In addition to the candidates running for office, there are four questions on which we will vote to influence state policy. Some are more important than others, but there is significant change on the line this year and the ballot basically can be summed up in two questions. 1) How badly are we looking to screw up our state? 2) How quickly would we like to see that happen? As usual, these ballot questions are not exactly options for improvement as there is very little upside potential. It seems once again that the best possible outcome would be for the citizenry to play defense, shut down these ideological proposals and marginally delay our state’s self destruction.

Question 1)  Should MA impose an additional 4% tax on income over $1M? 

Seriously, why are we trying to be like California? The Golden State has recently chased away taxpayers like Elon Musk, Katy Perry, Joe Rogan and Mark Wahlberg and that’s a state that at least has nice weather. Now Massachusetts politicians, not to be outdone by their commie friends out west, threaten our best tax contributors and employers with even higher taxes, daring them to make like a tree and get out of here. They do this knowing it could end quite poorly. The independent study cited by advocates for this tax increase acknowledges that it may only raise $1.2B in additional dollars, a mere 2% of our budget, while risking the same type of population exodus that has NY and CA losing billions in revenue.  The risk is much greater than the reward, which is fine for the leftists supporting this proposal as we know Marxism is always far more concerned with punishing the rich than helping the poor.  We so often see proposals like this stem from the conceit of people like Elizabeth Warren, who think they can spend other people’s money better than those who actually earned it.  In a telling statistic, Ballotopedia discovered $18.6M has been spent in support of this proposal, but only $6.7M was spent fighting it.  Perhaps those that oppose it thought their money was better spent paying their employees.

I oppose this tax, but part of me hopes it passes because the creepy, Cambridge-dwelling lizard people who run this state deserve the results it will bring.  I would like to see a bearded Bob Kraft, staff in hand, part the Charles River and lead his fellow 1%ers out of Boston to the promised land of manna and sunshine, the land discovered by Ponce de Leon and named “Florida,” which is Spanish for “no state income tax.”  Then, let Pharaoh Healey explain to her constituents where their jobs went.  Decision: Vote hell no on Question 1.

Question 2)  Should Dental Insurance companies be subject to a new regulation requiring an 83% minimum spend of premiums on patient care?

Leave it to MA to use its limited referendum questions to pioneer new regulations in dental insurance (no other state has this). Fortunately, nothing else in our state needs improvement.  From business regulations, to pension funding, to the MBTA, everything is top notch, so we venture forth to slay the evil dragon of dental insurance inefficiency. 

Evidently, people cannot use the interwebs to look up insurance company ratings and we therefore need to be told with which firms we are allowed to do business by a supernerd commissioner who will valiantly protect us mere mortals from predatory dental insurers.  To not waste any more time on this, more regulations mean higher expenses, which means higher premiums.  Fewer insurers mean less competition, which means higher premiums.  This is just more bureaucratic nanny state crap that ends up costing consumers more money.  Decision: Vote No on Question 2.

Question 3:  Expanding the Number of Liquor Licenses Available to Each Retailer

Finally, we have an issue that touches the soul.  This proposal increases the number of beer and wine licenses obtainable by a single proprietor, codifies the acceptance of out of state IDs and prohibits self checkout for alcohol purchases in an effort to prevent minors from buying booze.
After nearly ten minutes of painstaking research, I find myself on the yea side of this vote simply because it gives a bit more weight to the free market and I wasn’t able to find any convincing or sensible argument opposing it. Decision: Vote why not on Question 3.

Question 4)  Should illegal immigrants be allowed to obtain Driver’s Licenses? 

This question comes from a bill passed earlier this year, despite Gov. Baker’s veto, that granted Driver’s Licenses to people in this country illegally. It remained so controversial among the electorate that the question of repealing it became a late addition to the November ballot.  Proponents argue that it will make our roads safer because every driver on the road will need to be tested.  Of course, once could argue that not allowing them to drive and throwing them in jail if they do would be an even safer option. 

Why should we extend the privilege of licensed driving to people who have already shown a blatant disregard of our laws by being here illegally in the first place?  Further, opponents argue, is the issue that providing licenses is a huge step closer to getting illegal immigrants registered to vote, which is of course the point of the whole exercise.  Again, just ask our idols in California who currently have illegal immigrants voting in local elections after registering them through the RMV if this concern is merely right wing conspiracy theory.

No, this is not about safe roads. The idea of Latin Americans not having their 3-point-turns properly evaluated is not keeping Ed Markey and Jim McGovern up at night.  What likely is causing them some stress is the hemorrhaging of minority voters the Dems have suffered in recent elections and the party’s critical need to find new members who will be reliably dependent on government for at least a generation or two.  Yes, the Dems will use the bleeding hearts of virtue-signaling elitists to achieve their ends on this issue by accusing mean old Republicans of simply not wanting brown people to drive, but we all know what this is really about. 

The Democrats need Citizenship to mean nothing.  Then, everyone can get a license. Everyone can get government benefits.  Everyone can vote themselves largesse at the expense of the rest of the population by voting blue.  This is why over 2 million illegal immigrants will be allowed into the country this year, fully violating federal law and our Constitution. This is why they will be given licenses and registered to vote at the earliest possible moment. This is how your unique status as an American Citizen is completely negated. This is how the Democrat party survives.  Decision: Vote No on Question 4.

I am under no delusion that my recommendations will be the final outcome and would actually bet money I am outvoted on at least 3 of the 4. Despite the forewarning provided by the disastrous effects of similar policies in California, New York and Illinois, we will likely follow in their footsteps because it is in the nature of blue states to destroy themselves. When voters value the display of benevolent intention over real world results, self destruction is inevitably what happens. I just hope we can delay it a little longer. – JA