- Right, that's right, that's right.

- So, Don, Eva, thank you.

Always entertaining when you guys are on.

And thank you for joining us.

Be sure and check us out on Facebook, X, Instagram, and on the Ocean State Media YouTube channel, and, once again, wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

We'll see you next time here on "Lively."

(upbeat music) - [Announcer] "Lively" is generously supported in part by John Hazen White's Lookout.