Treasurer, Newton native, Ward 7 Democratic Committee member and candidate for Governor Steve Grossman has a new website that he’d like you to see – www.stevegrossman.com.
Treasurer Grossman has made the campaign for a higher minimum wage and paid sick leave for all as a centerpiece of his campaign, which you can see in the video featured on his home page. This is a priority for many Newton Dems and others throughout MA. Have a look at the video here.
Please share widely!
The collapse of our transportation system is unfolding like slow-motion video of a train wreck. Mr. Grossman makes no mention of it. None.
Red Line trains are running with doors that will not stay closed, and yet new equipment is not yet even ordered, and takes more than five years to design, build, deliver, and put into service. Commuter rail service outside of Boston is essentially not available. Workers who, for example, live in Fitchburg (hardly “Western Massachusetts”, but still instructive) and work in Worcester are invited to make their commute by way of North Station, according to the MBTA trip planner. They can leave at 8:58, and be in Worcester at 1:53p — if the trains are on time.
Commuter rail in Massachusetts is a tired and unfunny joke. Steve Grossman apparently has no interest in solving it.
The glorious picture he paints of “50,000 new manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts” won’t happen if workers can’t get from where they live to where they work. Attempting to grow our economy without growing our public transportation system will only expand the morning and evening drive-time parking lots.
Heart-warming words about “Energy & the Environment” and “Our Schools” are utterly meaningless without a large and growing investment in public transportation, and without a correspondingly large increase in tax revenue. Governor Patrick tried to do the right thing, and was crudely rebuffed by “Democrats” in the legislature who acted more like Tea-Party Republicans.
In order for me to consider voting for Mr. Grossman, I need to know:
– What is your vision for public transportation in Massachusetts? If elected, what public transportation goals will you commit to achieve?
– How will you raise the tax revenue needed to accomplish the missions and goals you have articulated?
– What will you do differently from Governor Patrick to get the legislature to approve the increased tax revenue required for Massachusetts during your term as governor?
So even if Steve was A-1 on public transit, this would be a knockout for you, am I right?
State officials today announced that the Commonwealth has received a rating upgrade from ‘Aa2’ to ‘Aa1’ from Moody’s Investor Services on its Federal Highway Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) used to fund the state’s Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP). The upgrade reflects the strength of the revenue sources used to finance the notes, and along with Moody’s reaffirmation of its top rating for an upcoming related bond sale, is expected to lead to millions of dollars in saved borrowing costs.
“Once again, Massachusetts securities are being upgraded due to our strong financial outlook, which will result in millions of dollars of savings for the taxpayers,” said Treasurer Steven Grossman. “The Commonwealth’s Accelerated Bridge Program bonds and notes are among the strongest in the country, and we are delighted that Moody’s has recognized the work we have done on a sustained basis.”
http://www.mass.gov/treasury/about/media-pubs/treas-press-rel/2013/accelerated-bridge-program-receives-upgrade-by-moodys.html
It should probably be a separate diary and not singled out to Steve. I think we can agree that the State Treasurer can’t have much influence on state transportation.
This confuses me. He’s running for Governor, so it seems perfectly legit to question why public transportation is not mentioned as a priority in his video introducing himself to that race.
I find this, oh i don’t know … unfriendly.
We play pretty fast and loose with that word apparently. I agree that transportation is a vital issue, but it struck me as an odd issue to throw at the Treasurer. If the candidate were a legislator, that would make more sense. The AG, less sense.
(Full disclosure, I’ve decided to support Grossman. I’d like to see other people support him.) But maybe we can hold off on the apparentlys for, say, a day or two.
Nah probably not. Carry on …
We’ve all just watched Governor Patrick try and fail to make even a beginning towards solving our abysmal public transportation mess.
I asked three questions, not just one. I based my questions on a read of Mr. Grossman’s “issues” page from the website you posted. Mr. Grossman must have had SOME criteria for deciding which issues made it to that page and which did not.
Mr. Grossman is a candidate for the highest office in Massachusetts government. I, frankly, don’t care whether my questions are “friendly” or not — if our next Governor doesn’t address these issues, we will all be FAR worse off.
In particular, I do not believe that Mr. Grossman (or anyone else) can accomplish his stated goals regarding “Jobs & Economic Growth” without addressing public transportation.
Further, I think his section on “Energy & the Environment” is essentially meaningless without making public transportation a viable alternative. There is no effective way to “cut our use of carbon heavy fuels for transportation” if large and growing segments of our population cannot use public transportation.
I’m sorry you don’t like my use of “apparently”. A more effective way to address my concerns is to direct me towards information that shows how your candidate actually DOES view public transportation as a priority, and how he proposes to make that alleged priority concrete.
I regret making any comment on how you commented. I should have recognized the futility of that.
If you would like to use apparently as a weapon, please, by all means.
And you don’t have to care, or agree, but I do think candidates who post there should be given a certain deference. We don’t have to kowtow, but as sethjp notes below, you were a bit unfair.
Deference is all well and good.
I guess we disagree about the fairness of my question. I will welcome a response from the campaign regarding Mr. Grossman’s stance on public transportation.
Given the high profile of Governor Patrick’s failed effort, and the importance of public transportation in accomplishing several of Mr. Grossman’s stated objectives, I think it’s more than fair for me to pose the questions I asked.
I apologize for directing perhaps too much hostility towards you. I remain furious about the way that our allegedly Democratic legislature torpedoed our best shot at meaningful transportation reform earlier this year. I’m sick to death of “Democrats” who refuse to confront basic realities of modern life.
One gubernatorial candidate announces that access to mental health care is at the top of her issues list this week. Another candidate seems eager to talk about his shoes.
When do the grownups arrive?
We do not collect enough taxes in Massachusetts. We have not invested enough in transportation for decades. We are among the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nation in human history, we collectively spend small fortunes on sporting events, and yet we “can’t afford” to keep the doors closed on our subway trains while they operate.
I want to live in a first-world state with first-world public transportation, first-world health care, and first-world public education. Increased tax revenue is the price we pay for that. When the owners of those gated mansions in Concord are paying approximately the same share of their annual increase in wealth in taxes (specifically including capital gains taxes) as I am of mine, then I’ll be more willing to discuss whether or not our taxes are “too high”. Until then, our refusal to face the need for more tax revenue is just plain irresponsible.
If our Democratic candidates won’t face these inconvenient truths, what separates them from the Charlie Bakers?
Thanks. Not really necessary though, I thought the hostility was to Grossman.
Certainly the former is a legitimate issue to bring up in a way the latter is not.
Each of the two is near the bottom of my list of gubernatorial priorities.
In the case of mental health care, it is low priority for me because the problem is already largely solved. Mental health parity is already part of the ACA:
Ms. Coakley is grandstanding again.
The problem of mental health care is far from solved. look at the abysmal state of you own Department of mental health. Look at the overcrowding of jails and prisons busting at the seams with mentally ill people. Look at our homeless shelters and our streets. The ACA does not in anyway address the plight of the severely and persistently mentally ill. It addresses the mental health needs of people not eligible for MassHealth (Medicaid) or medicare. I applaud Martha Coakley for her concern about the mentally ill, though I am not supporting her. As Attorney General, I do wish she would investigate the poor care of Stewart Health Care. In real dollars, state spending on mental health care has decreased by about 12% in the last decade.
All this because he makes no mention of public transportaion? By this logic, he apparently has no interest in:
Public safety.
Alternative energy.
Storm resiliency planning.
LGBTQ issues.
Senior citizens.
Mental health.
Small Farmers.
Who makes a better Ricotta Pie: Mike’s or Modern?
(And let’s face it, that last topic is pretty damn important; though I don’t think there’s much question that the answer is Modern.)
While your questions are entirely valid and, what’s more, absolutely need to be asked, why the need to jump to the conclusion that Mr. Grossman doesn’t care about the issue of public transportation simply because he didn’t mention it in a brief intro video that was clearly not comprehensive in regard to the issues he would seek to address if elected governor?
Nana makes the best Ricotta Pie.
But on Grossman, is it fair to say these are his priorities? It is after all what he chose to introduce himself to everyone and what he has chosen to define as his “Issues”.
I think it’s fair to ask the question.
I have not chosen a candidate in this race.
Perhaps you (and apparently your chosen candidate) disagree that the abysmal state of our public transportation system is a priority. I get that you’re attempting humor, but your implication that “Who makes a better Ricotta Pie: Mike’s or Modern?” is more important than any of my three questions is, frankly, insulting.
I asked about more than just transportation. I asked two subsequent questions that, again, I find very relevant to my choice.
Finally, please allow me to clarify that I based my questions on a read of his website. He does, after all, have an “issues” page.
With all respect, your attitude towards those like me who have not chosen a candidate and who base their choice on the material offered by each candidate about their priorities does not strike me as helpful to your candidate.
For the record, I haven’t yet decided who I’m supporting, Sen. Wolf having withdrawn from the field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
…so of course questions on transportation are fair game regardless of his current office. The issues page highlights his priorities and can be added to as time goes on. I would ask the questions without presuming he doesn’t care.
The website has an issues list.
Somebody decided what items made the cut to appear on that list. Public transportation, and taxes needed to sustain it, didn’t make the list. If a particular issue doesn’t merit even a mention in November of 2013, for an election that happens in 2014, then please explain how that issue can be a priority for the candidate after the election.
Mr. Grossman, as treasurer, surely had some visibility to the process that led Governor Patrick to offer his failed budget proposal. Mr. Grossman surely had ample opportunity to contemplate his own view of where public transportation fits in his priorities. Mr. Grossman surely had ample opportunity to understand the state budget, and he surely understands what sources of tax revenue are available to the state and how sensitive the overall budget is to changes in those sources.
Perhaps “doesn’t care” is an inaccurate choice of words on my part.
Nevertheless, public transportation — and the increased taxes needed to sustain it — didn’t make the cut for this announced candidate’s “issues” page.
In my view, that says at least something about where this issue fits in Mr. Grossman’s priorities. I will take that into consideration as I choose which candidate I support.
…that right out the gate we should jump down a candidate’s throat that something didn’t make “the list”. If I were running a hypothetical campaign and I created an issues page for a website I might not think of everything at once either. Doesn’t mean there is nothing else I care about, but maybe I’m not ready to put together a coherent statement on that without further thought and study. If a candidate in this race comes out as “the transportation candidate” by all means support that person, but what I and others on this thread are pushing back on is the premature conclusion you seem to be drawing that this does not matter at all to him.
That’s all well and good, and I invite the campaign (if it is following this exchange at all) to read my comments here as encouragement for them to do the right thing.
I will be far more favorably impressed if Mr. Grossman announces his commitment to public transportation early in the campaign (as in now). I hope you’ll forgive me for being overly cynical, but let’s just say I won’t be astonished if a decision to become “the transportation candidate” comes a week or two before the primary — just in time to deliver a hoped-for 5-10 point bump.
That announcement will no doubt be accompanied by request for a $50-100 donation to help the candidate “get the message out” (this last is certainly not aimed just at Mr. Grossman, by the way — every candidate sadly does the same thing).
Meanwhile, I remain persuaded that neither of the two items that DO appear on his issues list — “Jobs & Economic Growth” and “Energy & the Environment” are achievable without doing something about public transportation as well as the increased tax revenue needed to sustain it.
Mr. Grossman says (emphasis mine):
How will transportation costs be lowered without improving public transportation? In what part of the state will those 50,000 new jobs be created? In the west, where there is essentially no public transportation at all? In the east, where existing public transportation is losing ridership and money because it offers inadequate service, dangerously unreliable and failing equipment, and when new equipment is at least 5 years away? In the southeast, where much-need expansion of commuter rail perished with the demise of Governor Patrick’s proposal?
Just how does Mr. Grossman propose to lower transportation costs, then? Will he build more highways? Does he propose to somehow reduce or hold fast the gas tax? Is he promising to NOT impose any kind of additional gas or mileage taxes? Is he proposing to stop or reverse the toll increases contemplated in the current budget?
From Mr. Grossman’s statement about “Energy & the Environment” (emphasis mine):
Just how will Mr. Grossman “cut our use of carbon heavy fuels for transportation” without a major investment in public transportation? Does he propose other fuels? He’s proposing to add 50,000 new manufacturing jobs — will those be work-at-home positions? Will these new workers live in today’s equivalent of mill housing across the street from their factory?
I’m not trying to be “unfriendly”, or demeaning, or hostile. I’m taking these statements at face value, and asking — in effect — “Mr. Grossman, if you are serious about these proposals, then how do you propose to deliver the needed improvements in public transportation these policies require?”
An “issues” page is a public statement of that candidate’s views. I remain convinced that a candidate who takes the office seriously should be prepared to have that candidate’s publicly stated policies taken seriously. It doesn’t have to be carved in stone, but I reject the suggestion that I’m being unfair by responding sincerely to what is and is not there.
A candidate who isn’t ready for questions like mine is, in my view, not ready for the campaign — or for the office he or she seeks.
It’s an issue he should definitely discuss and have on his website, a glaring omission in my view. I am not sure it rises to the level where you are getting riled up. But I share your frustration that we have an incompetent Senate candidate and grandstanding anti-civil liberties AG, a ‘homeland security’ expert, a healthcare expert (so NOT the 2014 issue de jeur), and some no name business guy. I wish a Mayor like Curtatone or Driscoll would’ve run. Both have improved transit access to their cities (Green Line extension finally getting implemented, the Boston-Salem Ferry and Salem State buses), both know how to balance budgets and fund infrastructure, both worked in struggling school districts to improve them. That’s the experience we need. Dan Wolf, as someone who utilizes our shamefuel Massport infrastructure for his livelihood would’ve also added to that debate and had the benefit of voting for the Governor’s legislation.
We have no good candidates to carry Deval’s vision, Grossman is the most electable against Baker which is why he will likely get my vote. I like his shift left on family leave and wish he could discuss infrastructure and transit in the context of his business experience. He is wasting a golden opportunity in my view.
It makes Grossman a little more appealing to me.
And I think his issues are important. But, I’m still waiting for any of these wood-be governors to talk about spending, taxation, and the cities and towns.
Steve Grossman is my pick for Governor. In addition to his stand on the issues, and besides his love for this state, it’s important to know that Steve is honest! Steve has been completely ethical in the way that he runs the treasury. There have been no allegations of any problems at the lottery under Steve.
And, Steve has handled his campaign finances completely legally. In particular, you don’t see Steve paying any family members from his campaign funds! (Yes, Martha Coakley paid her sister $28,000 with left-over money from her failed Senate campaign).
that was a bit of a recent blunder.
As one commenter stated, “I hate it when I take huge loans and forget to pay the ($500,000) tax obligation.”
But please go ahead and bash Martha Coakley. Neither are straight shooters…..Grossman’s agendas have agendas, that have agendas.
How’s that Happy Hour ticket coming along….keeping pace with the booze industry contributions? Belly-up to the bar, lads. Let’s drive it home. Special interests all the way.
Then there’s this from a credible self-made business man, Dan Wolf in his assessment of which side of the issues SG is standing on depending on with whom he is speaking.
Steve Grossman was formerly head of the blindly pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC. I find this very disturbing. I am all for Israel, but their hawkish policies, including resistance to any peaceful resolution of the Iran issue, bother me very much.
Admittedly the Governor does not play a role in foreign policy but Grossman’s role in AIPAC says worrisome things about his character.
Quit bringing up AIPAC. During Grossman’s tenure they were clear allies of the Clinton administrations push for peace. I’d be happy enough if the next Governor got the trains to run on time without expecting him
or her to get peace in the Middle East.
Also, I have actually spoken with him about this and it does not seem that he personally shares the more extreme views. Personally I’m more J Street myself, but as you point out it’s not terribly relevant to the Corner Office.
Yes, Steve Grossman is the former president of AIPAC, but that was twenty years ago. Back then, Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister, and Steve did his best to lead that organization to be supportive of Rabin.
I am a strong JStreet advocate, and I am similarly a critic of AIPAC. I am also a strong supporter of Steve Grossman.
Thank you for taking the time to visit our website and offer your feedback. As we begin to publish additional pages covering the wide range of policy issues affecting the Commonwealth I wanted to share some of my thoughts below on transportation.
I fully agree with Governor Patrick’s priorities: we must make robust investments in transportation and infrastructure in order to secure a dynamic economic future. This must be a carefully crafted long-term strategy which serves every region of the state and leaves no one behind. It must encompass priorities such as new rail cars for the MBTA, careful attention to deferred maintenance, extending the Green Line to Somerville and Medford, modernizing South Station, South Coast Rail, enhanced rail service to Cape Cod and Western Massachusetts, and ensuring that our regional transit authorities (RTAs) are financially secure.
In everything we do, we must make our investments in a manner that does everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint and to incentivize our residents to maximize the use of public transportation. I believe that a comprehensive transportation strategy will motivate countless families to live in close proximity to public transportation, which is one of the critical ingredients of a smart growth strategy.
The legislature’s recent actions constitute a significant multi-year investment in achieving these priorities. However, they are not enough to complete this ambitious plan during the next ten years. That is why I have stated publicly on numerous occasions that should the U.S. Congress pass legislation requiring Internet companies to collect sales taxes, the more than $250 million annually we would raise should be invested primarily to help fully fund this transformational agenda.