Massachusetts ballot questions
Nov. 1st, 2008 12:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
topazBallot Question 1: A Proposed Law To Eliminate the State Income Tax.
Voting no. This one is so dumb it amazes me it made it this far. Apparently the argument here is that depriving the state of income tax revenue will force the legislature to reduce wasteful and inefficient spending. That's a noble goal, to be sure, but do people actually believe it's going to work out that way? I'm sure that cutting the state's budget so drastically would result in some spending cuts, but realistically, the immediate effect will be a hike in sales, excise, estate, gift, gasoline, poll, stamp and every other kind of tax you can think of. Expect property taxes to get hit especially hard, as the state slashes its local aid to towns, which then have to find other ways to make up the lost revenue.
Put another way, if you see the government as being fundamentally greedy, lazy and corrupt, do you really expect them to just roll over and take a pay cut if this passes?
Ballot Question 2: An Act Establishing a Sensible State Marijuana Policy
a.k.a. decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Voting yes. Even if you believe that marijuana is sufficiently dangerous that its use needs to be discouraged -- which I don't -- it's become impossible to make a case that our drug policy is an effective way to achieve that goal. The income tax crowd should look favorably on reducing government waste and inefficiency here!
Ballot Question 3: An Initiative for an Act to Protect Greyhounds
a.k.a. "ban greyhound racing."
This one is not a no-brainer for me. I'm inclining towards voting no.
I don't doubt for a minute the repellent stories that I've heard about how racetrack owners treat and mistreat their animals, and I have no objection to laws prohibiting animal abuse. But it's not at all clear to me that outlawing racing is an appropriate, effective solution. It seems more likely to push the racing industry underground, where there would be no oversight of the animals' care at all.
One of the arguments made in favor of Question 3 is that greyhound racing is a dying sport in Massachusetts anyway, so outlawing it only speeds the process along. That seems more like an argument to me against outlawing it. If the business is dying a natural death, don't interfere in the process -- God only knows what you might stir up that way.
Voting no. This one is so dumb it amazes me it made it this far. Apparently the argument here is that depriving the state of income tax revenue will force the legislature to reduce wasteful and inefficient spending. That's a noble goal, to be sure, but do people actually believe it's going to work out that way? I'm sure that cutting the state's budget so drastically would result in some spending cuts, but realistically, the immediate effect will be a hike in sales, excise, estate, gift, gasoline, poll, stamp and every other kind of tax you can think of. Expect property taxes to get hit especially hard, as the state slashes its local aid to towns, which then have to find other ways to make up the lost revenue.
Put another way, if you see the government as being fundamentally greedy, lazy and corrupt, do you really expect them to just roll over and take a pay cut if this passes?
Ballot Question 2: An Act Establishing a Sensible State Marijuana Policy
a.k.a. decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Voting yes. Even if you believe that marijuana is sufficiently dangerous that its use needs to be discouraged -- which I don't -- it's become impossible to make a case that our drug policy is an effective way to achieve that goal. The income tax crowd should look favorably on reducing government waste and inefficiency here!
Ballot Question 3: An Initiative for an Act to Protect Greyhounds
a.k.a. "ban greyhound racing."
This one is not a no-brainer for me. I'm inclining towards voting no.
I don't doubt for a minute the repellent stories that I've heard about how racetrack owners treat and mistreat their animals, and I have no objection to laws prohibiting animal abuse. But it's not at all clear to me that outlawing racing is an appropriate, effective solution. It seems more likely to push the racing industry underground, where there would be no oversight of the animals' care at all.
One of the arguments made in favor of Question 3 is that greyhound racing is a dying sport in Massachusetts anyway, so outlawing it only speeds the process along. That seems more like an argument to me against outlawing it. If the business is dying a natural death, don't interfere in the process -- God only knows what you might stir up that way.
