Massachusetts, please defeat Question 3!

[cos]

Thanks, Massachusetts, for defeating that jerk in the primary! Several people asked me if I'd post again with my preferences for the November election, so here it is, just barely in time.

In brief:

• Re-elect Deval Patrick, Barney Frank, James McGovern, John Tierney.


• Defeat all three questions. No on 1, 2, 3.


• Steve Grossman for Treasurer, Suzanne Bump for Auditor, and though it pains me to say it, Coakley for Attorney General.


• In the 10th district, if Jeff Perry gets even 20% it'll be too much. Don't let him win.

Deval Patrick, our Governor, has done a good job in tough times. I've been frustrated with him sometimes, but more often, I've been impressed with how much he's accomplished. Maybe it's because of the contrast with his three predecessors (Celucci, Swift, Romney). I recently got asked, "What good things has Deval Patrick done?" and I wrote this long response. Take a look. Several commenters have added some great points to what I wrote.

For the other statewide offices, I recommend watching these short videos in which Jim Braude of NECN interviews the opposing candidates together.

My biggest worry is that Question 3 may pass. That question is to slash the sales tax from 6.25% down to 3%. Taxes bring in about $20 billion / year in revenue to the state currently, and question 3 would reduce that by about $2.5 billion. Proponents have been pressed to explain where they think that money should come out of, but they have no specific answers. And unless our economy recovers more quickly than anticipated, chances are a lot of that money would come out of cuts in local aid to cities and towns, would would cut schools and libraries and police departments and road and streetlight maintenance and so on, and also cause property taxes (and hence rents) to go up. No on 3.

Question 1 seeks to exempt alcohol from the sales tax. Although that's not as big a deal in the larger scheme of things, it offends me. WTF? Why should alcohol get this special exemption? Some proponents of Q1 say that there's also an excise tax on alcohol, so some of the sales tax you pay is actually tax on a tax, which is double taxation. They fail to point out that the excise tax is much much smaller, and the "double tax" amounts to less than a cent a bottle, usually. But even if that weren't so, if they really think there should be no excise tax on alcohol, they could've put a question on the ballot to eliminate the excise tax on alcohol. So again, WTF? This question is a ridiculous attempt to give beer & wine sellers special favors. Why not exempt books from the sales tax? Or how about sex toys? No on 1.

Bill Galvin, our incumbent Secretary of State, continues his long streak of avoiding all debates and candidate forums. And just like he did to us in 2006 (when I worked for his primary opponent), he once again pretended to agree to a debate and then backed out at the last moment. He's also managed to prevent Massachusetts from having election day registration for another few years. Unfortunately, his Republican opponent openly opposes election day registration, and seeks to add hard ID requirements for voters at the polls. He's the typical Republican anti-voting activist sort, obsessed with the non-problem of excess voters, and willing to go to whatever lengths he can to prevent legitimate voters from voting. Jim Henderson, the independent candidate, is better than both of them by far, but unfortunately due to no debates and no polling, it's really hard to say how much support each of Galvin's opponents have. Might our incumbent sleaze be replacecd by the Republican regressive? I really wish we had instant runoff (or any preference voting system). Of course, we'll never get that while Galvin is secretary, and I'm sure he likes the fact that it makes it hard to decide to vote for good candidates like Henderson. But I also really wish Henderson had run against Galvin int he Democratic primary, where there'd be no such "spoiler" worry. :/

[ Edit: ghudson points out that a new poll was published a few days ago, while I was out of town, that shows that Galvin, unsurprisingly, will probably be re-elected easily. So chances are there's little danger; vote Henderson for Secretary ]

I really don't like Martha Coakley, but unfortunately her opponent really doesn't seem ready for the job :( Watch the mini-debate and you'll see. And at least Martha will fight in federal court for lgbt rights, so there's a redeeming factor to re-electing her.

And then there's the 10th Congressional district, an open seat since the incumbent, Bill Delahunt, is retiring. This district covers much of the South Shore starting in Quincy, plus all of the Cape & Island. Bill Keating, the Democrat, seems like a decent candidate. Jeff Perry, the Republican... a former police officer who claimed a college degree from a diploma mill, and used a remote control to trip traffic lights from green to red so that he could "gotcha!" drivers with tickets, but all of that has been overshadowed by this:

Jeff Perry covered up for his subordinate abusing teen girls by illegally strip searching them. He left the police, and his chief doubted his honesty. He still insists he didn't know - even though he once visited a girl's parents to try to get them not to report his subordinate's strip search. Here's a public statement from one victim.

Apparently no newspapers endorsed him. But this creep is still going to get some votes. Try to make sure none of those votes come from anyone you know in the 10th?

Comments

speaking of question 3

[rmd.livejournal.com]

You know, I am beginning to think that what this state needs is a "Committee To Ask Carla Howell To Cut It The Fuck Out"

[pseydtonne.livejournal.com]

Don't we keep New Hampshire nearby so that anti-tax people can feel more at home?

Re: speaking of question 3

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

I'd like to start a ballot initiative to make Howell pay for every bullshit initiative she puts on the ballot.

Not another Bill

[jim henderson (from livejournal.com)]

Cos,

Although my cousin Bill might be flattered, my first name is Jim (or as it will be formally shown on the ballot, James). I welcome all supporters of good candidates to vote for me on Tuesday.

Jim Henderson
Independent for Secretary of State
http://www.JimForSOC.com

Re: Not another Bill

[cthulhia]

Jim was the lone politician who turned out for the Boston Common version of the Rally to Restore Sanity. (At least, if there were others, they did not identify themselves to me, and I was there for most of the event.)

Re: Not another Bill

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Heh, honestly, I'll vote for you just for this.

Re: Not another Bill

[cos]

Sorry! What with Bill Keating and Bill Galvin and Bill Campbell, I had Bills on the brain. Fixed :)

[ghudson.livejournal.com]

I found this report of a Suffolk University poll (http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/10/30/suffolk-university-poll-patrick-maintain?blog=101) putting Galvin-Keating-Henderson at 49-18-5. So on the one hand, Henderson seems like a long shot, but on the other hand, it may be safe to vote for him because Keating is also really far behind.

[ron_newman]

But Keating isn't running against Galvin.

[ghudson.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I mistranscribed. Galvin-Campbell-Henderson at 49-18-5.

[cos]

Hah! I put Keating's first name on Henderson by accident, so you took his last name for Campbell :)
Thanks for the poll, I was out of town this weekend so I missed it. Editing my post.

[l33tminion]

Any reason for favoring Bump over Connaughton (aside from Connaughton is a Republican)? After watching the debates and reading the candidate statements, I'm honestly favoring the latter. Their policy positions seem rather similar, and skill in accounting is a very useful thing for an auditor to have (though obviously either would have competent accountants working under them).

I was disappointed by Grossman's performance in the debates, but his opponent didn't do any better, so I still favor him.

In the case of the Secretary of State race I say vote (James) Henderson, it outweighs concern about being a spoiler. In the case of the Governor race, it's not worth voting for Pierce instead of Patrick.

[ron_newman]

Who is Pierce?

[l33tminion]

Meant Stein, don't know why I miswrote that.

[cos]

See my primary post for why I like Bump. I think the CPA thing is silly. Sure, having accounting experience is relevant, in that if you can show that you did a good job at accounting that's a reasonable qualification. But it's far from a requirement, and there are other ways yo show you can do this job. One of those ways is to show that you have done approximately this job, in this context, and well: Suzanne Bump has successfully analyzed Massachusetts state agencies and reorganized them for better efficiency. Connaughton's merely having worked as an auditor - without making any effort to say that she did a particularly good job at it - doesn't come close to that. Skill in having reorganized large Massachusetts state agencies is much more relevant, and having done it well, Suzanne Bump seems like a good choice.

When it comes to debates... did you watch the one I linked to from this post (on baystate)? Mary Connaughton apparently can't answer any questions! The brazenly repeats her few talkings points over and over, even when the moderator repeats his questions and presses her to answer them.

[l33tminion]

I did watch that debate, and that's an unfair characterization. Both candidates answered most of the questions directly. In the cases where Connaughton seems to answer less directly (pensions and a retroactive wage increase for state employees), the candidates' positions are similar but the moderator's behavior was anything but even-handed. He asked Bump nuanced follow-up questions about previous statements and waited respectfully for her answer. But he grilled Connaughton with straight "yes or no" questions and interrupted her mid-sentence when she failed to answer quickly enough. The moderator even allowed Bump to go off on a long digression about her opponent's debate form instead of answering a question, something which moderators should avoid as it can falsely color viewers' recollection of the entire debate.

Bump did seem like a better debater, but the debate did little to convince me she'd be a better auditor.

[cos]

I find that description kinda surreal. I was honestly bowled over by that debate when I first watched it, because of the way Connaughton seemed to parrot just a couple of talking points most of the time. Braude - who's pretty good and who I've seen moderate a bunch of Q&A appearances of this sort - let Bump talk because she was addressing his questions directly, something Connaughton hardly ever did. It convinced me that, regardless of positions, Connaughton wasn't just a "poor debater", she really didn't know anything about the job or the issues, and just came prepared with a small number of talking points.

[l33tminion]

I'm not going from memory here, I re-watched the debate.

To give an example, Braude asks Connaughton (as a follow-up question following a direct answer to "Why in the world should anybody be getting a 5% retroactive increase when virtually everybody in government and the private sector is hurting?"), "Why shouldn't they [the wage increases] be rescinded?" And he demands an immediate "yes or no" answer and interrupts Connaughton repeatedly with repetitions of the question when he doesn't get one.

For the parallel follow-up, Braude asks Bump, "So what's 'facile political posturing' about that [talking about rescinding the wage increases]?" He could have demanded a yes or no answer to "Why shouldn't the wage increases be rescinded?", as he did for Connaughton, but he didn't. He even does more active listening on the response. There's an "mm-hmm" early on, and he takes a deep, audible breath before cutting in with his next question, so Bump is prepared for the interruption. Nothing of the sort (on that particular question) for Connaughton.

Braude is way, way nicer to Bump. It's odd because he seems pretty even-handed in the other debates.

[cos]

Yup, I figured you'd just watched. We're watching the same video and seeing different things. To me, Braude seemed annoyed with her for not answering the questions. That question you're referring to came after her evading some others, so it seems understandable that he tries to interrupt her early when she's clearly about to ignore yet another question. Again, to me, the only good explanation for why Connaughton was doing this is that she really just doesn't know stuff, or maybe she feels that repeating talking points is the only thing she's on TV for. Either way, Braude's way of treating her seemed to me to be a result of how she was (not) answering. That's why this debate seemed different from the others - because with all the other candidates, they address his questions and he lets them talk.

[l33tminion]

You see "he's annoyed because she's not answering the questions", I see a little of that and a lot of "he's asking harder questions and interrupting her more because he's annoyed". There's a lot of room for unstructured debates to become "lose more" situations, where the questioning becomes really skewed against the less skilled debater.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

Thank you, coses, for this extremely cogent summary. I nominate you to the Top Ten Resources for Liberal MA Voters. :-)

I was ballot #200 at my polling place around 8:30 this morning!

[persis.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the summary. Plans are in the works to go out and celebrate my birthday and 90 years of Women's Right to Vote.

[bkdelong.livejournal.com]

Any thoughts on Question 2? I'm concerned that many will see it as a TL;DR and get confused, thinking it means that repealing the law (e.g. voting FOR Question 2) might allow for a single, comprehensive permit rather than take away that option. Besides the fact that I'm not sure it is understood WHY anyone would want to take away the option of applying for a single, blanket contract and why you think it might be a bad thing to disallow such contracts.

[makaer.livejournal.com]

I'll give a go on my #2 spiel, hope you don't mind.

Question #2 is about repealing 40B. 40B is the mechanism the state chose to enforce the requirement that all towns have 10% affordable housing (where "affordable" is adjusted based on locality). 40B is a good tool for non-profits doing affordable housing development. It is also a mechanism the state hopes to encourage for-profit developers to build affordable units. It's a carrot for developers and a stick for towns that aren't at 10%.

Towns feel like this puts them in a spot where a big developer can come in and push them around just because they use a certain percentage (I don't recall the #) of their units as affordable. And it is true, 40B allows people in this particular situation to "fast track" some stuff. But towns can and have blocked 40B developments that they didn't like.

A debate on whether the law, 40B, could use some tweaking I think has value. It's a pretty complicated mechanism - what is the right degree of carrot and stick, what are the right percentages, etc.. But repeal is a hammer where a thoughtful legislative scalpel would be better suited.

This ballot is banking on throwing a confusing topic at the electorate and hoping all they read is "Development is bad" and vote to repeal.

Mixed income communities are things visionaries like Martin Luther King and RFK have advocated. It is a mechanism to get people out of the downward spiral of poverty and poor education. Teachers, janitors, firefighters and policemen should be able to afford to live in the communities they serve.

And last but not least, how will we ever develop empathy if we live in gated communities divided from people not like us.

[bkdelong.livejournal.com]

Understood. So the basic gist is VOTE NO ON 2 because an outright repeal is destroying it with no guarantee of starting it from scratch per se to fix the problem, rather than actual reform of certain issues where communities are blocking 40B developments they don't like?

Is that a good summary of why "NO ON 2" ?

[makaer.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you. That is a good summary.

[ron_newman]

On the other side, here's a post from a very lefty friend of mine in favor of Question 2, as she feels that 40B is going to destroy an important wetland near Alewife Brook in Belmont.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that.

Most of my liberal friends have been telling people to vote no on all 3 questions, without even knowing what the questions are. So I'm glad to see some of the details of why some people support this question.

I'm still undecided on Question 2 (I guess I'd better decide soon). I generally support affordable housing, but I dislike when the rules favor big developments, since individually-built houses and small apartment buildings make for much better neighborhoods.

This is indeed the other side of the problem

[drwex]

Developers have used 40B to force through horrible projects. The root problem is that the townships have fought against affordable housing for so long that there is this Mack truck-sized hole through which developers can drive, so long as they set aside part of their development as low income housing.

The state's I.G. review of 40B projects showed a massive amount of waste and outright tax fraud; there are cases pending with the A.G. over some of them, and the state has promised to improve oversight.

The question is whether the 40B idea itself is workable or whether it's always going to be broken/subject to abuse.

Without 40B we have no way to promote affordable housing in communities that want to keep it out (most of them, sadly). With 40B we hand developers a big club with which they can bash the locality that may be defending a wetland or (in the case of my neighborhood) trying to prevent a development that would have completely overwhelmed the small roads serving the area. I don't like either solution.

[cos]

So, I've heard of cases where towns didn't like large 40B projects and turned them down, and then other stories like this where people say towns didn't turn down projects they didn't like, or "felt like" they couldn't. I haven't seen a good explanation of why, for the latter case, though. Is it just that the town governments aren't doing a good job, or do the big developers have too much pull on local politics (a common problem, but not 40B's fault), or is there a flaw in 40B that actually makes towns unable to turn down some projects they really don't like, even when there are sound reasons to turn them down? If the latter, I'd like to see a fix for that, but Q2 is not that fix, it's a larger repeal.

[laurens10.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this summary -- I always look for it come election day.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

"They fail to point out that the excise tax is much much smaller, and the 'double tax' amounts to less than a cent a bottle, usually."

The excise tax on wine is 55 cents per gallon. So it's about 11 cents per 750 ml bottle.

[cos]

Yup, so on wine - where I believe the excise tax is highest - the "double tax" based on a 750ml bottle would be 11 cents X 6.25% = 0.7 cents. Less than one cent. Yet this "double tax" is actually being used as an argument in favor of Q2.

Like I said, if they think there shouldn't be an excise tax on alcohol, let them introduce a ballot question eliminating the excise tax on alcohol.

[l33tminion]

That was my response exactly.

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I guess "double tax" could be interpreted two ways: the sales tax *on* the implicitly-included excise tax (as you describe), or just having two different taxes (what I was thinking of).

By the way, here are the complete excise tax rates:
cider: 3 cents/gallon
beer: $3.30/barrel (about 11 cents/gallon)
wine: 55 cents/gallon
sparkling wine: 70 cents/gallon
other drinks <15% alcohol: $1.10/gallon
other drinks >= 15% alcohol: $4.05/gallon