Rhode Islanders, Let’s Take This Opportunity to Reevaluate How We Do Things

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Nobody doubts that Stephen Moore has a particular perspective and a personal stake in advancing it, but here’s a tidbit he provides in The Washington Times that Rhode Islanders should read with some thought to how we allow our ruling class to run things around here:

I’m talking about an economic depression in the blue states that went for Hillary. Here is an amazing statistic. Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut — every single one of them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years (2004-14). Nearly 2.75 million more Americans left California and New York than entered these states.They are the loser states. They are all progressive. High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy regulation. Environmental extremism. Super minimum wages. Most outlaw energy drilling. The whole left-wing playbook is on display in the Hillary states. And people are leaving in droves. Day after day, they are being bled to death. So much for liberalism creating a worker’s paradise.

There’s a reason our neighbors are leaving, and whatever your beliefs about social issues or the abstract role of government, you can’t really be humanitarian when the regime you support is forcing people to leave their homes.  The fact that our state remains preferable to third-world countries (or near-third-world countries) doesn’t mitigate the message.

Our place on Moore’s list is a warning sign we should have heeded long ago, and it’s one we’ve got a good excuse to explore at this point in our state’s history.



  • Russ

    If population migration is such a good measure then by the same logic the densest states most be the most popular, “winner” states. People are packed in like sardines, they love it so much!

    Let’s try that list (…sorry, Vermont, the data say you must actually suck):
    1. New Jersey
    2. Rhode Island
    3. Massachusetts
    4. Connecticut
    5. Maryland
    7. New York
    11. California
    12. Illinois
    13. Hawaii
    31. Vermont

    • Christopher C. Reed

      Category error fail. It’s in-migration, not density. Prescription: remedial statistics.
      A sojourn down the Garden State Parkway will disabuse one of the impression of New Jersey gathered while fleeing down I-95.

      • Russ

        Not sure your point there. NJ is a wonderful place to live/raise a family. I grew up there and moved here apparently because the RI General Assembly is so much better than that one in Trenton.

        Want more proof? Clearly progressive policies create wealth! The list of states above contains 5 of the top 6 six states measured by millionaires per capita… Millionaires clearly love progressive policies! Or is it people hate millionaires and so are moving out of state? Either way, statistics don’t lie!

        • Mike678

          Lies, damned lies, and Russ’s use of statistics :)

    • Justin Katz

      Russ,
      I simply don’t believe you can’t see how facile your point is, which is why arguing with you generally seems like a waste of time. Yours is a talking point picked up from some progressive Web site that you appear to put forward in bad faith. So why should anybody take the bait?

      • Russ

        My conclusion is just as valid as your specious claim that in/out migration is caused solely by state government “forcing people to leave their homes.” The difference being that only one of us actually thinks the statistics support nonsense conclusions such as the above. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Case closed!

        It’s hardly a surprise that the densest states are unable to grow as quickly as less populated parts of the country. And quite funny to see the guy who stole his point from The Washington Times accusing me of needing to do the same. So what else does Stephen Moore think?

Quantcast