Logo of the Moderate Party
In a year where there were only four candidates across the state marked as belonging to the Moderate Party on the ballot (most people never saw them and the fifth and sole successful Moderate Party candidate ran in a nonpartisan race), 9249 voters used the so-called “master lever” to vote for the Moderate Party.
With only 971 Moderates registered in the state as of October 1, 2012, the master lever gave the Moderates a 952.52% amplification of what its registration should’ve provided. Moderate chair Ken Block referred to this as “horrific” on Twitter, and proceeded to lay out the case for abolishing the master lever, claiming that 20 potential Moderate candidates didn’t run because of the lever.
While the master lever is a major hurdle to organizing a third party (and its abolition would be good), it was particularly short-sighted of those candidates to refuse to run. For one thing, the more candidates running under a party’s name increases name recognition for the party, translating into more votes. Furthermore, in communities where there were no Moderates, many of those votes were wasted.
Fear of the master lever is no excuse for failing to contest elections, nor is the master lever the sole problem that the Moderate Party has (the same should be said of the Republicans). Abolition of the lever is no guarantee that the Moderates will suddenly see their vote numbers increase (they might actually see the opposite). The best exposure the party got all year was that their name and symbol were at the top of the ballot across the state. Voters are still capable of reading party affiliation, and rejecting the parties whose platforms or candidates they reject.
The Moderate platform, while containing admirable ethics and environmental sections, is essentially the same corporate economic and education systems espoused by Republicans and laissez-faire Democrats: don’t increase taxes, give cash away to unproven businesses and charter schools, rely on unreliable data to measure school progress. This platform is simply not that popular among voters in the core urban areas (the data bears that out, Mr. Block did better in the exurbs during his 2010 run for Governor). I’ve mentioned these criticisms before.
But make no mistake, the Moderates are growing. There were 971 of them on October 1st of this year. Three years ago in 2009 there were only 52 on October 1st. Yesterday, WPRO’s Dee DeQuattro placed their registration at 1068. That’s a pretty substantial increase, about 10% growth in about a month and a half.
Kenneth Block, Moderate Party Chair (via Rotary Club of Providence’s facebook)
The Moderates face a major test in 2014. It sounds as if Mr. Block is not committing himself to running for governor, saying that he has confidence in whatever candidate his party fields to clear the 5% bar to keep the party on the ballot. That’s a good thing. It would be disastrous for the Moderates to be tied too strongly to Mr. Block, merely because if his energy flags or fails, so does the party’s. Though if they can’t find a candidate, I assume the Moderates will put Mr. Block up again rather than let themselves fail.
Hopefully, a new candidate can gain over 5% support, though once again they’ll have to build name recognition. If that candidate doesn’t make 5%, the media is waiting with the narrative: the Moderates were merely moderate Republicans and in 2014 they decided that they didn’t want to spoil a real Republican’s chances. While that narrative may or may not be true, it’s out there, waiting for the Moderates to prove it wrong.
The Moderate Party has a long way to go. Focusing on appealing to voters across Rhode Island and getting candidates is its major work right now (as I’m sure Mr. Block is far more aware of then I am). Then it has to prevent brain drain from its organization (a couple of its alums joined Governor Lincoln Chafee’s administration). But the Moderates have one advantage the Republicans don’t when contesting elections. No one would mistake a Moderate for a Republican.
As an extra, if you avoided the link to WPRO (don’t get stuck in an echo chamber!), Mr. Block had a killer takedown of the RI GOP in the comments:
Dee DeQuattro gets this one all wrong. 6.5% of the vote in a competitive 4-way race starting from zero is a monumental achievement – I am certain the 5% threshold was written into law because few thought it could be done by a brand new party.
Her biggest swing and miss is that RI does in fact need a new political party – because the state GOP has utterly failed for the 2 decades I have lived here to bring political balance to our state. Whether it was the striking out Strike Force or the empty Clean Slate, to a large extent the state GOP has been tone deaf, missing what RI voters really care about.
The State GOP did not get wiped off of the political map in 2012 because of the existence of the Moderate Party. There were no legislative races where a GOP and Mod showed up on the same ballot. The State GOP is flailing all of its own accord – with a substantial boost from the national GOP messaging which works in TX but not so well in RI.
I am always amused by the hand wringing done by stalwarts in the GOP who fret that silly Rhode Islanders keep voting for the same Dem jokers so they deserve what they get. The more appropriate observation should be why does the GOP think that running the same folks with the same failing message will result in a different electoral outcome.
It will not.
Sadly, there is really nothing moderate about the Moderate Party. The Republican Party has been captured by the fringe elements, pulling it so far to the right, that anything else looks moderate by comparison. The reality is, Ken Blocks party is a traditional conservative party – anti-union, anti-tax, anti-government.
Pat -
Not anti-tax, just against tax rates that make us uncompetitive with our neighboring states. We won’t fix our awful unemployment rate relative to other neighboring states if we are not competitive in the eyes of businesses. I personally agree with Buffet at the national level.
Not at all anti-union. I believe there needs to be a balance in our legislature and other down ticket elected offices and we don’t have it – mostly because the unions have been so good at what they do politically – and partially because the GOP has been so bad at what they do. When you don’t have balance you can end up with some of the excesses that we are experiencing now – and the related fiscal crises that accompany those excesses.
Jus because I don’t give my kids everything that they want does not mean I am anti-kids, in the same way that just because I do not agree with everything that the unions ask for does not make me anti-union.
We need balance and compromise – and for far too long in RI the imbalance in our legislature has precluded the need for compromise.
As far as anti-government, I have no idea where Pat came up with that one. A large part of my professional career has been spent working with various government agencies at the local, state and national levels. Governments suffer from a lot of the same issues that large corporations do (inefficiencies, poor communications, stifled productivity) – and my conversations with Council 94 during the 2010 elections confirmed that my views were shared by their members.
Had the NEA-RI bothered to meet with me in 2010 they would have learned that my positions are in no way extreme. Instead Pat just likes to lob unsubstantiated bombs – not unlike some of my more conservative friends on the right.
“Ken Blocks party is a traditional conservative party – anti-union, anti-tax, anti-government.”
That’s not the impression I got from hanging out at party HQ.
The focus was on making RI regionally competitive with regard to taxes, while the Republican focus is on making them as low as possible. The Moderates talked about how to govern efficiently given limited resources, while the Republicans talk about eliminating roles of government, and the Democrats seem to talk about ways to afford the government they’ve already built.
mangeek, stop it. That doesn’t fit Pat’s narrative of “if you’re not for us, you hate us”. Always make it a battle, always an “us against them” to rally people into a lather.
This is the same garbage you see from lefties and righties all across the country, when you start talking about genuinely centrist to moderate parties, organizations, groups and figures. They have their silly little fairy tale about how you’re either with them, or you must be with the other guy, that they’ve blinded themselves to the fact that there is a giant spectrum of belief, and that there is a massive gaping hole between the republican and democratic parties. Ken and company with the Moderate Party of Rhode Island have a lot of work to do to build a party from the ground up, but they’re exactly what the country needs.
Maybe it’s just me, but comparing collective bargaining concerns to the demands of spoiled children doesn’t seem very pro-union.
as always PHL, you hit the issue on the nose……
Ahhh…after I wrote that I was wondering how long it would take someone to trot out that line.
I did not in fact compare collective bargaining concerns to spoiled children - I did not even indicate that my children are in fact spoiled – they just want more than I am sometimes willing to give them, as do most kids.
The analogy is apt – because I deny my children certain things does not make me anti-kid. Because I would deny certain (but not all) requests made by unions I am not anti-union. I do not support right to work initiatives, for example.
It is convenient for Pat to paint the MPRI and me as deadly foes – otherwise he has to deal with the real world issue of nuance and compromise, which I understand he would rather not have to do.
But the reality is that if everyone had paid better attention to the long term economic implications of insider deals done 20 and 30 years ago we would not have as many cities and towns dangling on the edge of financial ruin as we do today.
And we would not have a lot of union families upset about earned benefits being taken away now.
I have to question a lot of the “Moderate” imperatives: don’t raise taxes, cut government spending, charterize the school system… this emphasis on “making RI competitive” in general is off-putting to me. I don’t want RI to be competitive in some businessman’s idea of whatever that word is supposed to mean. I want RI to be a great place to live, do productive work, and raise a family. Focusing too strongly on “attracting” outsiders is exactly the kind of philosophy which leads to $75 million debacles.
To me, the most resonate and telling part of part of the 38 Studios debacle is that some already rich outsider could waltz into RI and get a cool $75 million on a crackpot business while legitimate RI businesses have to struggle and fight to get any money, and all while our government was cutting resources to everyone else.
Frankly, I don’t think the managerial class in this state really understands what people enjoy about RI or what it’s like to live here.
I also have a philosophical issue with utilizing the label “moderate” or “centrist”. They are relative to everything else. In America, a centrist is essentially a neoliberal. In other parts of the world, a centrist can be a fascist, a communist, or a libertarian, etc.; depending where you are. It’s an inherently meaningless word. “Moderate” has the same problem. If Moderates succeed in replacing the Republicans as RI’s second party, they won’t be moderate any more. They’ll be right wing.
I also have to question the need for “compromise” in Rhode Island. Lack of compromise is the problem in the U.S. Congress. The problem in Rhode Island is actually the reverse (as I see it), the lack of strong opposition. We’ve essentially entered a one-party system; and the various factions in the RI Dems are very good at compromising. I’d argue that they’re too good at that, to the point that things aren’t really getting done.
Oh Sam -
Where to begin. How about my adamant opposition to 38 Studios from the beginning? Trying to tie Moderates to 38 Studios is like trying to tie Pat Crowley to income tax reform. No way to do it.
If we can agree that we have to solve RI’s serious unemployment problem, then my challenge to you is how do we do it if RI is not competitive on a regional basis? Mass is kicking our ass in economic terms. And, all you have to do is call Fall River’s Director of Economic Development to see and hear his description of the parade of RI companies looking to relocate.
This is basic macroeconomics and consumer behavior. RI has not positioned itself well in this competitive marketplace and the time – the crisis – is here now and it has to be fixed.
I refuse to believe that RI is doomed to perpetual high unemployment relative to the rest of the country. And anyone in any class, be it working, middle or upper, should want RI’s leaders to solve the unemployment problem. There is too much riding on the outcome to play ideological games with this..
To regain tens of thousands of jobs with the large number of employers who have exited the state requires new employers to choose to come in, as well as existing employers to have healthy enough businesses to warrant expansion. It is not at all likely that RI can grow out of its desperate situation solely with organic growth.
Who cares what Moderate means in other parts of the world? In America it means in the political middle and is an established political descriptor. It is used every day to describe politicians who do not live at the ideological fringes of the two party system.
The cold hard reality is that RI needs a vibrant and expanding business community, but we don’t have it because of our competitive disadvantages. Either we get our act together to solve this serious problem together. or together we suffer the consequences of a deteriorating economic condition.
This ain’t about left, right or middle of the road politics. This is about people who have lost their jobs desperately needing things to be turned around.
“The cold hard reality is that RI needs a vibrant and expanding business community”
Why? To expand to what point? What is your goal?
“anyone in any class, be it working, middle or upper, should want RI’s leaders to solve the unemployment problem”
Rhode Island’s leaders? You mean Rhode Island’s government?
“This ain’t about left, right or middle of the road politics”
Actually, it is. First of all, because it’s about politics. Second, because it’s about right-wing politics.
The Moderates want to apply right-wing economic policy without tying it to right-wing social policy. This will never work. The Republican party developed the Southern Strategy precisely because it is impossible to sell right-wing economic policy on its own terms.
Libertarians ally with Republicans for the same reason. You simply cannot get anyone but right-wing religious extremists to buy into right-wing economic policy in any significant numbers.
To put it another way, the Moderate party is just another name for watered-down Libertarianism–and you can extrapolate the future success of the Moderate party by looking at the Libertarians’ electoral successes.
“The analogy is apt – because I deny my children certain things does not make me anti-kid. ”
The analogy is patronizing. You are suggesting that, just as children are incapable of understanding real-world limitations, so union members are incapable of understanding real-world limitations. You are insulting unions.
But, please, continue with this rhetoric. I think your policies are complete bunk, so nothing would make me happier than your continued reliance on this analogy.
“The cold hard reality is that RI needs a vibrant and expanding business community”
Why? To expand to what point? What is your goal?
Do you NOT know that Rhode Island has the second highest unemployment rate and that we are ranked last in the nation for business?
“Do you NOT know that Rhode Island has the second highest unemployment rate ”
Indeed, I do. Which is why I think full employment is a good goal to have.
However, full employment and expanding business are not the same goals.
And I would remind you that the Moderate party seeks to expand business through a particular kind of governance. All that says to me is that the Moderates wish to use government to subsidize businesses they like, using unemployment rhetoric as a cover.
I wasn’t tying the Moderate Party to 38 Studios, I was tying the idea of fostering “competitiveness” to leading us into 38 Studios. It was a deal arrived at by a group of what many might have thought were level-headed (perhaps some might even say “moderate”) men who wanted to help Rhode Island compete in a competitive industry. You did oppose it, and that was right and good. But I have the sense that those who arranged it were very much working with a similar philosophy to yours in mind.
It’s like these casinos. Compete, compete, compete; they say. I’m sorry, but the slots or the VLTs which are the best source of income for casinos aren’t going to made more attractive by having table games. What happens if Twin River gets cleaned out by a high roller who has some skill? At the same time, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are retooling their business models to make it so that they’re less casinos and more resorts.
That to me is the issue with how these, frankly, old white men, play with Rhode Island’s economy. They have to do something everyone else is already doing, but stupider. And their intent appears to be mainly extraction of wealth from the state so they can retire to Florida. They do this all with the justification of making RI competitive.
What I’d rather see is fostering what we’ve got. RI businesses do know what they need. They know what’s stopping them. They might not know the reason. But the Chamber of Commerce isn’t serving their interests; the scores of small business associations are. I look at my neighborhood in Providence, and the business association isn’t talking about tax policy, they’re talking about making the street a place to walk. They’re talking about making the bus stops nice places to wait at, or get off at. They’re holding block parties to meet the neighborhood. And it’s worked. The area is way nicer than ever it was. And the businesses are all going strong, they aren’t turning over half as fast as they used to.
People accuse people like me of wanting central planning because we want everyone to pay for our government. That’s not the reality. I just think we shouldn’t pander to a bunch of extraordinarily rich people so they can keep living their already extravagant lifestyles while the rest of us struggle to pay our rents, feed our children, and keep our cars filled with gas. I think our businesses are diverse; some of them want lower taxes so they can make a greater profit and feel that government is an impediment. Some of them want higher taxes so they can increase profitability by having a functioning and helpful government.
I think we can invest in a business environment by investing in our people, our actual citizens. Instead, we tend to treat them like ignoramuses or swindlers or something. How can you foster a good business environment if people don’t even trust each other?
As to the marketing the Moderates convo…
I’m saying that “moderate” is a political stance that reacts to others’ political stances. Yeats’ made the point; “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold;” in politics, the middle is subject to massive pressure. Twenty years ago, an individual mandate in healthcare was a radically right-wing idea. Today, it is a left-wing attempt to takeover America, and the radical right-wing is willing to say that people who can’t pay for their healthcare should be left to die. They who were moderates twenty years ago look to be ultra-left-wing today.
Essentially, it’s bad marketing. It amorphous and frankly, not very inspiring. Right, it’s like we’re being screamed at “it’s hard economic times!” And everyone says “well, something needs to be done!” And then you come along and go, “hold on everyone, let’s be moderate…” I think it seems a bit like a wet blanket term. At least “Reform Party” gives a sense of what you want to do, and at least has some action in it. The word moderate just isn’t much fun.
38 Studios was a result of central planning. There is no comparison between a 38 Studios deal and making the state more competitive within it’s region. Trying to pick winners is central planning Leveling the playing field is not.
“38 Studios was a result of central planning.” You know as much about central planning as you do about the proper use of the apostrophe.
The Republican party has proven they are in dire need of re-branding. Separating from the social conservatives under the guise of a more compromise-friendly “moderate party” is a convenient means by which to maintain corporate interests as a high priority without an immediate connection to the social conservative, hot button issues like God, guns, gays and womens’ issues. It’s a place for DINOs and fiscal conservatives to call home if it serves the
I call bullshit on an agenda that effectively serves the re-growth of the middle class.
“I call bullshit on an agenda that effectively serves the re-growth of the middle class.”
Of course you do.
So If you’re a progressive, you probably think ALL the other options, including about 3/4ths of your own party’s members, are ‘right-wingers’.
Competitiveness matters, that’s where jobs come from, and jobs are what pay for the services that we all want government to provide.
Rhode Island needs to BALANCE the legislature, not between ‘right wingers’ and ‘progressives’, but between the folks who want to provide government services and the folks who want to make sure they’re delivered in a way that keeps us from becoming a black-hole of high taxes and poor services (that’s where we are now, actually).
It’s clear we don’t want social OR fiscal conservatives in the legislature, but we do need people who can listen to economists and suggest helpful modifications to the dominant party’s plans.
“including about 3/4ths of your own party’s members, are ‘right-wingers’” Yes. If you want to find the party of fiscal conservatism, you need look no farther than the Democrats.
Right-wing economic policy has dominated the American political scene for thirty-five years. It is the result of the Southern Strategy that has dominated the American political scene since Nixon.
As PHL pointed out, Obamacare is an example of this dominance: it is a market-based answer to the question of how to provide universal health care. The left-wing answer would be single-payer, either for privately provided services or for socialized medicine.
To put it another way, there is no moderate way to administrate a right-wing policy.
Democrats: We need a Health Care exchange!
Republicans: The Health Care Exchange is a dangerous ‘dependency portal’!
Moderates: That’s a big IT project that could go wrong in a lot of ways, here are a bunch of ways to do it correctly and for less money.
See the difference?
Talk about a false frame. As if all “moderates” are software executives. I venture I know as much about them as either of you and what can go wrong, and I’m certainly not a moderate.
Not to mention that the exchanges were a Republican idea in the first place.
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea
Ah, yes, the oh so moderate Heritage Foundation.
“As if all “moderates” are software executives”
I meant it as an example, but I suspect that the Moderates will draw a much higher proportion of ‘talented professionals’ than either party.
People like me didn’t HAVE a political party available that wasn’t Just Wrong about so many things, until the Moderate Party came about. I just can’t stand behind a party that insists on a platform that has as many flaws as either the Rs or the Ds.
Someone pointed out that the ‘Moderate’ label changes with time… Maybe that’s a good thing. Things change, and political platforms need to change too.
Well, that’s some example. You’re moderate, as in positioned midway between right-wing think tanks and the insurance lobby.
Actually, I would prefer a form of universal care, so long as it was paid entirely year-by-year from payroll taxes. I think it would HELP businesses and reduce unemployment, since managing health insurers and benefits is a major drag on businesses.
But universal care is out-of-scope for Rhode Island politics, so I focus on doing the things we CAN do, and doing them well.
“Actually, I would prefer a form of universal care, so long as it was paid entirely year-by-year from payroll taxes.”
There’s not an insurance company in the world that works like that. Too much variability and unpredictability year to year. You’d need to have some kind of a reserve.
I’m not against that either, provided the military has to live by the same rule!
“You’d need to have some kind of a reserve.” Naturally. I actually think it makes sense to front-load it. Fund a year’s-worth, then start the benefits rolling and maintain the funding just one year ahead. Small price to pay in opportunity cost to keep the wingnuts from blaming it for the ever-on-th
“People like me didn’t HAVE a political party available that wasn’t Just Wrong about so many things, until the Moderate Party came about.”
Which will strive to be 1/2 wrong about everything?
Laugh Out Loud, Geek, Laugh Out Loud.
Spot on.
Also love ‘Turbo’ projecting his worst imaginings of the MPRI by stating that somehow the party is going to “only subsidize businesses they like”.
I challenge him (I am assuming it is a he) to find anywhere on the MPRI website where we attempt to pick businesses, or find in an entire campaign’s worth of materials where I proposed trying to induce specific businesses to come to RI.
RI desperately needs to be appealing to businesses across the spectrum, because we have unemployed individuals with skills that span the entire spectrum.
Turbo is a premium fuel guzzling, climate change denier, intent on buying foreign cars at the expense of American jobs. Two can play that stupid game.
“where I proposed trying to induce specific businesses to come to RI.” There are only specific businesses. There is no such thing as appealing to a spectrum of businesses.
If you want to entice business to come to Rhode Island, you must always entice specific businesses. To suggest otherwise is merely to reveal that you have no understanding of how the real world works.
“we have unemployed individuals with skills that span the entire spectrum”
This exposes your most serious weakness: you keep looking outside Rhode Island for someone to save it. You have a romance novel heroine’s idea of economics. You want a White Knight on a White Steed to come galloping into Rhode Island, there to sow his investments in the fields you have kept whole and pure just for him.
For this reason, you dress yourself up in the attire that you think will be most appealing to your idealized businessman.
What Rhode Island needs to do is to rely on itself. Rhode Islanders need to develop their own businesses, not doll themselves up and walk the streets of New England, hoping to draw the eye of a wealthy John.
There are plenty of people in Rhode Island. There is plenty of money in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has its own unique advantages. We should look to invest in our own strengths. We should not invest at all in prettifying ourselves in the hope that some tall, dark, and handsome stranger will rescue us.
You seem to forget that many of your progressive brethren endorsed the Schilling deal on this very site so misrepresenting Moderates as taking a central planning view is pretty absurd.
Turbo, you’re wrong. Rhode Island is so small that we can fall under the service area of neighboring states. So long as we offer a bad -value- for our high taxes (the problem isn’t the taxes, it’s the return on them), Rhode Island will fail to host job growth for anything besides restaurants and local retail.
Interestingly, the ‘progressives’ were behind the same kind of thing that you’re pointing out with 38 Studios. Just look at the cronyism and ‘corporate welfare’ that the PEDP program perpetrated. Politically-connected individuals getting taxpayer loans to open businesses that failed because the market isn’t here, then defaulting on the loans and facing zero consequences.
The fact is that company-specific loans and incentives are way too enticing for any politician to ignore. Every mayor wants a photo-op with a business they helped open. That’s why that kind of program needs to go away. Instead, focus on making conditions favorable for EVERY entrepreneur or existing business. It’s a lot less glamorous, but it works much better.
“There are only specific businesses. There is no such thing as appealing to a spectrum of businesses.”
That’s also just Not True. Businesses will go where conditions are favorable. Rhode Island is DEFINITELY not favorable. Just try to hire high school entry-level positions, most of them can’t even write well enough to hire. We have archaic payroll restrictions that make paying workers more frustrating and complex than our neighbors. We have a department that INSPECTS and CHARGES for any business that has a hot water heater (because a steamship exploded here 100 years ago). We have fire inspectors who are incentivized to prevent new businesses from opening. We have high local taxes and poor local roads and utilities. Our main highway to our most successful neighbor couldn’t even be traversed by trucks for four years because the road was crumbling. We have a giant seaport with a $110M road-and-rail connection that we’ve decided to turn into a suburban office park instead of a modern shipping terminal (something that would make imports and exports cheaper, boosting the manufacturing and retail sectors). We are taxing ‘services’ now, making even more paperwork for small businesses, when we could have lowered and broadened the sales tax to draw shoppers in AND cut overhead.
And all this sh*t is on YOUR party, because that’s the one that’s been in power for 86 years.
So you’d shut down the Slater Technology Fund? What you’re saying is these organizations should be free from political interference. That’s hardly an indictment of loans generally.
Hey, there’s insider trading… let’s shut down the investment banks in the name of Moderation!
“So you’d shut down the Slater Technology Fund?”
There’s a BIG difference between an independent fund that can help with things like incubation and seed capital and deals like long-term tax breaks for developers or individual companies.
But if Slater Tech had poor results for the investment, as measured by an OUTSIDE party, then yes, I would either reform it or shut it down.
I agree. I’m not trying to defend the 38 Studios deal (thought it was dumb and said so at the time), just that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“the problem isn’t the taxes, it’s the return on them” Then why call for lowering taxes?
“the ‘progressives’ were behind the same kind of thing that you’re pointing out with 38 Studios”
Carcieri?
“Businesses will go where conditions are favorable”
There are no conditions favorable to every kind of business. Businesses go where they find climates especially favorable to their kind of work.
“And all this sh*t”
Is a question of practices, which have nothing to do with the tax rate, as you suggested above, but seem dedicated to lowering despite yourself.
Rhode Island’s problems are technocratic. They are specific and require expertise. There is no single, broad solution to our problems. Yet you are calling for a single, broad solution: ‘make us attractive to business!’ Your sloganeering gets us nowhere, and it is remarkable that you continue to sloganeer, given that you have outlined numerous specific problems that require nuanced, technocratic solutions.
“Then why call for lowering taxes?”
I’m not, specifically. I will agree with Block’s view that any rate on any particular bracket that’s way above the norm, compared to our neighbors, is bad news. It might work in a geographically large area, but it’s just way too easy for people making $100K+ to migrate to Attleboro or Stonington to save 5% of their AGI a year.
”Carcieri?”
Yeah, he was a bozo, but I was saying ‘things LIKE 38 Studios’, then I gave the PEDP example. Look into Cicciline and his tenure with the PEDP. I was saying “everyone was guilty” and you turned it around to “So the Republican guy wasn’t guilty?!”.
“Rhode Island’s problems are technocratic. They are specific and require expertise. There is no single, broad solution to our problems. Yet you are calling for a single, broad solution: ‘make us attractive to business!’ ”
Never did I endorse ‘lower taxes’ as a guiding principle. I will say that any place where the value-proposition of being in RI is worse than MA or CT is bad for us. Also, I listed a whole bunch of technocratic stuff that our single-party Democratic government doesn’t seem to be able to do properly.
What I’m arguing for is that the Progressive Democrats and Moderates take over the state house. Let the Progressives lead the way on giving people what they want in terms of services, and let the Moderates optimize the execution. Kick the morality-obsessed old-school DINOs and the RI GOP out.
“I’m not, specifically.” You, specifically, are, if you are aligning yourself with the Moderates.
“it’s just way too easy for people making $100K+ to migrate to Attleboro or Stonington to save 5% of their AGI a year.”
So? Who needs them?
“I was saying “everyone was guilty””
You were not. Here is what you said: ““the ‘progressives’ were behind the same kind of thing that you’re pointing out with 38 Studios”
“let the Moderates optimize the execution. ”
Why? What technocratic qualifications do the Moderates have?
This, in a nutshell, is your problem: you approve of the Moderates on ideological grounds and so you recommend them for technocratic tasks.
Ideology is not a good way to determine expertise.
“our single-party Democratic government ”
Whom I find to be ideologically repugnant and technocratically incompetent, on the whole. Your point?
“So? Who needs them?”
Who needs people making $100K? Really? That’s solidly middle class around here. Two public school teachers married to each other with ten years under their belt in our system earn about $150K, putting them well into the top 10% of household earnings.
The amount of work it takes to keep a small business open doesn’t make it worth doing if you can’t take home enough to afford a decent car and a reasonable house.
Also, considering that state income taxes only kick-in around $40K and aren’t significant until you get up into the $80K realm, YOU need these people around… Because you want to be able to afford stuff.
“Ideology is not a good way to determine expertise.”
And neither is political connectedness, which is what gets traded in a one-party system.
“Why? What technocratic qualifications do the Moderates have?”
What qualifications does ANY politician have to determine the technical merits of a policy? You can throw great ideas at politicians all day and all they do is worry about losing votes. After plenty of one-on-one exposure to Republican, Moderate, and Democratic local pols, I can tell you that the Mods have a clear edge in being able to make the correct decision based on the data in front of them; they’re not beholden to anyone or to any legacy ‘philosophy’.
Now I don’t mean to sound flippant, Turbo, but you sound like someone who’s pretty new to the world. I sense a lot of strong opinions and misplaced anger. I have a few questions I’d like you to answer:
1. Do you think people who aren’t citizens should be able to vote in local elections?
2. What would you define as ‘middle class income’, the kind we’d want to foster and encourage, for a Rhode Island family of four?
3. How many years have you paid all your own living expenses?
“Who needs people making $100K? ” According to you, there is no one in RI making that amount of money.
You say that RI’s tax rates are so uncompetitive with those of neighboring states that everyone making $100,000 a year will move away. Fine. This means that RI must no longer have residents making $100,000 a year.
“political connectedness, which is what gets traded in a one-party system”
It’s not a one-party system, and, even if it were, such a situation would not suggest that any given new party would necessarily have good ideas.
“I can tell you”
And I can tell you. ???
“they’re not beholden to anyone or to any legacy ‘philosophy’.”
I don’t know why you think not having a philosophy would be a good thing, but, in any case, the Moderates most certainly do have an ideology: fiscal conservatism, AKA right-wing economics, AKA neoclassical economics.
“Do you think people who aren’t citizens should be able to vote in local elections?”
What are you talking about?
“What would you define as ‘middle class income’”
Median household income.
“How many years have you paid all your own living expenses?”
Are you trying to figure out how old I am?
“RI desperately needs to be appealing to businesses across the spectrum, because we have unemployed individuals with skills that span the entire spectrum.”
So we should try to attracted chip manufacturing businesses? How about oil refineries? Copper smelting? Coal mining? That makes no sense at all to pretend there aren’t regional differences and relative strengths in every state. That kind of nonsense comment just makes folks like me think that this is just coded language for let’s slash taxes for the wealthy and hope for the best.
Moderate: “I want things to be better for everyone!”
PinkHat: “So you admit that you want to make child molesters happy?!”
Seriously folks… Can we all try to be a little flexible here?
Hey, disagree if you like but I think targeted economic development makes sense especially in a state the size of many metro areas. To suggest otherwise is absurd. If it’s not coded language for let’s cut taxes feel free to explain.
Notably Ken is suggesting on another diary that the recent uptick in the jobs numbers is the result of tax cut magic veeerrry slowly taking effect. Not sure I was so far from the mark on that one.
My stars! Did I miss 2010 Nostalgia Night? Hope I can still join in…
Here’s the really “cold, hard fact”. Ken Block presents a highly unappealing candidate who is, to my best knowledge, the epitome of the angry, right-wing hater described above.
Truly, MG, I can take some of the campaign rhetoric as sincere and occasionally useful. Open government and smart approaches to lo- and hi-tech corruption should win with every voter. Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Block reveals himself in semi-private to be quite the rigid, spiteful hyper-capitalist. He is, MG, the kind of person who will attack in a professional group context a specific person as representative of all so-called do-gooders willing to ‘mooch handouts from the government’. [A paraphrase, to be sure, but faithful to the intent as reported to me.] With absolutely zero nuance, he dismissed the entire non-profit sector as detrimental to society.
This angry, little 1%-er would make a worse governor than he is a candidate. He is, if you will, a Mitt Romney wanna-be with a Napoleon complex.
Worse than that, however, this very episode proves him ultimately inept in politics. Firstly, anger is a turn-off, and doubtless Mr. Block works exceptionally hard to keep it under wraps in public. That will only last so long. Even in the astronomically unlikely event he were to become governor, he would be utterly ineffective. Just think about how many people he must already have pissed off at him!
More importantly in the political context, he proves himself a self-absorbed pretender-in-chief. If only he could build something as awesome as John Galt did, he’d blow it up _way_ more awesomely! These kinds believe in their delusions so completely that they’ll ignore even the most basic operational dictum, like “loose lips sink ships”. The lips and ships, in this case, are all his own.
Note to Mr. Block: it’s a small state. In the words of Richard Roma, the fictional real estate salesman so adored by GenX Mameto-Randians, “You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.”
Really FM? I know you both personally. I wouldn’t describe Moderate that way at all. I think he’s a guy who’s been at the receiving end of Rhode Island’s bad policy for a while now, and he’s one of the few to step up and try to do something about it. He and I don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, but there’s some room for dissent in every party.
Wow, this guy makes Paul Ryan look honest and accurate.