Massachusetts ballot questions

[topaz]

Ballot 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.

Comments

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Actually, with CA as an example, the likely outcome of #1 will be even worse than you suspect: in addition to regular increases of non-income taxes, expect the number of bond measures floated per year to skyrocket. Mmmm, debt-financed state government...

[catya.livejournal.com]

yep. that.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

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?

I think your answer is correct, but your premise may be mistaken. The idea could well be to make the total impact of taxes more visible on a daily basis to the voting base. Income taxes, while they can be steep, are (supposedly) less noticeable because of automatic withholding from most workers' pay. Akin to the automatic tolling on tollways, which psychologically have a lower impact than ponying up cash.

Anyhow, the idea is I suspect less about government magically becoming efficient, and more bringing home the idea that there is no free money to the taxpayers. Fiscal responsibility comes from the voters, not the spenders.

[penk.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree on #3. It's very hard to 'drive greyhound racing underground' - as it's not that sort of a sport. Greyhound racing requires a large outdoor track, and a lot of fairly technical gear to make it work. This really can't be categorized in the same space as, say, dogfights or the like.

I'm iffy on this. I think as a sport it could be handled identically to horseracing. I don't really see that big a difference. If the state were interested in regulating greyhound racing (I assume it already does to a certain extent), then the abuse could be minimized. I don't know if 'banning' it is the right approach though.

[wolfkitn.livejournal.com]

the only no-brainer for me was also #3, and i appreciate your thoughts about it. you may have swayed me towards voting no, also. thank you.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I'm voting "yes" on #1.

If it passes, I fully expect gasoline taxes to go up (to pay for the Big Dig debt), property taxes to go up 2.5% per year and lots of "special override measures", and all sorts of cuts to services.

And I'm okay with that. The whole "aid to cities and towns" was an end-around the Prop. 2 1/2 thing years ago, so that cities and towns didn't have to deal. In the mid-1990s, we passed Proposition 8 to devote all gasoline tax revenue to automotive infrastructure exactly so that beneficiaries are the ones paying for it.

And when you look at the amount of income tax revenue versus the state budget, it's basically saying that we'd like the state budget back down to Dukakis levels.

This is not a reactionary stance on my part. This is a long-term fix which I believe is absolutely required, even tho it will absolutely cause some short-term pain. The income tax is a terrible revenue tool, divorcing the payment for state services from the benefits. We've had measures to roll it back, only to see the state legislature pass "emergency" measures to hike it up again.

It needs to go.

But man, the timing sucks. When it was proposed, the economy wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.

[ghislaine.livejournal.com]

short-term pain/i>

No. Long term and LOTS of pain. As in people dying. The services I help people obtain every day because they are either mentally ill, physically disabled, abused, or simply vulnerable because they are children are drying up as I type because of the recent budget cuts. These services will be cut into even more deeply if the state budget is slashed and it *will* result in disabled adults and children dying, an increase in homelessness, and overall desperation.

I'd like you to do my job for ONE day and then say you agree with this proposal.

[keyne.livejournal.com]

How do you propose we pay for education -- property taxes? If so, are you good with the inequities of available property taxes in, say, Weston and Roxbury?

[keyne.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree on #3. It's very hard to 'drive greyhound racing underground' - as it's not that sort of a sport. Greyhound racing requires a large outdoor track, and a lot of fairly technical gear to make it work. This really can't be categorized in the same space as, say, dogfights or the like.

What he said. Hard for me to imagine an underground dog-racing track. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but you know how long the Big Dig took :-)

[keyne.livejournal.com]

"No" because of the "driving it underground" idea? <puzzled>

(I've voting "yes", fwiw, and would ask you to review the "Yes" and "No" arguments Tim linked to before making a decision. To me, the "Yes" reasons vastly outweigh the "Nos.")

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

The end result will be vastly higher property taxes. That's where the money will come from, and Massachusetts being Massachusetts, the money WILL be coming from somewhere.

High property taxes are a bad idea anyway, and very much more so right now given the state of the housing market at the moment. Can all the newly homeless folks come stay at your place?

[vasilatos]

Just a question: how on earth does one run an underground greyhound racetrack operation without getting caught? I mean, that's kind of large and visible, full of acreage and people and buildings and stuff. Massachusetts isn't exactly like the states in the South where they had/have all that dogfighting problem where Vick got caught, and that wasn't racing with tracks which is more kin to horseracing. I'm just trying to envision an underground operation. We have a lot of criminal cockfighting here in California so where there's a will there's a way, I guess, and I voted for our latest proposition against animal abuse for what it's worth (probably not much).

Musing out loud.

[vespid-interest.livejournal.com]

My friend has a greyhound "rescue dog," it was really messed up "emotionally" for a long time. It is not possible to minimize abuse of the dogs; abuse is guaranteed. People don't race greyhounds because they love dogs, it's purely about money.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I was going to quote Ebenezer Scrooge on how hopefully such people would die and 'decrease the surplus population', but I wasn't sure I could effectively get the sarcasm across, and I wouldn't want you to have thought for one moment that I meant it as a real answer.

Instead, I just wanted to thank you for taking a difficult job such as helping people in need. It must be terrible sometimes, especially when you see the resources you need being choked down fuether and further, but I know you're helping to make the world a better place. *cheers you on*

[moontoad.livejournal.com]

My friend is active in greyhound rescue. The big problem with banning racing is that it dumps hundreds upon hundreds of dogs onto a community that cannot deal with it. These dogs are not command trained, not housetrained, they don't know how to walk up stairs or down stairs or walk on slippery surfaces like a kitchen floor. They miss out on that crucial socialization period that ends at 16 weeks. They go from their crate to the track and back to the crate. That, in itself, is abusive to dog psyche. Many tracks serve as the permanent homes for many kennels, which is part of the reason so many get dumped at one time. Fairly recently, one or two tracks were closed and about 400 dogs immediately needed homes. There is almost no way to deal with that number. I think that greyhound racing needs to be phased out, but not with an immediate stop as that causes just as many problems as it ends.

[moontoad.livejournal.com]

That is, he exclusively rescues dogs from the track and rehomes them after fostering them.

Amen to that

[yagagriswold.livejournal.com]

As someone who works in the emergency food system, I just have to say Amen.

[moontoad.livejournal.com]

ANd his vote is close them. He checked, NPR states there are 2 tracks left in MA. While you have the short term issue of dumping hundreds of dogs on a shitty economy, greyhound racing is going away. Dogs in the order of hundreds are dumped every season anyway. There's only one track in Tucson and they cook the books, Phoenix closed recently and is now being made part of the airport. It's the same pattern everywhere. Dairyland (in WI) is sitting on 200 dogs that need to be placed by December. The long term effect is that fewer NGA (national greyhound association) dogs will be bred. Unlike those bred for the AKC, they are bred by function and form only, and therefore have very very few issues with things like hip and elbow dysplasia. So while the number of dogs will lessen, you'll get an increasing number of dogs with issues that stem from breeding for looks or wants rather than function.

So, in a nutshell, it doesn't make any difference if you close them and dump the numbers now, or let the seasonal dumpings happen for a few more years while it dwindles.

[ceo]

It can't. Question 1 will send Massachusetts' bond rating straight to "junk". And, the state maintains a borrowing cap to keep debt service below 8% of the budget, and if Question 1 passes, that percentage will go up over 12% and won't get back under the cap until something like 2016, even if the economy recovers soon.

[ceo]

And when you look at the amount of income tax revenue versus the state budget, it's basically saying we'd like the state budget back down to Dukakis levels.

One question: Is that adjusted for the cost of living?

[ceo]

Problem is, vastly higher property taxes aren't an option, due to Proposition 2½.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

I don't think that would block a state-level property tax scheme.

Regarding #1

[faulkner.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

Given that total state & local spending is $69 billion per year and the income tax represents $12 billion, we're talking a 17% cut. The 40% number that opponents keep throwing around is fiction -- even if you subtract local spending, the state spends $47 billion, including all their "off budget" expenses. So even by that metric it's a 25% cut. Why the big difference between the legal budget and actual spending? They're just that corrupt and opaque.

I think there's truth in your argument that the politicians aren't going to go quietly. They will indeed try to squeeze the money out in other ways, and try to cut the things people actually care about before they cut their blatant waste and corruption. But this gets at the crux of the argument for #1: it exposes how undemocratic the state government is. The real, lasting impact of a successful campaign for question #1 would be a coalition of very angry citizens who are willing to hold their representatives feet to the fire in the only way that politicians actually care about: money. This is precisely why even some die-hard liberals (http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columns&sc=city_streets&id=82285) are supporting question #1.