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. ...
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. ...
On the heels of the MBTA pay-raise story comes the news that people are paying more in property taxes on houses that are worth less. The Outraged Liberal, who predicts disaster if Question 1 passes, hopes:
... Hopefully those folks who plan to speak out against Question 1 are hard at work for a campaign that will launch right after Labor Day -- you know about the same time the Democratic convention ends, the Republican convention begins and the political media's focus on the presidential race obliterates all other discussion?
First state pensioners, now detail-lovin' police, but there's an endgame in mind here and it's not necessarily Washington:
... Make no mistake, Patrick has an election in mind all right. It's the November referendum on Question 1, the income tax repeal. Polls suggest voters are unhappy enough that they could vote their wallet and not their best interests. Sacred cows need to fall.
If that means dealing with upset pensioners and police officers angry because they've been asked to do some dieting along with the rest of the state budget (and there will be a lot of that in the months ahead, particularly if the federal Medicaid waiver is slashed) that drama may only help convince fence sitters that Question 1 is a recipe for disaster. ...
This past Saturday, the Globe declared the South End was overrun with Yuppie rugrats even though, as Michael Pahre pointed out, the thesis contradicted a Globe story just seven months earlier that said Yuppie parents had fled Boston en masse.
Today, on Blue Mass. Group, David points out a similar "huh?" in a Globe story that quotes the owner of the Raynham dog track as saying a ban on dog racing would cost 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the state's two dog tracks. In January, the Globe reported Raynham only employs 350 people. As David notes, it seems unlikely that the smaller Wonderland track employs several thousand more people.
The Outraged Liberal explains why we're no longer all that highly taxed and why the ballot question to end the state income tax will actually accelerate the number of people fleeing Massachusetts.
Chris Lovett gives it good odds of passage in part because this year has some parallels to 1980, when Prop. 2 1/2 was passed: An economic slowdown, a presidential election and, in Boston, a seeming mayor for life.
Mike Mennonno dissects the state's new health-insurance law, the one the Globe loves to bits.
Jay Fitzgerald dissects the argument that legislators are doing the right thing by breaking their constitutional responsibilities.
Mass Marrier analyzes the defeat of the three statewide ballot questions; he says 2 and 3 were just too confusing for most people. As for 1:
... Voters bought into Chicken Little-style claims of bodies on the highways and drunken teens in an updated version of Reefer Madness. ...
Talonvaki was glad to see Question 1 defeated, but for a different reason:
John Daley pokes holes in various arguments against letting supermarkets sell wine:
... This is about business, trade and reasonable regulation, not a referendum on the dangers of drinking. It it were, the liquor stores would be arguing against their own existence.
Question 2 would let a candidate for statewide office run on the ticket of more than one party. Question summary and pro/con statements.
Jesse Kanson-Benanav explains in detail why he supports the measure:
Beacon Hill Wines and Spirits has a blog and uses it to explain why Question 1 backers are lying about who would be able to sell wine should the measure pass and why it matters.
However, the author also says he has yet to see a single Vote No on 1 ad on TV, which means he is either the only person in the entire state who hasn't seen the ads about blood running in the streets or he only watches Channel 2.
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).
Lynne on Blue Mass. Group urges a yes vote:
John Daley doesn't think Question 1 will mean hordes of drunken teens marauding through our streets; he explains why he'll be voting "yes" on Question 1:
... Mostly it's a question of convenience for consumers. In my case, that will mean being able to get two-buck Chuck at my local Trader Joe's rather than having to trek to Memorial Drive. And that's enough for me.
At more stores than the Omni Foods in Chestnut Hill, that is (turns out chains can currently get a total of three liquor licenses).
Ron Newman provides links to both sides of Question 1, a referendum in November on whether supermarkets and convenience stores should be allowed to sell wine:
If you can't buy wine with your TV dinners, the terrorists have won!
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
