Questions

Tomorrow is election day.

The Massachusetts state election is following the usual standard. Present a ballot to a voter. The voter then selects a candidate or candidate grouping that he or she feels best represents their interests, thoughts, or beliefs.

I am always interested in the ballot questions. This is where the state offers questions of public policy which possibly or eventually leads to reform or lack of reform.

With that, the questions...

1. State income tax

A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.

In favor argument: "41% waste in Massachusetts state government," reveals survey. Eliminating government waste is one reason to vote "Yes."
Your "Yes" vote cuts your state income taxes 50% starting this January 1st - and eliminates the last 50% next January 1st. For you and for 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers.
Your "Yes" vote gives back $3,700 each to 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers - including you - on average when we end the state income tax. $3,700. Each worker. Every year. [Me: Receiving more money is good, but the true question is how would removal of the State income tax affect government spending on crucial vital works as well as inappropriate spending on non-vital works? I'm willing to pay taxes if it means supporting these vital areas, but I don't like paying taxes to support excess or misappropriation of public funding. Another question to ask is that if the State were given a proper spanking as punishment for misspending, would bad habits improve or be eliminated in turn? What's realistic here?]

Your "Yes" vote will create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs. [Me: Debatable.]

Your "Yes" vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes. [Me: Response to fear-mongering.]

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services. [Me: I realize there is a word-limit on these supplied responses, but it is unclear as to what government services are essential and non-essential.]

Your "Yes" vote rolls back state government spending 27% - $47.3 billion to $34.7 billion - more than state government spending in 1999.

3,400,000 Massachusetts workers, taxpayers and their families need your help. Please vote "Yes." [Me: Will someone please think of the ever-present middle class??? Will someone think of the children??? I need to do more reading about this topic.]

Against argument: This legally binding initiative would slash state revenues by more than $12 billion a year - nearly 40 percent of the state budget.

It would force dramatic cuts in state aid to cities and towns, driving up property taxes and reducing funding for vital local services. [Me: Define vital local services. This seems like possibility, but the argument is more made with fear-mongering in mind. I'm curious what non-vital services and spending waste would be reduced if there was no state income tax.]

It would mean a drastic reduction in state funding for local public schools - leading to teacher layoffs, school closings and other cutbacks that would harm our children's education. [Me: We already harm out children's education through improper emphasis on rewarding teachers with proper compensation. This, again, is possibility, but also reeks of fear-mongering.]

It would threaten public safety by cutting funds for police, fire protection and emergency medical services. [Me: Again, possibility, but how much would this threaten public safety depending on the cuts?]

It would prevent us from making badly needed repairs to the state's aging roads and bridges, or making other investments needed to attract businesses and create jobs.

And it could force the state to raise other taxes and fees that would hit moderate-income families hardest.

Times are tough enough. Let's not make them worse. Vote NO. [Me: This argument, overall, is pure fear-mongering. The argument points to the main works which I agree government should take part in (city/town aid, education, public safety, and infrastructure). However, how exactly would removal of the State income tax affect these areas, and, more importantly, affect true non-vital areas?]

2. Possession of marijuana

A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.

In favor argument: A YES vote removes the threat of arrest, jail, loss of student loans, loss of driver's licenses, and other sanctions for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Instead, a $100 fine, similar to a speeding ticket, would be imposed. Question 2 would end the creation of a permanent record (CORI) and barriers to housing and employment. Police would be freed up to focus on serious crimes, rather than arresting 7,500 people annually for marijuana possession. Taxpayers would save $30 million a year in arrest costs. All other marijuana-related crimes, like sales or DUIs, remain untouched. Stricter than current law, juveniles would have their parent(s) notified and must complete a drug awareness program and community service. Question 2 would not increase marijuana use. Eleven other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in marijuana use. Let the punishment fit the crime. Vote "YES" on Question 2. [Me: Despite my lack of support for marijuana usage in general, this argument, for the most part, makes sense to me. I don't have comments.]

Against argument: Marijuana decriminalization is an endorsement of substance abuse and dangerous criminal activity, and sends the wrong message to young people. Massachusetts law already requires our judges to dismiss charges and seal records of first-time offenders. Decriminalization emboldens and enables drug dealers and poses a threat to public health and safety. One ounce of marijuana - street value $600 - equates to approximately 56 individual sales. Marijuana contains nine times the mind-altering THC as 30 years ago, is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco, is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions, and its users are 10 times more likely to be involved in automobile crashes. It is more strongly associated with juvenile crime than alcohol. A large percentage of criminal arrestees (approximately 40%) test positive for marijuana. Decriminalization is opposed by law enforcement, educators, health care, business and community leaders. Massachusetts District Attorneys, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs urge your NO vote. [Me: Decriminalization is indeed an endorsement of substance abuse. However, we do this already for another chemical substance -- alcohol. Calling decriminalization an impetus for dangerous criminal activity is a backwards argument since selling marijuana is an act of criminal intent because selling marijuana is illegal. I am a human being because I am a human being. Citing the increased chemical consistency, carcinogenic effects, and safety effects is good, but don't we already have these problems with cigarettes and alcohol? I'm curious how much of a percentage of arrestees would test positive for marijuana if marijuana was decriminalized, much less legalized. My guess it would go up or remain about the same. I'm not a fan of marijuana usage, but I don't like the government stepping into areas of recreational usage. This doesn't make marijuana legal, but does reduce the penalties involved with recreation usage.]

3. Dog racing

A YES VOTE would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.

In favor argument: Dog racing is cruel and inhumane. Would you treat your dog this way?

• Thousands of Massachusetts greyhounds endure lives of confinement, kept for 20 or more hours each day in cages barely large enough to stand up or turn around in. [Me: Out of the thousands of dogs that live in confinement, how many total racing dogs are licensed overall? This argument is slightly misleading, but a confined dog is a confined dog. Point taken.]
  

• According to state records more than 800 Massachusetts racing greyhounds have been injured since 2002, including dogs who suffered broken legs, paralysis and even death from cardiac arrest. [Me: More than 800 racing dogs have been injured out of how many dogs in how many races? This argument is fair as an injured dog due to racing is the fault of owners racing the dogs, of which the dogs have no choice in doing. I am curious in the comparison of racing injury vs. normal domestication injury.]
  

• According to the Massachusetts State Racing Commission greyhounds have recently died from a mysterious illness and tested positive for cocaine, an illegal stimulant. [Me: This statement is misleading as it is not stated that the racing commission reported the dogs were given stimulants to increase their performance, although this can be guessed at. The question is if a higher percentage of dogs who are raced are abused in comparison to domesticated dogs. I am also curious as to what would happen to all these racing dogs if the law was to pass. With no betting allowed, dog racing would, for all intents and purposes, be eliminated. Would the fate of a lot of these dogs be euthenasia or domestication?]

Against argument: Parimutuel dog racing has taken place in Massachusetts for over 70 years, now only at Wonderland dog track in Revere, and Raynham/Taunton in Raynham. The greyhounds are owned by caring dog owners, not tracks. There is no mistreatment of the dogs as claimed by animal activists. The State Racing Commission fully regulates the industry, has veterinarians on duty at each track, and maintains numerous programs for the welfare of the dogs during their racing careers, and for adoption when their careers are over. About 1,000 people will lose badly needed jobs if the proposal is enacted. The Commonwealth, Revere and Raynham will lose badly needed revenue. From 2000 to 2007, these tracks paid over $40 million to the Commonwealth in commissions and fees, as well as other taxes related to their racing activities. Finally enactment will likely subject the Commonwealth to suits by the tracks for taking their property. [Me: Despite the fact that racing is popular or has been around for a long time does not an argument make. Slavery was legal for a long time in the United States. That does not make it a moral act. Losing revenue is not a legitimate argument for acting immorally. The argument that no mistreatment is claimed by animal activists is weak, although no source or statistic is claimed nor cited.]

H-1B Visa Fraud

There was a good post on the technology web log, Slashdot, about a government report released earlier this month that details that 20.7% of H-1B visa petitions to the United States were submitted with fraudulent information or technical violations, thereby supporting a policy for increased auditing procedures for H-1B visa applications.

There was a more interesting aspect to this of which I was not aware. Apparently, many companies on a week-by-week basis supply job advertisements in various publications (magazines, newspapers, online job postings) in which the company has no desire to actually accept local U.S. workers for consideration of the job itself. Some companies attempt to make their job postings contain job requirements that most, if not all local workers, could fulfill. For example, a software development consulting firm could post a job posting that required a senior software developer with 20+ years of programming language experience in a language that hasn't even existed for that amount of time.

Why do companies do this?

1 - By showing that a job posting was made and was unable to be filled by local U.S. candidates, it becomes easier to obtain H-1B visas to hire an non-citizen applicant. The applicant can be hired for a cheaper rate, thereby saving the company money.

2 - By showing that a job posting was made and was unable to be filled by local U.S. candidates, it becomes easier to obtain H-1B visas to hire a pre-selected non-citizen applicant. If a company has an international applicant in mind even before the job posting is made, the company can make a bogus job posting in order to make a stronger case for the pre-chosen international applicant to obtain work status or permanent residency. The only simple way for many international workers to get residence in the United States is to marry a United States citizen. By making a bogus job posting, this creates a loophole to ease the residency application process.

This entire process is shameful, for the companies that skirt the process for minor gains and, more importantly, for the counterproductive process created by the U.S. immigration office. It's not just local workers who are taking it from behind here. Unscrupulous companies can lure international workers with the idea of naturalization only to see it not take shape when the worker demands more compensation, benefits, or more firm ground to stand on for permanent residency. If the worker is fired for someone more agreeable, then they simply get deported back with little rights of their own.

Despite the tangential problem of declining interest by U.S. students in the study of math and science, and thereby a reduction in the amount of talent present in the U.S., there is an advantage to brain draining top talent from other countries to the United States.

The problem to me is when a company hires a H-1B worker when a equivalently skilled local worker is available. The advantage for this use case is plain - it helps the hiring company save money and I don't blame them. I do blame our government and U.S. immigration office for not properly auditing and analyzing their policies in order to bring parity to this situation. If an internation worker is more skilled and available for the position, then, by all means, hire them. If there is a qualified local candidate whose only disqualification is being a local resident, then that seems ass-backwards to me.

Hate crimes

There is another interesting post on my favorite community web log, Metafilter.

The story: Remembering Matthew Sheppard - How has the town of Laramie changed since the attack?

The background: Matthew Shepard was a gay student that studied at the University of Wyoming located in Laramie, Wyoming. Shepard was attacked on October 7, 1998 by Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney. After meeting at a bar, Henderson and McKinney offered Shepard a ride in their car. Henderson and McKinney proceeded to rob, pistol-whip (beat a person with the stock of a gun), and beat Shepard, finally leaving him tied to a fence in a remote rural area. Shepard's skull was fractured during the attack and eventually died on October 12, 1998 while receiving hospital care.

Following arrest by police, Henderson and McKinney argued they were driven into temporary insanity by by Shepard's alleged homosexual flirtatious advances towards them. Girlfriends of the two alleged attackers told prosecution that Henderson and McKinney had planned premeditated robbery of the gay Sheppard. Henderson eventually plead guilty to charges and was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in prison. McKinney was found guilty by jury of the charge of murder and was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Shepard family pushed for support of the Matthew Shepard Act which would expand the realm of the 1969 United States Federal Hate Crime Law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability rather. The act did not pass legislation due to conservative lobbyist pushback and a threat of veto by President Bush.

The argument: There are two main arguments for support or opposition of the Matthew Shepard Act and any of its future derivatives.

Support - The argument to support hate crime laws relates to the indirect effect on society as a whole. By murdering Matthew Shepard in hate-crime related activity, the entire gay population of the town and area is placed into a state of fear for being who they simply are (in this case, homosexual). A hate crime should be sentenced more harshly because it is not only an offense to the victim, but also an indirect threat towards all who share the same state of being.

Opposition - The argument to oppose hate crime laws whether it be the United States Federal Hate Crime Law or the suggested expansion by the Matthew Shepard Act is that by punishing a crime against certain people more, then it means that the same crime is punished less for other people. In question, why should a murder be less horrid for a victim and his or her families because the victim is straight rather than gay, white rather than black, healthy rather than disabled? It is also argued that by punishing a criminal more strictly because a crime was inspired by hate, it thereby is punishing a person for thoughtcrime rather than their actual illegal actions.

The U.S. financial crisis - simplified

Discovered a great link via Metafilter that describes the financial crisis in a neatly organized fashion. A good read...

http://www.themoneymeltdown.com/

For a brief time-based synopsis of the subprime mortgage crisis, a good write-up is available on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline

State of emergency

I realize the following quotation doesn't inspire great political commentary. Quoting it seems more emotional and reactionary, but there is a point. Several days ago, the White House released a press statement stating we would be in a national state of emergency for another year. The national state of emergency has been in place since 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks. I'm not amazingly surprised by the general idea, despite some flaws in its merits, but I'm more interested in why has the U.S. been in this state for this long?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 18, 2008

Notice: Continuation Of The National Emergency With Respect To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism

RSS Feed White House News

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon committed on September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 18, 2008.

Presidential race

I tend to read small bits or news, here and there, regarding the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Like past presidential election years, I tend to remain undecided until approximately 1 months before the actual election. Again, like in past years, I have a bad taste in my mouth as the candidates are excreting their talking points and, in some cases, informational entertainment spots.

Despite the campaign system being mostly broken:
1. Campaign finance corruption.
2. Campaign lobbyist corruption.
3. Emphasis on pointing fingers rather than solving issues or accepting responsibility (see: economy).
4. Emphasis on polarizing issues (abortion, Iraq, death penalty, stem cell research) since the candidates are so close to each other on almost every other issue.

That being said, I like to usually watch the presidential debates. It's an opportunity for, at least, a little straighttalk regarding the meat of the campaigns...

How will each candidate tackle foreign policy (see: Iraq)?
How will each candidate tackle the economy (see: Housing market, weak dollar)?

So here is the tentative schedule:

September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN
October 15, 2008:Presidential debate with foreign policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

I'm interested to see how the candidates discuss the recent real-estate mortgage crisis (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) and financial sector problems (Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG) and how it impacts the economy. I, hope, for the sake of the U.S. economy, they discuss more about their plans to strengthen the economy rather than pointing party-line fingers. This is a bi-partisan issue and should be treated as such.