Consider this a safe space from the tiresome presidential primary. Let’s focus on local events and policy that is actually relevant in our state and community.
Some local issues I’m concerned about this year are:
1) Passing the Transgender Accommodations Bill
2) Fixing the T
3) Reforming Charters
4) Climate Change
What are the issues you’re concerned about?
Please share widely!
Mullaley540 says
I’d like to add the elimination of non-compete employment clauses.
Massachusetts is at a competitive disadvantage vs. California as they have already banned non-compete employment clauses.
sabutai says
It’s a money loser. I’m from Plymouth, and don’t feel a need to pretend this will ever become “Hollywood East”.
johnk says
don’t know what he is planning to do, but I’m not getting a good feeling.
jconway says
I actually favor the reasoning behind a four year term but dislike the manner in which they voted it in for themselves. It’s the kind of process question regarding the mechanics of democracy and power I find fascinating.
Christopher says
…but I believe I read somewhere that the “charter” of Boston is kind of like the “constitution” of the UK – not a single comprehensive and supreme document so much as a collection of statutes and precedent.
SomervilleTom says
We are among the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nation in human history. And yet large segments of Massachusetts, especially western Massachusetts, suffer devastating economic losses. We desperately need to recapture wealth and income from the top 1% (or top 0.1%) and put it back into the consumer economy where it can benefit the 99%.
It starts by finding a way remove Bob DeLeo and his “no new taxes” mantra from his leadership position in the house.
1. We MUST raise taxes on our wealthiest residents.
2. We MUST stop using lottery and (soon gambling) “games” to plunder our most desperate residents so that our most affluent towns (like Dover and Carlisle) can keep their taxes artificially low. We should be funding art classes for Carlisle children with Keno and Lottery revenue from Lynn and Everett.
3. We MUST stop slashing government goods and services for the 99% in order to keep taxes low for the 1%.
johntmay says
as it is most days. I’m still angry, disappointed, and sad that the last Democratic Convention was alleged by its leadership to be focused on wealth disparity and yet, it was not. Not even close. There were stump speeches by a few folks running for office who may have included the talking points “Wealth disparity” in their script, but that’s it. There were several breakout sessions after the general assembly but only ONE dealt with wealth disparity and it offered few solutions. The one striking comment at that session was from Senator Dan Wolf who urged us as voters, as citizens to push our legislators to take concrete action (the three points you mention, in fact).
And we know that he is now, not running for re-election as senator. I hope has aspirations to be our next governor.
SomervilleTom says
I will be more inclined to support UIP if it takes a stronger position on wealth and income disparity — specifically, the three points I mention.
jconway says
We already back a progressive income tax and there is rhetoric in the platform discussing how to lower the high costs of living in this state. How it’s becoming unaffordable even for those on middle incomes. But it’s always open to improvement and I am definitely eager to hear your thoughts on how it can be better.
SomervilleTom says
On the What we believe page, in the section titled “Our Vision: An Economy that Works”, I suggest that there needs to be a section that explicitly addresses wealth concentration.
Something to the effect of “the wealth created by society should be shared by that society”, perhaps something about the GINI coefficient of wealth concentration, perhaps explicitly calling for limits on the ratio of the wealth gained by the top of the chain to wealth gained by the bottom of the chain. Something about setting caps on the ratio of the compensation of the top of the chain to compensation at the bottom of the chain.
Similarly, in the “Taxes” portion “Issues” section, I’d like to see explicit mention of the following:
– Significant increase in the capital gains tax rate for capital gains above an inflation-adjusted ceiling, or with an inflation-adjusted personal exemption
– Significant increase in the gift/estate tax rate, with similar ceilings and/or exemptions to focus the increase on the very wealthy
While amending the constitution to remove the “flat tax” constraint is admirable, there are several approaches that can accomplish the same end without needing the amendment.
jconway says
People keep moving the goalposts, which if I find amusing since there is nothing the Mass Democratic Party is doing that demonstrates it cares about any of these issues. We won’t exist next year if we don’t enroll another 25,000 voters. There are no more competitive primaries UIP voters would be shut out of. The time is long past to join an alternative and help us beat some DINO’s this year.
We don’t have the institutional strength of the Democrats nor are we burdened with its institutional hang ups. Give us a shot and keep us on the ballot.
SomervilleTom says
I’ve been making my arguments about wealth and income concentration for years. I have been specifically and explicitly arguing that a progressive income tax is not nearly sufficient, because the very wealthy are generally not affected by income taxes AT ALL, during that entire period.
I understand the urgency for the UIP to sign up new voters. I’m genuinely on the fence about it.
While I oppose the politicians who affiliate with the Democratic party in some other districts of MA, my own representatives are marvelous. I just don’t agree with those who so harshly criticize the national party.
I wish there was a way for me to affiliate with one party locally and a different party nationally. I also wish there was a way for a new organization to challenge the existing Massachusetts Democratic Party for ownership of the “Democratic Party” brand.
It’s much easier for me to see negative consequences of changing my registration to “UIP” than for me to see benefits. If I lived in a district of Ms. Garry or Mr. DeLeo, it would be a far easier choice.
Here are the people who I am currently able to vote for or against in primaries (and the general):
– various local boards and positions
– Joe Curtatone
– Denise Provost
– Pat Jehlen
– Mike Capuano
– Elizabeth Warren
– Ed Markey
– Hillary Clinton
I know or have met at least once and enthusiastically support EACH of those candidates. Each of those would view my decision to register with the UIP as their loss. The most significant factor influencing me in favor of changing is my friendship with you — I’m quite certain that if someone else was in your position at UIP, I wouldn’t even consider switching.
At the end of the day, I think it’s unlikely that I’m going to change — even while personally wanting to see you succeed in your various endeavors.
jconway says
I find it highly unlikely any of those people you mentioned will face competitive primaries, you can vote for Jehlen against Cheung and join us September 9th and leave us December 1st and it counts to keep us on the ballot.
jconway says
Your friendship and sincere hopes for my success are greatly appreciated. I was honestly worried some bridges would be burned with this move, especially here, and for the most part I’ve been happily surprised by the warm reception. And I do sincerely wish folks like Christopher, Fred, Mark Bail and my old teacher Joel Patterson the best of luck as they try and build a more democratic Democratic Party. We all got our work cut out for us!
SomervilleTom says
In my item 2, “we should NOT be funding art classes …”
Trickle up says
.
JimC says
I’ve been sitting out this thread, for previously stated reasons, but one thing I think we don’t do enough is acknowledge the loyal Democrats we disagree with.
Take Stephen Lynch for example. I have problems with him, and I know many people here do. But he might be the most reliable labor vote in the delegation, and he deserves acknowledgement for that.
As we start to think about unification and the big tent, it might be a good time to acknowledge the core, unifying issues. In a few words I’d call it: fighting for those who need it.
SomervilleTom says
I enthusiastically agree with this comment.
I’d like us to be more explicit than we are about clarifying what that “core” is, and then making the limits of our “big tent” clear and meaningful.
For example, I do not think that Colleen Garry should be able to call herself a Democrat. In my view, she is simply outside the tent. I feel that be making the tent so broad as to include her, we render it meaningless.
I think that is why the current Massachusetts Democratic Party, as an entity, is so irrelevant.
Christopher says
…regarding Colleen Garry, but again, the party has no legal authority to excommunicate. If she registers as a Dem, gets the sigs, and wins the primary, she’s our candidate. Once she gets to the House loyalty to the Speaker trumps loyalty to the platform, though I notice she actually doesn’t currently hold any leadership positions.