We should certainly be thankful that we're not being bombarded this political season by anti-gay marriage initiatives in the voting booth, but there will be three initiatives on other issues on this year's ballot in Massachusetts: one seeking to abolish the state income tax, another replacing current criminal penalties with civil penalties on adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, and the third outlawing dog racing.  Here's where I stand...

On the elimination of the income tax: no.  I mean, please.  If you think just because money's not coming in the government's not going to spend it I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.  You want to not pay taxes, join a militia and move to New Hampshire. 

Where there is no income tax, property taxes are likely to rise, along with tolls, fares, and fines.  If people think they're going to get out of paying for roads, schools, and the parks they enjoy, not to mention the only viable means of social order that allows for their enjoyment, they're naive (to put it kindly).  Death and taxes, people.  Get used to it.

Massachusetts has a flat income tax rate of 5.3%.  The flat tax itself is a reactionary notion when set against the progressive tax that most states impose.  The flat tax is actually seen in some quarters as regressive, since it essentially taxes those with less discretionary income at a higher rate relative to what they can actually afford than the rich. (To be fair, the state reserves the right to exempt those with incomes "below a threshold that varies from year to year.")

If the issue is "equality" or economic justice, I suppose on a superficial level the fairest settlement would be the elimination of taxes altogether.  But the rabble would suffer more here again than the rich would.  Because the rich can afford to pay for things like private roads and personal security that Joe Sixpack simply can't. 

For the record, Massachusetts' tax burden, once insistently above the national average, has for the past decade been consistently a little below it.  Today it ranks 23rd among the states in state-local tax burden.  So, an emphatic NO on Question One.

On Two, the so-called Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative: maybe (yes with reservations). This one decriminalizes possession of small amounts of pot, which I'm all for.  The only thing I object to is the reduction of the fine. I would like to see the fine for possession stay where it is today ($500) without the jail time or CORI report.  But I have a feeling that if Question One passes it won't be long before the fine's increased anyway. 

On Three, The Greyhound Protection Act: yes.  In answer to the question, "Could the greyhound racing industry ever be operated in a humane manner?" The Humane Society of the United States says: "No. The racing industry is inherently cruel. Greyhound racing is a form of gaming in which the amount of money a dog generates determines his or her expendability. The answer for greyhounds is neither regulation nor adoption of 'retired' dogs, but the elimination of the greyhound racing industry."

My predictions for the propositions:  Neither One nor Two will pass (I mean, come on — this is the state that killed a proposition to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine a mere two years ago).  Three might squeak past, although it probably hasn't gotten the press it deserves.