2014 MA Candidates for Governor

O.k., I apologize to anybody that thinks a third party candidate is the way to go but you're essentially voting for the greater of two evils by voting for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican... it's the truth and you need to accept it.  When instant runoff elections are implemented, then voting for a third party candidate won't be voting for the candidate you would least like to see if office, or when the election isn't close, like it is this year.

Alright, so, let's discuss the 2 actual candidates for Governor this year: Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker.

Say what you will, and I can say a lot about both, there are in fact issues that each has indicated their stances on and we should probably vote for them based on those stances.

• Taxes
• Charlie Baker has proclaimed no new taxes.  Congrats, you're the first Republican to take that vow.  This means, however, that we're going to see cuts and/or a crumbling of resources (such as state highways, the MBTA, schools).  No new taxes, by the way, also includes the reversal of the recent law that Question 1 would override: the updating of the gas tax based on inflation.  This is an automatic increase in taxes, yes, but it's not an increase in relation to everything else.... in fact, the whole point is to keep the gas tax up to date with everything else rather than eroding away.  See, most taxes are based on a percentage of something, rather than strictly a dollar amount per quantity of a thing consumed.  Our income tax is a percentage of our income, sales tax is a percentage of the cost of your purchase... the gas tax doesn't change based on the cost of your purchase but rather is a fixed amount based on the amount of gas you're buying.  If it were a percentage of the cost of the gas, that would be a different story and it would automatically increase over time with the increasing cost of gas (or decrease with a decrease in the cost of gas).  For more thoughts on Question 1, please consider reading my post on it.
• Martha Coakley is somewhat reticent to say she's in favor of new taxes, but she's in support of the new gas tax law and has indicated that new taxes would most likely lean more toward the higher income residents... similar to a graduated tax.  Graduated taxes are great for lower and middle incomes and are what made this country great for most of the 20th century.  The degradation of the Federal graduated income tax can be tied to the blowing up of the difference in income between the top 1% and the lower 99%.
• Bottle Bill... simply put...
• Baker's against it because Business
• Coakley's in favor because it encourages recycling (currently 80% of deposit bottles are recycled vs 23% of non-deposit) and increases revenue to the state.
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 2, please consider reading my post on it)
• Sick time for all 
• Baker's against question 4 because Business
• Coakley's in favor because Workers Rights (and disputes the risk to business)
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 4, please consider reading my post on it.)
• Schools
• Baker's in favor of charter schools... to the detriment of public schools
• Coakley's position is somewhat less exact and she seems to be doing a balancing act to attract more people (though it's been turning people off).  She claims to be in favor of some balance between charter schools and improving public schools.
• Essentially, if you're in favor of charter schools and all other things don't matter to you, vote Baker, but if you're not as keen to rely on charter schools, vote Coakley

My suggestion?  I know she may not be your top pick of everybody on the ballot, but vote Coakley.  She may not be my kind of Democrat but she's definitely not as bad as Baker.  One last thing to point out: Do you like how the state has been managed in the last 8 years?  Deval Patrick is far to the left of both Coakley and Baker, so there's absolutely no harm in having a Democrat in the Governor's office while having Democrats in power in the House and Senate, especially not one closer to the center than Patrick.

To summarize my posts in the last couple weeks:

Governor: Vote Coakley

Question 1: Vote No

Question 2: Vote Yes

Question 3: Vote Yes

Question 4: Vote Yes

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 4 - Sick Time for all Employees

Last question to go through... and this one's pretty simple for anybody believing in workers' rights.  A yes vote makes it so that any employee will earn 5 sick days per year (1 hour per 30 hours worked; would be available for use after the 90th day after hire).  These sick days would be paid if the employer has more than 10 employees and unpaid if the employer has fewer employees.  The sick days are to be used

1. to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition affecting the employee or employee's child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse
2. to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the employee's child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse
3. to address the effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employee's dependent child

So... who would argue against this?  Chambers of commerce... aka business.  Business tends to be against workers' rights because it costs more.  I get that, but sick time should be a basic right.  I don't know how else to say it.  Business claims that this will cost money and therefore cause lower wages and kill jobs.  O.k., so, that being the case, maybe we should do away with the minimum wage so that we can have more jobs?  They also suggest that it takes away flexibility for employees and employers to negotiate compensation.  So may be after doing away with all workers' rights since they all protect the employee from the employer negotiating away those rights.  

Enough already.  Minimum wage, 40 hour work week, lunch breaks, the right not to be sexually harassed on the job, protections for whistle blowers, regulations about safety in the workplace... all of these things limit what business can do and they are all accepted as basic rights for workers and they were all brought to use by Unions fighting against chambers of commerce.  Let's bring sick days to all employees in this Commonwealth.

Vote yes on question 4.