MassDebate: Just Say No... or Yes

Question 1

Almost everybody seems to be opposed to Question 1, except for libertarians and those sneaky folks who work in Massachusetts but live in New Hampshire and don't want their tax dollars going to this state. The main argument against the initiative is that it would cut our state budget by approximately 40%, leaving us with little to work with. It took some serious belt-tightenin' just to cut 4% from the budget, as Deval did recently; how can we possibly save ten times that much? Even those who are more open on Question 1 don't necessary think that eliminating the income tax is the proper approach to tax changes in Massachusetts. Progressive taxation, changes in the gas tax, and other steps are possible alternatives to simply eliminating the income tax already. It's worth noting that there are several states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming) that do not have income tax; New Hampshire, like Tennessee, taxes only dividend and interest income. (Looks to us like folks who live near Oregon, which has no state sales tax, and work in Washington, which has no state income tax, may have found themselves a pretty good deal.) The point has also been made that the federal income tax, not state income tax, is what really takes a bite out of your paycheck, and could stand to be reformed--particularly as the state may be doing a better job of funding public amenities than the federal government. (Dave went so far as to say "Beacon Hill is a model of efficiency and responsive government when compared to Washington.") It's hard to see how "Taxachusetts" could keep its title without taxes to work with; a no on Question 1 is a call for sustained public services and alternative tax reform.

Question 2

About half of voters would vote no on Question 2 (meaning about half would vote yes! there's math for ya), but do they really know what they're voting for? Many people feel they're in favor of decriminalizing minor marijuana crimes to free up police to work on more serious crimes, as well as open space in already-crowded prisons. But is this really a problem? The Globe suggests that most first-time pot offenders get unsupervised probation, and the offense doesn't go on their record. So would levying smaller fines (Question 2 would impose $100 fines; current fines can reach $500) and maintaining a general lack of jail time really make a difference?

Many folks back Question 2 because it would stop minor marijuana offenders from getting CORI, which has prevented many folks from getting homes or jobs when background checks turn up previous offenses. But the argument can also be made that problems with CORI run much deeper than minor marijuana offenses, and that Question 2 could provide a false sense that something's been done about the questionable aspects of CORI.

Question 3

Opponents of Question 3--the most vocal of whom tend to be directly involved in dog racing--say that dog racing is not harmful. They argue that the injury rates are low, and that the dogs are well cared for and have excellent adoption rates once their racing careers are finished. Dog racing is a heavily regulated industry, yet there has not been an official complaint lodged against the racing industry since it was established in Massachusetts.

There's also the question of economics: what will happen to the state when a multi-million-dollar industry is eliminated, and hundreds if not thousands of jobs are lost? Particularly in this difficult economy, it seems unnecessary to put people out of work for an industry that's well regulated and has no officially documented complaints against it. If animal rights activists want to protect animals, they should focus on regulating how animals are treated, rather than shutting down entire industries.

Tomorrow, the arguments for all three initiatives.