My name is David Vogel, and on November 6, my name will be on the ballot as an Independent candidate for Congress from the First Congressional District for the State of Rhode Island.
Being raised in a New York-style Jewish household meant that, nearly by default, my upbringing would be modern liberalism with a healthy integration of old-world sensibilities; growing up in Rhode Island ensured that I would be a Democrat.
Then why am I running as an Independent?
Observing our government in action has led me to the conclusion that even for the most progressive of people, being a part of one of the two main parties is a stifling experience. If you “belong” to one side or to the other, you are expected (if not required) to do the party’s bidding; this is made worse by the mounting evidence that each of the parties is expected (if not required) to do the bidding of the industries that are throwing the most money at Congress via the process of lobbying. There is no room for overall progress because, for those to whom the word “service” is not an empty pair of syllables, the opportunity to solve problems through thought, common sense, and collaborative effort is replaced entirely by party-driven rhetoric and propaganda.
A federal government has the responsibility of acting as a steward for a nation, and is not supposed to treat its constituents as little more than a convenient resource to be exploited. As long as big money dominates politics, it is nearly delusional to believe that by simply complaining loudly enough, “We The People” somehow will get entrenched partisans to understand that something better is being demanded.
This is why, in concert with my view of what it means to be an Independent, I am not asking anyone for any money. My inherent inability to flood the airwaves with canned sound bites and vacuous platitudes means I must find some other way to get your attention. But that’s o.k., because I would rather give you a reason to like me…. it’s just how I think. I believe there are people out there who will appreciate that rather than hide from the issues or dodge their questions or ignore their concerns, I will discuss anything you like, will give you my unvarnished opinion, and will not be afraid to say to you “I don’t know enough about that issue to give you an answer at this moment, but will be happy to resume the dialogue after I perform the research necessary to educate myself appropriately.”
Our nation likes to remind itself that innovation, along with a never-say-die attitude, is an enormous source of our collective pride; that same principle should apply to how we choose our public servants. If you are of the opinion that partisan politics is failing the people of this nation, and if you believe that the focus of government must be upon “we” instead of upon “me,” then I ask you to veer away from partisan politicians, and to vote for a candidate whose only obligation would be to the voters.
Great. Just what progressives need… an “independent” candidate to siphon votes away from a progressive Congressman, David Ciciline, which will do nothing but help Doherty win and thereby keep Boehner, Cantor and the Tea Party crew in charge. *sigh*
Mr. Vogel, you seem like a nice person and I believe you are sincere in your aspirations. But I honestly don’t agree with your run for office. I believe your run will only serve to help the person I least want in office, Doherty, to win.
@Portsmouth Citizen:
Because it appears from your comment that I would not be on the ballot if it were up to you to determine what I am, and what I am not, allowed to do with my constitutional right to get my name placed there, I find it curious that Mr. Doherty is not the candidate you are supporting. After all, it is his party, and the very people you cite, who would remove people’s rights to choose to do what they are legally empowered to do — not just with respect to reproductive health, but with decisions that run the gamut of life — from political, social, and economic, to religious and personal.
I would think that rather than try to wish my candidacy out of existence, progressives would welcome it as being entirely in concert with the concept of why we have open access to the ballots.
You state with perfect assuredness that Mr. Cicilline is a progressive, and so I will ask you if you are aware of the national budget draft-plan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (“CPC”). The CPC is a group of Congresspeople who call themselves progressives, and of which Mr. Cicilline is a member. The CPC claims that under its plan, our nation can eliminate the deficit by 2021 and, by the same year, bring the national debt down to 65% of GDP. While I do agree with several of the concepts in the plan, there are glaring problems with it that take it out of the category of being “progressive” in nature, and toss it into the region of being somewhere between unworkable and punitive. To the way I think, characteristics such as “unworkable” and “punitive” are not what I normally associate with being in line with progressive thought.
Under the CPC plan, capital gains would lose entirely its preferential treatment, and would instead be taxed as ordinary income; also, the CPC would remove the federal exclusion from income tax of the interest paid on currently-tax-exempt state and municipal bonds. While everyone likes to associate the notion of investments with being the exclusive province of the rich, the reality is that preferential tax treatment of capital gains, and with respect to the interest paid from the loans made to states and cities, are the reward we allow to people who are willing to take risks in order to improve their own lives, and to help develop the greater economy. These taxes (exemptions in the case of the interest on bonds) apply to millions of people who invest in things such as undeveloped real estate, the establishment of their own small businesses and, yes, even to intangible assets such as stocks and bonds that are sold on Wall Street. By removing the preferential treatment we now afford to these types of investments, the CPC would remove entirely the incentive for anyone to take the risk of which we are fond of saying is the foundation upon which the economic health of this country is built. Not only is this not a progressive idea, but because of its potential for squelching such investment activity, is actually a regressive one that comes at the precise moment when we need to be fostering such behavior.
Hey, Vogel! Looks like you’re making a common error of reasoning here: “Because it appears from your comment that I would not be on the ballot if it were up to you to determine…”
Let’s take a look at what Portsmouth Citizen said: “I honestly don’t agree with your run for office”.
Portsmouth Citizen didn’t say anything even remotely like, ‘if it were up to me, I wouldn’t allow you to run’. An expression of disapproval is not tantamount to proscription. In smaller words, just saying you don’t like something doesn’t mean you want it done away with.
You seem to have trouble with reading. If so, such trouble does not bode well for your campaign. Or perhaps you’re being deliberately obtuse, in order to try to score some rhetorical points. That wouldn’t bode well for you, either.
In any case, you would do well to learn how to respond to criticism on its own terms. You’ll look less ridiculous that way.
Oh, neophytes are _SO_ adorable. This is politics, David; get used to it.
Criticism of your campaign and even a suggestion of ulterior motive is par for the course and in no way a suggestion that you shouldn’t run. To say so only makes you look like, well, like a neophyte.
The “Ken Block” treatment DD suggests below should also come as no surprise. (And I don’t recall anybody suggesting Block not run; I do recall suggestions that people not vote for him!) This blog makes no pretense about where it stands. Mr. Block calls himself a moderate and you call yourself an independent. If I call myself Holy Roman Emperor, does that make it so?
Let’s drop the charade, k?
It took, what, three overly-long sentences for you to show your colors with a classic Righty beef – capital gains taxes. And your reasoning, while clever, is perhaps less than fully informed or fully truthful. While almost anybody who realizes a capital gain is subject to the tax, the fact is that capital gains represent an increasing percentage of total income as income increases. In other words, the more money you have, the more of it comes via capital gains and, therefore, the less it is taxed.
So, despite your assertions of commonality, capital gains taxation falls much more on the upper income brackets than elsewhere. For this reason, the GOP and worse actors focus on it like a fetish.
Also, this notion that lower taxation is the reward for an investment risk is spurious in the extreme, as I’m sure you’re aware. It’s called capital GAINS tax, so there’s that whole, you know, gain part. The reward for taking the risk is the gain itself.
The gain is income, and it should be taxed as income. Not complicated.
But, as we’re all well aware, Righty don’t like no taxes and will conjure up the most ludicrous arguments to get out of paying them. (Gimme a ‘taxation is violence!) Hence the invention of the need for an ‘incentive’ to invest, even though good investments make good money.
So to bring this all home, with capital gains taxes at historic lows and therefore maximum incentives applied, historically large piles of cash are sloshing about in corporate accounts and ‘dark pools’, earning microscopic returns in money markets.
In my analysis, either this taxation/incentive argument is deeply flawed or capitalism done broke! Sorry, either/or. Make that both/and.
David,
You’re getting the Ken Block treatment. It’s amazing how many people take this view. The progressive movement is no better than the Tea Party movement when it comes to protecting rights. The only rights either want to protect are those supported by their bases. You have every right to run and some of us would like to here something different or at least something a little closer to the center. Good luck in November and ignore the whiners.
Mr. Vogel:
You misinterpret my comment. I do NOT in any way disparage your, “constitutional right to get [your] name placed” on the ballot. I celebrate that right. You, however, seem to disparage MY right to voice lament over your candidacy. Go back and read my comment. I did not say you should not have the right to run. All I said was that I believe the PRACTICAL EFFECT of your candidacy will be to help Doherty win. I still believe that. You have not convinced me otherwise.
To answer your question, yes I am aware of the CPC budget proposal. I do not believe that risk takers will stop taking risks if capital gains tax preferences are reformed. I work directly with entrepreneurs, capital investors (venture, angel, etc.) and business people in the ordinary course of my job. None of them decide to invest in a startup venture merely because of cap gains treatment. It is the overall business case that must be compelling to entice investment, not the rate at which hoped-for profits are taxed. If it is a good business case, investors will be attracted. If the business case is weak, no amount of preferential tax treatment will attract investors.
Is there some room for compromise? Can cap gains retain some preferential treatment? Of course. I would expect any congressman to engage in deliberations and be willing to compromise to effect the best of all the ideas available.
Which brings me back to your candidacy. The CPC budget is not to be analyzed in a vacuum. It is to be analyzed in comparison with the competing budget proposals in congress. Surely you understand that congressional budget proposals are documents containing many compromises. It would be hubris of the highest order if you thought you could get congress to adopt a budget that contains everything that you want and excludes everything that you do not want. So by all means, feel free to disagree with parts of the CPC plan, but please also analyze it in comparison to other proposed plans from which you, if elected to congress, would have to choose and vote upon.
For example, there is the Paul Ryan budget plan. I won’t bother tearing it apart here as there is no shortage of reportage on the Ryan plan’s dramatic failings. My point is this: (1) the Ryan plan must be fought against, (2) a Republican majority in the House will continue to champion the terrible policies embodied in the Ryan plan, (3) a Doherty win will help preserve that Republican majority and (4) I believe your candidacy helps Doherty’s chances of winning.
I am sorry that you do not like my conclusion about your candidacy, but I see no other REALISTIC logical conclusion to make about the effect of your run for office.
David, You seem like a smart concerned citizen so it’s good to have you in the race to me. While portsmouth citizen raises some good points, the record of CPC platform points becoming law is dismal. Once they start to advocate for them on the floor the “leadership” begins to threaten their coveted committee assignments.
Having Independents on the left theoretically could break the stranglehold the conservatives have controlling the progressives.
I hope that you can get into the debates because it will strengthen Cicci’s progressive stands strengthening his run for reelection. David has just about missed his mia culpa opportunity which will make his run more difficult.
Doherty, even with all the Rove Cross Roods disinformation help he will get, the transition from policeman to politician is difficult. One makes the laws the other is conditioned to follow orders.
What gives me pause is the innocence you post represents- nothing new not taking donations, lots of candidates you have never herd of have tried this, unless you are rich or want to take 20 years it usually doesn’t help. Not apparently knowing about the CPC makes me wonder if you are ready.
You have admirable goals, David is a part of a corrupt party machine or he wouldn’t be there. You seem honest and if it’s close you would be wise to consider supporting him.
Unlike Langevin, he’s a fairly solid Progressive that we should send back, even though he is likely guilty of letting the shell game go on when he was Mayor, that is the way “doing govt. like a business” works. “I just with he would take responsibility for this so we can move on. Doherty doesn’t really kn ow politics either and isn’t as smart as you. He will likely be a Republican rubber stamp for policies you will hate. Just Saying.
@ DogDiesel:
Thank you for the words of encouragement. From the first day of the period for gathering signatures (way back on July 3) in order to qualify for ballot placement, I have heard sharply differing views from people regarding whether a third party candidate even should bother to run in the current political environment. What gave me the impetus to continue moving forward was that many more people supported the idea than opposed it.
@ turbo and @ Portsmouth Citizen:
My reading skills are not as bad as you suggest. Yes, I saw the words used by Portsmouth Citizen. However, just as Portsmouth Citizen draws upon his or her own experiences in making the point (which, by the way, is quite well-stated) regarding what are the motivations of entrepreneurs, I also drew upon my experience when reading Portsmouth Citizen’s comments regarding the very existence of my candidacy. I have found that when people voice such sentiments, there generally is an underlying desire that the opinion also be a reality. If, in this case, my conclusion did not apply to what was truly being expressed, then I apologize for misinterpreting.
I do understand that within the context of making decisions in government, there must be compromise. From the outside, it certainly appears that the intransigence of Congress is indicating a lack of that basic ability. Indeed, from the research I have done in conjunction with my entrance into the race, it seems to me that the parties are unable to agree on even the items that should be of the highest priority; and sometimes (for example, the drought-relief package that failed not once, but twice, this past summer) the inability is due entirely to partisan rancor, and has almost nothing to do with “making deals.” This results in the country suffering for no reason other than the fact that party leadership is intent on stymieing the efforts to make progress.
If the main issue in Washington were something as simple as disagreeable personalities at the tops of the tickets, I suppose one could make the case that by getting rid of the “bad apples,” the government could return to functioning “normally.” But it’s not a few “bad apples” — the entire tree has been poisoned; this means we need to cultivate a new tree.
You can say I am being too idealistic — that the realistic result of my candidacy is to elect Mr. Doherty. My answer to that is that in the same vein as I had a choice regarding whether to enter the race, you also have a choice.
If you feel strongly about seeing Mr. Cicilline re-elected, then campaign on his behalf; he would welcome the support. If you don’t get involved, and Mr. Doherty wins, then perhaps you would get your wish when, two years hence, Rhode Island realizes what a horrible choice it made by electing him. Or, if you really wanted to go out on a limb, you perhaps could reassess the potential longer-term value in advocating for the election of more Independent candidates — ones who would not be beholden to party bosses, to huge donors, or to the lobbyists that come with them.
The longest journey really does begin with a single step. I am not saying it would be a smooth ride, but I firmly believe it is a trip that must be begun.
Best of luck, Dave.
I wish you the best.
Normal
0
@ Frymaster:
Last week, following a comment I made regarding a different article posted on rifuture, you spent a few seconds to google my name — barely enough time to find a headline about me, but clearly not enough toread the content below the headline before asking me whether you had “found” the correct David Vogel; I still have no idea what was your point.
This week, instead of simply following the URL’s provided — addresses that would take you to my standalone website (where I state fairly clearly my positions on some key issues facing this country), and also to my candidate’s page at facebook (where you will find a bevy of my unvarnished opinions) — you have chosen instead to eschew putting forth any intellectual effort in favor of pronouncing me a right-winger.
The others who have posted comments here have stated their positions and, as far as I can tell, have accepted with decency what I have to say. When I was made aware that perhaps I had misinterpreted the remarks made by Portsmouth Citizen, I apologized. Please note that I did not backpedal, nor did I hide behind the favored ploy of seasoned politicians by claiming that I somehow “misspoke.” No. I apologized — plain and simple.
Instead of feigning possession of knowledge you obviously have avoided obtaining, you would be better-served to perform even a perfunctory amount of research in advance of your attaching labels to people. If you take a little time to read even a few of the many items I have posted for the world to see, and still believe that my opinions and my ideas are those of a right-winger, feel free to state your case as to why. Until then, please save the rhetoric for those for whom the body of evidence actually matches your conclusory remarks.
@ leftyrite:
Thank you. Your support is very much appreciated. :-)
Mr. Vogel,
It is refreshing to see a third option on the November 6 ballot. I am a registered Democrat, my partner is a registered Republican, and neither of us care for either of our candidates and have little faith in their abilities. We both voted Independent (and still quite pleased with the outcome) for Governor of our state, and have seen Independents in congress make better decisions based on the best interest of the country over party lines.
I have read your outline above and agree; I am willing to give you a chance at two years in office.
However, if you drive it off the rails, like Scott Brown, you won’t get a second chance.
Good luck on the 6th!
Rade / Tiverton