A Vote for Me is a Vote for Revolutionary Absurdity

By engaging in some shameful shenanigans I can't describe here, except to say that I'm glad my hair grows back pretty quickly, I managed to get my hands on the U.S. Department of Labor's predictions of the fastest-growing jobs from now until 2018.

(WARNING: The following information may reduce your faith in the human race to the point where you elect to join a family of lower primates.)

Three of the top five fastest growing jobs will be in the health care industry. Registered nurses and home health aides are number one and two, respectively.

Then we have customer service reps, the single greatest cause of high blood pressure in the modern world.

If you're waiting on hold right now, take comfort in knowing you'll probably get through by 2018. 

And if you're waiting on a long line of customers, take comfort in knowing the Internet is not going to replace you, even though it probably should.

The fourth fastest-growing job in the United States (cue drum roll): fast food workers.

Did you catch that? All our new jobs are going to fast food, seething, and health care. We devote our economy to diseasing us and then dealing with the consequences.

Damn.

These are the moments when I want to run for public office, partly as an act of citizenship and trying to contribute positive solutions to our problems instead of just complaining about them, and partly to just become the biggest existential nuisance politics has ever seen.

"Vote McKay for Governor in 2010 - Free Organic Rhubarb Popsicles for Every Working Family."

I realize I haven't collected any signatures or anything, but I don't care. That's just the kind of anti-establishment, lack-of-politics-as-usual administration I could bring to Augusta.

And my first act as governor would be to tax the living snot out of fast food and use the money to pay for health education programs.

Grab your absentee ballot now, before you realize how unrealistic that idea is.

Next, I would pass a law requiring customer service reps to get at least as much sleep as truck drivers. Customers waiting on hold or in line for more than 30 minutes would be entitled to free merchandise.

If an airline can't keep me on the tarmac for more than three hours, why should Frigidaire be able to keep me stuck to the phone for 90 minutes, hoping I give up on getting my warranty honored?

While I'm leading this revolution, I might as well tidy up a few other issues, as well.

Let's change the way referenda are written. If you voted on June 8, you probably remember seeing a series of questions like this:

"Do you want to create jobs, stimulate the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save starving children and little furry animals by procuring an incomprehensible amount of money through a process you can't hope to understand?"

No wonder they all passed.

Here's how I would have written them:

"Do you want the state to go further into debt so we can build slightly nicer roads in areas where you probably don't drive?"

"Should the state borrow money to pay for research and development for maybe getting some wind power happening before another oil spill destroys all life on this planet?"

"Do you realize somebody (probably from away) is getting filthy rich off these bond questions?" 

That last one is a bit of a cheap shot. Let's face it: Nothing happens in America unless somebody can cash in big time. 

For once, let it be the organic rhubarb farmers.

Referendumb Guide: Deja Vu Edition

     I know I promised not to write about Question 1 again, but I have to meet a word count. So I've come up with a compromise: instead I'll write about less-publicized imaginary Question 1a:

    "Do you think the government should have the right to determine which expressions of love are legitimate and which are not?" 

    Where I come from, the only moral love is love that could yield children. Love is supposed to be for reproduction. Therefore, no one should be able to get married unless they could make a biological family. This includes any man with a vasectomy and any woman over 50.  Sorry!  You are not worthy of the term "marriage." 

    I don't want fat people exchanging vows, either. Yeah, they can technically reproduce, but it's not natural. If you know anything about evolution, you know the obese would not survive long enough in nature to propagate their doughy DNA. Eew.

    Meanwhile, a raging, abusive man addicted to glue can marry a neglectful, alcoholic woman who has already been divorced four times. That's what I call true love, because they can have nine kids and live off the state.

    Um, yeah. So:

    If your beliefs about love are so superior to everyone else's that they should be reflected in our laws, vote "yes." 

    If you're willing to let other people live in accordance with their own morals, even if their beliefs are different from yours, vote "no."

    Moving on: last week I showed questions 2, 3, and 4 who is boss. You won't see them moping around this space again. The rest shouldn't take long, since no one cares about them.

    Question 5: Possession of marijuana for medical purposes has been legal in Maine since 1999, but is still a federal crime. This question asks: "Should we expand the diseases for which people can take pot to include cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, Lou Gherig's Disease, depression, shingles, rickets, herpes, acne, halitosis, that gunk you sometimes get in your eye overnight, persistent fish odor, and the gout?"

    If you're scared that people might abuse the system and get high, shockingly, for no medically necessary reason, vote "no." If you've noticed that this is already happening anyway, but this law might help reduce suffering, vote "yes."

    Question 6: "Dude, how about we borrow 57 bajillion dollars, so the feds will kick in another 97 quadzillion dollars, so we can upgrade highways, bridges, airports, seaports, railways, medical helicopters, and that little Dumbo ride at the state fair?"

    Vote "yes" if you suddenly have little dollar signs in your eyeballs. If you live in Aroostook or Piscataquis Counties, vote "no," since you'll be lucky to see one red cent.

    Question 7: "Hey, can we have a little more time over here to verify all these goddamn signatures for all these frickin' referenda? Like, maybe two weeks instead of one?"

    I am always skeptical of anything that might slow down our remarkably fast and efficient democratic processes. However, the number of citizen petitions in this state is getting unreal. Why pay overtime or hire extra people just to cross check signatures against cemeteries?

    Vote "yes" if you don't give a rat's rectum. Vote "no" if anyone working in your local town office is fat.

Your Referendumb Guide Resource Manual Handbook

Twice a year I write a semi-annual guide to the Maine referendumb process, which comes out biannually.

I translate the questions into language people can understand, so they can make sense of the wording and comprehend the verbiage.

Why all the repetitive redundancy? Well, it seems in all the rage in politics. This fall we have mostly questions I could swear we've voted on before.

Anyway, this week I'll deal with Questions 2, 3, and 4. Check back next week for 5 through 7. I promise not to write about Question 1 again unless I feel like it.

Question 2:  "Do you want people who can afford to buy fancy new cars to pay less tax on them so that state and local governments will have to turn around and collect the money from somebody else (you)?"

If you own any car less than six years old, your excise tax would get cut by an average of 55%. If you think they won't try to squeeze the difference out of my 1997 Ford Ranger, your last reality check must have bounced.

Whoever wrote this bill probably thought environmentalists would fall all over themselves to get behind it because it also exempts hybrids and other "highly fuel-efficient" vehicles from all taxes for three years. As it turns out, environmentalists aren't thrilled about the idea of more cars on the road, and would rather the government have enough money to keep trying to catch people who dump toxic waste into rivers.

If this were really about CO2 emissions, and not just another tax cut for the wealthy, we'd be voting on whether to cut taxes for people who can prove they drove less than 6,000 miles in the previous year.

Vote "Yes" if you just bought a brand new GMC Yukon hybrid and now can't afford groceries. Otherwise, vote "no."

Question 3: "Would you like to tell Gov. Baldacci that he is a short-sighted little twerp who is pulling us through an eight-year existential quagmire?"

Question 3 is ostensibly pointless. Yes, the governor shoved a school consolidation law down our throats, and I have yet to see any published account indicating that consolidation saved anyone money. But it's not like reversing it is going to save any money either. Districts that did what they were told aren't going to fire their new administrators and un-consolidate. 

But communities that thumbed their noses at the law would presumably be off the hook, and Baldacci would finally find out what we really think of him, after we smiled politely all these years through his dumb little restaurant stories.

Vote "Yes" if you would like to give John Baldacci the middle finger.  Vote "no" if you are related to him.  

Question 4: "Don't you wish you'd voted for Question 2, now that you have to buy a new car because you drove through a pothole the size of Isle Au Haut, and TABOR has starved funding for highway repairs and maintenance?"

Yes, let's set an arbitrary formula to dictate how much government budgets can increase from year to year. Any spending increases in a state or local budget would have earn voter approval.

Vote "yes" if you think we elect people just to go on TV and look pretty. Vote "no" if you think we vote enough already.

Your Personal Votation Device

Normally, around this time, I give my readers a quick rundown of the important issues facing us as the election nears.

But this time, I’m going to profile the two major referendum questions instead.

You’ve probably seen all those ads from the citizen coalition called Fed Up With Taxes (formerly known as Fed Up With Death, and, before that, Fed Up With Gravity).

In one ad, the owner of an ice cream stand bemoans the impact the new soda and beer tax is having on his business.

“We have no choice but to pass that expense along to the consumer,” he says.

Hm. I already knew a lot of Maine families are headed for some tough times, but it looks like the reason is not as obvious as I thought.

A winter of high energy prices? Bank accounts gutted by fiscal mismanagement? A whole season without Tom Brady?

Nah. The big problem is that we can no longer afford to buy soda and beer, irreplaceable staples in the American diet.

"Maine families are struggling right now," said Fed Up With Taxes spokeshuman Newell Augur, as quoted in the York Weekly. "It's absolutely the worst time for state government to be asking people to pay more money.”

The tax is three cents on a beer and four cents on a can of soda.

Those might seem like trivial amounts, but trust me, Mr. Augur knows the drill (ha!).

Considering how much of these beverages we consume, especially in winter, this tax probably costs the average Mainer several thousand dollars a month.

No wonder the movement to repeal it has so much support. It couldn’t possibly nothing to do with the fact that revenues from this tax go to support the Dirigo health initiative.

Either we pay some sort of tax to keep Dirigo afloat, or lots of people are going to lose health care. As long as those particular people are not the ones I spend any significant time with, I’d rather get my Mountain Dew Float four cents cheaper, thank you very much.

That way, when I get diabetes, I can use all the money I saved to afford my insulin shots and doctor visits.

So be sure to vote “Yes” on Question 1. I realize this is a little confusing; it seems like you’d be saying “yes” to the tax, but you’re actually saying “yes” to those who are against not repealing the tax.

Vote “no” if you oppose the people who don’t want you to not keep more of your own money for use on self-destructive fetters on society.

Which brings me to Question 2, which is getting less attention in the media because it only applies to people with a sense of decency.

It’s vague wording doesn’t help, either:

“Do you favor giving permission to allow some guys to build some sort of structure, somewhere in Oxford County, that may be used for gambling, at least for a while, with an unspecified share of profits going to causes that may or may not be completely pointless and wasteful?”

Details are scarce. The latest news is that some architect has drawn a picture of what the building might look like.

Also, the casino backers admit the legislature will have to tinker with the law even if voters approve it.

So you might as well smear brown finger paint on your ballot as far as Question 2 is concerned.

Me, I’m going to form a new citizen group. It’s called Fed Up With Pointless Referenda.

Your Referendumb Guide, Part 2

Back in June I delivered important insights and a compelling new perspective on those controversial spring referendum questions… whatever they were.

This Tuesday’s referendum vote will be just as memorable, I suspect, so brace yourselves as I show these tough issues who’s boss.

Question 1: Would you like Canadians to visit Calais and deposit large sums of money into the local economy, with the possible drawback of shady gangster-types suddenly roaming the woods of Washington County looking for new places to dump bodies?

I sense most Mainers are willing to go along with the Passamaquoddy racino plan, provided the corpses involved are not likely to be their own.

No, no. I’m only kidding. There is no reason to suspect the presence of a gambling operation will result in lots and lots of organized crime.

The bigger problem will be all those extra Canadian coins suddenly circulating with the rest of our money.

You know how frustrating it is to try to buy a little baggie of Andy Capp Hot Fries, only to realize one of the quarters you were depending on won’t work because it has a picture of some wild, furry beast on one side of it, and a moose on the other? Imagine that happening to you, like, two-hundred times as often as it does now.

And while I don’t mind the idea of Canadians losing all their life savings and all their possessions in Calais, forcing them to migrate back across the border naked and starving, this will mean fewer of them making it as far as Bangor or points south to spend their vacation dollars.

Hold on a sec… fewer Canadian tourists driving around the rest of Maine? Never mind. Vote yes. Please.

Questions 2-4: These involve borrowing money for colleges to build swanky new buildings, and for setting aside land for preservation and recreation and all that good stuff.

Super. And with all that money coming in from the 410 casinos soon to be spreading around the state like a poison ivy rash, we should be able to afford the payments without a problem.

Question 5: Do you favor increasing legislative term limits in order to reduce the number of mental hospital escapees who end up holding public office?

I’m all in favor of term limits, but not for the citizen legislators who basically volunteer their time to travel to August and are directly accountable to voters.

Since the enactment of legislative term limits in 1993, the executive branch of our state government has thrown its weight around a lot more, pushing through inane, short-sighted regulations while inexperienced legislators are still trying to figure out where the state house bathrooms are.

The result? School consolidation, skewed budget priorities, and just one measly national championship for the UMaine hockey team.

I would rather see term limits for out-of-touch bureaucrats:

- Commissioner of Agriculture: One year term.

- Secretary of State: Two years.

- Anyone who works for the Maine Turnpike Authority: One month.

- D.O.T. Commissioner: One term equal to the amount of time the average driver in Piscataquis County spends between potholes.

- Commissioner of Education: Fifteen minutes and change.

So be sure to cast five “yes” votes on Nov. 6. Then run screaming from the booth and set up camp in the woods somewhere until everything gets back to normal.

Your Referendumb Guide

On June 12, a handful of Maine voters will journey to the polls. Enraged by the obtuse wording on the ballot, they will march to Augusta and overthrow the government in a bloodthirsty coup that will leave eviscerated bureaucrats decomposing on the State House lawn. UMaine mascot Bananas the Bear will be sworn in as our new governor.

Wouldn’t that be fun? Alas, the more likely scenario is that the voters will scratch their heads, close their eyes, and make random marks on the ballot. This is how democracy has worked for centuries. Last year I made a smiley face.

What a shame. If only voters had a clear understanding of what the referendum questions mean.

That’s why I’m here.

First, the basics. On June 12 we'll be voting on bond issues. A “bond issue” is where the government borrows money from a bank and promises to pay it back with interest.

I have a bias against bonds because if the state would instead put its giant infrastructure projects on its Discover Card™, we would be eligible for Cash Back bonuses and frequent-flyer rewards miles.

Now, about this year’s bond issues:

Question 1 asks if we want to borrow $100 million for road and bridge improvements. You should vote “no” on this question, because all the money will be spent on roads and bridges you do not drive on.

Instead, the money will probably go to improve relatively pristine roads in Southern Maine, or on stretches of Interstate with insignificant little cracks that give wealthy tourists in RVs the heebie-jeebies.

Question 1 also asks for $3.6 million for transit and bus facilities (another Southern Maine thing) and $3.2 million for airport improvements (we can thank the mighty Single-Engine Cessna lobby for that one). Why does every rinky-dink town need an airport? In Central Maine, there are four within an hour’s drive of each other: Waterville, Augusta, Pittsfield, and Dexter. If this makes sense to you, then you are a pilot living in Central Maine. Otherwise, vote against Question 1.

The $1.7 million for harbors and $500,000 for bicycle and walking trails are the only worthwhile components of this bond issue, but of course they are lumped together with the other garbage.

“Excuse me, waiter? Can I get a glass of juice, please?”

“Sure, but you’ll also have to buy the filet mignon, the lobster bisque, and the roast duck on a brick with side cheese torte.”

“Oh, well, then, forget it. I’ll just have water.”

In which case, you’ll want to vote “yes” on Question 2, which asks us for $18.3 million to improve public drinking water systems and wastewater treatment plants.

Anything to do with making sure sewage goes where it’s supposed to and doesn’t end up negatively impacting water I might need someday gets automatic approval from me.

Vote “yes” on Question 2, unless you like sharing your bath with pieces of turd.

There you have it – a simple guide to voting on June 12. All you have to remember is “yes, no.” Or was it “no, yes?”

If in doubt, just make a smiley face on the ballot and your life will continue as before.