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.

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 3 - Gambling in Massachusetts

Question 3 on the 2014 ballot in Massachusetts is essentially overturn the decision to legalize gambling in Massachusetts that was made back in 2011, a decision allowing 3 casinos and 1 slot parlor to be established (none of which have actually started construction).  A "yes" vote would overturn the law, a "no" vote maintains the plan.

Simply put, gambling establishments have a negative impact on the communities around them.  There is no question about this.  Seriously, it's not debated.  So, what are the reasons we would want casinos in Massachusetts?  Let's discuss them and see if they're worth the negatives.

• Jobs.  In 2011, Massachusetts was on the road to recovery from the largest recession in quite a while, but we were still hurting quite a bit.  We still are, but at 6% unemployment today, we're definitely in a better place than we were in 2011 (7.7% in Jan - 6.9% in Dec).  So yes, jobs are an important consideration, but I would suggest that there are better ways to grow the economy than to introduce harmful industries.  Also, looking at how casinos operate and how they're doing in nearby states suggests that the jobs that would come would pay less than a living wage.  I know, having a job is better than not having a job, but the quality of jobs being produced by negative industries should be part of the consideration.
• Government Income.  So, here's the interesting thing, this actually isn't something opponents to this question (proponents of gambling) argue.  The reason?  Gambling establishments introduce huge new costs that have to be covered.

Any other good things?  Nope, not really.

O.k., so, let's discuss a few things to keep in mind in addition to the benefit of jobs that aren't particularly good.

• Casinos in other states haven't been doing well, which leads proponents of this Question to believe that workers from those states may come to Massachusetts for those jobs... and they'll be more likely to be hired because they're already trained.  Besides the idea that not all the jobs will go to MA residents, this also draws into question how well the new casinos in MA would do. 
• Casinos are really bad neighbors.  They muck up traffic and cause local businesses to go under.  Even Governor Deval Patrick, a huge supporter of casinos, doesn't want one near him.  

O.k., so, we're not as hurting for jobs as we once were, the jobs that would be produced aren't good jobs, the construction industry is doing pretty well, gambling is detrimental to the neighborhoods it comes to, and the economic benefit of having casinos is dubious at best.  All in all, it's time to put this idea back to bed and move on with what makes Massachusetts a great state and has allowed our economy to not be as negatively impacted by the Great Recession but also to rebound rather well.  We're known for our great educational institutions, bio-tech sciences, finance, health care and computer science.  These are all great industries we can continue to grow.

Please vote yes on Question 3.

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 1 - Should We Re-Introduce Shrinking Our Gas Tax

O.k., this is really what this question is about: The law has been updated to increase the gas tax along with CPI, aka, as consumer goods prices increase, so will the gas tax.  So, instead of having the gas tax shrink in comparison to real dollars, the gas tax will keep up with real dollars, by one standard.  A vote in favor of this question would stop this linkage and would return the gas tax to not being linked to anything and therefore lose its power every year, reducing its ability to keep up with the real cost to maintain roads and all other efforts the gas tax is there to assist.

So, why would anybody be in favor of screwing over our crumbling infrastructure?  I honestly can't say.  They say it's because they don't want to have taxation without representation... but the increase in this tax would be similar to the increase in your income tax as you increase how much you make.  Don't understand how that could be?  The gas tax is not based on the price of gas, it's a certain amount per gallon (currently 24 cents per gallon).  If the price of a gallon of gas goes up, the tax on that same gallon doesn't increase.  The general concept in our economy is that worker's compensation will increase as costs increase... at least that's what is supposed to happen when the system works well.

Let's try this a different way.  Would it make sense if year-after-year, your office made more money off your work, but your pay didn't increase?  How about if someone making 150,000 a year got a raise and started making 200,000 but their taxes didn't increase?  So, why does it make sense that when gas taxes increase from $2.00 to $4.00 per gallon, that the tax on that same gallon remains 24 cents?

I understand that gas is expensive, I own a car and drive to work every day.  But it just makes sense that we should have the gas tax increase with some form of tracking the real dollar, CPI being one of those methods.

One other thing to keep in mind, we in the US have not been maintaining our infrastructure.  A crumbling infrastructure is no good to anybody.  Catching up will require more than just a small effort and the gas tax isn't going to do it alone... but at least we can maintain this source, even if we're not willing to do all that it will take.

Please vote NO on Question 1.

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 2 - Should We Recycle Water Bottles

Ok, I admit that those against the bill aren't anti-recycling, they just happen to not have the facts on their sides in terms of what gets people to recycle.

Let's start over.  Question 2 on the Mass 2014 ballot is to expand the bottle deposit system currently effect.  A yes vote would expand what the deposit applies to so that water bottles and some other bottled drinks would be included.

Summary of the sides:

• Proponents may be thought of being a bit cynical, suggesting people need a reward system in order to recycle.  
• Opponents are concerned about how much it will cost businesses to upgrade their bottle return machines to include the new bottles.

O.k., so, let's start with the opponents.  Yes, it will cost more to upgrade some machines.  You know what?  It costs something to improve situations.  It costs money to improve power plants with pollution-reduction technology... we should do that anyway, right?  So yes, it will cost money for businesses to improve their recycling machines.  The deposit itself doesn't cost companies anything though, so it's just a one-time cost plus some more maintenance due to the increase in recycling that they'd cover... because THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN RECYCLING.

Opponents suggest that instead of businesses spending more, the state and local governments should spend more on curbside recycling... and that today there's significantly more curb-side recycling so people don't need to go out of their way to do their recycling, as they did when the original bottle bill was passed.  Here's the thing, though, the facts point out just how wrong this argument is.  If people recycled based on ease, we wouldn't see a difference of 60 percentage points between how many deposit-bottles are recycled vs how many non-deposit-bottles are (80% of deposit vs 23% non-deposit)... this is now, after we've made recycling significantly easier.  The fact of the matter is that providing an incentive to recycle the bottles makes a huge difference.  Sorry, human beings are not as virtuous as we would hope.

Opponents also point out that the fund that was set up to help the environment, which is funded by the deposits on bottles that don't end up being returned, has been used by legislators for other purposes.  O.k., I can see how this would be a problem, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the bottle bill works for it's main purpose: getting people to recycle plastic bottles.  And today, bottled water is HUGE and the fact that 77% of water bottles are thrown in the trash is quite simply inexcusable.  Let's do something about it.

Please vote yes on Question 2.