Mass. Version of KFP for FSP

[Russell Kanning]

I need to build the little website to match.....probably newhampshirefreepress.com

[citizen_142002]

I think a Vermont edition would also be a good idea, but we probably ought to hold off on that until after the Mass. initiative before discussing it much.

I know that North Hampton and Greenfield have reputations for being areas where there is a strong homosexual culture. I'm just wondering how we would be able to appeal to that community or at least disassociate the connection that they may make between crazy NH people, and laws that prevent legal union for same sex couples.
Maybe an article about state issued marriage licenses and their dubious past would be appropriate. Taking issue with a state institution of marriage helps diffuse that whole issue.

I don't think that socialists are going to flock north in retribution. Why would they? It is clear that in Mass. they are strong and have had a receptive audience up to this point. Why would radical statists take offense when we target their strongest adversaries to move to NH? We would in a sense be helping them to grow stronger where they are.

[d_goddard]

we probably ought to hold off on that until after the Mass. initiative before discussing it much.

Agreed.
Now, just a little more discussion, since you brought it up...

I know that North Hampton and Greenfield have reputations for being areas where there is a strong homosexual culture.

Groovy! We have some great pro-sexual-tolerance angles to play.
Once we're ready to accept articles, I'll see if Rep. Vallaincourt will write a little blurb. Check this and this!
We can also mention CACR34, the proposed "Marriage Definition" amendment, which died in the House of Reps. There were some great pro-tolerance speeches made on the House floor against that bill; I'll post them in the "slow season" once the legislative session ends (and our property and freedoms are a little safer with the legistators away from the State House!)

[citizen_142002]

How much cash is it going to take to whip up 5000 copies? Do you have any sense of how long it will likely take to get this printed?

[Kat Kanning]

$375.  It'll take ~7 days from when I get it to the printer.

[Kat Kanning]

Does Mass. ban smoking in restaurants/public buildings/etc?

[Dreepa]

I am pretty sure it does. (one town --sharon evens bans it in public I think).

The reason I think it does is because when the dreaded 1177 bill came up there was news that NH was the only state in NE that did not have the ban.

[d_goddard]

Does Mass. ban smoking in restaurants/public buildings/etc?

Yes, ever since July 5, 2004.
The gall of these socialists -- the law went into effect very next day after independence day!

Smoking was prohibited "to protect the workers" (sound familiar?)

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=597
http://www.mass.gov/dph/media/2004/pr0618.htm

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks, guys.

[steve22]

You can only smoke in Massachusetts in your own home under a blanket in your bedroom with the lights out and the shades drawn.

[Russell Kanning]

That would make a funny cartoon.

[steve22]

Inspired by Denis Leary.
Pigs on megaphones:
"We know your smoking in there, come out with your hands up."

[Kat Kanning]

Anyone in MA with a business address want to take shipment of the papers?

[toowm]

From Michael Cannon:

They Don?t Call It Taxachusetts for Nothing

Filed Under: Health Care, Budget & Tax Policy

In the Boston Herald, I wrote that Gov. Mitt Romney?s new health reform law includes ?not just [an] individual mandate but also some hefty tax increases.? Romney?s secretary of health and human services, Tim Murphy, responded with a letter to the Herald claiming that ?the law includes no new taxes to accomplish its objectives.?

Oh, really?

    * The individual mandate is itself a tax on Massachusetts residents. Their freedom to choose not to purchase health insurance has been replaced by a tax equal to half the price of a typical insurance policy.
    * The $295 per-employee levy on employers who do not offer coverage is another tax.
    * There is a mandate (i.e., a tax) on employers that they set up what is called a Section 125 plan. (This is necessary to participate in the ?connector.?)
    * If an employer has an uninsured worker who runs up a huge hospital bill, the employer must pay a tax of up to 100% of hospital charges in excess of $50k.
    * The law includes a ?slacker mandate? (another tax) that requires insurers to cover dependents up to the age of 25. That tax gets passed on to everyone through higher premiums.

I have personally expressed to Murphy admiration about what the connector attempts to do. However, the connector tries to remedy a federal problem (the federal tax treatment of health insurance) at the state level.  Massachusetts might as well try to reform the FDA.

Thus even the ?good? part of this legislation is a costly distraction from real health care reform.

posted by Michael F. Cannon on 05.12.06 @ 10:44 am

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/12/they-dont-call-it-taxachusetts-for-nothing/

[Lloyd Danforth]

Is there a deadline on submissions for this issue yet?