Question one as it appears on the November ballot would accomplish the following according to the ballot summary:
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
Hey what a great idea! It would probably save me and you about $3600 a year on our state income tax. Who is kidding who? The estimates are that this would knock out about 40% of state revenue. Now let's suggest for a moment that that number is inflated by a variety of the sky is falling groups who rely on the state for their income. So let's reduce that figure down to a measly 25%.
The fact of the matter is that a 25% reduction in state income would result in chaos across the commonwealth. Let's not consider the individual human impact of state workers being let go, after all if we don't have any in our family or who are our neighbors or friends why should we care?. Let's instead focus on that thing that cuts closest to home, yes self interest.
What do you think will happen to your property taxes if local aid is cut by 25%? Or how about that new school building you thought the state was going to pick up half the cost of? Even more importantly is the impact on both the local communities and the state's bond rating. It is a difficult enough market to move any new bonds in, can you imagine how much more difficult it would be if the revenue stream necessary to repay the bonds was reduced so dramatically and the Massachusetts state and local ratings were cut two or three notches?
Think for a moment who is likely to bear the brunt of the cuts. Do you think it will be the strongest of the state unions or legislative pay, or judges or lawyers? No, I think it will be the people with the least muscle on Beacon Hill who will bear the brunt of this. Kids and the homeless and the mentally ill don't have connected lobbyists working for them.
Cutting taxes and running an economical government is a great idea. So vote for people who advocate such a stance. Perhaps we should even once again have a 2 party system in Massachusetts. Voting yes for Question 1 is the equivalent of using a chain saw to cure a headache.
Vote yes on Question 2. The summary is as follows:
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.
Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.
The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty.
Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent.
The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
Vote yes on 2.
The war on drugs is now and has been a failure. Prohibition has never worked and it is not working now. The crime in drugs is the huge amount of money that is created by the demand for an illegal substance. It is filling jails (mostly with young minority men) and ruining lives and wasting law enforcement money on trying to control a substance that can grow wild in your back yard. Let's have cops spending time trying to catch violent criminals instead of making phony pinches of weed smokers.
The age old argument of marijuana being a gateway drug is nonsense. Ask 50 of your friends what was the first illegal substance they consumed and I bet 95% of them will tell you it was nipping the old man's whiskey in the liquor cabinet at home. If an adult wants to sit at home watching 2001 smoking weed, why should it be the state's business? Other states and other countries have an adult non criminal approach to this issue, why can't we?
