Most Americans think the federal government should increase spending on childcare, and one group of voters more than any other is in favor of that change: Gen Z.
Data from a new The 19th/YouGov poll found that 52 percent of U.S. adults overall think federal childcare spending needs a boost, including 73 percent of Democrats, 38 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents.
Among Gen Z voters, support was more robust than other age groups. Nearly 60 percent of Gen Z voters favor increasing federal spending on childcare — more, even, than the 49 percent of millennials who said the same.
Currently, the United States spends about $12.4 billion on childcare annually, most of it to subsidize care for very low-income families. That shuts the vast majority of American families out of those benefits, leaving them with an average childcare price tag of $13,000 a year, and much more in certain states. Center-based childcare for two children is more expensive than the median annual rent payment in 47 states, and the median annual mortgage payment in 39 states, according to an analysis by the childcare advocacy group Child Care Aware.
In a midterm cycle that is undoubtedly defined by affordability, the high cost of childcare makes it one of the key policies Americans would like to see change on. Numerous Democratic campaigns are running with childcare solutions in their platforms this election cycle, and some Republicans in Congress are also embracing the issue. The 19th’s poll revealed that 38 percent of voters think Democrats are doing a better job at handling the cost of childcare; only 19 percent said the same about Republicans.
Plan for the proposed unified Chariho elementary school complex in Charlestown
Residents in Charlestown, Hopkinton, and Richmond will vote
November 3 on up to $116 million in school bonds, affecting local school
facilities and property tax debt.
Across Charlestown, Hopkinton, and Richmond, the lawn signs
and municipal notices are multiplying ahead of the general election. But for
voters in the three rural towns that make up the Chariho Regional School
District, the ballot brings a familiar and high-stakes choice.
Two years after rejecting a three-school overhaul, voters
will decide on November 3 whether to authorize up to $116 million in borrowing
for a consolidated elementary campus. The measure — framed as Local Question 1
on the ballot — will determine the direction of the district's aging school
infrastructure for decades.
Yet for regular homeowners watching local tax rates, the
question calls to mind a straightforward concern: what will the borrowing
actually fund, and what will it cost?
One Campus or Three?
The central proposal on the ballot authorizes the district
to issue not more than $116 million in bonds or notes to finance an elementary
school on a single campus. Under the legislative act, the facility would serve
students across all three member communities and could consist of "one or
more buildings."
The financing authorization also covers capital improvements
at the district's Switch Road Campus in Richmond, which houses Chariho's middle
and high schools. State law permits bond proceeds to fund land acquisition,
demolition, architectural design, health-and-safety improvements, playgrounds,
and site paving.
The plan marks a distinct shift from the district's previous
attempt. In May 2024, Chariho voters narrowly rejected a larger, $150 million
bond proposal by a margin of 2,445 to 2,369. That earlier referendum would have
constructed three separate elementary schools — one in each member municipality
— alongside the Switch Road renovations.
Consolidation brings different logistical considerations.
During a public hearing in July on a proposed site at the former Charlestown
Elementary School, residents raised questions about added bus traffic, local
drinking-water protection, and the total cost, according to the South County
Star. Charlestown held a separate referendum on August 4 regarding ground-lease
arrangements for that site.
According to the bond legislation, the single-campus project
is intended to meet Northeast Collaborative for High Performance Schools
standards, with the district aiming to cut long-term operating and energy
overhead.
RIDOH Announces First Human Case of West Nile Virus in
2026
The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) and the
Department of Environmental Management (DEM) are announcing the State’s first
case of West Nile Virus (WNV) in 2026.
The case is a Washington County resident in their 60s who
had symptom onset in early September. This person has been recovering in the
hospital and is expected to be released soon. The positive WNV testing was
confirmed last week at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).
The
individual had a history of travel to an area with active WNV transmission.
Based on the travel history, it is likely that the infection was acquired
outside of Rhode Island.
Due to seasonally low mosquito populations, the risk of
mosquito-borne disease has significantly decreased and the statewide risk level
for WNV is low. However, until the entire State experiences a true hard frost
(defined as three consecutive hours below 32 degrees), which kills adult
mosquitoes, a low risk of mosquito-borne disease remains.
WNV is the leading cause of mosquito-borne disease in the
continental United States and is much more prevalent than Eastern equine
encephalitis (EEE) virus. Cases of WNV occur during mosquito season, which
starts in the summer and continues through fall. There are no vaccines to
prevent or medications to treat WNV in people. Fortunately, most people
infected with WNV do not feel sick. About one in five people who are infected
develop a fever and other symptoms. About one out of 150 infected people develop
a serious, sometimes fatal, illness. For more information about WNV, visit health.ri.gov/wnv.
Every day, companies find better, and sneakier, ways to
reach deeper into our wallets.
They trap us in subscriptions, bury fees until checkout, use
algorithms to collude with competitors, and mine our personal data to charge us
the most we’re willing to pay. With each trick and tactic, companies are
reinventing the ripoff right under our noses. And, as families strain under the
rising cost of living, these practices are coming for every line of the
household budget.
Algorithmic price fixing is one of the most powerful tools
in that arsenal. Price-fixing no longer requires a smoky back room. Today,
technology can do CEOs’ dirty work for them. From rent to gasoline, this
algorithmic price-fixing playbook is wreaking havoc on family budgets.
In June, a class-action lawsuit in California alleged that
AI-powered pricing tool Kalibrate helped more than 1,700 gas stations
coordinate and inflate
prices at the pump. Drivers paid a hefty price, as Kalibrate allegedly pushed
gas prices up by as
much as 30 cents a
gallon in some markets — a roughly $4 billion dollar dent in
Californians’ budgets. Similar schemes could well
be underway in other states.
Meanwhile, in the rental market, the blockbuster RealPage
lawsuit alleged that the company’s leasing software pooled landlords’ data and
spit out rent recommendations that helped landlords raise rents in lockstep. In
some buildings using RealPage, rents jumped by as much as 33 percent in a
single year — more than eight times the increase in a comparable
building that didn’t use the software.
Another weapon in the gouger’s arsenal is dynamic pricing.
Americans are familiar with prices that fluctuate when supply is scarce
— say, seats on a plane or rooms at a hotel. But today, companies are
pushing the practice well beyond contexts of scarcity.
For example, shoppers might find that sunscreen and bottled
water have changed
prices overnight in Las Vegas hotel lobby shops. And as stores like Walmart
and Kroger
install electronic shelf labels across thousands of stores, the infrastructure
for high-frequency dynamic pricing in brick and mortar shopping is taking
shape.
This short essay on climate change and AI is from my
Thinking Out Loud column in our September newsletter. Subscribe
for more!
When I was a wee lad growing up in the sixties, nuclear war,
mutually assured destruction, or MAD, was the apocalypse du jour.
Splitting the atom ended the war and allowed a new world
order to emerge. By the 1960s, that new world included schoolchildren huddled under their
desks, covering their heads with their hands, practicing for the end of the
world.
Some sixty years on, we live in a post-modern world nothing
like that turbulent, transformative, often violent decade. But only in form.
Despite the obvious technological and cultural differences between then and
now, it feels vaguely the same, hiding under our virtual desks, our heads
buried in distraction and division.
Climate Change and Artificial Intelligence: What, Me
Worry?
You have likely heard the AI Cassandras marching up and down
the digital sidewalk with their virtual placards warning that the end is near
(very near), and that we are the seeds of our own destruction. We are
Frankenstein; AI is the monster.
These stark warnings have spilled out as one news story
after another about rogue AI agents breaking free and potentially creating
havoc in the real world where humans live. It is unsettling.
It’s deer mating season and the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) reminds drivers to keep an
eye out for deer crossing roadways, particularly at dawn and dusk, when they’re
on the move looking for love.
During the “rut”, which runs from mid-October
through December, deer are more active, increasing the chances of deer-vehicle
collisions. So slow down, stay alert, and keep your eyes peeled for some
four-legged lovebirds on the road. Tips to avoid deer vehicle collisions
include:
Scan
the shoulders of the road in front of you
If you
see a deer while driving, proceed with caution and expect more than just
one
Follow
the speed limit
Always
use seat belts
If a
collision is unavoidable, apply the brakes firmly and remain in your lane
If you hit a deer, approach with caution, as it may be
stunned or wounded and could injure you while trying to escape. Report all deer
collisions to DEM's 24-hour dispatch at 401-222-3070, local police, and your
insurance company. Motorists should also notify the dispatch if they observe an
injured or dead deer on the road.
The League of
Women Voters of Rhode Island (LWV) and the South County Starsponsored
the Charlestown Town Council Candidate Forum featuring Deborah Carney
(D), Incumbent Council President; Stephen Stokes (R), Incumbent Council
Member; Jill Marie Fonnemann (D); Sasha Puchalski (Independent); Craig
Marr (R), Incumbent Council Member; Cynthia Drummond (D); and Bonnita
Van Slyke (Independent), Incumbent Council Member.
Matthew Westover (R) was absent.
The forum was moderated by Torey Malatia, the
executive director of Literacy
Volunteers of Washington County. As a journalist, Malatia ran public
media nonprofit organizations in Chicago and Providence for over 40 years. He
currently serves on the board of directors of the new non-profit digital
newspaper, South County Star.
He trained as a medieval English literature specialist and earned an MA from Arizona
State University.
Here’s the video (running time just under 90 minutes):
Videography by Paul Roselli.
Here’s the transcript, edited for clarity:
What is the most important challenge facing Charlestown
today, and how would you address it?
Deborah Carney: The most important issue facing
Charlestown right now is the housing crisis. Housing costs in Charlestown are
so high that it’s virtually impossible for our young families, workforce, and
seniors to afford them.
Steven Stokes: Another major issue facing Charlestown
right now is the struggle between state and local control of local issues.
We’ve seen that slowly erode over the last several years, and it only seems to
be picking up steam. We’re seeing pushback now, and that’s going to be the
future for the next two years. This council will have to look into that and
address the issue.
Jill Fonneman: I agree with Deb. She said it would be
affordable housing and ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units). Everybody who lives in
this town deserves to be able to stay in this town if they choose to, whether
they’re senior citizens or our children, while also following strict guidelines
and regulations to protect our environment.
Sasha Puchalski: I agree that housing affordability
in town and people’s ability to move, live, raise, and support their families
here is a massive issue, and that townspeople also need to understand the
specific limitations on development, because while we can hope to liaise with
the state in terms of maintaining control over development in town, we also
need the town to be educated about responsible development and potentially
alternative approaches to development of affordable housing and housing
generally. We need a clear sense of the specific need and data on the number of
people, so we’re catering to families that need it rather than developers.
Craig Marr: I can’t disagree with any of the comments
made before me. The housing issue is the biggest challenge because we have no
infrastructure in the town, so it’s very difficult. As Steve said, we also need
to control development, because without it, an imposition may not fit our town.
But we are an aging community, and we clearly need to bring in young families
to sustain the town and move forward. These two issues are the most important
ones facing the county.
Cynthia Drummond: I agree that housing is an
overarching issue and that local control is paramount. I also feel that unless
we do whatever we can to protect our principal economic driver, which is our
coastline, nothing else will matter. It’s what keeps our taxes low, keeps
people coming to Charlestown to visit, and makes people want to live here.
Bonnita Van Slyke: I agree with Steve that local
control is essential to solving our housing problem. Our water is critically
important and would be threatened by state mandates that greatly increase
market-rate housing but not affordability. And that is a problem for us.
If you think your energy costs are high now, the situation may be about to get a whole lot worse.
With traffic in the Strait of Hormuz – normally the primary route for oil leaving the Middle East – hovering below 15% of prewar levels, oil prices have increased from US$65 a barrel before the conflict in Iran began in February 2026 to more than $100 a barrel in mid-September.
When the U.S. and Israel first attacked Iran, analysts feared prices would soon reach $150 or even $200 a barrel. That hasn’t happened yet. But seven months into the conflict, with no clear end in sight, the global oil market has now largely exhausted the safety measures that exist to keep a lid on petroleum prices.
As researchers who study the relationship between energy and national security, we have been following these dynamics throughout the conflict, and the oil market is now showing signs that significant price hikes – and perhaps even shortages – may be on the way.
The squeeze tightens
Some oil has been able to make it out of the Persian Gulf despite the closure of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia increased output via its East-West pipeline, which runs from Abqaiq on the Persian Gulf overland to Yanbu on the coast of the Red Sea. At full capacity, that pipeline can carry as much as 7 million barrels per day, although only about 4 million to 5 million barrels per day are typically exported.
But attacks on the pipeline in mid-September that Saudi Arabia blames on Iran-backed militias based in Iraq forced the Saudis to temporarily halt oil shipments through that pipeline. The pipeline has now restarted operations at very low volumes, but it will likely take at least six to eight weeks to regain full capacity. Even this short cessation has tightened already constrained oil markets, and the threat of further Houthi attacks on Red Sea oil exports will only add to inflationary pressures.
Six decades of beach surveys reveal extent of shoreline
erosion
By Frank Carini / ecoRI News columnist
Southern New England’s beaches are under attack from
misdirected human behavior. While they may be eroding and retreating, they will
survive. The same can’t be said for the human-made infrastructure sitting on
and behind these popular stretches of sand.
The region’s coastline is a transitory environment in which
change is both natural and unforgiving. But a century-plus of sustained coastal
development, buoyed by shortsighted federal flood insurance, has significantly
changed the dynamic.
Bottom of Form
With nowhere to retreat because of oceanfront cottages,
private bathhouses, massive vacation homes, assorted businesses, roads, parking
lots, and various shoreline amenities, these coastal areas of loose sand,
pebble, and shell particles will eventually just take what we think is ours.
“A beach is a transition zone between land and sea. There’s
always going to be a beach, where the geology allows,” J.P. Walsh, a University
of Rhode Island professor of oceanography, marine geology, and geophysics,
said. “It’s just what is it going to look like? Is it going to be a nice sandy
beach? Unless you’re eroding into bedrock, you will form a beach from what
you’re eroding into.”
In that case, most of Rhode Island’s coastal beaches, in the
not-too-distant future, will be comprised of worn-down pieces of aluminum
siding, cedar panels, roofing shingles, steel beams, cement, asphalt, and tons
more plastic.
A rapidly increasing number of human beings, our relentless
burning of fossil fuels, and our unabated consumption of natural resources is
taking a toll on the natural world. It’s upending the climate by changing
natural systems, such as slowing down the Gulf Stream and melting mountain
glaciers and ice sheets. Sea level is rising.
While the climate crisis shouldn’t be blamed for all of this
coastal change, it has accelerated natural processes. Beach nourishment is for us. Mother Nature has her own way
of dealing with a changing shoreline. Humans just get in the way.
An ongoing University of Rhode Island project has been
documenting changes along the Ocean State’s coastal landscape for six decades.
