There seems to be some lack of clarity regarding how many members the MA House Progressive Caucus can claim; first it was 60, up by two members; now it seems that it’s back to 58, where it was. Nominally, that’s a large number — enough to really throw its weight around and get major things done, like 100% renewable energy by 2035 (or even 2050, too late); or funding the crumbling MBTA; or funding schools equitably and fairly; or universal pre-K; or even changing their own rules so that good and popular legislation doesn’t die in darkness.
Ha ha … no.
“I am personally not impressed at all by the signifier of the House Progressive Caucus,” said Craig Altemose, a progressive activist who is a senior advisor to the climate group 350 Mass. “As a caucus, they are not using their collective power in a visible way to really advance progressive priorities.”
At every step, the House “progressives” heel to Speaker DeLeo, who is not particularly progressive, an autocrat, and seems to have scant legislative ambition. There are enough nominal “progressives” in number that they could get each others’ backs; insist on process reforms, enabling their own stated agenda; and we could be reaping substantive benefits. But they don’t do that.
The title “progressive” will be earned by results. It will not be earned by “sorry, we wanted xyz good thing but we ran out of time.” It won’t be earned by co-sponsoring doomed legislation — when you know the Speaker you enabled will snuff it out. It certainly will not be from putting your name on a roster.
Nobody’s fooled anymore; the voters in Jeffrey Sanchez’s and Byron Rushing’s districts demonstrated that. Show don’t tell.
SomervilleTom says
High on my list of things a truly progressive caucus would do is replace gambling and lottery income with higher taxes on the wealthy and very wealthy.
In my view, “Progressive” is a misnomer for any legislator who votes to continue a program that takes money from working-class and desperately poor people (not to mention those in the grips of various gambling disorders) in order to fund programs in our most affluent cities and towns (Carlisle, for example, accepts lottery funds and prohibits any lottery sales in town at all!).
Massachusetts should NOT be collecting lottery and gaming revenue, either directly (through games) or indirectly (through casino taxes).
johntmay says
There was a time when we led the nation in economic progressive policy. Massachusetts was the first to enact child labor laws. I’d call that progressive. Romney-Care was neoliberal, but a half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf. Gay Marriage was progressive, but largely a social issue, not an economic one. While several states were able to push for a $15 minimum, our legislators had to to be pushed to even take a look at it and only voted for it after agreeing to chip away at workers rights on weekends and holidays.
I’m with you, Tom, on the gambling matter. I was against it from the start and now we see that the revenues promised will not even be close to ones promised. while our representatives promised the same old snake oil of “jobs and the economy” to sell us.
Did anyone notice that New York just approved a tax on luxury homes? It’s not as much as they wanted, as it seems they are also corrupted by the real estate lobby, but they at least got something, more than we can ever expect from our legislators on economic issues.
Dan Wolf was right, If we want things to change on Beacon Hill, we need to send different legislators.
jconway says
We’ve been saying this for over a decade around here. I was a senior in high school when I first started writing here and I teach seniors in high school today. A fellow BMGer even got elected and even he voted for DeLeo! I’m not even angry at Tommy. I would rather he chair an important committee someday rather than be stuck in the basement with Jon Hecht. Frankly, until that calculation changes, all the personnel changes won’t make a dent over there.
I would focus on the issues. Instead of wasting their millions on vanity campaigns, Shultz, Steyer, and Bloomberg should fund a progressive ALEC committed to mass transit, climate policy, and localized green new deals. In the meantime, organized labor should also be given a lot more funding and institutional support from progressive activists across America to fight for statehouses. Even in nominally blue states like this one.
Lastly, ranked choice voting will make it easier for the progressive vote not to be split in large open primaries and also easier for statewide third parties to the left of our statewide party to make inroads during the general election. Without those reforms, I predict we will see this post again in 2029 as we did in 2009 and 2005 when this site got started.
rjg99 says
In a similar vein, I was disappointed/annoyed/distressed/disgusted at a recent DTC meeting when a progressive legislator presented a bill for single payer health care. Not only did he not have a strategy for dealing with easily predictable aggressive pushback but it seemed to me that the idea of pushback hadn’t even been thought about. Rather, the whole point seemed to be to have a bill and file it and then be able to say it was filed when seeking campaign funds. But, actually getting closer to single payer didn’t seem to be the goal. I’m new to this, so I may be misinterpreting, but that’s what it seemed to me.