Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Preaching to the Choir (especially in Amherst)

State Senator Stan Rosenberg has an uncharacteristic slip up in today’s well placed (break page, above the fold) Gazette article finally getting around to covering the controversy of the 'Vote No on Question One' propaganda night coming up “live” at ACTV studios tomorrow night.

Cut to the close: “This is a very, very serious matter. If people speak, it has some very significant weight.” Rosenberg said. Damn, that's a lot of very's.

So then are you saying Stan, that us lightweight voters should only hear from heavyweights like yourself?

Yeah, yeah we know
As usual, a blog covered it first


Anonymous said...

What Stan is saying is simple: even if Question 1 passes, the legislature has absolutely no intention of abolishing the income tax. They will ignore this referendum just like they will ignore the one that said that the 5.3% tax had to be reduced to 5.0%, just like a few other cases that slip my mind.

I am telling people that Question 1 is like Clinton's impeachment where the House indicted him but the Senate refused to convict. Passing Question 1 is NOT going to actually repeal it, but it WILL be a shot across the bow of the legislature.

It could also make many of them retire due to illness, the voters being sick of them....


LarryK4 said...

Yeah, that is what I find so puzzling about Stan's participation in this overly staged event and that condescending closing comment in the Gazette.

Opponents of Question 1 really have nothing to fear because even if it does pass it will not be implemented.

And if you have a slam dunk case then why not simply allow it to stand out on its own merits--especially if juxtaposed against the other side?

They should welcome Mr. McCormic's participation

I believe it's called "fair and balanced".

Anonymous said...

Stan is getting sloppy.

He has been treated like royalty by so many folk for so long that he is reading too much of his own literature.

He wants the publicity. He is like a little rooster, walking into places because he is Stan...

Anonymous said...

Vote Yes they do not do well with our money. They need a long time out bad children very bad.

LarryK4 said...

Indeed, necessity is the mother of invention. Many a small business has been forced to survive (by cutthroat competition) on a 40% reduction in revenues.

Let me tell you about the Health Club industry for instance...

Anonymous said...

Isn't democracy and free speech wonderful when you don't actually have to worry about how the bills are going to be paid?

The blogmaster calls this forum coming up "preaching to the choir" but let's face it, folks: even in Amherst, there's more than one choir, and the other one sings daily on this blog.

There are essential functions of government, and there is waste. Making the distinction and rooting out the waste is the business of careful, responsible political leadership. But it's a little more difficult than the alienated "followers" on this blog suggest daily.

Larry's right on one point: both sides should be represented in any allegedly non-partisan forum on Question 1, if for no other reason than it makes for a far more interesting discussion! I do think that the prior hue and cry for "free speech" at the Parade is relevant here.

I disagree that this is a referendum without consequences. That may be the rationale to vote
your darkest, most irresponsible impulses about government, but I think that the people claiming it are sadly mistaken.

Whatever happened to people of relatively conservative bent, who still understood that the community needed to be funded? In New England, when I was growing up, we called them "Republicans". All gone, sadly.

Rich Morse

LarryK4 said...

Hey, at least I’m “right on one point”. Freaken eh! (Considering how exceedingly difficult it is to get a compliment out of you Mr. Prosecutor)

You talk about the “alienated followers “ on this blog--yet you post comments rather routinely.

Indeed “there are essential functions of government, and there is waste”.

UNFORTUNATELY we need to place a howitzer to the head of politicians, so they figure out which is which.

Anonymous said...


We are on the cusp of a rather nasty wave of populist revolt. Would you rather a shot-across-the-bow of a vote to abolish the tax, or would you prefer to have what happened in, say, the 1920s?


Anonymous said...

A "howitzer to the head of politicians": do you know how juvenile that sounds? (And as we know from previous experience, some people miss the metaphor.)

But, operationally, what does it really mean?

This is the point: other than you, me, and the always interesting Mr. Franklin, who else that posts on this blog will show up on an Amherst Town Meeting ballot? We're talking about honest-to-goodness vigilance over government here, and not just adolescent whining (like high school)about authority.

The reality is, to quote the old Pogo comic strip, "we have met the enemy and he is us." There is no "them", just "us", either doing our jobs as citizens or abdicating our power and authority to others and then complaining about it.

So, yes, this is where I go to keep up on (and occasionally comment on) your "alienated followers", the folks who love to bitch from the shadows under cover of "anonymous". They are truly "anony-mouses", not much courage in that.

And a "yes" vote on Question 1 is a complete abdication of our responsibility as citizens, masquerading as fiscal conservatism. I'm just sorry that apparently the LWV is not allowing both sides to be heard, which is not the way to air an issue.

Rich Morse

p.s. Ed has posed a question to me with a rhinoceros of a ridiculous premise buried in it: we are looking at a populist revolt because the same people that trumpeted the individualism of "free enterprise" now are seeking the People's Republic of Wall Street, in short, laissez-faire "until I get in trouble".

ARHS '76 said...

If the state loses its income tax revenue, not only will state services be hamstrung, but your local property tax will double.

The Commonwealths's income tax is reasonable and regressive, both of which ought to appeal to fiscal conservatives who own property in towns like Amherst and drive their cars on state roads and bridges.

LarryK4 said...

I believe, Mr. Morse, Pogo stole the concept from the classic Sci Fi movie ‘Forbidden Planet’ (who borrowed the premise from Shakespeare) lamenting all too late the “Monsters from the Id”

The passage of Question 1--that only a day ago I thought was highly unlikely but now I’m not so sure--will send a message that the average person who actually works for a living is “Mad as Hell and is not going to take it any more” (to quote another classic movie)

Even the drones in the House of Representatives figured it out and voted NO to the $700 BILLION Wall Street bailout.

Yeah, the local League of Women Voters is not exactly doing their cause much good with this unnecessary gerrymandering (and Stan should know better).

But hey, it’s Amherst. Par for the course.

Anonymous said...

Two points -- first, there isn't going to be a massive tax increase without a voter-approved override or an abolition of the 2 1/2 law and either isn't likely to happen.

Second, Mr. Morse, the populist revolt isn't a response to the GOP as much as it is a response to BOTH parties. Just like past ones.


Anonymous said...

Tip for Larry, et al

The UMass AntiAmericans will be having an anti-military, anti-war rally tomorrow (Wed) at noon.

Think it might be nice if a few real Americans showed up, with cameras...