Keeping my eye on the MA governor's race and NH senate race. Both are tight at the moment. Also interested in the outcome of the MA ballot questions.

Nothing too surprising yet. Tom Wolf looks to take the Pennsylvania governorship from Tom Corbett. I guess that's a slightly better choice... meh.

Whoever wins, we lose.

I'm pretty happy with how the Mass ballot questions are turning out, although 1 is still pretty close. Hope it swings to Yes.

AP has called Shaheen over Brown. Serves him right.

AP calling New Hampshire for Jeanne Shaheen.

Bottle Bill was rejected! Thank goodness!

Yeah, down with the environment. Why not.

Which bottle bill is this?

For several reasons:

1) Studies show that bottle deposits aren't great at encouraging recycling.
2) Bottle repositories are already terrible at accepting bottles, which would only get worse when every machine needs to be upgraded.
3) Taxes tied to inflation are a terrible idea in principle.

Expanding the 5 cent deposit

Ah. Well, at least in MI, pretty sure that the repositories are half way decent, and it DOES encourage recycling. I have seen many, *many* times, and have done myself, people combing the streets with trash bags full of pop cans for return.

Yeah, who cares about preventing litter, and all the studies showing bottle bills prevent litter. Kill the environment.

Walker is gonna win Wisconsin. I expected as much.

hhmm...A cursory Google search shows I was wrong about their effectiveness. My bad. At least I can rest knowing I'm no worse than 70% of my peers.

Although, I do stand by my statement that inflation-adjusted taxes/fees are a terrible idea.

LA probably headed to a runoff. Cassidy would have to pull some 60% or so of the remaining vote to avoid a runoff and he's only pulled 42% out of the precincts reporting.

He gon run shit in the runoff tho. #AntiIncumbentPainTrain

I am excited that Earned Sick Time passed, though, so hopefully I get some Putin Points for that. : p

"Although, I do stand by my statement that inflation-adjusted taxes/fees are a terrible idea."

Wow, and one wonders how long of a google search that bold statement could withstand.

Glad we have so many informed voters out there. Explains the dreary results quite well.

The government tying costs to inflation is very bad, especially for the poor because it's a double hit on their income. Things cost more because their money is worth less and because prices have also risen. It's not right for the government to charge more because the money they printed is worth less.

Looks like it's a done deal. Not even a runoff in Georgia.

Get ready for two months of rushed judicial confirmations and two years of presidential vetoes.

"Things cost more because their money is worth less and because prices have also risen. It's not right for the government to charge more because the money they printed is worth less."

Things also cost more for the government and the poor rely on government services more than the rich. So forcing the government to pay even more money for the same services due to inflation means less money for other services.

Maybe I'm confused here, but in what way is the bottle deposit a tax? By definition, if you return the bottle, you are refunded the deposit. So if I'm poor, and I want to buy a six-pack, I have to save up a whopping 30 cents to do so? Which will be refunded to me? Like I said, I may have missed something but I don't understand how a 5-cent deposit is being equated to a tax.

Here in California, where we have had a "bottle deposit tax" for more than 25 years, the recycling centers are the only ones who can redeem bottles for the full amount of the "deposit". We little people are paid only a fraction of the "deposit" when we take our bottles to be recycled; the recycling centers pocket most of it. Despite its good intentions, it very quickly became just another in the large battery of California taxes that increase the cost of living, pushing more and more lower income people into poverty. The end result was that most people stopped recycling voluntarily, only to be forced by law and threats of fines at local levels to separate our recyclables into separate trash bins, so private waste hauling companies can recycle it (and presumably get the "bottle deposit") themselves with a minimum of effort.

I Michigan, it is 10 cents a bottle/can. EVERY grocery store has returns, and you get all 10 cents back. Seems like a good deal for everyone except grocery stores and lazy people to me. (I do sympathize with the grocery stores, I realize those things must have been expensive. Hope they got some tax credit for that.)

Now that is a scam.

I don't know the specifics of the bottle bill being discussed here, but if it's anything like that, I can understand why some users are expressing pleasure that it wasn't expanded.

For clarification before I get flamed by the guy I've already identified after a few hours on this site as the resident troll (here's looking at you, Putin33), I wasn't questioning the idea of recycling itself, its desirability, or its impact on society. I was simply curious about the post equating the "deposit" to a "tax," which Tolstoy has admirably clarified for me.

And that post by KingCyrus explains what I assumed the system would resemble. No additional effort to make returns, full refunds upon return. So a lot of this debate centers around the specific implementation in the state being discussed originally.

Tolstoy thinks everything is a tax and a government scam. He's hardly a 'little person' either.

UPDATE:

Republicans take control of the Senate, keep the House

It is always amusing to see how easy it is to trick an avowed communist into coming to the rhetorical defense of for-profit corporations.