Comments on: MA’s 2008 Statewide Ballot Question 1

By: Brian Herzog

Brian Herzog — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:59:24 +0000

@Jon: You’re right - all along I’ve indicated that I’m coming at this from the point of view of someone who might lose their job if Question 1 passes. So the idea of voting for something that will reduce income tax is lost on me, since it might cost me my income entirely.

But what’s worse is that there’ll be lots of other unemployed librarians, and very few library jobs. Which means that in order to support my household, I’ll have to move to another state - very likely along with teachers, firemen, police, and many other public servants. Question 1 doesn’t reduce the need for these services, just the ability to provide them. Reducing the state population might just be an unintended consequence.

As for maintaining a library if Question 1 does pass, I (and I’m sure every other librarian) will do what we can. But keeping libraries open is why a lot of library people are coming out against Question 1, instead of just waiting around to pick up the pieces if it passes. But if it did pass, there’s only so much that could be done. We can’t work for no pay, but I suppose that’s the best way to avoid income taxes.

By: Jon W

Jon W — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:07:24 +0000

You write about a “base sense of self-preservation” and seem an excellent example. The library is a core component of freedom and I hope that regardless of whether you manage to keep the government nipple, your love for the free availability and open distribution of ideas will drive you to maintain a library in your community.

By: Brian Herzog

Brian Herzog — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:37:49 +0000

The funny thing is that I actually agree with a lot of what Zman and elijah and other supports say - I do think there is waste in government, which needs to be improved. I just don’t agree that Question 1 is a good way to go about it.

Question 1 seems akin to disliking a movie, and throwing a molotov cocktail into the theater - it’s not going to magically make the movie better, it’s just going to make a lot of innocent people suffer. Whoever threw it might feel better about themselves for getting the movie out of their town, but they didn’t really address the real problem - just a symptom of the problem.

Real reform means sustainable reform, which will come in the form of legislated spending laws and voting bad politicians out of office. It can be dramatic while still being logic, intelligent and level-headed - slash-and-burn/fend-for-yourself tactics are far too Ayn Rand-ish for a public librarian like myself.

Perhaps my community-mindedness is the reason I don’t mind my taxes going towards statewide projects like highways, mass transit, and parks. I don’t take the T very often, but I like knowing it’s there in Boston when I need it. I don’t drive Route 2 very often, but I know that if I want to go hiking at Mount Greylock, not only will the road there be passable and safe, but Mount Greylock State Park will also be safe and well-maintained.

Same thing with the Cape, central MA, and every other part of the state. I don’t want my taxes squandered on unnecessary or poorly-managed projects, but cutting off the nose to spite the face is not how a government should be run.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:44:47 +0000

I’m with Zman. I’m willing to take my chances. Yes services would be cut but we all know that a lot of these services cost way more than they have to. Not to mention the T is bankrupt because of ridiculously high salaries and pensions and poor fare collection on the green line. Not to mention that property taxes already pay the vast majority of the police (many of whom work on wasteful details), fire, and schools. So we raise sales taxes. What’s unfair about that? People who make more spend more and they would still pay more taxes than those who don’t make as much. But what is really needed is drastic cuts. Fire up the grill because I think the Governor is going to have to burn some fat on Nov. 5th. I’m happy to help. Vote Yes on 1

By: Zman

Zman — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:41:53 +0000

One more thing.

How many of you in western Mass ride the “T”
How many of you in western Mass drive through the big dig (at 16 billion over budget)?
How many of you in western Mass get your water from the MWRA?
How many of you in western Mass cleaned up Boston harbor?

Answer: You may think you didn’t but you did!

By: Zman

Zman — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:27:24 +0000

Before we drive over the cliff with this question we should review just what goes on in Mass.
We now know that 41% of every tax dollar is wasted in Mass.
We know that real estate not income taxes pay for local services such as teachers, firefighters, police and DPW.
We know that most of the money each town receives from the state is “cherry sheet” funds provided by the Mass Lottery.
So why do our property taxes need to go up if we end the income tax? It should not.
What the people want who understand this question and all that it entails is a return to what our founders wanted. Strong local government, weaker state and even weaker federal government. However, this has been reversed by tax policy. Do you think you can better spend your own money at a Town Hall meeting or do you think the state can do it better?
So what is the state’s response to this if it passes? It will be to punish us by dragging out the handicaped, (Deval started this two weeks ago)and preparing us for the apocolypse(sp) and as one person stated above the state will keep the hacks and lay off the real workers.
But is it not the time to stand up to our government. I don’t mean in a radical sense, but look at what Wall Street just cost us. People leading the good life raking in millions in salaries and leaving us to pick up the tab.
This is how our government works. Do you think that politicians are in Washington to serve us or make a business out of being in government.
So in conclusion, the loss of the income tax should not change your town services or raise your real estate tax, the state will punish us for a while but if we hang tough the loss of income should clean up our one party state. It is the only power we have.

By: paulunion

paulunion — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:35:33 +0000

Why is Associated Industries of Massachusetts opposed to Question 1?
Supporters need to indicate what public services they can live without, because a cut of 12,700 Million dollars…$12.7Billion… is not something you can just “economize” your way out of. Public Libraries are prime cases for elimination.

By: leo taylor

leo taylor — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:35:39 +0000

It appears the groups behind voting NO are the unions. I have to ask why? Is it because they will lose some jobs…pay more for health care….get smaller pensions…Maybe its time for the state workers to wake up and smell the coffee!! The tax payers are already losing jobs, paying for health car, and in a lot of cases do NOT have pensions. We cannot continue to support these benifits. The group behind defeating this is the Coalition for our Communities. What a nice name so I ask myself who is this group? I did some research and to my surprise it is the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO who represent 750 unions which has over 400,000 members is behind it not your average tax payer. In their ADs why are they hiding behind another name? They are trying to fool you and I. They may try to scare you of the unknown but ask yourself why is this group pouring over $2 million into defeating this question. They are out for their known best interest which comes from our pockets! I will be voting YES! If passed the state will have to become more thrifty with the spending. If the end results in the sales tax going up so be it. At least we will be spreading it out beyond residence to visitors coming into our state. I’m willing to take my chances and vote YES!

By: Tom C

Tom C — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:33:22 +0000

If I vote yes on Question 1 where will the money come for the much needed social services already strapped? Homeless, mentally ill along with a long list of other disabilities such as HIV/AIDS. Alot of these people not only need help but they need advocates to get them the help as they wouldn’t be able to do it on their own. We have a responsibility to all of society - especially the marginalized. Where would this money come from?

By: elijah

elijah — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:44:21 +0000

I am tickled to read the fear and trepidation in so many of your words. You have become exactly what “Big Government” needs you to be. It seems that everyone agrees Massachusetts is a wasteful sloth of a government, however, many of you still seem convinced that your world will disolve without it. You seem to feel entitled to the “essential” government services doled out by our admitedly wasteful pols. Those “essential” services which I don’t seem to use much of. Regardless, the cycle will repeat and you and I will overpay for someone else’s great idea, until we are broke and there isn’t enough to pay for any more good ideas, so taxes increase again. The problem isn’t which services are essential and which are not, we already know that other fine states can support a great quality of life with a fraction of the tax revenue this state recieves. This problem is fundamental. It is axiomatic that governments by nature seek more control. It is axiomatic that taxes rise to meet spending. It is axiomatic Government does nothing which is both inexpensive and done well. This end was never government’s purpose, yet somehow we have come to this very debate.

This law is INTENDED to throw a molitov cocktail at the feet of our state legislators, and perhaps those who still don’t get it. RUN! Scramble! Find a way to pay for roads, police and public works without the waste you are so accustomed to. Function! Do what other states do! You are NOT entitled to my paycheck to support programs YOU feel to be essential. You are NOT entitled to tax my income to the point where my discretionary income is no longer available to me. You are not to spend my living creating jobs, the free market does a MUCH better job of that. You are not allowed to decide how to spend my income on your unique-to-the commonweatlth “essential” programs. The state is NOT to control the remainder of my paycheck after food, housing and utilities have been paid. You are not allowed to distribute social aid on my behalf to the point where none is left to help my own family, church and friends in their times of need.
This initiative will not end state revenue, this initiative will not bankrupt the taxpayer. The state will have to re-examine the relationship between the government and the governed and make major consessions. In the cradle of liberty, the state where our founders declared war over these principles; don’t you think it’s about time?