Killing us with compassion

Leaders of the Free World wrote:

<quoted text>
Please accept my apologies as well. And if I've said anything in the past to offend it was nothing personal just the heat of the moment to keep myself entertained on the job. I respect you and your views and I'd hope you respect mines too even though we don't share many. If any of my opinions has offend you in any way I apologize for that.

Thanks. Don't worry about it. I have a very thick skin and I do respect your opinion as I do everyone else's. I like to debate the issues and keep the offensive materials to a minimum.

Now this is what I like to see -- my letter to the editor sparked some heated, I would argue turgid - mud-slinging, and now, a week or so later, people in my comment stream are behaving like decent human beings to one another.

I feel so proud!

Now, please hear me on my new concern:

Please vote NO on Question 1, the push to eliminate the Massachusetts personal income tax. It would decrease state revenue by 40% over two years.

"You never miss your water 'till your well runs dry."

There is an article in today's Sun about the dire need for child protection social workers -- DSS has changed its name to DCF, by the way -- as cases have skyrocketed and social workers cannot keep up unless they inject their own time and resources, nights, weekends, to cover the explosion, which they do. It soon will not be enough to meet demand.

Sports figures and hotel heiresses are not heroes. Social workers are. Find a couple and buy them dinner.

Here in our beloved Lowell, DCF social workers' caseloads are exploding and are approaching the point of being unmanageable. Thankfully, there is a rescue plan to inject 5 million dollars into the DCF budget.

However, due to the sudden economic crisis, Governor Patrick may have to scuttle this rescue of the most sacred, most important element of any society or government, the protection of children from rape, murder, and physical abuse and torture.

Imagine if we lost 40% of the revenue which is already not enough to cover basic services across the state.

I am donating my time to making calls and canvassing against this reckless proposal, which, by the way is supported by neither the Republican nor Democratic state party. It originated with Carla Howell, our loopy libertarian ideologue. Did you vote for her? well, don't now.

I will end with a list of services our taxes pay for, but before I do remember this: If this turd of a proposal passes, the pain will be immediate and will hit you and all of us (well, not you New Hampshire-ites).

Children will be beaten, raped, murdered, or at the very least, neglected. Schools and firehouse will close. Gangs will proliferate, even in comfy suburbia. Police budgets will go down.

It will immediately be revealed to have been a fool's errand based on hostility to taxes, even as they direct benefit our communities.

Remember this: no politician, and I mean NONE, will ever be willing to stand up and say, "it was a bad idea, let's re-introduce a 5% income tax." Such a move would be political suicide and would never win.

Some things your tax dollars do which will be reduced by 40%:

Pothole repair
Police protection
Streetlights (some towns are turning theirs off even now)
Basic services in schools
Day care for the working poor
Gang reduction initiatives
Firefighting (has your town closed any firehouses? Mine has - imagine 40% more closures)
Ambulance service
Flood control
Health insurance for the poor and elderly

I could go on and on but it's Sunday and I've got things to do.

Once again, this comment stream does my heart so much good, as I sit in my chilly house my heart strings are warm and plucked.

Stand with me and your neighbors. Vote NO on Question 1.

Also, I live in Lowell. Why does this page keep shunting me off to Weston?

David Wilensky wrote:

Now this is what I like to see -- my letter to the editor sparked some heated, I would argue turgid - mud-slinging, and now, a week or so later, people in my comment stream are behaving like decent human beings to one another.
I feel so proud!
Now, please hear me on my new concern:
Please vote NO on Question 1, the push to eliminate the Massachusetts personal income tax. It would decrease state revenue by 40% over two years.
"You never miss your water 'till your well runs dry."
There is an article in today's Sun about the dire need for child protection social workers -- DSS has changed its name to DCF, by the way -- as cases have skyrocketed and social workers cannot keep up unless they inject their own time and resources, nights, weekends, to cover the explosion, which they do. It soon will not be enough to meet demand.
Sports figures and hotel heiresses are not heroes. Social workers are. Find a couple and buy them dinner.
Here in our beloved Lowell, DCF social workers' caseloads are exploding and are approaching the point of being unmanageable. Thankfully, there is a rescue plan to inject 5 million dollars into the DCF budget.
However, due to the sudden economic crisis, Governor Patrick may have to scuttle this rescue of the most sacred, most important element of any society or government, the protection of children from rape, murder, and physical abuse and torture.
Imagine if we lost 40% of the revenue which is already not enough to cover basic services across the state.
I am donating my time to making calls and canvassing against this reckless proposal, which, by the way is supported by neither the Republican nor Democratic state party. It originated with Carla Howell, our loopy libertarian ideologue. Did you vote for her? well, don't now.
I will end with a list of services our taxes pay for, but before I do remember this: If this turd of a proposal passes, the pain will be immediate and will hit you and all of us (well, not you New Hampshire-ites).
Children will be beaten, raped, murdered, or at the very least, neglected. Schools and firehouse will close. Gangs will proliferate, even in comfy suburbia. Police budgets will go down.
It will immediately be revealed to have been a fool's errand based on hostility to taxes, even as they direct benefit our communities.
Remember this: no politician, and I mean NONE, will ever be willing to stand up and say, "it was a bad idea, let's re-introduce a 5% income tax." Such a move would be political suicide and would never win.
Some things your tax dollars do which will be reduced by 40%:
Pothole repair
Police protection
Streetlights (some towns are turning theirs off even now)
Basic services in schools
Day care for the working poor
Gang reduction initiatives
Firefighting (has your town closed any firehouses? Mine has - imagine 40% more closures)
Ambulance service
Flood control
Health insurance for the poor and elderly
I could go on and on but it's Sunday and I've got things to do.
Once again, this comment stream does my heart so much good, as I sit in my chilly house my heart strings are warm and plucked.
Stand with me and your neighbors. Vote NO on Question 1.

Yes is the correct vote--the things you talk about in your post probably need to be kept. It's the waste that needs to go. Letting 100 toll takers go is a start but almost all of them should go--the turnpike is automated. Pension reform is needed--do those things first and let's see how much money we have. Deval has already agreed there is watse and he is working on it--let's help him fight the legialature by limiting the funds so proper cuts can be made. Most people here could use the $3500 more than the state. Cut back to 50 part time legislators--California has half as many as we do.

David Wilensky wrote:

Also, I live in Lowell. Why does this page keep shunting me off to Weston?

It's picking up the location where your ISP (internet service provider) is listed at. This is basically where you're really connecting to the internet through whomever your service is through (your work, comcast, verizon, aol, etc...)

David Wilensky wrote:

...Please vote NO on Question 1, the push to eliminate the Massachusetts personal income tax. It would decrease state revenue by 40% over two years....

Sorry but everything I've read indicates State bloodsuckers would lose 17%. Where does your 40% come from?

David Wilensky wrote:

Also, I live in Lowell. Why does this page keep shunting me off to Weston?

Topix uses a Geo IP Lookup like the one here:

http://www.hostip.info/

Your IP address is most likely registered in Weston.

The 40% figure is based on the percentage of the state's income that comes from state taxes now. It may go higher as revenues decline. My source is Stand For Children, a nationwide advocacy group that was responsible for reducing the cuts to the Lowell school budgets by half. A good group. Hard-working people meeting in churches and school on their own time. Very "non-elite."

Even if it were 17% the state is hurting now and can't afford to have less money to meet its obligations.

I am a struggling family man with bills to pay and I could use that money in my pocket, but I am not deluded into thinking that public services don't need it even more.

Unfortunately I disagree but at least for now we're allowed to do that in the US. With all the waste and mismanagement at the State level it would be very easy to cut 17%(about $12B) from the State spending. By cutting the pork they shouldn't have to touch necessary services and in some cases the services should be cut altogether. However since lawmakers are evil people they will "make us pay" for voting the state income tax away by hitting hot-button services. If they do this we should send them away and replace them with responsible minded lawmakers (if such a species exists).

If you look at Deval's budget you'll see it loaded with items he promised that some might consider nice to have (in a strong economy). Deval took a balanced budget and when he added his pet projects he claimed the budget was $500m in the hole. It wasn't true he just took a balanced budget, added his new programs to fund and was $500m in the hole from day 1.

I know when I find myself facing a deficit and a tough economic climate the first thing I do is spend more {sarcasm}. It doesn't make sense for me and it doesnt' make sense for the state. It's our money so lets take it back.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I think Deval has done more for Mass than Romney did! Romney, in my opinion, is a clown!

Well, there you have it, folks. 40%. As I said in this comment stream last week. Read today's front page of this very newspaper.

Question 1 would inflict pain on every citizen of Massachusetts, period. Like much of Carla Howell's Libertarian agenda, it seems like a good idea at first blush.

But when you start playing out the consequences you realize that it is a terrible idea that would have terrible consequences. Instead of spreading the tax burden equally over the entirety of the state's residents, it would, by necessity, steeply increase property taxes.

Does our faltering real estate industry need this kind of hit now?

Leave it as it is - we can revisit this any time in the future. Now is not the time for radical reforms like this.

Vote NO on Question 1. It's a reckless idea.

David Wilensky wrote:

Well, there you have it, folks. 40%. As I said in this comment stream last week. Read today's front page of this very newspaper.
Question 1 would inflict pain on every citizen of Massachusetts, period. Like much of Carla Howell's Libertarian agenda, it seems like a good idea at first blush.
But when you start playing out the consequences you realize that it is a terrible idea that would have terrible consequences. Instead of spreading the tax burden equally over the entirety of the state's residents, it would, by necessity, steeply increase property taxes.
Does our faltering real estate industry need this kind of hit now?
Leave it as it is - we can revisit this any time in the future. Now is not the time for radical reforms like this.
Vote NO on Question 1. It's a reckless idea.

I agree with you. I read the articles on how Howell was saying that we can be like NH and Washington. I don't think it'll work for MA. I say vote NO on 1. It will really affect us if it passes.

David Wilensky wrote:

Now is not the time for radical reforms like this.
Vote NO on Question 1. It's a reckless idea.

I also agree. It is idiotic to make such a radical move like this one. Eliminate the 'waste' in our budget, that is the place to start.

Great posts, by the way!

Leaders of the Free World wrote:

I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I think Deval has done more for Mass than Romney did! Romney, in my opinion, is a clown!

Examples?

I think they're just killing us.