Question 1
Campaign roundup: Charlie Baker's smoking memo?
By adamg - 10/25/10 - 6:12 amAssociated Press uncovers a memo from Baker to then boss Paul Celllucci, urging him to sit on news of escalating Big Dig costs until after Cellucci beat Scott Harshbarger back in the day. Tony ponders:
Baker advocated that the financial mess the Big Dig was causing for the state be hidden from the public until after the election in November 1998. Yes, Charlie Baker advised Governor Paul Cellucci to hide important information from the public, the taxpayers, the citizens, the voters of Massachusetts to assure the the reelection of his boss. This is a condescending, insulting attitude and a perfect example of the politics of lies.
The Herald reports the two major candidates for governor are dogged by questions in the final week of the campaign: Baker by Jeff Perry, Patrick by job losses.
Kitty Dukakis takes on beer distributors
By adamg - 9/28/10 - 11:05 am
Kitty Dukakis, who has had a well publicized battle with addiction, spoke this morning at a Government Center rally calling for a "no" vote on Question 1, which would repeal the sales tax on liquor enacted by the legislature last year. Money from the tax helps pay for addiction recovery services. The repeal effort is heavily funded by beer distributors and package-store owners.
When no means yes
By adamg - 9/19/10 - 10:17 amOne Massachusetts is a group seeking a "No" vote on all three of this year's ballot questions, which would cut the sales tax in general, repeal the sales tax on booze in particular and eliminate a state requirement that communities ensure a certain percentage of their homes are "affordable." The group's Harmony Blakeway makes the case that "No" votes would actually be saying:
YES for our communities. YES, we want stable, healthy communities with opportunities for recovery. YES, we believe that all of our friends and neighbors deserve safe homes and neighborhoods. YES, we understand that our shared investment is essential to expanding economic opportunity and prosperity in Massachusetts.
Meanwhile, Dan Kennedy explains why he's inclined to vote "Yes" to repeal the affordable-housing provision, also known as Chapter 40B, because it can encourage overdevelopment, but also makes a request to the state's media:
Over the next few weeks, as we move closer to Election Day, I hope news organizations will take a good, hard look at Chapter 40B and whether it really deserves to be retained. What are the success stories? What are the failures? How could it be improved?
I would just as soon not vote against affordable housing, but right now I don’t see any reason to keep this law on the books.
Ballot questions
By adamg - 11/4/08 - 9:26 pmChannel 5 is projecting:
- No income tax repeal.
- Yes pot-possession changes.
- Yes on banning dog racing.
Dissatisfied with MA Voter Guide?
By Anonymous - 11/2/08 - 7:29 pmHere's a guide to the 3 referendum questions on the ballot Tuesday, with pro's con's articulated by the experts who are supporting and opposing the measures. It's surprisingly concise.
Q1 Would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.
Q2 Would replace the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties, and would exclude information from the state's criminal record system.
Q3 Would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs.
The rest is here.
Question 1 pro/con
By adamg - 10/27/08 - 10:03 pmWhat Would You Cut? - Budget simulation game from the Globe.
Pro:
- The Committee for Small Government
- BostonMaggie: Send Beacon Hill a message.
- Garrett3000: You deserve the money a lot more than a bunch of pols and their pals
- Jay Fitzgerald: Beacon Hill will never let the thing go through, but a yes vote could force them to make needed reforms
- Shirley Kressel: Why this liberal supports Question 1.
- Steve Forbes Maybe (Mass. pols)'ll wake up when you whack them with a 2-by-4.
- Barbara Anderson supports it.
Con:
- Vote No on Question 1 Committee.
- Gene Koo: We're all responsible to contribute to the costs of civilization. We’ll all pay the price if we don’t.
- Margalit: Renters would get hurt by Question 1.
- Chris Lovett looks at what a yes vote might mean.
- Matt O'Malley: Snow removal in New Hampshire sucks, do you want that here?
- Tim Jarrett: An idiotic response to crisis.
- Philip Matthews: The Definition of Fiscal Insanity.
- Paula Woolley: Vote no one One for the sake of our schools and city.
- Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce: Would devastate Mass. economy.
Globe: Vote no on everything
By GarrettQuinn - 10/21/08 - 6:24 pmHear Ye! Hear ye! Morrissey Boulevard has issued a proclamation that the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Vote No on Questions 1, 2, and 3.
To clarify: the Globe wants to continue the state income tax because they have a huge sexytime crush on Mike Widmer, send pot smokers to Guantanamo Bay forever, and run Greyhounds directly into the ground.
Got that?
Poll: Income-tax repeal losing 2-1
By adamg - 10/17/08 - 3:47 pmPoll results from Rasmussen Reports; show 59% against repeal, 33% in favor and 8% unsure.
Via PolitickerMA.
Pro-tax group gets straight cash homey from Big Labor
By GarrettQuinn - 10/13/08 - 5:21 pmWorth noting that the people opposing Question One are backed almost entirely by Big Government Unions.
The MTA and SEIU gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the pro-tax movement.
No one should be shocked that government employee unions are fighting Question One to the death. If it passes they will lose their superhuman benefits and government perks that no one except the CEOs of AIG get.
Coaliton for Our Communities report 1
Taxing coverage
By adamg - 10/5/08 - 10:40 amThe Globe covers yesterday's anti-income-tax rally in Boston (only 250 people?), while Yvonne Abraham heaps scorn on Carla Howell and her made-up figures about waste in state government.
A Proper Bostonian comes up with Swiftian reasons to vote for the measure (as in Jonathan, not Jane).

