“Just because we’re on an airplane doesn’t mean we change the way we do business! Just send me an email.”
“OK”
“Oh, another email from that suckup Brian about the shareholder’s meeting. Watch this – delete!”
“uh..”
The legislature and Gov Patrick should show some adult authority and:
1) Restore the sales tax on alcohol. They could remove the excise tax to avoid the complaint of it being a “double tax”. People paying 100 bucks for a bottle of wine obviously can afford a $5 tax. An alcohol sales tax is one of the fairest ways to raise revenue since it is entirely avoidable and raises the most from people who can afford to pay the most.
2) Repeal 40B, which leads to terrible car-centric suburban developments. We need a new plan for affordable housing based on local and sustainable and walkable communities.
3) Lower the sales tax to 5% and make some deep cuts to the budget, and push for a higher national gas tax (to return to each state’s general fund) and a uniform national sales tax that also covers internet sales and would also be returned to the buyer’s state.
2. Defy the will of the voters.
3. Arguably defy the will of the voters, combined with pursuit of unrealistic national policy goals that would never pass the new GOP-led House in a million years.
<
p>What was your point again?
<
p>(By the way, I support lowering the sales tax back to 5% as soon as they can manage it. I very much hope that is within the next two years – it should be.)
Q1 won 52-48, so it would defy the will of only a few thousand more voters than it would affirm. Q2 and Q3 had bigger margins, but were still far from unanimous, and I think there was lots of confusion and fear tactics, and lots of people just vote “no” on all ballot question because they oppose direct democracy.
<
p>My point was that we are under no obligation whatsoever to stick with 40B, or exempt alcohol from the sales tax, or keep the sales tax at 6.25%. Do you agree with that, at least?
<
p>So I really think we should do like the boss in the AirTran ad when he got the email from that suck-up Brian about the shareholders meeting. Actually, my point is that I love that ad.
<
p>Also, I think we can get a national sales tax passed, especially in a GOP Congress, since it is championed by people like Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee. And I think we can raise the gas tax, nationally and locally if we can’t do it nationally. It is terrible environmental policy to have different sales tax rates in neighboring states, and you should support the goal of unifying them.
<
p>
won’t fly
It would be super easy to replace 40B, and we absolutely have to do it as part of a change in housing policy and environmental policy. We need to stop building these car-centric developments out in suburbia. My point is, no one voted for keeping 40B in place forever, all that happened is a small majority voted to not simply repeal it without knowing what that would mean going forward.
<
p>Likewise, no one voted for keeping the sales tax at 6.25%, they just didn’t vote to lower it to 3%. This is why I advocated voting Yes, because I knew people like David would spin a No result into “the will of the people is to keep the sales tax at 6.25%” (To be fair, David says “arguably”, but only because he knows I’m watching him…)
<
p>And the alcohol sales tax… we will just have to explain it is needed and put it back. I think it should be changed to 5% on Jan 1, 2011, along with the whole sales tax. And we should get rid of the excise tax that taxes cheap wine as much as snobby $100 bottles, that’d satisfy people who didn’t want to be “double taxed.” Also, we should get rid of the earmark directing all alcohol tax revenue for substance abuse programs and put it in the general fund. This change would give us an opportunity to do that.
“Because my side lost, the government should do what I want anyway.”
<
p>Not a convincing argument.
These aren’t candidates that “won the election” and now are selected to serve for a term, until the next election. These are not Constitutional amendments that require a new round of signatures and another election. These are just laws, or rather, opinions about laws, and a plurality of opinions at that.
<
p>We don’t need a convincing argument, just like the Boss didn’t even need to open suck-up Brian’s email. We need the government to govern and stop making excuses about it being powerless, about how nothing is feasible or possible.
And keep the stores closed on Sundays before noon?
But I don’t think we should bring back dog racing. Does it bother you that the legislature has the power to make laws? I mean, really? You thought that ballot questions were somehow exempt from ever being changed or repealed or replaced? They were on laws on steroids, or something? They should be taken less seriously than other laws, not more, because they are always skewed to selfish short-term benefits of the majority and never value the rights or the time and concerns of the minority. OK, not always, as Q3 proved this year (or maybe even Q3 was selfish interest too: maybe people were being selfish when voting to keep paying a higher sales tax, because they could afford it, and they didn’t care about people who couldn’t, and they knew it would help keep their agenda alive in government and keep them and their friends in their hack jobs and their community pretty. Without enough tax revenue, the state might stop highway repairs, and they might get a flat tire on the way home from New Hampshire, where they buy all their stuff.)
This is almost post-modern. “Yes we lost, and no we don’t need a convincing argument.”
<
p>I mean, that’s all fine, but don’t whine when you get ignored then.
The objective truth is that about half of voters voted yes and about half voted no on questions that they really didn’t like the wording of or understand anyway. The objective truth is that it doesn’t matter how anyone voted even if there was an overwhelming preference because the legislature and governor are always in control of the laws of the Commonwealth.
<
p>I’m not sure what you meant when you originally said “not a convincing argument.” Convincing to who, and of what? You mean, you continue to believe, after reading my post, that these laws can not be changed? Or you continue to believe that they should not be changed in the way I describe? Or you don’t think the government is going to do what I suggest? What would you say if it was, oh, a vote on marriage that didn’t go your way, or a vote on the gas tax? I know what I would say – things like marriage and the gas tax cannot be put in front of voters and the legislature and governor need to do the dirty work of governing responsibly.
Since you claim to what to reverse the voters’ will, you need a d-mn good reason (such as, oh, the state will effectively shut down if we rip $2.5 billion out of the budget) to sell the legislature on it. And since you said you don’t need a convincing argument, please don’t be surprised when you’re ignored, if not mocked.
<
p>Going against a referendum is quite a political risk, and you’ve offered no reason why anyone should take that risk.
I deny that I am reversing the voters will. I think people are thirsting for effective government, and would reward the legislators and governor for governing instead of cowering. It’s not like Questions 2 or 3 were votes in favor of 40B or a 6.25% income tax. Voters would be quite happy if the legislature lowered the sales tax to 5% on their own accord, and they’d be quite happy if they reworked the 40 year old car-based, nature-destroying housing laws in order to address changing reality. Doing either of those things wouldn’t be perceived as “going against a referendum.” Keeping the sales tax on alcohol might be grumbled about, but that vote was the closest one, barely significant, and if we got rid of the excise tax and lowered the sales tax to 5%, it’d remove some of the objections. And if we pointed out that rich people pay the bulk of it when they buy those $60 wines, we’d win back the majority of grumblers.
<
p>What I meant by “we don’t need a convincing argument” was really “the legislature doesn’t need to convince you or anyone else, they have the power to do it, let alone a majority, they can just do it.” So by “we”, I meant us people who tell the legislature what it could do by whispering in its ear on this blog. You and I would agree that the legislature should do these things, David promotes the post and says something like Wow, of course this is what should happen next – Promoted by David, various legislators browse on by, realize they have power and responsibility and aren’t constrained by these outcomes, and do what should be done.
The sales tax on alcohol should not be reinstated. It was repealed by the voters; it’s only about $110 million (sounds like a lot, but in the great scheme of things it isn’t); and that kind of short money is not worth the political carnage that would inevitably accompany reinstating it. I voted against Q1, but my side lost, and elections have consequences.
<
p>40B should not be repealed unless all the players can agree on a better solution. I’m no expert in that area. Neither, I respectfully suggest, are you.
<
p>As I’ve already said, I favor lowering the sales tax back to 5%. I hope that can be done as part of the FY12 budget; if not then, definitely by FY13. Doing it immediately, before things get better, would be a mistake IMHO.
<
p>You want to write up that post, sure, I’ll promote it and say what a good idea it is. Restrictions apply. Offer not available for all posts. Your mileage may vary. But the approach you’ve suggested here is naive, both substantively and politically.
Just like cigarettes do, because society at large has to bear some financial and quality of life costs as a consequence of the use and abuse of these substances. Alcohol is not just any product- it’s a huge troublemaker, statistically speaking. I hope the ballot question gets posed to reinstate the tax next election- maybe a better PR effort on the part of the other side would alter the outcome.
That is the whole point of this post.
<
p>PR companies and media want us to think that every law has to have a PR campaign and go up for a vote with millions of dollars of advertising. We should really make ballot questions obsolete by encouraging the legislature to legislate, regardless of whether people voted slightly more for or against something. They should reinstate the alcohol tax, there is no excuse not to.
…but overall I agree with the premise that is the legislature’s job to legislate. I’ve said for a while that only constitutional amendments should go before voters in the first place. After all, the entire membership of both chambers, along with the Governor, were elected on the very same ballot as these questions. They have plenary authority to act in the best interests of the state.
but thanks for agreeing with the premise. Hard to see how anyone could disagree, but some did.
<
p>Ballot questions just allow the leg to lazy, and they waste so much grassroots energy. Rendering them functionally obsolete would be a great service, and these three represent a great chance to do that.