Does Romney’s Loss Point To Wounded GOP?


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

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had trouble defeating Ron Paul in the Rhode Island Young Republican straw poll (okay, to be fair, that straw poll was meaningless). Now he crosses the finish line third in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries. At the time of writing, Hawaii and American Samoa are still up in the air, but they utilize a caucus system, rather than a primary system, and the news of the night will be Mr. Romney’s loss.

The air of inevitability is off, and though the math still favors Mr. Romney in the delegate race, his path to victory looks increasingly shaky.

Faced by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and serving Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), Mr. Romney has had all the advantages in this race: money, name recognition, unlimited spending via SuperPACs, endorsements, support of the Republican establishment, and virtual “runner-up” status from the 2008 Republican presidential primary. And yet, he can’t seem to finish off any of his remaining opponents.

As the race continues it seems that the Republican Party’s much-vaunted discipline is falling apart in this presidential primary. Since the 1950s, Republicans have almost reliably nominated candidates at the convention who have been a credible runners-up in a previous primary season or else were vice president. Nixon: vice president; Ford: vice president; Reagan: runner-up in 1968 & 1976; George H. W. Bush: vice president and a runner up in 1980; Dole: runner-up in 1988; and McCain: the runner-up in 2000. The two aberrations have been Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George W. Bush in 2000; but in both those cases no candidate had been a previous runner-up or a vice president.

Interestingly, this begs the question, should Mr. Santorum emerge at the convention as the nominee and then lose, would Mr. Romney get another shot in 2016? I’d say no, simply because having lost two primary races in a row and a loss this year after virtually being the presumptive nominee would probably spell the end of his presidential ambitions. In such a scenario, Mr. Santorum’s ambitions would be over as well, leaving the Republican Party with no obvious nominee in 2016. But should Mr. Romney win, expect to see Mr. Santorum again in 2016 or 2020.

Unless, of course, American politics are about to undergo a sea change. Republicans nationwide appear to be eating themselves. The social agenda of the Tea Party and its politicians have made them the most unpopular group in the country. Less conservative candidates are unable to catch fire with the increasingly conservative base. Meanwhile, moderates continue their exodus from the Republicans while RINO-hunters are after their heads.

Each of the remaining candidates seems to represent a constituency in the Republican party. Mr. Romney represents the elite establishment interests. Mr. Santorum represents religious and social conservatives. Mr. Paul represents libertarians. And Mr. Gingrich represents philandering hypocrites. This may be because parties in America are less political parties than large coalitions of relatively unorganized factions. That the candidates seem to be reliably taking portions of various voters points to an increasing factionalism within the Republican Party.

Trust in the parties to accomplish the task of governing is at an all-time low. In this kind of environment, radical political movements like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall St. can come to the fore. However, with both groups having appeared to have spent their goodwill and life having moved on without them, look for new ones to crop up. Both parties are going to have to reinvent themselves to stay relevant with shifting demographics. But if it’s fair to say there’s a Republican Civil War going on, then it remains to be seen whether it’ll give them a head start or delay the process.

Brendan Doherty on Newsmakers: How’d He Do


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
Brendan Doherty, Republican candidate for U.S. Congressional District 1

Would I vote for retired State Police Colonel Brendan Doherty? Not from what I’ve seen (I also don’t believe that the Republicans have governed their half of the Congress well; though I wouldn’t say Democrats have done much better).

But that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to him before I cast my vote this November in the U.S. Congressional District 1 race. So I’m glad Rhode Islanders got a chance to hear the presumptive Republican nominee on WPRI’s Newsmakers. But how did he do?

Well, appearance-wise, Col. Doherty looks like anyone, though with well-groomed hair. But that could easily be said of the race’s incumbent, Congressman David Cicilline. However, Col. Doherty appeared (to me) to be hunched over during the interview; sometimes it felt like he was bobbing and weaving around the bottom half of the screen.

Furthermore, he could put a bit more attention into his collar; his tie seemed to bulge out around his neck, causing what should be a nice straight collar to ripple, making him look less professional than he probably is.

Those are things his media team/person should cover with him, working on keeping the wardrobe neat and his on-camera appearance level. This race will be covered well, which means that it’s likely Col. Doherty will be on television many times more. Nailing how to position yourself for the camera has been part of the strong politician’s repertoire since Kennedy vs. Nixon. But voters don’t care about appearance, right? After all, they’ll decide this on the issues! Well, WPRI’s Tim White and Ted Nesi, joined by RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis, have those covered.

Col. Doherty isn’t bad on the first question about why he wants to run. Comments about Col. Doherty when John Loughlin was still seeking the Republican nomination often focused on claiming Col. Doherty was a Democrat in Republican clothing, and to his credit, he hasn’t let that get him. Col. Doherty doesn’t shy away from saying he’ll buck his own party and doesn’t back down from that position despite coming out and saying cleanly that’s he a conservative Republican. He’s free to say that he won’t be beholden to his party now, because he won’t face a primary challenge, but it could’ve hurt him with Republican voters had a primary opponent existed. As it is, it’s decent positioning. It casts him as a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican (circa 2004) while not bringing up Governor Chafee’s name, which isn’t as beloved as it once was in the state.

He flubs the Bush tax cuts question pretty badly. Given the heated nature of the extension, that this is likely to be at least a minor campaign issue. I don’t understand why he says he’s for letting them all (or most of them) expire. There’s a few ways to read that answer:

  1. Col. Doherty doesn’t understand the issue/simply didn’t listen to or understand the question at that moment.
  2. He doesn’t want to stick to Republican orthodoxy.
  3. He’s trying the whole “raise taxes on the poor” message that’s come along in some Republican camps (though letting the tax cuts expire wouldn’t do that, really).

Regardless, it’s not his strongest points. Where I’m with the Colonel is on the following issues:

  1. The Affordable Health Care Act is confusing as hell.
  2. The age for social security kicking in can probably be increased for younger folks, (though I think, at the very least, changing it for high-wage earners might be a good idea).

But then you have the typical avoidance answer of looking at waste and fraud as a way to cut the deficit. Mr. White tries to head that off, but to no avail, that’s the answer Col. Doherty wants to give. Anything else is “on the table” or “for review”. And while that might work for Rhode Island politics, it just doesn’t cut it for national politics. If you’re going to cut, you need to name something. You can practically see the exasperation on the reporters’ faces as Col. Doherty launches into waste and fraud; you can hear it in their responses telling him how often they hear it and just how little it really matters.

His response is pretty typical on Israel. Stock Israel policy; “strongest ally in the Middle East”, “stand with the people of Israel”, etc., etc. Except that he’s been to Israel for a week on counterterrorism training, so that’s at least slightly different. No nuance in the issue.

It’s hard to tell whether his position on President Obama’s contraception policy will hurt him or help him. I’d err towards the former, since a Brown poll found that women and young voters support Obama’s revised policy. Since Doherty is weak with young voters, and since they’ll play a larger part in a presidential election year (though not as strongly as 2008 due to Obama fatigue), he might want to rethink that stance. Couching it as an attack on the Catholic Church is rather nonsensical (Catholics and Democrats have a long-standing historical relationship) but would probably get a lot of support in Cranston. Unfortunately, they vote in CD2.

Col. Doherty appears to inadvertently make a statement which is should hold resonance for recession Rhode Island: that he’s been in hard times. “I know what it’s like to need, I know what it’s like to want,” he says, relating the story of his family becoming poor after being well-off due to family illness, discussing the possibility of losing their house and him being unable to attend then-Bryant College. For people struggling under Rhode Island’s ruined economy, that should be Col. Doherty’s lead-off pitch. Unfortunately, instead of that coming up during a question about the economy, it’s about making compromises and tough choices. While that’s fine, it’s clearly the strongest part of his campaign, and something that could draw a stark line between him and Mr. Cicilline (assuming Mr. Cicilline is the Democratic nominee, as rumblings of a primary challenge still exist).

This is where Col. Doherty could be weak to Mr. Cicilline. Economic arguments should be the focus of this campaign. By weighing in on social issues, Col. Doherty opens himself to attacks along those lines, which distract from the argument that Republicans should be the caretakers of the economy. Take the Tea Party for example. Tea Party members are really just the same social conservatives that have always existed in the Republican Party. But in 2010, they ignored social issues in favor of economic ones, leading to a titanic wave during the midst of the recession. But since that time, the state legislatures they captured have introduced more and more social issues bills, and it’s no surprise that the Tea Party has polled as more unpopular than Atheists and Sarah Palin. Col. Doherty just handed a hammer for any Democrat to hit him with.

Conspicuous in its absence? Providence.

135 Want to Go to Presidential Convention

More than 130 Rhode Islanders filed with Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis to run for delegate in the state’s April 24 presidential primary.

Among the prominent names are Joe Paolino, Myrth York and Ray Rickman as Barack Obama delegates and Don Carcieri, Scott Avedisian and Alan Fung as Mitt Romney delegates.

All 135 candidates now have until Feb. 28 to collect the signatures of at least 150 eligible voters in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. The public can follow the progress they are making achieving the 150-signature threshold on our website at sos.ri.gov.

Fifty-two Rhode Islanders hope to represent President Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, the week of Sept. 3. Voters will elect 22 delegates on April 24.

Romney led all Republican candidates with 27 delegates hoping to go to the Republican National Convention Aug. 27-30 in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Twenty-three Rhode Islanders filed to be Ron Paul delegates, followed by 22 for Rick Santorum and 11 for Newt Gingrich. No one filed to run uncommitted or as a Buddy Roemer delegate. Voters will elect 16 delegates and 16 alternates.

April 24’s presidential primary will be the first test of the state’s new Voter ID law. Rhode Islanders must register to vote by March 24 in order to cast a ballot in the presidential primary. April 3 is the deadline to apply for a mail ballot, which do not require Voter ID.

Will Rep. Bob Watson’s 2nd Drug Arrest in 9 Months End His Political Career?


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

The Providence Journal (and everyone else) is reporting that Rep. Bob Watson was arrested again for possession of marijuana early Sunday morning.

When the police arrived, they saw a white Volvo sedan in the lot, with its rubber tire missing from the rim on the front driver’s side. The driver’s side door was open and a man who identified himself as Robert Watson was standing beside it, according to the police. There were no passengers in the car.

“The officers observed what appeared to be a pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana on the driver’s side floor of the Volvo,” Buckley said. “The officers also discovered a clear sandwich bag containing a green, leafy substance believed to be marijuana in the area of the driver’s seat.”

This is after his April, 2011 arrest in Connecticut for DUI and possession of marijuana when stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.

Police stopped Watson, a Republican state representative from the wealthy town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island at a police checkpoint in East Haven on Friday and there was a “strong odor of marijuana” coming from Watson’s car, East Haven Sgt. Gary DePalma said.

Which was after a comment made that offended the Guatemalan community (anyone who has ever watched Watson perform at his best on the House floor knows that this is pretty typical for him).

“I guess that if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smoke marijuana, you probably think we are onto some good ideas here.”

Shortly after his April arrest, Rep. Watson was ousted as Minority Leader in the House on a vote of 6 to 2.

Considering this new arrest, his denial of the April charges and his statement regarding that arrest seem, ummm, less than authentic.

I honestly don’t really care whether or not Rep. Watson smokes pot.  And I give him credit for being a sponsor on the 2005 medical marijuana legislation.  I do care, however, that he was driving erratically, under the influence, and could have hurt or killed someone.  That isn’t cool at all.

But with this new arrest, my guess is that his days in the General Assembly are numbered.  While I’m not privy to any information regarding a Republican primary challenger (oddly, Republican Party insiders don’t like talking to me), there is at least one Democrat who formally kicked off his campaign in November, Dr. Mark Schwager.

Schwager served on the East Greenwich Town Council for two terms, from 2006 to 2010. He ran for former Sen. Michael Lenihan’s seat in the Nov. 2010 election, but lost in that contest to North Kingstown’s Dawson Hodgson.

In the 2010 election, Schwager lost to Hodgson by 928 votes (of a total of 11,084 cast).

Candidate Total votes Pct
Dawson Tucker HODGSON (REP) 6006 54.20%
Mark SCHWAGER (DEM) 5078 45.80%

Dr. Mark Schwager is well-known in East Greenwich politics.  In addition to the two terms he served on the East Greenwich Town Council and was recently appointed as the town’s Fire District Commissioner, by a unanimous vote.  Speaking about his campaign against Watson, he said:

“I just think it’s a better race for me,” he said. “I’m very involved in East Greenwich, in municipal politics and government and community service. I know the area really well, the issues really well. My kids have been through the school system. I have my medical practice here. I was on the Council here. So I’m just very focused on this community.”

Time will tell.

As for money, Bob Watson had $5,167.25 as of September 30, and Mark Schwager had $12,395.75 as of September 30.  The last quarter 2011 reports aren’t due until the 31st, and it will be interesting to see if Rep. Watson catches up.

And how is this for irony…

…released [Watson] at 4:20 a.m. Sunday morning.

4:20… now that’s funny.

Santorum and Romney Square Off On Felon Disenfranchisement

Rick Santorum asked Mitt Romney point blank: “Do you believe people who were felons, who served their time, who exhausted their parole and probation, should be given the right to vote?”  This was in response to an ad by Romney’s “Super-PAC” attacking the former Pennsylvania senator.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush.  “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote.  And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote– just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy.  A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation.  How can  a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box?  How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law?  Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony.  It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation?  Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006?  I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime.  It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote.  It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.

Rethinking the Cicilline and Doherty Race


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

With the recent announcement that Loughlin has decided not to run for Congress, I’ve been putting some thought into the upcoming CD1 race between Cicilline and Doherty.  It seems that the campaign has gotten slightly more difficult for Cicilline, but I don’t see it nearly as much of an uphill battle as some others do.  Granted, Doherty will no longer be subject to a primary campaign, but I just couldn’t imagine Loughlin and Doherty being involved in a significantly hostile and antagonistic primary campaign, despite their previous barbs.  The main advantage for Cicilline would have been the Republicans spending their money fighting each other.

Also, even though there has been some speculation about Gemma and Segal jumping in, I can’t imagine either of them being candidates this year, so I think Cicilline won’t have to go through a primary fight either.  Let’s review the circumstances leading up to the 2010 election to explain why:

Some may say this proves that Segal and Gemma have plenty of time to announce, but the situation this time around is different.  CD1 is no longer an open seat; now it is occupied by Rep. David Cicilline.  While Gemma or Segal are still wildcards, and could possibly announce, any Democrat who wants to run a strong challenge against Cicilline probably should be in the race by now.  This is why I think the race will be between Cicilline and Doherty.

And I think Cicilline wins.  Here’s why:

Cicilline’s message will be (and should be): vote for me so Republicans don’t have another seat in the House from which to advocate the destruction of the lives of middle-class Americans.  I know that is hyperbolic, that was my intention, especially considering Obama using the legacy of Republican intransigence as the perfect weapon against Republicans.  Judging by the post Rep. Cicilline submitted to the blog, Standing Together for Progressive Values, he has laid out his main key campaign themes for the election season:

  • Protect Social Security and Medicare from Republicans who want to destroy them
  • Protect the Environment from Republicans who want to destroy it
  • Tax People Fairly to pay for these things that Rhode Islanders actually want (that’s pretty important to remember – Cicilline is talking about things that Rhode Islanders care about)

In contrast, Doherty and the Republican and Conservative groups that will be supporting him will look back on Cicilline’s experience as Mayor of Providence (since he is a freshman Congressman in the minority party, there are no accomplishments in Congress to scrutinize).  They’ll bring up the financial problems facing Providence (ignoring the rest of the country) and blame it all on Cicilline.  But this has already been covered and discussed to death after he was elected, and I’m not sure how much airtime rehashing this theme will get.

Moreover, all we have to do is look to Central Falls, East Providence, West Warwick, and to some extent Pawtucket, and realize that Cicilline didn’t cause all these other problems either.  The financial collapse that has destroyed budgets all over the country, and the notable decisions made at the State House to defund cities and town (including Providence), were all far beyond the control of Cicilline.  Also, in spite of what one might think about the way Mayor Angel Taveras handled the “Category 5 Hurricane” Providence faced last year, he handled it.  I don’t believe there will be the same crisis mode environment this year, and Taveras’s decisions will have largely mollified the degree of panic and anger that was being directed at Cicilline last year, to Cicilline’s benefit.  Politically speaking, it happened too soon for it to be as compelling an issue in November as Doherty and his supporters would like.

Two additional thoughts:

  • Does Loughlin come out and actively support Doherty?  With a campaign account of about $13,000, there’s not much financial support Loughlin could offer, but there must be more than a few names on his email list from the 2010 campaign.  When you read Loughlin’s press statement, he doesn’t even mention Doherty.  I find that strange and wonder if there is resentment stemming from Doherty jumping in the race and stealing Loughlin’s thunder while he was in Iraq.
  • RI redistricting will technically help Cicilline’s victory chances by shifting more “liberal” voters into the CD1 district while moving some “conservative” voters out, but will it come with a backlash of unintended consequence?  Will there be a significant number of voters offended by something that appears to be politically motivated?  I still think the net impact is a positive for Cicilline, but one has to wonder.

Ron Paul no Friend to the Non-Religious

So last night Ron Paul gave a rousing speech in New Hampshire after he lost the primary there. He went on and on about FREEDOM of course, his supporters apparently unconcerned that Paul’s concept of freedom does not include a woman’s right to choose, many forms of birth control or laws that protect freedom, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul’s idea of FREEDOM is strictly a kind of faux free market libertarianism. Rousing the libertarian base, he claims that all problems will be solved by the free market. For instance, if you get really sick, and your health care doesn’t cover a procedure, the free market allows you to find a charity, enter indentured servitude, or die.

Problem solved.

But Paul did something unusual last night. In fact, as Republican candidates go he did something almost unheard of. The candidate obliquely mentioned Atheists and their right not to practice religion. Here’s the link to that part of his speech.

Paul may play the role of a libertarian ideologue, but he’s no fool. He knows that the youth support he enjoys because of his anti-war and anti-war on drugs policies sports the fastest growing non-religious population in the country. His speeches about FREEDOM resonate with that crowd, and indeed he can be a compelling speaker, but is Paul being honest with the crowds about his true beliefs?

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul may be a closeted Christian Fundamentalist of the worst kind. As Alternet reported:

A common misconception about the Ron Paul agenda is that he is a libertarian who just wants to let all humans live as they please. But Ron Paul is no libertarian; if not a Christian Reconstructionist himself, he is truly the best enabler a Reconstructionist could hope to have.

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit — even laws that govern people’s behavior in their bedrooms.

I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, including the bit where Paul spoke to the openly segregationist John Birch Society, and revealed that he is entirely able to speak their language. Paul enjoys the support of such racist groups as Stormfront, as reported by Katha Pollitt at NPR:

No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was “Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists.”

Atheists love it when they get mentioned in the larger political sphere. But we should be careful who we support and why. Religious opponents of atheism love to pull out the lie that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were motivated to murder and genocide by their lack of supernatural belief. Do we really want to reinforce that stereotype by supporting a man with racist, homophobic and misogynistic views, just because he uses the right buzzwords and tosses us the occasional shout out?

Hell no.

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Tax Policy Would Destroy the Economy (Even More)

There’s nothing quite like a political campaign to demonstrate just how extreme the national Republican Party and its primary voters are. The Center for Tax Justice has an analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans which shows just how much they favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Some high(low)lights:

  • Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s $18.1 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $391,330.
  • Texas Governor Rick Perry’s $10.5 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $272,730.
  • Former Senator Rick Santorum’s $9.4 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $217,500.
  • Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s $6.6 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $126,450.

To put these numbers into better perspective, let’s compare them to the 2010 median wgae of $26,363, as reported by the Social Security Administration (note: median wage means that 50% of workers earned less and 50% or workers earned more. This is a much better calculation to use since “average” income skews higher because of the outrageous sums of wealth that some people generate).

  • Under Newt Gingrich’s plan, the median worker would need to work almost 15 years to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 10 years and 4 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Santorum’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 8 years and 3 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 4 years and 8 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.

And these calculations don’t include the millions of people who are either “officially” unemployed, or have stopped looking for work, just those that are fortunate enough to find jobs. Why these proposals are even being seriously considered is beyond me.

It’s important to remember that not all taxes (or tax cuts) are equal. For instance, a payroll tax is more regressive than an income tax, a sales tax is more regressive than a payroll tax, and a capital gains tax is the most progressive of all since the wealthy benefit the most from capital gains (hence why capital gains taxes were sharply cut under George W. Bush). It’s also important to remember that the US tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958 and also federal income taxes are at historically low levels. The LAST thing this country needs right now are additional transfers of wealth to the already rich.

Each of the GOP candidates’ tax plans would further starve the federal government of much needed revenue, increase borrowing to provide for all the important things the federal government does for us, further increase the national debt and the interest we pay on that debt, and exacerbate the growth of income inequality, albeit in varying degrees. What they wouldn’t do is deal with the real economic problem facing the country: not enough money is going into the hands of people who will spend it.

Since the 1970s, U.S. wages have largely remained stagnant. At the same time, the vast majority of all the wealth created in the country over the last 30 years has been flowing upward.

Because the super wealthy don’t actually work to generate their income, wages as a share of national income has been declining for just as long. What that means is less and less money is being earned by workers, and that’s bad for the economy because workers spending money is what fuels economic growth. Consumers earning more money means that they can buy more goods and services, increasing the effective demand in an economy. Seems pretty simple, right? Well, yes, it is.

State Representative Dan Gordon arrested by RI State Police

The esteemed (sic) Representative from the East Bay was arrested over the weekend on multiple charges.  Included in these were driving with a suspended license and evading police.  He had a warrant out for his arrest.  We also learned that he has a violent crime history – shocking, right? WPRI and PROJO both had the scoop and more details on their sites.

P.S. Dan sent me a photo from jail letting us know he is alright.  He mentioned something about after all the fun he had this weekend in jail that he changed his mind on that club in Tiverton and wanted to start one of his own, but I didnt catch all of it…

 

T is for Theocrat

Progressives have long been skeptical of “grassroots” movement born with a rant on corporate media and promoted by folks like former House majority leader, Dick Army, and a bevy of right-wing billionaires. But that hasn’t stopped the right-wing from claiming the Tea Party is “surprising new political force” out to upset the status quo. So which is it? Surprise, surprise!

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today. Continue reading “T is for Theocrat”

Dan Gordon REMOVED from GOP Caucus by a majority vote

From Kathy Gregg @ Projo:

“PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The tiny House Republican caucus has voted to “expel” one of its members: freshman Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. of Portsmouth.

House Minority Leader Brian Newberry confirmed Wednesday that 6 of the 10 House Republicans voted Tuesday afternoon to expel Gordon, at a caucus held at the State House. The meeting was held an hour before the full House and Senate gathered, for the first time in months, for a briefing on the state’s looming pension-crisis.

The reasons for this rare act are not yet entirely clear and Gordon, who describes himself as a self-employed contractor, was not immediately available for comment.”

Not available for comment?  Grow a pair Danny Boy!

“But in response to an inquiry, Newberry made public the letter he sent Gordon on Wednesday, and an earlier letter in which he took Gordon to task for making derogatory comments about his Republican colleagues in various online forums.

In a September 2 warning letter, Newberry said: “Many, many of the comments I have seen have crossed the line into personal invective and attack … It is simply not permissible for you to launch personal attacks against your colleagues. Disagreement is fine and no one is required to like any other member of the House on a personal level.”

But “none of that excuses your conduct or lack of decorum. Your actions are unbecoming of someone holding your office. If they do not cease immediately, I will have no choice but to take the necessary steps to impose appropriate sanctions up to and including possible expulsion as a member of the House Republican Caucus.”

His letter to Gordon on Wednesday began: “I write on behalf of the House Republican Caucus in follow-up to recent conversations and to my letter of September 2nd to inform you that the Caucus met last night and voted to expel you as a member. ”

I said from about a month after he was elected that Dan Gordon was no good.  He is a racist, a homophobe, and a low-life.  I couldnt be happier that this happened to him.  Now he can know once and for all that he IS NOT welcome.  You keep heading up to the State House to play Representative Big Dan, no one needs or wants you there though…

Looks like an easy win for this seat next year…

Oh, Doreen, Please….

Someone please give me notice if Rep. Costa’s “Paying More For TANF” bill makes it to a hearing next spring, because that should be a fun one.  As I pointed out in a prior post, drug testing mothers on assistance may feel good to some, but its not getting anyone “off welfare” in any productive manner.

According to my good friends at PolitiFact (who actually came with some numbers this time), Costa’s proposal will guarantee the state spends more money on the program.  So ironic.  If the state wants to up the budget by $100k, I’m sure there are better ideas.  And, according to the ProJo, there are less than 6,000 people receiving TANF in RI.  If they were all at a PC basketball game, you would be saying “there’s nobody here.”

FYI Rep. Costa: Take a lesson from John Dillinger.  When they asked him why he robs banks, he said “That’s where the money is.”  You can’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor.  Any mathlete can tell you that.

Of Course The World Didn’t End Saturday, Jesus Would Definitely Return On A Monday

According to the wacky guy that started this rather entertaining rumor, all of the Christians were supposed to be whisked away to paradise by the second coming of Christ on Saturday.  Do you really think Jesus, “Mr. Common Man”, would return on a Saturday?  How insensitive would that be?  You slave all week at work; sit down to enjoy a beer on a spring day, and you’re interrupted by the rapture.

In good humor, this is how it would have gone down had all the Christians disappeared into the sky on Saturday:

Obama would have been super pumped by the news.  Being a secret Muslim he wouldn’t have gotten taken up, however two thirds of his Republican opponents’ voting base would have.  Jesus’ return would have made Obama’s re-election a sure thing.

The non-Christian Republicans would have lost a major issue to complain about.  Considering most of the illegal Hispanics are catholic, they would have been taken and this would leave the Republicans lacking their favorite scapegoat.

Wall Street would have survived because the Hebrews would have been stuck here with the rest of us.  However, the stock prices of companies like Wal-Mart, Nascar, the WWF, and any firearms manufacturer would have taken a huge hit.

Unfortunately, the middle east peace process would still be mess because neither the Muslims or Jews would have disappeared so that fight would still be on.  China, lacking any religion, would have still been a pain in our ass.

What would have been positive is the legalization of marijuana would pass quickly with the conservative Christians gone.  Who needs to go to heaven when we can all have it here right?


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