jackiedoherty.org

For a change, the weather is cooperating to help voter turnout. The loyal sign-holders are not shivering and stamping their feet to stay warm or huddled under dripping umbrellas, but basking in the autumnal sunshine.

Jackie’s out and about today, phone-banking for Obama, working the Election Day Bake Sale at the Daley School, and holding signs to vote “No” on Question 1. She just gave me the news that in Colorado, they are predicting a 90% turnout. From Secretary of State Galvin’s office, the prediction for Massachusetts is 83-88%! In Lowell, we have about 47,000 registered voters, of which around 12,000 turnout to vote for the local elections. I think it is at least twice that for a presidential year, but still nowhere near the 80% level.

My family and I just returned from voting at the Pine Street Firehouse (Ward 8-1). It was our son’s first time casting a ballot. There was no line and no bake sale, alas, but turnout in our precinct was already 455, which is pretty high. At the Sullivan School, one precinct that typically gets 1,200 voters had over 1,000 counted by noon, with long lines at the other precinct that votes at the school. Long lines were also reported at the Chelmsford polls during the morning rush hour.

Jackie said that bake sale profits at the Daley have already topped the typical total amount, so get out there and vote and buy a brownie or two to support your school’s PTO. For added incentive, Starbucks is giving a free coffee to those who have voted.

We’ve stated our reasons (here, here and here) for voting ‘no’ on Question 1, the ballot referendum to eliminate the State Income Tax. Given Jackie’s recent post about being baffled by differing political opinions, a feeling that I have had as well with Libertarian family members, I’ve made an effort to understand the views of those who are planning to vote ‘yes’. To that end, I’ve been reading a mostly civil (and very long) discourse by citizens planning to vote for and against the question. I can understand some of the arguments, especially the frustration with waste and corruption, but I still think that this ballot question is like using a ‘hatchet when a scalpel is needed.’ The following exchange sums it up for me:

Your representatives will tell you they can’t do it (balance the budget). Tell them, “Do it or get out”

>Of course they can do it. Anyone can put a balanced budget on paper. The real question is do we want them to do it? New Hampshire is an excellent example of the problem. Trying to fund education primarily on the regressive property tax does not work, and is fundamentally unfair to children, whose education will vary wildly from community to community……I have looked at local budgets for a long time, and there is not a lot of fat anymore. If we lose the income tax, STATE AID will be cut. And municipalities, who CANNOT raise their own taxes enough to make up the difference within the limits of prop 2 1/2 (a bar NH does not have!).

Yes they can do it. I don’t think they should.

The regressive nature of the funding that will likely replace the lost income tax dollars is what keeps getting lost in the proponents’ arguments. I am still voting “no” on Tuesday.

Decades ago, I visited a place where adults with mental disabilities made a living preparing large-scale mailings for businesses. I remember being impressed by their work ethic and their joy at being productive self-earners. I thought of that place recently when I read about Governor Patrick’s budget cuts that required layoffs at a Malden employment center for the blind, as well as other impacts to social services statewide. I know the Commonwealth faces a financial crisis due to a Wall Street fiasco with global impacts. I also believe the governor is a good and intelligent man, trying to do more with less in a climate overwhelmed with real fiscal problems (not counting the havoc if Ballot 1 passes—see here for earlier mention), but is this really what we’ve come to? How is it that our society cannot care for the least of us—even when it simply means giving them the opportunity to work? It reminds me of a Mary Oliver poem, unlike her in its dark brooding, but so indicative of the day:

Of the Empire, by Mary Oliver, from her book Red Bird

We will be known as a culture that feared death

and adored power, that tried to vanquish insecurity

for the few and cared little for the penury of the

many. We will be known as a culture that taught

and rewarded the amassing of things, that spoke

little if at all about the quality of life for

people (other people), for dogs, for rivers. All

the world, in our eyes, they will say, was a

commodity. And they will say that this structure

was held together politically, which it was, and

they will say also that our politics was no more

than an apparatus to accommodate the feelings of

the heart, and that the heart, in those days,

was small, and hard, and full of meanness.

Despite Bill Gates warning last week about a severe decline in consumer spending, sometimes you have to spend money to protect your investments even during tight times. In my case, we realized that trees were growing into our house, the paint was peeling to expose wood, and the porch stairs were rotting—factors that prompted us to take on some hefty expenses immediately. Believe me, we do not have thousands of dollars right now to invest in painters and carpenters, yet exposing our home, our biggest asset, to another New England winter would have been foolhardy. It reminds me of the Lowell City Council last night reaffirming its earlier decision to upgrade the city’s sewer system. This is a priority investment for so many reasons from protecting residents from floods to making sure the city remains eligible for federal funding and maintaining our precious waterways. It was the painfully necessary thing to do in spite of the difficult financial climate, and no matter how much angst they had about it, the City Council made the right decision. When it comes to government services to our communities, there are many areas that fall into that “priority investment” category, such as education and public safety. These services are important and don’t come cheaply, which is why I oppose Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the income tax. More efficient delivery must be the focus, rather than slashing support for vital services that impact our quality of life today and in the future. That way you ensure the money, at least, is well spent.

Don’t be left out of the most important election of the century. Not only in terms of national issues, but statewide initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot will have immediate and far-reaching impacts on people from all levels of our community. To have a say in this election, you must be a registered voter (a Massachusetts resident, a citizen, and at least 18 years old) and TODAY is the last day to register! Register by completing this form and mailing it (postmark Oct. 15) to your city’s election department. You may also register in person. In Lowell, you have until 8 p.m. tonight to register at City Hall, 375 Merrimack Street. New citizens may register to vote after the deadline by bringing their dated naturalization papers to city hall by 4 p.m. the day before the election.

The two presidential candidates and their running mates could not be more different in their priorities and plans for dealing with the pressing issues facing our nation (watch tonight’s debate). In terms of the Commonwealth, ballot question 1 alone, if it passes, could devastate the delivery of basic services to our communities by reducing state revenues by more than 40 percent. For details about the impacts of Question 1, a reckless proposal to eliminate the state income tax, check here. For more information on state and local candidates, see this website I recently learned about that allows you to identify your candidates based on your address. It also offers discussion of the ballot iniatives including pros and cons of each one. Whatever you do, be informed, and VOTE because it matters.

Yesterday’s Boston Globe featured an op-ed by UMass Lowell Amy Perlmutter and Joel Tickner (fellow and associate professor at the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production) that promotes exploiting the connection between environmentally friendly technology and future economic strength. The authors say, in addition to efforts around renewable energy, Massachusetts has “a leading edge in four other key areas”: green chemistry, green buildings, materials reuse, and emerging materials. They urge state power brokers to “take advantage of…the Commonwealth’s competitive advantages to become a world leader of the green economy of the future.” Contrast that message to James Carroll’s column on the same page where he discusses the “nice coincidence” of the government’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout costing about the same as the Pentagon’s yearly budget. Carroll’s point: “One need not be an economist to know that spending money on war planes, missiles, and exotic weapons systems, not to mention combat operations, creates far less social capitol than spending on education, bridges, mass transit, new forms of energy—even the arts. The genius of this nation’s most brilliant minds has been yoked for more than half a century to the invention of ways to kill and destroy.”

How’s that been working for us so far? The United States is a major exporter of weapons worldwide, which has aided the growth of terrorism and destruction of our environment; we desperately need leadership with a new vision for employment for our people and our role in the world. We must rethink our focus and put our best creative minds and resources to developing green technologies that will reinvigorate our economy and sustain our future.

The Non Profit Alliance of Greater Lowell is hosting their annual Legislative Breakfast, on Tuesday, October 7, 8:00 – 9:30 am, at the Wannalancit Mills Conference Room (1st floor), 600 Suffolk Street.

The focus will be on Question One, the binding referendum question that would repeal the state income tax; its impact on local communities; and what nonprofit staff, board, and constituents can do to respond to this initiative.

Senator Steve Panagiotakos will attend and give his perspective on the ramifications of the proposal. Update: I just learned that Representatives Murphy and Golden will also attend.

The breakfast is for members of the Non Profit Alliance, their staff, board, volunteers and constituents, as well as anyone else concerned about the impact that eliminating the state income tax will have on the non profit sector. If you have an interest in non profit concerns please consider attending and learning more about how Question 1 will affect the schools, hospitals, municipalities and agencies that serve our community. To RSVP, email g polites @ ltc.org by Friday, October 3rd.

I decided to flip through the Massachusetts Voter Guide which reminded me that November 4th is coming up fast! First of all, it’s not too late to register to vote! The deadline is October 15. To register, go to City Hall, fill out a form and keep the receipt. Official acknowledgement should arrive in 2 to 3 weeks. Mail-in registration forms must be postmarked October 15.

Next, I read the arguments for and against Question 1, the proposal to repeal the State Income Tax. As we’ve mentioned before, this is a bad idea for many reasons (dramatic cuts in state aid which will drive up property taxes, drastic reduction in state funding for schools, police, fire protection, lack of funds for infrastructure, etc). Reading the arguments for the proposal as put forth by the Committee for Small Government, the claims, besides the obvious one of more money in your pocket, is that

“Your “Yes” vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes.”
“Your “Yes” vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts of any essential government services.”

This seems ludicrous to say the least! Certainly, in Lowell we will have to raise local taxes just to maintain a minimum of services, and I don’t even want to think what will happen to the school system, which relies heavily on State money. Perusing their website (just search Question 1 and it will pop up on google), I couldn’t find anything to back up the above assertions. They also have a carefully worded statement in the Voter Guide: “‘41% waste in Massachusetts state government’ reveals survey.” The survey appears to be a web poll, which their readers respond to, and 41% is the “mean, average response.” What, they can’t come up with any real statistics? On government waste??? They then proceed to use this “statistic” to make their argument: “with 41% waste, a 17% cut isn’t enough to remove even half the waste in state government spending.” Isn’t this – using a biased sample to prove a point – a logical fallacy of some kind?

For more about this group, see Tony’s interesting post about their funding.

Quote above: attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and taken up by Mark Twain, who said:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Congratulations to Governor Deval Patrick, who has been minimally successful in fulfilling most of his campaign promises for positive change, but at least has been able to make a dent in one area—that is, regarding police details for state road projects as the Globe reports today. I support Patrick’s compromise to keep police details only on busy or high-speed streets while also recognizing that my union friends will not be happy with his “disregard for collective bargaining.” Although the Globe article chose to focus on the negative angle as a loss for the police union, this change is good for the collective community to which we all belong for it will allow the state to save money desperately needed in other areas. I would even go so far as to support moving to blinking signs for truly less-travelled roads, as I saw in Ireland this summer, rather than paying flaggers.

I wasn’t really sure who Rep. Jay Kaufman (15th Middlesex) was (until I googled him) but I’m on his email list and I found out that he is hosting a forum on Question 1. It’s tomorrow night, Thursday, September 17 at 7:30 pm at the “historic depot on Massachusetts Ave in downtown Lexington.” As decribed in the email, this will be an in-depth look at both sides of Question 1:

from an end to overburdening policies and programs that force one to live in ‘Taxachusetts’ to the potential devastating loss of basic services if over $12 billion in revenue were suddenly stricken from the books

Kamel Jain, from the Committee on Small Government, which sponsored Question 1, and Michael Widmer, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, which opposes the measure, will join Rep. Kaufman.

So, thanks Rep. Kaufman for doing this. I’m not sure how I got on your mailing list, but I like your style. I think there should be more of these face-to-face encounters and hashing out of issues in public and apparently he makes a regular habit of hosting these public policy forums. This one could not be more timely or pertinent. Unfortunately, I can’t make it so I really hope some other bloggers attend and can report back.