Last Thursday, at its quarterly meeting in the town of Amesbury, the Democratic State Committee passed the following resolution:
Making ‘Reducing Income Inequality’ the Theme of the 2015 Massachusetts Democratic Convention
WHEREAS, The Massachusetts Democratic Party needs a strong message, a clear and unequivocal message, a message that reaches into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of our threatened Middle Class; and
WHEREAS, The Massachusetts Democratic Party – unlike Governor Baker’s party – is the people’s advocate, and as such we want to convey to Massachusetts voters that “we have your back; and
WHEREAS, Income Inequality has soared since the election of Ronald Reagan and has resulted in a stratification of society not seen since the age of the Robber Barons; and
WHEREAS, Reducing Income Inequality is a core principle underlying every issue for which we advocate as Democrats including, Social Justice, Economic Opportunity, Transportation, Labor, Education, Climate Change, Racial Justice, Housing, Voting Rights, Health Care, and Disability, and will generate the kind of enthusiasm and excitement we will need to organize and win in 2016; and
WHEREAS, The Massachusetts Democratic Party wishes to demonstrate that our principles are not just rhetoric, that our elected officials and candidates stand by and run on these principles; and
WHEREAS, The Executive Committee of the Democratic State Committee has endorsed “Reducing Income Inequality” as a theme for the upcoming Convention; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That “Reducing Income Inequality” shall be the official theme of the 2015 Massachusetts Democratic Convention, and every element of our convention – our morning plenary session, all afternoon breakout sessions, and a general resolution of the convention – will embrace, incorporate, and further that theme.
A lottery winner who runs up debt, so that their debt service exceeds their lottery income, is still broke. A billionaire who structures their portfolio to have negligible taxable income is still wealthy.
We need to reduce both income and wealth inequality.
I applaud the explicit focus on income inequality. I strongly suggest that the resolution be edited to replace each occurrence of “income inequality” with “income and wealth inequality”.
I believe the poor have a tougher time affording healthy fresh food at the supermarket than say some of the cheaper less healthy nonperishable items. And the same with restaurants, the prices at McDonalds, Wendy’s and Burger King are also much lower than say at the 99’s or Bertucci’s.
The poor also have a tougher time receiving medical and health services than most other groups. I suppose I could go on and on, but I think it’s worth mentioning.
…many of us push for systems like single-payer which gives everyone access to health care AND addresses affordability?
You must admit that “Reducing income, wealth and health inequality” requires a really wide bumper-sticker and a really wide bumper to paste it on.
One thing that always disappoints is the rather striking gap between the state party’s platform and the positions of Democratic electeds. An example of this is how the state party platform endorses single-payer, but that would be DOA in the legislature despite the supermajorities.
By the way, how do the issues conventions work? I’ll be going, but I’ve never been to one before. Last year was my first convention, and it was a nominating one.
…have very little on the plenary agenda, possibly resolutions, but any fantasy people had about presidential candidates addressing us is probably shot by the fact that NH Dems have their convention the same day. Even resolutions will likely be voice rather than roll call, which is a large part of why I have advocated scrapping odd-year conventions in favor of Democratic Campaign Institutes.
The focus will be the breakout sessions about which more to follow. Next year in Lowell will also be an issues convention by default because it is the one year out of twelve where an even year has no statewide nominations. I propose buses to NH to canvass for the presidential nominee.
…when speaking to your right wing pals because they will take that straight to communism, Stalin, and eventually….Hitler!
Say “equitable distribution of wealth” and “equitable wages for all workers”…it’s a whole lot easier to explain and defend.
How about “balancing economic growth across the entire state” to solve this problem? Because when you talk about “equalizing income”, a lot of people get really nervous.
I drove through a couple of cities today, notably Webster and Stockbridge. What struck be, besides their beauty, was how underutilized they were. Empty storefronts, former factories now used as churches or whatever.
Sure enough, when you look at their economic demographics, both are depressed. Webster has a median household income of $39,827 – compared to the state’s median of $66,768. Southbridge isn’t much better off, with a $41,432 median household income.
Those are two communities with room to get better. There are lots of them in the state. We’re not all booming like Boston is. We need to figure out how to get some of Boston’s boom spread out elsewhere.
There is a problem comparing areas of the state. I live next town over to Webster (you drove by my credit union).
In Webster on Lake St you can get a 4 bedroom 2 bath for $170,000. I don’t think you can get a one bedroom condo in Boston for that. It’s not as bad as you make out.
The downtown has been slowly rebuilding, but is on the upswing. Should have stopped in the new Thai restaurant.
Webster wasn’t necessarily bad, but it seemed that at least 50% of the storefronts in an otherwise nice downtown were empty.
When your median household income is 60% of the state’s median, that’s a problem.
That $170k house sounds nice, in general, but keep in mind that 1) we fund local services mostly via property taxes, so the $170k is very low, and 2) a fixer-upper, which might be 75% of that price, isn’t worth fixing up because the the cost of the renovations (especially when you factor in the newer strict building codes and what it takes to trigger full compliance) exceed the home’s eventual value by a lot. This is a big problem in low-housing-cost areas – in Springfield, we have houses that you can buy for $1, but no one buys them because they need $150k in work and they’re only worth $120k when finished.
It may be the same in small towns outside the Springfield area, I don’t know. There is a bit of an underground economy that I know works in smaller towns that may not be available in urban areas. If I want a tree down, an air conditioning unit replaced, a load of pea stone delivered there are two prices, cash or regular.
Large corporations won’t do it but it goes back to dealing with people when a handshake was enough to do business. Small businesses in small towns can get a good or bad rep very quickly. I know a delivery guy who gets paid $19 an hour to drive the company’s small truck, $4 of that is under-the-table. If he has to work overtime it’s all under the table.
I will everything I can to acquaint people with your stated goal of making sure that wealth and income are equal for all, regardless of effort, initiative, talent, and respobsibility.
Thank you!
I’m assuming there will be a literacy workshop at your party’s convention* so that remarks like yours don’t happen too often?
*Just kidding…I know the Republicans can’t be bothered to gather their activists more than once every couple of years.
Yes, I see that responsibility is misspelled and the word ‘do’ is omitted between ‘will’ and ‘everything’ in my comment; it is a function of an unforgiving policy on correcting comments and a virtual keyboard on a tiny phone screen.
Not a symptom of ignorance like your implication that MA voters will be distracted by ‘something shiny’ rhetoric addressing form over substance when the implications and intentions of your theory of government are made widely known.
The fact that you think “reducing income inequality” means “wealth equal for all” is more of my concern. It shows the basic economic illiteracy that is the hallmark of the modern Republican Party.
I think it is indicative of well-disciplined political habits and the knee-jerk hewing to a political line.
Not illiteracy but a deliberate decision to not know and not think.
Equality is doubleplus ungood, and that is all they know or need to know.
Complaining about how greatly unequal things have become in no way means that every individual is should have the exact same compensation, but flattening the slope somewhat is a laudable goal. The game is rigged in favor of those who already have much. Addressing that will go a long way toward achieving that goal.
Our stated goal is justice.
“Equitable” may be too many syllables for the Trump/porcupine political camp.
The word equitable is missing from the manifesto.
Yes, and nowhere in the “manifesto” is the phrase “making sure that wealth and income are equal for all, regardless of effort, initiative, talent, and responsibility” But that’s your straw man, isn’t it?
The right has little interest in effort, initiative, talent, and responsibility as a basis for wealth. That’s key to their attack of the estate tax, eh? The children of the wealthy are entitled to the wealth that others have worked for. Amiright?
Should millionaire earners pay a higher state income tax? – Boston Globe, Aug 6, 2015.
A laborer who can support a family in a manner consistent with the styles, expectations, and security that are at least in the same universe as the wealthy rent seeking class (as Stiglitz defines) is views as “Middle Class”. A laborer who cannot is called “poor”. Both are laborers but using the term “middle class” divides the labor class in two and the right has been brilliant in pitting the two against each other.
It is my wish that the Democratic Party keep this in mind.
There is a total disconnect between the “Democrats” elected to and apparently re-elected for life in the Massachusetts and Washington legislatures and the democrats who attend conventions. Even if all the delegates at the convention voted for this resolution – rewritten so as to oppose plutocracy and oligarchy – it would not obligate a single legislator. Further, I will not be attending another convention as I felt so unsafe and disrespected at the last one – as though it [the convention] was merely a way to raise money for “the party” and in fact had no impact, and I could be hung like a bat from the rafters.