(bright music) - You have to, eventually, if you study our healthcare system objectively, come to a conclusion that it's not sustainable.

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.

- Welcome to "One on One."

I'm Ian Donnis.

Democratic State Representative Brandon Potter of Cranston is a rising voice in the Rhode Island House of Representatives.

The state faces a range of tough challenges from an uncertain fiscal outlook to an underfunded healthcare system.

So can state lawmakers help bring down the cost of living?

And does Potter think it's appropriate for House Speaker Joe Shekarchi to pursue a seat on the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

(gentle music) State Representative Brandon Potter, a Democrat from Cranston, welcome to "One on One."

- My pleasure to be here with you.

Thank you for having me.

- Let's start with the future of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and your chamber, the Rhode Island House of Representatives.

You're a lawyer and a member of the House.

Do you think the revolving door law blocks House Speaker Joe Shekarchi from seeking a vacancy on the Rhode Island Supreme Court?

- Well, there's a precedent for it now, right?

We clearly have had Justice Erin Lynch Prata be appointed in similar fashion a couple of years ago.

I would defer to that.

I will say- - Some people though, question whether that was really a precedent.

You're right, the Ethics Commission did not stand in the way of Erin Lynch Prata advancing to the Supreme Court, but it's not like they completely endorsed it either.

So was that really a precedent?

- I believe so.

With her being on the Court right now, an existing sitting justice that happened in fairly recent history, I think we have to apply that precedent and keep it the same for anybody else who would apply in similar circumstances, yeah.

- What do you say to Rhode Islanders who cite the experience of how the state went through a tumultuous period in the eighties and nineties when two consecutive Supreme Court Justices resigned in scandal?

That was what brought in the revolving door law.

And you're a graduate of Roger Williams University Law School.

The former dean there, Michael Yelnosky, has been one of the most outspoken people in saying it would really be a violation of the revolving door law for Speaker Shekarchi to go straight from the the legislature to the Court.

- Well, first, I think people in Rhode Island have a right to be very suspect with anything that happens in Rhode Island politics.

They have good reason to be suspicious.

We've had an unfortunate long history of a lot of really situations that leaves some trust to be desired.

That said, this will obviously go through a process.

If the Speaker decides to apply, the judicial nominating commission will vet him.

He may or may not be one of the names that eventually gets forwarded over to Governor McKee to make an appointment.

He would then have to make that appointment, and then we would all, as legislators, both Senators and Representatives, have a vote on that.

I will say, the things that come to mind for me about ultimately what make a good, not just a judge, but a Supreme Court Justice, are a temperament being fair-minded, having a certain sense of empathy, wanting to find collaborative agreement and an objective conclusion.

All of those things, I can wholeheartedly say that I think Joe Shekarchi possesses, and if that inevitable process, if he decides to apply and eventually get to the point where we're making a vote on that appointment, he would have my full support.

- If Speaker Shekarchi moves on, the current number two in the House, Majority Leader Chris Blazejewski is expected to become Speaker.

If that happens, what role would you expect to play in the new House leadership?

- Well, I'd be happy to play any role in the House leadership that helps drive forward an affirmative positive agenda aligned with our Democratic values in a way that delivers results for people in a very tangible, real way.

- We're heading into the rapids of the legislative session, and there's a lot of uncertainty about the budget due to President Trump's budget bill and the effect that that'll have on states like Rhode Island.

What is your sense of what is at stake as the legislature gets closer to drawing up its version of the budget?

- It's really hard to overstate what is at stake.

For the last five years, I've sat on the House Health and Human Services Committee.

I would say a majority of my legislative work has been on healthcare, and those committee hearings, I often tell people, have some of the most heartbreaking and passionate testimony that you could hear.

We're hearing consistently from people who are sharing very personal stories about how our healthcare system, in particular here, has failed them.

- Can you share one of those stories?

- I mean, they're countless.

We've heard from: people who are dealing with chronic illness, people who cannot afford prescription medication, people who can't get basic access to a doctor here, people who just can't afford or get access to care that they need to survive.

The budget bill out of Washington, D.C.

is beyond concerning.

We're looking at, with healthcare alone, upwards of $300 million that could be plucked from our system, and a question that I often get asked is, "What can we do to fix that?"

And, unfortunately, I think, if we're being really pragmatic and realistic, the amount of money that we're seeing get cut from the state is not an amount of money that realistically we can all make up here from a local revenue source.

But that doesn't mean that we can't be proactive in how we address that, how we react to it.

In my mind, it's prioritizing the most vulnerable people here, people who are most catastrophically affected from these things, shoring up our support systems and mitigating the damage that inevitably will come.

- The state's fiscal outlook has changed dramatically just in a couple of years.

During COVID, the state got a vast amount of federal COVID aid, leading to consecutive budget surpluses which almost never happens in Rhode Island.

I think it had been more than 20 years since there had been a single surplus.

So do you have a clear sense of how all that federal COVID money was spent?

- Do I have a clear sense of it?

No, I have a sense that there's been a very deliberative process along the way.

Working very closely with Speaker Shekarchi, I know that he's been very hawkish and diligent on figuring out where a lot of this money was applied.

We've certainly put a lot of money into housing.

It's one of the things that I think all of my colleagues here are quite a bit about.

Where that money is ultimately getting to a point where we see shovels in the ground, I think leaves some questions, but we've been very fortunate to have this influx of federal money my entire time in the legislature.

We haven't really had to make a whole lot of really difficult decisions that I worry are coming down the pike now.

So what that looks like in the coming years, I think we have to be even more diligent, even more proactive, in figuring out ways that we can protect the most vulnerable Rhode Islanders.

- Representative Potter, you're part of the progressive caucus in the Rhode Island House, and your like-minded colleagues in the House and Senate favor proposals to institute a millionaires' tax and some other measures to make Rhode Island's richest people pay more in taxes.

You describe this as a measure of fairness and a source of important revenue at a time when the state faces a lot of uncertainty as we've just discussed, but we know that Rhode Island is a not particularly strong business climate.

How do you respond to those who say that raising taxes would be the wrong move because the state's business climate is less than robust, and they fear that it would send the wrong signal about the direction of the state?

- 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 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, $800,000, $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, again, really devastating tax cuts happen in Washington, D.C.

and our support from the federal government getting slashed too.

So we, as a overwhelming Democratic super majority, 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.

- Your Republican colleagues like to say that Rhode Island does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem, and, in fact, Rhode Island's budget, a lot of which is federal money, has grown by many billions of dollars over recent history.

Why not prioritize finding savings within the budget rather than considering raising taxes on Rhode Islanders?

- 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 up against the wall in many ways with neighboring states.

We're constantly asked, you know, "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.

So we have to take all of this into account, but 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 want to call it fraud or abuse, to make our money efficiently spent 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.

- You mentioned our neighboring state of Massachusetts.

Bloomberg reported that Massachusetts lost $4 billion in adjusted income, net, in 2023 after instituting a millionaires' tax.

Does that not raise concern about the support that you have for this kind of tax?

- It doesn't.

I've seen competing studies too that show that the overall amount of millionaires has gone up, that overall revenue to the state has gone up, and, you know, the idea that we're talking about, the main argument has been that if we raise taxes on these very, very high income earners, they're simply going to leave the state, they're going to move to Florida.

I would say a few things about that.

One, Florida already does not have an income tax.

So those folks who are living here doing very well, they already could be saving 6% a year by doing that now.

The amount of money that we're talking about, and where that income tax bracket starts at, it would only be a surcharge tax on that income above that level.

So it's not going back to your first dollar earned.

And for somebody who's making, say, a million dollars a year, to pay an additional $10,000 in state income tax, I don't believe it's a good faith argument to imagine that those people are somehow going to just find that it's way more in their economic interest to move to another state, buy property there, and until we see real tangible data or an argument that is not at least littered with some bad faith conflation, I think we really have to move forward on exploring those things, and, quite frankly, we need the revenue.

- Beyond the tax debate, what would you do to address Rhode Islanders' concerns about affordability and the high cost of living?

What could be done in this session?

- 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.

You know, 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 going to 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?

You know, I'm a homeowner, but I've, for the last couple of years, sponsored legislation to enact a statewide rent stabilization plan.

Obviously the City of Providence has had their debate on this recently, but I would argue that, you know, rental unaffordability is not a Providence-only issue.

I hear about it from a lot of people in Cranston.

I know I hear about it from people all throughout the state.

So how we can enact certain measures to protect people from the inevitable inflation of just things getting consistently more and more expensive, where we have the ability as a government body to step in and properly regulate some of those systems, we need to take a real serious look at.

- Your home community of Cranston has a fiscal crisis.

Republican Mayor Ken Hopkins wants to have the option of raising the tax levy.

There's this unusual situation where a bill to do that is being sponsored in the House of Representatives by the Republican leader, Michael Chippendale who is more often critical of raising state spending or taxing capacity.

Do you think Mayor Hopkins should have the ability to raise the tax levy to address the City's fiscal 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, you know, 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.

- Mayor Hopkins is term limited.

Who would you like to see as the next mayor of Cranston?

- Well, it's quite early.

I'll tell you right now.

I am not interested (laughs) in doing it.

I will not be a candidate for mayor.

You know- - I've heard some chatter or speculation that former House Speaker Nick Mattiello, who's a Cranstonian, might run.

Do you think that's credible?

- I've heard the same rumors too.

I think you might have your ear to the ground better than I do, but, yeah, I've heard that that rumor too.

I've seen that, you know, Council President Dan Wall might be interested in it.

I've had a very good working relationship with him.

I've seen that Ed Brady might be interested in doing it.

Ed is a friend of mine.

So, I think it's very, very early.

We'll see how this whole process plays out with the tax levy and what the City Council ultimately does and what the legislature does, but, you know, I'm always interested in having a very vibrant, open political process.

I think contended elections, even in primaries, are good for lower-d democracy.

So I'd really look forward to enjoying and being maybe part of a little bit of a very vibrant debate about what the city of Cranston should be, what we can do.

It's a great city.

I was born and raised there, so.

- I'm going to ask you more about that in a second.

But first, the race for governor is more present than the next race for mayor of Cranston.

Who do you like in the race for governor?

- I'm undecided.

I think it goes without saying that there have been a number of concerns with the current administration.

People are justifiably very, very frustrated and really looking for some solutions to some very big issues.

I'll keep an open mind.

I'll hear what the governor has to say about his vision going forward.

I'll hear what Helena Foulkes says about her vision going forward, and I'll make a decision, like I think most Rhode Islanders will.

- To come back to what you were saying about being a lifelong Cranstonian, you're a counter example to the trend of brain drain in which young people leave Rhode Island because of an absence of enough good jobs here.

What do you think can be done to better address that?

- Well, I don't know that it happens in a one-size-fits-all approach.

There are certain industries and areas where we need more working professionals, healthcare in particular.

There's been a lot of talk about building a medical school at URI to bolster our workforce here.

Obviously with Brown University, we train a lot of doctors, but they oftentimes will leave Rhode Island.

How do we incentivize them to stay here?

It's very challenging with our reimbursement rates being what they are.

Are there other ways that can really think about subsidizing their work and drawing them to want to work here?

I think we have to be creative in that, but I use that as just one example, where I think in other professions there might be different approaches to ultimately doing that, but, across the board, the one thing that we often hear is housing, right?

I mean, we've heard consistently from companies that want to come to Rhode Island, want to do business here, but they don't have the ability to house their workforce.

- You love Rhode Island.

I love Rhode Island.

Do you have one big out-of-the-box-type idea that could change the state for the better?

- Yeah, long term we should seriously explore a universal single-payer healthcare system here.

- How would you pay for it?

- Well, you would first need an administration in Washington, D.C.

that was going to be cooperative with granting us a Medicaid waiver, and it would take very holistic reform in every facet of how the state is funding and administering healthcare.

With the increase in expenses and the just constant lack of access to care and these challenges that continue to compile on top of one another, on top of one another, you have to eventually, if you study our healthcare system objectively, come to a conclusion that it's not sustainable, and until we go back to the drawing board and really start to think very big ideas to reimagine what healthcare could be like in this state, I think we're going to continue to run into a lot of roadblocks.

- Representative Potter, when you first ran for the House and won in 2020, you were a member of the Rhode Island Political Cooperative.

That group expelled you after you expressed support for Speaker Shekarchi in a caucus, and the group has kind of dissipated since then.

What were your takeaways from that?

- Well, you know, the Rhode Island Political Co-op was helpful in nudging me to eventually be a candidate, but a lot of what came out of that political situation there really shined a light, I guess to say, on a lot of the infighting that happens in the political left, I don't think just in Rhode Island, but across the country where people have a different theory of how you approach change, what collective goals should be like, and how we ultimately go about making progress.

You know, you called me today, you know, a progressive Democrat.

It's a brand that I wear proudly.

I got that question a lot when I first ran.

You know, I had sort of a conservative district initially, and I would knock doors, and people would ask me like, "Yeah, I'm a Democrat, "but what kind of Democrat are you?

"Are you one of them progressives?"

And I learned very quickly that a lot of the labels that get attributed to people don't exactly capture what we all think of what that label describes.

And I would tell people, "Yeah, I'm a progressive.

"I think the wealthiest people among us "should pay their fair share of taxes, "and everybody should have healthcare "in the richest country in the world.

And most people didn't disagree with that.

So I'm a progressive to the degree that I really focus on the word progress.

I want to make my time in elected office count for something.

That means delivering real actual results for people and not just taking principled stances or picking fights where they're not going to lead to actual progress happening.

- To close on the lighter side, what's your favorite Cranston restaurant?

- Oh boy.

Well, it's not in my district, but I'll say, I grew up in Knightsville, and there's a little restaurant over there called L'Osteria, which I'm a huge fan of, Lately I go to Chaska quite a bit, in Garden City, and, again, right outside of my district, a little secret gem.

I'll give your viewers the plug on some of the best Chinese food I've ever had at a place called Betty's Pub on Gansett Ave.

- State Representative Brandon Potter, Democrat of Cranston, thank you so much for sitting down with us.

- Thank you so much for having me.

Appreciate it.

(gentle music) - Thanks for watching "One on One" with me, Ian Donnis.

You can find all of our past interviews on the YouTube channel for Ocean State Media.

We'll see you next week.

(bright music) (gentle music)