Democratic State Rep. Brandon Potter of Cranston is a rising progressive voice in the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
As the state faces a range of tough challenges, from an uncertain fiscal outlook to an underfunded healthcare system. Ocean State Media political reporter Ian Donnis spoke with Potter about ways state lawmakers can shore up the budget and help bring down the cost of living.
Interview highlights
Would the proposed ‘millionaire’s tax’ on top-earners in Rhode Island raise funds for the state, or damage the business environment here?
Frankly, I largely reject the context of that argument. The argument that we’ve consistently heard from the business community, from the Chamber of Commerce, has really been a conflation between how the tax proposals that we are supporting would operate versus what would apply to a business taxation or overall how we can have Rhode Island be a better business climate. I think we can do both. These are not mutually exclusive goals, but it’s important to be very clear that the tax proposals that we’re talking about are an income tax on the very, very top earners.
I personally support an effort to put that new bracket in the top 1% of income tax filers, which would be at $675,000 per year, and tax above that amount. The governor’s budget proposal starts at a million-dollar bracket. I think we’re leaving a lot of money on the table when we’re talking about people who are earning $700,000 to $900,000 a year.
And this is all happening at a time when we have historic income inequality in this country, in our state, and at a time when we’re seeing really devastating tax cuts happen in Washington DC and our support from the federal government getting slashed too. So we as an overwhelming Democratic supermajority, I believe that we have a moral obligation to act in accordance with our values and protect the most vulnerable people here, and that takes revenue, and where we get that revenue, I believe, starts at people who have done really, really, really well and would for all likely intents and purposes continue to do really, really well, even with a modest tax adjustment.
Why not prioritize savings in the budget instead of raising taxes?
I, again, reject the idea that we can’t do both. Certainly there is probably a lot of money that we could save or we could spend a whole lot more efficiently. The Washington Bridge and the Department of Transportation largely, I think is Exhibit A in that overall argument. But that doesn’t mean that we also can’t have a revenue problem. We’re constantly asked, “What is Massachusetts doing?” They have a much different situation there than we have in Rhode Island. They have the ability to generate a whole lot more revenue. They’re paying their medical professionals significantly more than we pay in Rhode Island. The idea that we really can’t do both things simultaneously, we can’t find realistic ways to save money, to root out, if you wanna call it fraud or abuse, to make our money efficiently spend more. We can do that and we can also look for new revenue sources that try to tackle some of the bigger, larger issues that we have like income inequality.
Beyond the tax debate, what would you do to address affordability?
Well, I think we start by holding the utility a whole lot more accountable. We recently had some representatives from Rhode Island Energy in front of the House Corporations Committee. I had some questions for them that weren’t able to be answered. You know, utility costs, we have a lot of challenges based on our geography with where the primary source of our energy comes from. We certainly need to be expanding renewable, locally sourced energy as a long-term solution to drive down costs, but we have to have both short-term and long-term plans. A lot of these things are gonna take massive systemic reform to really fix for years going forward, but people are suffering right now. So what can we do for utility costs? How can we drive down healthcare costs? How can we address housing in a way that makes it more affordable?
Do you think Cranston Mayor Ken Hopkins should have the ability to raise the tax levy to address the city’s financial crisis?
Well, I think first, the mayor needs to make an argument and offer an explanation to the people of Cranston for really how this happened. I watched his presentation to the city council. I found it to be inadequate. I don’t hear assurances of how this is resolved in a sustainable way. I haven’t heard a good explanation for how it got to this point and why it’s a surprise. So there will be a process through the city council. Obviously, they would have to offer a resolution to the general assembly in support of that. I’m really concerned about what this means for our fire department, for our school system. And certainly the word affordability has become almost a buzzword in the political climate right now, but it’s something that I’ve been hearing about from my constituents for the last five years. People really cannot afford to pay more money, and when they’re paying more money for something that they don’t see a benefit for and by that I mean, we’ve seen some very visible signs of development in certain parts of the city that were not exactly things that people were really asking for. So when the city is managing its money in that way and leaving schools to be really vulnerable, I think we need to have a very collective, collaborative process in looking at the city budget, figuring out what it looks like going forward, how do we avoid something like this happening, but that takes a good faith effort from the mayor to reach out to the delegation, to the members of the city council, so we can all try to solve the issue together.
