Pre-Election Day Round-Up 2006
It’s that time of the political cycle again kids, bring on the midterms!
If you haven’t made up your mind in the Governor/Lt Governor race as of yet there’s little I can do to help you. You’re either a true-believer/homophobe/xenophobe/racist; or you’re not. If you’re not, congratulations! You’re about to have one the most competent politicians Worcester has ever cultivated as your Lt Governor. Worcesters (potential?) loss is a huge gain for the state of Massachusetts and although I’ll never get sick of Deval Patrick’s oratory skills, Tim is the reason I’ll be showing up to make my mark on Tuesday. Trust me folks, you’re going to love this guy.
Since the big race is all but over, lets take a look at this years ballot questions.
Question 1 - Sale of Wine by Food Stores - YES
Question one gets a big thumbs up from yours truly. Look, I’m a parent and I fully understand all the concern shown for our young people. But I’m also a pretty well worn human being and I know from years of experience there is not a single government body capable of keeping any controlled substance out of the hands of your children if there is a market for said substance. Sorry to break it to you folks, but if you’re worried about your kids drinking and doing drugs, lock them in the basement; you have a better chance of drawing up a successful exit strategy for Iraq than winning that battle. And the idiots saying this will lead to more drunk driving, or just drunkenness in general, need to hit the economics books. Demand always precedes supply, simply adding more booze to the system wont increase the number of consumers or the amount consumed.
So what is question one about then? Simple, profits. If grocery stores are allowed to sell wine existing package stores will either have to diversify their offerings or risk loosing sales. And there is NOTHING established business hate worse than mixing things up. If every package store was run like Marty’s Liquors in Newton I might have some pity for the little guy, I usually do. But in this case they’ve been phoning it in for too long. If your business model requires the government to protect your ability to make a profit, then you don’t deserve my money. Capitalism isn’t a dirty word folks, it’s what makes the wheels turn.
Question 2 - Nomination of Candidates for Public Office - YES
The opposition to question two has one punch-line, “you’ll confuse voters!!!”. If you’ve paid attention to elections, local, state and federal, at anytime over the last 30 years is it really possible to believe voters could be more confused than they are now? No, what question two stands to do is break down our ridiculous obsession with a two party system by allowing you to vote both for a major party as well as for issues that are important to you. For example, you could be a staunch paleocon voting for Kerry Healy because you’ve never voted for anything but the GOP. While your neighbor could be an independent who also happens to be a raging homophobe. Since your neighbors views are most closely aligned with Healy’s, instead of throwing away his/her vote on some obscure Neo-Nazi party your neighbor could vote for Healy on that one issue, both building her much needed base and making her accountable to the percentage of voters who vote for issues, not parties. This is a win-win for the commonwealth, balance doesn’t come from having the legislature represented by one party and the Governor representing another, thats just grid lock. Balance happens when constituents feel they are represented by their elected officials and you can’t be a party guy and a normal human being at the same time.
Question 3 - Family Child Care Providers - NO
Question three stands to break things that are actually working. This question will allow at home day care providers to form a collective bargaining unit; unionize. Thats fine, but why? The reasons given by the pro 3 group are:
* Higher safety standards to protect children;
* More training for child care providers to raise the quality of care ; and
* Measures to reduce turnover and stabilize the child care profession so children get the consistent, quality care they need.
Uh, I use a home based child care provider now and she goes above and beyond on all three of those points. Quite frankly, I don’t need a bargaining unit deciding what’s best for my child, that’s asinine. Small at home providers are providing great care out of pride, today, and the service is invaluable for that reason. I understand there is a need for more low cost child care for low income families and collective bargaining could help in making that care available and affordable. But then the question is raised, why should I be affected by such a system? If there is even a slight possibility that a.) the standards of care will be lowered or b.) cost of child care will be passed along to residents state wide in the form of taxes, then there is no way I can support the measure in good conscience.
There you have it folks. Another election cycle down the tubes, sure there’s more voting to be had but they’re mostly coin tosses from where I sit.
So get out there children, vote early and vote often!
Comments
3 Responses to “Pre-Election Day Round-Up 2006”
Leave a Reply
The Sandinistas won not only in Nicaragua, but in Massachusetts, too.
Deval and Tim better get busy creating government jobs, we’re gonna need them as businesses flee this state.
I was hoping angry delusional cranks would be the first to go. There’s a Mickey Mouse costume with your name on it Thomas, I hear they pay like 6.50 and hour.
If you honestly think that paleoconservatives only vote Republican then you really need to understand the various strands of the Conservative Movement better. I doubt the folks at The American Conservative, The Rockford Institute, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, or any other paleocon organ or organization find themselves wedded to the GOP.
Plus if the GOP conservatives in Massachusetts are anything like Mitt Romney then they are most certainly not paleoconservatives.