Question 3

Campaign update: Baker claims it's neck and neck, which means his campaign is collapsing

adamg — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:30:47 +0000

Latest Suffolk poll shows Patrick 7 points ahead. Baker campaign bravely says their own polling shows a dead-even race, which a reporter with an attention span longer than 30 seconds reports really means the Baker campaign is now in free fall.

Cutting the state sales tax could force MBTA fare increases, service cuts, T advisory board says

adamg — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:15:48 +0000

The MBTA Advisory Board analyzes the potential impact of Question 3, which would cut the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%, concludes passage and actual enactment would mean a big hit on the T, which now gets 57% of its revenue from state sales-tax revenue.

A portion of the sales tax is dedicated to the T; the board notes the T last year forestalled fare increases in part through additional revenue from the increase in the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%.

In addition to requiring fare increases and service cuts, the board writes passage could affect the covenants on bonds the state issued for capital projects that were based on the assumption they'd be repaid in large part through sales-tax revenue:

Any attempt to disrupt this framework could place the MBTA and Commonwealth in violation of its bond covenants, potentially triggering major and expensive legal action that could result in the seizure of assets.

Campaign roundup: Cutting the sales tax

adamg — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:31:33 +0000

WBUR takes a look at both sides of Question 3, which would cut the state sales tax from 6.25 to 3%.

Campaign roundup: Wine writer faced tough decision on liquor sales tax; Patrick tries to run as outsider

adamg — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:47:57 +0000

Robert Dwyer, who writes about wine, will be voting yes on Question 1, which would repeal the sale tax on wine. Dwyer explains why that was no easy decision, especially after he learned that even with the tax, Massachusetts still ranks in the bottom ten states for tax levels on booze.

Slight majority favors cutting the sales tax

adamg — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:48:41 +0000

The Globe does some polling on Question 3, which would cut the sales tax from 6.25 to 3%.

Business group opposes cut in state sales tax

adamg — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:17:12 +0000

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says Question 3, which would cut the state sales tax from 6.25 to 3%, would leave us heading over the cliff:

Voter approval of Question 3 would result in across-the-board cuts of approximately 30 percent in virtually all state programs, including local aid, higher education, human services, prisons, courts, environmental protection, and state parks and beaches.

When no means yes

adamg — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:17:20 +0000

One 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.

Why the ban on dog racing passed this year

adamg — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:57:24 +0000

CW Unbound looks at the numbers, discovers a huge shift in votes in western Massachusetts from the last time voters considered a ban. But why?

About that puppy Obama promised his kids

adamg — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:17:06 +0000

Richard Howe wonders if the president-elect would consider a Massachusetts greyhound, since there will soon be plenty of those available.

Ballot questions

adamg — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:26:02 +0000

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 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:21 +0000

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.

Globe: Vote no on everything

GarrettQuinn — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:24:40 +0000

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?

Ballot questions

adamg — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:40:21 +0000

Question 3 going down to defeat.

Packies beat supermarkets on Question 1.

Fusion voting ~~wins~~ goes fishin'.

Question 3: Not as sexy as wine sales at the supermarket, but on the ballot nonetheless

adamg — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:42:24 +0000

Question 3 would let private child-care providers unionize so that they could bargain collectively with the state in negotiating reimbursement rates (who knew this was a constitutional issue?).

The Secretary of State's office provides a summary and pro/con arguments (scroll down past the similar info for Questions 1 and 2).