David Cicilline: A path forward


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

cicilline msnbcMore than two weeks into the federal government shutdown, the American people have every right to be mad as hell at Congress.

When it works the way our Founders designed it, the American model of government is the envy of the world. But right now we are at a standstill because Republicans and Democrats have failed to cooperate in order to get things done for our country.

The cause of the current dysfunction in Washington is some combination of the disproportionate power of a small group of ideological intransigents called the tea party, a broken campaign finance system made worse by Citizens United and the influence of corporate and anonymous spending in our elections, gerrymandered congressional districts that undermine any chance of bi-partisanship, and the unwillingness to confront, in a serious way, our nation’s debt.

As a result, Head Start, the Small Business Administration, and the Veterans Administration have been forced to suspend some or all of their operations. Hundreds of thousands of government workers have been told to stay home – they don’t know when they’re going to get their next paycheck. And while Washington politicians are using this crisis to score political points, the federal government shutdown is hurting families in cities and towns across Rhode Island and all over the United States.

Even as both sides have traded political barbs in recent days and argued forcefully on the cause of the government shutdown, we have yet to hear a clear path forward out of this mess that would be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans and advances our nation’s interests.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, mandatory spending for programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is expected to increase $1.6 trillion over the coming decade. Anyone who is serious about protecting these programs and the benefits they provide America’s seniors, our veterans, and the disabled, can recognize that even as we preserve existing benefits, we need to make changes to the way these programs are funded in order to ensure they continue to provide for future generations as well.

And there is no question that our nation faces serious fiscal challenges across the board that demand innovative solutions from policymakers. Unfortunately, neither side has articulated a way to move beyond this current crisis in a way that enhances our long-term stability and honors our values as a nation.

The American people don’t care who is to blame for this current crisis. They are sick of hearing members of both parties sling mud and try to capitalize politically on each new crisis of the month. Instead, they want their elected officials to provide a path forward that outlines a way to get our country back on the right track and stops the current pattern of lurching from crisis to crisis without a long-term vision for our nation’s success.

That’s why Congress should immediately end this crisis by passing a clean continuing resolution to fund the entire government and raise the debt ceiling, both for a period of 90 days and then commit to an expedited negotiation process so that we can thoughtfully develop a commonsense, long-term strategy for growing jobs, responsibly reducing our deficit, investing in educational opportunities, and strengthening the guarantees of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, should agree to travel to a place like Camp David or Independence Hall in Philadelphia, in a summit-like setting, and remain there until they hammer out a reasonable compromise — a good reminder of the greatness of our country and the genius of our founders.

And while these goals may seem difficult in today’s political climate, they are certainly not without precedent. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose legacy endures with modern-day progressives, clashed often with Congressional Republicans who opposed his agenda, but when he asked for a vote on the Social Security Act, Republicans in the House voted 77-18 in favor of his historic proposal.

Ronald Reagan, who is still revered as an icon by conservatives today, worked regularly with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill to get work done on taxes, Social Security, and infrastructure investments. There is no reason that Republicans and Democrats today should not be able to work in a similar way to find common ground and develop a long-term strategy that creates jobs, strengthens our economic outlook, and cuts the deficit in a responsible way that honors our values as a nation.

After more than a week of an unnecessary federal government shutdown, it’s time for both parties to focus again on making good public policy decisions for the hardworking Americans who sent us to Washington.

Debunking the Business Tax Climate Index


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
List of states by median household income, including Washington DC.  Data from the Census Bureau.
List of states by median household income, including Washington DC. Data from the Census Bureau.  Data accurate as of 2012.  Newer data cannot be accessed due to the Republican party’s unfortunate decision to shut down the government.

I once had the following conversation with a state senator:  She proudly told me that she favored letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. So I asked her, “what about Rhode Island’s tax cuts for the wealthy?” “Well,” she told me, “we have to worry about our business climate.”

It is a disturbingly common refrain. Conservatives constantly point to business climate rankings that put Rhode Island towards the bottom. A few months ago, the state Senate, in collaboration with the right-wing lobbying group RIPEC, released a very silly report entitled “Moving the Needle” that harped on these curious business tax climate surveys. The most famous of these rankings is the Business Tax Climate Index put out by the Tax Foundation, a very conservative think tank. A few days ago, the Tax Foundation put out its 2014 rankings, giving our great state 46th place. There was the predictable flurry of bloviating about how this means we need to cut income taxes for the rich even more than we already have. So I felt it was time for a thorough debunking of the Index.

Part of the reason conservatives need statistics like the Index is that blue states tend to score a lot better than red states do on most conventional economic indices, like median household income.

Judging by real numbers, the blue states clearly are much wealthier than the red states. Many of the red states that do do well—Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota—have strong economies because they have large amounts of natural resources, not because of their economic policies. Red states, simply put, are generally economic disasters. So if conservatives want to argue things are worse in the blue states, they need to make up new numbers. That is precisely what the Index does. The Index supposedly measures how effective a state’s tax system is at promoting business. But it is actually just a fancy way of distorting tax data to favor conservative tax policies.

Before we jump into the weeds, I need to define two critical pieces of tax jargon: progressive taxes and regressive taxes. A progressive tax is a tax where you pay a higher rate the more you make, and a regressive tax is where you pay a lower rate the more you make. Most of the Index is designed around favoring regressive taxes. Simply put, the more aggressively a state redistributes wealth from the 99% to the 1%, the better it scores on the Index. So let’s break down the top five distortions:

1. Tax Weighting

This is the most important distortion. The Index examines five different taxes and weights them as follows:

Individual Income Tax — 32.4%

Sales Tax — 21.5%

Corporate Tax —  20.2%

Property Tax — 14.4%

Unemployment Insurance Tax — 11.5%

These weights are not derived from an estimate of how much each tax affects businesses. Instead, they come from how much each tax varies from state to state. This results in the oddity that the tax weighted highest—the individual income tax—is a tax few businesses pay. And the tax that the Index’s 2013 report admits plays the most important role in determining business location—the property tax—is weighted the second lowest. Perversely, the Index punishes states for shifting the tax burden from businesses to individuals. Now, there is a good reason the income tax makes the top of the list—it is one of the few progressive taxes states assess. Here is how the tax burden gets distributed in Rhode Island:

Chart from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Chart from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

2. Excluding fees and charges

The Index does not incorporate all taxes. The biggest omission is fees and charges, which are the most regressive, anti-business component of taxation. A state that raised revenue exclusively through sky-high licensing fees, highway tolls, business chartering fees, code violation penalties, speeding tickets, parking tickets, drilling fees, mining fees, logging fees, and pollution charges would receive a perfect rank on the Index because none of those taxes would be included. But all of those taxes very much affect businesses.

3. Punishing lower tax rates for the middle class and small businesses

When the Index assesses the income tax and corporate tax components, it strongly penalizes progressive tax systems and favors more regressive tax systems. First, the Index ranks states by the top rate, and then it applies a penalty for having lower tax brackets for businesses and corporations that are less well off. The results can be absurd. States are severely punished for cutting income taxes for the middle class or cutting corporate income taxes for small business. If you make less than $300,000, which nearly everyone does, you pay higher taxes in Massachusetts than Rhode Island:

Income tax rates in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Income tax rates in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

But the Index ranks Massachusetts’s income tax 13th, well ahead of Rhode Island’s 36th place ranking. The same logic applies to corporate income taxes. If a state creates a bracket with lower taxes for smaller businesses, the Index will penalize it. This merely reflects what conservatives believe the tax system should look like. It has nothing to do with helping businesses. Indeed, it is exceptionally difficult to imagine how increasing taxes on small businesses could possibly improve the business tax climate.

4. Further diluting property taxes

Even though the 2013 Index admits that property taxes are the most important factor in business location decisions, they have the second lowest weight. Even that does not tell the whole story, since property taxes are further watered down by lumping gift and estate taxes into the property tax category.

5. Punishing tax deductions that help businesses

Perhaps the strangest component of the Index is the penalties it imposes for tax credits designed to spur growth. These include job tax credits, research tax credits, and exemptions from sales taxes for basic goods like medicine and food. Although conservative orthodoxy favors simple taxes without exemptions, it is very hard to see how tax credits for businesses could possibly impose a serious burden on businesses. This peculiar hatred of deductions yields some quite comical results. Take Delaware for instance. With a corporate tax code that gives it far and away the most businesses per capita of any state in the union, Delaware is a famous corporate tax haven. So one might expect Delaware to rank highly on the Index’s corporate tax ranking. But it ranks last. Why? Because Delaware has quite high tax rates but enormous exemptions for out of state income. And the Index does not like exemptions.

Throughout its 56 pages, one theme shines abundantly clear—the Index prefers more regressive taxes.  Needless to say, this has nothing to do with the business tax climate.  It is just about right-wing ideology.

The sad truth is that a slavish obsession with these conservative business tax climate reports has created a seriously unfriendly business tax climate in Rhode Island. We have slashed income taxes for the wealthy and dumped much of the burden on businesses in the form of higher property taxes and fees, especially in core business areas like Providence. It is time to recognize these silly reports for what they are—right-wing propaganda that should not be taken seriously.  That’s how national Democratic pundits treat them.

Sheldon to Maddow: debt ceiling damage has begun


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

sheldon maddowRachel Maddow and the object of her political affection, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, made the case last night that even getting this close to the debt ceiling is an irresponsible way to manage money.

“There are two consequences of not raising the debt ceiling,” Whitehouse told Maddow last night. “One is if you actually don’t do it and then markets and interest rates adjust in probably unimaginably bad ways. But even when you get close other countries bankers people buying treasuries, securities look around and think this security doesn’t seem quite as secure as it used to. I think I’m going to have to charge a little bit more to come in and be a buyer and because we pay the interest that comes right out of the taxpayers pocket.”

You can watch it here (Sheldon comes on at 10:00 minutes)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gist Q&A with herself doesn’t earn passing grade


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gistIf Deborah Gist’s op/ed in the Providence Journal were a high stakes graduation test, the commissioner of education would be in danger of not graduating.

Gist poses six questions that have been raised about the very highly-charged, statewide debate about using the NECAP test as a graduation requirement. In each, she says the detailed research and dissident opinions offered by opponents of the NECAP and/or high stakes tests in general are all incorrect.

For Rhode Island’s edification. Like a teacher should do for a wayward student, RI Future corrects her Q&A with herself, but as in life and politics (but not in Gist’s rhetoric) there are no absolutes. So we don’t grade, we offer insight.

  1. Question: Is it true that Rhode Island students can fail to graduate on the basis of a single, standardized test?Answer: No. The truth is that, in Rhode Island, we use multiple measures to determine whether students are ready to earn a diploma and to succeed beyond high school. The measures include course completion, performance-based demonstrations of proficiency (such as senior projects), and success on state assessments or on other approved assessments.Reality: In fact, both the above question AND answer are true (except for the part where Gist says the answer to the question is “No”). What Gist has done here is offered a false equivalent. A more true answer is that it is unlikely that a single, standardized test is unlikely to prevent graduation but it can happen – and is more likely to happen to students in poor districts with disinterested parents.
  2. Question: Is it true that students have to pass the NECAP in order to graduate?Answer: No. The truth is that students who score partially proficient or better when they take the NECAP in grade 11 have met this graduation requirement. Those who have not yet met the graduation requirement will have two opportunities to retake the NECAP again in their senior year. If they improve their score, they have met this graduation requirement — regardless of their performance level. RIDE has also approved 10 other assessments, including the PSAT and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, that students can use to meet this graduation requirement. In addition, waivers are available for students for whom — for any reason — tests of any kind are not a good measure of their abilities.Reality: This answer is true. It’s basically a different way of wording the first question. So, again, for clarity, failing the NECAP test CAN cause a student not to graduate but no student MUST pass the NECAP test in order to graduate.
  3. Question: Is it true that the NECAP assessments are not appropriate for use as a graduation requirement?Answer: No. The truth is that the NECAPs are high-quality assessments that we use for many purposes, including guiding instruction, informing parents about student progress, and as part of the decision-making about placement, services and graduation. The NECAPs require students to provide written responses to questions that show their thinking and reasoning. Designed on the same model as the MCAS assessments used as a graduation requirement in Massachusetts, the NECAP is an appropriate test for use as one component of a diploma system.Reality: It is true that Deborah Gist thinks it is appropriate. It is true that Eva Mancuso said it was appropriate but perhaps not the best test to use. It is true that the company that makes the test has changed its opinion from agreeing with the question by policy to making a public statement for the benefit of Rhode Island that it changed its opinion. And it is also true that Tom Sgouros did amazing research journalism showing why the NECAP is not an effective metric of measuring individual student performance.
  4. Question: Is it true that the NECAP requirement penalizes students who haven’t received an adequate education?Answer: No. The truth is that handing diplomas to students who are not ready for success penalizes students. Although we recognize that schools cannot make up for years of poor, inadequate education with one year of instruction and support, the opportunity to graduate by showing growth ensures that our graduates are at least making progress toward proficiency. This opportunity also ensures that students aren’t penalized for something beyond their control.Reality: Testing on material that has not been adequately taught absolutely, positively does penalize students. Gist does Rhode Island a grave disservice by not answering this question honestly. Instead, she says the converse – giving a student a diploma on material they have not been adequately taught – penalizes students. Again, she is offering readers a false equivalent as both the question and the answer are correct. Proponents of high stakes tests tend to think giving a student a diploma based on material they may not have received an adequate education in is worse than testing a student on information they have not received an adequate education in, and vice versa. But to say that students who are tested on material they have not received an adequate education in are not being punished is simply ignoring a portion of the issue.
  5. Question: Is it true that, because Rhode Island will introduce a new assessment in 2015, we should wait until then to include assessments in the diploma system?Answer: No. The truth is that at present 75 percent of our recent graduates who enter the Community College of Rhode Island must take remedial courses, at their own expense, before they begin to earn credits. We cannot let this continue. We must provide all students with the education they need and deserve — while it is our responsibility and while it is their right.Reality: We don’t need to fail or stress any graduating seniors in order to make sure the few that go to CCRI know what they need to know.
  6. Question: Is it true that the NECAP encourages test preparation and “teaching to the test”?Answer: No. The truth is that schools where students perform well on state assessments do not focus on test preparation. Rather, teachers in these schools provide great instruction that engages students on many levels and teaches key academic skills: solving problems, reasoning well, writing clearly, reading with precision, thinking creatively, grappling with abstract ideas. The NECAP, unlike many typical machine-scored, fill-in-the-bubble tests, also requires students to write out responses to questions — showing what they know and how they think. Test preparation and rote memorization will not improve performance on this kind of high-quality assessment.Reality: I give Gist an incomplete on this answer, because it only speaks to the school districts “where students perform well on state assessments,” according to her own words. How about in the districts where students don’t perform well on state assessments? You know, the high schools where students tend to go to CCRI after graduation – the very same students you were so concerned with in your previous question to yourself…

Why Raimondo won’t run as an independent


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

chafee raimondoWPRI’s Ted Nesi poses this question in the most recent Saturday Morning Post:

“Running as an independent could let [Gina Raimondo] avoid a bruising nomination battle and save her growing war chest for the fall campaign, where she’ll face a less liberal electorate. The treasurer is canny, and she believes in numbers: if an independent run makes the most strategic sense, why wouldn’t she pull the trigger?”

Nesi is asking the question based off assertions from unnamed pro-Raimondo sources, who want Raimondo to skip the Democratic primary (because it’ll be expensive and could be close) and concentrate solely on winning in November. But before we get all in a titter about another four-way race in Rhode Island, it’s important to look at how Nesi hedged the question: “makes the most strategic sense.” Simply put, running independently does not make the most strategic sense. I’ll walk through the campaign issues first, and then deal with the governing problems after.

1. It doesn’t avoid a negative campaign.

That’s one assumption there; that the cost of a Democratic primary will be in vicious attacks that will leave the eventual nominee so damaged that the Republican will swoop in and pick off disgusted Democrats and unaffiliated voters. But circumventing the primary doesn’t dodge those attacks; especially if the treasurer’s race become a debate largely about Raimondo’s current pension policies. In the gubernatorial race, it just sets the starting date for those attacks at a different date, as now the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee get to open fire without worrying about hamstringing themselves in their own primaries.

2. It potentially saves Angel Taveras money as well.

Yes, an independent doesn’t have to go through that messy primary process, they just automatically get to go to the general election (once enough signatures are valid). But Raimondo and Taveras are the only two candidates who could’ve challenged one another in a Democratic primary. If one bows out (or never declares), the remaining candidate can virtually get by on sheer name recognition and popularity without spending much money. In fact, if Raimondo goes independent and Taveras remains in the primary race, it should boost his fundraising as he becomes the presumptive frontrunner thanks to the strength of the Democratic Party.

3. Rebuilding the value of the Democratic Party is going to be costly.

While there’s more then enough bellyaching from all sides that Rhode Islanders will vote for anyone labelled on Democrat on the ballot, that ignores that beyond the base effects, this ignores that the Party is the most powerful campaigning apparatus ever in history. And that might not even be exaggeration. Ever since Howard Dean became chair and following two Obama campaigns, the technological and informational advantage the Party conveys onto its candidates shouldn’t be underestimated. An independent candidate can mitigate this somewhat by appealing to unions who have decades of experience in organizing, but that way is mostly blocked for Raimondo. This is why in response to fundraising it’s best to keep in mind Voltaire’s dictum, “God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.” Money can buy you a lot of the best shots. But it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be bought.

4. It isolates you from a base.

Observers might be tempted to compare Raimondo running as an independent to Lincoln Chafee running as an independent. It’s a bit apples and oranges. If Raimondo runs as an independent, it’ll be seen solely as a political move with the goal of advancing Gina Raimondo (and that holds true for any candidate who jumps parties too close to the campaign). Chafee made himself an independent long before he ran for governor, on a matter of principle, and campaigned for President Obama in the interim. When Chafee lost in 2006, it seems easy to proclaim in retrospect that his political career was effectively dead. And he would not be governor today were it not for Frank Caprio shooting himself in the foot. If Raimondo leaves the Democratic Party, she proves the pronouncements from various left-wingers that she’s a “Democrat-in-name-only” and also removes the partisan support she could’ve relied on. I know a recent post of mine attracted comments from self-proclaimed “lifelong Democrats” that they’d vote for Allan Fung should Raimondo win the Democratic primary, but that’s just foolish. At least Raimondo couches her language in traditional Democratic priorities. Fung isn’t going to give any quarter. If Raimondo tosses aside her party, she has to rely on unaffiliated voters who aren’t hard partisans and disaffected partisan voters who don’t believe that their nominees better represent their interests. And frankly, there simply aren’t enough of those without extraordinary circumstances like in 2010.

 

I’ll stop there on the horse-race bit, because I want to talk about what’s more important: how does an independent governor govern? The answer: not well. We can see this in Chafee’s major push for a constitutional convention when he announced he would not seek re-election. Chafee knows all too well the limits of gubernatorial power, especially as an independent. It’s mostly limited to a few things: proposing a budget, vetoing, and use of the bully pulpit. There are other powers; but it would take a creative executive to utilize them. Chafee recently made the argument on Newsmakers that without the line-item veto it’s difficult to fight the General Assembly on spending. Given the way the budget just nearly passed (and saw a leadership amendment defeated), a more combative governor might’ve been able to open fissures within the General Assembly by vetoing the whole budget.

But that kind of dynamic is more typical of the Republican governor versus the Democratic General Assembly, where the two branches act as foils for one another. It’s also been more than two decades since we had an elected Democratic governor, who supposedly functioned as a leader of the Party (I’m too young to remember, so I’ll rely on confirmation from my betters on that point). Would Raimondo forgo that kind of responsibility? Or the advantage it confers; when the priorities of the Governor and the priorities of the General Assembly are supposed to be aligned thanks to single-party control? Because that’s what’s being given up in an independent run, the ability to lobby from within the leading political party.

Raimondo as head of government might be a more striking a figure than Chafee’s been, but there’s something about independent officials that make them less standard-bearers and more referees. No one likes referees, and there’s a lot of kicking while their backs are turned. Chafee’s primary opposition hasn’t come from the Democrats or Republicans, it’s come from talk-radio. And I think that’s largely because an independent governor lacks a requirement to be dealt with. If an independent governor needs something passed, they need to build an ad hoc coalition for the issue. And there’s no electoral benefit for a legislator to join, since if they cross leadership, the independent governor can’t back them up in a primary fight. A Democratic governor can promise to go to bat for their supporters, much as Raimondo promised when pension reform was passed. Raimondo understands the power in that.

So to me, it seems obvious; running as an independent needlessly handicaps both Raimondo in the campaign and in her future political career as well. For whatever reason, there seems to be a desire for some big name to run as an independent, Caprio was previously bandied about. But I just don’t see it happening.

Gina could hurt Democrats in general election


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

wall-street-indyBrown’s recent gubernatorial poll has received a lot of attention.  The dubious primary results, which show Raimondo beating Taveras in a Democratic primary where most voters aren’t Democrats, have been widely mocked.  (For comparison, a Taveras internal by a reputable pollster put Taveras up 19 points.)  The general election portion, however, is significantly more plausible, although nearly a quarter of registered Democrats are mysteriously missing.

One nugget from Brown’s poll is especially interesting.  Even though the poll shows Raimondo winning the primary, Taveras still fares better than Raimondo in the general.  Raimondo beats Fung by only 1.7 points.  In a state as blue as Rhode Island, that’s a horrendous margin for a Democrat.

Of course, in the topsy-turvy world of Rhode Island politics, where Democrats are often just as conservative as Republicans, this makes perfect sense.  Because Raimondo is so far to the right, many Taveras voters hate her, and they simply won’t vote for her in the general.  In particular, workers whose pensions she helped cut will find it especially hard to vote for Raimondo.  Fung may get a lot of spite votes.

Raimondo’s problems go far beyond the handful of Democrats who will actually vote for a Republican.  The real concern is all the Democratic base voters who will stay home.  Many of these voters might reluctantly tell a pollster they would vote for Raimondo, but if it is raining, if it was a long day at work, if there is something good on TV, it would be hard for them to take an hour out of their day to vote for a candidate they dislike.

Even this is painting too rosy a picture for Raimondo. If she makes it to the general, she will enter it after a bruising primary drowning in a deluge of negative ads.  Having faced no opposition in the Republican primary, Fung will be flush with cash and ready to pounce.  If Raimondo is really only two points up before the mud has started flying, it is very hard to see her emerging the final victor.

Many observers believe this is a good poll for Raimondo, but if it were real, it would pose a very serious threat. When a deeply flawed candidate leads in the primary, threatening what should be an easy general election victory, that’s the rare recipe for the national party establishment to get involved in the primary.  Raimondo had better hope the Brown poll is wrong.  If more polls like this one emerge, expect electability to be a major argument against her candidacy.

Movie Review: ‘Inequality for All’ this Friday!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Inequality for AllThe people who most need to see and understand director Jacob Kornbluth‘s newest movie Inequality for All, (for instance everyone involved with the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity,) will at best ignore it, and at worst launch into incomprehensibly obtuse “critiques” based on small, inconsequential details. This is a shame, because not only does the film’s star and presenter, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, outline the history and scope of the escalating crisis of economic inequality, he also opens some possible avenues towards a solution, and even offers up the possibility of optimism.

At 85 minutes the film is snappy and filmed with bright video crispness and perfect sound. Pleasing animations illustrate the statistical analysis, and should be familiar to anyone who has seen Reich cover these ideas on YouTube. What this seamless presentation style does is lower all barriers between the audience and Reich, allowing us to concentrate on the man and his ideas.

Such a technique would be disastrous if the the man at the center of the effort were a boring, dry academic. Fortunately Reich is a powerful, commanding speaker with a dexterous command of the facts and figures needed to make his case. Reich has Fairbanks disease, which is the cause of his diminutive stature (he stands under five feet tall.) This and other biographical details are woven into the movie’s narrative for two reasons. One is to present Reich as a figure we can relate to. Far from simply being an entitled Ivy League academic and Rhodes Scholar (which he is, after all) Reich portrays himself as a man of the people. He was always that kid who was too small and bullied by his peers. He comes from blue collar roots: his father sold dresses and his mother help at the shop. He is unashamedly pro-union.

See the Rhode Island premiere of this movie Friday, 4pm, at the Avon Theater on Thayer St.

The other reason to concentrate on Reich as a person is that the story of economic inequality in America is also Reich’s story. Reich has been fighting this battle against economic disparity for over thirty years. At one point, near the end of the movie, Reich allows himself a bit of bitter reflection, wondering if his entire life has been a failure. After all, he has been ringing the bells of doom for decades, and his ideas and policy solutions have been ignored, even as the prophesied doom strikes us, over and over again.

The film detours at times off Reich and onto a collection of Americans who are living under the burden of our current economic inequality. We all know the stories. Families where both parents work full time jobs only to barely scrape by and accrue nothing in the way of concrete savings or any hope of a happy retirement. These people are taxed at more than 30% of their income, even as the very wealthy are paying taxes in the range of 11-15%. Under such a system are dreams being crushed even as the very wealthy end up with more money than they can possibly spend.

As Reich explains part way through the film, the economy right now is doing great, but the middle class and the poor are not feeling the effects. In the current economic boom, it’s a good time to be the 1%, the rest of us merely endure.

The problems our world experiences due to economic inequality are exacerbated by the effect such money has on our politics. A beleaguered and uninformed middle class can be easily manipulated into believing that the cause of all our problems is not due to a structural defect in the way we regulate our economy, but because of immigrants stealing our jobs, terrorist Muslims infiltrating our society, or as a punishment from God for allowing gay marriage and atheism.

Meanwhile the very rich use their money to buy the favor of candidates, paying lobbyists to convince legislators to pass changes to the laws that favor making the rich even richer, giving them more power with which to warp the system. This is part of what Reich calls the Vicious Cycle, and it won’t be enough to simply do away with Citizens United, we need to reduce the power of the 1% to unduly impact the political system, and this means taxing their wealth and modifying economic incentives.

There is no such thing as a free market. All markets operate by the rules we, as a society, put in place. We have the ability to modify rules when certain people, who are infinitely inventive and always looking for loopholes that lead to wealth, break or game the system. At that point it is important to close loopholes and erect barriers to such exploitation. Markets work best when they are managed and planned, just as managed and planned farms work better than wild fields for generating food.

Inequality for All is based on Reich’s 2010 bestseller Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future and won a U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking at the Sundance Film Festival. It premieres in Providence on Friday, October 18th at the Avon Cinema on Thayer St. RI Future, the Economic Progress Institute and other progressive organizations in the Ocean State are holding a special screening at 4pm, followed by a conversation about the film at the English Cellar Ale House, 165 Angell, just off of Thayer.

After this special performance the film will be at the Avon for at least an entire week’s worth of showtimes.

Please feel free to contact Economic Progress Institute communications director, Sarah Anzevino at sarah@economicprogressri.org or at 401-456-2751.