Progressive Dems call out conservative Warwick mayoral candidate


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

What was supposed to be a casual meet and greet for the Warwick Progressive Democrats quickly went downhill when Sam Bell, the state coordinator for the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, called out Democratic Warwick mayoral candidate Richard Corrente’s merits, saying that he’s an embarrassment to the party.

Photo courtesy of http://correntemayorwarwick.com/about-richard/
Photo courtesy of http://correntemayorwarwick.com/about-richard/

Corrente’s campaign has been an all around unorthodox one. He began campaigning for mayor last December, with almost two years until the next election. Corrente has also released a publication called “Warwick Taxpayers News,” which some believe suggest that he may align more with the Tea Party, rather than the Democratic party. The first page reads that Warwick is “Taxed Enough Already,” stylized to spell out the word “TEA.”

His main objection to current Mayor Scott Avedisian’s administration is that he has raised taxes every year for the past 15 years. Because of this, Corrente said, Warwick has lost 5,800 taxpayers in the last ten years, and has closed 4,666 businesses.

“If we keep going the way we’re going, we’re going to be a ghost town in six or seven years,” he said. “I disagree with that. I don’t think that’s the way it should be. I want to cut taxes, I want to cut spending, and I want to repopulate the city of Warwick so that we don’t have 9,000 people in our schools when we used to have 19,000.”

Corrente is dedicated on running for the Democratic ticket, even though some doubt that he’s actually a Democrat, and would effectively represent the party.

“We need to elect a mayor of Warwick who is a Democrat, […] but it’s important that Warwick have a Democratic mayor, and a Democratic mayor who cares for Democratic values,” Sam Bell told meet and greet attendees. Bell then proceeded to read Corrente’s publication aloud, blatantly stating that it does not align with progressive Democrat values.

“I believe in Democratic values. I think it’s an embarrassment that Warwick has a so- called Democratic candidate for mayor, who, inside his booklet for a fundraiser, says “TEA” as his slogan. We don’t need a Tea Party Democrat,” Bell said after the meeting. “It epitomizes everything that’s wrong with the Rhode Island Democratic Party. I think that a city like Warwick, which has some decent Democrats on the council, can do a lot better. It’s an embarrassment, and I want the folks in Warwick to know that. Warwick needs a better Democrat running for mayor.”

Jennifer Siciliano, the Warwick Progressive Democrats Coordinator, was also somewhat perplexed by Corrente’s campaign.

"Taxed Enough Already"
“Taxed Enough Already”

“He should probably be running as a Republican, but he probably assumes that Avedisian will get the Republican nomination, so he’s just trying to run as a Democrat,” she said.

“I’ve seen conservative Democrats but not this far conservative,” she added. “I think its beyond conservative.”

Even with the criticism, Corrente not only remains positive, but adamant about running as a Democrat. When asked exactly what a “Tea Party Democrat,” was, he said, “a progressive Democrat.”

“I consider myself a progressive Democrat,” he said. “I want to do what’s right. Whether it’s raise taxes or lower taxes, and in this case it’s lower taxes.”

Corrente added that he doesn’t believe in TEA, but rather TBARD, which stands for “Taxed Beyond All Reason.” He believes that Warwick taxpayers are at a point where they are unable to pay the taxes, and will move away from the city.

His reasoning for running as a Democrat can be boiled down to the fact that he doesn’t believe in labels, but thinks that one is necessary for such a situation.

“I am running as a Democrat, because although I am fiercely independent, if I had to pick a party, it would be the Democratic Party,” he said.

“I don’t believe in labels. I don’t believe in Republican labels or Democratic labels. I don’t believe that if you are striving for a certain principle, it makes you a Democrat, or it makes you a Republican,” he added. “I consider myself progressive, and I consider myself a Democrat.”

Cut Taxes!
Cut Taxes!

Corrente said he would not entertain the idea of running as an independent because he believes a candidate is more respected if they belong to a particular party, and have a label they can be associated with.

“A candidate that belongs to the Democrats or the Republicans has a personality that can be associated with. It labels them a little bit more- they stand for something. Therefore, I think the independent voter will respect a candidate more, if they are represented by the Democrats or the Republicans,” Corrente said.

Warwick’s mayoral election is still over a year away, but if Corrente does succeed in winning the Democratic ticket, he’ll be fighting an uphill battle against Mayor Avedisian, who has been mayor since 2000.

RI doubles amount of money it gives to corporations


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 report
Click on the image to read the full report

Rhode Island gave away more than $30 million to 18 companies in 2015, according to a new report from the state Division of Taxation. This is almost twice the $14.8 million it gave away in 2014, according to an analysis of that report by the Economic Progress Institute.

The new Division of Taxation report is not a complete list of tax subsidies the state offers. It “focuses on seven tax incentives that were created to help spur job creation and economic development – including sales tax exemptions, corporate tax rate reductions, and motion picture production tax credits,” wrote David Sullivan, the state tax administrator, in the report.

More than 60 percent of the lost revenue identified in the report went to CVS, which enjoys a $19 million “Jobs Development” tax break from the state. CVS also received more than $4 million in additional tax breaks not analyzed specifically in the report. The Jobs Development Act is the biggest corporate subsidy the state offers. In total, it accounted for 76 percent of the lost revenue, or $23 million.

Citizens Bank is the second largest beneficiary of the Jobs Development subsidy, saving $2,978,686 in taxes. A subsidiary of Citizens Bank, Citizens Security, which lists the same address as the bank, also received a $393,038 tax break under Jobs Development Act, which offers a discount to companies with more than 100 employees for every 50 new jobs that last for at least three years.

Fidelity, a Smithfield-based investment firm, received $4,083,791 in tax breaks from Rhode Island, according to the report, and Electric Boat received more than $3,277,000. Woody Allen’s Manhattan-based production company, Perdido Productions, received $3,214,346.63 in film tax credits. Allen filmed his new movie “Irrational Man” in Newport and Jamestown.

The Economic Progress Institute says the report leaves out valuable information for analyzing the data that is required by law.

“While the information provided in the report is important, it tells us nothing about whether these tax incentives have been effective tools for growing our state’s economy.  That was supposed to change this year,” according to the EPI press release. “Two years ago, lawmakers recognized the need to understand whether tax incentives are benefiting the economy and enacted the Rhode Island Economic Development Tax Incentives Evaluation Act of 2013. The law requires state analysts to conduct cost-benefit analyses of several of the state’s economic development tax incentives, including the Jobs Development Act and Motion Picture Tax Credit.  The law requires the Governor to include recommendations for continuing, modifying, or terminating recently evaluated incentives in her proposed budget. The first set of evaluations were scheduled to be produced by the Office of Revenue Analysis by June 30, 2015 but to date have not been issued.”

The report mentions this as well. “This report is not intended to provide an analysis as to the effectiveness of this or any other tax credit or incentive,” wrote Sullivan in the introduction.

Rep. Serpa pre-files bill to provide financial relief to storm victims


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

Representative Patricia Serpa (D- District 27) is already preparing for next year’s legislative session, as she today announced that she will prefile legislation designed to assist home and business owners that were harmed by the storm on Aug. 4.

Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/representatives/Serpa/Pages/Biography.aspxSerpa is the chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, as well as a representative for West Warwick and Warwick, two cities that are still recovering from the storm. To help these areas, Serpa announced that she will file two separate bills aimed at homeowners and business people. The first is a $500 tax credit to those who sustained property damage from the storm. The second is a $5,000 interest free loan for business that sustained damage, or lost business due to the inclement weather. The loan would be repaid to the state over a five-year period, and would be administered through CommerceRI.

Serpa said that constituents told her that their homeowner’s insurance would only cover $500 of repairs that could cost thousands of dollars, such as having a fallen tree removed from their property. Some households couldn’t get the repairs covered at all.

“Damage to fences, swimming pools, or sheds is not covered in some cases. Some reported suspected price gouging and feel as though unscrupulous home repair companies are taking advantage of them,” Serpa said.

In regards to the loan for business owners, Serpa said that the storm only added insult to injury for those who were trying to make up revenue they lost during the winter.

“Restaurants that were trying to recover some of their losses as the result of a harsh winter, lost their electricity for days and had to throw away food. Golf courses in the area will spend tens of thousands of dollars removing fallen trees. Many individuals and businesses that need trees removed are on a long waiting list because of the storm’s severity. It is imperative that the state do something to ease the burden,” Serpa said.

Representative Serpa will file the legislation this upcoming November in preparation for the 2016 legislative session.

Citizens protest wage increases in time of austerity


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
Jonathan Wormer
Jonathan Wormer

The meeting held at 8:30am on Friday morning to hear public commentary on Governor Gina Raimondo‘s proposed salary increases for six state department director posts was predictably not well intended. Four people showed up to speak out against the Governor’s proposal. Only Jon Duffy, the co-chair of Governor Raimondo’s transition team, spoke in favor of the pay increase.

Jonathan Wormer, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, laid out the case for increasing the salaries of the directors of the departments of Mental Health, Retardation & Hospitals; Business Regulation; Environmental Management; Human Services; Labor & Training and Transportation to $135,000, a raise of between $5 and $34 thousand.

Raimondo 002
Gina Raimondo

Most of the speakers wondered how the Governor could justify a pay increase given that she has made big moves in the course of her political career to cut both public sector employee pensions and Medicaid. As for the idea that such pay increases are necessary to attract the talent the job positions require, Todd Sandahl pointed out that these jobs are already filled.

“Are they planning to leave?” asked Sandahl.

Kevin Loontjens of Coventry questioned the idea of comparing the salaries to those for similar positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Loontjens said that states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and Delaware are better comparisons because the are more similar to Rhode Island in terms of population size and tax base.

The meeting was recorded and a transcript will be provided to the Governor for her perusal. She could save herself the trouble and watch the video below:

Patreon

PVD City Council fails to deliver on minimum wage promise in new TSAs


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_4038
City Council Finance Chair John Igliozzi

Last year, after the General Assembly stole away the power of cities and towns in Rhode Island to set their own minimum wages, Providence City Councillor John Igliozzi told a packed room of disappointed hotel workers that the city was not prohibited from imposing higher minimum wage standards via tax stabilization agreements (TSAs), which are contracts between cities and private industry, and cannot be interfered with by the General Assembly.

Igliozzi said then that all future TSAs should include strong minimum wage requirements and many other worker protections and rights.

Igliozzi is the chair of the Providence City Council Finance Committee, so one would expect that he would follow up on this proposal, but so far, nothing like this has been incorporated into the new TSAs being cooked up in City Hall and expected to be voted on this week.

When Jesse Strecker, executive director of RI Jobs with Justice, testified before the Finance Committee of the Providence City Council, he presented a short list of proposals to ensure that whatever TSAs were adopted would truly benefit not just the investors and owners of billion dollar corporations but also the working people and families of Providence.

Strecker’s list included the following:

1. Provide good, career track jobs for Providence residents most in need by utilizing apprenticeship programs and community workforce agreements, hiring at least 50% of their workforce from the most economically distressed communities of Providence, with a substantial portion of that workforce made up of people facing barriers to employment such as being a single parent or homeless, or having a criminal record, offering job training programs so local residents are equipped with the skills necessary to perform the available jobs and hiring responsible contractors who do not break employment and civil rights law;

2. Pay workers a living wage of at least $15 per hour, provide health benefits and 12 paid sick days per year, and practice fair scheduling: offering full time work to existing employees before hiring new part time employees, letting workers know their schedule two weeks in advance, and providing one hour’s pay for every day that workers are forced to be ‘on call’;

3. For commercial projects, create a certain number of permanent, full-time jobs, or for housing developments, ensure that 20% of all units are sold or rented at the HUD defined affordable level. Or, contribute at an equivalent level to a “Community Benefits Fund,” overseen and directed by community members providing funding to create affordable housing, rehabilitate abandoned properties, or finance other community projects such as brown field remediation; and

4. Present projected job creation numbers before approval of the project, and provide monthly reporting on hiring, wages and benefits paid, and other critical pieces of information, to an enforcement officer, overseen by a Tax Incentive Review Board comprised of members of the public and appointees of the city council and mayor, to make sure companies are complying with their agreements, and be subject to subsidy recapture if they do not follow through.

Mayor Jorge Elorza submitted an amendment mandating that under the new TSAs, “projects over $10 million will be eligible for a 15-year tax stabilization agreement that will see no taxes in the first year, base land tax only in years 2-4, a 5% property tax in year 5 and then a gradual annual increase for the remainder of the term.”

In return, the “agreements include women and minority business enterprise incentives as well as apprenticeship requirements for construction and use of the City’s First Source requirements to encourage employment for Providence residents.”

But that short paragraph above contains few of the proposals suggested by Strecker.

Supporting the Jobs with Justice proposals are just about every community group and workers’ rights organization in Providence, including RI Building and Construction Trades Council, Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), UNITE HERE Local 217, IUPAT Local 195 DC 11, District 1199 SEIU New England, RI Progressive Democrats of America, Teamsters Local 251, Fuerza Laboral / Power of Workers, Environmental Justice League of RI, RI Carpenters Local 94, Restaurant Opportunities Center RI (ROC United), Mount Hope Neighborhood Association, American Friends Service Committee, Occupy Providence, Olneyville Neighborhood Association (ONA), Fossil Free RI, Providence Youth Student Movement (PrYSM), Prosperity for RI, and the Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School Prison Health Interest Group.

Patreon

Corporate welfare for billion dollar hotel chain in Providence


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_4041
Councillor Sabina Matos

Lost in all the discussion surrounding the reformation of Tax Stabilization Agreements (TSAs) in Providence is the fact that a multi-billion dollar resort hotel chain is an intended recipient of Rhode Island taxpayer’s largess.

TSAs are enormous breaks on property taxes negotiated by the City Council as an incentive for businesses to locate in the city. This week the Providence City Council is expected to vote on a package of TSAs that will clear the path for the so-called “meds & eds” project on part of the I-195 land.

The Providence Journal reported that included in the I-195 land life-science park proposal is “a Le Meridien hotel with 175 rooms and 10,000 square feet of meeting space.”  The Le Meridian is to be operated by Starwood Hotels and Resorts, a company that regular reports cash flows of approximately $850 million to $950 million a quarter. Starwood runs 1,200 hotels and resorts, and paid dividends to their investors to the tune of $2.4 billion last year.

Under the new TSAs, “projects over $10 million will be eligible for a 15-year tax stabilization agreement that will see no taxes in the first year, base land tax only in years 2-4, a 5% property tax in year 5 and then a gradual annual increase for the remainder of the term.”

In essence, Providence will be giving away millions of dollars to billionaires.

In return, the “agreements include women and minority business enterprise incentives as well as apprenticeship requirements for construction and use of the City’s First Source requirements to encourage employment for Providence residents.”

DSC_4038Unfortunately, Finance Chair Igliozzi has declined to deliver on the suggestion he made last year when he said that companies that pay less than $15 an hour should not receive tax breaks from the city.

Igliozzi has not responded to a request for comments.

Patreon

Tax breaks for unicorns!


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

$40 million is the figure in government tax breaks and subsidies that’s being mentioned for the proposed Unicorn Center in Downtown Providence.

GallopingUnicorn“This will be a world-class capture and processing facility,” said House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello. “First came the Jewelry District, then the Knowledge District, then the BioMed district, then the ProvSox Stadium, and now we’re getting ready to break ground on the Magical Thinking District.”

The unicorns were first mentioned in an earth-shattering front page Providence Journal story, “Have you seen Providence’s missing unicorn?” While on the surface it seems plausible that the so-called missing unicorns are part of a nation-wide arts project, the truth is much darker.

“It’s a corral,” said a secret informant who preferred to be known as Deep Horn. “They’re planning on rounding up these unicorns and using them for medical experimentation. If you see a unicorn, don’t call that number! You’ll be consigning these beautiful creatures to a brief life of captivity, torture and ultimately vivisection!”

poster“Unicorns don’t exist, they’re like pensions,” said Governor Gina Raimondo, dismissing the allegations. “And if they did exist, then they would be a natural resource, like park land, that we can use to exploit and create jobs. Jobs for people! Jobs I say!”

“When businesses benefit, everyone benefits,” said Mike Stenhouse, who seems to be mentioned in every edition of the Providence Journal these days. “When we take $40 million from taxpayers and help corporations create new products using unicorn horns, that’s money that we can’t be spending on doing frivolous things like reducing classroom size or paying for preschools.”

“I used to shoe horses,” said former Governor and possible White House candidate Lincoln Chafee. “I’d love to shoe a unicorn! But I’ve got about as much chance of doing that as I have in a presidential primary.”

Progressives, conservatives unite to fight downtown ballpark


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

SkeffingtonAn unlikely coalition of opponents to the proposed downtown Providence stadium deal greeted new PawSox owner Jim Skeffington as he exited his chauffeured ride and quickly entered the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (RICC) offices at 315 Iron Horse Way.

Representatives and members of the RI Tea Party, The Republican Party, the Progressive Democrats of Rhode Island, The Green Party, Direct Action for Rights and Equality, Occupy Providence, The Rhode Island Sierra Club, RI Taxpayers, The Rhode Island Libertarian Party, and the Capital Good Fund stood side by side to take a stand against corporate welfare.

This event was put together by Coalition Radio’s Pat Ford and David Fisher, with help from Lauren Niedel of the Progressive Democrats. Ford acted as emcee for the event, in which 13 speakers and one poet spoke to a crowd of about 80 people. Inside the RICC offices, more than 100 more people attended the meeting where Skeffington and other PawSox owners revealed that they were amenable to negotiating a better deal.

Gina Raimondo essentially rejected the first deal offered, which would have, in the words of more than one speaker, “socialized the risk and privatized the profits” of the new venture.

Pat Ford spoke first, saying that “it is not the role of government to subsidize risk for private enterprise.”

Lauren Niedel of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats put the deal into stark economic relief: As Rhode Island prepares to carve $90 million out of Medicaid, how can we justify giving away millions of dollars to millionaires?

Andrew Posner, executive director of the Capital Good Fund, said that “every day I look at families that are hungry, that are poor, that don’t have jobs… that’s what we should be spending our time and money talking about.”

The Tea Party’s Mike Puyana said that the deal is “something called crony corporatism, it’s as far from equality under the law as it’s possible to get.”

“I don’t think I ever imagined that i was going to be at a rally with the Tea Party on the same side,” said Fred Ordonez of DARE, “but here we are!”

On a more serious note, Ordonez said, “Every time we see a huge development get all kinds of tax breaks and tax subsidies, the poor communities in providence get poorer and poorer.”

Larry Girouard, of Rhode island Taxpayers, said that a new stadium downtown is the last thing we need to spur economic growth. “The issue is taxes, regulation, infrastructure. This is just a diversion from the real problems.

The Green Party, represented by Greg Gerritt, brought up some of the environmental concerns, such as the risks of moving the new sewer line. “When you do things like that, you can do it right, but often it introduces more leaks into a system.”

“The state of Rhode Island has no business taking money out of the hands of taxpayers and giving it to millionaires,” said Gina Catalano of the Rhode Island Republican Party, “to be expected to make that investment with zero return, is ludicrous.”

Representing the Sierra Club, Asher Schofield, owner of the small business Frog and Toad, hit the crowd with a baseball metaphor, and tried to inspire us all towards something better.

Providence is not a minor league city. We are what we dream ourselves to be. What we want to be. And we want to be major league. These are antiquated notions, the idea of public financing of private enterprise. This [deal] is not the grand notion that we need to have as a city moving forward… These minor league aspirations are beneath us.”

This deal, says Rhode Island Libertarian Party leader Mike Rollins, “is the exact opposite of everything we stand for.”

Occupy Providence’s Randall Rose made excellent points, and even read from a textbook about how bad it is for cities to invest money in minor league baseball teams. Rose read from the book Minor League Baseball and Local Economic Development, noting that, “there have been books on this, the scam is run so often.”

“The economic impact of a minor league team,” read Rose, “is not sufficient to justify the relatively large public expenditure for a minor league stadium.”

Steve Frias of the Republican Party, noted that the assembled crowd was comprised of people with “different viewpoints, but we all agree that this is a stupid deal.”

Roland Gauvin, an independent political activist, promised politicians who support such efforts that “a vote for this is the last time [politicians] will ever be voting, because we will vote them out of office.” Gauvin had especially choice words for Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello, saying, “And I will be willing to go to any district in Rhode island, starting in Mattiello’s district, and work my way down.”

Finally, before the crowd moved inside to join the RICC meeting already in progress, Cathy Orloff lead the crowd in a participatory poem against the stadium, with five baseball references built in.

DSC_5146
Skeffington

DSC_5160

DSC_5161

DSC_5188

DSC_5219

DSC_5253

DSC_5254
Roland Gauvin
DSC_5281
Pat Ford
DSC_5282
David Fisher
DSC_5286
Steven Frias and Greg Gerritt

DSC_5290

DSC_5299
Asher Schofield

DSC_5307

DSC_5315
Lauren Niedel

DSC_5319

DSC_5321

DSC_5331

DSC_5342
Andrew Posner

DSC_5353

DSC_5362
Mike Puyana
DSC_5367
Cathy Orloff
DSC_5374
Fred Ordonez
DSC_5382
Larry Girouard

DSC_5389

DSC_5394
Mike Rollins
DSC_5403
Randall Rose

DSC_5423

Patreon

John Henry vs. robots in Rhode Island restaurants


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
John Henry
John Henry

At recent State House hearings on raising the minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage, restaurant owners, beginning with Bob Bacon of Gregg’s Restaurants, (who is also the president of RIHA, the Rhode Island Hospitality Association) have repeatedly brought up the specter of automation replacing low wage workers if labor costs are raised. Raising the wage, say entrepreneurs, will price minimum wage workers out of the market, and these robots are being developed now.

Following this argument to its inevitable conclusion, workers should realize that unless they are prepared to always sell their labor at rates below the price of a robot, they will be unemployable. As the price of such technology falls, workers should expect to have their wages slashed accordingly. It’s not just workers in restaurants who will be replaced, but taxi cab drivers, long haul truckers and soldiers. According to NBC News, even skilled workers like pharmacists and supposedly skilled workers like writers may find themselves displaced. In fact, one study estimates that 47% of jobs are at risk of being lost to robots.

I suppose that in the face of this threat we could fight for our jobs, selling our labor ever cheaper, exhausting ourselves in John Henry-like feats of frenzied work that demonstrate our indefatigable spirit even as our hearts explode in glorious exertion…

Or we can flip the script.

Whenever a new robot is developed, the owner simply lays off a bunch of workers, presses the “on” button and relaxes as the profits roll in. This allows the entrepreneur to enjoy a steady stream of income as the unemployed workers struggle to survive.

As more and more robots come online, less and less people will be employed. Eventually, even skilled robot mechanics will lose their jobs as robots will be able to repair each other. The humans of this world will be divided into those who own the robots and those who are starving to death. I think this is what Paul Krugman meant by “uncomfortable implications” when he discussed the future of robotics.

The problem with this scenario should be obvious. As this transition to the robo-centric world of tomorrow develops, there will be less and less people able to afford to buy the many things the robots are making. Long before we get to the point where the 1% of the 1% own the entire world and an army of robots to do their bidding, the economy will have collapsed.

No one will be able to afford to eat at Gregg’s.

So what’s the answer? Robert Reich suggests that it “may be that a redistribution of income and wealth from the rich owners of breakthrough technologies to the rest of us becomes the only means of making the future economy work.”

We already subsidize the restaurant industry with our taxes. Mike Araujo of ROC United RI says that “tipped workers in Rhode Island currently receive $638,325 in food stamps every month.” That’s because the wages the restaurants pay to these workers are too low, and as more workers are replaced by robots and become unemployed, we’ll need to expand our social safety net. To do that we’ll have to tax the owners of the robots.

In light of this logic, our best bet is to get on with this now. We need a progressive income tax structure to increase taxes on the top earners in our state. We need to strengthen and increase, not eliminate, the estate tax. We need to tax capital gains and we need a transaction tax on all stock trades. I’m sure there’s a lot more good tax policy ideas I’m missing, but for the problem of robots and automation in particular, we need a robot tax.

In the future predicted by the leaders of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association, there will be fewer and fewer people able to pay taxes or in any way participate in the economic system of our state. Robots, however, will be productive and very taxable. Instead of allowing a system where workers strive ever harder for less, we need to impose an automation tax on industries that replace workers with robots.

Patreon

Speaker Mattiello calls for an end to criticism of Speaker Mattiello


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

mattiello whiteSpeaking at a Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello held court and spoke plainly about his economic priorities for Rhode Island.

Clearly upset that Politifact ruled false his recent statement in which he denied that there have been tax cuts for the rich in Rhode Island, Mattiello pointed out that when he speaks to his “well-to-do” neighbors, they “don’t see any tax relief.” Then in a gesture more suited to Imperial Rome than to Democratic Rhode Island, Mattiello declared, “That discussion has to stop.”

Of course, the discussion isn’t stopping.

Mattiello made no secret about his economic priorities: rich people. The real question is why any business interest in Rhode Island bothers to pay lobbyists any more, given that Mattiello has basically said that businesses will get everything they want, from lower taxes to fewer regulations. Says the speaker, “We have to concentrate on the things that are important… Let the business community know that they’re important to us, know that we are going to do the types of things they need to have done.”

No longer will people be the priority in Rhode Island. “We changed the tone,” said Mattiello, “The business community knows that they have priority, they know that they’re important…”

It follows then that people not in the business community do not have priority and are unimportant.

On HealthsourceRI, one of the most successful state run health exchanges in the country, Mattiello remains unconvinced, saying, “I’m informed that it’s not as good as we think it is… There are a lot of problems with the exchange… It should be no more expensive than it would cost us to have the federal government to do it…”

I can’t be the only one who detects a massive dose of hubris when Mattiello says, “I have not made my mind up as to whether or not we’re going to keep it in the state, give it to the federal government and so forth…”

Just in case you need a preview of what to expect as the years roll by under Mattiello’s House leadership, you can rest assured it’s going to be more of the same.  “I would support [reducing or eliminating the $500 minimum corporation income tax] and I would support reducing and eliminating other taxes also. There’s a lot of taxes we could reduce or eliminate… I’m not sure that’s it going to be my priority this year, but it’s certainly something that I’m mindful of and it’s something that we ultimately have to address.”

One has to wonder when the General Assembly will get its House in order, and find new leadership.

Patreon

Mattiello’s ‘dynamic analysis’ is long discredited economics


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

MattielloSpeaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello has been making statements demonstrating his support for “dynamic analysis,” (also known as “dynamic scoring“) a fiscally irresponsible and economically discredited accounting trick supported nationally by congressional Republicans that amounts to little more than rebranded trickle-down economics.

At Saturday’s 2015 Small Business Summit, held at Bryant University, Mattiello defended the $20 million tax break on social security income he’s proposed as a short term economic hit for long term economic gain.

“What I’ve been saying lately,” says Mattiello in the clip below, “is that everything we look at in state government, we look at the wrong way. We look at it from a very static point of view. ‘What is it going to cost us?’ ‘Oh, this year it’s going to cost us $20 million so forget it, we’re not going to do it. If we don’t have room in the budget to do it we’ll kick that issue out. Well, we have a structural deficit in Rhode Island, folks, so under that analysis we’re never going to do anything in Rhode Island to make our economy better. Sometimes you have to prioritize and you have to do what the economy needs to do to move forward.”

Then, in today’s GoLocalProv, Mattiello said, “I know that keeping people in Rhode Island, with more discretionary income in their pockets, will be a significant long-term gain for our economy.  This initiative comes with a short-term cost in our state budget.  But, we need to start using a more dynamic analysis that takes into consideration long-term benefits, instead of a static analysis that only looks at how much things cost.”

Mattiello has invested a lot of political capital to pass his signature tax break. And to make these tax breaks work, he’s going to cut the state budget accordingly. The cuts are most likely to be in the areas of social services, which the Speaker has repeatedly signaled his willingness to cut. But in order to pass his tax break, the Speaker needs an economic analysis friendly to his idea. Conventional, or what is known as static analysis, does not look kindly on Mattiello’s idea, but dynamic analysis does.

The economic analysis Mattiello wants to use here in Rhode Island is the same as what is being proposed nationally by the Republicans now in control of Congress, and it’s scarily reminiscent of the policies Kansas Governor Sam Brownback instituted in 2012 that eviscerated the economy of that state.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York penned a piece criticizing dynamic analysis, writing that Republicans “are rigging the rules in favor of windfall tax breaks to the very wealthy and big corporations who can hire high-priced, well-funded lobbyists—once again choosing to leave behind working families. Their plan would further distort the nation’s fiscal outlook by applying this scoring model only to tax cuts—not the economic impact of investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas. That means that the value of tax cuts to the economy would be exaggerated, and the value of investments in the middle class would be undercut.”

Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, outlines three reasons why dynamic analysis is little more than a ruse and it’s worth quoting from at length.

First, dynamic scoring requires CBO and JCT to make assumptions in areas with unusually great uncertainty. While all budget estimates are uncertain, there is substantially more disagreement among economists and experts about how policy changes affect the macroeconomy than about most other scoring issues. This helps explain why estimates from different CBO models of the long-run growth effects of a 10 percent tax cut differed by a factor of 15 – and ranged from positive to negative – when dynamic scoring was used.

“Second, and more fundamentally, dynamic scoring would require CBO and JCT to make assumptions about policies that go beyond the scope of the legislation itself. For example, when a tax cut or spending increase is deficit financed, its long-term effect on the economy depends heavily on how and when its costs are ultimately recouped – whether through higher taxes or lower spending, and after how large an increase in debt. When the legislation itself is silent on these questions, Congressional scorekeepers would have to make an assumption – potentially putting scorekeepers in the game, rather than just referees. Moreover, in standard models, these assumptions are often the difference between a positive or negative effect on the economy.

“Finally, dynamic scoring can create a bias favoring tax cuts over investments in infrastructure, education, and other priorities. While the House rule would require dynamic scoring for legislation making large changes in revenues and/or mandatory spending, and makes it permissible at the option of leadership for any such legislation (even if modest), it would not apply to discretionary spending, ignoring potential growth effects of investments in research, education, and infrastructure. More insidious, economic models that find large growth effects of tax cuts are often based on the assumption that they would be paid for entirely through reduced spending – without taking into account at all the economic consequences the reduction in government investment.”

Speaker Mattiello seems intent on implementing the kind of economic policy here in Rhode Island that has long benefited the rich and connected over the middle class and the poor. These policies have led to massive wealth acquisition by the very few amid crushing poverty for many. In doing so Mattiello has aligned himself with the Republican Party and against the Democratic Party of which he claims to be a member.

Patreon

Hearing tonight on extending Providence tax breaks


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

Providence-City-HallProperty taxes are very high in Providence.  Each year, homeowners must pay 1.925% of the value of their homes to the city.  At 3.375%, the rate on apartments is even higher, and at 3.675%, the rate on commercial property is higher still.  But when the wealthiest developers build big projects, the story tends to go a little differently.

Often, the city arranges something called a “Tax Stabilization Agreement” or TSA. Basically, the idea is that the property won’t have to pay most of its taxes for the first few years, but ultimately, it will start paying the full rate. In practice, though, the latter part sometimes doesn’t always happen.

Recently, the General Assembly decided to unilaterally extend a slew of these tax breaks, costing the city millions. Now, the developers behind several beautiful Downtown buildings are asking for more extensions on four of their TSAs.

The City Council must resist the urge to extend these deals. The case for TSAs rests on the premise that the development would not happen without big tax breaks. The idea is that these deals make the city money in the long run by creating development that would never have happened otherwise. (Whether this is actually true is a matter of some debate.)

But when it comes to extending TSAs, this is no longer a concern.  It cannot be argued that the development would not happen–because it already has.

Downtown needs development badly. I have great respect for the work developers have done to revitalize Providence. But when it comes to taking millions of dollars in additional tax breaks from a cash-strapped city, from a city that has slashed pensions, closed schools, cut the police force, and sent property taxes to obscene heights—that is too much.  The city has so many more important priorities to spend those precious dollars on.

A few years ago, a request like this would have flown through, but so many City Councillors have extensive concerns with this proposal that we have a real chance of stopping the tax break extensions.  There will be a public hearing at 5:30pm tonight in the City Council chambers on the third floor of City Hall.  I hope to see many of you there.

 

Aaron Renn: Rhode Island dead


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
Because I'm dead...

Because I'm dead...I’d love to say that Aaron Renn’s recent hit piece in City Journal is total trash, but it’s not. While I dispute his basic thesis that “progressive policies” have caused Rhode Island’s problems, I agree that…we got problems. I also agree with some of the reforms he suggest, think some are hogwash and have other alternatives of my own. [Skip to / read to the end to learn what the headline is all about…]

This essay is a critique of Renn’s piece, not a takedown. Your Frymaster hates to disappoint, but I gotta call ’em like I see ’em. Granted, this piece is badly skewed to the audience—Righty. Normally, Renn is thoughtful and realistic. (WARNING: some kinda horrible ad thingee might happen if you scroll that homepage.) Even shilling for Righty, he makes some solid points.

That said, I have three basic criticisms:

  1. He cites taxation statistics without analysis; that is, he never asks, “Why did this seem like the best thing to do?”
  2. He cherry-picks his sources and, by error or ignorance, fails to make important connections.
  3. He wrongly asserts that progressive policies or “unions” are responsible for many egregious abuses and failings, when cronyism and corruption are clearly the cause.

Taxation without analyzation

Early on, Renn gets at the various tax lists where RI is a negative standout—business rates, total state and local burden, etc. You know the list. But he fails to spend a single word on how this state of affairs came to be.

If there’s one thing you should know about taxes in Rhode Island, it’s this: the taxes we’re NO LONGER collecting are the real problem. Our tax structure is woefully outdated in that it is predicated on a manufacturing economy. If we had even 20% more manufacturing, just the sales taxes alone would largely heal our fiscal problems.

That’s right: sales tax.

Few who don’t run their own business that deals in hard goods know that the sales tax covers the sale of any physical object by anybody in RI to anybody EXCEPT for direct resale. That means that any raw material, component or subcomponent was taxed at each step in the supply chain up until the finished good went from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer. The forge that cast metal gearing paid sales tax when they sold the components to watch-maker Spiedel. This is much like the value-added taxes in Europe.

This still exists today, but because so much manufacturing has left the state and because so little of the manufacturing supply chain that remains is exclusively within Rhode Island’s tiny borders, this accounts for a much smaller portion of total state revenues.

As this contribution decreased, other contributions filled in the gap. Thus the General Assembly raised business taxes and personal income taxes, and when the GA eventually cut state aid, municipalities raised property taxes.

Were there other options? Could legislators have chosen some other path? Indeed, and I’ll cover that in the section on reforms.

Also—and this really is an glaring oversight—Renn fails to connect the high tax structure to the obvious fact that Rhode Island is located in the one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the US. Everything costs a lot.

Plus, the climate degrades our infrastructure in all the worst ways. With a giant salt water bay in the center of our small land mass, all the steel decays more rapidly. No state but possibly Delaware or Hawaii has a higher percentage of its major infrastructure in close proximity to salt water. And neither of those states has a winter like we do!

Long story short: the GA didn’t create this tax structure to kill businesses. We got here for many, many reasons.

It’s the people who make place

Renn’s audience for this piece is a national network of free-enterprise conservatives, so basically, they have no idea who any of the quoted people actually are or what the various agencies do. In brief, they’re clueless on the specifics. But he should have figured that someone in Rhode Island would read this thing and call him on his errors of commission and omission.

The first individual Renn quotes is Rob Atkinson, former director of the Economic Policy Council. This is notable not for the person but the agency. The EPC has been gone since around 2008, and more’s the pity. Then-governor Don Carcieri eliminated this highly-competent group, giving their policy planning authority to the Economic Development Corporation over which the governor had much more control. And I guess we all know how that turned out…

A bit later, Renn quotes Hasbro Chairman Al Verrecchia and Banneker CEO Cheryl Sneed, putting them off as business people who must navigate the byzantine regulations of anti-business Rhode Island.

What he leaves out is that both Verrecchia and Sneed sat on the EDC board of directors. In fact, Verrecchia was chair. (Or chair pro-temp as the governor was the chair.) Both of them voted in favor of the 38 Studios loan guarantee. So perhaps we take their input with a grain of salt.

There’s a theme here, and it’s Don Carcieri. As governor, he was a disaster. Despite overseeing an enormous economic boom, his eight years in office yielded a net LOSS of jobs. We lost every job we gained and them some.

Worse than that, there were jobs we could have created that Carcieri and Verrecchia directly blocked. These would be jobs in residential solar installation, an industry that Carcieri fought aggressively. As a result, Rhode Island is miles behind our neighbors in installed capacity. And, if you can believe it, the GA may actually try to roll back some of the recent gains. (Indeed, as Renn says, “in Rhode Island, bad ideas are bipartisan.”)

The real problem is cronyism

Here, Renn gets off to a good start, but fails to put the pieces together. It could be he doesn’t see it, but I know he’s smart. So that leaves shilling for ol’ Righty as the most likely cause. Whatevs…

He rightly points to corruption in the state’s earliest days, and follows it up through the 20th century. Oddly, he refers to the previous GOP regimes as a “Tammany Hall-style political machine” but never uses that term for the Democrats who held sway since 1935.

And this—as every long-suffering Frymaster reader knows—is the essence of the problem. Republicans or Democrats, it really doesn’t matter. A machine is a machine is a machine, and the machine is going to do its machining until it gets taken apart.

So it seems disingenuous for Renn, who’s usually so thoughtful, to pin a blatant case of insider corruption involving the North Providence Fire Department on “union might.” Union or no, cronies take care of cronies. It’s what makes them CRONIES!

Granted, there has been a high level of shenanigans associated with certain public employee unions and irresponsibly favorable contracts. But here Renn overreaches in claiming that unlike the first two centuries of corruption that plagued Rhode Island, now it’s because of unions.

One other beef

I have other issues with this piece, but I’ll only bore you with one. Renn cites RI as having the most land-use regulations, but he fails to mention that we also have the LEAST LAND. With a sensitive salt water bay that suffers from nearly every bad development decision, restrictions on land use show good stewardship.

Also, if these regulations prevent development, how is it possible that the economic boom of the 00’s was predominantly due to housing construction? Rhode Island’s boom was above average and our bust was above average, a fact Renn seems not to know.

Reforms: Renn’s and mine

Renn offers several reforms, and some have merit. Amazingly, he doesn’t advocate cutting the sales tax, instead targeting loopholes in the unemployment tax that give breaks to favored industries. Specifically, seasonal tourism is an industry built on scheduled layoff, yet they pay in much less than they take out. That kind of nonsensical cronyism should be the target of every Rhode Islander.

He points to Quonset Business Park as a model for development, but seems to miss the most salient point of differentiation. Yes, it has ready-to-build parcels. Yes, it has a streamlined regulatory/permitting regime. But it also has this: competent management!

Good management is far too rare at all levels of government in Rhode Island (see above, EDC), and that needs to change. Renn even says that Quonset “smartly self-financed port improvements…” When you can put “smart” in any sentence about actions taken by even a quasi-governmental agency in RI, it’s something special.

Predictably, Renn says RI should “reduce the size of government,” not mentioning that it is already badly hollowed out. If only he had suggesting “realigning” government to reduce overlap and put human resources where they’re needed, he might have been on to something.

His biggest miss, in my opinion, is in his “politically palatable” “grand bargain” on revenue-neutral tax reform, in which income taxes are modestly raised on top earners in exchange for business-tax reform…” First, revenue-neutral is not good enough; RI needs revenue.

More importantly, his “grand bargain” isn’t very grand; it’s tinkering at the edges. To really fix the revenue/expenditure equation, RI needs to seriously consider more radical ideas:

— Levy a business services tax in phases, say 0.5% per year for four years. A 2% tax on services would be insignificant to most transactions but would yield a large amount of revenue

— Build a toll on I-95 even if it means going to war with US DOT; Renn condemns RI for its poorly-maintained infrastructure but mentions neither the single most obvious fix nor the reason it is not in place today

Musical coda

In lampooning the famous “I never leave Rhode Island” meme, Renn quotes the URI fight song thus:

We’re Rhode Island born,
and we’re Rhode Island bred,
and when we die,
we’ll be Rhode Island dead

I doubt quite seriously that these two songs are connected in any way, but I can’t let that go without…

Rhode Island Dead by Rhody’s own…the adorable…Benny Sizzler!

Nick Mattiello cowers to corporate interests


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 article, House speaker outlines state’s economic priorities, in the Providence Journal started badly. Paul Grimaldi wrote,

“The newly elected speaker of the house told a roomful of business people Thursday that fixing the state’s fiscal problems is his priority.”

mattiello2I didn’t vote for Mattiello for speaker, nor did you. He was “elected” by a bunch of frightened representatives after just a few days of discussion. There was no political campaign, no public discussion. Yet he’s the “elected speaker”?

And he’s talking to a group of “business people” at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast in the Kirkbrae Country Club. He’s reassuring them. Why? Because he’s counting on their contributions to his campaign and any political action groups he might be setting up in the wake of Gordon Fox’s resignation.

In the article, Mattiello says that 38 Studios was one of the biggest debacles in the country’s history.” Really? Did he miss the Real Estate Bubble? The Dot.Com implosion? Stock Market Crash of 1929? Teapot Dome? 38 Studios has been and remains a huge sucking chest wound in Rhode Island’s economy, but it’s not the worst thing that’s ever happened in the US, not even in the state. Remember the Credit Union crisis?

But, having recently returned from a visit to the Bond Rating Folk in New York, Mattiello claims that we have no choice but to repay our “Moral Obligation.”

Let me reframe that little trip as a school yard scene…

Roger the Rocket wants a new video game! He doesn’t have enough money to buy the game, and Wally the Banker won’t lend him the money. But Little Rhody, who wants to be Roger’s friend, and thinks he’ll be able to play the game too, promises to pay Wally the Banker back if Wally will lend Roger the Rocket the money.

Wally loans Roger the money. Roger loses it on his way to the store. Roger can’t pay, but Wally says that Little Rhody has to pay.

Little Rhody doesn’t know what to do. Rhody didn’t have the money either! So Rhody goes to Wally the Banker’s friend, Bondy, who gives out grades of A, B and Junk, and ask them for advice. 

What do you think Bondy told Little Rhody to do?

Juvenile? Yes. Simplistic. Yes. Realistic? Startlingly so.

But the bad news is that the article keeps getting worse. Mattiello is telling these business people everything they want to hear. He’s going to lower corporate taxes. He’s going to raise the estate tax threshold.

One proposed bill, whose “nuances” he refused to discuss, would shift the way corporations taxes are assessed, from property, payroll and sales to just sales. In theory, this would increase revenue (presumably because they’d increase the taxes on corporate sales?), but in reality it looks like another big tax break for CVS. Think about it. What’s the biggest corporation in this state with the most employees and the most property?

Poor Little Rhody doesn’t know what to do. The rich kids all have so much money. Rhody wants to play in their playground. Maybe if Rhody will do whatever the rich kids say, then Rhody will be popular and have money too!

What do you think Rhody will do?

Don’t cut sales tax based on flawed economic model


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-fairyA few months ago, I wrote about the intellectual bankruptcy of the economic model called STAMP, for State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, created by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI), and beloved of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Apple Pie (CFAP). The good folks at the CFAP have been heavily promoting some of the results of this model, that predict that Rhode Island will enjoy a tremendous economic boom if only we would eliminate our sales tax.

As I detailed in that article, the RI STAMP model is flawed not only by a host of questionable assumptions, but also the laughable attempt to obscure those assumptions under an absurdly over-complicated presentation of the relevant equations. Really, there is no reason to do what they do except as a conceptual bulwark against reporters who are easily cowed by that sort of thing.

Now comes the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) to say the same thing as me. In an epic takedown (summary here, report here), they cite STAMP’s many assumptions that either cannot be justified by the research literature or are completely contradicted by that literature or by experience. They further point out that the STAMP model accounts for almost no possible economic benefit of public spending, such as, say, educated children or good roads. The STAMP model also contains little help in estimating the actual rates of change due to new tax policies, allowing them to

“… mask the fact that some tax plans they believe would be economically beneficial are guaranteed to shrink the economy in the short-term.”

ITEP concludes that from this alone,

“STAMP analyses are of no use in informing the debate over what will be necessary to balance the state’s budget in the wake of a major tax change.”

There is plenty more, such as STAMP’s implicit assumption of full employment (!) and the assumption that households spend money in more or less similar ways to governments. (How many police officers did you employ last year?)

I am gratified by the validation of my review of this model, but really, the damning evidence is right in BHI’s own footnotes. That’s where, just to pick one example, the STAMP designers tell us they assume that all rich people — you know, the ones who have expensive houses and extensive business and social ties to their community — are more likely to move to another state for financial reasons than poor people, who frequently own nothing and have no such ties.

Of course that’s not how it reads. The actual text talks about elasticities and the sensitivity of participation rates, but that’s what it means, once you wade through the verbiage.

In an email responding to the ITEP analysis, Justin Katz, of the CFAP, said they think the appropriate response is to average their results with model results they like less.

“…[T]he Center has long maintained that it is an opportunity for policymakers that they have such divergent models. As we recommended in our recent brief, the General Assembly should take advantage of the two projections as a high-end and a low-end and implement the elimination or reduction of the sales tax with plans to adjust down or up as the monthly results become apparent.”

This, of course, is not the way it’s done. When the clown honks his little horn and says the sky at noon is inky black, the proper response is laughter, not to average his views with yours.

There are two ways people analyze mathematical models. One way involves detailed examination of the assumptions used to generate it. The STAMP model fails this test in spectacular fashion, according to me, and now according to ITEP. The other way is to validate the model against past events. That is, a model good at predicting the future should be good at predicting things that have already happened. If a model can predict 2014 results from 2013 data then it makes sense to use it to predict what will happen in 2015.

We have cut taxes several times in the past 20 years. There were the Almond income tax cuts of 1997-2002, the capital gains cuts passed in 2001, the flat tax passed in 2006, and several smaller cuts. When the CFAP can show us that their STAMP model would have accurately predicted what actually did happen — and that the same model predicts what they say about future tax changes — only then will it be useful to listen to their results. Until then, nothing but laughter from me, and hopefully everyone else they honk their little horn at.

Why state unemployment doesn’t matter as much as you think


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

white collar blue collarEveryone knows that Rhode Island has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, right?  After a few years of lagging Michigan and sometimes Nevada, we are now the nation’s leaders, despite the rate having ticked down slightly last month.

But consider this: what do you learn by comparing a tiny state like ours to relatively gargantuan states like Michigan and Nevada?  Is that comparison useful?  Huge parts of Nevada are desert; huge parts of Michigan are farms; there are no huge parts of Rhode Island. Could that be relevant to the three states’ economies?

Comparing states to each other is a decent way to get a handle on differing state policies, but do we think that state policies are at the heart of our high unemployment rate?  Are there no other differences you can think of between, say, Texas and Rhode Island?  I believe our state’s policies certainly contribute to our economic condition, but sometimes another analysis can be revealing, too.

I looked last week at the unemployment rates for metropolitan areas (“Metropolitan Statistical Area” or MSA), as defined by the Census Bureau, and learned that the Providence MSA (which includes what you think of as greater Providence, as well as stretching out to include Fall River) has unemployment of 9.7%, higher than the statewide rate. We rank 339 out of 372, a pretty dismal showing. But that’s not dead last, so I also learned that there are 32 MSAs in 11 different states that rank lower than ours, including New Bedford, at 11.1%, and bottoming out at Yuma, Arizona, at over 22%. And Westerly and Hopkinton are part of an MSA centered in Connecticut, and their rate is 7.9%, or number 268 on the list. Nothing to be proud of, but better than 104 other places.

Half of the MSAs in California are doing worse than we are, as are three out of five in New Jersey, and four out of 25 in Texas. But those states also contain some high-performing MSAs, so the devastating performance of some areas are washed out in the statewide averages. There are several one-party states in that mix — from both parties — as well as several with divided control of their governments. It seems to me that anyone who wants to claim that Rhode Island’s high unemployment rate is entirely due to state policy has the burden of explaining why we should adopt the tax and regulatory policies that have brought Brownsville, Texas to a 9.8% unemployment rate or Yuma to 22%.

A few years ago I did an analysis that suggested the structure of the labor market might be relevant. Nestled between two richer states, Rhode Island’s white-collar jobs pay comparable wages to those neighbors. Jobs like these are good jobs, for which you might commute a long way, or even move your home. For jobs like being a psychologist, computer programmer, architect, or lawyer, this is pretty much a single job market. An employer in Warwick looking to hire a staff attorney competes for a pool of attorneys who might easily take a job in New London, Attleboro, Sharon, or Boston.

It’s not like that for hiring a cashier in a convenience store. You wouldn’t commute to Boston to work in a deli, and so it turns out that while white-collar wages here are at least comparable to wages for similar jobs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, blue-collar jobs vary much more, and in fact pay much worse here in Rhode Island.

I made a couple of rankings of states based on a selection of job categories, and I learned that some areas ranked high on my white-collar job list and low on my blue-collar list, while in some it was the other way around. (Read more about them in my book, “Ten Things You Don’t Know About Rhode Island.” The table is below, but you’ll have to check out the book to get all the details.)

In truth, I have no idea why these rankings differ, though it is entertaining to speculate. I noticed, for example, that places with a long history of union manufacturing (Ohio, Pennsylvania) pay good blue-collar wages, even for non-manufacturing jobs, and places that are very attractive to live (Hawaii, Oregon) tend to pay relatively poor white-collar wages. Agricultural areas tend to pay poor blue-collar wages, even for non-agricultural jobs. Rhode Island, with high white-collar wages and very low blue-collar wages, is an anomaly in the Northeast, and belongs with the states of the South, Southwest, and California.

Here’s what else I notice: the places that pay the worst blue-collar wages dominate the high end of the unemployment ranking.

This seems counter-intuitive — why would lower wages mean higher unemployment? — but it also seems to be true. On closer examination, maybe it’s not so crazy. People at the low end of the income spectrum tend to spend the money they have because they have to. More money in those people’s hands means more money being spent, so it makes sense that an area with better-off low-wage workers will enjoy higher levels of economic activity. This is just speculation, but it is broadly consistent with the basic Keynesian model of the economy that dominates our economic discourse.

But we can go one step farther, too. If we want to bring state policy into the equation, it seems that the metropolitan areas with the highest unemployment are not only places with low blue-collar wages, but are often in states where taxes on the low end of the wage scale are relatively high. According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), Texas, Arizona, Illinois, and New Jersey are all places where total state and local taxes on the poorest people approach or top 12%, just like here. In other words, these are largely places where poor people are paid badly and taxed at high rates, too.

ITEP tells us that state and local taxes on poor people in Rhode Island average 12.1% of their income, while for people in the top 1%, the average rate is 6.4%. The tax cuts for the rich that we have given year after year have not resulted in lower taxes all around. Rather what has happened is that the state simply shirked its responsibilities to education and local aid. The cities and towns took up the slack by raising their property taxes, which fall most heavily on those with the least ability to pay. Taking money away from people who are most likely to spend it is what you might call the opposite of economic stimulus, so it is little surprise that the result is what you might call the opposite of prosperity.

What could we do about this?  Pushing up the minimum wage would be a start. Cracking down on wage theft and the mis-classification of employees might help, too, as well as finally being honest about what we’ve been doing to our cities and towns.

Just something to think about when you read about the unemployment rate. As usual, it seems the things that everyone knows sometimes get in the way of understanding what’s going on.

White collar Blue collar
1 NJ 64,053 HI 33,363
2 CA 62,851 NJ 31,976
3 CT 61,435 CT 31,310
4 MA 61,282 AK 31,191
5 DC 60,176 MA 30,045
6 MD 60,074 WA 29,357
7 NV 60,060 IL 29,168
8 RI 59,720 DE 29,094
9 AK 59,492 DC 29,004
10 NY 59,198 NV 28,868
11 MI 58,588 CA 28,705
12 DE 56,932 NY 28,516
13 IL 55,684 PA 27,711
14 AZ 55,680 OR 27,560
15 VA 55,358 MI 27,369
16 GA 55,323 MN 26,989
17 HI 55,231 CO 26,900
18 CO 55,141 MD 26,848
19 NC 54,849 IN 26,777
20 TX 54,734 OH 26,724
21 OR 54,552 NH 26,406
22 PA 54,415 MO 26,152
23 TN 54,110 RI 25,994
24 WA 54,105 VA 25,913
25 MN 54,096 WI 25,903
26 WV 53,906 KS 25,728
27 OH 53,878 AZ 25,445
28 WI 53,769 TN 25,396
29 FL 53,269 IA 25,294
30 IN 52,910 GA 25,153
31 MO 52,649 WY 24,968
32 NH 52,622 VT 24,708
33 UT 52,536 NE 24,635
34 ID 52,128 ID 24,611
35 MS 51,840 SC 24,333
36 AL 51,311 UT 24,299
37 ME 51,104 MT 24,161
38 SD 50,725 ME 24,075
39 AR 50,489 LA 24,004
40 LA 49,971 NC 23,983
41 WY 49,790 KY 23,967
42 VT 49,734 SD 23,850
43 SC 49,478 ND 23,841
44 NM 49,132 OK 23,753
45 KY 48,838 TX 23,502
46 IA 48,564 FL 23,466
47 OK 48,361 WV 23,353
48 ND 48,171 NM 22,634
49 NE 48,039 AR 22,562
50 KS 47,308 AL 22,428
51 MT 46,128 MS 22,097

(Source: SalaryExpert.com, 2005 data, methodology described here)

Rhode Island needs to lead the East with new pot policy


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

Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use.

– Jimmy Carter, Aug. 2, 1977

rhodeislandmarijuanaMarijuana laws in Rhode Island are in drastic need of reform. For more than 30 years, the federal government has impeded the development of all aspects of the cannabis industry, not only denying basic human rights regarding consumption, but also prohibiting medical research and disallowing industrial hemp use from competing in the market. But after an August 2013 Justice Department memorandum, states have the green light to enforce drug policy of their choice. This is a momentous step for both personal freedoms and common sense. Not only does the war on pot hurt individuals, it also takes out needed tax revenue that Rhode Island coffers can ill afford to lose.

Even our president recognizes the flaws in U.S. drug policy. Cannabis use has been scientifically proven to be less dangerous than the legal drugs in our society, such as alcohol, tobacco and prescription painkillers. President Obama has recently advocated the continued decriminalization of marijuana use by state legislatures, saying, “I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoke … I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

I agree with our president on the issue of decriminalization, but you just cannot try to compare alcohol abuse to cannabis “abuse.” (I use quotations because I smoke liberally all day, every day, and I have yet to develop the mental and moral inadequacies that accompany the stigma of a stoner. But I digress.) How many deaths does cannabis cause a year? None, in its entire history of use, thus making it less toxic than penicillin or ibuprofen. (Ibuprofen is part of a class of drugs called NSAID’s, these drugs accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations).

Marijuana also has a plethora of widely accepted medical benefits ranging from assisting veterans with chronic post traumatic stress disorder (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 2013) to anti-seizure properties (according to Ben Whalley of the University of Reading in Britain) to anti-carcinogenic properties (as documented by Complutense University, in Spain, in 2009).

Unfortunately, rather than let individuals grow a natural herb to remedy their malady, deadly painkillers such as Oxycodone and Hydromorphone are prescribed daily. We know these drugs cause crippling addiction and withdrawal. We also know that long-term use is extremely harmful.

You might not be persuaded by the universal right to consume what you wish. Fine. You might not be persuaded by its decades of widely supported medical benefits. Odd, but still fine. One thing every American must bow to is the almighty dollar.

Recently, the state of Colorado fully legalized the sale of cannabis for personal use. The sales exceeded $5 million in the first week alone. Rhode Island taxes $3.50 on every pack of cigarettes, approximately one-third of total cost. At a similar tax rate, the state of Colorado could have brought in $1.7 million.

In January, Colorado took in $2 million in marijuana tax revenue. Why deny Rhode Island this huge economic bonus? Especially when Gov. Lincoln Chafee said he was open to discussion, even tossing in the pun “pot for pot holes.”

If the state’s new House speaker, Nicholas Mattiello, is as dedicated to creating a more stable and productive economy as he says he is, there should be no question about whether to regulate America’s next big cash crop. Rather, we should focus on how to do it.

The benefits do not end with direct taxation. Being the first state on the East Coast to allow industrial hemp, along with medical and recreational sales, would result in a massive regional advantage in cannabis production and processing. We could have Netherlands-style coffee houses, cannabis culture gift shops and a wonderful export product for neighbor states.

On top of the reduction in administrative strain, regulation would reduce law-enforcement costs by decreasing time and funds spent pursuing, housing and feeding non-violent marijuana offenders. The birth of a new industry would create a plethora of jobs, ranging from chemical engineering to retail. This new industry would also need raw goods, shipping and other complementary industries and therefore help the entire Rhode Island economy get out of its slump.

A well-crafted bill concerning cannabis regulation, with ample room for oversight and adjustment, is the key to reviving our struggling economy.

Corey Agin, an East Providence High School graduate, is executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. He is studying political science at the Community College of Rhode Island.

On tax equity, RIPEC salves the souls of the House Finance Committee


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
John Simmons of RIPEC
John Simmons of RIPEC

Last evening the RI House Finance Committee heard testimony on two bills that would increase the marginal tax rate on people making more than $200,000 a year. Representative Maria Cimini proposed a 2% increase, from 5.99 to 7.99% on incomes over $250,000, while Representative Larry Valencia proposed a 4.01% increase on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,00 for married couples.

Valencia asked the committee to explain the effectiveness of tax cuts for the rich (starting in 1996) given that these were supposed to bring more jobs to Rhode Island, not less, as evidenced by our high unemployment. Appeals to reason however, were not found persuasive by the committee.

At least ten people spoke in favor of the bills, some telling very moving stories about the way they struggle in a state that continues to cut services and cut assistance to our cities and towns, resulting in higher property taxes. In fact, it’s the property taxes that are hitting these Rhode Islanders the hardest, even as the myopic House Leadership continues to champion a policy of across the board tax cuts, curbs on spending and other austerity measures. The impassioned pleas of struggling Rhode Islanders fell on deaf ears, because appeals to compassion were not found to be persuasive.

Everyone knows that the bills proposed by Cimini and Valencia are going nowhere this year. Chairperson Raymond Gallison, recently appointed to his position by Speaker Mattiello, shaped the discourse by calling up all those in favor of the bills and listening politely, reserving the last word for John Simmons, executive director of a right wing think tank, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC). Gallison and Simmons are on a first name basis, and Simmons’ testimony was welcomed as a breath of fresh air.

Simmons simply restated the same things RIPEC says every year. Increasing taxes is wrong. The rich already face a higher tax burden than the poor. We shouldn’t be targeting the job creators. Philosophically, why should we be punishing those who are successful? The rich are rich because they are better than the poor, more deserving than the poor, and more important than the middle class. Here’s Simmons’ closing argument:

“Then there’s the philosophic issue, I guess I want to address that. It’s a little bit different. Is it because we can tax people who can make money and are successful that we should? Is that the philosophy we want for people to come to Rhode Island and grow a business here? If you make money we can take it from you? I don’t know that that’s the right message to send to people who want to come to Rhode Island. It’s the opposite. If you are successful we would like you to come to Rhode Island.”

Note that Simmons is not all that interested in those who already live in Rhode Island. He isn’t talking about improving the lives of Rhode Islanders, instead he’s talking about making Rhode Island a haven for the rich and successful. If Rhode Islanders are lucky, I suppose, we might find jobs shining the shoes and cleaning the yachts of our more deserving citizens.

This is what Gallison, representing House Leadership as Chairperson of House Finance, found persuasive: A naked appeal to everything he wants to believe is true, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s called motivated reasoning, a process of having a conclusion and then searching for reasons to believe it. No contrary examples, no logic, no amount of suffering and no evidence contrary to the deeply held belief will be truly considered.

So what do you say to the man who eases your mind and continues to guide you down the primrose path of massive economic inequality? What do you say to the man who confirms all your biases and tells you that everything you sincerely wish were true is true and good, despite the nagging fear at the back of your mind that tells you it’s all a lie?

Gallison said, “Thank you very much John, I appreciate it.”

Combined reporting would close tax loophole for retail giants, big box stores


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

dve sullivan tax guyRhode Island missed out on somewhere between $40 and $100 million in 2011 and 2012, according this new report. That’s because in 2011, the General Assembly rejected Gov. Chafee’s idea to implement what is known as “combined reporting” for corporate taxes and instead called for the aforementioned report.

The study found that combined reporting would have earned Rhode Islanders between $23 and $54 million in 2011 and between $21 and $44 million in 2012, depending on the accounting method used. The larger number focuses on just sales while the smaller number also factors in payroll and property. Read the overview here and watch video from last night of state Division of Taxation employees explain it the Senate Finance Committee.

Combined reporting combats the corporate practice of doing business in one state and utilizes the tax advantages of another state. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy called combined reporting “the most effective approach to combating corporate tax avoidance.” 23 states and the District of Columbia use combined reporting, including most New England states.

Rep. Teresa Tanzi, a progressive Democrat who represents Narragansett and South Kingstown, has sponsored legislation this year and in the past two legislative sessions that would implement combined reporting.

“The fundamental justification for combined report is a robust corporate tax that can’t be gamed by aggressive corporate tax planning while creating a level playing field between big multistate corporations and smaller, local corporations,” she said in an email to me.  “Nonetheless, I am gratified that the study confirmed that Combined Reporting would give a modest boost to revenues that could be used to help the state address its unmet needs, and we now have the numbers to show the advantage certain corporations have.”

Most local businesses would not be affected by combined reporting, according to the study. It found 28 percent were negatively affected and 6 percent experienced a tax advantage.

“Any company that has a large presence here, property and payroll, is not really affected,” state Tax Director Dave Sullivan told the Senate Finance Committee last night. “companies that do not have a big footprint here and have maybe one or two retail outlets here may actually see an adverse affect in tax increases with single sales factor. If all their property and payroll are out of state and they have a significant number of sales because they have, we use the example of big box stores here in this state…”

Massachusetts and Vermont both implemented combined reporting in the same year they lowered their overall corporate tax rate. State tax officials told the Senate Finance Committee both states improved their Tax Foundation rankings after doing so.

Smiley, Goldin and Cimini submit “Guns and Ammo” tax bill


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

Goldin SmileyBrett Smiley, running for the position of Mayor of Providence in this September’s Democratic primary isn’t letting the fact that he hasn’t been elected stop him from coming forward with some bold new initiatives.

Tuesday morning found Smiley in the State House rotunda with State Senator Gayle Goldin proposing a bill that upon passage would impose a 10% tax on all gun and ammunition sales in the state. Representative Maria Cimini, who was unable to attend the press conference, will introduce the bill in the house.

The bill promises to allocate all funds raised from this tax (estimated by Smiley to be about $2 million) to every town and city police department based proportionally on the prevalence of crime in each area, and then each police department will further allocate the money to non-profits with a demonstrated commitment to reducing crime and violence.

Said Smiley, “Just like we expect the tobacco industry and those who support it to pay for public health initiatives, the firearms industry and those who prop it up should be paying to keep our streets safe.”

Senator Goldin pointed out that, “This is a different approach,” adding, “I will certainly be working hard to get this passed.”

Currently, no state has imposed a special tax on guns or ammunition, and only Cook County, Illinois has imposed a special tax on guns. In that sense this legislation marks a new kind of thinking when dealing with gun violence on a state level.

“The damage done by guns legally and illegal [obtained] imposes a cost on society and this [bill] is one way to pay that cost,” said Smiley, “Gun violence has been a plague on our community for many years, and solutions to address this issue deserve long term commitments from all of us who seek to serve the community.”


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