Yes on Question 1 — And Throw The Bums Out

by Chip Ford, September 13th, 2008 at 12:56am

I was recently involved in another blog debate, and thought it was worth passing on an excerpt from it, as it answers a recommendation from opponents of Question One: That instead of attempting to repeal the state income tax we elect new legislators who’ll recognize and address our concerns.

Their solution is, “Work the changes you want through the system.”  I asserted that here in “The Birthplace of Liberty” this is currently not possible.  An important part of this discussion follows:

“Chip, question: What are we going to do, if we pass this law and our political hacks refuse to innact [sic] it like they did before? Would the taxpayer be lawfully in the right to refuse to have any state tax withheld or not pay the taxes?

“This is not a democracy, we have a representative form of Government. Is there anything that says as a Representative they have to vote the will of the people? …”

I replied:

Nope, not a thing. Our legislators can do pretty much as they please — and they do. Our only recourse is to replace them when they run for reelection — but that’s near-impossible in Massachusetts. Many brave and dedicated souls have tried, but few have succeeded — so much so that fewer attempt this exercise in futility each election cycle.

Consider the following:

Our “full-time” legislators collect $58,000 a year base salary, taxpayer-funded of course. This is automatically adjusted every two years, so it might be higher now than when I last looked.

Our “full-time” legislators have been on vacation since the end of July, when they suspended formal sessions until after the election. They are “in the district” campaigning for reelection full time, at taxpayer-expense, especially if they are one of the few who have opposition.

Any challenger for an incumbent’s seat is working 9-5 to support their family, campaigning only in his or her free time.

Legislators begin the day after their election raising campaign funds for the next election — spend the next two years non-stop building up a campaign war-chest for their reelection campaign. Two years of fundraising, not to mention the advantage of “name recognition” over any upstart and insolent challenger two years down the road.

Challengers only begin to raise campaign expenses when they decide to run.

A specific case, state Senate President Therese Murray:

The Associated Press recently reported that, though unopposed in this upcoming election, she has accumulated $300,000 added to her campaign war-chest, just this year:

“Senate President Therese Murray is running unopposed in the primary and general elections, but still raked in more than $300,000 in campaign donations this year.

“The donations came from lawyers, CEO’s, union officials, mortgage bankers and homemakers. Most were from outside her Plymouth district, according to a review of campaign finance records.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view/2008_09_08_Senate_President_Therese_Murray__unopposed__but_raises__300_000/

When she was last challenged in 2004, by Republican novice Tim Duncan, out came the battalion of union thugs to threaten and intimidate his family, disrupt his fundraising event.

To read this citizen-challenger’s own personal account and see photos and a video of the confrontation, go to:

http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2004/04-05-25.htm

So, challenging and defeating a tax-borrow-and-spend legislator carries significant personal risk, along with massive disadvantages. And we wonder why so few choose to run for office against the entrenched?

The only solution is to vote out any incumbent who is not satisfying your view of how goverment should be, every time without exception, taking every opportunity whenever you find a challenger to that incumbent on your ballot. So far that has not worked either, though we have tried to assist the underdog heroes and heroines through CLT’s 2 1/2 PAC.

Over 34 years we’ve tried everything. Nothing has significantly changed The System here in Massachusetts — besides our Prop 2 1/2 — a political culture quite unique across the United States.

See:  http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2008/08-09-09nr.htm#memo

With passage of Question 1, at least voters will get the pols’ attention that we’re “mad as hell and not taking it any more.” If the pols give us the Beacon Hill middle finger salute once again, sooner or later voters will reach the necessary critical mass and throw the bums out. The question is, will that happen before the pols bankrupt the state and us taxpayers? Either or both are not too far off any more.

See: http://cltg.org/time_bomb.htm

Tags: Income Tax Repeal, Question 1, Question One

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

Similar Posts

• No Longer Near, The End Has Arrived: The Inmates Are Torching The Asylum!