Massachusetts Ballot Questions: No, Yes, Yes, Yes

[cos]

This 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:

• 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.


• 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

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I've only one question re: 2, which is, who gets the money from the deposits that aren't redeemed?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on all of this, for all the same reasons.

[wotw]

[cutting the gas tax] only makes sense if you hate taxes on principle and want any way to cut them down....

Or, of course, if you think that gas is currently overtaxed relative to other things.

You, presumably, don't believe that, which is fine. Your blindness to the very possibility that someone might believe it is much less fine.

Similar comments apply to the other parts of your post, but rather than elaborate in detail, let me just suggest that if you start by pretending that everybody agrees with your assumptions and then infer that they're stupid if they don't agree with your conclusions, you're a) never going to convince anybody of anything and b) never going to learn anything. You are free, of course, not to care.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

I'd be in favor of the bottle bill initiative if it didn't have mandatory indexing for inflation. .06 etc. deposits are going to be a PITA.

If MA doesn't have casinos, people are just going to go to other states. It will also bring jobs to MA. I'm annoyed that Suffolk Downs lost to Wynn, but I think that voting Yes on that basis would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I'm with you on the other two.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

It's pretty clear that no one is convincing anyone of anything here.

[truthspeaker.livejournal.com]

For a long time now, I've been in favor of repealing the bottle bill and no longer collecting a deposit on bottles. However, you have provided me with the first piece of evidence I've seen that the bottle bill does encourage recycling in this day of curbside collections. My argument against was that the deposit law doesn't encourage recycling, but if that argument isn't valid, then I will flip my vote to a YES.

If 80% of bottles with deposits are recycled, while only 25% of bottles without deposits are recycled, that does imply that deposits encourage recycling (or, logically, there is a specific property of the bottles without deposit that make them inherently less likely to be recycled -- correlation, rather than causation -- though I can't see what that property would be).

How does it encourage recycling? Is it because some areas don't have curbside recycling, and this is the only way to get people to recycle there? Is there some other reason?

[miekec]

Thanks for doing the research - it helps at least me. I agree with 1, 2, and 4. Unsure about the casino issue. It would seem to bring jobs, but then again, I haven't done the research to support my thoughts. I can see that it would increase crime and addiction, but not how it would be toxic. They still have to hire people to run the place, and that would *bring* jobs, no? From what I understand, they are creating jobs where there currently aren't any.

[persis.livejournal.com]

Thank you for a clear explanation of the questions.