2008 Election: Going All-In Edition

It always seems like a good idea to make some predictions surrounding a big election day if for no other reason than to piss people off one last time before the big day. I’m sticking with state issues this year as national politics couldn’t get any less interesting. The presidential race in particular has proven itself more sitcom than future of the free world.

So lets start at the bottom with the Massachusetts ballot questions.

Question One: State Personal Income Tax

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.

This is going to fail by the slimmest of margins, I’m going to guess by under 5 percentage points, which will hopefully be a wake-up call to State Legislators and Municipalities to change the way they spend. The proposal is flawed on two fronts; we spend too much money but nobody can admit they’re part of the problem and even if we did cut the income tax we don’t currently have legislative body intelligent enough to make cuts responsibly. All we keep hearing about are the disastrous cuts that would be necessary to education and public safety, what we don’t hear are intelligent forward thinking discussion as to how we can revamp our current systems on every front. From the courts to education and from public safety to waste removal we need to be both more efficient and represent current needs. Even without the loss of income tax revenue, we’re still headed for major funding shortages in MA, so we should be looking to revamp our entire spending package now before we’re forced to in a few years.

Question Two: Possession of Marijuana

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.

Question two is going to become the standard for what a successful ballot question looks like. I’m going to say this one passes at somewhere between 65-70%. I’m not convinced there is a lot of high level anti-prohibition thought in play here, just common sense thinking. Once the fog of anti-drug indoctrination clears, people begin to realize that even if there is potential harm from marijuana, it’s still far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and most over the counter medications. Possibly even less harmful than spending hours eating fluffernutter sandwiches while watching Emeril Lagasse pimp cookware on the Home Shopping Network; not that I would know anything about the latter. Laws should not prohibit (mostly) harmless behavior.

Question Three: Dog Racing

This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Question three is going to pass by the same ridiculously slim margins that question one fails, but that passage will end up being overruled/ignored by the legislature.

—

As far as contested state races, the one to watch will be the one that didn’t exist until two weeks ago. The Thirteenth Worcester seat held by Robert Spellane is being contested in a last minute sticker campaign by former City Council candidate (he lost) John Mahoney. If you haven’t been paying attention, this last minute fiasco started with a series of stories in the T&G which hint at questionable personal dealings, without actually presenting any concrete accusations, based on probate court hearings surrounding what appears to be a pretty nasty divorce. As a resident of the 13th the problem I see here is Mahoney has done nothing to show me how he is a better choice than Spellane when it comes to policy. None of the claims against Spellane are relevant until they see their day in court, preferably a court other than probate. How sincere a guy is in his church attendance or marriage vows is not very interesting, all I want to know how you plan on representing me. Mahoney has failed on that front.

I think voters are smart enough to see an opportunist when presented with one and that is what we have in this case. Spellane will pull off a win, but he’s going to have to work hard over the next few years to keep this seat, as he can be sure a real race will present itself in the next cycle.

—

The other state race affecting Worcester is the State Senate seat vacated by Ed Augustus. Republican John Lebeaux and Democrat Michael Moore are battling this one out. Actually no, that was a joke. Do you really think a Republican stands a chance at this seat? You must be new here then. If you want to see just how silly this race is, take a drive through Leicester or Auburn and check out all the Moore yard signs set up next to McCain/Palin signs. The absolute inability for a Republican to gain any traction in MA is actually quite funny.

My crystal ball says Moore wins.

Tagged as: 2008, election, john mahoney, marijuana, massachusetts, mike moore, moore, presidential race, prohibition, question 1, question 2, question 3, robert spellane, spellane, worcester