Why I’m Proud to Support Ed Markey for US Senate

Lately we have had a lot of negativity on these boards, and the Lynch and Markey primary is already getting ugly. Christopher challenged Lynch and Markey supports to make a positive case for their candidate without bashing another. Here is my case for why Ed Markey remains our best candidate to advance progressive principles in the United States Senate.

In short Ed Markey believes that good government works for people. On issue after issue he has sided with a proud progressive vision embodied by the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Trumans,Humphrey’s and I’d argue the Eisenhower’s of this country. A government that exists to help its people.

A government that…

-Ensures every American has access to high quality healthcare regardless of cost
-Provides a high quality of education to every American regardless of race, class or zipcode
-Protects the right to choose, the right to marry, and the right to form a union
-Security from enemies abroad, armed madnmen at home, and runaway climate change
-Clean air, clean water, and clean government
-Peace through diplomacy and international institutions and force as a last resort

That, in a nutshell is the progressives creed. And most of our delegation adhere to it, what sets Ed apart is thirty years of storng leadership fighting to make that creed reality. He is ready to be a Senator from day 1 to advance that agenda and turn sound progressive politics into sound progressive policy.



Discuss

11 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Ed Markey wants rainbows and gumdrops for everyone. Most of those things will never be accomplished to your satisfaction, hence, he will stay in elected office forever, solving the unsolvable.

    Mindboggling, no word on the deficit, are you buying, meaning paying my share? Perhaps government should learn to live within its means. No concerns about jobs either? Well, we know the Markey record already. You want clean government? Not in our lifetime.

    Instead, support a man who is grounded, sober, realistic, willing to make the difficult votes, and Jobs-jobs-jobs. Of the two, only one has actually had a real job, Stephen Lynch. He won’t forget about us.

    • What is Lunch going to do about the deficit?

      I just don’t get it. What is Lynch going to do differently regarding jobs or the deficit? So far you have done nothing other than trash Markey and haven’t outlined a single thing that Lynch would do differently. Not a thing. The fact is that Lynch — while not being anywhere as progressive as most of us here would like, especially on social issues — is still very much a Democrat. I don’t like him, and won’t vote for him in the primary, but please don’t try to make out like he is going to be in any way appealing to Republicans, because he won’t be.

      Come on Dan, we all know that you are just trolling to cause discord. No one believes that you actually like Lynch, or that you believe most of the things you say you believe.

      • Great question hrs-Kevin

        I believe we should pay down the deficit, not our kids and grandkids, since we ran it up, we pay for it. Will Stephen Lynch be better than Ed Markey? Without a doubt, case in point.

        Back in early 2012, the House passed the extension of the social security tax cut. Not sure if robbing Peter to pay Paul is so smart, Lynch took the courageous stand and voted no, because there were no offsets in spending. Mr Rainbows and Gumdrops voted yes.

        Now you and others may feel taking $100 billion from social security and not paying for it is fine and dandy, Mr. Markey is your guy. Perhaps it’s just another vote by Markey most of you will need to ignore or sweep under the rug, or forgive.

        Do I agree with Lynch 100% on taxes, of course not. But at least he has a clue what is going on. He has not lived in a bubble his entire life. Give him a shot.

        Thanks for the opportunity to answer this question.

        • More right-wing delusional thinking

          Attempting to pay down the deficit is a terrible idea. Believing that it will help the economy is delusional. Believing that the federal government needs to or should operate under the same constraints as individual households is delusional.

          Here’s what happens if we try to pay down the deficit:

          1. Massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the already-wealthy. The national debt is primarily held by T-bill owners — someone who can afford a T-bill is, pretty much by construction, wealthy. The spending of the US government is dominated by goods and services provided to Americans — the overwhelming majority of whom do not hold T-bills (because almost none of us can afford them). Your proposal to “pay down the deficit” therefore amounts to a massive wealth transfer from the bottom 99% to the top 1% — increasing a wealth concentration that is already at historically high levels.

          2. Strangle a consumer economy already on its last legs. Attempting to pay down the national debt would take even more money out of circulation. Those who hold the debt loaned the money to the Feds in the first place because they don’t need it and chose to earn interest in exchange for allowing the government to use it. Paying down the debt would take that money out of circulation, strangling an already weak economy.

          3. Make the unemployment rates even higher. The private sector is creating jobs at a more robust pace than it did in earlier recoveries. The total unemployment rate remains stubbornly high because federal, state, and local governments have shed jobs — creating millions of unemployed workers. Your proposal would accelerate that already harmful process.

          4. Create economic stagnation or worse — deflation. Governments need to spend money in recessions and reduce spending during overheated and inflationary booms. Governments who try to reduce spending in a recession only worsen the recession, and in so doing multiply their deficit and debt problems. The federal deficit is already high, primarily because tax revenue in a recessionary economy slows while expenses (such as unemployment) grow. Recessionary periods like this are precisely WHY governments (who create their own money) have and need deficits. A healthy government adds to its deficit during recessionary times by stimulative spending that causes the economy to recover and grow. The increased tax revenue from that growth erases those deficits and turns them to surpluses (see Bill Clinton).

          The fiscal policy you recommend is delusional lunacy. It has been tried multiple times, and has failed (see America 1937, Japan 1990s, and America 2010). The strongest criticism that can be made against President Obama is that he did not spend ENOUGH to stimulate a healthy recovery — not that he spent too little.

          What you call “rainbows and gumdrops” most of us call realism and rationality.

          • Tom- question for you

            “Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms left Blank Country badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. This whisked away a curtain of partly fiddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits that exceeded limits set….”

            Who am I?

            Answer: Greece

            I dont mean to be flip about your comment, it is well thought out. I’m not even at this point asking to pay off the debt, I just believe we need to get to a balance budget, before interest on the debt swallows up the entire budget. I don’t believe the government can spend our way out of this, just not enough money, unless we want the dollar to be worthless as it almost is, and print print print.

            • You make my argument for me

              Greece exemplifies the fallacies of your argument.

              Here are some reasons why:

              1. The crisis in Greece was caused primarily by high interest rates, as a share of national income. The net interest on the US debt is less than one percent of US national income, and is the lowest its been in sixty years. The only debt crises facing the US are those created by the very insanity you promote here. In fact, the grossly irresponsible GOP brinksmanship on the national debt raised the interest rates paid by the US on its national debt.

              2. Greece does not have a central bank or national currency. Unlike Greece, US debt is denominated in dollars, and the US government can print as many as needed. The ONLY risk that the US will default on its debt payments is the risk created by right-wing zealots who couple their extreme passion with equally extreme ignorance, dishonesty, or both. Inflation is a measure of an economy — the US economy is in no danger of inflation, even the feds print more money. In fact, the most immediate risk we face is runaway deflation.

              The point you are simply mistaken about is that balancing the budget is, for the federal government, an action that reduces either (a) interest on the national debt, or (b) deficits that increase debt service costs.

              Neither is true. In fact, balancing the budget has the opposite effect on both.

              • With one caveat

                Neither is true. In fact, balancing the budget has the opposite effect on both.

                This is 100% the case right now. In this weak economy, cutting federal spending further will decrease economic growth, thus decreasing federal revenues. You’d be undoing much, if not all, of what you’re trying to do in terms of balancing the budget. This has already happened in the last few months.

                This is not always true. There are times when large amounts of deficit spending by the government would crowd out private investment. Thus, in the late 1990s, Clinton was able to move toward a balanced budget without harming GDP. Right now, that’s not the case. No private investment is being crowded out. American corporations are sitting on huge amounts of cash, doing nothing with it. Private investors are investing, as they did before the crash, in financial investments that create no jobs, or investments that create jobs…in China or elsewhere.

                Our big problem, as I see it, is that since the financialization of the U.S. economy began around the time Reagan came to town, we’ve had one bubble after another. Junk bonds in the 80s, dot-com in the 90s, and, disastrously, mortgage-backed securities in the 00s. So even when the macroeconomic numbers suggest more federal spending would crowd out private investment, the private investment has been unproductive for the real economy.

                I think Dan would agree with me we need to go back to investing in real jobs, here, rather than one bubble after another. We need to make our financial sector more like Canada’s, or the way it used to be. Its function should be to facilitate non-financial economic activity. That requires only a small part of GDP to be in the finance sector, and requires only simple products, none of the ultra-complicated stuff that helps people make quick fortunes but then crashes the economy.

                I believe that we could, fairly safely, balance the budget soon by raising taxes on the top 1%, or 5%, back to 1995 levels (that is, on dividends, capital gains, wealthy estates, and taxable income, net of deductions, over $250K, plus eliminating deductions for carried interest, yachts, private planes, etc.). The trickle-down theory doesn’t work, and leaving that money in private hands is doing nothing for our national economy.

                Not saying that’s politically feasible in the current Congress, but the best way to reduce our deficit in the short term would be through 100% revenue increases and no more spending reductions at all. This is fair because, even after the January 1 deal, three quarters of our “deficit reduction” since 2011 has been via spending cuts, and only one quarter via revenue increases.

    • Wow. Not really about jobs, is it?

      Your comment makes it clear you’re either a conservative troll as jconway and others suggest, or just wrong. It shows a clear lack of understanding of basic economics. Anyone who really cared about jobs would be in favor of much-needed further stimulus, not more “deficit reduction.” The so-called “fiscal cliff” problem was exactly this: too much deficit reduction in a fragile economy, not too little.

      The problem in our economy is too little demand. Obama, by giving in to the austerity crowd, has managed partially to offset any gains during his presidency in private sector employment. For a look at what more of this would bring, check out the UK or Spain.

      So if you really want jobs, we need more deficit in the short term, while addressing our debt in the long term. Which will be easier to do with something close to full employment. Austerity to balance a budget doesn’t work, since it causes even more job losses, meaning more people aren’t paying taxes, meaning revenue drops BECAUSE of the spending cuts depressing the economy.

      As for the deficits of the past few years, and the huge rise in national debt starting under Bush II, what caused them? (1) Bush tax cuts; (2) Bush wars; (3) Bush economic crash. The Bush crowd inherited a surplus and rammed through two huge tax cuts while engaging in two wars and creating a prescription benefit that, because it does not negotiate for lower prices, is a massive giveaway to Big Pharma.

      The budget woes are on them. Their very plan was to blow up the deficits so large that credulous (or disingenuous) people like you would argue we have to cut, cut, cut. Reagan’s budget director admitted this years ago. Thus 2003 was the only time in American history where we went to war…and cut taxes. Big shock we had a deficit.

      Don’t come around here bashing Ed Markey, allegedly over jobs, and then start with this deficit reduction crap.

      • Fenway49- you make a thoughtful case

        And the links you provided are mist informative.

        I give you the main point, George W Bush was a disaster. Still, he was our POTUS and whatever tab he ran up, we all have to pay.

        Part of the blame for the crash was handing out mortgages to people who could not afford them, and Democrats have their fingerprints all over that one.

        At what point do we add to the deficit before we say no more? Is it $20 billion, $25 billion? Is there a limit?

        • Part of the blame for the crash was handing out mortgages to people who could not afford them, and Democrats have their fingerprints all over that one.

          CRA-covered banks had much lower default rates than unscrupulous, and unregulated, storefront mortgage brokers. 80% of subprime mortgages made by entities not subject to any kind of federal oversight, let alone CRA.

          As to your question about how much is too much debt, which is legitimate, it depends on GDP. The absolute dollar amount is not as important as the debt-to-GDP ratio. That ratio is worse right now than it was in, say, 1999, but it’s not that bad. We’re at a level the UK has been at for about 80% of the past century. We’re actually pretty close to what they call stabilizing the debt, and would get closer with elimination of some more Bush tax giveaways to the top 1%.

          The other thing is that growing the economy, which right now requires more rather than less deficit spending, grows GDP, making that ratio better. A sluggish or falling GDP makes the ratio worse.

  2. Sticking with the Christopher pledge

    I am sticking with what I’ll call the Christopher pledge where he asked us to stay positive and elevate our candidates without bashing others. I will point out so far the 1 Lynch supporter on these boards has not taken up the pledge, but I ask danfromwaltham is he will and remind him that its not too late.

    I did a basic google search on Ed Markey deficit reduction and see a ton of bills he has sponsored that end wasteful spending on free oil and gas leases to corporations, ending new spending on Cold War era defense funding (remember folks Defense is a giant part of our deficit), as well as support for pay as you go and filibuster reform which would both significantly reduce earmarks and pork and enable sounder budgets to be balanced and passed.Dan is free to bring this up for Lynch.

    Cutting defense is not “rainbow and gumdrops” but a sound bipartisan recommendation of the Simpson-Bowles commission to start reducing our deficit.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 28 Nov 5:58 AM