How would you choose?
Elections are here and most people by now have their minds made up (or at least an idea) of how they will vote for their candidates. Some people tend to vote down the line for all the Democrats on the Ballot or all the Republicans and that’s their way of reasoning. Others will take the time and effort to learn about what they stand for and be more selective, without considering the party.
But, when it comes to the four questions on the ballot in Massachusetts, have you given a thought to what they mean and what they will do for the public?
I have never advocated for a particular candidate on these pages or on the radio (even though I have very strong opinions) because I intend to give you options.
I wish for the public to read and think for themselves if a question on the ballot is loaded with benefits for a certain group or benefits society at large; if it goes according to my beliefs or if it goes to detriment of our community. Most of the time, these questions are posed in a way that’s confusing and difficult to understand, and you may be voting for something that does not represent your true feelings.
What scares me most is radio DJs telling the public to vote (for example, 1 NO, 2 YES, 3 NO, 4 YES), just the number without explanation of each. That is another way to brainwash us and lead us to the slaughterhouse.
That’s why I brought you the four questions in previous weeks with an explanation of what each vote YES or NO will bring as a result. Since we are in the last few days before the November 8 finals, a sort of “refresher” is good advice.
There are two opinions in the booklet published by the Secretary of State’s office for each question. This year we had three questions included in the Voters’ Guide once again showing the power of the Secretary of State William Galvin, not including question #4. I find it very troublesome that voters will not be aware of the options they have on question #4 and most people will be surprised. More about that later.
Here they are:
Question #1: Increasing taxes on people earning over a million dollars. Sounds good enough for most of us to say yes but, have you taken the time to learn how this will impact communities and who will be hurt in the process?
People voting NO in this question allege that anyone selling a home could be over one million dollars that year, placing him or her on a higher scale and obligated to pay higher taxes. It may not mean much to rent payers or people not planning to sell their modest homes, but we all should be aware of the ramifications of this new law.
Proponents of that question claim that it will not happen.
Question #2: Regulating dental insurance companies to spend 83% of the premiums on expenses or improving services. We know that insurance companies never lose; they simply raise the cost of insurance so, is it a good idea?
Let’s face it, most Spanish-speaking families do not have dental insurance and cannot relate to what this means. Those who do believe that forcing insurance companies to return to the insured the amount not used up in services will only result in a premium increase.
Question #3: Expanded availability of licenses for alcoholic beverages. Do we not have enough licensed places? I know we have enough in Lawrence but this is a state-wide question and we don’t know how other cities and towns will vote about it.
Question #4 is known as the Work and Family Mobility Act and even though the right number of signatures were collected, it did not make it in time for the printing schedule of the red book.
I believe it was a dirty trick to benefit the voting rolls, not necessarily the immigrants. Remember that Galvin was the guy who revealed how he yelled to Dan Rivera on the telephone, “I made you mayor!” He cannot be trusted.
The Fair and Secure Massachusetts campaign launched this petition after Democrats overrode GOP Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of their new driver’s licenses for illegals law. They collected more than twice the amount required under state law to trigger a ballot referendum.
Galvin then said that he was going to publish a second Voters’ Guide explaining question 4. He did issue a similar publication in black and white, only in English, and sent it to common places like libraries and post offices; he did not mail it to our homes as he has always done. It is just another push to increase the voting rolls.
The Democrats’ narrative claims that the legislation makes state roads safer but the biggest problem is that a new law signed in 2020 automatically registers those who obtain a Massachusetts driver’s license to vote.
So, this petition aims at preventing those illegal aliens could end up being registered as voters and it’s very convenient that by question #4 not appearing on the voters’ guide, most people wouldn’t be well-versed in its purpose.
To put it simply, remember:
A “yes” vote is to uphold House Bill 4805, which allows applicants who cannot verify citizenship or immigration status to submit certain forms of identification to obtain a driver’s license or motor vehicle registration.
That means that on July 1st, 2023, the law will take effect, people entering the country illegally will be able to apply for a driver’s license in Massachusetts and the Registry of Motor Vehicles will automatically register them as voters.
Let’s hope that before that date, measures are taken for a design that will reveal whether or not they are citizens. Other states that have approved these types of licenses have either, created a different style such as a vertical instead of horizontal design. Some have opted for including codes or pictures that will clarify their status immediately.
A “no” vote is to repeal House Bill 4805, thereby maintaining existing state law that prohibits applicants who cannot verify citizenship or immigration status from obtaining a driver’s license and motor vehicle registration.
Be the first to comment