One Needn't Guess at the Results of Progressive Policies
Justin Katz
Glenn Reynolds points to a Wall Street Journal editorial that is well worth a few moments of your time. (Those in Rep. Ray Sullivan's Coventry may be relieved to learn that it's available online.)
President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.
A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.
These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.
Lacking the time, just now, I'll have to rely on general experience, but I'd be surprised if Rhode Island weren't right up there with these three states on the various lists that the WSJ puts forward as evidence for its thesis that progressive policies are harmful to the entities foolish enough to pursue them. Our local progs would be better positioned to opine on this than would I, but the detrimental outcomes seem to me so predictable that the engaged citizen may wonder whether the harm is intentional.
Attn: Rep Ray Sullivan(d) Coventry
It is your fault that Rhode Island's
average earnings are still above those of right-wing hell holes like, Kansas,Arkansas,Utah,Texas,Florida,Arizona,and many more
We Want low wages all the time(walmart)
Signed your low-wage friends at
Anchor Rising.
>>Lacking the time, just now, I'll have to rely on general experience, but I'd be surprised if Rhode Island weren't right up there with these three states on the various lists that the WSJ puts forward as evidence for its thesis that progressive policies are harmful to the entities foolish enough to pursue them
I’ve posted the link to this article before, but doing so again seems apropos to this topic.
If one took this article and had a word processor substitute “Rhode Island” for “New Jersey” it would be difficult for the first time reader to detect the change, the parallels being so strong:
The Mob That Whacked Jersey: How rapacious government withered the Garden State
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_new_jersey.html
Actually, Manny, Rhode Island conservatives, Republicans, Moderates and, in fact, anyone with a brain very much prefer good paying jobs.
What we don't understand is how these will be created through poor-mediocre public education, a poorly funded higher education system, lousy roads, high property taxes and a still-bloated state government.
"Manny" focused on top-line pay rates as well.
Don't forget that thousands in Rhode Island "make" tens of thousands a year in welfare benefits for their households, and those don't show up a "income."
And for those engaged in honest labor, is their "net" as high as their "lower paid" brethren in other states once one accounts for how much more they lose to paying Rhode Island's "among the highest in the country" property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes etc. etc. etc.?
It's not what you gross, but what you net after the taxman gets through with you that is available to your family, and so is one's real earnings / income.
This guy is so full of it, I'm not sure why I bother to respond. Let's see New York, New Jersey, and California. All three impacted disproportionately by the .com crash and two that suffered disproportionately after 9/11 and during the Wall Street melt down. That's our benchmark?
Leaving that aside, last I checked NJ was near the top of the list for per capita income, number of millionaires, number of Fortune 500 companies, etc. As for growth potential, the Kauffman State New Economy Index lists New Jersey as 5th, California 8th, and New York 9th. You sure those are the proper right-wing examples of the dangers of progressivism?
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Attn: Rep Ray Sullivan(d) Coventry
Posted by: Manny at June 28, 2009 12:03 AMIt is your fault that Rhode Island's
average earnings are still above those of right-wing hell holes like, Kansas,Arkansas,Utah,Texas,Florida,Arizona,and many more
We Want low wages all the time(walmart)
Signed your low-wage friends at
Anchor Rising.
>>Lacking the time, just now, I'll have to rely on general experience, but I'd be surprised if Rhode Island weren't right up there with these three states on the various lists that the WSJ puts forward as evidence for its thesis that progressive policies are harmful to the entities foolish enough to pursue them
I’ve posted the link to this article before, but doing so again seems apropos to this topic.
If one took this article and had a word processor substitute “Rhode Island” for “New Jersey” it would be difficult for the first time reader to detect the change, the parallels being so strong:
The Mob That Whacked Jersey: How rapacious government withered the Garden State
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_new_jersey.html
Posted by: Tom W at June 28, 2009 12:07 AMActually, Manny, Rhode Island conservatives, Republicans, Moderates and, in fact, anyone with a brain very much prefer good paying jobs.
What we don't understand is how these will be created through poor-mediocre public education, a poorly funded higher education system, lousy roads, high property taxes and a still-bloated state government.
Posted by: Monique at June 28, 2009 9:01 AM"Manny" focused on top-line pay rates as well.
Don't forget that thousands in Rhode Island "make" tens of thousands a year in welfare benefits for their households, and those don't show up a "income."
And for those engaged in honest labor, is their "net" as high as their "lower paid" brethren in other states once one accounts for how much more they lose to paying Rhode Island's "among the highest in the country" property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes etc. etc. etc.?
It's not what you gross, but what you net after the taxman gets through with you that is available to your family, and so is one's real earnings / income.
Posted by: Tom W at June 28, 2009 12:15 PMThis guy is so full of it, I'm not sure why I bother to respond. Let's see New York, New Jersey, and California. All three impacted disproportionately by the .com crash and two that suffered disproportionately after 9/11 and during the Wall Street melt down. That's our benchmark?
Leaving that aside, last I checked NJ was near the top of the list for per capita income, number of millionaires, number of Fortune 500 companies, etc. As for growth potential, the Kauffman State New Economy Index lists New Jersey as 5th, California 8th, and New York 9th. You sure those are the proper right-wing examples of the dangers of progressivism?
Posted by: Russ at June 29, 2009 4:41 PM