Voter registration deadline tomorrow

[cos]

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 13th, is the deadline to register to vote in Massachusetts in this year's election.

If you already registered and haven't moved since then, you don't need to register again. You can download a national voter registration form here. I posted with some more information, including answers to some common questions, on baystate.

Among the things on the ballot this year is a tax-slashing question that would cut state revenues by about $2.5 billion - which would probably cut local aid, leading Somerville to extend all parking meters 'til midnight and charge one quarter per ten minutes, leading to many posts on davis_square :)

Comments

[closetalker11.livejournal.com]

leading to many posts on davis_square

Blackmail!!!

:) :)

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

It would also result in a ten-fold increase in the number of planes over Davis Square on any given day.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

According to votenoquestion3.com, Somerville would lose $4 million in sales tax revenue if this passed.

Also worth remembering is that the initiative is run by people who don't really have a clear road-map for the state budget after a chunk of it goes away. They seem to be under the impression that there's waste and fraud, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but they have yet to produce any evidence that there's $2.5 billion worth, where it's located, or why we need to cut the sales tax to eliminate it.

[miss-lisa-ma.livejournal.com]

True. Their figures for "waste and fraud" are actually numbers from a poll about what people THINK is the level of waste and fraud. There;s no evidence, no hard data, just a bunch of people reinforcing each other's mistaken impressions.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

That's because it'd require what amounts to a private audit, which would cost thousands. Not that this shouldn't be done, per se, but...well...nobody, not even the anti-tax trolls, actually wants to pay for it.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

the last time the voters passed a resolution cutting the sales tax, the state house ignored it and then the governor increased the sales tax a short time later--I don't think anyone need get mussied up about it.

I do think our current sales tax is too high though--it too disproportionately harms lower income people. What I've heard of the tax slashing question is a lot of crazytalk though:)

[cos]

>> the last time the voters passed a resolution cutting the sales tax, the state house ignored it and then the governor increased the sales tax a short time later. <<

Really? When was that?

(Note: They actually can't "ignore it")

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

sorry, mixup--it was the income tax reduction in 2000 that passed and was ignored (and before that the rate was supposed to go down on its own and the state froze the rate higher than initially promised). And it's naive to think the vast majority of ballot initiatives in MA can't be ignored. All ballot initiatives can be overturned by the legislature with a simple majority.

I don't necessarily think taxes are too high, fyi. I'm just saying that whatever ballot junk related to taxes gets passed, it won't really do anything.

[cos]

It was not "ignored" and in fact could not be: Once an initiative like that passes, it's a law, and to change the law the legislature has to pass a new law through the normal process - write bill, submit to committees, hold hearings, committee vote, house vote, senate vote - which is a far cry from "ignore".

The 2000 initiative law that passed was to decrease the income tax from 5.9% to 5.0% in three gradual steps. The first two steps happened on schedule. Three years later, when the third step was to happen, we were in a recession and the legislature passed a new law to set the tax rate to what it was at the time - 5.3%. So the third step never happened, but presenting that as "they ignored it" is ridiculous. They passed a new law three years later due to changing circumstances, and in fact the initiative *did* cut the state income tax very significantly.

In fact, that very initiative is the reason why we got a sales tax increase. We wouldn't have needed it if the income tax were 5.9% since that would've brought in more money than the recent sales tax increase did. Our income tax is too low, and it's too low because of that 2000 initiative which you claim was "ignored". In fact, it had real consequences on our budget that we're still dealing with now, a decade later.

Of all the many initiative questions that have passed at the ballot over the past couple of decades, I can only think of one that the legislature completely cancelled (clean elections). Even the 2000 income tax initiative was a huge exception in that the legislature did significantly modify it, though only several years later, and leaving a majority of its impact in place. Even that is rare. Most initiatives that pass, stay law as is.

Anyone who accepts the claim that "it won't really do anything" is either a fool, or being fooled. History tells us that claim is extremely unlikely to bear out.

[vonelftinhaus.livejournal.com]

I applaud your last paragraph for it's Win of reality

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

You don't need to go far to see waste. How about the government salary database. You'll find assistants making 90,000-100,000 a year for example.
Not to mention the ridiculous salaries that police officers and state troopers make.
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/massachusetts/earnings.ASC

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

"You'll find assistants making 90,000-100,000 a year for example."

Assistants to who? How long have they been working? What are their specific duties? How is "assistant" defined by the state? Where does assistant fall in their hierarchy? What are their real hours? Are they salaried or hourly? How do these salaries compare to the Radford scales? Have they received raises? Have those raises been in line with cost of living? Are those raises higher or lower compared to private industry?

Salaries are not pulled out of thin air. Determining them is actually a fairly complicated process that requires a lot of work. So, in short, yeah, you do have to look far. This is something private companies hire full-time, permanent employees to do: it's that involved.

You can insist there's waste all you want, but that's not provable by throwing a bunch of salaries at the wall and calling it a day.

And, again, how does cutting the sales tax help? At all? It just makes $2.5 billion disappear, that's it. There's no guarantee the state won't raise other taxes, or even become more efficient.

[miss-lisa-ma.livejournal.com]

This. (And those "ridiculous" salaries the cops and state troopers make? The highest ones are for those who work LOTS of OT.)

Not one, but two recent studies debunked the whole "overpaid public employee" thing. Links to studies here. (http://workingmass.org/story/two-new-studies-prove-public-employees-earn-less-private-counterparts)

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is something all levels of government struggles with on a regular basis. What's funny is that I did some digging through that data and found that a lot of troopers make $60,000 or so a year.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

It was just one tiny example. I guess I should've brought up the Big Dig (14.7 billion). Also according to the former governor "We have hundreds of people manning the turnpike tolls who make $60,000 to $80,000 a year." (WSJ August 3, 2006; Page A7). Compare that to a NH toll booth attendant who's average salary is around $15 per hour. I'm not saying that every public employee is overpaid but there are cases where this does happen. In addition Massachusetts ranks 8th in terms of per capita spending, with the preceding 7 states having much smaller populations.

Cutting the sales tax helps that I have an extra $700 in my pocket.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Actually, if this passes, you've got no guarantee that $700 will stay in your pocket. That was kind of the point of the latter half of my comment.

Also, where are you getting $700 from? Is that above or below average?

Again, this isn't something you can just point at some other state and say "Well, it's that way there." That's not how hiring works. Besides, you can't even demonstrate Romney's claim is true; that salary data is not in the link you posted.

I'm not asking these questions to be a pain in the ass. I'm asking these questions because if we're going to cut the budget, with possible negative consequences for everybody, we need to damn well do the research. And I know for a fact that this research has not been done.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

There is no guarantee that it will stay in my pocket and that other taxes might be raised. But that's not a reason that proponents of low taxation shouldn't stop trying.

Regarding the $700.
2.5 Billion in budget cuts / 5 million (estimated adult population of MA) = $500. $700 is a personal calculation. But even if it's $500 - I'll take it.

As far as salaries go, it seems the database is not complete. But there was an article in Boston globe about 2 years ago stating that several were laid off, whose base salary was 53k, not including benefits and overtime, for annual savings of 70k per year. Some of them also got a severance of more than 1 year worth of pay.

My opinion is driven by the fact that if NH can do well without sales and income taxes and do quite well, so can we.

Well, that's a bad reason

[cos]

NH does very poorly compared to us. They have a low wage retail based economy with a lot of sprawl, they have few services, education is extremely uneven, and property taxes get extremely high in those towns that choose to have decent schools and decent roads. Property taxes are regressive. While the average tax burden as divided over total income is a little bit lower in NH, it falls more heavily on average people and lower income people than it does in MA. And lack of services and a poorer economy - both results of NH's tax-starved politics - mean that people generally have less in NH than they do in MA.

If you want NH, you're better off moving there, but please don't try to turn MA into the same thing.

Re: Well, that's a bad reason

[pywaket.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

If I wanted to live in NH, I'd move there. Considering how close by it is, those who want to live that kind of crappy life are welcome to do so. But don't wreck Massachusetts for those of us who like a decent, welcoming society with an actual social safety net, good schools and roads, and public transportation and other parts of a modern first world country. There's a reason that high tech is important here, and big boxes and strip malls are what you get there.

Re: Well, that's a bad reason

[miss-lisa-ma.livejournal.com]

Also, consider that $700 bucks in taxes may be worth a lot more to you as part of public spending than it is as cash in your pocket. Your public services and infrastructure are worth more than you think.

For example, let's assume you have a car. Potholes are a drag. It's hard enough to keep up with them as it is. With a $2.5 billion tax cut and the estimated $2 billion shortage next year, that's a lot of local aid money that won't get to the local level. How much will it cost you to repair the axle you blow on that Hummer-eating manhole you hit going 40 mph? More than $700, and your insurance won't cover it (not if it's caused by potholes, honest).

Got enough home or renters insurance? Hope so. 'Cause if the public works department can't plow the streets and tow the cars between the fire engines and your burning abode, you're going to need every penny.

Been over any crumbling bridges lately? Let's do a fundraiser at the Dilboy to take care of that.

A big reason these things are in bad shape is because years ago, a bunch of politicians took a lesson from Reagan and learned they could score points yelling about taxes and ignoring the investment necessary to maintain public infrastructure.

I'd love another $700 in my pocket, too, don't get me wrong. I just don't want to live in New Hampshire South.

Re: Well, that's a bad reason

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

You make it sound like day-to-day road maintenance is one of the biggest parts of the state budget. I doubt that's the case.

[smoterh.livejournal.com]

Actually NH is doing very well in this economy. They have unemployment rate of 5.8 compared to Massachusetts 9.1. Their job growth is at 1.7% while Massachusetts is 1.5%. Yes, it is a smaller and poorer state (MA ranks 3rd in GDP per capita, while NH 8th), but services are not lacking. Somebody mentioned pot holes - roads in NH are much better then they are in MA and there is much new construction and projects going on right now including installing open road tolling, which is installed nowhere in MA.

As far as urban sprawl is considered, you seriously can't be implying that this is somehow result of lack of taxes. NH was historically much more agrarian than MA. Also, not entire MA also looks like Davis Square. Just step out outside of 95 and you'll see plenty of sprawl and strip malls. I would also suggest you visit Portsmouth. It's a vibrant town with a lot of art and culture.

As far as taxes go. Yes NH has high property taxes. However property taxes are the most fair form of taxation. They don't penalize for working hard and earning more money, they don't penalize you when you want to spend your hard earned money. Real estate taxes tax you on the value of your investment and as an added bonus they go to your town instead of state. I'd rather not pay MA sales and income tax and have a much higher real estate tax because the money would go to Somerville, not the state.

And finally, when did this board become so full of freakin' neocons? What's with the "agree with us or GTFO" attitude? It's the same shit I heard few years ago: "Support the War or move to Canada". But now it's like "Support high taxes or move to NH". I know we have different opinions and a cool discussion some some fun bickering, but this attitude of "agree with us or GTFO" is uncalled for.

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

Any idea what an already registered MA voter needs to do in order to switch party affiliation (in order to vote in another party's primary) ?