Vote No on Question 1
While we may not agree with everything that unions do politically - cleaving to the Democratic Party even on the occasions where there are left alternatives, for example - we certainly agree with the growing union-led movement to "Vote No on Question 1" in the November elections. If passed by statewide referendum, Question 1 would eliminate the Massachusetts state income tax. Cutting at least 40% of our state government's funding stream right off the top starting January 1, 2010.
The pro-Question 1 effort comes primarily from leaders of the small but feisty Massachusetts chapter of the Libertarian Party via an effort called the Committee for Small Government, and is led by Carla Howell - best known in the Bay State as a former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate. Howell and her lieutenants run a non-profit called the Center for Small Government which started the Committee.
Staying true to their Libertarian Party roots, Howell et al regularly run ballot efforts aimed at dismantling state government - most famously their last effort to "End the Income Tax" that got a frighteningly-high 45% of the vote in 2002.
Keep in mind, the libertarianism of the U.S. Libertarian Party is not the traditional left-wing libertarianism practiced around most of the globe by anarchists and syndicalists and others (oh my!). It is in essence, ultra-capitalism. Or more correctly, classical liberalism - in the European sense of the term "liberal" that means "free trade and free markets," not the American sense of the term which can mean anything from "Democrat" to "moonbat commie traitor" depending on who is using it.
Now while left libertarians (who did not really need the "left" qualifier prior to the rise of right libertarianism of the American type) believe in the key importance of liberty in all areas of life, capital "l" Libertarians believe that liberty of all kinds - in particular, people's liberty to control their own money - is best preserved by getting rid of most collective efforts at governance, letting the free market rule as much as possible, and not doing anything to interfere with business. Especially small business from whose owners they draw much of their support.
It would perhaps be unfair to attempt to typify their politics in a short essay, but suffice to say they believe taxes hurt business, hurt individuals, hurt the market and therefore hurt economic growth and constrain individual freedom to chose to where to put one's money. And that the private sector can do pretty much anything better than the public sector. Hence, they work busily - largely in the suburbs and exurbs of our fair Commonwealth - to get rid of the state income tax, figuring that once that obstacle is out of the way, they can get on the business of wiping out the federal government.
So on July 2, the pro-Question 1 forces submitted over 1500 more signatures than the 11,099 necessary to get a binding initiative on the ballot, and the race began.
Just coming onto the mainstream media's radar now, the anti-Question 1 effort actually began last spring out of union circles in a late April meeting to form a Coalition for Our Communities. The unions that sparked the Coalition had gotten word about Howell's effort early on, and started mobilizing progressive organizations around the state to fight it.
As September rolls around, the anti-Question 1 effort is getting into full swing. Oddly a nice summation of the problem with Question 1 came from Governor Patrick - no enemy of business - at a Greater Boston Labor Council Breakfast last spring. The Mass AFL-CIO website quotes him as saying "Remember when [President Bush] was selling a federal tax cut? He kept talking about how 'it's your money.' He's right! It is your money." Governor Patrick went on, "the point is, though, that that's not the whole story because it's also your broken roads, it's your overcrowded schools, it's your broken neighborhoods and your broken neighbors. And it's time we all started taking responsibility for that, and one way we take responsibility for that is by the income tax. So let us not do something foolish."
We're inclined to agree with such sentiments, and will always happily take them much further. But before commencing our attack on the ballot initiative, it's worth looking what it actually says. Of course anyone looking to the text of the law that would be enacted by Question 1 and expecting a strong, well-thought out rationale for basically eliminating state government will be sadly disappointed.
The first page of "An Initiative Petition for a Law Known as The Small Government Act to End the Income Tax" is a rant against "Big Government. The second page of the woefully short document is dedicated to operationalizing the end of the state income tax.
For example, from the first page
"(a) The government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts today is Big Government, and
(1) Massachusetts Big Government programs do not work; all too often, they do not achieve their stated objectives; all too often they fail in their duties;
(2) Massachusetts Big Government programs make things worse ..."
Further down the page, we hear of the wonders of "Small government" (note that government is not capitalized in this second instance)
"(i) Small government leaves us free and unburdened to fashion our own lives ..."
Yes indeed. The passage of such a ill-conceived set of ravings will leave us all unburdened from public roads, transportation, bridges, schools, colleges, hospitals, health programs, unemployment, workman's compensation, and the enforcement of health and safety regulations and environmental protection regulations and civil rights statutes and minimum wage laws, etcetera etcetera. It would unburden us from tens of thousands of good unionized jobs which will not be replaced by business. [Quite the contrary, a number of major business sectors like the health care sector will be destroyed without state money - adding to the cascading economic misery a yes vote on Question 1 would cause.] It would also unburden us from any ability to carry on any sort of activity for the public good at the state level, and would completely destroy most city and town governments as well.
In fact, large cities would be the most devastated by such madness - assuming the legislature were suddenly struck by a urge towards democracy and actually respected a ballot initiative in a way they normally do not (at least as far as initiatives that would benefit the working families are concerned). Remember what happened to the Clean Elections initiative some years back, right? Trashed and overturn by the legislature with hardly a second thought. Of course, we should hardly feel too secure given that another suburban assault on the cities, the initiative that destroyed rent control in Massachusetts, was allowed to sail right on into activation in 1995 with a hearty assist from millions of dollars from the real estate industry.
Anyway, it's tempting to get sidetracked into a discussion of how screwed up the state ballot initiative system is at the moment, but let's solider on to the main point here.
So let's ask the question we always like to ask at Open Media Boston: Although basically everyone will lose if such an initiative becomes law, who will be hurt the worst of all given the damage it will do to the vast urban public infrastructure?
Poor people - and most damningly, poor people of color. This initiative can be read as straight-out racist in addition to being totally insane. Yes, Ms. Howell, we can agree that Big Government programs do not always achieve their stated objectives. But the stated objectives of even our minimally democratic state government are far more noble and public-spirited than any business could ever be.
Businesses exist solely to make profit. Any other purpose is incidental, however nice the corporate PR sounds on paper. And despite that fact, no business has enough money to run a entire state for very long - or even many cities.
And if state government is ever wiped out by some foolish cabal of greedy petit bourgeois suburbanites, then it will be quickly reconstructed again. Because you can't run large societies without a government. Now it might not be the kind of groovy federation of autonomous collectives that some Open Media Boston viewers might prefer, but a government it will be nonetheless.
And that government will go straight to Ms. Howell's door and demand some accounting for her and her buddies' crimes against the people of Massachusetts. And, believe us, no neurotic ledger sheet waving and whining about "Big Government making people weak and dependent" is going to save her from justice that day.
Just a bit of instructive futurist reverie there.
Anyhow, kudos to the labor movement in the form of the Mass AFL-CIO and its affiliates, and Mass. Change to Win affiliates like SEIU, for getting the ball rolling on shooting Question 1 down like a bad habit.
If ever there was a no-brainer for people of all political stripes other than Libertarian this would be it.
Oh, and Ms. Howell? History just called and said you have to give the term libertarian back to the left-wingers that created it. Any libertarian worth their salt believes in liberty for all - a liberty which can only be guaranteed by putting the collective good over the individual good from time to time (an attitude sometimes called "social individualism"). In the service of building a free society that guarantees the rights of all. And which says "there can be no liberty for me, when anyone else is unfree." Or poor. Or homeless. Or jobless. Or otherwise victimized by powerful interests.
Governments are far from perfect. And Open Media Boston does stand in the left libertarian part of the political playing field; so we can never get too excited about the existing system of state government. But to kill everything that's good in government to root out what is bad - although we have serious differences with fans of capitalism over what's bad - seems a great example of throwing babies out with the bathwater if ever we saw one. Enough said.
Get it? Good. Vote No on Question 1.
To join the movement to stop Question 1, check out Coalition for Our Communities site at http://votenoquestion1.com.
To see what the Committee for Small Government has to say for itself, check out http://www.smallgovernmentact.org.
