Friday, October 14, 2016

How the Progressive Agenda for RI - for the USA - Hurts Families


The cloud around the silver lining of September's Rhode Island Democratic primary (that dislodged a half dozen entrenched legislators) is that a handful of progressive Democrats are now in office or vying for the role in November.

The real two-party system we have operating is within one Democratic party: the left and the far left. The far left progressives should just call themselves what they are - socialists - and succeed or fail on the merits of their philosophy. But that would take courage to come out in the open. 

Instead, they shroud their ideology under the Democratic banner, making it seem legitimate, palatable. Normal. What they appear to say they want has some mass appeal. Problem is, what they say and what they intend to implement are different.

The progressive plan for Rhode Island - and the country - may sound good at protest rallies and in debates, but when you look beyond headlines and flashy sound bites, the agenda ultimately hurts the working families it purports to defend.

Raise the Minimum Wage

It’s a nice slogan but early results are not great in the cities that adopted it, and economists and academics admit the long-range consequences on small business are unknown. Ask the owners of your local pizza shop or neighborhood corner store how many new employees they will hire at $15 an hour? There's your anecdotal but practical evidence that the mandatory wage hike will hurt families and small businesses who cannot afford it.

Rhode Island needs better jobs with better pay. That comes from attracting new business, plus clearing the way for existing business to grow in a free market. Remember that government does not create jobs (unless it is to grow itself). Government can only make it easier - or harder, as Rhode Island government seems obsessed with doing - for the private sector to create real jobs that grow the economy.

For example, if businesses are paying more in government taxes, licensing, and fees - some imposed indirectly through surcharges on gas, electric, and telephone services (by the way, have you really looked at your own cell phone bill lately?), it is that much more unlikely small businesses can expand and hire more people. It is another abuse of power for government to impose a higher minimum wage for jobs whose skill level does not warrant that pay scale. All things considered, the free market organically controls the prevailing wage, not government coercion.

The Rich Should Pay Their Fair Share

While corporate welfare and taxpayer subsidy of private investment are never a good deal for taxpayers, low taxes on all business is good policy.

Permit me to take a short step back: government does not earn wages to pay for what it does, nor is it entitled to the wages we earn. Government - municipal, state and federal - can only confiscate money from true wage earners.

That said, for a "fair" tax system, lawmakers have to stop crafting customized tax deals and close tax loopholes. Progressive Democrat candidates - from local school committees to the candidate for President - are lying to your face when they call for higher taxes on the rich but do nothing to close loopholes and special deductions only the ultra rich can use. Cut taxes and close loopholes. That is fair.

Invest in Education

Another convenient soundbite. After all, who doesn't want well-educated kids?

But the inconvenient truth is the $2,318,681,514* (that’s $2.13 billion) Rhode Island already funnels into preK-12 education is not educating our children. More than 50% is spent on administration. High school graduations are down for the past five years, while drop-out rates have gone up.* Rhode Island is 8th highest in spending but 33rd worst in graduation rates.* Enrollment is down but cost per pupil is up.

The results of the current "investment" in education are abysmal. Throwing more money at K-12 education tends to grow administration and bureaucracy, rather than improve any of the 'knowledge gain' of children. Test scores are just a smokescreen. Ask an English professor of college freshmen how fulfilling his or her teaching experience has become. Remedial classes are the new prerequisites. And too many graduating from college are not equipped to function in the workplace.

We need to change the way we invest in education for success that works for the students. That's re-thinking how and where the current money is spent before another new dollar is allocated.

On November 8, the last thing we need at the State House is even one more progressive Democrat working against you and for their own brand of special interests. Know where your candidates stand and whether they are an enemy of the Constitution or an advocate for your liberty.



*SOURCE: Rhode Island Department of Education 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The Arrogance of Incumbency - Get To the Back of the Line, Boys

Write-in campaigns are the lame attempt by losers to recover from the sting of their arrogance of incumbency.

Here in Rhode Island, we have two newly chewed-up and spit-out, but still sticky gum globs clinging to voters' shoes. Two too-long-entrenched Democrats who lost in the September primary - Jan Malik of Warren and John DeSimone of Providence - launch write in campaigns this week.

Granted, the Democrat candidates who replaced them are even worse enemies of the Constitution: progressives who are openly campaigning to grow government, violate my rights, and make me pay for the insults on top of it. Fortunately, these two progressives are facing formidable opponents on November 8: Libertarian Daryl Gould in District 67 Barrington - Warren, and Republican Roland Lavallee in District 5 Providence.

But to their credit, the progressives walked the streets, knocked on the doors, shook the hands, and made the deals to get their supporters out to vote.

The incumbents, on the other hand, took their name recognition - and their constituents - completely for granted, believing they could not possibly lose.

John DeSimone was House Majority Leader - number two in the House leadership! First elected in 1992, he was turned out of office because he did not take his opponent or his constituents' concerns and anger seriously. Adding insult to injury? He lost by less than 25 votes.

Jan Malik, elected in 1996, was defeated by a more decisive margin by his anti-Second Amendment opponent, 44% to 56%.

Twenty-four and 20 years respectively. Way.Too.Long to be in office. And to be obnoxiously deaf to constituents and vote instead with special interests? All the more reason they both were voted out. 38 Studios and RhodeWorks truck tolls are part of the reckoning.

Now they wage a write in campaign? Apparently their arrogance knows no bounds.

Get to the back of the line, boys. You blew it and you were fired. Go home for two years like every other candidate who lost a race. You're embarrassing yourselves.