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.

"I'm not picking a side" nonsense

I'm so tired of people saying "I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I refuse to be labeled"... yes, o.k., so you're also not any of the following labels, right? heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, religious/atheist, political, moral/immoral, male/female, human, alive, conscious.  Just because you make your own decisions about what is right/wrong and what the best options are in society/international politics/national economics/etc doesn't mean that you are not somewhere on the liberal/conservative scale.

Just because I self-identify as human, atheist, heterosexual, economic-liberal, social-liberal, and good-government (ask if you don't know), doesn't mean that I will always agree with those who self-identify the same way.  Yes, I am a registered Democrat, but that's only because Democrats tend to agree with me and Republicans tend to disagree with me.  I'm not therefore forced to vote Democrat, I'm just forced, in the primary, to indicate which Democrat I'd rather see in the general election instead of being able to say which Republican I would rather see.... and in my state, that means I more often will have a decision to make than otherwise.  If I were in another state, maybe I'd change my affiliation, but it wouldn't change the criteria by which I would vote in the general election.

Labeling isn't a bad thing.  In the case of politics, it cleanly and concisely gives us a starting place.  If you meet someone and they want to know about your political ideals, you don't have to go through every issue, you can just explain in a few, or even one, terms and deal in generalities at the start.

By the way, what kind of music do you like?  What?  You like a type of music?  Nonsense, I thought you refused to be labeled and I was sure that you would go through the entire list of artists you like.

Snow Rant - 5-Feb-2014

It snowed today.... a lot.  Holy crap that's a ton of heavy snow.

O.k., let's start off by dishing out the praise where it belongs.  Trash collectors and USPS workers work through the inclement weather and have to tramp through the foot high snow to keep aspects of our lives operating as if nothing were going on.  There's also something to be said to those civic minded folk that shovel out before required to.  I went out to shovel and found myself in good company.  I saw 3 people in nearby shoveling their walkways and several others had already shoveled out.

Praise provided where due, now it's rant time.

Let's start with those who shovel into the street.  I get it if you don't have a front yard, but there are many who don't have an excuse.  Shoveling into the street isn't just illegal, it's stupid and unneighborly. Why is it stupid and unneighborly?  You may not think about it, but where does the snow go once you've shoveled it into the street.... that's right, it gets pushed by plows into peoples' driveways and curb cuts.

Very similar to shoveling into the street is not shoveling out your curb cut.  Yes, it's great that you shoveled your side walk, but how are people supposed to get to it if you didn't shovel out the curb cut? I know the plow will probably come and load some more snow in the way, but at least reduce the amount of snow people have to crawl through to get to your pristine sidewalk.  I like to shovel out to the street on either end of my side walk.  That way if my neighbor hasn't shoveled out yet, or the next person down the way doesn't, there's an outlet to the street anyway.

O.k., two pet peeves down, what's next?  I know, how about neighbors who shovel out their driveway INTO YOUR SIDEWALK.  You know what?  If you shovel your snow onto someone else's area to shovel, you.... are.... a.... jerk.  Period.  No, really, I don't care if you don't think you have somewhere else to put it, I don't care if you're using a snow blower and it's just easier, that's it, you're a jerk and there's absolutely nothing that you can say to suggest otherwise.  Yes, I have a neighbor who does this EVERYTIME it snows.... and often they do it without shoveling their sidewalk, which is just inspired.

Now, before I wrap this up with a final anger based on my experience today, let me say that Somerville does an amazing job of plowing.  I hear about various cities and towns where the streets are not plowed to the pavement.  I drive through some of it.  While the last storm heaped more praise on Somerville's plowing than I thought it deserved (side streets had over an inch of snow on them and people were proclaiming "down to the pavement"), they typically do a pretty damn good job.  That being said, I typically have to shovel a couple feet to make my corner curb cut accessible to those crossing the street.  Today was even worse.  Today I shoveled out my car, I shoveled out my side walk, I shoveled about 2 feet into the street to get from the curb cut to the open pavement.... and then I had to shovel 6 feet from the edge of the sidewalk in front of my driveway, into the street, to reach where the street had been plowed.  In the time it took for me to shovel those 6 feet of street, plows came by 6 times to plow the other side of the street and 1 time coming the opposite direction (the one time coming back the opposite direction, it didn't push the snow toward the sidewalk).  Again, Somerville does a great job, I just wish they could plow ever so slightly closer to the curb on my side of the street... throwing the snow some 8-10 feet is hard on my back.

O.k., that's it, that's my rant for the day, hope you have been entertained :-)

A New Hope for Republicans

Recent events give me hope for the Republican Party.  I'm not talking about hope that Democrats will win all upcoming elections or that Republicans will see things my way.  I'm talking about an opposition force to the Democrats that is at least reasonable and doesn't attempt things such as holding the government hostage.

Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget.  Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget.  The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one.  The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money.  I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus.  This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.

I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope.  It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts.  Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward.  What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats.  That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now.  Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future.  Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.

"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.