The $61 Billion Shell Game: What Mike Minogue Isn’t Telling You
Massachusetts voters demanded accountability. Politicians are selling them something else. And there’s one number missing from the conversation: 0.15%.
By FrankTheFixer Dispatch
Imagine hiring an accountant to investigate your family’s $100,000 annual budget, only to discover that the audit everyone’s arguing about concerns roughly $150 of it.

Governor Healey announced that the two new Cape Cod Bridges will take 10 to 12 years to be completed.

Take a look at the plaques on the old bridges next time you drive to or from the Cape, which say
they started construction in 1933 and finished in 1935.

Almost 100 years ago they built them in two years, but our current government, with all their high-tech machines and advanced technology, is going to take 5 to 6 times as long? Are our leaders 6 times more inefficient? Six times more corrupt? A combination?

We've seen this movie before and know how it's going to end: missed schedules, massive increases and cost overruns, and a product that will be dropping chunks of concrete into the canal and boats below.

Time for more effective management and control in both our state and federal governments!

This resource provides voter information in ASL.

Watch the ASL videos on MCDHH's YouTube channel:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE-svot0PaMc&si=1uEEP27Fxd54V66z

Please share this resource with family, friends, and members of your community to help spread the word!

So I took some time today to read over and review the 9 ballot questions for MA. I wrote up and am sharing my thoughts and opinions below on how I view each issue. If anyone has counter-arguments or additional information please feel free to share RESPECTFULLY.

Update: Taking time to discuss and think things over I changed my stance on Questions 3

Q3 Update: The wording on this one seems like it benefits voters by opening the Primaries for more options but taking time to dive into it more I found that private equity billionaires have supported and donated towards trying to get this question added and voted for and if it goes through it could allow rigging our election system in their favor with the top-two primaries empowering corporate PACs and self-funders, disadvantaging grassroots candidates so I'm voting NO on this question to prevent that.

Question 1: Government transparency
Should Massachusetts residents have the legal right to request government records from the Governor's Office and State Legislature, just as they can from most other government agencies?

Pros: It can expose government misconduct, hold elected officials to consistent standards and can reveal special-interest influences.

Cons: It might unintentionally reduce written documentation and discourage open negotiations from our lawmakers, this could require more administrative time and resources from thousands of public records requests.

Jarek’s Opinion: Government should always be transparent to its citizens, except maybe during wartime strategy. While it could push lawmakers to have conversations “off-record” it would also allow us to pinpoint the lawmakers who are doing that consistently. As for the additional time it would take I see that as a win as they can now hire more people to fill job positions. This is a YES for me.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 2: Public defender collective bargaining
Should Massachusetts public defenders and other employees of the state's public defense agency have the legal right to form a union and negotiate their wages, benefits, and working conditions?

Pros: It would provide better wages and employee retention, prevent overwhelming caseloads, offer protection against arbitrary workplace decisions.

Cons: It would have higher costs for Massachusetts taxpayers, could potentially have less flexibility during emergencies, contract negotiations could complicate agency operations.

Jarek’s Opinion: I’ve always seen Unions as a benefit to our citizens, giving power to the people over their employers. I also think better pay and less workloads for public defenders allows for better representation for our citizens so this is a YES for me.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 3: Open primaries
Should Massachusetts eliminate separate Democratic and Republican primary elections and replace them with one primary where everyone votes from the same list of candidates, regardless of political party?

Pros: Voters can challenge entrenched politicians more easily, there would be less influence from political party leadership, the candidates may have to appeal to a broader range of voters.

Cons: Allows easier support from rich donors & makes it harder for candidates without financial backing to get on the ballot.

Jarek’s Opinion: The wording on this one seems like it benefits voters by opening the Primaries for more options but taking time to dive into it more I found that private equity billionaires have supported and donated towards trying to get this question added and voted for and if it goes through it could allow rigging our election system in their favor with the top-two primaries empowering corporate PACs and self-funders, disadvantaging grassroots candidates so I'm voting NO on this question to prevent that.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 4: Same-day voter registration
Should Massachusetts residents who are legally eligible to vote be allowed to register or update their address at their polling place on Election Day, rather than being required to register at least 10 days beforehand?

Pros: We would have fewer eligible voters miss elections, this helps renters, students, and people who move frequently, allows for registration mistakes that can be corrected.

Cons: Could have less time to verify voter eligibility before a ballot is issued, cause longer lines at polling places, would add additional responsibilities for cities and towns.

Jarek’s Opinion: The only concern here for me and I think most voters is the potential for intentional voter fraud, but there have been conducted investigations on this and voter fraud is actually much rarer than the general public realizes, an Associated Press investigation found fewer than 400 fraud cases out of 25.5 million votes in six battleground states during the 2020 election. As for longer lines and additional responsibilities that should be something our state government should be anticipating and dealing with and hey more jobs being hired out to deal with it is a good thing too. So I’m going to vote YES on this question.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 5: State tax revenue cap
Should Massachusetts make it easier to trigger taxpayer refunds when state tax collections grow beyond a specified limit, even if that means the government has less money available for public services?

Pros: We get more frequent tax refunds for working families, it could discourage unnecessary growth in state spending, would push for a more responsive taxpayer refund system.

Cons: Less money available for public schools and essential services, refunds could occur when the economy is struggling, could weaken the state's emergency savings, changes how the millionaires' tax is treated.

Jarek’s Opinion: First this has NO effect on our income tax rate, so get that stated. We need to protect our state’s ability to invest in health care, transportation, and public education. The rich would get millions in tax rebates, while the rest of us suffer from underfunded public services and barely anything noteworthy in a tax rebate so I'm voting NO against this question. Apparently this was an attempt to fight back against the Millionaires Tax which has been a boon towards our state.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 6: Nature conservation fund
Should Massachusetts reserve a portion of existing sales tax revenue for protecting forests, drinking water, wildlife, parks, and other natural resources rather than leaving that money available for general state spending?

Pros: Protects our drinking water and prevents pollution, improves public parks, trails, and forests, long-term conservation planning.

Cons: Money comes from existing public services, conservation spending might not actually increase, less budget flexibility during emergencies.

Jarek’s Opinion: This will NOT increase cost on prices if you vote Yes so again, lets get that out of the way. I’m a frequent trail runner and this would go towards maintaining them and/or adding more options. Currently it looks like Massachusetts faces increasing environmental threats over the next five years, including worsening flooding, droughts, extreme heat, deforestation, and wildlife habitat loss. The state's official climate assessment projects over 9 million in flood damage by 2030 and its 2025 climate report shows about over 4000 acres of land lost between 2020 and 2024. I think any downfalls from voting for this are outweighed by the gains, so I’m voting YES on this.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 7: Housing lot sizes
Should Massachusetts make it easier to build single-family homes on smaller plots of land, even if that means cities and towns lose some control over their local housing regulations?

Pros: More opportunities for affordable starter homes, more housing without expanding into undeveloped areas, towns have fewer opportunities to block qualifying houses.

Cons: Additional pressure on infrastructure and public services, smaller lots don't guarantee affordable houses, less local control over neighborhood development.

Jarek’s Opinion: A vote for Yes on this could help with renters like myself by opening up additional housing options and having less folks looking to rent. I also like the idea of less regulations over the citizens so I’m going to vote YES on this one.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 8: Recreational marijuana sales
Should Massachusetts shut down the legal recreational marijuana market while allowing adults to continue possessing small amounts of marijuana and preserving the medical marijuana program?

Pros: Could reduce marijuana-related health problems

Cons: Hundreds of millions in tax revenue could disappear, Hundreds of millions in tax revenue could disappear, the illegal market on marijuana could expand.

Jarek’s Opinion: I’ve always been somewhat libertarian in my views of vices, if you're a grown adult then you can make the choice of what to put into your body so any health issues is on the person using the drug and marijuana is less addictive than alcohol & cigarettes and were not doing the same to those vices. There was also ALOT of shady business with people deceptively getting this added to the ballot in the first place. I also think the income from marijuana and additional jobs from their stores are an overall boon to our state so I’m a NO on this vote to shut down the recreational marijuana market.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Question 9: 2024 firearms law
Should Massachusetts keep the stricter firearms regulations enacted in 2024, or repeal those changes and return to the gun laws that existed beforehand?

Pros: Helps law enforcement investigate untraceable guns, expands tools to prevent shootings and firearm suicides, adds restrictions on particularly dangerous firearm modifications, improves firearm safety training and information.

Cons: More requirements for lawful gun owners, risk of temporarily removing guns from someone who is not dangerous, some legal ownership options are restricted, implementation costs and complicated regulations.

Jarek’s Opinion: I’m not a gun owner so this doesn't really affect me either way. I do believe in stricter gun laws as studies have shown that stricter gun laws do prevent more gun violence. But I also believe in protecting our 2nd Amendment as well, there’s a reason why our forefathers wanted us to have access to firearms and it was to defend against and oppose tyranny in any form to our freedoms both outside and within our country. For a current gun owner this law doesn't seem to add any additional costs for your firearms under the “grandfathering” rule and I feel strongly that if your going to own a firearm then you should be responsible enough to be informed of law changes affecting you and Massachusetts is required to provide public notice and conduct an outreach campaign about its expanded firearm registration requirements. With all this in mind it really seems like the only downfall is some extra course time and making sure you have your gun properly registered so I’m voting YES to keep the stricter regulations.

For my friends who cite the California governor's primary as the reason to vote no on Question 3, the math is clear. There was no way the Republicans could have placed first and second in that primary.

California has a much larger share of Republicans, compared to Massachusetts.

California:
Registered Republicans: 5,747,193 (24.8%) out of 23,164,977 voters.

Massachusetts:
Enrolled Republicans: 407,768 (7.9%) out of 5,184,354 voters.

The Republicans won about one third of the total vote for Governor in the California primary. Here are the results:
Xavier Becerra (D)     2,591,855 (28.1%)
Steve Hilton (R)          2,277,315 (24.7%)
Tom Steyer (D)           2,110,704 (22.8%)
Chad Bianco (R)         941,701 (10.2%)
Katie Porter (D)          403,908 (4.4%)
Matt Mahan (D)          327,537 (3.5%)
Antonio Villaraigosa (D)        104,107 (1.1%)
Other candidates         480,367 (5.2%)

Take the vote total for the two Republicans
2,277,315 + 941,701 = 3,219,016 (34.8%)
and divide those Republican votes equally between the two candidates
3,219,016 ÷ 2 = 1,609,508 (17.4%)
the Republicans wouldn’t have enough votes to place in the top two. Conclusion: the only way Republicans can advance out of an all-party primary is to unite behind one candidate.

Under our current system, since 1990, Massachusetts has elected four Republican Governors: Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Mitt Romney, and Charles Baker. California elected only two Republicans, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Boston Herald reported 95% of respondents stated Mike Minogue won both debates.

​If you're in the Valley tomorrow, Westfield is the place to be! John Bonifaz will be speaking and "Show Up, Sing Out!" will be singing, so come join us - it’s going to be a joyous event.

​The goal this time is mobilization. Over the last year, Indivisible has empowered grassroots campaigns across the nation. Now, we'll take that energy to the polls. We don't need record breaking protest numbers right now - we need you to vote.

​We know Trump and his administration will attempt to disrupt the election and its results. Our first line of defense is voting early, and we're asking you to make that commitment today.

Join us tomorrow at Parksquare to celebrate Democracy!

The Westfield City hall polls close at 1pm tomorrow, so we'd like for you to vote first, and then join us. You can vote everyday at the City Hall up until October 30th. Then, the last day to vote is election day, November 3rd, at your polling location.

If you're not from Westfield please look up your own city information.

"Love, Not Hate, Makes America Great."

Without mentioning any positions by either candidate, I'd just like to say its refreshing to see two candidates debating where they take, turns, don't (mostly) speak over each other, and pay attention to the moderators requests.

Given that the vast majority of Question 3’s money comes from wealthy investors, I believe they are trying to influence our elections to elect more business-friendly Democrats. I wrote this article where I review the literature and find that there is little evidence to support the claim that all-party primaries will make the government more responsive, and that all-party primaries in California and Washington have caused perverse election results in some cases. If you truly want to improve the quality of democracy in Massachusetts, I urge you to vote no on Question 3.

Woke: aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues. especially issues of race and social justice (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2020)

After the audit question being ignored, why should we believe that they'll follow through?

Post was removed from r/Massachusetts with guidance to post here:

I am a registered Democrat who is a transplant to Mass from NY back during the pandemic. I was hesitant to like him because all I had heard was he is MAGA Mike.

However, after the debate the other day I really feel Mike Minouge is what we need. He discussed how our taxes are not going to what we want them to be going to. Giving more local control 35 to 40% back to the municipalities vs the state as a whole. Lowering property taxes, gas taxes and most important utility taxes. I looked at our electric bill and there are all these surcharges and extras that have nothing to do with my electricity use. Spending at a minimum .24 cents less on gas per gallon would be great.

I wonder about how our money is being spent and when he brings up 2 billion to create a courthouse we won’t own that pisses me off. We all said we want the audit and Maura Healy is saying trust us we are spending it in the right places.

What I do worry about is his fundraising for Vance and by extension Trump. I don’t like his dog whistles on transkids, family values, and religion. But we live in MA and I do believe our legislature would be a check on the culture war bull.

What do you think he can bring to Massachusetts that we need differently or where do you think he might be actually bad for the state.