Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Replacing Brown with a Progressive Dem… in the State House

By

On the show, we obviously hit on health care policy, but we also breached many subjects to make sure he’s not just a one-issue candidate. He talked about state house transparency, suggesting open meeting laws would cure a lot of problems. When asked about casinos (21:30), he said, “I think that resort casinos are a total false promise of revenue,” then hitting on how it would cannibalize small businesses, cultural institutions, the tourism industry, and increase social costs.

He’s strongly for a more graduated, progressive income tax, as opposed to relying on sales taxes, and those like it, which disproportionately burden blue collar and middle income workers. We hit on everything from jobs to education, so there’s a lot there and I hope you all enjoy it.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I do not live in that area. But if I did, I would vote for Dr. Peter Smulowitz.

    <

    p>Why?

    <

    p>Because he is talking PROGRESSIVE on the income tax.

    <

    p>There is no where near enough state aid coming from Washington, DC.

    <

    p>This has to do with what are called “moderate” US senators.

    <

    p>They make sure that there is not nearly enough aid going to the states and people in this depression, all in the name of being “budget hawks”.

    <

    p>If Democratic state elected officials were more plain-spoken than they are, they would have voodoo dolls of these “moderate” US senators.

    <

    p>One of them, Blance Lincoln (D-AR) has a primary challenger from the left, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (D-AR). THANK GOD.

    <

    p>Because of these realities, the least bad thing to do is to tax the wealthiest a little more to pay for what must be paid for.

    <

    p>As for casinos, I am mildly pro-casino. I am very skeptical of prohibiting whole lines of business. However, I believe that it should be STRICTLY regulated, and that there should be a union for the workers there, and perhaps there should be negotiations for local businesses to open “branch stores” in the casino complex.

    <

    p>However, if the candidate has a stand that I really favor on other matters, I would ignore the stand on casinos.

    <

    p>And, at this time, under these trying circumstances, progressive income taxation is very advisable.

    <

    p>And as for having a casino “in the area”, it may not make much difference, in a good or a bad way.

    <

    p>Why?

    <

    p>Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are ALREADY nearby.

    <

    p>The 3 Southern New England states have a VERY SMALL land area.

    • I mentioned the casino issue because it’s important to me and thought he communicated the issue very, very well, but I don’t want to let it hijack the thread. If you’re curious about the issue, I highly suggest you check out some of the diaries on BMG about the topic or check out the many posts I’ve written on it at my blog.

  3. Progressives need to get behind a candidate who has walked the walk, not just talked the talk. Lida Harkins has done just that. She was a leader in the House during the fight for gay marriage and is a tireless fighter for public education. She has actually cast the hard votes for tax increases. When you spend a career building an impressive voting record on the issues that matter, you have earned the right to expect more from progressives. Don’t be so readily seduced by the new kid on the block.   

    • is more than welcome on our show. If she has any representatives of her campaign reading this who could book the show, they should contact me. My email is available on my BMG profile.  

    • and there are different kinds of “experience”.

      <

      p>I feel like we all just had this argument during the primary for US Senate…

      <

      p>Experience in politics and the “cred” of greater name recognition led the day for Martha Coakley.  

      <

      p>I’m not so sure that served progressives or the Democrats or MA well.  

      <

      p>I give props to Harkins for solid service, but I’m not sure she’s the one to take the cause of more liberal progressive causes forward.

      <

      p>As I felt with Martha Coakley, I get the sense that Harkins is more “establishment” and settled, which has its history of past compromises and future indebtedness/in-the-box-‘that’s-the-way-we-always-do-things’ thinking.  “New” has its appeal, and it’s not always/only “just” “seduction”.  

Archives