Progressive Change Campaign Committee has come up with an ingenious way of setting up a debate: set up an online tool letting people submit questions and vote on them, then pick the most popular and ask the candidates. Such a simple idea … remarkable that nobody has done it before now. Anyway, they’ve got this going for MA-5, and the big event is this Saturday at 11 am. You can see the questions, and vote on them, at this link, and you can watch live here Saturday morning at 11. There’s more about the genesis of this debate format here.
If you’re free, check it out, and report back on what you see!
Please share widely!
It is fun to participate as an observer in this fabulous newer form of civic engagement. Good follow-up by moderator on the question of pledges.
Not sure if I am comfortable with the district being described as a safe Democrat district. Personally, I don’t think that the entire district is Progressive as is described by Rep. Sciortino. There are very blue dog-working class communities and regions of the district.
Lots of time on social security, medicaid/medicare and expansion. Brownsberger clarified that he would not consider CPI a “cut in benefits.” Spilka offered her legislation that resulted in savings in streamlining medical billing toward expanding benefits. Clark discussed need to keep benefits abreast of cola. Sciortino spoke strongly about protecting public employee pensions and his work in the House to do that. Koutoujian talked the talk that Sciortino just articulated the need to “walk the walk.”
Topic switching to education.
1. Loans to students
Spilka pointed out subsidizing oil companies while the government is making money on student loans is outrageous. Supports 0% student loans. Spoke about work on School Committee, House and Senate to fix these problems.
Sciortino, Senator Warren makes us proud everyday. Spoke about his path to higher education and the national student debt. This is issue is a serious crisis in our country. Spoke eloquently about the debate and further on the issue of why our country (gouges – my edit) students and other countries have no cost higher education.
Koutoujian, fixed low interest rate for student loans. Reiterated what Sciortino stated about economic effect of drain with student debt. We need to fix a rate….but has not offered how he would do that.
Brownsberger is against 0% interest rates and supports the agreement to tie the rates to the financial rates (repeated himself on the 13% default and the govt. would lose money – BUT, we can subsidize OIL, WALL STREET, -my edit!!!!!). Whoa, can’t be objective here……please see this section of the debate to form your own conclusions….throwing money at kids?
Clark a bit pretentious to flaunt her hardwork sending Elizabeth Warren to DC. How are we making college affordable is what needs to be looked at ….reasonable low interest rates. No proposal how to get there.
Should the US govt. be making money off student loans:
Absolutely Not
Brownsberger – does not agree with Senator Warren on the interest rate.
Koutoujian challenged Brownsberger on that statement.
Brownsberger stated loans are 1-2% today (?)
Sciortino whipped it with a reply to Brownsberger’s stance.
Spilka does believe we should be giving 0% interest rates…..we are not willing to pay for our children’s education when we subsidize Big Oil!
Clark again, rhetoric but not a solid stance on interest rate….”no one should be denied….”(how? my edit?)
Do you support Sen. Warren’s bring back Glass-Steagal?
Clark – yes – don’t think she answered on whether she supports breaking the big banks.
Brownsberger – does agree on this one. He is not sure if solution is to break-up banks….very reluctant.
Spilka – Absolutely, banks too big to fail is what caused the financial market breakdown. We should break up the banks and have the firewall. I would love to go to Congress and file that bill in the House, 2013 Glass Steagal.
Koutoujian – Was chair in MA House of banks, troubled that we are not investigating big bank leadership.
Sciortino; Supports fundamental question about how we see role of govt. in our society. Biggest takers are the banks. We have more work to do to be sure govt. protects family finances.
Follow-up: From Maureen Driscoll – why have bankers not been prosecuted for their wrongdoing?
Koutoujian: Its about justice….what did he do on the Financial Services committee to go after these or similar types of crimes. Why? Answer: Money….
Clark: We cant be afraid……(Okay so we all know it’s wrong…..what have you done to correct the problem – my question???) Corporate manslaughter….
Spilka: lead sponsor for bills that have made our govt. more accountable and transparent.
Sciortino: Honest debate in country with corporations invading justice system and having 1st amendment rights.
ProgressiveMAX on the video!
Single payer?
Sciortino: only co-sponsor on healthcare as a “right.” Obamacare brought us a long way. Single payer is necessary. A progressive Democrat from this district will make a difference (paraphrase.)
Spilka: we are moving toward it and I support it. GOP has voted 40 times to repeal AHCA. Champion for healthcare including cost containment and original bill for universal health coverage. But have to move forward not backwards. Pres. Obama stated the one unifying issue in GOP is repealing health coverage for 30 million people.
Koutoujian: chair of health care reform committee under Gov. Romney. Called on the legacy of Ted Kennedy. Getting people insured and moving in the right direction. Spoke more about cost containment needed to move toward single payer. It is working and we need to see this through. if it fails we’ll try something else. By all evidence it is working really well.
Clark: we are offering health care to 30 million Americans it will succeed. We are now on a path to move to a robust public option to single payer with major adjustments and how we do business. Universal health care is worth the fight and the work to get there (paraphrase.)
Brownsberger: agreed with Peter and Katherine. See Obamacare through.
Incremental progress and build new health care systems. Fee for service has been the problem. Not for Medicare for All. Higher quality systems.
Follow-up:
Brownsberger:Its complicated
Sciortino: Yes
Spilka: Yes
Clark: yes
Koutoujian: yes
What was the number one question that rose to the top????
Where do you stand on overturning Citizens United?
Clark: Highest priorities by Constitutional Amendment. Dangerous reasoning to give corporations the right to speak and hence the right to not speak.
Environmental issue. Improve transparency to take away the effects of CU. Public financing – move it to have more opportunities like this debate.
Spilka: Top issues are Sequestration and Citizen United. Billionaires are buying elections. Special interests have too much power in DC, support Fair Elections Now Act. Called on colleagues in the race to find a better way to finance campaigns.
Sciortino: Adamantly opposed. In the next decade if we want to make progress on (named several key issues) we need to reel-in corporate interests including redistricting. Undo the damage. Corporations are not people. Congress has the right to regulate corporations. Money in politics is not freedom of speech.
Koutoujian: supports constitutional decision to overturn Citizens United.
Agreed with Karen Spilka, candidates spend too much time raising money vs. being able to reach out to people. Money has too much influence. Koutoujian voted for Clean Elections. Congratulations Brownsberger for beginning the process of People’s Pledge.
Brownsberger: contributions have been going on for decades and those influence Congress. I am the only candidate who has not accepted PAC. Look at the deeds, not the words. Ending secret money in politics is priority. Congress must force disclosure. All civil liberties have downsized. We have to be careful what we ask for.
Environmental Question: Climate Disruption…will you work hard to fend off Global Warming?
Brownsberger: Top legislative priority for me. The top priority for me in Congress.
Clark: All issues and values as progressives if we do not address climate change……talks in third person.
Spilka: I understand the seriousness. I sponsored legislation to fund clean energy centers and other environmental have been working hard on this and making laws.
Koutoujian:Opposes the Keytone Pipeline. Environmental justice…good points on disparity.
Sciortino: 35 years of inaction. What we have to undo the damages. Urgency. Opposes Fracking, Keystone Pipeline. Committed to renewal energy.
Moderator welcomed the NSA watching this forum!!!!
LOL.
Koutoujian: Important debate and supports President Obama’s call for thorough review.
Spilka: Chief Sponsor for the Privacy Bill in the Statehouse. Must have probable cause and a search warrant in our electronic devices. Adams built it into the MA Constitution and US Constitution. I want to fight it in the Congress.
Brownsberger: We don’t know what is going on. Increased oversight is the first step and openness.
Clark: People shouldn’t have to worry about personal communications. Congress needs to take oversight and we need help from the White House that we are getting help from agency level.
Sciortino: NSA is a violation of the constitution. Supports Amash Amendment (I think Spilka did too?), support privacy and no overreach of govt. in personal rights.
Final Remarks
Brownsberger: I am the candidate who has the courage to challenge leadership. Commitment to transparency. Call me.
Clark: The extremists in DC are attacking women rights, seniors, gun control…we can’t accept this. I have fought my entire career for women’s rights… You know where I stand and you can count on me.
Koutoujian: Its the issues are important to all the individuals who participated.
Sciortino: Always been well served by sending progressives to DC from MA. There are differences on CU, Keystone, Single Payer, Immigration in the race. We need to send a Progressive.
Spilka: Great example of Progressive democracy in action. Our district needs a fighter. the Tea Party does not play nice. Push back every single day against the attempts to undermine choice, AHCA reform tax code and close loopholes – including jobs being shipped overseas. I have worked hard for over a decade, endorsed by over 20 labor unions. Career has taken on entrenched special interests and won.
boldprogressives.org
Adjourn 12:40pm EST
All of the above notes were taken on the fly as an attempt to capture candidate responses to citizen questions. Comments and corrections are welcomes. HD
seems to be Will Brownsberger’s markedly un-progressive belief that Chained CPI does not represent a cut in benefits.
Compare that stance not only with the rest of the Democratic field but also with Senator Ed Markey who declared, “We need to call the Chained CPI plan what it is — Cutting People’s Income.”
First, Brownsberger doesn’t support a legislative remedy to Citizens United. Second, Brownsberger is fine with the Keystone Pipeline. And, now, he doesn’t think Chained CPI hurts retirees. Is this strike three?
he went farther than that at the end, suggesting that cuts could be even deeper than chained CPI and still not be cuts.
He’s opposed to cuts, defined as actual reductions in dollars from year to year regardless of the actually buying power of those dollars as measured by an appropriate consumer price index. And he didn’t say he was in favor of what most of us would probably call cuts, namely reductions in the actual buying power of benefits.
But he’ll only draw the line at cuts, not cuts.
I like Brownsberger for many things and am not personally allergic to nuance. Kudos to him for his honesty. However this was not a welcome thing to hear.
That’s the summary of the debate, 4 pander to their base, pledging obstruction and gridlock, to compromise, by promising to vote against any bill, that chains social security increases to CPI. 4 candidates basically said “read my lips, no CPI to social security”
Thankfully, one candidate, spoke the truth, and said we must move the nation forward, in a bipartisan way, and not take such a pledge. That man was Will Brownsberger.
Another pander moment came from Spilka who said she supports 0% rates on student loans. As Will pointed out, it’s not the interest rate that’s hurting the ability to repay these student loans, it’s the ginormous principal balance that the students are saddled with, that’s the problem. Amen, Brother Will.
So what’s the political fix for that?
Just as Medicare and Medicaid negotiate healthcare costs with medical providers, why can’t they negotiate tuition costs, since they provide the bulk of the financing for most students. Similar to how an insurance company negotiates payments to a doctor.
How about going to a 3 year Bachelor Degree? That will knock off a full year costs.
Encourage students/universities to have online courses. Will touched upon this in the debate.
Now what did we here from the other candidates like Spilka? Offer 0% student loan rates, which will exacerbate the problem, rail against tax subsidies for oil producers, and of course, rich pay their “fair share”. Yep, those three will solve the worlds problems.
I’m only talking about online courses, not the other things you mentioned which I assume are your own thoughts and not Brownsberger’s. Lots of schools offer online courses and have for some time. I took an online course at UMass Boston back around 2001. Is there anything to suggest that online courses have dented tuition in any appreciable way?
Brownsberger to me has the attitude of a guy who thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. That’s not just with his answer on this one question, but his answers to all the questions. By stating something so blindingly obvious such as “tuition is high,” he thinks he’s done some great thing when all he’s really done is state the problem and offer little in the way of a solution.
That will knock a full 3.5 years costs.
Derp derp derp.
Bachelor’s degrees generally do take three years to complete if one considers only the courses in one’s chosen major field. The additional year consists of survey courses in non-major subjects. I’ve thought for a while that we need to get high schools to be consistently high quality that colleges will not see the need to require survey courses in the name of well-roundedness since HS already takes care of that. We know it can be done via AP and IB classes which is how some students already can knock a year off a Bachelor’s degree. It won’t happen overnight of course, but I do think three-year degrees as the rule rather than the exception is a laudable goal.
The Norquist pledge is a broad pledge against any taxation at all period. This is a narrow pledge against a particular SS proposal that is conceivably harmful.