Report Inappropriate Comments

Hello again, Scal1024.

It seems pretty clear, in spite of our repeated attempts, that this candidate will simply ignore questions or information that discredit his claims. And as you will no doubt recall, he seems to believe that questioning a user's choice of pseudonym is equal to presenting information that shows his own statements to be false.

This is not to say, of course, that you and I should stop trying to get answers out of this candidate; it seems clear to me that you are one of the thousands of voters in Warwick who believe a candidate for office should exhibit some kind of accountability for what he says, and that attempts to mislead voters through erroneous statements will be called out for what they are.

So, for example, as you point out, this candidate can not offer a dollar figure for his campaign pledge to cut car taxes for seniors and veterans by 50%. Allow me to make an attempt at gathering research that may answer this query, one which I intend to show could have been easily performed by this candidate:

According to the city budget, vehicle taxes are expected to generate about $30 million in revenue [see last page of this link: http://www.warwickri.gov/sites/warwickri/files/uploads/fy17_general_fund_budget_-_proposed.pdf]. Using U.S. Census data from 2010 showing that 17.1% of Warwick residents are 65 or older [see link here: [http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4474300], and assuming that another 5 percent of residents are veterans younger than 65 -- the Census reports a figure of 6,696 but does not distinguish age groups -- that amounts to 22.1% of the population that may be eligible.

Please allow me the indulgence of additional calculations, understanding that these are rough estimates: Using the governing.com estimate of 79.4% of Warwick residents owning cars [see link here: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html], that would result in 17.6 percent of the elderly and veteran population being eligible car tax payers. That population, then, currently pays about $5,250,000 of the estimated $30 million in excise taxes, and thus a reduction of 50% would be $2,625,000.

As you so correctly point out, this candidate has offered no plan of any kind to address the revenue shortfall that would result from a nearly $3 million vehicle tax cut. From his absolute refusal to answer your questions, it's valid speculation to think that he simply believes that he can get elected on making promises without offering details.

You've also pointed out the difficulty [to put it lightly] that this candidate has in explaining how this and other imaginary revenue cuts will be funded. He claims the city is on poor fiscal footing, yet wishes to remove substantial amounts of income and offers contradictory ideas [like those about a hiring freeze and salary reductions for new hires that you have so properly pointed out on many occasions] that would ultimately save the city very little.

Thank you for continuing to demand accountability from this candidate, and for joining me and the thousands of voters in Warwick who see through this candidate's false claims.