This Post Began as a Response to an Article at Jeff Parenti’s Blog

This is an interesting article, Jeff. Marc is still pondering what he will do ultimately with respect to the BOS according to sources close to him. I would rather see him use his time to full advantage with Mr. Greene and to acclimating himself to Beacon Hill.

With respect to the voter turnout (ED 61%), I suspect that many people are still upset with the economy and caught up in the wave of change that Scott Brown’s campaign brought about. I also think that the well-entrenched Democrat Party “get out the vote machine” is still pretty effective Republicans did better than they did in comparison to previous elections. That signals a strong and growing impatience with the status quo in Massachusetts, in my opinion. I think going forward; a sense of complacency among politicians would be a mistake in this time of insurgency.

I also think you are right in saying that the local elections for positions such as selectman, school district member, planning board member, and appointments to boards like the board of health, the ZBA and the conservation committee among others do effect day to day life in small town America. However, I do not think the effect is as direct or as consequential as it was in days past. [ED which may explain why turnout is less when only local elections are conducted]

Today, most of the local governance occurs at both the choice and the whim of the state and the federal government. Prior to passage of the 1913 income tax amendment, (16th), states were able to assert their rights and to deflect federal interference in their locales, constitutionally. Once that amendment passed, Congress was no longer required to tax according to apportionment based upon census or enumeration. Congress was able to force states to send money to Washington and send out spending mandates in support of national programs and values that may or may not coincide with local programs and values. Furthermore, this funding may be supported in full, in part or not at all by the federal government.

There was then a new condition where richer states were/are now required to fund poorer states under federal programs that they may or may not have had any regional or local interest in. The Federal government took power granted to the states for itself with the consent of the people. People, during ratification, paid no attention to the consequence of the wording of the amendment or questioned it’s reasonableness. This may be in part because other income tax requirements had come and gone. The last income tax prior to the 1913 version was struck down precisely because, according to the U.S. Constitution, at the time prior to the 16th Amendment, the federal government was required to assure apportionment based upon census and enumeration.

Knowing that, it is clear to see that the 16th Amendment was designed to stay permanently, and to shift one leg in the balance of power between the central government and the constituent states. Consequently, the states lost power and money to the feds. The states responded by taking power from local towns and cities by passing similar changes to state constitutions that resulted liberal taxation and unfunded mandates that we still deal with today: e.g. The Quinn Bill. Towns were then obliged to the state government via a levy policy where apportionment based upon census or enumeration were no longer required.

This corrupt usurpation of state’s rights continued through the 17th amendment. The 17th Amendment removed the election of U.S. Senators from the state legislature, and made their election national by direct election through the individual voters, (this gave incentives for persons outside the state to send money and support of candidates who could be molded to serve the interest of their patrons instead of their new constituency). There were, of course, shenanigans in state houses with respect to the election of U.S. Senators prior to the 17th amendment to justify consideration of a change in constitutional law, but those shenanigans were nothing compared to the powerful out of state influences that were to come. The 17th Amendment, like the 16th, resulted in yet another weakening of the power of individual states to the benefit of a central government.

The 18th Amendment to prohibit the sale of Alcohol was another effort by the federal government to solve what some saw as a problem nationally instead of letting the individual states deal with the matter locally. Of course, it was precisely on these grounds in large part that resulted in the repeal of prohibition. This is key, because by repealing the 18th Amendment, precedent is set for the repeal of other Amendments should the people choose to do so in an effort to decentralize government power and place it in more local hands to the benefit of individual rights.

It is my view that if we are to improve local turnout for local elections, we must do whatever it takes to demonstrate to local voters that their efforts and opinions matter, and that they can, as voters, hold back the assault on their towns by federal challenges and mandates. Question 2, MGL 40B, was a prime example that clearly demonstrates that this election, with perhaps the exception of Marc Lombardo, was more about party support than it was about issues. I say perhaps when it comes to Marc because the entire town voted more conservatively than most others with the exception of favoring Nicola Tsongas over her conservative challenger.

MGL 40B allows the Commonwealth to force towns into accepting a lower quality of life by way of a legally sanctioned, sudden, unplanned and unfunded mandate to redistribute wealth and to integrate into suburbs city elements; such as gigantic housing developments and associated transient pocket population densities that have little to no vested interest in the wellbeing of the town. The voters, as they did in agreeing to ratify the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, consciously chose to keep control distant from their specific towns and in the hands of more remotely located, unelected officials when they turned away their chance at reclaiming local power by voting to sustain this abysmal and immoral program.

I was disappointed with the result, but I was not surprised. In times of crisis, people tend to listen to those in power for solutions. It is generally easy in time of crises for people to give up their sovereignty and the individual property rights in exchange for any convincing government promise of making things better. Recall, if you will, how well the country did for its first 137 years. Look at how much power states have ceded to the central government; especially, those states that refer to themselves as commonwealths. It is easy to see how, perhaps subconsciously, people are more interested in accepting handout “rights” when the situation requires less of them as responsible citizens and voters in solving difficult problems confronting the nation. It is easy to see how men in power, even with the best of intent, would opt to exercise power over consent, not out of malicious intent, but out of a strong belief in their personal rectitude and unique abilities.

As to question 3. Only a dolt would not understand that passage of a 3.5% reduction in the sales tax was nothing more than symbolic. The legislature was already prepared to pass a new tax law to raise the sales tax from the proposed mandate of 3% to its politically preferred compromise of 5% – a number that still would have forced spending and service cuts that our newly elected officials are now free to avoid. As a result, look for new tax hike proposals somewhere within the next two years should the economy not improve or worsen.

In short, I think most Americans have either forgotten or never learned what being American means. It is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a specific culture. Being an American is an idea that all men should live as freely as possible, be burdened by government as little as possible, and to show thanks for our freedom and prosperity by taking care of those in need to the best of our ability or means, voluntarily – not by force.

The bigger government grows and the more intrusive it is on our individual lives, the less we care about our neighbors, the elderly, those in need; the more these problems are seen as governmental concerns – not concerns of our own. This version of government, as the all-seeing, all knowing, all-doing savior to every person’s problems, blinds us to our own responsibilities to others, to family and to ourselves. It immorally robs decent people of performing and living in a moral manner.

As government grows and individual liberty devolve back toward central control, the idea and the dream of America becomes smaller both in reality and in the sleep of those who dream of a respite from tyranny. The more we depend upon government the less we participate, and the less we participate the less our voice matters to those who see themselves as our betters instead of as our fellow countrymen. Feel free to test this theory out in April.

Just my opinion.

I apologize for the length of this comment. (Not really) I have been deliberately withholding posting on my own site [blog] to put the election into perspective for myself. I guess I just did just that.

Regards,
-–Rick