Analysis: Right wing stink tank sells sales tax snake oil to Rhode Island


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

tax-cut-fairyThe ongoing discussion of eliminating the sales tax proves the enduring value of telling people what they want to hear.

Don Carcieri, for his whole term, told people that government could be cheaper, but really all he did was insist it be so and ignore the evidence when it turned out not to work quite the way he’d hoped. Does anyone remember the “big audit”? It was done early in his administration, but all the findings about places where increased investment would help our state were deep-sixed and the other results were insignificant enough that the whole project was considered a minor embarrassment and mostly forgotten.

The most recent success along these lines is the RI Center for Freedom, Prosperity, Motherhood, and Apple Pie who have enjoyed an astonishing level of success in keeping under discussion their claim that Rhode Island would profit by eliminating or slashing its sales tax. There’s a legislative commission that keeps meeting and they put out an unending stream of press releases that occasionally get reprinted.

So here I am, feeding into exactly that need for attention they crave, but let’s be clear: this is a stupid idea, supported by fantasy projections and a misunderstanding of the real world.

I see from their most recent press release that they claim a reduction of the sales tax to 3% would produce secondary effects worth much more than the revenue lost: over 13,000 new jobs, hundreds of millions in new revenue to the state and cities and towns, and so on.  They call these “dynamic projections” presumably because everyone knows that something that is “dynamic” must be good. They do say that state revenue might be down by a bit, but made up by city and town revenue. (An aside is important here: we often see claims like theirs that Rhode Island’s sales tax is the highest in the country. This is false, or misleading at best. In most states, county governments are supported by sales taxes, and there are places in 31 states — including Texas, Arizona, and most of the South — with a higher sales tax than ours.)

But let’s look at these “results” of theirs.  They claim, for example, that their model predicts $79 million in new sales tax revenue. This is a 20% boost in sales. Do you believe that lowering the cost of a $100 item from $107 to $103 will produce a 20% increase in sales of that item? That is, they predict that a 3.7% savings will produce a 20% increase in sales. Do people out there with retail experience think this is remotely likely? Presumably people will spend a little more when there are savings, but seriously? Perhaps they imagine hordes of Swansea residents will drive through Seekonk to do their shopping in Warwick in order to save a few percent on their purchases?

The CFPMAP report goes on to imagine that the resulting 20% increase in retail sales in Rhode Island will be responsible for $208 million in income tax revenue. Backing this out, that means they imagine the 20% increase in sales will be responsible for around $4 billion in income for the state. This is almost a 10% increase in the economic output of the entire state. Do you believe this will be the result of a sales tax cut? They are only (only!) projecting an increase in taxable retail sales of $2.5 billion, so the other money presumably comes from the tax cut fairy. The 13,000 new jobs they suggest would appear don’t even account for a quarter of the increase in income they project. The rest is because everyone else would get a raise, or more hours. Would you expect a raise if the sales tax is cut?

One could go on, into their hidden assumption that all these new hires and raises happen instantaneously upon the announcement of the newly lowered tax, or into their projections that newly-prosperous Rhode Islanders would buy 32% more cigarettes and 25% more liquor (also immediately), thereby swelling the revenues from those taxes, but why bother?  The proposal is ridiculous, supported by projections that will take in only the gullible and those who really wish to be taken in.

And there’s the issue, really. Lincoln Almond and Don Carcieri owe their success to the desire of people to believe their claims that government could be cheaper. They were not brave politicians, taking on the fearful power of special interests. They were guys who were propelled into high position by promising people what they wanted to hear and maintaining that it was possible long after events had proven them wrong. Theirs was no kind of courage. Political courage is what we have seen in Governor Chafee, who has consistently presented us with tax and budget proposals that worked against his interest in re-election — and that have been consistently overridden by legislative leaders more interested in theirs. Let us only hope that they are able and willing to see through this latest sales tax claptrap.

Laid off Newport Patch editor Olga Enger speaks out, plans new hyperlocal site


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

patchA high number of Patch editors from Rhode Island and around the country were laid off today. While the corporate-owned community news websites aren’t informing the community about the changes, the people that built and kept the sites vibrant, who are now without a paycheck, are.

We spoke with Olga Enger, the former editor of Newport Patch who says she is going to start a locally-owned hyperlocal site to serve the community and she already has a Facebook page.

Listen to our conversation:

WATCH: David Cicilline Gives an Awesome Speech

cicillineAmerica faces a hunger crisis.  Every day, more and more Americans go to bed hungry.  Yet Democrats in Congress have reached a deal with the Republicans to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps, by $8 billion over the next decade.

Fortunately, Rhode Island has a Congressman who fights for struggling families.  Along with Connecticut progressive Rosa DeLauro, David Cicilline took to the floor to give a truly moving, passionate speech.  Here’s the video:

This is the second time in the past few months that Cicilline has stood up for Rhode Island values, saying no when the Democratic leadership pushes policies that will hurt the 99%.  Progressives in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, who have to deal with a much more conservative leadership team, should draw inspiration from his courage.

When it comes to stopping cuts to nutrition programs, our Senators also deserve huge credit for being the only two Democrats to vote against the original Senate Farm Bill, which would have cut nutrition programs by $4 billion over the next decade.  It hasn’t gotten much coverage here in Rhode Island, but our delegation has been leading the fight against the right’s hunger agenda.

Today, both Cicilline and Langevin voted against these cuts.  They were joined by a majority of the House Democratic caucus.  Now, the bill goes to the Senate, where progressives are lucky to have Senators Reed and Whitehouse fighting for us.

 

Not needed: crank economic opinions on the Minimum Wage


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

DSC_8172Arguments against raising the minimum wage are tedious, immoral and wrong.

Writing about the need for a substantive raise in the minimum wage to alleviate the crushing poverty of the working poor opens the floodgates to conservative and libertarian cranks who argue, against all reason and compassion, that minimum wage laws should be abolished. Tearing quotes from their dog eared copies of Rothbard and Mises, two economists who never met a real-world constraint on their precious theories that they can’t talk themselves around in an assault of dense, senseless prose, Libertarian and free-market conservatives (as if there is a real difference) barrage the Internet with drivel.

Entering into discussions with people who advance economic models over economic reality is like jumping into choppy waters to rescue a drowning victim: If you are not extremely careful you will be dragged below the waves and drowned yourself.

After I wrote a piece on this blog taking Republican gubernatorial candidates Alan Fung and Ken Block to task for opposing an increase in minimum wage, I was hit with this objection from frequent commenter “jgardner”:

The minimum wage has never been, nor will ever be, a job creator, but will always be a job destroyer.

First, I never said raising the minimum wage would directly create jobs, but I did cautiously assert that providing the working poor with more money would have the effect of stimulating the economy, because poor people spend their money. More importantly, however, is the the second contention, stated without any proof as though delivered from God to Moses: The minimum wage is a job destroyer. From this I am to then conclude that abolishing the minimum wage would create more jobs. Perhaps. But these jobs would only be paying slave wages that keep the working poor working and poor.

As explained way back in 2009 by economics professor Bill Mitchell:

The winds of change strengthened in the recent OECD Employment Outlook entitled Boosting Jobs and Incomes, which is based on a comprehensive econometric analysis of employment outcomes across 20 OECD countries between 1983 and 2003. The sample includes those who have adopted the Jobs Study as a policy template and those who have resisted labour market deregulation. The report provides an assessment of the Jobs Study strategy to date and reveals significant shifts in the OECD position. OECD (2006) finds that:

-There is no significant correlation between unemployment and employment protection legislation;

-The level of the minimum wage has no significant direct impact on unemployment; and

-Highly centralized wage bargaining significantly reduces unemployment.

Having to finally concede that there is no real world evidence for his contention and instead a wealth of evidence against his position (though in truth no concession was made, the issue was simply sidestepped), “jgardner” pulled out his trump card:

If the minimum wage could lift people out of poverty with no adverse effects for anyone, why not raise the minimum wage to $25/hr?

One might as well ask why, if one beer relaxes you, why not drink twenty-five beers. The answer is because doing that will kill you. When answering such objections, no matter how nicely you try to put things, you feel like you are talking to a petulant child: “A little of something can be good for you, but a lot of something can hurt you. That’s why you can’t eat all your Halloween candy in one night.”

Here’s a nice way to say it, from the Social Democracy blog:

There is another objection that has been going the rounds (mostly on libertarian blogs): if we make the minimum wage $9, then why not $900? That objection is, quite frankly, brainless.

The minimum wage is a floor concept: the floor is roughly the poverty line (or slightly above it). That is where you set it, and not well above it.

Not even Post Keynesians deny that excessive wage increases can feed into cost push inflation – wages being a big factor in input costs. But a rise from, say, $7.25 to $9 is quite small. In the real world, whole swathes of the market have corporations and businesses that actively set prices and control them by price administration. They leave prices unchanged for significant periods of time, even when mild to moderate demand changes happen, or even when mild price increases affect their factor input costs.

I’ve been hard on “jgardner” because he was brave enough to put his opinions out there, and I would like to believe he’s a decent person. But like so many otherwise decent people who believe terrible things because of their religion, “jgardner” seems similarly trapped by his economic beliefs. Ultimately, shouldn’t all this back and forth economic theorizing should be secondary to other, more pertinent concerns? People right now are working full time at two or more jobs and being forced to subsist below the poverty line. This situation is plainly immoral and monstrous.

Moral arguments for raising the minimum wage include lifting people and families out of poverty, paying people an honest salary for an honest days work, moving away from the economic paradigm that suggests unemployment is voluntary and that workers are “shirkers” and reducing in some small way the vast economic inequality that threatens to destabilize our democracy.

A decent society, made up of decent people, does not let unemployed people starve, it does not plunge families into homelessness and it does not encourage businesses to pay slave wages for hard work.

Economic theories that do not fit in with observations made in the real world need to be modified or discarded. Science is not a process of inventing a set of ideal rules that support pre-existing prejudices. It is a process of suggesting possible rules, and then testing them against reality through experimentation and observation. In this way Libertarian economists such as Mises and Rothbard catastrophically fail as scientists. I should add here that as bad as Libertarian economic theory is, even mainstream economics needs a scientific wake-up call. (See: “Economics needs a scientific revolution” by physicist Jean-Philippe Brouchard.)

Inviting Libertarian economic views into serious economic and political policy discussions is as useless and counterproductive as inviting the views of Trofim Lysenko into a modern genetics conference or inviting Erich von Däniken to give a talk at an ancient history seminar.

The damage done to human wellbeing by corrupt economic theory far surpasses the damage down to our society by the teaching of creationism in schools, anti-vaccination conspiracy claptrap, the anti-birth control advocacy of the Catholic Church and Islamic terrorism combined. It is time to grow up, abandon the religion of economic idealism, and start living in the real world of testable economic hypotheses and scientific economic rigor with the intention to abolish poverty once and for all.

RIF Radio: Special State of Union edition with Jack Reed, Jim Langevin and David Cicillne


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


Wednesday Jan 29
North Kingstown, RI – Good morning Futurists. This is Bob Plain, editor and publisher of the RI Future blog podcasting to you from The Hideaway on the banks of the Mattatuxet River behind the Shady Lea Mill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

We’ve got a special post State of the Union podcast for you today, complete with extended conversations with most of our congressional delegation about President Obama’s speech last night. Unfortunately we weren’t able to catch up with Senator Whitehouse,  but we did speak with Senator Reed and Congressmen Langevin and Cicilline.