Treasurer Steve Grossman’s recent campaign email blast proclaimed,
rampant income and economic inequality to be the defining issue of our time
I agree. He of course is not alone in making such a pronouncement in recent days. From President Obama to the Pope, the issues of economic insecurity and mobility, have risen to the top of many agendas of late. Elizabeth Warren’s successful run for Senate was built on responding to the “squeezed” middle class. Bill De Blasio made inequality central to his massive win in the NYC mayor’s race. And again, close to home, Mayor-elect Walsh and his allies placed the divide between a burgeoning Boston and the many folks our booming local economy has still left behind at the heart of his campaign.
While economic insecurity has always featured prominently in center-left politics – you could say it is the Democratic Party’s raison d’etre – until recently our political instincts saw us dumb down our economic arguments for fear of offending moderates and looking like class warriors. Those who tried in the past didn’t fare very well – John Edwards being an example of that. This seems to no longer be the case as successful Democrats have been winning by talking about the economic divide as opposed to acting like it didn’t exist.
So back to Grossman’s line. He clearly has inhaled the populist zeitgeist and is willing to place it at the center of his campaign. What has surprised me to date is that none of the other democrats running for Governor has done the same. That is not to say the others are less progressive than Grossman on the issues, just that none of them has made an economic populist case so directly.
AG Coakley has been slow to define her campaign around any singular issue or theme – early education was the latest issue she highlighted. Early ed is clearly aimed at improving mobility, but she did not really make a populist argument for it. Don Berwick’s health agenda and openness to single payer, is progressively aligned and health costs are a big issue for the middle class. Berwick however has not made economic issues paramount in the race to date. Juliette Kayyem has issued a very good set of proposals on criminal justice reform – smart on crime policies that we should implement. The expense of locking up low-level offenders as opposed to helping them into the mainstream economy is a real economic issue, particularly in minority communities. Yet, the policy is not rooted in a larger economic argument.
What Grossman is doing and doing well is defining the theme and the issues, economic inequality, and then rooting his policies, such as support for earned sick time, within that framework. That is akin to what Warren did, what DeBlasio did, what Walsh did. It is good politics no doubt. It puts what is the defining issue of our time at the center of the primary and, personally, I want the primary debate to be about what state government can do to address economic insecurity. I want it to be about who has the best policies to address the high costs of health care, child care, energy, transportation, housing as these costs make poverty in Massachusetts much greater than defined by the inadequate federal poverty standard; who will be able to address tax fairness and the fact that the highest effective tax rates in Massachusetts are paid by people in the lowest income quintile; who will be address the rampant child poverty in Springfield, Lawrence and other Gateway Cities.
Those are the issues this race should be about and I am happy to see a candidate place them front and center.
Let the debate begin.
Dan Wolf was focusing on this before the silliness about his company came up. But very happy to have Steve Grossman speaking out on these issues. Inequality and, frankly, the destruction of opportunity for a huge percentage of Americans, truly are the defining issues of our time. It’s the Gilded Age all over again.
Berwick and Kayyem have brought this up. The silence from Coakley on this issue, and her willingness to support repealing the gas tax, are not encouraging signs. It seems a good tack to move away from EBT fraud and make this and family leave the centerpiece of his campaign.
I am more and more impressed by Berwick and Kayyem each day, but am concerned they don’t have the chops to beat Coakley in the primary or fight the legislature if elected. Both tests can be met by Grossman, but it is telling that the last non-incumbent insider we elected to the Corner Office was Ed King, who sort of ran as an outsider.
I was spanked by several members here for asking this on an earlier post regarding Mr. Grossman’s candidacy. At the time I looked at his campaign site, he was silent about how to pay for his proposals. I do not recall seeing a response from the campaign to my earlier post.
I enthusiastically agree that income disparity is THE defining issue of our time and hopefully of this campaign. I am equally concerned that, especially in Massachusetts, it is far too easy to “address” this issue by joining the anti-tax crowd. That is a prescription for failure.
We MUST increase the tax revenue collected by Massachusetts. The key aspect of such an increase is how to make that increase progressive. The income disparity in Massachusetts is aggravated by the wealth disparity in Massachusetts. The tired old bromides about “eliminating waste” and “efficiency in government” only serve to remove and restrict more and more of the services desperately needed by the 99% of us who do NOT live in gated compounds. This week, we saw yet another round of MBTA disruptions caused by ancient and decrepit infrastructure. This morning, we read of yet another across-the-board fare increase resulting from the out-of-control and unfunded expenses of “The Ride”. The MBTA is yet again plundering working-class people who depend on buses and trains to provide service to other equally deserving working-class seniors. The increased expenses of “The Ride” should be funded by wealthy taxpayers, not by other riders. The MBTA continues to rob Peter to pay Paul — it is time to raise tax revenue from the 1% in order to fund public transportation vital to the 99%.
We must find ways to increase the progressivity of our tax structure. Alternatives include increases in unearned income tax rate, increases in the estate/gift tax, an increased personal income tax rate coupled with significantly increased exemptions, and so on.
I’d REALLY like to know how Mr. Grossman proposes to increase the tax revenue needed to accomplish his attractive vision.
He favors earned sick time and an increase in the minimum wage (both of which incidently the people may decide for him via the ballot questions) which cost employers money, but not taxpayers.
Also, in the interest of being “reality-based” I assume you realize that even in the Bluest State, one that some still insist on calling “Taxachusetts”, a Democratic candidate will have to skillfully finesse the tax-raising issue. Electing a GOP Governor is not out of the question largely BECAUSE voters may want a check on any tax raising tendencies of the overwhelmingly Democratic General Court. I think you’re being naive if you want a candidate to come out and tell us he will raise our taxes and expect said candidate to win.
These issues are nothing new for Steve Grossman. More than making pronouncements on the issues of economic insecurity and talking about the economic divide, Steve Grossman has walked the walk. As a representative of his employees, I have seen first-hand how he has paid significant wages, provided extended paid sick leave, and provided other economic benefits for his employees.
By discussing the economic challenges facing working people during his campaign for governor, Grossman is continuing the conversation he has carried on, by deeds and action, for over 40 years. Steve Grossman has “made an economic populist case so directly” because it’s who he is, what he believes, and how he has acted long before his run for governor.
I agree that he seems to be an enlightened and progressive candidate for Governor.
These desperately needed solutions cost money — money that the state doesn’t have. Money that the very wealthy in the state DO have.
Governor Patrick tried and failed to accomplish a very modest first step towards climbing out of the hole we are in. Martha Coakley apparently promises no new taxes (the worst possible outcome, and no doubt the “plan” that the GOP will advocate).
What is Mr. Grossman’s plan for increasing tax revenue?
alot of my Republican friends like to cite experience running a business as their rationale for voting for candidates like Romney and Baker. Leaving the problems with assumptions in that statement aside for a moment, I find Grossman’s resume compelling from this perspective. He didn’t just run a business- he (apparently) ran it in a way that both allowed him to be very successful in business and treat employees with dignity. Certainly not an endorsement of him right now, but it’s interesting to think of how the Republican argument I referenced above is not only nullified by someone like Grossman, by how their Darwinian justifications are proven false by his candidacy.
While I haven’t really heard any of the other candidates talk in these terms, I find it encouraging to hear that they are. These issues are at the heart of why I’m a Democrat. Hopefully the other candidates are just as strong on these issues and they’re just not getting as much press because they lack the public position Grossman holds.
As for Coakley, I fear her advisers will hide her and try to work behind the scenes through caucus and convention season. As a voter, I feel like I deserve to really hear from the frontrunner, so I hope this isn’t the case.
It shows that progressives can be successful businessmen without portraying their values. The underrated Frank Lautenberg had the same quality. He got successful in private equity so he could leave and succeed in public service (his successor is taking the opposite approach). Grossman continued to run a major corporation like the family business it started with. Wolf ran his
Much the same way. I wish Costco’s CEO would run for office-he is a fantastic evangelist for fair capitalism.
It will be quite compelling contrast -particularly against a candidate like Baker running on his far less accomplished business and public service career. Grossman paid his employees a living wage, Baker doesn’t want to even raise the minimum wage. Grossman has been a good steward of the public treasury, it’s well documented that Baker lost millions overseeing the big dig. Grossman views labor as a partner, Baker views it as a liability to be liquidated. This could be a values based contest to start getting excited about!
I’m guessing that “betraying” is the word you sought.
🙂
I’m loving the 5s, but I think I’ll stop dictating to Siri.
Voters like a candidate who is clear about where they stand on the issues, and Democrats now definitely want someone who is going to push back hard against the growing tide of economic inequality in the US. It’s no coincidence that Elizabeth Warren’s name has come up for the White House in 2016. She may have no interest, but people who support her around the nation do because of her brave stands for every day Americans. Steve Grossman should be lauded for his similarly vocal stands for working class families in Massachusetts and particularly his central focus on the minimum wage and earned sick time. It is disappointing that the MA House will not take action on either of these issues, and encouraging that we may have a Governor who will.