We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Massachusetts income tax set to go down in flames There is so much good news out there right now it is hard to know where to begin.
First off, Carla Howell and Michael Cloud have done it again. They have filed over 78,000 signatures for a ballot initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax, some 12,000 more than the requirement.
This is their second go. The first time the major media outlets in the state all but ignored them, other than an occasional hatchet job. Despite the virtual blackout, the measure got some 45% of the vote. This time around they are getting massive coverage right off the bat:
The Worcester Telegram and Gazette is owned by the Boston Globe –
which is owned by the New York Times.
The Worcester T & G is the third or fourth largest newspaper in Massachusetts.
After they ran the article on our END the Income Tax Ballot Initiative On December 3rd, they polled their readers on whether we should END the Massachusetts Income Tax.
A whopping 66% of their readers voted “Yes” – while only 34% voted “No.”
You can find out more here.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Dale, you had a quotation mark sneak into that URL, so the link does not work.
Sorted. Firefox under Linux is perhaps too forgiving and showed no problem when I tested it.
Last time, the PTB largely ignored both the initiative and Carla’s gubernatorial campaign. To make up for the blackout, Carla had to focus her campaign very tightly, even during the pseudodebates; this was unfortunate, since she has quite a lot to offer.
This time, the PTB haven’t quite geared up. They’re intimating an all-out assault. IMHO, that will be for the best; it would be nice to have a real debate in this country (USA), for once, especially on an issue that quickly gets down to fundamentals.
On a related topic, here’s a question I’d love to see posed during the Presidential pseudodebates:
Those of us Baby Boomers who’ve worked several decades, who have seen what is now up to 1 dollar of every 7 earned by the average worker flushed down the toilet of Social Security and Medicare, with not even so much as one cent saved, and who do not wish to emulate our parents and grandparents in cannibalizing coming generations would like a way to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, having a chance to save some of this money ourselves. What is your position on this?
Now, in Massachusetts does the initiative have to pass through the state legislature before it goes onto the ballot? I thought the legislature can simply vote down the initiative as it really amounts to a request to put the question before the voters. I dunno, I remember the legislature killing some initiatives before.
The MA legislature can play certain games with initiatives for a law, but it cannot stop them except by repealing them after they’ve passed.
The ultra-sleazy Massachusetts Teachers Association has used several methods to keep questions off ballots, AFAIK: (1) get the thoroughly-corrupt Supreme Judicial Court to change the law, as they did in Walsh vs Secretary of the Commonwealth (orally arguing that a witch could make a mark on a petition and thus persuade voters to sign; this, aided by incompetence in certain executive offices, apparently helped convince the SJC — apprised otherwise in amicus-curiae briefs by CLT and by Common Cause — to lie about the intended meaning and origin of the law, as they violated all precedent, too); (2) threaten voters with prosecution if they do not deny their signatures; (3) (presumably) invalidate or prevent the validation of invalidated signatures in court (the simple ethical route). There have been other techniques for subverting signature drives.
The restrictions on what can be covered by initiatives can be used to prevent them from reaching the voters. I gather that WA suffered from this not long ago, but I don’t recall any egregious example in MA.
Initiatives to change the constitution can be stopped in 2 ways, apart from their signature drives: (1) failing to get 1/4 support during two consecutive joint legislative ConCon sessions; or (2) as inconsistently opposed by the SJC, a refusal to vote during at least one of those two sessions. There’s probably still room to get the SJC to declare 1/4 approval if the legislature refuses to perform its constitutional duty and vote.
Referenda can be forfended by attaching an emergency rider, whether genuine or not.
Lately the MA legislature has taken to overturning passed initiatives, generally muddling things rather than declaring outright opposition. This, plus the SJC’s corrupt ruling to help the MTA, have made it more difficult for citizens to get the ball rolling lately.
Good luck with the campaign.
Where can I find the text of the proposed 2008 ballot initiative? The organization websites don’t seem to have it posted.