Question 1

Ballot questions

adamg — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:26:02 -0500

Woof! Paul Keleher photographed this Question 3 supporter.

Channel 5 is projecting:

No income tax repeal.
Yes pot-possession changes.
Yes on banning dog racing.

Dissatisfied with MA Voter Guide?

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:29:21 -0500

Here'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

adamg — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:03:55 -0400

What 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

garrett3000 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:24:40 -0400

Hear 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

adamg — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:47:46 -0400

Poll 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

garrett3000 — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:21:57 -0400

Worth 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

adamg — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:40:37 -0400

The 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).

Should Mass voters get rid of income tax?

rsiasoco — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:44:06 -0400

It's a wild idea that I've been giving serious consideration to: abolishing income tax for Massachusetts residents. How would saving "the average taxpayer about $3,600 a year" a loss of about $12.5 billion a year, "roughly 45 percent of the state's budget of about $28 billion" actually affect Massachusetts? Would schools suddenly shut down, hospitals and police crumble? Or would those things that make our state function-unnecessary jobs and wasteful goods-be organically pared away?

Who's funding the anti-tax movement in Massachusetts

adamg — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:53:24 -0400

The Herald takes a look at the people paying Carla Howell's salary as she tries to convince people to repeal the state income tax:

The push to scrap the state income tax - billed as a grassroots movement - is heavily bankrolled by an odd-ball collection of libertarians who don't even pay taxes in Massachusetts, including a crackpot who’s likened Homeland Security to the "Gestapo" and a "Biblical capitalist" who thinks paper money should be eliminated. ...

Anti-tax backer 'intellectually dishonest'

adamg — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:52:39 -0400

Rick Holmes, opinion editor at the Metrowest Daily News, explains why he isn't buying Carla Howell's effort to repeal the Massachusetts income tax in November:

Carla Howell, the leader of the income-tax-repeal effort, came in to see me last week. I have an editorial here about the question I keep asking: Is the point of the referendum to "send a message" or enact a law?

Howell says it's about enacting a law, one that would remove some $12 billion from the state budget. Fine, but if you are going to ask the voters to make decisions on the budget, you ought to be able to provide some details, and Carla appears to have decided not to. ...