Fear Not, Massachusetts "Progressives"!
Thanks, in part, to your "compassionate" leaders in Brookline and Cambridge, the poor people of the Commonwealth will continue to be discriminated against, should they attempt to exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights as American citizens.
Thank God! For a minute there, I thought the state's poor and down-trodden might be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those higher up the socio-economic ladder than themselves.
UPDATE: Just wanted to add that the opponents of this amendment, who were talking about the "revenue loss" that would follow this fee decrease, are the same fiscal wizards who said the country "couldn't afford" the Bush tax cuts. Of course, federal tax revenues went up following those tax RATE cuts. But, let's not let reality enter the equation here.
By, their "logic", for example, raising the current 5% sales tax to a 75% sales tax would result in a commensurate 1500% increase in revenue, because no other factors would come into play in their half-baked mathematical model, such as the 5000% increase we'd see in the number of people driving out-of-state, or simply turning to the internet, for all their shopping needs.
If they were to decrease the licensing fee by 60%, I guarantee you significantly fewer people would be discouraged from obtaining a license, and the increased number of applications submitted would all but wipe out any such predicted loss of revenue. It hardly takes a genius to see this.
Then again, if they were smart, they'd have real jobs.
[The Massachusetts House of Representatives] 75-83, rejected an amendment that would reduce the firearms licensing fee from $100 to $40 and expand to six years the length of time for which the license is valid. Under current law, the license is valid for five or six years, depending on the birthday of the license holder. The state receives $75 of the current $100 fee while the local community gets $25. Under the new $40 fee, local communities would still receive the same $25 while the state’s share would be reduced to $15. Amendment supporters said that the fee was raised in 1998 in order to fund a new and more efficient [read: discriminatory - ed.] system of licensing. They argued that the system is now in place and it is time to reduce the fee. Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss.
Thank God! For a minute there, I thought the state's poor and down-trodden might be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those higher up the socio-economic ladder than themselves.
UPDATE: Just wanted to add that the opponents of this amendment, who were talking about the "revenue loss" that would follow this fee decrease, are the same fiscal wizards who said the country "couldn't afford" the Bush tax cuts. Of course, federal tax revenues went up following those tax RATE cuts. But, let's not let reality enter the equation here.
By, their "logic", for example, raising the current 5% sales tax to a 75% sales tax would result in a commensurate 1500% increase in revenue, because no other factors would come into play in their half-baked mathematical model, such as the 5000% increase we'd see in the number of people driving out-of-state, or simply turning to the internet, for all their shopping needs.
If they were to decrease the licensing fee by 60%, I guarantee you significantly fewer people would be discouraged from obtaining a license, and the increased number of applications submitted would all but wipe out any such predicted loss of revenue. It hardly takes a genius to see this.
Then again, if they were smart, they'd have real jobs.
