http://mdrealestate.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/taxes.jpg

The other day I received in the mail “The official Massachusetts Information For Voters” This is the pamphlet containing all the information concerning the 2008 ballot questions for the Commonwealth. It has the full text of the act and an in favor and against written arguments.

This year there are only 3 ballot questions.

The 1st Ballot question is of the most importance. A yes vote will eliminate Massachusetts personal income tax. This is a sure no vote for me. The elimination of the tax will hit already hurting communities and programs designed to help working poor. The pro eliminators, a grassroots libertarian group, believe it will help working middle class families. I don’t believe this to be true. Regardless of what they say in their argument, revenue will need to be generated somewhere. States have been increasingly getting less money from the federal government. State programs for the working poor and other people in need will be the 1st things to be slashed and maybe not the 1st year or so without state income tax, but sometime soon after taxes in other areas will rise or new taxes will be made. Let’s be serious with the economy as it is the need for social services will rise to take the chance to have these programs budgets drastically reduced is not a gamble the citizens of Massachusetts should take.

Interestingly, under the arguments section a disclaimer reads: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguements, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments…. Government looking after its people? or too busy to tell the facts?

The 2nd question concerns the decriminaliztion of marijuanna possesion in cases of 1 ounce or less. It would make such possession a civil penalty of a fine.

The 3rd question involves the banning of Dog racing, which seems to be a reoccurring ballot question (I personally despise dog racing or any foul use of animals, but that is a future post).

I received this in an email from my Uncle, a Californian Republican who received it from someone he knows.. This just goes to show the power of the Internet and the willingness of people to trust what someone they know has sent them. It is so disheartening that this kind of fear is spread from both political parties. This is the blog the email sent me to.

Of course with anything you can bend someone’s words when you want to. But, there are those of us who go back to find the source of such material.

Like I said both parties do this fear mongering tactic. They will never take credit for it as they use political pundents to do the dirty work.

Check the facts!

The recent baby formula disaster in China is easily deplorable. Many questions surmount to how could they let the formula be tainted. The more insightful question is why are so many women not breast feeding their infants? The Washington Post gives some insight and parallel to the United States in the Late 1940′s and 50′s when breast feeding started to give way to formula. The sheer volume of formula feeders is due to science and greed. Formula companies used public relations to generate the publicity needed to get more women to switch to formula.

Here are 3 examples of how Formula companies still use PR to their advantage:

Formula Samples Hinder Breastfeeding Efforts

Formula Freebies Cut Breast-Feeding Tim

Marketing Infant Formula Through Hospitals: the Impact of Commercial Hospital Discharge Packs on Breastfeeding

here are some benefits to breast feeding (breastfeeding.com):

…breast milk has 400 nutrients that cannot be duplicated in the lab

…slows down the growth of harmful bacteria in the intestines

…inhibits the growth of bacteria in the lungs, mouth and nose

…reduces respiratory infections for the infant’s first four months of life

…research suggests reduction in risk of sudden infant death syndrome

In the United States breast feeding is on the rise though it is still shunned in public. In some cases baby formula is necessary and its availability and scientific birth justified. However, science needs to be increasingly careful to not undermine nature, which it has continuously done( think corn and our food supply). Perhaps if China and the U.S believed in the power of mothers and biology the infant tainted formula would not be so grand.