The Final Days of the 111th Congress

                As the New Year approaches and the 112^th Congress is waiting to be sworn in, Democratic lawmakers are rushing to push legislation through Congress before the lame duck session expires. According to Politico.com it looks as though lawmakers on Capitol Hill will be forced to stay in session until Christmas Eve and there is even talk that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will call back the Senate for a post-Christmas session. This would be the first time a post-Christmas session took place since 1995. The Senate has yet to vote on various pieces of legislation such as the START treaty, the government funding bill, and a food safety measure bill. As the 111^th Congress draws to a close the schedule in the House looks a little less hectic but House members have yet to vote on a 9/11 first responders bill which was amended by the Senate last week. Since the Congress has yet to pass an appropriations bill all year there is the prospect that the government could shut down. Because of this Reid says that this bill is of top priority and that a vote is expected to take place Tuesday evening. The senate would also like to vote on a lands bill and a defense policy bill but it looks as though there will not be enough time for a vote to take place. As the year draws to a close, Capitol Hill has been a very chaotic place especially because the incoming congress who are moving into their new office spaces. Many defeated lawmakers are being forced to work out of small cubicles in the basement.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46634.html

A Pledge to America

            Although the new Republican proposal “A Pledge to America” is built around the same idea as the 1994 outline “A Contract with America” it is also very different. The 2010 model is different from the 1994 model because it focuses more on economic issues than value-based issues. The first few pages of “A Pledge to America” discuss the Declaration of Independence in modern terms and also warn about the power of an unchecked executive branch. The document than lists four specific goals that they plan to achieve. The first goal is to extend the Bush tax cuts to both the middle class and the upper class. After that, they plan to lower spending to pre-stimulus levels. Thirdly, they plan to repeal the recent healthcare reform and replace it with common sense solutions. Some examples of a common sense solution are outlined as keeping the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions and also getting rid of the individual mandate. Lastly, they plan to reform Congress and restore trust by citing the constitutional authority of any proposed bill and by also reading aloud any proposed bill and to allow at least three days to pass before the bill can be voted on. Whether or not the Republicans will accomplish these goals is a big question and in my opinion they will not accomplish all of them. However, the Republicans and Democrats have compromised and plan to extend both Bush tax cuts and a vote on the extension is scheduled to take place in congress sometime next week, so it appears that the GOP will be able to cross that goal off their checklist. In regards to the lowering of spending levels, I don’t think that the Republicans will be able to accomplish this, because they do not outline any major cuts anywhere in the document. They only list small cuts that will have very little effect on the budget. Also, I believe that the Republicans will not be able to kill the healthcare bill because they do not have a majority in both houses. Lastly, in regards to reforming and restoring congress I think that this is just something the Republicans put in the pledge to make look good and is something they won’t actually do.

Five Questions for Fox

1. What has the been the response of the natural gas lobbyists to your film? Have any of them contacted you directly?

2. Have you conversed with any lawmakers on the state or federal level that have proposed bills to regualte hydro-fracking?

3. Have you contemplated filing a lawsuit against the natural gas companies?

4. What is the next step of action you plan to take, if any?

5. Will you make more documentaries or is this a one time thing?

Electoral College

            The Electoral College is the name of the process which is used to select the President of the United States. It is unique to the United States in that no other country uses this exact system. Under this system the United States really has 50 individual elections rather than one national election.

How does the Electoral College work?

            The Electoral College works by awarding a candidate a certain amount of electoral votes if they win the popular vote of that specific state. The number of electoral votes is the sum of the number of senators and representatives from each state. This means that the minimum amount of electoral votes a state can have is 3. In order to become President a candidate must win at least a majority of the electoral votes which would be 270 (538 total).

When has the popular vote and the Electoral College vote conflicted?

            The popular vote has contradicted the Electoral College on three occasions; the election of 1876, election of 1888, and election of 1888.

What happens if no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College?

            If no candidate wins the required 270 electoral votes then the Presidency is decided by the incoming House of Representatives. This occurred during the election of 1824 when John Quincy Adams was named President despite the fact that Andrew Jackson had won a plurality of the popular vote and electoral vote. Henry Clay and William Crawford were also candidates in the election.

 What about the Electoral College is good?

            The Electoral College is good because it still puts importance on smaller states with smaller populations. For example, New Hampshire is a very small state which only has 4 electoral votes but it is considered a “swing state” and is relatively important for a candidate to win.

What about the Electoral College is bad?

           

            The Electoral College is bad because theoretically a candidate can win the Presidency without actually winning the popular vote. This is bad because if a majority of the country thinks that the President-elect should not be President than it will be difficult for the incoming President to accomplish much early on in his term.

 Should the United States eliminate the Electoral College?

            I do not think that the United States should eliminate the Electoral College. I say this because then most parts of the country would not have an effect on the election and all the campaigning would take place in the large cities like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. I like the uniqueness of the Electoral College and it is the fairest process for all 50 states, so it should not be eliminated.

Source: www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college

Fixing the Deficit

            For this assignment I was charged with the task of solving our national deficit problem. Currently, we have a projected shortfall of $418 billion dollars in 2015 and an estimated shortfall of $1,345 billion dollars in 2030. To fix the budget I used the New York Time’s interactive online game called Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget. This puzzle forces the user to either cut programs or raise or implement new taxes. While trying to solve this crisis there were many easy decisions but also very hard decisions that are sure to affect a lot of people but I feel that I did what I think is best for the country. Ultimately, my plan will have the USA at a surplus of $7 billion dollars in 2015 and a surplus of $328 billion dollars in 2030. To see my full plan you can visit this link- The Cam Smith Plan.

            Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- I chose to cut all domestic programs and foreign aid. I don’t have problem with giving other countries aid, but with the situation that we are in right now we definitely have to scale it back a bit. In my opinion, you have to shovel the snow off your own porch before you can shovel your neighbor’s porch. Also shrunk the workforce of the federal government because it will save taxpayer’s money and I fundamentally believe in a smaller government.

            Military- I made a lot of military cuts with the only thing not being cut was the size of the navy and air force. The only cut I really had a problem with was the reduction of noncombat military compensation and overhead because it reduces the benefits of some of our armed forces members. There are some positives to this however because it gives members of the military shorter tours of duty and longer breaks between each tour. As far as pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq goes my view is that it is more or less a losing battle at this point and we should bring them home slowly, so a reduction to 60,000 by 2015 would be a good proposal.

            Health care- As far as healthcare goes I raised the Medicare age to 70 because in this day and age people are living longer than ever before and it is only five more years than the current eligible age of 65. Also I decided to reduce the tax break for employer provided health insurance and cap Medicare growth in 2013, both of which will save the US hundreds of billions of dollars down the road.

            Social Security- When dealing with social security I decided to raise the retirement age to 70, tighten eligibility for disability, and use an alternate measure for inflation. I chose to raise the age of social security for the same reason I raised the Medicare age, because people are living longer than ever before.

            Existing Taxes- The only tax I chose to implement was the Lincoln-Kyl proposal which is an estate tax that would exempt the first $5 million of any estate and tax any estate over $5 million at 35%. This is proposed tax is the least aggressive of the proposed estate taxes. I also chose not to implement any aggressive taxes on the rich because they are the people who use their money to stimulate the economy and are going to be the people who ultimately get us out of the current recession.

            New Taxes- I chose not to implement any new taxes.

            Ratio- My ratio between cuts and taxes was 98% cuts and 2% taxes.    

Mitt Romney eyes smaller footprint, later start for 2012

In a recent news story on politico.com, Mitt Romney says that he will begin his 2012 campaign for the presidency much later than he did in 2008. According to Romney, he will not announce has plan to run in January or February because he believes that are people are worn out from November’s midterm elections and need a break from major politics. Also, Romney said it was not as crucial to announce his candidacy for 2012 as early as he did in 2008 because he is a better known national figure now. In 2008, Romney had to spend millions just to get his name known by the American people. Romney also alluded to the fact that he will campaign with a much smaller staff this time around. In 2008, Romney needed a large staff to get his ideas and messages out and to organize his campaign just to keep up with frontrunner John McCain. Since this is his second time running for the presidency, Romney now knows what it takes to run an effective campaign so a smaller campaign staff will simplify the process. Romney even stated that such a larger staff was the cause of much confusion and miscommunication during the 2008 campaign. Romney was quoted saying this information during a conference call addressing his biggest financial donors along with Senator Scott Brown and former Florida GOP chairman Al Cardenas. The article also mentioned what are believed to be the other major candidates for the GOP; Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty. Overall, the main idea of the article was to express the notion that Romney will announce his candidacy sometime later in the year, most likely the late spring or early summer.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45369.html   

Red Over Blue

“Red Over Blue” by James Ceaser and Andrew Busch examines the 2004 Presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry and analyzes how a 527 organization cost John Kerry his bid for the Presidency. The excerpt begins by explaining how the Democratic National Convention went and that Kerry seemed to have a lot of support and enthusiasm. Throughout much of the campaign, Kerry had only trailed President Bush by 5 or 6 points. Later Ceaser and Busch explain how a 527 special political organization which was made possible by campaign finance reform championed by John McCain. The 527 organization was called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and was made up of men who had served in John Kerry’s swift boat during the Vietnam War. The group came out with an attack that criticized Kerry, questioning his heroism and stating that Kerry should not have received the medals he was awarded. This TV ad was very effective because the swift boat veterans looked straight into the camera and were very sincere. At first the group only spent $500,000 dollars on TV spots and in only three states, but after a few days the ad took-off. The ad was shown on all major national news networks and was written about in major newspapers. This attention led to large donations to the group, so they made a second TV ad. This ad made it impossible for Kerry to talk about his time in Vietnam because he could no longer talk about his service without being questioned about the swift boat TV ad. Ultimately, this is a great example of how influential a small interest group can be. This group spent very little on ads compared to Bush or Kerry but their ads probably had the most influence over the election.

Source: Lanahan pgs. 494-499

The Rise of Southern Republicans

                “The Rise of Southern Republicans” pages 527-534 by brothers Earl and Merle Black is an excerpt which explains and analyzes the movement from a solid Democratic South to a more solid Republican South. The Black Brothers state that with this new republican stronghold in the south, the south is now a region that is politically competitive and not just reserved for the Democrats. The Blacks say that the beginning of this switch really began with the election of 1964 which had the liberal Lyndon B. Johnson vs. the ultra conservative Barry Goldwater. Prior to the election, as a senator from Arizona, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was ultimately passed. Goldwater was one of the few senators to vote against this bill. By voting against this bill, Goldwater attracted many racist southern white voters. In the election more southerners voted Republican (Goldwater) than in any previous presidential election. This trend would continue in the elections to follow. Also twenty years later during Ronald Reagan’s election, more southerners called themselves Republicans than Democrats. These two instances are known as the Great White Switches. From here new southern politics had emerged where blacks and liberal whites made up the Democratic party and conservative whites anchored the Republican party. During his presidency, Ronald Reagan was very responsible for changing the ways in which the south votes. His strategy was to realign white conservatives as a reliable source of Republican support and neutralize white moderates as a consistent foundation of Democratic strength. By doing this Reagan was the most popular President among southern whites since Franklin D. Roosevelt. In closing, the rise of Southern Republicans can be attributed to mainly two things: the 1964 presidential race between Johnson and Goldwater and the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Source: "The Rise of Southern Republicans" Lanahan pgs. 527-534

Street Fight

                The 2002 documentary Street Fight follows the Newark, New Jersey mayor’s race between upstart Cory Booker a high educated well spoken, African-American  and Sharpe James an African American, old-school ,straight talking incumbent. The documentary primarily follows Booker and his campaign but also does include James and his campaign as well. From the opening scenes of the film the viewers are exposed to Booker’s main campaign tactic which is going door to door to meet and talk with voters. Booker does this very effectively as he portrays himself as a compassionate and outspoken candidate. Throughout the campaign, Booker is the candidate who uses positive or neutral campaigning tactics and James is the one who tends to use more negative tactics. Other positive tactics that Booker uses is filming political ads in the streets of Newark, holding campaign fundraisers, and holding public outdoor rallies with food and entertainment. Sharpe James on the other hand uses much more controversial tactics. When a downtown business owner put a Cory Booker sign in his sidewalk windows, James had the shop shut down by citing arbitrary building code violations. Another negative tactic James uses is sending a pamphlet to voters calling Booker a “White republican” and also a “Faggot white boy”. Also other dirty campaign tactics which were most likely connected to James is that Booker’s phone was tapped at times during the campaign and also Booker’s campaign headquarters were broken into and valuable information regarding campaign strategy was stolen. Ultimately, James won the election by slim margin (53%-47%) but in 2006 Booker won in a landslide taking home over 70% of the vote.
Additional Campaign Strategies
        As election day in the city of Newark, NJ came closer, Sharpe James took even more drastic measures and used more controversial negative campaign tactics. Some of these tactics include ordering town workers to remove Cory Booker signs around the city, busing in supporters from out of state, and ordering cars and trucks with PA systems to sabotage Cory Booker rallies. James also attempted to manipulate the voting booths to make sure they would give him an unfair advantage but the NJ district attorney's office stepped in. Overall, James implemented many negative camapgin strategies during his campaign for re-election.

http://www.corybooker.com/

3.

               

               On Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts had a choice to eliminate the 6.25% alcohol tax (question 1) that was put into place last year and to lower the 6.25% sales tax to 3% (question 3). The voters of Massachusetts decided to eliminate the alcohol tax by a 52% to 48% margin and decided to keep the sales tax where it is by a landslide 57% to 43%. What this tells me is that you don’t get between Massachusettsians and their alcohol (haha just kidding). What this actually tells me is that voters probably got this one right. By eliminating the tax on alcohol the voters got rid of what was an unfair double tax, because alcohol already excise taxed by the distributors. Also, by eliminating the tax the voters got rid of about 100-150 million dollars of revenue which primarily goes to alcohol and drug rehab programs. Although these programs help many people they are not vital to the Commonwealth. Also by eliminating this tax it shows that the MA voters were sensible because by eliminating this tax it will promote much needed business at border liquor and convenience stores. MA voters also got question 3 right by voting it down. If it was voted to lower the sales tax to 3% than the state would lose out on roughly 2.5 billion dollars. Although this would send a strong message to Beacon Hill it would force huge cuts in education funding and town aid. Ultimately, it would be bad for the state. Overall, the voters of Massachusetts seemed to have been sensible when voting on these two questions. (Would have been nice if they could’ve been sensible when picking the governor).

http://www.myfoxboston.com/generic/news/politics/local_politics/ma-election-results-ballot-questions-20101102

a. What do the results of questions 1 and 3 tell you about Massachusetts voters?

2.

    Please analyze the impact Republican control of the House of Representatives will have in Washington over the next two years of the Obama Administration. 

         This past Tuesday, Republicans made a significant number of gains in the House of Representatives. When Congress goes back into session next year the Republicans will take with them at least 239 votes (9 races are still undecided). On Tuesday, Republicans also took 60 seats from the Democrats. With an overwhelming majority and the largest one in the House since 1938 the Republican Party is energized and has a reason to be. With the majority the Republicans will now have a major say in what bills get passed and which ones don’t. This will force Obama to make his agenda more moderate. When asked by a reporter last week about the results Obama said “We get the message.” The majority will make it very difficult for Obama to pass any major pieces of legislation and will also force Obama to make compromises with the Republican Party. There has even been talk by some GOP members about a possible impeachment of Obama but this is most likely not going to happen. Another rumor from the GOP which will probably occur is that the Republicans first move will be to try to repeal the just passed healthcare reform bill. Repealing this would be a huge blow to the Obama administration because this is basically the only notably thing the administration has done since it came it to power in 2008. However, if that were to occur it would give Obama many excuses to use during his campaign for re-election in 2012. Ultimately, it will be very difficult for Obama to get anything done in the next two years if he does not put forward a more moderate plan.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/mid-term-losses-force-obama-closer-to-the-middle-of-the-road-1.1066469

1.

Pick two of the following Senate races and analyzes what the results indicate about the 2012 presidential campaign:

a. Nevada

b. Illinois

c. Pennsylvania

d. West Virginia

e. Florida

                Two senate races which I will analyze are the Illinois and Pennsylvania races.  These two races were both won by republicans and were both previously held by democrats. In Illinois Republican challenger Mark Stevens Kirk defeated incumbent Alexi Giannoulias by getting 48.2% of the vote to Giannoulias’s 46.3%. In Pennsylvania, Republican challenger Pat Toomey edged out incumbent Joe Sestak with taking home 51% of the vote to Sestak’s 49%. It should be noted that Illinois and Pennsylvania are usually blue states. What these results tell me is that even in left-leaning areas the American people are unhappy. This will affect the 2012 presidential election because it will force Obama to run a more moderate campaign, especially if he does not turn the economy around or pass any significant legislation the latter of which will rather hard to accomplish now with an overwhelming GOP majority in the House. Also, when analyzing the results of the Illinois race I see that over 6% of the electorate voted libertarian or green-rainbow. This could mean that we could see a third party candidate such as Ron Paul (Libertarian) or Ralph Nader (Green) make a run in 2012 and take away a chunk of votes from the GOP and/or Dems.  Also, the people in these two states unseated the incumbent party neither state did it by a landslide. This means that in 2012 the Republicans will have to run a rather moderate campaign as well unless the economy gets severely worse, which unlikely to happen. Overall, these two races show that the American people are not happy campers right now and that the 2012 Presidential election will probably go to a Republican unless Obama makes some vast improvements in the next two years.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate

Rachel Maddow- MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show

In this video clip, Rachel Maddow of the Rachel Maddow Show discusses and analyzes racism in political parties.
After watching part of her show tonight, I would say Maddow leans to the left. I say this because many of her points support the left but I would like to point out that she appears to me as more moderate especially when compared to the likes of Larry King and Bill Maher. I like that she interjects her opinion but she doesn't act like she is "better" or smarter than the right like other left talking heads do. Like the O'Reilly Factor, Maddow's show definitely is an opinioned show that presents news stories. Overall, I didn't really like Maddow. Although I liked how she did not speak to the viewers in a condescending way, her show was just not interesting to me. I watched about 30 minutes of her program and it was more or less the same all the way through, she basically reported story after story with very little in studio guests or interviews. Maddow's show does not keep the viewer interested or engaged and in my opinion this is certainly a problem for the show when the host is not that attractive.

Bill O'Reilly- Fox News: O'Reilly Factor

In this clip, Bill O'Reilly is opening his show, as he always does with the "Talking Points" segment. The clip shows Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at a union rally in Pittsburgh talking to steelworkers about ways to make life more fair in the United States. O'Reilly proposes that many of the things that Pelosi is saying are fundamental ideas of socialism.
Although O'Reilly claims that his show is independent and fair, I think that it definitly leans a little to the right. O'Reilly almost always sides witht the right on the various issues he discusses and it is rare when he says anything positive about the left. I think the show is certainly opinion based. The show reports on daily news stories but not in the manner of a typical evening news show (e.g. CBS evening news, NBC evening news, etc.) Almost everytime O'Reilly presents a news story, he will have a panel analyze the story and give their opinions, so it is an opinion based show. Overall, I like Bill O'Reilly. He is well spoken and tells it like it is. He doesn't sugar coat anything and he says what he wants to say. I think he does a great job in regards to keeping the viewer interested in the program. His show is setup in different segments so it keeps the audience entertained and engaged.

10 Most Awkward Political Gaffes

Dale Peterson 2

Dale Peterson

Jerry Brown attack ad

Meg Whitman - Tough Business

California Gubernatorial Race

On November 2, California will elect a governor to replace current incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). The winner will serve a four year term from 2011 to 2015. Currently, this is hotly contested race. Former Governor and Presidential candidate and “old-school” liberal Jerry Brown represents the Democrat ticket while EBAY billionaire Meg Whitman will battle for the Republicans. Major issues dictating the election include education, jobs, balancing the budget, illegal immigration and the environment. Both candidates pledge to create new jobs and to curb excessive spending. Meg Whitman takes a sharp stance on illegal immigration. Ms. Whitman believes in applying all of her resources to stop the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico. On the other hand, Jerry Brown vows to look out for the environment. In his environment plan he promises to promote renewable and efficient energy, cut unhealthy air pollution, and protect California’s Coastline.

                Most recently, the campaign has gained national attention when word got out that one of Mr. Brown’s campaign strategists called Ms. Whitman a whore during a phone call. This controversy sparked an on-air debate between Whitman and Brown. In the debate, Brown apologized to Whitman but said the word was taken out context and it also is not as offensive to women as the n word is to African Americans. Ms. Whitman rejected this idea and said it was unacceptable for one of Brown’s strategists to use such language. The most recent poll numbers show that Brown has a slight lead over Whitman leading 50% to 44% but 4% of the vote was undecided. It looks like this contest will come right down to election day.

Fast Food Poll

My “universe” was the senior class (110 Students)

I interviewed 8 members of the senior class four from each gender. Also, these people were randomly selected at lunch, but some brought lunch and some bought lunch.

Hypothesis: The majority of the senior class likes fast food and eats it at least once per week.

1.       Do you like fast food?

A.      Yes- 50% (55 students)

B.      No- 12.5% (13 students)

C.      Indifferent- 37.5% (41 students)

2.       What is your favorite fast food chain?

A.      McDonald’s- 50% (55 students)

B.      Burger King- 0% (0 students)

C.      Subway- 25% (27 students)

D.      Other- 25% (27 students)

3.       Would you rather eat fast food or a home-cooked meal?

A.      Fast food- 12.5% (13 students)

B.      Home-cooked meal- 87.5% (96 students)

C.      Indifferent- 0% (0 students)

4.       How many times per week do you eat fast food?

A.      Zero- 12.5% (13 students)

B.      Once- 50% (55 students)

C.      2-3 times- 25% (27 students)

D.      4-6 times- 12.5% 13 students)

E.       Daily- 0% (0 students)

5.       How many times per month do you eat fast food?

A.      Zero- 12.5% (13 students)

B.      Once or twice- 25%(27 students)

C.      4-8 times- 50% (55 students)

D.      Every day- 0% (0 students)

E.       Other- 12.5% (13 students)

Do you think there should be regulations restricting a person’s fast food consumption?

A.      Yes- 12.5% (13 students)

B.      No- 75% (82 students)

C.      Indifferent- 12.5 % (13 students)

Analysis: I think that my poll did somewhat prove my hypothesis. According to the poll, half the senior class likes fast food. Although this is not a majority it is as close as possible to a majority. Also, the poll shows that 87.5 % of the senior class eats fast food at least once per week. This is an overwhelming majority. I think my poll is accurate for the most part, but some of the questions and answers could have been worded better which I believe would have changed the results. I tried to make my sampling random but I also wanted both genders to be equally represented. I think the sampling size (7.2 % of class) was adequate. I think my results could have been skewed because often times when I was polling someone they would see my tally sheet and see what other people had voted. Due to this I think some people who would have voted for a less popular choice were more inclined to vote like everyone else did.

Question 3

On question 3 I would vote YES, to reduce the state sales tax to 3%. At first glance, I initially thought this was a great idea and decided I would definitely vote yes. After I thought about it more I began to realize if this tax was reduced to 3% then the state legislature would most likely raise the income tax. I personally, would rather see a higher sales tax than income tax because sales tax taxes everyone the same. After thinking it over awhile I decided that I would still vote yes because I still believe in lower taxes no matter what the tax is.

                While reading about Charlie Baker’s proposals if he were to be elected governor I found that he opposes lowering the tax to 3% but is in favor of lowering it to 5% and lowering the state income tax to 5%. I think this is a better option and a better compromise. However, I don’t believe this would pass through the state legislature so, this did not change my decision to vote yes on question 3.

                I would vote yes for a variety of reasons. Mainly, rolling back this tax to 3% would promote business throughout the state especially near the New Hampshire border, where retailers would now be more competitive with their NH counterparts. It would also increase sales on the southern border because we would now be attracting shoppers from NY, Conn., and RI. Rhode Island shoppers spending money it Massachusetts would likely increase the most because they face a 7% sales tax. According to the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, rolling back to 3% would produce 32,929 productive and sustainable jobs. Creating jobs that are productive and sustainable is never a bad thing. This rollback would also give back roughly $700 dollars to each taxpayer in the Commonwealth. This extra money put back into the people’s pockets would most likely be spent on Massachusetts businesses which would furthermore strengthen the state’s economy. Lastly, the tax cut would reduce government spending by 5% and would force the state government to spend more wisely and responsible. This would reduce government waste, bureaucracy, and full pensions for government workers at age 54. In my opinion, voting YES on question 3 is the best option we have right now.  

40b is a Scam

With regards to Initiative #2 I would vote YES which would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low-or moderate income units. I would vote yes on this proposal for a variety of reasons. One reason I agree with the initiative is because it would force developers to go through the proper channels to receive the appropriate permits to build. Often times these houses are being build on land that would otherwise not be built on because of zoning laws. These developers are building without any regard to local regulations or the environment. Another reason I am for this proposal is because this law is enabling developers to get rich while not actually solving Massachusetts housing problem. Most of the time developers will apply for 40b housing, but only build a few units as 40b and the rest as regular units. In these cases the developers are making a huge profit off of the normal units but still only need the one permit to build because some of the units are 40b. An interesting statistic that I found from the 2009 Massachusetts Housing Report Card is that in the last seven years 40b projects have produced more total units that the previous 37 years (since 40b went into effect) combined, but have produced less affordable units when compared to other programs. Massachusetts Inspector General Gregory Sullivan has called the 40b law a “pig fest” for developers and has also said it “represents one of the biggest business abuses in state history”. In conclusion I would vote yes to end this misuse of taxpayer’s money that is making the developers rich while Massachusetts still ranks 49^th out of 52^nd (this includes District of Columbia and Guam) when it comes to affordable housing.

Rep. Brad Hill - Discussing his oppositon to the recent alcohol tax.

YES on 1; Repeal the Alcohol Tax

               If I were eligible to vote on November 2, I would vote yes on question 1. A yes vote would repeal the 6.25 % alcohol tax that was implemented in the Commonwealth just over a year ago. Before the bill was signed into law there was no sales tax on alcohol, although there was an excise tax. My main justification for voting yes on this initiative is because I believe it would stimulate business in liquor and convenience stores especially those abutting the New Hampshire border. New Hampshire, “land of the free”, does not have a sales tax on any goods. According to Massachusetts State Representative and Minority Whip Brad Hill of Ipswich, businesses in his district have experienced between a 20%-40% decline in sales since the tax was implemented. This is not a statistic that anyone wants to see when we are trying to build the economy back up. What is remarkable about this is that Rep. Hill does not represent any border towns which mean the decline in business for border stores is even greater. Another point I would like to bring up is that alcohol in the Commonwealth is already taxed. There is a “hidden” excise tax put on alcohol in this state before it even reaches the shelves. I believe that the sales tax on alcohol is an unfair double tax and should definitely be repealed.

                 Opponents of this initiative would argue that repealing the sales tax on alcohol would cause an increase in alcohol abuse in the state. I don’t believe this will happen. Before we had this special tax on alcohol Massachusetts did not have any serious alcohol abuse problem so there is no reason to believe that this would happen if the tax was repealed. And for those citizens of Massachusetts who do have alcohol abuse problems, I believe that they will continue to buy the alcohol no matter how high the tax is, so repealing it would not be an issue. Other opponents are fearful of a decline in aid for schools, towns, fire departments, police departments, etc. My opinion is that these public necessities will always be funded and that a decrease in state revenue would force the state legislature to be more fiscally responsible. For example, instead of spending $3.5 million on the Pioneer Valley bike paths (those must be really nice bike paths) like the state did in 2008 they would take that money as well as monies usually allocated for other wasteful earmarks and put it back into the schools and towns.

                In conclusion, Massachusetts should definitely vote YES on Question 1. If you believe in thriving small businesses and a booming economy you should most certainly vote YES on Question 1.

A Lexus in Every Garage

                A Lexus in Every Garage by George F Will of the Washington Post was an intriguing article. In the article Will analyzes the upper class in the United States. His main point in simple words is that rich people in America are running out of things to spend their wealth on.

                One fact that Will cites in the article that I thought was very interesting was that America’s richest 1 percent of households own more than half of the nation’s stocks and control more wealth (16 trillion) than the bottom 90 percent. This column was written back in 2007 when we had increased oil prices and Will explains how when the richest 20 percent account for 60 percent of the consumption in the United States gas prices have very little effect on how much gas someone buys.

                Later, Will introduced positional goods. According to Will, positional goods are enjoyments such as “elite education” or “exclusive” vacations or properties as well as certain clothes, jewelry, and cars. Will explained that now there is so much money “sloshing” around that almost anyone can buy these goods. Because so many of these people can afford these so called positional goods the positional value of the good is significantly decreased. For example, 94.3 % of Japanese women in their 20s own a Louis Vuitton item. Obviously since such a large percentage of Japanese women own one of these items it is not as luxurious to own of these items and therefore the positional value goes down.

                In closing, Will says that philanthropy may be the new thing to do among the wealthy. He explains that because of the increased consumption of “positional goods” is resulting in declining enjoyment of vast wealth, then giving the wealth away may be the best “revenge”.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002116.html

Trucker

1.       In my opinion the trucker will vote Republican. I say this because I get sense that the trucker likes limited rules and regulations. Basically, he doesn’t want someone else telling him what he can do. He runs his own business and he wants to be the one who makes the rules not the government. Secondly, this trucker has worked hard his whole life to achieve his idea of the American Dream. In his view he has worked extremely hard to achieve his success, so I infer that he would lean closer to the “liberty” side than to the “equality” side. Lastly, he is a Texan, so that explains a lot right there.

2.       As stated by Michele Lamont in her book The Dignity of Working Men, she says that men like the trucker who can “look out for themselves” often focus more on social and moral issues than economic issues. So, social and moral factors will be the most decisive in how he votes.

3.       Different people measure success in different ways. For example, an extremely poor person may think as themselves as successful if they one day own their own home but a wealthier person may measure success by being the CEO of a fortune 500 company. Other people do not just measure success by money or wealth. These other people sometimes measure success by happiness. Similar, to people who measure success by wealth some people measure success by social status.