A native-born Rhode Islander, educated in Providence Public Schools, went to college in North Carolina and a political junkie and pessimistic optimist.

6 responses to “With Legislature, You Get What You Pay For”

  1. Pat Crowley

    If you read the Projo story that gushed about Mr. Block yesterday, you can see the same patterns repeated.  Here they are:  we need to transfer wealth from the working people to the business class ( ie “the job creators).  This can be done by extending the working hours, and working days for working people at the same time as cutting their benefits.  Simultaneously, cut the tax burden on the business class so they can keep more of “their” wealth and then jobs will somehow magically appear.

    Of course, we’ve seen this story before.   

    now getting rid of elected school committees?  Hmmmmm, now there’s a thought……

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: -4 (from 4 votes)
    1. Samuel Bell

      Are elected school committees really the problem?  I could point you to a few things that Providence’s unelected school board has done that are less than ideal.  Firing all the teachers in Providence, for instance, was quite uncool.

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. DogDiesel

    As usual, anyone that doesn’t actually grovel at the feet of Pat Crowley is lambasted with the typical corporate evil rhetoric. As for a full time legislature, I’m not sure even the most blind voters are ready to give any of these people full time salary and benefits. Given the pessimism in this state and past performance, it would be a hard sell.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  3. Moderate

    I defy you to find anywhere in anything I have ever done a single reference to small government.  I love it when people just make S#$% up.  Smear by association – even if the association is false.  FOX News is looking for some new talent.

    I believe that we are actually understaffed in our government. I find it wrong that the Governor’s office runs with fewer people than have been budgeted.  We certainly don’t get our best efforts when the people doing the work are totally strung out.  I also feel that the silly disinclination to pay for talent in government is also wrong.

    It is fascinating that Pat is against some basic reforms which will improve the educational outcomes of our kids.  A great many of the teachers he represents agree with some of the ideas we (the Small Business Association of NE) have proposed.  Why do we let certain districts include time spent traveling between classes as ‘educational time’?  I am certain Pat is aware of the push nationwide to increase the number of educational hours kids receive on an annual basis.  I am certain that the fact that 70% of incoming frosh at CCRI need remediation – and that a great many of that 70% have 5th grade skills – is as horrifying to Pat as it is to most critically thinking individuals.  We need to get this fixed.

    Pat keeps coming back to the tired ‘give away to the rich bastard’ argument, which is just a complete smokescreen to the cold hard reality of needing to be competitive with our neighboring states.  The true irony in all of this is that the hated income tax reform of 2010 actually increased our tax revenues while positioning RI competitively with our neighbors. 

    It is clearly a waste of time to spend a whole of energy having these conversations here, and I will stop now.  Pat will say something else inflammatory and likely untrue, and then all of the usual folks will duke it out for a few days with nothing to show for it at the end.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 7 votes)
  4. Samuel Bell

    Ken, it’s the 2006 income tax cuts for the wealthy that progressives, fiscal conservatives, and moderates hate, not the 2010 reform.  The 2010 tax reform was nowhere near as regressive as the 2006 law.  The 2010 changes kept the top rate at 6% instead of allowing it to fall to 5.5%, as it would have under the 2006 law.  They also produced income deep tax cuts for the upper middle class.  If you count the capital gains fix in the 2010 reforms, which progressives support, then the 2010 changes weren’t the budget-wrecking disaster that the 2006 tax cuts for the rich were.

    The effect of the 2006 changes were devastating.  There’s really no way around that.


    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Jonathan Jacobs

    Mr. Bell is correct. The “simplification” argument of the 2006, regressive tax reform shows a frighteningly direct correlation between the decrease in middle class income and the increase in middle and lower class taxes in order to compensate for the tax reductions for the “job creators” who, by the way, have done a truly excellent service to the state in job creation. Well … we have a lower percentage of unemployment than Nevada.  

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.