2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville.  My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes

Let's go in order, shall we?

Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store.  But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor.  Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society.  The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity.  There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply.  When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea.  To me, this one's easy: No

Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it.  Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far.  This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools.  "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option."  O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.

• First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids.  I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me.  And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets.  Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding.  Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student.  Buildings still need to be maintained.  Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district.  There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
• Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me.  There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture.  By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
• Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so.  They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional.  Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools.  It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores. 
• http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf 
• http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
• Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.  
• http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf

Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do.  Yes, it'll cost more.  Yes, this will have an impact on many families.  The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it.  It is a legitimate concern.  But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created.  We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor.  We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.

Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position.  We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol).  I get all that.  The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other.  There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol.  There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas.  A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments.  A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market.  I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana.  No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol.  We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems.  This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.

Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one.  First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me.  Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city.  That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise.  The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new.  The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new.  Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative.  Somerville: vote yes on 5.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.

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.

Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers part 3 - McGrath Highway

Alright, this has been a little over a half year brewing in my mind: the debate about grounding the McGrath Highway. 

Let's skip past the question of whether we should sure up the elevated stretch while we plan for the future, because that's happening, as it should be.

There's been a lot of discussion of how the McGrath Highway should be restructured as a ground-level roadway.  Some people are calling for it to be much more like a city street, with only 1-2 lanes each direction and slower speed limits.  Somerville Patch did a non-scientific poll which suggested that you could only ground McGrath OR leave it as a thoroughfare, but not both, which seems a little off to me, since you could certainly ground McGrath AND have it be a thoroughfare, which would make it closer to the way Broadway west of McGrath operates.  My general feeling is that it's partly this limited mindset that gets us into trouble.  The idea that we can only either make this road more pedestrian friendly or we can maintain as a cars-only roadway seems extremely limiting in the scope of what we can do.  Let's delve into some of the more specific proposals/arguments.

Part of the idea of grounding McGrath and making it into a smaller roadway is that then local businesses will magically crop up and have a chance to be successful.  I would point out that we already have plenty of locations for local businesses where local businesses are not popping up and being successful.  We have empty storefronts in almost every square.  Magoun Sq., for instance, is the intersection of 3 major roads that have 1-2 lanes each direction, and there are more empty storefronts on the 1-lane streets than there are on the 2-lane streets.  Why should we believe that the path along McGrath Highway would be any different?  It's not like there's a lack of traffic going through Magoun Sq. on those 1-lane streets. 

Another rationale for making the roadway smaller is the idea that we don't want traffic to go through our city that isn't utilizing our city.  There are a few problems this idea:

• People FROM Somerville drive on this roadway to get places.  It makes it much easier for me if I can drive from my house in Magoun Sq., up Medford St., merge with the McGrath Highway and go either north to Assembly Sq (no, I will not call it Assembly Row, that's ridiculous), or places in Medford/Malden (such as BJ's), or south to Target, the East side of Union Sq. or, yes ~gasp~, Cambridge's East side (I have friends there and a couple times each year go to CambridgeSide Galleria).  If you remove how easy it is for me to get places, why am I paying a premium to live in such a well connected location?  Oh, that's right, because I'm moving away to live in some other well connected location or moving to where it's cheaper.
• People drive TO Somerville.  Just as I take McGrath to go to Assembly Row, people in Cambridge will as well.  Just as I take McGrath to get to East Union Sq., there are others from outside of Somerville that do the same exact thing.
• What's wrong with people driving through our city?  In theory, those people might even stop and spend money in our city, no?  If someone's driving home and they're going to do some grocery shopping on the way, wouldn't you rather they do it in our city than somewhere else?
• One last reason why this is a ridiculous rationale: you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  A study was performed recently that shows that people enter and leave McGrath at each on/off section in equal numbers.  That means people enter McGrath from Medford St in equal numbers as people leave McGrath to get onto Medford St.  Which means, drum roll please, people don't use McGrath, for the most part, to drive THROUGH Somerville, they use McGrath to drive TO/FROM Somerville.

There's also the thought that McGrath's being raised creates a division within the city.  This point certainly is an issue, but I think it's one that needs to be thought through a bit more.  It's not like crossing McGrath at Broadway is super-easy, and that's just one street intersecting with McGrath.  At Washington St, you have, of course, Washington St crossing McGrath, but you also have the same spot intersecting with Linwood, and, at the moment, the combined traffic from Somerville Ave and Medford St that is heading North joining in as well.  A pedestrian crossing McGrath at this section, therefore, has a rough time figuring out where the traffic is coming from and when.

In fact, the combination of Medford St, Somerville Ave, Linwood, and Washington St in this short period, along with the high volume of traffic intersecting with McGrath, is what makes the raised segment of McGrath such a difficult pathway to resolve.  Speaking as a resident of Somerville that uses McGrath in this segment, I know first hand that there are traffic jams even with the off ramps in place that separate out over a block of 1 lane offshoots that therefore don't interfere with the traffic moving past these two off ramps.  These traffic jams can back up 2-3 city blocks at times, so this is not insignificant jammage.  Then there's the on ramp from Washington/Linwood/Somerville Ave/Medford St coming north, which is an accident waiting to happen, especially if you're trying to get to Medford St going west.  Grounding McGrath won't resolve any of this on its own, and, if planned poorly, will make the problems we have today much much worse.

There's one more item to keep in mind: the railroad.  Part of why the McGrath Highway current has an elevated section has to do with the 2 bridges it has in the space of 6 blocks, one of which brings the roadway up to level with the surrounding area.  Somerville is full of hills, and on runs approximately Cedar St., up Highland Ave., and ends approximately at the northern edge of the elevated section of McGrath.  The more you change elevation, the less efficient vehicles become, so for those driving from Highland Ave to the Twin City Plaza (called Twin City because the stores are in Somerville but the parking lot is in Cambridge) would operate most efficiently if they do not have to go down at the edge of the hill that Highland Ave runs along and then back up to go over the railroad tracks that go by the Southern section of the elevated segment of McGrath.  Efficiency isn't everything, but it's one more thing to consider, as are the two railroad crossings this major artery has.

There are, of course, many options we could take with McGrath:

1. Keep the elevated segment.  The negatives are obvious:
1. The negatives on this one are the obvious ones that many are talking about:
1. Eye-sore: Yes, one major reason to remove the elevated section is the disruption it causes to line of sight.
2. Multi-modal: The currently layout is not very multi-modal friendly.  As mentioned above, it can be dangerous for pedestrians, but bicycling is even worse while traveling east-west on Washington St, unless you transform into a pedestrian while moving across the area.  Traveling from Somerville Ave. to Twin City Plaza is actually o.k. for the most part, and going from Somerville Ave. to BrickBottom or Linwood couldn't be much easier.  Sure, it's a little inconvenient if you're trying to get from Somerville Ave to directly across McGrath (you have to walk down to BrickBottom and follow the street along, so you go around 2 blocks out of your way)
3. Drivability issues: If we leave the elevated segment as it currently exists, it seems less likely that we'll address the issues for drivers, and as mentioned above, yes, there are indeed issues for drivers.
4. Cost: Let's face it, bridges are expensive.  Having the elevated segment be brought down to ground level very likely decrease the cost of construction and upkeep.
2. The benefits are less often discussed or acknowledged as benefits:
1. Car/truck traffic flow along the corridor: Indeed, as mentioned above, it's much easier for those of us trying to bypass 1 or 2 exits to have the option to go straight from Medford St to whichever exit we're trying to get to.
2. Multi-modal: I know, this was one of the negatives, but if you're redoing some of the segment, you could add better path-markers for those looking to go from point A to point B, and you could add better flow for pedestrians (I'm thinking in particular of the Washington St intersections, both north/south and east/west.  I'll explain why this is a benefit of this option by explaining the negatives for multi-modal in the other options.
3. Overall Score: B-
2. Ground the elevated segment but leave the layout as close to how it is currently:
1. Let's switch things up and go with positives first:
1. Cost: Yes, it's almost definitely cheaper to maintain an at-ground-level roadway, probably also cheaper to set things up for the next 40-60 years (demolition would be expensive, but shoring up would be more expensive probably)
2. Line-of-sight: You will definitely have a better sight-line to Linwood St and Joy St... and the train tracks.... congratulations on being able to see the bridge crossing Washington St.
3. Better for businesses: O.k., fair enough, you'll have some better visibility to ground-level businesses, but as discussed above, this doesn't necessarily mean businesses will flourish... so I don't know that this is really a positive.
2. Negatives, ah, the negatives nobody points out:
1. Multi-modal: Yes, you've brought everything to ground level, but now instead of crossing 1-2 lanes of traffic at a time, you've got to cross around 6-8, and again, this is a more difficult area to cross than at Broadway.  
2. Multi-modal!: So you've made passage by pedestrians more difficult, you've also made it more difficult for cars, because now they've got to stop even if they're not intending to stop at each intersection.  The traffic jams you have now probably get even worse because now you're making things a bit more complex, and complexity usually slows things down.  The complexity isn't only the car flow but also the pedestrian traffic, as pedestrians now need to be given the opportunity to cross more lines of traffic instead of just 1 or 2.
3. Overall Score: C-
3. Ground the elevated segment and shrink the roadway:
1. Positives:
1. Cost: See option 2 above.
2. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
3. Better for businesses: see option 2 above.
4. Multi-modal: Ah, now we're finally seeing true benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists.  With the shrinkage of the roadway, not only will you have fewer lanes to cross, but likely, people will slowly stop driving down it as much, and presumably less traffic will be better for pedestrians.
2. Negatives:
1. Multi-modal: O.k., so you've made it better along this area for pedestrians, you've also made it much worse for drivers.  Are you secretly hoping to drive Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave out of business?  Are you hoping that people will flood the neighboring streets in search of better pathways?  I'm sure that the folks that live on Prospect Hill will be thankful that their skinny streets are being utilized more.  Or are you just hoping that people like me will stop driving in that area of the city, in which case, I have to ask again, are you hoping Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave will go out of business?!?  City planners have understood that if they expect the Assembly Square area to flourish, they need a good car/truck solution for the area, and have thus spent a lot on the roads there and made sure that driving to/from this area and getting to/from 93 or 28 or 16 is easy.  Why wouldn't they want people from Assembly Sq to be able to get to the rest of Somerville?
3. Overall Score: C- (you've increased benefits to those who live nearby and don't want to have a Target or successful large businesses in their backyard but at the expense of having those large businesses nearby or EVER making the inner belt more successful)
4. The (mini) Big Dig (that's right, we could spend a ton of cash to bring the roadway underground):
1. Positives:
1. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
2. Multi-modal: Damn straight it's multi-modal!  Now, instead of having multiple lanes of traffic to cross, you have the entrances/exits only again.
3. MULTI-MODAL: Unlike both grounding options, you can maintain the flow of traffic going through both intersections (Somerville Ave and Washington St).
4. Pleasant for pedestrians and neighbors: Imagine, if you will, a park going along from Washington St to Somerville Ave.  Traffic trying to get from Somerville Ave onto the McGrath Highway could be routed further east to Linwood and then north to meet up (as it does now) with the traffic entering from Washington.
2. Negatives:
1. Cost: HOLY CRAP, COST!  Yes, this option probably far exceeds the costs of the other 3 options.
2. Short term disruptions: Neighbors would have to deal with not only the short term traffic problems but also the noise and pollution of major reconstruction of the area... on the other hand, they also get the fourth positive above after it's all done.
3. Overall Score: Difficult to grade without knowing the costs of this option as well as the other options.

I hope you've enjoyed reading this breakdown of my thoughts about the McGrath Highway.  It's a lot, considering it's only 5 blocks of roadway, but it significantly impacts the community in more ways than I fear most are considering.  It's a complex situation and requires a lot of thought before we move forward, so I am thankful that the state decided to shore up the current layout and give itself the time to more fully weigh the options.

Taxes in Massachusetts

In recent months, I've heard about Massachusetts' sales taxes a couple times.  The complaint has been that Massachusetts charges taxes on the value of the item, not the discounted price (namely in regards to phones which are only bought at deeply discounted rates... name for me ANYBODY that has bought a phone for the actual not-discounted price please).  The sales tax in Massachusetts is 6.25%.  The sales tax jumped to this level from 5% in the last few years.  Here's the thing... at 6.25%, we're actually tied with 3 other states for 13th place for the highest sales tax.  Yes, that's right, 12 states have higher sales taxes than, Massachusetts, and 8 of those are higher than 6.8%.  Of our surrounding states, only New Hampshire really stands out as having much lower sales tax rates (0% for most things, 9% for prepared foods).  Connecticut is higher in general than Massachusetts with 6.35%.  Rhode Island is higher in general than Massachusetts with 7% and even higher for processed foods at 8%.  Vermont is lower in general, with 6%, but higher in some cities (additional 1%, making it 7% total) and has a 9% (or more in some cities) sales tax for prepared foods.  You might think that New York is lower with its 4% rate, but in some cities in New York, the overall rate jumps to 8.875%.  And all this discussion is over the sales tax on something that's generally around $600... I've heard of pinching pennies but $37.5 doesn't seem that big a deal to me.... admittedly, it's sometimes doubling the amount you're paying for the phone, but that's because the methodology of the sale of phones and phone coverage is broken, not taxes.  Still, $37.5 in taxes doesn't seem too much for something you buy every couple years, or am I missing something.

On the other hand, the additional taxes on prepared food could easily have a larger effect on your wallet.  Let's say you buy just $100/month of prepared foods per month, that's about 4 small lunches or 2 reasonably priced dinners per week and $1200/year.  New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont all charge at least a whole 1% more than Massachusetts.  New Hampshire and Vermont each charge 9% or more.  So on that food, you're being charged $108/year, $33/year more than in Massachusetts, or $66 every two years, which would cover the sales tax on your phone.  And that's a pretty reasonable prepared foods budget.  I know plenty of people who buy their lunch at the local lunch place every day and thus spend a lot more on prepared foods without even considering if they order out or go to a restaurant every now and then.

Oh, by the way, not to beat on New Hampshire too much, but they also have a 7% telecommunications tax.  Yep, they charge you for telecommunications specifically, making them and Louisiana the only states to do so.  I have yet to find any other state that has a tax on telecommunications at all, in fact.  But sure, telecommunications isn't a big ticket item... not like many people spend $50-100/month on it, which would be $3.50-$7 per month that New Hampshire residents are charged that Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont residents don't have to pay (that's $42-84/year, which, AGAIN, covers the tax on the phone you're buying FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS).

So, just consider that next time you think about the high sales taxes in Massachusetts.

"tighten the belt" ... reverse the coin and see what it says

Alright, back to taxes and the conservative statement that in these times of need, government shouldn't borrow and should act like every family does and tighten its belt.  I mentioned in my November 22nd post how ridiculous this statement is based on just the statement's premise and the role of government, but I'd like to investigate the opposite side of the statement.

If in times of need, government should tighten its belt just like families do, what happens in good times?  I actually happen to agree with this side of the coin.  Conservatives suggest that we should lower tax rates when times are good... should workers therefore tell their employers "hey, I can pay all my bills and still have some left over, you should pay me less?"  That's a horrible idea, right?  I completely agree.

In point of fact, in good times, families should invest in their future.  For one thing, you want to invest for college, retirement, a new house, but in addition to those things, families should build up some savings so they are at least a little prepared for emergencies.  The same is true for governments.  Admittedly, they don't have children to put through college or have to retire, but they sometimes have to buy new buildings and vehicles and build infrastructure.  These are investments governments have to make from time to time.  In addition, governments should prepare for economic downturns by building a rainy day fund.

Massachusetts has a rainy day fund that has cushioned the blow of the recent recession, but the problem for Massachusetts is that the residents decided to lower taxes in good economic times instead of recognizing that those good times would not last forever and that we should plan for the future.  In my last post, I commented that we did this and that we should restore our tax rates to pre-2000 levels (in 2012 MA tax rates are 5.3%, in 1999 they were 5.95%).

When times are average, we should make small investments in our future, just as families do.  When times are good, we should make larger investments in our future.  And when times are bad, we should use some of those investments in order to maintain services government provides to people, and even increase some.  We should not cut taxes just because we are bringing in more money than we're spending, just as we shouldn't raise taxes in bad times just because we can't fund everything out of the current tax income.  There must be a balance where we invest when we can and use those investments when we can't pay for everything with current tax income.

Public Transportation in Massachusetts

Year after year, I hear that the MBTA is running a deficit... like that's a bad thing.  First of all, keep in mind this is a government entity, not a for-profit business or even a non-profit organization.  The purpose of this entity is not to make money or provide a service at no cost to anybody that doesn't use it.  The purpose of government is to provide for the common welfare, and it's a good thing for us to have people have access to public transportation.... let's go into some of the reasons why:

1. Environmental: It's true, to some extent, that public transportation is better for the environment than everybody using cars to get everywhere.  I say "to some extent" here because it depends on how many people are using it.  Definitely, when the busses and trains are crowded, it is much more efficient at people-moving, but what about when the bus is less than 1/5 full?  So, rush-hour is definitely better for the environment and off-peak hours are sometimes worse.  So this reason isn't as strong as advocates might claim, but it's still strong.  Nevertheless, the findings from this claim would suggest that we should only have public transportation at busy times.... but that's only thinking from an environmental perspective, and there's more to public transportation than just environmental benefits.
2. Help thy neighbor: Public transportation isn't super cheap anymore, but it's certainly cheaper than some alternative forms of transportation, so it can be seen as a common good in so far as it allows us to more cheaply move about.... but I would suggest this too is not the biggest reason to be in favor of public transportation.
3. Traffic congestion and parking: Now we're talking!  It's all well and good to say that public transportation is good for everybody and it's instinctual to me to believe so, but for the optimal explanation to someone who's not interested in being nice to people and worried about spending tax dollars on things, here's the big explanation.  As you replace cars on streets with people walking/biking/being driven to public transportation, you reduce traffic and you reduce the amount of parking spaces you need everywhere.  When I think about people from Boston or Cambridge coming to Davis Sq. for the evening, I'm very thankful that not everybody has to park there and that many people come by bus or train.  It's worth a little of my money to help this take place, even if I'm not using the public transportation myself.

Alright, so, we've established that having public transportation is in the public's interest, next up, the financing.

First off, we have a general financing problem.  It's not the T's fault that we spent a ton on the Big Dig.  It's not the T's fault that we reduced our tax rates in MA.  Don't burden the T with the debt.  Instead, I would suggest we wipe the slate clean and have all debt for state agencies be consolidated into a general state debt.  Start fresh so we can plan properly and respectfully according to the agencies' needs and our interest in the agencies' support of our communities.

Secondly, we shouldn't use a tax on gas to pay for an agency that is supposed to reduce our need for gas.  That's just ridiculousness.  The budget for the MBTA should come out of the general budget and should not fluctuate with how much people drive.  This would further stabilize the agency, again assisting with being able to make planning possible.

One last item, which I'm sure I'll go into more detail later: Massachusetts tax rates are too damn low.  We, yes we since it was a ballot measure, cut our state income tax in 1999.  The plan was to reduce it from 5.95% (pre-2000) to 5%.  We stopped the decreasing in 2002 until tax income met pre-set amounts at which point we would decrease it by .05% per year.  Let's think about this for a moment.  Why did we stop the reduction in the tax rate in 2002?  Because the US economy faultered.  In point of fact, the US economy was going through a pretty good period in the 1990's.  Between 1992 and 2000, we had a GDP percentage increase of 5% or more 3 times as often as between 2000 and 2008, and we haven't even reached 5% since mid-2006.  So, since we were in time of prosperity, it makes sense that we would be bringing in enough taxes to pay our bills, but we should be using those times to build up our rainy day fund for times like we've been going through every since, where GDP growth has been minimal if any.  It should come as no surprise to anybody that we've been cutting our budget constantly for the last decade, and this is the reason, we saw some good growth years and thought they were average and therefore decided we could shrink our tax rate when in fact we should have been investing more and preparing for average and even lower than average years.  My suggestion, therefore, is that the income tax should be raised back up.