MA Spending, corrupt and broken. Vote YES on Question 1 and 3.
In the midst of discussing Question 3, Beacon Hill demonstrated this week that all claims of revenue shortfalls and fiscal hardship amounts to nothing more than cheap propaganda and political posturing. With Massachusetts citizens occupied in the midst of a contentious election season, Beacon Hill passed another massive spending bill during an informal session. A 443 million dollar spending bill to be exact and under the most dubious of circumstances.
Last week in so-called "informal sessions" the Massachusetts House of Representatives met with just THREE members and the Senate met with just TWO members and passed a huge controversial $443 million spending bill. This week both house houses met again in informal sessions -- also each with only a tiny group of members -- and passed a final consolidated version of the bill.
Five elected officials passed hundreds of millions acting like a dictatorial regime and violating it's own rules that explicitly call for a quorum on spending of this magnitude. But it gets worse, unfortunately. This ties in very neatly with our conversation over Question 3, because apparently these 5 legislators decided to use Federal money for their own personal needs. Yet when pro Question 3 supporters claim that MA spends almost 50 billion on government functions, the opposition vehemently denies and instead uses a meaningless number that they refer to as the 'budget'.
One of the big the problems with H5028 which Polito particularly objected to, is that it would spend parts of recently allocated Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) money on pay raises for college professors and sheriff's office employees, and for State Police, and dump $195 million into the state's so-called "rainy day" slush fund for future general use.
Yet when we request spending to be cut by asking our taxation levels to be reduced, we are told that all the money is tied up and that Beacon Hill is running a deficit. This is the epitome of arrogance and irresponsibility. Some MA salaries for public servants are already higher than private sector salaries, yet the spending continues.
I would also urge you to vote Yes on Question 1 and remove the recently raised tax on alcohol, which is actually a tax on top of a tax (sales tax on top of excise tax). Opposition claims that the 50-70 million dollars raised by this new tax will be used strictly for alcohol abuse and prevention. Beyond the fact that this is impossible to track due to sales taxes being pooled into one general slush fund, we learn that the latest bill passed by Beacon Hill draws over 10% of these very same revenues for:
The bill also includes a provision to divert $11.5 million from the state's new sales tax on alcoholic beverages for a fund that the Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth could draw from for their homosexual / transgender programs in public schools.
Frankly, nothing stops Beacon Hill from using any of the revenues from taxation for any purpose they see fit. Yet spreading the idea that we should not vote Yes on Question 1 because it might hurt programs designed to combat alcoholism is either naive and misguided or gullible to the point of stupidity. This is also the kind of spending that circumvents the entire process of state government.
Public schools have their own funding provided by real estate taxes and these moneys should be spent on GLBT programs and not general state funding. If public schools do not have enough money for GLBT then maybe the teacher unions can consider making concessions and making sacrifices. Yet when Beacon Hill sets up this relationship with the local level they purposely tie up revenues to spending, make local towns dependent on state revenues and making tax cuts a battle between taxpayers and those needing services. It should not be like this and it is a travesty!
For those that have no qualms with the state raising taxes on alcohol because alcohol is bad, keep in mind that 'bad' or 'unhealthy' is subjective. If this is tolerated now then what prevents our politicians from raising taxes on sodas, chips, red meat, cheeses, vegetable oil, etc. After all, none of these foods can be considered healthy, soon we will all be munching on Finn crisps and drinking water for dinner. Because ultimately this is not about taxing alcohol, this is about raising revenue. For a state that has increased spending by 44% in 7 years requests for more revenues is asinine.
Last week in so-called "informal sessions" the Massachusetts House of Representatives met with just THREE members and the Senate met with just TWO members and passed a huge controversial $443 million spending bill. This week both house houses met again in informal sessions -- also each with only a tiny group of members -- and passed a final consolidated version of the bill.
Five elected officials passed hundreds of millions acting like a dictatorial regime and violating it's own rules that explicitly call for a quorum on spending of this magnitude. But it gets worse, unfortunately. This ties in very neatly with our conversation over Question 3, because apparently these 5 legislators decided to use Federal money for their own personal needs. Yet when pro Question 3 supporters claim that MA spends almost 50 billion on government functions, the opposition vehemently denies and instead uses a meaningless number that they refer to as the 'budget'.
If I told you that I spend 150k a year on a 60k salary, would you believe me? Would you assume that I
probably have another source of revenue? Well you would be right. This is how Beacon Hill is spending this other source of money:
One of the big the problems with H5028 which Polito particularly objected to, is that it would spend parts of recently allocated Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) money on pay raises for college professors and sheriff's office employees, and for State Police, and dump $195 million into the state's so-called "rainy day" slush fund for future general use.
Yet when we request spending to be cut by asking our taxation levels to be reduced, we are told that all the money is tied up and that Beacon Hill is running a deficit. This is the epitome of arrogance and irresponsibility. Some MA salaries for public servants are already higher than private sector salaries, yet the spending continues.
I would also urge you to vote Yes on Question 1 and remove the recently raised tax on alcohol, which is actually a tax on top of a tax (sales tax on top of excise tax). Opposition claims that the 50-70 million dollars raised by this new tax will be used strictly for alcohol abuse and prevention. Beyond the fact that this is impossible to track due to sales taxes being pooled into one general slush fund, we learn that the latest bill passed by Beacon Hill draws over 10% of these very same revenues for:
The bill also includes a provision to divert $11.5 million from the state's new sales tax on alcoholic beverages for a fund that the Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth could draw from for their homosexual / transgender programs in public schools.
Frankly, nothing stops Beacon Hill from using any of the revenues from taxation for any purpose they see fit. Yet spreading the idea that we should not vote Yes on Question 1 because it might hurt programs designed to combat alcoholism is either naive and misguided or gullible to the point of stupidity. This is also the kind of spending that circumvents the entire process of state government.
Public schools have their own funding provided by real estate taxes and these moneys should be spent on GLBT programs and not general state funding. If public schools do not have enough money for GLBT then maybe the teacher unions can consider making concessions and making sacrifices. Yet when Beacon Hill sets up this relationship with the local level they purposely tie up revenues to spending, make local towns dependent on state revenues and making tax cuts a battle between taxpayers and those needing services. It should not be like this and it is a travesty!
For those that have no qualms with the state raising taxes on alcohol because alcohol is bad, keep in mind that 'bad' or 'unhealthy' is subjective. If this is tolerated now then what prevents our politicians from raising taxes on sodas, chips, red meat, cheeses, vegetable oil, etc. After all, none of these foods can be considered healthy, soon we will all be munching on Finn crisps and drinking water for dinner. Because ultimately this is not about taxing alcohol, this is about raising revenue. For a state that has increased spending by 44% in 7 years requests for more revenues is asinine.
Comments
Post a Comment