Our main recommendation, as always, is for you to get out and vote. Our vote is our voice. If we don’t vote, others decide for us about matters that concern us. The attention placed in the electoral fight regarding the House of Representatives has prompted many voters to realize that topics of vital importance will be decided in the November 5 election. Issues like bilingual education and the clean elections law: Two more reasons not to stay home that day.

Even when we do not coincide in our electoral choices, we have to agree on something fundamental: We have the duty to exercise our right to vote. Independently from our choice, our presence in the process is, more than anything, a backup to the democratic system.

We do recommend:
Question No. 1. Elimination of state tax on personal income.

Even though it seems attractive, this proposal is as crazy as it is unrealistic. If the initiative No. 1 passes, it will have a detrimental effect on the state programs, among them, education, health and social services. Our recommendation is NO on number 1.

This proposal, presented by the Libertarian Party, suggests the abolition of nearly 60 percent of the state taxes, which will create complete chaos in the state budget. No one wants to pay taxes, but without them we wouldn’t be able to maintain our highways or pay for the schools basic services, cover the help funds for the police and fire departments, the homes for the elderly and other social services. These taxes, created more than a century ago, have been the main source of income for the state. This is the reason why all the political parties, except the Libertarian, strongly oppose this proposal.

Question No. 2. Proposes to eliminate bilingual education in public schools.

Question No. 2 proposes to replace the current state law, which underwent reform only this year, and offers transitory bilingual education in the public schools of Massachusetts. With limited exceptions, the “Unz initiative” requires that all children in public schools receive education in English only, without some help in their original language. Our answer to this question is NO.

We oppose it for three reasons.

1) If the Unz proposal passes, our children must learn English in one year only. It is a very short period of time for the children to have the capacity to enter regular classes, where they will receive academic instructions along with other students whose first language is English. 2) The Unz proposal takes the right to choose away from the parents— regarding what program they prefer for their children to learn English. Right now they have this right. 3) The new law opens doors to lawsuits against our teachers just for helping children by using their own language.

Question No 3. Proposes public financing for political campaigns.

This question asks the voters if they want their tax money to be used to finance electoral campaigns. This question, formulated with a confusing wording, seeks to eliminate the Clean Election Law, which was approved by voters in 1998. The way it is written doesn’t clarify that the candidates have to qualify to receive public funds. It also agrees with the limitation on expenses and contributions.

Our answer to this question is YES.

We support this initiative, which is a backup to clean elections, for the following reasons:

1) It prevents the money from large corporations from corrupting elected officials. 2) It opens doors to new candidates, who otherwise would not have funds to participate in an electoral campaign— and compete with legislators who are in power today and who are precisely the ones who worded question number three. 3) Political campaign expenses would be limited.

Those who oppose this proposal say that the financing of the campaigns would be more costly for the taxpayers. We believe that, in the long run, the influence of money is costing us more than to have a Clean Election Law. Just think about the millions of dollars on tax-free money that annually benefit the large corporations.