Speaker Mattiello: ‘There haven’t been tax cuts for the rich’


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

mattielloIn a wide-ranging interview with NBC 10 Bill Rappleye, House Speaker Nick Mattiello said taxes were not reduced for Rhode Island’s richest residents.

“There haven’t been tax cuts for the rich,” Mattiello said. “When folks refer to that I’m not sure what they are referring to. If you can point to the tax cuts to the rich I’ll be happy to consider that.”

At 8:00 minute mark:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

In a follow-up interview with me, I guess that maybe Mattiello thinks the income tax rate cut to Rhode Island’s highest earners has been offset by the fewer exemptions they can claim. These were changed when the rate was lowered.  I also point out that raising the estate tax exemption is a tax cut for the rich.News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

I also point out that there are better ways to have a positive impact on jobs and economy than slashing taxes on retirement income – such as legalizing marijuana and increasing the earned income tax credit.

RI’s tax cuts for the rich were 2nd biggest of decade


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

TaxCutComparisonTable copyKansas’s tax cuts for the rich were one of the biggest state policy stories of 2014. Sam Brownback, an ambitious conservative Republican, swept into the Governor’s office in 2010 and pushed for massive tax cuts for the rich. And he got them. By 2014, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen by 1.65 points, and by 2018, if the law isn’t repealed, the rate will have fallen a full 2.55 points.

The results, predictably, were disastrous. The revenue promised from miraculous economic growth never materialized, and Kansas’s credit rating got cut. Moderate Republicans were livid. And Democrats came within four points of unseating Brownback in the middle of the 2014 red wave.

Since this debacle, there’s been a wave of think pieces about how income tax cuts for the rich as big as Kansas’s are just way too extreme, even for Republicans. But here’s the thing—Rhode Island’s tax cuts for the rich were even bigger. From 2006 to 2010, Rhode Island slashed the top marginal income tax rate for the rich by 3.91 points. That’s compared to 2.55 points in Kansas.

This all got me thinking about a question I’ve been wondering about for a while: In the past decade, has any state cut income taxes for the rich by as much as Rhode Island?

To answer this question, I compiled a list of the top marginal individual income tax rates for each state in both 2004 and 2014, using a database put together by the Tax Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

The only state with bigger cuts than Rhode Island was Montana. At 4.1 points instead of 3.91 points, they weren’t much bigger. And when you start digging into the details, it’s clear they weren’t as extreme as Rhode Island’s.

When Montana’s tax cuts were passed, they were barely projected to cut the wealthy’s tax burden at all. That’s because Montana also capped the deduction for federal income tax at $5,000 (or $10,000 for married couples). Before the law, a wealthy Montanan could deduct the 35% of their taxable income in the top federal tax bracket they paid in federal taxes. Because it’s a big giveaway to the rich, most states don’t do this. The idea was that this system effectively gave a top rate of 7.15 points, so capping the deduction and switching to a top rate of 6.9 points would barely represent a cut for the rich at all. This was key to selling the package.

Now, it turns out that the budget projections Montana Republicans put together were completely wrong. A lot of complications, including the AMT, kept them from raising as much money from capping the deduction as they said they could. The original budget projections showed a mere $6 million decrease in income tax revenue from households making $500,000 or more. The actual reduction was $48 million. Still, capping the big deduction for federal taxes kept Montana’s tax cuts from giving as much to the wealthy as Rhode Island’s. And when they passed the bill, Montana Republicans claimed they were barely cutting taxes for the rich at all.

Montanans weren’t fooled. The next year, the Democrats ran on a message of economic populism. They captured the state House, the state Senate, and the Governor’s mansion—all while Bush was thumping Kerry by twenty points.

Montana and Kansas reveal a lot about why so few Tea Party state governments have gone the full Rhode Island. They’re afraid of a revolt from their own Republicans. When they try, that’s what usually happens.

In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal proposed an even bigger tax cut for the rich than Rhode Island’s. He wanted to eliminate the income tax and pay for it by hiking taxes on the poor and middle class. But Republicans revolted. Even the state’s top big business group opposed the plan. So Jindal had to scrap it.

In North Carolina, a similar proposal died because conservative megadonor Art Pope opposed it.  (Pope funds a network of conservative think tanks and politicians, and he got himself appointed state budget director.)

In Alaska, there are no income or sales taxes, since the state gets so much money from oil taxes. So when Republican Governor of Alaska Sean Parnell slashed taxes for the oil companies, even Sarah Palin thought he had gone too far. She was so mad about the tax cuts that she endorsed the Independent-Democrat fusion ticket, which successfully unseated Parnell in the middle of the 2014 red wave.

Sometimes, smart people portray Rhode Island’s experiment in right-wing tax policy as a sort of moderate conservatism, on parallel with today’s more restrained Republican state governments. To be honest, I used to see it this way.

After all, a lot of the policies of the conservative machine that has taken over the Rhode Island Democratic Party really do fall in the mainstream wing of the national Republican Party. Our abortion restrictions, for instance, while more severe than any other blue state’s (according to NARAL’s ranking) are more mild than the extreme TRAP laws some Tea Party governments have pushed through.

Like most Republican states, we do have voting restrictions, including an ID law, but they aren’t quite as strict as what the reddest states have pushed through. Our war on workers, while severe, isn’t quite as bad as what has gone on in states like Wisconsin. And in a few select areas, like marriage equality, our policies have actually aligned with the national Democratic Party.

But when it comes to tax policy, the conservative Democratic machine that runs Rhode Island falls on the extreme right fringe of the national political spectrum. Even the most right-wing Republican state governments balk at tax cuts for the rich as large as what Rhode Island Democrats have done.

What’s wrong with supply-side 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

supply-side economicsWhile zipping through Netflix the other night, I came across a movie about bootleggers–that I wouldn‘t really recommend. As I watched, however, something became very clear.

Demand.

Supply-side economists have this totally absurd notion that supply will create its own demand. That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Why are there no Wal-Mart’s in the Yukon territory? Why did buggy-whip manufacturers go belly-up after the auto-mobile became popular? Why are there no stores that sell only items related to Reformation Theology?

Seems like a Wal-Mart should be enough of an attraction to create its own demand. Right?

Seems like a plentiful supply of quality buggy-whips should have enough appeal to create its own demand. Right?

And lots of books and pictures of Thomas Cramner, well, obviously, this is a supply that has to create its own demand. Right?

But then you have Prohibition. What happened there? Supply disappeared, at least in theory. So demand collapsed, because nothing is ever driven by demand. Right?

Except just the opposite happened. Demand created the supply. Just like illegal drugs. With sufficient demand, someone, and even lots of someones, will take great risks to produce a supply.

And yet, star-level economists, especially at the U Chicago insist that demand has no role in economic performance. Cut taxes, cut regulations, free the supply side and demand will follow. It HAS to! Our theory says it will! So it will be so!

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: my grandfather lived through the Depression. He had a line that held more wisdom than all of the collected works of the U Chicago school. My granddaddy had no illusions about “Good Old Days”, when it was all simpler. His line was “Sure, a loaf of bread only cost a nickel. But what the hell. You didn’t have a nickel.”

And there you have it. No matter how cheap a thing, people won’t buy it if a) they don’t want it (see Whips, Buggy above); or b) they don’t have any money.

Which leads to the current state of the economy. Five full years after the crash, a lot of people still don’t have jobs. Or, if they do, they are low-level service jobs that pay between minimum and maybe $10/per hour. $10 per hour grosses just shy of $21k per year. Can you rent for $400 per month? Can you keep a car on the road for $400 per month? Maybe that will cover gas, but you also MUST factor repairs and routine maintenance into that. Can you eat decently on $400 per month? And that means, you know, fresh fruits and veggies. Yes, you can get by on boxed mac-and-cheese, but that takes a horrible toll on your body. So we’re down to something like $500 per month discretionary. (Taking a month as 4.3 weeks). Not saying that’s not enough to get by on. It is. I know because I’ve done it (adjusting for inflation). But let me tell you, don’t plan on buying much.

And there, exactly, is the rub. I get so sick of people who say that employers have the right and the obligation to drive wages into the ground. And then say that workers should be thrilled to have any job,at any wage, no matter how pathetically low. Have to free up the job creators!

But what good does that do? Job creators are more free now than they have been in generations. They’re making huge profits. They’re sitting on piles and piles of money. So, they’re free*. Why don’t they create jobs? Or why don’t they create jobs that pay people a decent wage? Why is there a need to stockpile even more money?
Look, Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer. That is not a slur. It’s an historical fact. Go read anything about him and you will find out that he was so virulently anti-communist that he thought the Nazi government was a good thing, at least before the onset of WWII and the Final Solution. He figured out that it was a good idea to pay workers more than starvation wages. He realized that by paying his workers a good wage, he was creating customers.

In other words, he was creating demand for his products. In other words, paying workers more, and making a smaller profit, was in his best self-interest.

We are primed for a terrific natural economic experiment. Massachusetts is going to raise its minimum wage, gradually, to $11 per hour by 2017. The first increase is to $9/hour as of 1/1/15. Since Mass and RI currently have the same minimum wage, this means that millions of jobs will be fleeing from Mass, crossing the border into RI to take advantage of the lower wage. And it means that Mass will be plunged into economic darkness and decay because, everyone knows that a higher–and increasing—minimum wage will cost millions f jobs. By 2018, Mass will look like Detroit on a grand scale.

Everyone knows this. Just like everyone knows that millions of Rhode Islanders have fled to low-tax places like North Dakota and Wyoming. Because that’s what Econ 101 says.

Well, maybe those people should have stuck around for Econ 201, or 301. Maybe they’d have learned there’s more to the story.

And: assuming that my “predictions” don’t come true, and that the economy in Mass actually improves, I will expect a personal apology from every single person who says I’m wrong.

Because, fact of the matter, a higher minimum wage will stimulate demand. People will have money. They will buy more. That means companies will hire more people. And the virtuous cycle continues. If you want proof of this, cross the border into Canada, where the minimum wage is currently $11./hour. And then cross back. It’s like going from a First World country into a Third World country. When you cross back into the US, that is.

And if you don’t believe me, how about this guy?

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.”

Anti-poverty coalition rallies today for tax equity at State House


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

Today in the State House Rotunda at 4:30 the newly formed “RI Mobilization Against Poverty”(RIMAP) is demanding bold action to address the economic woes of Rhode Islanders with plans that start with what Franklin Deleno Roosevelt called “the forgotten man” – the unemployed, the underemployed and the under-paid workers.

As growing wealth inequality pressurizes the streets, squeezing the middle class into poverty and those in poverty into despair, people of moral consciousness will not allow budget cuts to eviscerate what remains of the social safety net so that politicians can pad the bank rolls of the elite who fund their campaigns and profit off of side deals.

Mr. Elmer Gardiner of the George Wiley Center Leadership Committee explains:

“They recently announced that NORAD, the 7th largest auto importer in the US located in Quonset, are going to ‘create’ almost 300 new jobs paying only $10/hour -which means still they would be still economic slaves. We can’t be subsidizing these large corporations profits by paying for food stamps (SNAP) which wouldn’t be necessary if paid a living wage of $15/hour. Then these workers to have pride and self esteem, not feel that their work isn’t even enough to sustain themselves.”

antipovertyrallyWe have more people today living in poverty than at any time in the history of this country, including the highest rate of children in poverty of any industrialized nation. Here the top one percent owns 38% of all the wealth in America while the bottom 60% own 2.3% collectively. In fact one family, the Walton’s of WalMart, are worth 138 Billion Dollars, more than the bottom 40% own all together. At a freezing cold Black Friday protest, a student said had to quit his job at WalMart and work for a local business the pay wasn’t enough to live on. While protesters chanted “low pay is not OK,” Scott DuHammel of the Painters and Allied Trades Union said “I think this is a terrible situation. The workers obviously deserve more.”

In fact one family, the Walton’s of WalMart, are worth 138 Billion Dollars, more than the bottom 40% own all together. At a freezing cold Black Friday protest, a student said had to quit his job at WalMart and work for a local business the pay wasn’t enough to live on. While protesters chanted “low pay is not OK,” Scott DuHammel of the Painters and Allied Trades Union said “I think this is a terrible situation. The workers obviously deserve more.”

UniteHere has been confronting the same poor pay and benefits at the Renaissance Hotel and the Weston, where the owners multi-millionaire owners lawyer threatened the city with “consequences” if they were not given tax credits for a development project.

And the story is the same all across the service industry. A mother of two children on strike at Wendy’s said “I am tired of getting paid $7.75/hour, and that’s sad…after working there for 4 years.” Women across the country have been earning 78 cents compared to every dollar that a man earns for doing the same job. Carolyn Mark, President of RI National Organization of Woman elaborated. “The number is higher now – 84.8 cents to the dollar, although it’s much lower for women of color. The common wisdom is that it’s not that RI women are doing so much better than women around the country, but that men in Rhode Island are doing that much worse.”

Poverty is the root community problem creating a cycle of crime leading to do to lack of opportunity – a downward spiral caused by a lack of jobs and unequal quality, materials for and access to education which is the key to social mobility. John Prince, founding member of Direct Action for Rights and equality points out that victory of the Ban the Box campaign, which a means amends employment laws to limit inquiries like “have you ever been convicted of a crime” helps to break a cycle of economic inopportunely.  “I never heard a judge sentence anyone to a lifetime without employment. What we need now is for the City of Providence to finally enforce it’s First Source law to hire residents first so there are real jobs developed here.”

Today, the the House Finance Committee will be hearing Rep. Cimini’s bill H7471 would raise taxes by 2% for people making over $250,000 and Rep. Valencia’s Bill H7552 would raise taxes by 4% for people making over $200-250k. This is the way to raise revenues to develop the economy of the state, not by balancing the books on the backs of the poor and shrinking middle class. Austerity cuts are not an option. We need a law to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15/hour. Build Rhode Island “from the bottom up. Keep Martin Luther Kings Dream alive with action.

RIMAP is a coalition of organizations and individual from a wide array of backgrounds among anti-poverty, social justice, civil rights, women, human rights, community, labor, seniors, disabled, student, immigrant,  and LGBT with a steering committee modeled after tho one formed by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Poor Peoples Campaign in 1967.

How will Raimondo pay for her $60 million cut?


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

GinaGina Raimondo’s recent policy proposal on infrastructure raises a lot of math questions, but here’s one of the most glaring:  How is she going to pay for the $60 million she wants to spend each year on school construction?  She really doesn’t say.

She tells us she’ll simply find the money by “taking just half of a cent” out of the sales tax, but those dollars are already being spent on other things.  So here’s a really basic question no one else is asking her:  What is she going to cut out of the general fund to pay for the $60 million in sales tax dollars she’s redirecting?  And what impact would those cuts have on job creation?

Progressives have lots of great ideas for closing budgetary gaps.  In Rhode Island, our favorite idea is probably repealing the 2006 income tax cuts for the rich.  It’s an easy solution, but conservatives don’t like it.  So I’m very curious to see how Raimondo proposes to find $60 million.

Raimondo’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Maria Cimini on tax equity, her education policy agenda and a plastic bag ban for RI


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
Maria Cimini

cimini_mariaProgressive Providence Rep. Maria Cimini is probably best known for leading the charge for tax equity in the General Assembly. This year, she said, education will also be high on her priority list. In fact, she said she may earmark new revenue raised by her tax equity legislation to better fund education.

But when asked what she would focus on if she could only have one issue this session, she said education.

“I would want to focus on really widespread and broad education policy that would involve pre-K, solid care for children, looking at the GED changes that I think are going to be really difficult for low income individuals,” she said. “It’s beyond test taking and beyond even workforce training. It’s about preaparing people to work creatively and work in teams  and respond to careers that we can’t even imaine exist at this moment and I’m concerned that the trajectory of public education is more focused on the jobs that exist right now and very finite skills and a world that changes.”

She also said she’ll be reintroducing her plastic bag ban bill. Please listen to our entire conversation here:

 

Helio Melo says RI income tax policy has hit the rich, helped the state


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
From 2012 House Finance Committee budget consideration.
From 2012 House Finance Committee budget consideration.

House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo said the oft-debated restructuring of Rhode Island’s income tax code under Governor Don Carcieri has resulted in more annual revenue, and that the wealthy are paying more than they did prior to the changes.

“I don’t think we cut income tax on the wealthy,” he told me last night, before sitting down for the first evening of the legislative session. “I think they actually pay more than they have in the past. We took away a lot of exemptions when we did that.”

He also said the changes top-down changes have resulted in more revenue, too.

“I think we are seeing more money coming in with personal income tax so if we just look at it that way I would say yes. Does it mean we are getting more jobs? I’m not too sure about that…”

You can listen to our conversation here, including voter ID (Melo: “I don’t have a problem with it.”) and later today I’ll be post my conversation with Rep. Maria Cimini about tax equity and her contrasting thoughts on it:

Wage Inequality


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

inequalityWage inequality has been growing astronomically over the past 30 years. This is a fact. Anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or lying or both.

Can you tell I’m getting tired of having to “prove” stuff that is so obviously factual? Well, in case you couldn’t, I am tired of it.

In fact, even the winners in this zero-sum game have tacitly begun to admit that wage inequality is growing. For the last couple of years, the main counter-argument put out by the lackies of the very wealthy has become that, yes, inequality is growing, but it doesn’t matter.

That’s a lie, too.

Growing wage inequality was one of the primary causes of the collapse of 2007/8. It remains a primary cause of the ongoing Great Recession. Since the vast majority of wage earners were finding their salaries stagnant, if not shrinking, these same people had to rely on credit to finance many of their purchases in the so-called “Bush Boom” of the naughts. I say “so called” because, for the first time since the end of WWII, the median salary at the end of the “boom” did not reach the median salary at the end of the previous boom. That is, median salary in 2007 was lower than it was in 2000/01, before the mild recession that occurred at the end of the 1990s. This is stark proof that wages, for the vast majority of people who actually work for a living (as opposed to living off dividend income, or carried-interest) was not growing despite what Republicans were touting as a “booming economy”.

And spare me the morality play about the evils of credit, about how it shows a lack of moral fibre, how it demonstrates that people are too lazy, or too insistent upon immediate gratification, that they can’t wait and save to make purchases, blah, blah, blah.

Here’s a secret: Had people done this in the naughts, there wouldn’t have been enough demand to create even the wimp “Bush Boom”. The US would have remained mired in the recession that started in 2000 throughout Bush’s first term. I can say this with complete confidence because the only thing that fueled the expansion of the economy—such as it was—was that people were buying stuff on credit. This created the demand that created the expansion.

And demand is the key component. Corporations are swimming in money. They have so much money they can’t figure out where or how to spend it. More, they can borrow billions and billions of dollars at de facto negative interest rates. And yet, corporations are not spending money. If “supply-side” economics had any validity, businesses would be spending money like drunken sailors right now, and they would have been doing so for the past five years, ever since we hit the point of negative interest rates. Why haven’t they spent money? No, the answer is not the uncertainty of possible tax or regulatory changes. That is an absolute crock. If you actually read the business press (as opposed to listening to FOX News) you will realize that businesses are reluctant to spend because they do not believe there is sufficient demand for more products.

Demand. There you have it. The engine that truly drives economic expansion. My grandfather had a succinct way of describing conditions during the Great Depression: “Sure, a loaf of bread only cost a nickel. But what the hell, you didn’t have a nickel.”

In case anyone doesn’t get the point: it doesn’t matter how cheap things are because of a large supply. If people still don’t have the cash to buy stuff, it doesn’t get bought.  IOW, there is no demand.

Demand.

And that is what is holding up recovery as the Great Recession enters its fifth—or is it sixth?—year. Got that, people? Sixth year. Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, while G. W. Bush was still president. Before Obama had been elected, let alone before he had taken office. Got that? George Bush was president. Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs was Secretary of the Treasury. Not Obama, not Geithner (although he was President of the NY Fed at the time).

Inequality matters, people. It matters a lot. It keeps demand down. When demand is down, people lose jobs. When people lose jobs, demand drops further, and more people lose jobs. This is called a death spiral. It’s essentially the same phenomenon, but going in the opposite direction, of what caused the inflation of the 1970s. And no, cutting wages DOES NOT HELP. Cutting wages is the equivalent of throwing people out of work. Yes, perhaps fewer people will lose their jobs outright, but demand will still decrease. It may—or may not—take a little longer, but the same result is attained.

So the answer is that people need to make more money. But what is happening instead is that the wages of most people are being cut. It’s the time of the year when a lot of companies are doing compensation planning. For many big companies, this is now a very simple process. A few people, maybe ten percent of the corporation’s employees, will get nice raises, maybe 5%, probably more. The rest will get nothing.

That is, the rest of the employees will get a pay cut. Their pay will remain the same, but even 1-%-2% inflation will erode stagnant pay. The result is a de facto pay cut. The result is a further decrease in demand. Funny: Republicans scream about how tax increases will hurt the economy because they will take money out of people’s pockets. But a pay cut does exactly the same thing, and yet Republicans fall all over themselves to demand—DEMAND—pay cuts.

It’s enough to make you suspect that Republicans don’t care about the economy at all. All they care about is tax cuts. All they care about is making the wealthy even wealthier. Even if it means the rest of us slowly slip into  poverty.

This is because their wealthy corporate masters want tax cuts. So Republicans bow and scrape and say “Yes, Master” and move heaven and earth to give their masters what they want.

The rest of us can pound sand.

This is what the good old days looked like

xmas1936
Photograph by Russell Lee, for the Farm Security Administration.

The picture to the right is called “Christmas dinner in home of Earl Pauley near Smithfield, Iowa…” This is Christmas for a farm family in Iowa in 1936. This is the world that conservatives call the ‘good old days’.

This is the sort of country conservatives believe we should have. Again.*

This was the age before Social Security, before Medicare, before welfare, before government regulation. This is a farm family. They worked hard–so hard that you and I probably cannot begin to conceive of how hard they worked. I’ve done farmwork, but it was mechanized, and it was still damn hard. So this family worked hard. There was no unemployment insurance. These were not urban welfare queens. They had not made bad choices, unless trying to run a farm should be considered a bad choice. They were not coasting, using the safety net as a hammock, because there was no safety net.

I assume the family in the picture is living on its farm. A lot of families lost their homes in the period 1929-1936 because they couldn’t pay the mortgage. Farmers in particular lost their land because their crops died in the field–if they grew in the first place–because of a stretch of drought that lasted several years, and that led to the Dust Bowl. My grandmother lived through the Dust Bowl in Kansas. Her stories were horrific.

You need to look at this and remember that this is the world that conservative politicians want to bring back. They want to kill all the social programs that were created as a result of the Great Depression. Conservatives want people who lose their jobs, through no fault of their own, to be pushed down to the sort of life that you see in this picture. They want people without work to fall into the sort of poverty that you see here. They may not realize what would happen if we follow their policies and gut social programs and all assistance to anyone but the wealthy. They may not realize what the implications of their policies will be, but the picture gives you a graphic example of the world that conservatives want to re-create.

Oh no! they proclaim. Getting rid of all this government will release the job creators, and they will create jobs! For everyone!

Bull.

The job creators at the time of this photo were fully unleashed. They were barely regulated. They were lightly taxed. And yet the people in this picture were living the way you see. Dirt floor. Bare plank walls. Where was the magic of the market? It didn’t solve the problems then. It didn’t help the people you see here. Rather, the people you see got to the condition you see because of the lack of regulation, and the lack of government support, and the low tax burden on those at the top of the economic pyramid.

The unfettered might of the market did nothing to help the people you see here. In fact, those with money shrieked that these people had to be left on their own, to starve if necessary. Any attempt to interfere would destroy prosperity. In fact, any interference by the government was immoral. But even a casual glance at this picture will tell you that any prosperity this family had ever known had been destroyed some time ago, and all because of the magic of the market. The only thing immoral was the sanctimonious attitudes of the upper echelons who let families live like you see in the picture.

If you read Friedman’s Monetary History of the United States, you will see that he talks about a seemingly endless series of economic crises, starting in the 1870s and carrying through to the Great Depression. That’s a period of 50-60 years, and there were three acute recessions and at least one depression (depending on how you define the downturn that began in 1873), and the last depression was so bad we call it Great. This averages to almost one crisis every fourteen years; the ‘teens of the Twentieth Century were marked by the Great War, so it’s difficult to compare this to ordinary periods.

One crisis per generation.

This is what the magic of the market created. A downturn every 14 years on average. Just about every generation was hit by a very nasty downturn, all in a period when there was no one to help. Private charity? Private charity is only viable during a period of economic expansion; when unemployment is above 10%, there simply aren’t enough people with enough money to make private charity effective. That’s why you have a family going through an experience like the one in the picture. Because people of the time relied on private charity.

And these were crises without unemployment assistance, food stamps, housing subsidies, with no government assistance whatsoever. People caught without work for six months or a year or three years had nothing to rely on, but they still couldn’t get jobs. Talk to people who lived through the Depression, quickly, while they’re still alive. They will all tell you, there was no work to be had.

And, btw, Friedman’s thesis that the Great Depression could have been avoided has been shot full of holes by our current situation. Friedman claimed that the Fed could have solved the problem through looser monetary policy. Since 2008/9, the Fed has been doing just that, pumping huge amounts of money into the economy in any way possible. And the same conservatives who howled about FDR have been howling about Bernanke. Has the policy worked? Well, we didn’t have a depression, at least not one like our grandparents lived through, but ask a recent college grad how easy it is to find a job. Look at the unemployment rate. So Friedman was a quarter-right at best. Monetary policy alone cannot solve the economic problems we faced in the early 1930s, nor the problems that we are experiencing in the early 2010s

Nor can the magic of the market create prosperity for all, except for relatively short periods. If capitalism produced a crisis every 14 years, that means if you were fortunate enough to graduate into an economic expansion, you should expect a downturn by the time you hit 40. Then maybe you’ll benefit from the upturn by the time you hit 50. Of course, by then you will have lost five or ten of your prime wage-earning years. So how are you supposed to save for retirement?

So look really hard at this picture. Think of it the next time you hear someone claim that we need to unshackle the job creators. Think of it and remember that the Titans of Industry screwed it up in the 1920s, and the 1900s, and the 1890s, and the 1870s…that’s a lousy track record. The Titans of Industry created the world you see in the picture.

*This is an incredibly harsh statement. I do not ascribe malign motives to sincere conservatives. I am not saying conservatives are evil people who wish misery on others. However, ideas have consequences; we have a moral obligation to understand the ramifications of our policies and of what we advocate for society. In this, I believe, the conservatives fail. Perhaps this is because they do not understand history; but a point is reached where there must be willful ignorance of what they advocate. History is so very, very clear, if you realize that there was history before WWII, or even before 1970. I keep coming back to this, but it continues to be true: we tried it their way. It did not work. Most of human history has been a long, dreary experiment in laissez-faire markets. The outcomes were horrible; look at this picture.

And if free markets or government regulation or interference or high taxes didn’t cause the situation in this picture, what did? They have no real answer for that question.

So yes, I realize I am making a terribly provocative statement; but the point stands. If we follow their advice, this is where we will end up. Again.

Health care, medical costs and quick decisions


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

healthcareIt’s 7:00 in the evening. You, a Rhode Island resident, are at the mall in Attleboro. You’re out to dinner in Seekonk. You’re on vacation on the Cape. Suddenly, your teen-age child collapses, unconscious.

What do you do?

Do you call an ambulance? The child is unresponsive. His eyes are rolled back in their sockets. He appears to be breathing shallowly. I repeat: what do you do?

Do you call 911? Or do you try to assess whether the situation is dangerous, whether you should try to take him to the hospital yourself, or whether you should just take him home and call a doctor in the morning? Which do you choose? And no, you’re not a doctor, and no, you don’t even play one on TV.

Some would suggest we should choose the latter route. Or, if we decide to go the ambulance route, we should call several providers, trying to see who has the best price, then see if we can haggle it downward a bit. Or maybe ask if they’ll take a chicken as a discount. In the meantime, your child is still unconscious. But being the hyper-rational homo economicus that you are, you pull out the copy of the local yellow pages you always carry in case of situations like this, or you use your smart phone to search the web for the local services, and then you coolly work the market and see what sort of price you can get.

OK, you’ve done that, only to find that the best deal you can get is $2,999.99. Now, you have insurance, but it will only cover 80% of the charge after the deductible is satisfied, and only if the situation is deemed an emergency. Well, your kid is unconscious; does that, in and of itself constitute an emergency? Are you a doctor? No. Do you have a clue whether it’s truly an emergency? No. And, 20% of that ambulance bill still comes to $599.98, assuming that everything goes as planned, that your deductible has been met, and the insurance will actually cover the 80%.

So what do you do? Does this change your behavior?

And remember: you get your insurance through your employer, so it’s not like you can negotiate your own deal with the insurance company. And that’s a good thing.

And what if your checkbook balance is somewhere south of $800 at the moment, and you still have to make the car payment? That $599 will take a pretty good bite out of that. If you’re making RI median, your next check will come in somewhere between $1200 & $1300 (depending on deductions, etc). And remember, this is just the ambulance. If you do go to the ER, there will be a plethora of other charges: for tests, x-rays, CAT scans/MRIs, physician services, and so on.

One thing that’s important to remember is that something like an ambulance, or an ER, has to be staffed and prepared at all times. An ER will probably use its facilities on a fairly constant basis, so there isn’t a lot of down time. That is not necessarily true for an ambulance. Maintaining and staffing that ambulance 24/7 costs money. Now, if you depend on paying for the ambulance by billing the people who use it, a significant part of the bill will be for maintaining that service when it’s not in use. So that means the price has to be a lot higher than just the cost of that particular run. A lot higher.

Now, we could subsidize the ambulance service as a common good; but that means taxes have to go up to pay for that. Since people who decide the level of taxes probably don’t have to worry about a couple of grand if they need an ambulance, they won’t see the point of having to pay taxes all the time to support an ambulance service that they may never need. Let the people who need it pay for it. Sounds ever-so-sensible. So the poor schnooks who do have to worry about having to pay a couple of grand for an ambulance will pay for all that down time out of their pocket.

But that’s fair, isn’t it? If you make the bad choice and get sick, well, hey, you made that choice. No one put a gun to your head and made your kid pass lose consciousness.

So you go that route. You kid goes to the ER, gets half-a-dozen tests, and, thank the Lord, appears to be fine. So you all go about your business for another month or so. And then the bills (note the plural: bills) start to come in. The first is for the ER, and that’s around $4,500. But your insurance works as planned, so your only responsible for $900 (which is 20% of the total). Then there are the bills for the MRI, the blood tests, physician services, yadda yadda yadda. These clock in at another $1,500, so you only have to pay $300. So we’re over a grand already.

Then the ambulance bill comes. Oh, that was out of network. So sorry! You’re not covered!

So now you’re faced with the whole $2,999.99.

And the whole episode cost something like $9000 (Well, technically, $8,999.99, using the figures I’ve presented).

Now, how would you have acted when your kid collapsed? Would you have rationally balanced a potential bill of about $4,300 against some unknown ailment with unknowable consequences? Would you have considered the hole this was going to blow in your budget and said, “well, I have no idea what’s wrong with my kid, but maybe it’s not a big deal?” Or do you go the ambulance/ER route with no clue what it’s going to cost?

Would you have done anything differently?

Fox says tax equity part of budget discussions


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

Gordon-Fox“That’s part of the discussion,” said House Speaker Gordon Fox yesterday afternoon when I asked him if raising income taxes on Rhode Island’s richest residents might be part of the solution to balancing Rhode Island’s budget for next year.

Fox told me he will be discussing the issue with Rep. Maria Cimini about her bill that would raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 by 2 percent, but he said he didn’t want to talk too much about it because it is being considered in the larger context of the budget, which is currently being crafted by the two finance committees and their chairmen.

“Right now it’s still very fluid,” he said.

A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Larry Valencia would raise taxes by 4 percent of those who make more than $200,000. Conservative economic expert Gary Sasse last year even proposed an increase, though smaller than both Cimini and Valencia’s proposals. Cimini’s bill could be seen as a compromise as progressives have been flooding the State House with calls about services that desperately need additional resources, such as affordable housing, homelessness, public education and economic reform.

Fox has been a strong proponent of keeping taxes low on the richest Rhode Islanders, in fact he sponsored a 2010 bill that was the most recent effort by the General Assembly to lower taxes for the rich. But this year, with the state facing a $50 million shortfall, he has given new consideration to income tax reform – a policy popular statewide and on the liberal East Side of Providence.

He said the state is due for a “broader argument” about “austerity versus raising revenue.” To his mind, “it’s a balance,” he said.

“We’ve had to make some cuts to some traditional Democratic constituencies,” Fox said, “it’s been hard.”

Speaker Fox is open to being moved on tax equity


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
George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO, talks to House Speaker Gordon Fox. (Photo by Bob Plain)
George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO, talks to House Speaker Gordon Fox. (Photo by Bob Plain)

House Speaker Gordon Fox is open to the idea that the time has come for tax equity in Rhode Island. But he still needs to be convinced it’s the economic tack for the state.

“Major changes to the state’s income tax code were enacted only a few years ago, and he needs to be convinced that there is a compelling reason to alter that reform effort which makes Rhode Island much more competitive with our neighboring states,” said Fox’s spokesman Larry Berman in an email to me yesterday.

While it’s certainly not a ringing endorsement of legislation that would raise income tax rates slightly on those who make about a quarter of a million dollars a year, it’s a stark contrast to what Fox, who sponsored the most recent bill that lowered taxes to the rich, has said in the past.

Fox still sees “tax stability and predictability” as being attractive to business owners, said Berman, but his statement comes as the legislature grapples with how to plug a $51 million deficit after years of cuts to services to balance the state’s budget and Rep. Maria Cimini, a champion of the tax equity movement, sent a letter to House colleagues last week imploring them to support her bill that would raise about $66 million and prevent the state from having to cut more services.

She said years of austerity has left the state with little left to cut – as well as dangerously dilapidated roads and bridges and a workforce that is meeting the demands of a 21st century economy.

When I spoke to Cimini yesterday, she made a point of saying that the proposed legislation doesn’t seek to reverse the 2010 tax code changes, but rather than many tax breaks the legislature has given the affluent in recent years.

Much evidence has been presented over the past three legislative sessions that shows tax cuts to the wealthy didn’t stimulate the economy. While the evidence doesn’t prove the tax cuts caused the recession, it does show that the tax cuts didn’t stimulate job creation, as politicians and conservative pundits said they would.

tax rate v unemployment

Rep. Cimini makes a push for tax equity legislation


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
Maria Cimini

Maria CiminiWith state revenue projections lower than expected, progressive Providence Rep. Maria Cimini thinks income tax increases are more likely – and warranted – than corporate tax cuts.

“I’m concerned that for too long we’ve been penny wise and pound foolish,” Cimini said in an interview this morning.

In previous years, social services have been cut to balance the budget and preserve tax cuts to the wealthy.

“Last year people said give it another year,” Cimini said. “Well here we are at another year and we still can’t support our citizenry. If we don’t look at ways to enhance revenue this year then we are saying as a legislative body that we are willing t0 protect upper income workers at the expense of everyone else.”

Cimini is the lead sponsor of one of the tax equity bills that has been supported by about half the House in the past two legislative sessions. Her bill would raise an estimated $66 million in new revenue and the state projects a $51 million revenue shortfall. Cimini wanted to make “very clear” that her bill was not seeking to repeal the 2010 changes to the income tax but rather, she said it seeks to “address many years of tax breaks to the wealthy.”

She said Rhode Islanders, businesses and the economy would all benefit from rolling back some of these income tax cuts. “While businesses do talk about tax consistency,” she said, “they also talk about a trained workforce and functioning roads and bridges

Cimini wrote an impassioned letter to her colleagues on Thursday calling on them to support a more robust Rhode Island through tax equity legislation. In it, she wrote:

Dear Colleague,

I was disappointed to learn our estimated revenues are lower than anticipated.  Perhaps you share my disappointment.  Maybe you had hope that this would be the year to lower the corporate income tax. We could restore the historic tax credit. We could fast-track the school funding formula. Perhaps we could invest in public transportation, higher education or workforce development. With the news that we’re encountering a large revenue shortfall, however, those opportunities to better Rhode Island may be in danger or lost.

As budget negotiations and conversations speed up in the next few weeks we discuss and think about how to balance this budget.  Balancing the state budget can be accomplished by cutting spending, raising revenue, or a combination of the two.  This year I encourage you to consider raising revenue.

We all want the best for our state, our families and our businesses.  This session we heard great ideas at our economic conference.  Perhaps you hoped to implement Connecticut’s small loans to local businesses, provide a greater investment in software and hardware to have a fully accessible on-line system for business permitting, create the new business re-locator concierge program, expand a public-private job training program or work toward a world-class pre-K through higher education public education system.  Unfortunately, without revenue, those investments may be impossible.

This is a smaller deficit than we’ve faced recently.   Between 2008 and 2010 Rhode Island had deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Each year we did what we were elected to do. We balanced the budget.  While this year’s deficit pales in comparison, in some ways the challenge may be greater.  We have largely balanced those budgets by cutting spending.  Some of that has worked.  Current reports indicate that our revenue shortfall would have been worse but for a reduction in human service caseloads which occurred in part due to more stringent time limits and a reduction in services.   Some will say there is always more to cut. I argue that it will be harder to find cuts that don’t cause real pain to middle class families.

Last year I sponsored legislation to increase the marginal tax rate by 4 percent on personal income over $250,000 year. That legislation was co-sponsored by nearly half the Assembly. It contained a tax reduction plan to coincide with a reduction in unemployment and was estimated to bring in about $120 million in revenue. Unfortunately it did not pass.  There was consensus that, at minimum, there needed to be a clearer understanding of the impact of tax changes that went into effect in 2010.

This year we face another budget shortfall.  Again, nearly half the Assembly cosponsored this bill. I’ve proposed raising income taxes on upper income earners.  I heard the concern of the business community. They feel consistency is important. They thought tying the income tax to unemployment was detrimental.  That part of last year’s bill is gone.  This year, I propose a simple 2% on $250,000.

With the benefit of another year of tax data and having made more budgetary cuts, it is time to have this discussion.  It is true that upper income earners pay a large portion of the income tax, but that is because they have a large portion of the income.  The number of tax returns filed in 2012 by households with income above $200,000 increased by 16.5% over 2011.  By comparison, other income brackets saw the number of tax returns increase by about 2 to 7%. For the same time period, the rate of income growth of the top tax bracket tax filers was 25%, while the rate of income growth for the lower five income brackets ranged from 1.75%-7.5%.

Those who testified against increasing income taxes argued that government has a responsibility to keep taxes low for the benefit of business and citizens.  But is that the primary responsibility of government?  Right now, 70% of our roads are rated poor or mediocre.  We face a 20 year cost of $428 million to maintain and upgrade our drinking water. Our much needed school infrastructure costs are nearly $700 million.

Because of our on-going budgetary shortfalls we are not only limited in our ability to fully invest in a robust Rhode Island moving forward, but we are also not fulfilling our obligations to provide our neighbors with the services they depend on and deserve.

Our out year expenses may be quite large and would not be fully addressed through this income tax proposal, but our role is to look forward.  There are many other pieces of legislation that would have an upfront cost with long term savings.  Our colleagues have plans to address public transit funding, address long term homelessness and create state programs to better track state funding, program success and accountability.  Cutting spending may fix today’s budget, but will it result in an ill-prepared workforce in a decade or two?  Will our tourism and industry suffer if we don’t protect our environment?

Rhode Islanders and our economy are struggling to come out of recession.  During the recession, we worked to not raise taxes. Instead we cut services to seniors, people with disabilities and our most economically vulnerable citizens.  We eliminated general revenue sharing to cities and towns, and raised fees. And these flat costs are often the same regardless of income or ability to pay.

Since 2008 program revenues (charges for services) have increased in the areas of general government, human services, public safety and transportation.  And after a drop in revenue from taxes in the 2009/2010 fiscal years, our revenues have almost, once again, reached 2008 levels. Unfortunately we still are not making ends meet.

Let’s have a real conversation about our hopes for Rhode Island.  This year, our budget process can be an opportunity.  This is an opportunity to think about all the hopes for economic advancement we have for our state’s businesses and families.  Those plans for economic improvement come with a cost. Let’s make it an investment in the common good.
Sincerely,

Maria E. Cimini
District 7, Providence

House Finance will hear tax equity bills today


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 rate v unemploymentThe powerful House Finance Committee will hear two bills on income tax equity today. One sponsored by Rep. Maria Cimini of Providence would raise income taxes on the richest Rhode Islanders by 2 percent and would mean $60 million for the state. The other, sponsored by Rep. Larry Valencia, who represents Exeter, Hopkinton and Richmond, would raises income taxes on the rich by 4 percent.

Both bills are targeted to reverse income tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year, or families that make more than $250,000. Legislative leaders, specifically House Speaker Gordon Fox, and former Governor Don Carcieri sold these tax cuts to the public on the basis that they would help improve Rhode Island’s economy. The state economy got worse with each subsequent tax cut.

Here’s Valencia explaining the difference between the two bills being heard today:

Also at the State House today: tax equity event


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
Pat Crowley, Gary Sasse and Michael Downey all testified in favor of taxing the rich more last session.
Pat Crowley, Gary Sasse and Michael Downey all testified in favor of taxing the rich more last session.

What’s an understaffed progressive news website to do?

There’s marriage equality in the Senate Judiciary Committee, marijuana legalization at Brown and – rounding out the trifecta of local progressive issues – a briefing on a bill that would tax the rich in room 211 of the State House.

Tax equity advocates, including labor leaders, municipal leaders, Providence public school students, small business owners, economists and others, will gather to testify in support of bill S527, which would create a 2% income tax increase on Rhode Islanders making over $250,000.
The proposed tax increase will add an estimated $66 million in revenue to the state, which may be used to return money to cities and towns to lower our property taxes, fund public programs and help our schools and students. In the last 17 years, tax cuts for Rhode Island’s wealthy families have failed to stop the state’s rising unemployment rate, proving that tax cuts do not create jobs.

 

 

 

For MetLife and Rhode Island, size matters


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
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)

In the brouhaha about MetLife leaving, I did see and hear people try to blame this on the too-high RI taxes. Of course; it’s always about the taxes, isn’t it? I would like to make one point about that.

For 2012, MetLife reported $1.4 Bn of operating earnings. In comparison, the $80-90 Mn of tax relief that the will receive would just register as a rounding error in any single year. But those tax savings will be spread out over a number of years. As such, they don’t even constitute a rounding error.

Any company, of any size, that makes long-term decisions based on a few years worth of tax savings is not a company that will be around long enough to realize those savings. Only a company in dire straits would make so drastic a move for so little return. Because let’s face it, the up-front investment that is required will more than eat up those tax savings. In such cases, breaking even is a good result in the real world.

No: the savings will come from other areas: lower rent vs what is being paid in the Northeast, in greater Chicago, in the SF Bay area; it will come from lower wages paid to younger workers who do not incur the disability and medical expenses an older workforce will incur; it will come from pension benefits that do not continue to accrue to said older workers, and that will not be paid at all to younger ones. That’s where the money is.

No, RI’s problem is not the tax structure. It’s the size that matters.

The sad fact of the matter is that RI does not have its own economy. RI is a pale reflection of what is happening in Boston. Nor is this a recent development: it was already true in the early 1980s. Look back at the numbers; that was the period when Dukakis was creating (or taking credit for) the “Massachusetts Miracle.” The 128 Loop was America’s Technology Highway, where high tech lived before being superseded by Silicon Valley. Massachusetts recovered sooner than most of the country from the recession of the late 1970s; RI was a couple of years behind.

Then, in the mid-eighties came the phenomenon of Woonsocket turning into a bedroom community for Boston. Same with Nashua NH. Around then the ProJo carried a story of people taking classes to lose their RI accent because they felt that companies in Boston believed that people with an RI accent were less intelligent.

So, no, this is not a new phenomenon. What I have cited is anecdotal; but the numbers in the BLS and Census, etc. will support these contentions.

Also according to the US Census, in 2000, 79% of the population of the US lived in urban areas. In states like Nevada, it’s upwards of 90%. More, 45% of the population of the US now lives in the top 20 urban areas. In the meantime, the Census Bureau also says that one-third of all counties in the country are being drained of population. What does this mean?

It means that the urban concentration that began at the end of the 19th century is continuing. More and more people are living in and around cities while other areas languish. Telecommunication, and telecommuting were supposed to make cities obsolete; the opposite is happening. Telecommuting was all the fad in the late 90s and into the new millennium; now, companies are eliminating it.

It means that, in order to compete, size is a huge factor. Charlotte NC is now the #2 financial center in the country, after NYC. It has surpassed Chicago, with its Mercantile Exchange. It is the #2 center largely because the #1 bank, Bank of America, has its HQ there, and Wells Fargo has its East Coast operations HQ there. The Charlotte Combined Statistical Area has 2.4 million people. This is not rural America anymore.

With a million people, Rhode Island cannot compete with such a center, any more that it can compete with Boston. The advantages of a large educated, concentrated workforce with good infrastructure and a compact geographical footprint are too great to overcome. This is why NYC not only continues to exist, but to thrive, in the face of all the reasons conservatives say it shouldn’t: high taxes, big government, and whatever else they complain about. Half of the wealthiest zip codes in the country are in NY and NJ, both of which are high-tax states.

RI is not losing jobs to lower tax states; RI is losing jobs because the vast majority of jobs are in these concentrated urban areas. If jobs aren’t there already, they’re relocating there. I heard a story on NPR that a growing company in Kansas could not find workers. That’s because no one is willing to relocate to a small town that depends on a single employer; what happens when that employer decides to off-shore the jobs? People are stuck in a small town without prospects. In a larger metro area, there are other jobs, or at least a greater possibility of other jobs.

Size matters. The country is not de-urbanizing. Exactly the opposite.

Addendum: The point is, MetLife made its decision to relocate to NC for its own reasons. Only then did it approach the NC government and see how much it could extort from the state’s taxpayers. In other words, MetLife got money from the state to do exactly what it would have done without the tax breaks. In fact, there have stories to this effect in the North Carolina media, complaints that the state of NC got played for chumps by a large company.

And, btw, NC in general, and Charlotte in particular, have unemployment rates that are only a couple of tenths of a percent lower than what RI and Providence has. It’s not exactly boom-town down there, either.

So, yes, NC is getting the jobs. But they would have gotten the jobs without the subsidies.  So no, it’s not about the tax rates, no matter how often or how loudly conservatives will say it is.

Tanzi On Tax Equity: Will Help State Save Money


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

Conventional wisdom might say that those who are elected to represent the “working class” will support tax equity and those who are elected to represent the “job creators” won’t.

Narragansett and South Kingstown might boast the state’s most eclectic mix of both and their representation in the House, progressive Democrat Teresa Tanzi, says she supports the tax equity bill for reasons that should appeal to both the rich and poor.

Tanzi asked Governor Chafee to beef up the office of revenue analysis this year. Such a move would cost money in the short term, but she says it would help the state better manage its tax expenditures in the long term. She also thinks a stable funding source for better public transportation throughout the state will benefit everyone.

[vsw id=”2zF1OkEgdk8″ source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Sen. Pichardo: Tax Equity


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

Senator Juan Pichardo, a one-man Latino caucus in the state Senate, is the lead sponsor of the tax equity bill in the that chamber. He says it’s important for the rich to pay their fair share so that Rhode Island can improve its failing infrastructure and get people back to work.

He represents Elmwood and the West End of Providence, and says the unemployment rate in his district is 21 percent. Here’s a short video on why he thinks tax equity is so important for the future of Rhode Island.

[vsw id=”VACgf1whIBk” source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Tax Equity Would Mean More Revenue For RI


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
Maureen Martin, of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, says Rhode Island needs its richest residents to pay their fair share.

A bill that would raise $66 million in new revenue by increasing income taxes for the richest Rhode Islanders is now in the hands of the General Assembly.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Maria Cimini and Senator Juan Pichardo, both of Providence, would increase the income tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 a year from 5.99 percent to 7.99 percent.

The issue of tax equity in Rhode Island is a big one. The lowest income Rhode Islander’s contribute almost twice as much, per share, in state and local taxes, some 12 percent of the state’s revenue, while the top-tier earners pay under 9 percent.

Members of Rhode Islander’s for Tax Equity (RITE) surrounded Cimini and Pichardo as they spoke on behalf of the bill. In the group was Tom Sgouros, who prepared a memo for RITE outlining some $1.243 billion in foregone state revenue associated with tax cuts made in Rhode Island since 1997, most of which affected only the wealthiest among us.

But Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who held a competing press event just before this one, came out against tax equity, saying the business community doesn’t support it.

Cimini told reporters that the state has to figure out a way to fund the basic level of public sector services and this accomplishes that.


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