![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosThis year I think the ballot questions are easy. I can see room for disagreement on Question 3 but I think the others are as close to slam-dunk as a ballot question can be.
Question 1 - Cut the Gas Tax: No
Current law will adjust the gas tax automatically for inflation. In other words, the real inflation-adjusted value of the gas tax will stay the same, so the absolute number of cents per gallon will increase a little bit as inflation goes. This question wants to repeal that. This repeal is ridiculously stupid from any logical point of view; it only makes sense if you hate taxes on principle and want any way to cut them down. Because that's what this question would actually do: slowly cut the gas tax down from its current value, while sales taxes and income taxes continue keeping up with inflation because they're percentages of things that go up over time (retail prices, and salaries).
Question 2 - Eliminate Loopholes in the Bottle Bill: Yes
The existing bottle bill works really well. About 80% of deposit bottles are recycled, while fewer than 1/4 of non-deposit bottles are recycled. But many popular bottled drinks, such as water and juice, aren't covered by the existing law. You sell soda, it gets a deposit; you sell water in the same bottle, it doesn't. This loophole doesn't make sense. Question 2 would rectify it, bringing bottle deposits to juice, water, and sports drink bottles.
If you hate recycling, you'd vote against this. If you hate the idea of the government taxing anyone to encourage any behavior - even a very small tax where everyone who pays it has a way to get their money back, you'd vote against it. If you don't fit into either of those categories, you vote yes.
Question 2's oppenents have been spreading outright lies in their ads because lying about it is the only way to get reasonable voters to vote no. Unfortunately polls say it may be working; too many people are hearing these lies and believing them. So this is one where you should post to social media and tell your friends.
[ Edit: Yes, we know lots of people have recycling bins. Despite that fact, a large majority of deposit bottles currently get recycled and a large majority of non-deposit bottles currently do no. For whatever reason - a majority of MA doesn't have curbside recycling; lots of people buy bottles away from home and there aren't recycling bins nearby, etc. - the stats are clear. Pointing out that we have recycle bins doesn't change that reality. Bottle deposits are extremely effective. ]
Question 3 - Repeal the Casino Law: Yes
Big casinos are basically the equivalent of toxic sludge factories polluting their region with crime and poverty and lost jobs, while extracting money for a large corporation usually based far away. But what do they produce? Something you can already get in other forms or go elsewhere to get. There are already enough of avenues for gambling for people who really want it, that it's hard to argue it's worth the cost of doing so much damage in Massachusetts just to create a few more. The damage won't be limited just to people who want casinos and are willing to take the cost; it'll hit plenty of people who either don't care or don't want casinos, and don't deserve to be struck by the toxic effects on their surroundings.
Question 4 - Earned Sick Time for Employees: Yes
Companies with 11 or more employees would be required to offer at least 5 paid sick days a year. Currently, they can offer zero sick days. 5 isn't a lot. Also since a lot of the businesses that don't offer sick days are food service, passing this question would reduce the likelihood that when you eat out, you're eating food prepared by someone who has the flu but couldn't afford to take a day off out of fear of losing their job so they pretended to be well.
Others also recommending No-Yes-Yes-Yes:
Question 1 - Cut the Gas Tax: No
Current law will adjust the gas tax automatically for inflation. In other words, the real inflation-adjusted value of the gas tax will stay the same, so the absolute number of cents per gallon will increase a little bit as inflation goes. This question wants to repeal that. This repeal is ridiculously stupid from any logical point of view; it only makes sense if you hate taxes on principle and want any way to cut them down. Because that's what this question would actually do: slowly cut the gas tax down from its current value, while sales taxes and income taxes continue keeping up with inflation because they're percentages of things that go up over time (retail prices, and salaries).
Question 2 - Eliminate Loopholes in the Bottle Bill: Yes
The existing bottle bill works really well. About 80% of deposit bottles are recycled, while fewer than 1/4 of non-deposit bottles are recycled. But many popular bottled drinks, such as water and juice, aren't covered by the existing law. You sell soda, it gets a deposit; you sell water in the same bottle, it doesn't. This loophole doesn't make sense. Question 2 would rectify it, bringing bottle deposits to juice, water, and sports drink bottles.
If you hate recycling, you'd vote against this. If you hate the idea of the government taxing anyone to encourage any behavior - even a very small tax where everyone who pays it has a way to get their money back, you'd vote against it. If you don't fit into either of those categories, you vote yes.
Question 2's oppenents have been spreading outright lies in their ads because lying about it is the only way to get reasonable voters to vote no. Unfortunately polls say it may be working; too many people are hearing these lies and believing them. So this is one where you should post to social media and tell your friends.
[ Edit: Yes, we know lots of people have recycling bins. Despite that fact, a large majority of deposit bottles currently get recycled and a large majority of non-deposit bottles currently do no. For whatever reason - a majority of MA doesn't have curbside recycling; lots of people buy bottles away from home and there aren't recycling bins nearby, etc. - the stats are clear. Pointing out that we have recycle bins doesn't change that reality. Bottle deposits are extremely effective. ]
Question 3 - Repeal the Casino Law: Yes
Big casinos are basically the equivalent of toxic sludge factories polluting their region with crime and poverty and lost jobs, while extracting money for a large corporation usually based far away. But what do they produce? Something you can already get in other forms or go elsewhere to get. There are already enough of avenues for gambling for people who really want it, that it's hard to argue it's worth the cost of doing so much damage in Massachusetts just to create a few more. The damage won't be limited just to people who want casinos and are willing to take the cost; it'll hit plenty of people who either don't care or don't want casinos, and don't deserve to be struck by the toxic effects on their surroundings.
Question 4 - Earned Sick Time for Employees: Yes
Companies with 11 or more employees would be required to offer at least 5 paid sick days a year. Currently, they can offer zero sick days. 5 isn't a lot. Also since a lot of the businesses that don't offer sick days are food service, passing this question would reduce the likelihood that when you eat out, you're eating food prepared by someone who has the flu but couldn't afford to take a day off out of fear of losing their job so they pretended to be well.
Others also recommending No-Yes-Yes-Yes:
- Blue Mass Group's endorsements: No, Yes, Yes, Yes
- The Boston Globe: No on 1, Yes on 2, Yes on 3, Yes on 4.
- Progressive Mass: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.
- League of Women Voters MA: No, Yes, Yes. They haven't taken a position on question 4.
-
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mangosteen says No, Yes, Yes, Yes. As does l33tminion. - Progressive Democrats of Somerville founder Rebekah Gewirtz's Summer into Fall 2014 Newsletter recommends No, Yes, Yes Yes.
- College Democrats of Massachusetts voter guide says No, Yes, Yes, Yes
no subject
The Suffolk Downs proposal would have been something new: a casino with transit access to a major tourist city. It might have led (and I say MIGHT because it hasn't been tried anywhere) to a new kind of casino visit: people who come to the casino, but who also travel into the city to enjoy other attractions or have a meal. It also would have led to city residents traveling to the casino for its attractions: not just gambling, but also restaurants and performances. And it would have provided jobs that urban residents could get to without automobiles.
The location chosen in Everett lacks those advantages. It has no transit access; Wynn has proposed a water taxi service, but water taxis are unreliable because they can't run in bad weather. It is also difficult to drive to, unlike Suffolk Downs which is located on a highway.
I wanted a casino in the Boston area. But I wanted it at Suffolk Downs, where it could have helped our city. Since the powers that be have decided that we can't have that, I am now inclined to vote against casinos.
no subject
But I suspect that people who go to casinos will tend to drive there. They don't strike me as T riders or bikers (as in bicyclists). And if they're driving to Everett, besides mucking up the traffic locally, they'll most likely be adding to the traffic on routes 93 and 128 as well.
My husband's from a state with lots of casinos, on tribal land that's sometimes near cities like Everett, but NOT near a city like Boston. They're already kind of sad places, and the casinos just make them sadder. From the clientele out there, I even wondered if casinos might be dying out along with the older generation -- it's a kind of "entertainment" that an older generation likes/liked, but doesn't really interest younger people. (and this is putting aside the whole issue of gambling addiction and crime and running Mom & Pop places out of business).
I'm voting to Repeal the Deal because our whole state can do better than this. And Everett is bound to get its moment in the sun soon; it can become the next Somerville, if not the next Malden...