|
|---|
|
Overview of Ballot Questions
The November general election
will include three (3) statewide ballot questions.
The Secretary of State will send out a booklet which
explains the questions to every home in the state
prior to the general election on November 5th. We
encourage everyone to look for the booklet and review
the final arguments that are contained therein. Our
listings below are based on earlier versions of the
documents and may not necessarily be the same as the
final versions used by the Secretary of State. Questions 1 and 2 are initiative
petitions which will become law if they are approved
by a majority of the voters on November 5th. Question
3 asks the electorate to give their opinion to the
legislature about using tax money to fund political
campaigns. Below, we have attempted to give an explanation
along with a conservative perspective on each. Question 1. This Libertarian-sponsored
question would repeal the income tax. We have provided
the summary description as obtained from the Secretary
of State's office. We have also provided arguments
for and against passage of this ballot question. The
"pro" argument was written by Carla Howell,
the Chairperson of the Committee for Small Government.
The "con" argument was provided by the Massachusetts
Taxpayer Foundation (MTF). MassNews believes that taxes are
too high and that the current legislature has a serious
spending problem. The fact that they raised taxes
and year-to-year spending over a billion dollars each
without even attempting to cut expenditures was very
telling. Any taxpayer who is paying attention can
see that the current regime is both unwilling and
unable to do anything about the current situation.
The MTF has claimed that the repeal of the income
tax will cause the dismantling of state government
and that cities and town are accustomed to receiving
state monies in order to balance their budgets. This
seems to be saying that the addicts are addicted so
you shouldn't deprive them of their fix. MTF fails
to understand that we, the taxpayers, are tired of
paying for their fix. We want to dismantle those parts
of state government that are fat, lazy, and inefficient.
But since the system is so bloated, we can't rely
on our "representatives" to do anything
significant. We want the problem fixed. We want the
spending under control. We want the budgets to reflect
reality. We want change. If we have to deprive the
junky of his fix in order to have him take us seriously,
then so be it. Vote Yes on Question 1! Question 2 is the ballot
initiative to eliminate the current bilingual education
law in Massachusetts and replace it with an English
immersion program. It is also known as the Unz Petition
after the Californian, Ron Unz, who spearheaded a
similar (successful) effort in that state last year.
We have provided the arguments for and against the
ballot question. The argument for was authored by
English for the Children of Massachusetts. The argument
against the question was written by the Committee
for Fairness to Children and Teachers. MassNews believes that the bilingual
education process in Massachusetts has become more
of a job security ploy for education specialists and
immigrant advocacy groups than a focused effort to
teach youngsters to speak English. We view the Teacher
Union's arguments as more of the same. They claim
to care about the participation of the parent, the
child, and the teacher but they are instead giving
the parent the ability to obfuscate the learning process,
the child the easy out if they are apprehensive of
learning English in school, and the teacher maximum
leverage and resources to ensure full employment in
the educational system. This is not to say that the
new system is guaranteed to work. There will still
be problems. Some students will not learn English
quickly. But we believe that you will see a much higher
number of students learning faster and better when
the system is designed to "expect" the students
to learn quickly. The current system is based on the
theory that if we wish them to learn then they will
learn. It's not very realistic. Which brings us to house bill
H.5010. This was a last minute effort this summer
on the part of the MTA's largest constituency (the
Massachusetts Legislature) to give them an easy out
- or at least to confuse the issue sufficiently to
prevent Question 2 from passing. This is the typical
too little too late from the State House and should
not be given any serious consideration. We believe
the voters should Vote Yes on Question 2! Question 3 is an advisory
question placed on the ballot by the legislature.
The intent here was to give them political cover for
the repeal of the clean elections statute passed in
2000 by the voters of Massachusetts. You see, the
law was passed but the legislature didn't like it
so they didn't fund it. But this one is tough. The
name "clean elections" sells well and implies
that something is being cleaned up. But many people
believe that taxpayer money being used for funding
political campaigns is unseemly. The concept sounds
good but the practice goes against the grain of most
conservatives. The argument in favor of a yes
vote was written by Common Cause Massachusetts while
the argument against was authored by the Honorable
Francis J. Larkin of Hopedale, Massachusetts. At MassNews we believe that the current clean elections law is a joke. The only path to true election reform is to allow people the right to support any candidate they want to any degree they want. We believe that a full disclosure law will do more to keep elections "clean" than any other approach that we have seen to date. Vote No on Question 3!
|
 |
|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
For the last thirty years, state law has required
that immigrant students be segregated into native
language classrooms, often for many years. Many
of these students never learn to read English,
write English, or even speak English. As a result,
they are denied the same opportunities for success
as children born here.