All The Cool Kids Are Doing It…

I registered to vote 9 and a half years ago when I registered for the Mililtary Draft. I remember it well because my dad popped into my room and asked me what political party I wanted to join as he was sending the card in through the mail. I specifically remember saying independent because I didnt really feel like I leaned either way. My dad is a pretty reliable guy, and he’s definitely efficient when it comes to taking care of things that need to be done, so I don’t think he dropped the ball.

However, today when I went to vote, I didn’t get to.

Which sucks because I was pretty excited to get to vote for the first time ever. The guy at the Supermarket was pretty helpful, let me fill out a provisional ballot, and explained to me that after a certain amount of time, if you don’t vote, you get taken off the list because the district assumes you either died or moved. Sucks that they can’t keep an extra 3 centimeters of paper filled up with my name because I decided not to exercise my right (not a priveledge) to vote.

So not only do I have to call in 12 days to see if my ballot counted (which I doubt it will) I also have to re-register. Which is just kind of annoying.

It’s just no fun to have the wind taken out of your sails, like when you meet a girl you really like, try to make plans and she can’t do it… makes you question the whole thing was even worth getting excited for in the first place.

I did finally vote, No, Yes, Yes on the three questions. I voted for the guys running un-opposed, and I voted for the PUSA for someone who missed the registration deadline.

Question # One

One of the things I try to keep most practiced in my life is empathy. I do this so I can see both sides of every argument always, and make neither rash, nor naive, judgement calls. If you’re at all interested in empathy, this book co-written by the Dalai Lama called, The Art of Happiness is quite excellent. It really hammers home the point that you really need to look at all things from the opposite point of view of your own, or the one being handed to you. It’s led me to play Devil’s Advocate on many occasions, even to the pissing off of my coworkers and friends.

I mention this because I most certainly see both sides of the argument of Question One (The Massachusetts State Income Tax Repeal proposal) on the Massachusetts ballot this year. With only five days to go before the election, it might be a little late to sway anyone deadset on voting “no,” but I do believe that it’s the right thing to do and I’m going to try anyway. Also, I hope I can give some clarity to anyone undecided, by giving something than the same old arguments I’m reading online or in the newspaper.

For a full disclosure moment, I work for the State. Which obviously would lend public opinion the chance to say this argument to vote “no” is biased. Two things about that. ONE: I’m not a yes-man. I am a no-man. I’ll argue with you simply to argue against you. I think it’s fun, it frustrates people, and hopefully it helps people see the other side of an argument they’re not considering. I dislike the state more just because I work for them. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, and you can’t be any closer to me than in my bank account every other week. TWO: I’m not a non-essential state employee. When you turn on the radio in the winter and hear that all non-essential state agencies are closed, I still have to trek 30 minutes through the snow to my job and do it. My job isn’t going anywhere. Cutbacks at my job means no gas reimbursements for travelling on the job, which I don’t do anyway. I would never identify myself by my job, it’s a job. I don’t care that much for it, and I’m not the kind of person to make my job my life. You can believe this before reading my arguments or not, but if you don’t believe it, why even keep reading?

There are two reasons for voting yes on Question 1 in my eyes, and that’s putting money back in the taxpayer’s pocket, and stickin’ it to THE MAN. I’m all for number one. I don’t hate authority outright, but I’ll never love it. I have no love for the government on National or State levels right now, and don’t like the idea of an engine running under my hood that I can’t fix if it’s not working the way I like it. I’ve read the argument that “on average” people are going to be getting about $3,700 back per year. That’s about $71 bucks a week. State-wide that’s about $24 million per week. That’s a lotta hooch. It’s nothing to sneeze at. But, that’s all money that the state is utilizing now that they’re not going to have.

I know that those who want to vote “yes” on question one say that it will make the people running the state more accountable for the money that we do have, but I don’t think that’s true. These people that run the state are not going to cut out their pet projects, and cut frivolous programs out completely. They’re going to cut from every agency, including important ones like police departments, schools, and fire departments. Not only that, but the state government will blame US, the taxpayer, when crime rises, education fails, and there aren’t enough people to fight fires efficiently.

It’s true that all that money back in pockets COULD create jobs. I don’t think it’ll create tens of thousans of jobs like I’m reading on the internets. A ton of it will go towards real estate. People who owe are going to need to pay, and people who don’t owe are going to be buying because everything is so low. Either that, or people are going to be saving with the idea of a recession hanging over our heads, whether it’s coming or it’s already here.

Sticking it to THE MAN is actually, in my eyes, the more admirable of the two reasons for voting “yes” on question one. The obvious answer is that it screws them. They’ve got to do a lot more with a little money and it makes them accountable for running the state efficiently. Going back to the empathetic viewpiont, what if you lost 40% of your salary after taxes starting January 1st. Think of all the things you couldn’t do – pay your mortgage, pay for your kid’s college, go out to eat ever, take a vacation… god forbid you ever had to be in a wedding or get married, you’d be ultra-screwed. That’s how the state is going to feel, that they couldn’t get married even if they wanted to. Other state taxes are going to go up, those being property, excise, and possibly even sales. Now for me, that doesn’t really matter; I rent my apartment and I fully own my own car that was new in ‘03 so excise won’t kill me. Again, I still think it’s a bad idea to vote “yes” on question one.

Before things even get to the point where the government can raise our other taxes, the state legistlature is going to stop the income tax cut on the floor. This, I think, is the number one reason to vote “yes” on question one; it sends a loud and clear message that the state government is not working and it needs to change. It will incense every person who voted “yes” because they’re taking the majority vote and flipping it, so it will make a great deal of people mad. And it’s going to be a great deal of people because this is going to be a record voting year due to the presidential election. Irate voters are more likely to vote against incumbents at the next election, which will both frighten the incumbents, and send a message to those remaining when a few actually lose their seats in ‘09 and ‘10.

This twofold effect is important because people in government seats sometimes act as though they’re above the law when making laws, and that’ll be extremely clear when they disallow question one even though voters passed it. People in power often have no fear, and as said by one of my favorite writers, Alan Moore in “V for Vendetta,” people should not fear their government, the government should fear their people.

Voting “no” on question one has one simple reason for me, it doesn’t completely hamstring the government. I don’t think there is a ton of trust in the state government given how eager people are to vote “yes” on qusetion one just to screw them. If we can’t trust them with a state budget of more than $25 billion, how can we believe that they can effectively run the state with around $15 million. The change needs to come with US voting for people competent to run the state. It also starts with US getting the right people to run the state.

I liken this to those commercials that Nextel does for their two way phones, if Firefighter’s ran the Government or if Rock and Roll Roadies ran the Airlines. There’s no beauracratic nonsense going on, it’s “What needs to be done? Then do it.” That’s something that’s missing in the government at all levels. Eliminating red tape, blue tape, and yellow tape should be the slogan of anyone running for public office at this point, and it’s up to us to get those people into positions of power.

Because if we cut the state income tax, we also hamstring ourselves. What if the people of this state DO realize that a change needs to be made, and start voting the correct people into office? They’re going to operate with half a suitable budget. That’s not a good thing. So let’s make the change start with the people, getting the right people into office, and not forcing the government to try and pull some magic to run this place efficiently with nearly half the amount of money they’ve been running with as long as we’ve been alive.

So, I’m voting “no” on question one beacuse I don’t think the change comes from the budget being cut and money going back in our pockets, I think it comes from the people being motivated to make the right changes. But, it’s quite possible that the best way for this to be accomplished is for this question to pass, get vetoed by the state legislature, and thus motivate the taxpayers. It’s a sticky situation to be sure, but it’s going to be interesting to watch.

Who brings a knife to a knife fight?

I’ve been wanting to do this blog for a while, but other projects have occupied my time. With the November election coming up I really wanted to get the ball rolling to address the three questions on the ballot for Massachusetts- eradicating the state income tax, decriminalizing weed and banning puppy races.

Knife-fighting, however, is THE hot button topic in Worcester right now following last night’s City Council Meeting. Apparently knife-fighting is all the rage and there were six knife related crimes in a single hour over the weekend. This following a stabbing death two weeks ago, and a few other stabbings thereafter.

There has been an outcry on Telegram.com that people won’t be able to carry knives around on their person as they have since they were born. This doesn’t really seem to be the case. The District Attorney Joe Early has said, and restated last night at the CCM that the knife ordinance will only impact people carrying knives during crimes, most especially late at night after bars close. As all six stabbings from the weekend were after hours and one of the incidents where multiple knife wounds were incurred occurred outside a bar.

Most of the internet cowboys on Telegram.com are lashing out at the council and other city officials, as well as DA Early, for pushing this ordinance. I can’t stress enough that this is only going to affect people carrying knives during crimes. (Voting bonus: if you vote down question 2 next Tuesday you can carry weed and knives and only get fined for the weed, nice job voter!). Carrying a knife on you while jaywalking  won’t get you more than a jaywalking fine, same with speeding, parking in a handicap spot, or having a large, loud party.

One thing that was definitely a problem was DA Early saying that police will have discretion. The Law shouldn’t have discretion and thus those that enforce the law shouldn’t have it either. One of the most popular complaints people have with law enforcment is discretion of Police Officers. Everyone has had stories about cops pulling people over for nothing, or hassling people who need not be harassed. Some of these stories are true, some aren’t, but those that are shouldn’t happen at an officer’s discretion and neither should a knife-fine.

I’m pretty confident that if there is a knife ordinance it will be extremely specific and police won’t be able to justify writing tickets for knife-carrying-citizens who are using knives for any purpose they deem fit. I think a zero-tolerance policy toward knives and those carrying them is a bad idea for sure. I’m not a huge fan of “The Simpsons” by any means, but I do recall an episode where Lisa wishes for world peace and the world confiscates and destroys all guns, missiles, knives, pretty much everything that would be considered a ‘weapon.’ Well, eventually somebody found a piece of wood with a nail through it and used it as a weapon. We can’t just remove objects from the streets just because they can be considered a weapon and scare people.

The $300 fine will not deter people from carrying knives if they are intending to commit a crime they’ll need the knife for. It will much more likely deter those who would carry a knife to defend themselves from such crimes though.

DA Early made an interesting point when he said people are starting to carry knives because there’s no penalty for doing so. There’s been one death from the stabbings over the last few weeks in Worcester and if these were shooting instead of stabbings there would have likely been multiple deaths. If there were a choice between a gun problem and a knife problem I’d gladly take a knife problem. You can maybe run from a knife-weilding maniac, you can’t really run from a gun-toting one. If everyone is running around with a knife, it makes sense to see a spike in knife-crimes when people are feeling most entitled. Now that this issue is gaining press coverage we might even see more. The best thing the city can do is target those people who are committing crimes like this and take them off the streets.
The other way I see this ending is some crazy knife-weilder gets shot by and killed by a guy with an LTC for bringing a knife to a gunfight.