NO ON QUESTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

Massachusetts voters will be asked to consider three questions on
their ballots Tuesday.

Question 1 would eliminate the state income tax. Question 2 would end
criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Question 3 would ban dog racing.

We encourage voters to vote "No" on all three questions.

Question 1 is attracting the most attention and passion among voters,
with just cause. A similar question was presented to voters in a
prior election and failed, although it garnered a surprisingly high
level of support.

Supporters of Question 1 are rightly outraged at the waste and
foolish spending in state and local government. And every day brings
new examples to support the belief that those in government and who
work in the public sector do not understand the financial
difficulties under which the rest of us live. Whether it's
extravagant benefits, ridiculous paid holidays, ludicrous sick leave
policies or pensions most folks can't even dream of, public employees
seem to believe they have a divine right to be insulated from the
vagaries of the economy - insulated courtesy of the taxpayers'
wallets. And public employment is just the beginning of ways
government finds to spend other people's money.

Question 1 wouldn't change that. In fact, there's plenty of precedent
to suggest that, even if the measure passes, legislators would never enact it.

Question 1 would roll back the state personal income tax in 2009 to
2.65 percent and eliminate it altogether in 2010. The measure would
cost the state about $12 billion in tax revenue, or about 40 percent
of the state's budget.

Backers claim the state can withstand a cut of this magnitude without
a loss of essential services and without other tax increases. That
just isn't possible. And given legislators' penchant for spending
other people's money, you can be sure there will be tax increases. An
increase in the sales tax will hurt those of moderate means most.
Hikes in corporate taxes will kill the job growth needed for a vital economy.

But this is little more than a rhetorical argument. Because there's
no way the Legislature would implement the tax repeal even if voters
approve it.

Voters may recall passing an initiative demanding a rollback of the
state income tax to 5 percent. It's currently 5.3 percent.
Legislators hemmed and hawed, demanded "studies," claimed they'd
already cut taxes enough and couldn't afford any more. If the
Legislature wouldn't roll the income tax back to 5 percent, what
makes anyone think it will roll it to zero?

Changing state government takes more than passing an initiative. It
takes hard work - paying attention to the news, voting nonresponsive
politicians out of office, restoring a two-party state.

That's the job that needs doing. Let's get started.

There's a reasonable libertarian argument for the legalization of
drugs - not one with which we necessarily agree - that says we'd be
better off if drugs were regulated, sold in ordinary stores and
taxed. That's not Question 2.

The ballot initiative would end criminal penalties for possession of
less than one ounce of marijuana. Instead those in possession would
have the drug confiscated and a civil fine of $100 levied.

There's room for softening of the criminal penalties for possession
of small quantities of marijuana. Prosecutors say they rarely seek
such penalties anyway. They prefer to direct young offenders into
treatment programs. But this measure goes too far and sends an
inappropriate message.

Rest assured, this isn't legalization. But it's sure to be perceived
as such, particularly by the young and impressionable. And where will
they go to seek their newfound thrills? Into the willing embrace of
drug dealers, who certainly will be ready to satisfy other curiosities as well.

Surely, this is nothing we want to do to the young people of Massachusetts.

Question 3 would ban dog racing by 2010. By that date, there may be
nothing left to ban. There are just two operating dog tracks in
Massachusetts - Revere and Raynham - and they are already closely
regulated. Dog racing in Massachusetts is a dying sport.

It's an all too human tendency to seek to ban anything of which one
personally disapproves. Doing so corrodes the liberty of others who
might enjoy things we find repugnant.

Better to let dog racing fade away on its own than through force of
yet another government regulation.