On my local ballot this election, there are four positions up for grabs on the Whatcom County Council, two positions with the Port of Bellingham, two positions on the Bellingham City Council, and one position on the School Board. There is also a school levy.
County Council
I try not to be a single-issue voter, but county politics has become completely engulfed by the Gateway Pacific Terminal issue. In a nutshell, the GPT would become a port for coal shipments. The coal would be shipped here on trains, then out through the GPT to the rest of the world. Environmental activists oppose it because it's coal; unions support it because it means good jobs. Liberals have been walking a balancing act, trying to keep the support of both the environmental lobby and the unions; conservatives support the GPT for the same reason the unions do.
My position is that there are standard environmental reviews in place for projects like this already. Those reviews should be allowed to run their course without undue political influence one way or the other. In this case, it's the environmentalists who are arguing for special exemptions to prevent the GPT, so my position casts me with the unions and the conservatives.
In the current election, that means I am voting for Kathy Kershner, Ben Elenbaas, Michelle Luke and Bill Knutzen for County Council. All four of these candidates have been endorsed by both the county Republican and Libertarian parties. Sealing the deal: the opponents of these four candidates have run campaigns demonizing them as "Tea Party endorsed" (when the local Tea Party makes a point to not endorse any candidates) while playing up their own endorsements by Planned Parenthood and the Democrats.
Port of Bellingham
I am voting for Renata B. Kowalczyk over Dan Robbins for Port Commissioner. While the Democrats have endorsed Kowalczyk and the Republicans have endorsed Robbins, both oppose the Blue-Green Coalition's call for a "living wage zone" at the Port. Both support industrial development at the Port. But based on the limited statements I can find from both candidates, Kowalczyk seems to have a more in-depth understanding of what the Port Commissioner has to do and the issues the Port faces.
In the other Port Commissioner race, I am voting for Ken Bell over Mike McAuley. Bell supports the GPT. He also has experience in the private sector cleaning up hazardous waste sites, which is exactly what the Port needs to do with the waterfront.
Bellingham City Council
In my ward, I am voting for Clayton Petree over Pinky Vargas. Petree has the experience needed for council, while after announcing her run, Vargas had to rely on one of the city's most reliably liberal blog writers to give her what he called a "crash course" on the important issues. Petree also opposed the fireworks ban, and I believe can be counted on to oppose the random little bans that the current city council loves so much.
For the Council-At-Large position, my preferred candidate from the primary did not make it to the general. Of the two remaining candidates, both are pretty bad, but Roxanne Murphy is not as bad as Bob Burr.
Bellingham School District 501
Of the three candidates in the primary for the school board, the one I did not consider due to a lack of information lost. In the primary, I voted for Steven Smith over John H. Blethen. Now that those two are running in the general election, I will again vote for Steven Smith.
The school district is also putting forward a levy this election. That levy, Proposition 2013-1 would allow the district to borrow $160 million to be used for "construction." Much of that will be going towards nicer administrative buildings, including $5 million for artificial grass. The district still owes $59 million from the $67 million bond that was passed in 2007. The new bond amounts to $2000 for every man, woman and child in Bellingham, not counting interest charges. To pay it back, the levy would raise the property tax we pay for schools by an astonishing 54%, with promises to cut it back to just a 32% raise in six years (if you believe that). I say the people of Bellingham should keep their own money, and the school district can let the natural grass grow instead of borrowing money to install artificial grass. I am voting NO on Proposition 2013-1.
Summary
County Council: Kathy Kershner, Ben Elenbaas, Michelle Luke, Bill Knutzen
Port Commissioners: Renata B. Kowalczyk, Ken Bell
City Council: Clayton Petree, Roxanne Murphy
School Board: Steven Smith
School Levy: NO
Showing posts with label ballot guide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ballot guide. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
November 2013 Statewide Issues
I find I have left this blog unattended for longer than I meant, but once again, it is time to vote, so I'm back. There are two state initiatives, a few advisory votes and a slew of local candidates to consider, plus one local issue. In this entry, I'll cover the statewide issues: I-517 regarding initiative reform, I-522 regarding GMO labelling and advisory votes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, regarding tax increases passed by the state legislature.
I-517: Initiative Reform
First up is I-517, which reforms the initiative process in Washington state. I-517 includes four key reforms:
I-522: GMO Labeling
The only other statewide initiative is I-522, which establishes a labeling system for food containing genetically-modified organisms. To decide which way to vote on I-522, I must ask three sequential questions, all of which must have an affirmative answer to vote for I-522. Those three questions are the following:
In Washington state, thanks to a 2007 initiative, any tax increase passed by the legislature is submitted to the people for an advisory vote. The results are not binding, but they do ensure the public is aware of all tax increases, even ones the media doesn't deem important enough to mention. The advisory votes also give voters a chance to give the legislature some much-needed feedback.
This year, there are five advisory votes, numbered 3 through 7 (A-1 and A-2 were on 2012's ballot). In deciding how to vote, I've followed a simple rule: Taxes should be lower and simpler. That means increases in tax rates and new special taxes on specific groups should be repealed, but that bills that eliminate special credits for specific groups should be maintained.
A-3 Substitute Senate Bill 5444
This bill eliminated a tax credit for taxpayers who lease public property. Taxes should be the same whether you're leasing publicly-owned or privately-owned property. This eliminates an unfair tax credit, so it should be MAINTAINED.
A-4 Senate Bill 5627
This bill imposed a tax on commuter air carriers "in lieu of property tax." Why do air carriers need a special tax? The Washington State Budget and Policy Center has the context: "Senate Bill 5627 was championed by Governor Inslee in order to reduce taxes for Kenmore Air, a commuter air carrier located in Washington state. ... Although Kenmore Air will pay an additional $35,000 per year in aircraft excise taxes, its state and local property tax bills will fall by about $51,000 per year, a cost that will automatically be recouped through higher property tax bills for other homeowners and businesses." The Legislature, at the behest of the Governor, is shifting property taxes from one favored company to other disfavored companies and homeowners. Obviously, this should be REPEALED.
A-5 Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1846
This bill eliminated a tax exemption for pediatric oral services from the insurance premium tax. As a consequence, it also ensures that dental services purchased outside the new health care exchange do not face a tax disadvantage compared to those purchased within the exchange. While it would be preferable not to have an insurance premium tax in the first place, given that there is such a tax, it should apply as fairly as possible. This bill should be MAINTAINED.
A-6 Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1971
This bill eliminated a tax exemption in the retail sales tax for some telephone and telecommunications services. Specifically, cell phone service was subject to the sales tax while landlines were not; instead landlines were subject to two special excise taxes. This bill eliminate the excise taxes and extended the sales tax to landlines, so that the same tax applies to all telephone services. This bill should be MAINTAINED.
A-7 Engrossed House Bill 2075
This bill extended the sales tax to some property transfers and raised the tax rates for estates over $4 million. This is a complicated one. On the one hand, it closes a loophole in the estate tax that was introduced by the courts. Closing loopholes and simplifying taxes is always good, and if that was the extent of what this bill did, I would vote to maintain. However, the legislature also introduced a new loophole for businesses, and to make up the revenue from the new loophole, raised the tax rate. Tax rates do not need to be raised and new loopholes do not need to be added, so this bill should be REPEALED.
Summary
I-517: YES
I-522: NO
A-3: MAINTAIN
A-4: REPEAL
A-5: MAINTAIN
A-6: MAINTAIN
A-7: REPEAL
I-517: Initiative Reform
First up is I-517, which reforms the initiative process in Washington state. I-517 includes four key reforms:
- It increases the time allowed to gather signatures for initiatives from ten months to sixteen months. Allowing at least a year (the time between elections) for gathering signatures seems like a reasonable reform.
- Any initiative that receives enough signatures must be placed on the ballot for a vote, eliminating the possibility of interference from local officials. Here in Bellingham, we recently had an initiative against red light cameras that was blocked by a lawsuit from the company that had been given the contract to install the cameras. This is an obviously needed reform.
- Official signature gatherers currently have the same legal protections as any other citizen standing on the street. I-517 would make it disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor) to "interfere with or retaliate against a person collecting signatures or signing any initiative or referendum petition..." Exactly what that means is defined by a long list in the initiative of actions that you shouldn't be doing to anybody anyway, whether or not they're collecting signatures. The claim by Riley Sweeney that "if you told someone to go jump in a lake when they asked for your signature, they could sue you for harassment" is simply false if you read the actual text of I-517 (I suppose, technically, anyone can sue anyone else for harassment, but that doesn't mean they have a snowball's chance of winning). Since gathering signatures is a required step for we citizens to exercise our right to petition the government, some special protection for those gathering and providing the signatures seems appropriate.
- I-517 also defines the places where signature gathering will be protected. According to the text of the initiative, official signature gathering "shall be a legally protected activity" in three types of places:
- "...inside or outside public buildings..." This one seems obvious--if the buildings truly are public (unlike national parks and memorials, as we found out during the recent shutdown), then you should be able to collect signatures in these public places.
- "...on public sidewalks and walkways..." Again, this seems obvious if these places are to be considered truly public.
- "...all sidewalks and walkways that carry pedestrian traffic, including those in front of entrances and exits of any store..." This is the one part of I-517 that might cause problems. Opposition to I-517 says this violates property rights. It certainly gives property owners less control over what happens on their property, which I don't like. That said, under I-517, signature gatherers are not allowed inside private buildings, nor are they allowed anywhere members of the public normally aren't, nor are they allowed in open areas that aren't sidewalks or walkways, nor are they allowed to do things (such as stalking, threatening or assault) that normal people can't do. Furthermore, existing law doesn't have a well-defined limit for where signature-gathering is or is not legal on private property, and this issue has gone to the courts several times. I-517's outside-walkways rule, while imperfect, is better than no rule at all.
I-522: GMO Labeling
The only other statewide initiative is I-522, which establishes a labeling system for food containing genetically-modified organisms. To decide which way to vote on I-522, I must ask three sequential questions, all of which must have an affirmative answer to vote for I-522. Those three questions are the following:
- Should genetically-modified food be labelled as such? I think the answer is likely yes. To be clear, I believe the science that says GMOs are safe. They have been in use now for nearly two decades and are likely in the majority of our food with no apparent side effects. Genetic engineering has been happening for millennia through hybridization; GMOs are simply a more direct way to get the genes that we want into the organisms that we want. If anything, I would trust the genetics of a GMO more than some random animal that came out of some field. That said, I know not everyone agrees with me. One of the necessary prerequisites to having a well-functioning free market is the freedom of information, and if people believe that they don't want GMO food, it is their right to avoid it.
- If GMOs should be labelled, should such labeling be required by the government? Here, I think the answer is likely no. The federal government already certifies organic food, and certified organic food cannot contain GMOs. For non-organic non-GMO food, private organizations like the Non-GMO Project are already picking up the slack. Since lots of people want to buy non-GMO food, there is a huge incentive for the private market to supply that information even without government requirements.
- If GMO labeling should be required, is I-522 the right way to do it? The answer here is a definite no. While I-522 requires labels for many foods, there are quite a few exceptions, including alcoholic beverages, food served at restaurants and medical food. If labels are so important for public health, why are there so many exceptions? Moreover, while the state's Department of Agriculture is usually in charge of food safety and labeling, GMO labels would be regulated by the Department of Health. This may seem small, but it likely means food produces will have twice the paperwork and have to go through twice the bureaucracy. It also means the Department of Health would have to duplicate a regulatory infrastructure that the Department of Agriculture already has in place.
In Washington state, thanks to a 2007 initiative, any tax increase passed by the legislature is submitted to the people for an advisory vote. The results are not binding, but they do ensure the public is aware of all tax increases, even ones the media doesn't deem important enough to mention. The advisory votes also give voters a chance to give the legislature some much-needed feedback.
This year, there are five advisory votes, numbered 3 through 7 (A-1 and A-2 were on 2012's ballot). In deciding how to vote, I've followed a simple rule: Taxes should be lower and simpler. That means increases in tax rates and new special taxes on specific groups should be repealed, but that bills that eliminate special credits for specific groups should be maintained.
A-3 Substitute Senate Bill 5444
This bill eliminated a tax credit for taxpayers who lease public property. Taxes should be the same whether you're leasing publicly-owned or privately-owned property. This eliminates an unfair tax credit, so it should be MAINTAINED.
A-4 Senate Bill 5627
This bill imposed a tax on commuter air carriers "in lieu of property tax." Why do air carriers need a special tax? The Washington State Budget and Policy Center has the context: "Senate Bill 5627 was championed by Governor Inslee in order to reduce taxes for Kenmore Air, a commuter air carrier located in Washington state. ... Although Kenmore Air will pay an additional $35,000 per year in aircraft excise taxes, its state and local property tax bills will fall by about $51,000 per year, a cost that will automatically be recouped through higher property tax bills for other homeowners and businesses." The Legislature, at the behest of the Governor, is shifting property taxes from one favored company to other disfavored companies and homeowners. Obviously, this should be REPEALED.
A-5 Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1846
This bill eliminated a tax exemption for pediatric oral services from the insurance premium tax. As a consequence, it also ensures that dental services purchased outside the new health care exchange do not face a tax disadvantage compared to those purchased within the exchange. While it would be preferable not to have an insurance premium tax in the first place, given that there is such a tax, it should apply as fairly as possible. This bill should be MAINTAINED.
A-6 Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1971
This bill eliminated a tax exemption in the retail sales tax for some telephone and telecommunications services. Specifically, cell phone service was subject to the sales tax while landlines were not; instead landlines were subject to two special excise taxes. This bill eliminate the excise taxes and extended the sales tax to landlines, so that the same tax applies to all telephone services. This bill should be MAINTAINED.
A-7 Engrossed House Bill 2075
This bill extended the sales tax to some property transfers and raised the tax rates for estates over $4 million. This is a complicated one. On the one hand, it closes a loophole in the estate tax that was introduced by the courts. Closing loopholes and simplifying taxes is always good, and if that was the extent of what this bill did, I would vote to maintain. However, the legislature also introduced a new loophole for businesses, and to make up the revenue from the new loophole, raised the tax rate. Tax rates do not need to be raised and new loopholes do not need to be added, so this bill should be REPEALED.
Summary
I-517: YES
I-522: NO
A-3: MAINTAIN
A-4: REPEAL
A-5: MAINTAIN
A-6: MAINTAIN
A-7: REPEAL
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
August 2013 Primary Election
I should've done this earlier, but I didn't, so here I am! We are having a primary election right now which ends tonight, so I guess it's time to figure out who I'm voting for. There are two races on the ballot, and I'll look at them one at a time.
Bellingham City Council At-Large
There are three candidates for this at-large position. Their biographical info and positions can be found here. The important issues are whether taxes should be raised to address the city's budget deficit (they should not) and whether the city should do more to oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal (it should not, mostly because it's outside the city limits and none of the city's business, but also because the GPT would be good for the region and create jobs).
Taxes
Bob Burr says, "Raising taxes certainly is an option that must be considered with an open mind." Roxanne Murphy prefers "regular and creative budget improvement avenues before a tax increase would be considered." (I have no idea what that actually means.) Allen Brown gives a single word answer: "NO". Point goes to Allen Brown.
Gateway Pacific Terminal
Bob Burr says, "Absolutely" the city should do more to oppose the GPT because it "would be disastrous to our City." Roxanne Murphy is more nuanced in her opinion, but still says, "I’m opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal as a Lettered Streets resident who lives near the railroad tracks..." Allen Brown says no, the city should not do more to oppose the GPT because public opinion is split. He also says, "As long as the project meets current environmental and safety regulations, we cannot obstruct." Point to Allen Brown.
Conclusion: Vote for Allen Brown
Allen Brown opposes tax increases and at the very least doesn't want the city to oppose the GPT. Both Murphy and Burr are open to tax increases and both want the city to take a stand againsts the GPT. The choice is clear--I'm voting for Allen Brown.
Bellingham School District Director
There are three candidates for Director #4, but Hue Beattie doesn't seem to have any kind of web presence and apparently did not respond to the voter guide questions. Having no idea what his positions are, I cannot vote for him.
John H. Blethen's campaign seems to be composed of opposing the closure of Larrabee Elementary and spouting slogans like "support the teachers" and "smaller class sizes." He also wants city government to have more control over the schools (I can't help but think that's a bad idea considering how city government handles everything else), and would consider raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget. Steven Smith is the incumbent and voted to close Larrabee Elementary. I don't know whether that was the right decision or not, but he does oppose raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget.
Conclusion: Vote for Steven Smith
This is a tough one, partly because there's so little information, but mostly because I don't usually pay attention to school board politics. A lot of the issues that separate the candidates may be important, but I don't know enough to judge. What I do know is that Smith opposes new taxes on me and has taken action as an incumbent to cut spending so that new taxes are not necessary. On the other hand, Blethen supports higher taxes for me and opposed Smith's action to cut spending. That's enough for me to cast my vote for Steven Smith.
Bellingham City Council At-Large
There are three candidates for this at-large position. Their biographical info and positions can be found here. The important issues are whether taxes should be raised to address the city's budget deficit (they should not) and whether the city should do more to oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal (it should not, mostly because it's outside the city limits and none of the city's business, but also because the GPT would be good for the region and create jobs).
Taxes
Bob Burr says, "Raising taxes certainly is an option that must be considered with an open mind." Roxanne Murphy prefers "regular and creative budget improvement avenues before a tax increase would be considered." (I have no idea what that actually means.) Allen Brown gives a single word answer: "NO". Point goes to Allen Brown.
Gateway Pacific Terminal
Bob Burr says, "Absolutely" the city should do more to oppose the GPT because it "would be disastrous to our City." Roxanne Murphy is more nuanced in her opinion, but still says, "I’m opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal as a Lettered Streets resident who lives near the railroad tracks..." Allen Brown says no, the city should not do more to oppose the GPT because public opinion is split. He also says, "As long as the project meets current environmental and safety regulations, we cannot obstruct." Point to Allen Brown.
Conclusion: Vote for Allen Brown
Allen Brown opposes tax increases and at the very least doesn't want the city to oppose the GPT. Both Murphy and Burr are open to tax increases and both want the city to take a stand againsts the GPT. The choice is clear--I'm voting for Allen Brown.
Bellingham School District Director
There are three candidates for Director #4, but Hue Beattie doesn't seem to have any kind of web presence and apparently did not respond to the voter guide questions. Having no idea what his positions are, I cannot vote for him.
John H. Blethen's campaign seems to be composed of opposing the closure of Larrabee Elementary and spouting slogans like "support the teachers" and "smaller class sizes." He also wants city government to have more control over the schools (I can't help but think that's a bad idea considering how city government handles everything else), and would consider raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget. Steven Smith is the incumbent and voted to close Larrabee Elementary. I don't know whether that was the right decision or not, but he does oppose raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget.
Conclusion: Vote for Steven Smith
This is a tough one, partly because there's so little information, but mostly because I don't usually pay attention to school board politics. A lot of the issues that separate the candidates may be important, but I don't know enough to judge. What I do know is that Smith opposes new taxes on me and has taken action as an incumbent to cut spending so that new taxes are not necessary. On the other hand, Blethen supports higher taxes for me and opposed Smith's action to cut spending. That's enough for me to cast my vote for Steven Smith.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Final Ballot, Post-Mortem
Now that the election's over*, how did I do? Not well on candidates, but far better on the issues.
Out of 16 races with more than one candidate, the one I voted for won in only three of them. Kim Wyman's victory for Secretary of State is particularly narrow, only ~14k. If she holds onto it, however, she would be the only Republican to hold statewide office. In District 40, Jeff Morris defeated the only non-presidential third-party candidate on my ballot, the Green party's Howard Pellett.
Candidates
U.S. President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), VP James P. Gray
U.S. Senator: Michael Baumgartner (R)
U.S. Representative: Dan Matthews (R)
WA Governor: Rob McKenna (R)
WA Lieutenant Governor: Bill Finkbeiner (R)
WA Secretary of State: Kim Wyman (R)
WA State Treasurer: Sharon Hanek (R)
WA State Auditor: James Watkins (R)
WA Attorney General: Reagan Dunn (R)
WA Commissioner of Public Lands: Clint Didier (R)
WA Superintendent of Public Instruction: Write-in, Luisa Rey
WA Insurance Commissioner: John R. Adams (R)
WA State Senator, District 40: John Swapp (Ind-R)
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 1: Write-in, Rufus Sixsmith
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 2: Jeff Morris (D)
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 2: Write-in, Adam Ewing
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 8: Write-in, Timothy Cavendish
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 9: Richard B. Sanders
WA Court of Appeals Judge, Division 1, District 3, Position 1: Write-in, Robert Frobisher
Whatcom County Superior Court Judge, Position 2: Dave Grant
Public Utility District 1, Commissioner District 2: Paul D. Kenner
I had far better luck on the issues. Out of ten issues, Washington and local voters agreed with me on eight of them. The exceptions are marijuana legalization and regulation, which passed 55-44 and a new local property tax, which passed 55-45.
Issues
I-1185, Two-Thirds Tax Requirement: Yes
I-1240, Charter Schools: Yes
R-74, Same-sex Marriage: Approved
I-502, Marijuana: No
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit: Approved
SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments: Rejected
A-1, B&O Tax Increase: Repeal
A-2, Petroleum Tax: Repeal
Port of Bellingham, Prop-1, Number of Port Commissioners: No
City of Bellingham, Prop-1, Low-Income Housing Levy: No
*Since Washington is a 100% vote-by-mail state, and the last day for the ballot to be postmarked was election day, there may be up to two million ballots out there floating through the postal system, waiting to be counted. These results are, therefore, only provisional.
Out of 16 races with more than one candidate, the one I voted for won in only three of them. Kim Wyman's victory for Secretary of State is particularly narrow, only ~14k. If she holds onto it, however, she would be the only Republican to hold statewide office. In District 40, Jeff Morris defeated the only non-presidential third-party candidate on my ballot, the Green party's Howard Pellett.
Candidates
WA Secretary of State: Kim Wyman (R)
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 2: Jeff Morris (D)
Public Utility District 1, Commissioner District 2: Paul D. Kenner
I had far better luck on the issues. Out of ten issues, Washington and local voters agreed with me on eight of them. The exceptions are marijuana legalization and regulation, which passed 55-44 and a new local property tax, which passed 55-45.
Issues
I-1185, Two-Thirds Tax Requirement: Yes
I-1240, Charter Schools: Yes
R-74, Same-sex Marriage: Approved
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit: Approved
SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments: Rejected
A-1, B&O Tax Increase: Repeal
A-2, Petroleum Tax: Repeal
Port of Bellingham, Prop-1, Number of Port Commissioners: No
*Since Washington is a 100% vote-by-mail state, and the last day for the ballot to be postmarked was election day, there may be up to two million ballots out there floating through the postal system, waiting to be counted. These results are, therefore, only provisional.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Final Ballot
One last post about the election before it's all over tomorrow (hopefully): My completed ballot. If you're in Washington, or even Whatcom county or Bellingham, feel free to make things easier on yourself by just voting the same as me!
A note on the write-ins: As a matter of democratic principle, I refuse to vote for anyone running unopposed. Back in Ohio, that meant I just didn't vote in some races. Here in Washington, every race allows write-ins, so I'm writing in some names to register my displeasure with the unopposed candidates.
Candidates
U.S. President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), VP James P. Gray
U.S. Senator: Michael Baumgartner (R)
U.S. Representative: Dan Matthews (R)
WA Governor: Rob McKenna (R)
WA Lieutenant Governor: Bill Finkbeiner (R)
WA Secretary of State: Kim Wyman (R)
WA State Treasurer: Sharon Hanek (R)
WA State Auditor: James Watkins (R)
WA Attorney General: Reagan Dunn (R)
WA Commissioner of Public Lands: Clint Didier (R)
WA Superintendent of Public Instruction: Write-in, Luisa Rey
WA Insurance Commissioner: John R. Adams (R)
WA State Senator, District 40: John Swapp (Ind-R)
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 1: Write-in, Rufus Sixsmith
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 2: Jeff Morris (D)
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 2: Write-in, Adam Ewing
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 8: Write-in, Timothy Cavendish
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 9: Richard B. Sanders
WA Court of Appeals Judge, Division 1, District 3, Position 1: Write-in, Robert Frobisher
Whatcom County Superior Court Judge, Position 2: Dave Grant
Public Utility District 1, Commissioner District 2: Paul D. Kenner
Issues
I-1185, Two-Thirds Tax Requirement: Yes
I-1240, Charter Schools: Yes
R-74, Same-sex Marriage: Approved
I-502, Marijuana: No
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit: Approved
SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments: Rejected
A-1, B&O Tax Increase: Repeal
A-2, Petroleum Tax: Repeal
Port of Bellingham, Prop-1, Number of Port Commissioners: No
City of Bellingham, Prop-1, Low-Income Housing Levy: No
A note on the write-ins: As a matter of democratic principle, I refuse to vote for anyone running unopposed. Back in Ohio, that meant I just didn't vote in some races. Here in Washington, every race allows write-ins, so I'm writing in some names to register my displeasure with the unopposed candidates.
Candidates
U.S. President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), VP James P. Gray
U.S. Senator: Michael Baumgartner (R)
U.S. Representative: Dan Matthews (R)
WA Governor: Rob McKenna (R)
WA Lieutenant Governor: Bill Finkbeiner (R)
WA Secretary of State: Kim Wyman (R)
WA State Treasurer: Sharon Hanek (R)
WA State Auditor: James Watkins (R)
WA Attorney General: Reagan Dunn (R)
WA Commissioner of Public Lands: Clint Didier (R)
WA Superintendent of Public Instruction: Write-in, Luisa Rey
WA Insurance Commissioner: John R. Adams (R)
WA State Senator, District 40: John Swapp (Ind-R)
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 1: Write-in, Rufus Sixsmith
WA State Representative, District 40, Position 2: Jeff Morris (D)
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 2: Write-in, Adam Ewing
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 8: Write-in, Timothy Cavendish
WA Supreme Court Justice, Position 9: Richard B. Sanders
WA Court of Appeals Judge, Division 1, District 3, Position 1: Write-in, Robert Frobisher
Whatcom County Superior Court Judge, Position 2: Dave Grant
Public Utility District 1, Commissioner District 2: Paul D. Kenner
Issues
I-1185, Two-Thirds Tax Requirement: Yes
I-1240, Charter Schools: Yes
R-74, Same-sex Marriage: Approved
I-502, Marijuana: No
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit: Approved
SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments: Rejected
A-1, B&O Tax Increase: Repeal
A-2, Petroleum Tax: Repeal
Port of Bellingham, Prop-1, Number of Port Commissioners: No
City of Bellingham, Prop-1, Low-Income Housing Levy: No
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
No on Two Local Issues
With exactly a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out a bit faster now. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185, I-1240 and SJR-8221, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502, SJR-8223, A-1 and A-2. Below are two local issues, one for the Port of Bellingham and one for the City of Bellingham.
NO on Port of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Number of Port Commissioners
The Issue: There are currently three Port of Bellingham Commissioners; this proposition would raise that number to five.
My Position: While the official argument for Prop-1 speaks of increased representation, this smells to me like an attempt to pack the commission. I can find no clear evidence for or against my hypothesis, but it still smells like a fish to me. Plus, Washington's open meetings law applies to one-on-one meetings of a three-member commission; it does not apply to one-on-one meetings of a five-member commission. That smells even fishier. I will be voting NO on the Port's Prop-1.
NO on City of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Low-Income Housing Levy
The Issue: City Council wants to raise property taxes by $36 per $100,000 of assessed value to fund a program for low-income housing.
My Position: I will be voting no on this tax increase, for three reasons:
1) An increase in the property tax will increase rent, and I don't want my rent to go up.
2) Trying to make housing more affordable by raising taxes on housing is just plain stupid. As the official "Statement Against" says, "You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive."
3) The state and federal governments already provide low-income housing subsidies, as well as other programs for low-income people. Do we really need yet another level of government doing the same thing as the others?
NO on Port of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Number of Port Commissioners
The Issue: There are currently three Port of Bellingham Commissioners; this proposition would raise that number to five.
My Position: While the official argument for Prop-1 speaks of increased representation, this smells to me like an attempt to pack the commission. I can find no clear evidence for or against my hypothesis, but it still smells like a fish to me. Plus, Washington's open meetings law applies to one-on-one meetings of a three-member commission; it does not apply to one-on-one meetings of a five-member commission. That smells even fishier. I will be voting NO on the Port's Prop-1.
NO on City of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Low-Income Housing Levy
The Issue: City Council wants to raise property taxes by $36 per $100,000 of assessed value to fund a program for low-income housing.
My Position: I will be voting no on this tax increase, for three reasons:
1) An increase in the property tax will increase rent, and I don't want my rent to go up.
2) Trying to make housing more affordable by raising taxes on housing is just plain stupid. As the official "Statement Against" says, "You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive."
3) The state and federal governments already provide low-income housing subsidies, as well as other programs for low-income people. Do we really need yet another level of government doing the same thing as the others?
No on Three Minor Statewide Issues
With exactly a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out a bit faster now. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185, I-1240 and SJR-8221, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502. Below are three minor statewide issues: SJR-8223 on public fund investments, plus two advisory votes.
NO on SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments
The Issue: In general, Washington state public funds are prohibited from investing in private stocks and bonds. Over time, a laundry list of exceptions has been added to the constitution, primarily allowing public trust funds and public pension funds to invest in private stocks and bonds. SJR-8223 would add the operating budgets of the University of Washington and Washington State University to the list of exceptions.
My Position: Using public funds to invest in private companies looks to me like a backdoor way to pick winners and losers with voters none-the-wiser. I think the general prohibition is a great idea, and that we should probably reduce the list of restrictions rather than increase it.
REPEAL A-1, B&O Tax Increase
The Issue: The Washington legislature raised B&O taxes on some financial institutions and lowered taxes for others, including manufacturers of agriculture products and newspapers, for a net 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Tax increases in general are bad. This one in particular is worse. It raises taxes on a disfavored industry (finance) by $170 million, and mostly offsets it with cuts to favored industries (agriculture, newspapers). While this is only an advisory vote, I will vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases and against favors to certain industries over others.
REPEAL A-2, Petroleum Tax
The Issue: A tax on certain commercial petroleum products was set to expire, and the Washington legislature extended the expiration date for a 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Once again, tax increases are bad. While A-2 is not as bad as A-1, I will still vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases.
NO on SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments
The Issue: In general, Washington state public funds are prohibited from investing in private stocks and bonds. Over time, a laundry list of exceptions has been added to the constitution, primarily allowing public trust funds and public pension funds to invest in private stocks and bonds. SJR-8223 would add the operating budgets of the University of Washington and Washington State University to the list of exceptions.
My Position: Using public funds to invest in private companies looks to me like a backdoor way to pick winners and losers with voters none-the-wiser. I think the general prohibition is a great idea, and that we should probably reduce the list of restrictions rather than increase it.
REPEAL A-1, B&O Tax Increase
The Issue: The Washington legislature raised B&O taxes on some financial institutions and lowered taxes for others, including manufacturers of agriculture products and newspapers, for a net 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Tax increases in general are bad. This one in particular is worse. It raises taxes on a disfavored industry (finance) by $170 million, and mostly offsets it with cuts to favored industries (agriculture, newspapers). While this is only an advisory vote, I will vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases and against favors to certain industries over others.
REPEAL A-2, Petroleum Tax
The Issue: A tax on certain commercial petroleum products was set to expire, and the Washington legislature extended the expiration date for a 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Once again, tax increases are bad. While A-2 is not as bad as A-1, I will still vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases.
Yes on SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
With about a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185 and I-1240, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502.
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
The Issue: Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221 is a constitutional amendment implementing three changes to the Washington state limit on debt payments:
1) The amendment would schedule three reductions to the state debt limit. Currently at 9.0% of general state revenues, the limit would fall to 8.5% in 2014, 8.25% in 2016 and 8.0% in 2034 (and no, that's not a typo, that's a reduction scheduled for twenty-two years after the amendment).
2) The current limit is based on the average of general state revenues over the previous three years. The amendment would change that to six years.
3) Whereas "general state revenues" currently only includes revenue that is not dedicated to a specific use, the amendment would redefine "general state revenues" to include the state property tax, which is dedicated to the specific use of funding public schools.
My Position: I'm no fan of government debt, and Washington state debt is already over 20% of GSP. I wholeheartedly support lowering the limit on state debt.
The Changes:
1) While scheduling the final drop to 8.0% for 2034 is nothing but cynical, a drop to 8.5% at the next biennial budget and 8.25% at the biennial budget after that is a clear win for smaller government.
2) Extending the the basis for the limit from the average of three years to six years stabilizes the limit against recessions. However, since revenue typically grows year-to-year, the six-year average will usually be smaller than the three-year average. The debt limit will be a smaller percentage of a smaller number-- again, a win for smaller government.
3) Expanding the definition of "general state revenues" to include property taxes further stabilizes the limit, as property taxes are more stable than other forms of revenue. However, this also raises the limit. The Commission on State Debt (PDF) found that property taxes are about 10% of general state revenue, but typically grow slower (2%) than the rest of general state revenue (4.5%). Even so, if these numbers hold true, the new limit would be about 2.5% lower than the old in 2014, and would drop to almost 6% lower than the old in 2016. Once again, a win for small government.
I will be voting YES on SJR-8221.
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
The Issue: Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221 is a constitutional amendment implementing three changes to the Washington state limit on debt payments:
1) The amendment would schedule three reductions to the state debt limit. Currently at 9.0% of general state revenues, the limit would fall to 8.5% in 2014, 8.25% in 2016 and 8.0% in 2034 (and no, that's not a typo, that's a reduction scheduled for twenty-two years after the amendment).
2) The current limit is based on the average of general state revenues over the previous three years. The amendment would change that to six years.
3) Whereas "general state revenues" currently only includes revenue that is not dedicated to a specific use, the amendment would redefine "general state revenues" to include the state property tax, which is dedicated to the specific use of funding public schools.
My Position: I'm no fan of government debt, and Washington state debt is already over 20% of GSP. I wholeheartedly support lowering the limit on state debt.
The Changes:
1) While scheduling the final drop to 8.0% for 2034 is nothing but cynical, a drop to 8.5% at the next biennial budget and 8.25% at the biennial budget after that is a clear win for smaller government.
2) Extending the the basis for the limit from the average of three years to six years stabilizes the limit against recessions. However, since revenue typically grows year-to-year, the six-year average will usually be smaller than the three-year average. The debt limit will be a smaller percentage of a smaller number-- again, a win for smaller government.
3) Expanding the definition of "general state revenues" to include property taxes further stabilizes the limit, as property taxes are more stable than other forms of revenue. However, this also raises the limit. The Commission on State Debt (PDF) found that property taxes are about 10% of general state revenue, but typically grow slower (2%) than the rest of general state revenue (4.5%). Even so, if these numbers hold true, the new limit would be about 2.5% lower than the old in 2014, and would drop to almost 6% lower than the old in 2016. Once again, a win for small government.
I will be voting YES on SJR-8221.
No on I-502, Marijuana
With about a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes
on both I-1185 and I-1240, and approved R-74.
I-502, Marijuana
The Issue: I-502 would make it legal under state law (but not federal law) to possess and sell marijuana under a system of strict regulations. Marijuana producers could not have any financial interest in marijuana retailers and vice versa. Licenses to produce, process or retail marijuana would cost $250 to apply plus $1000 per year per location, with samples regularly submitted to state labs for testing.
Furthermore, marijuana would be taxed at 25% at each level of production and distribution, prior to state and local B&O and sales taxes. At the legally-mandated minimum of two steps of production (producer -> retailer), state taxes on marijuana would be approximately 68%. Total tax, including the state average for local sales taxes, would be over 70%.
I-502 also establishes many alcohol-equivalent rules for marijuana use. For example, marijuana possession would remain illegal for those under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana would be illegal for everyone, open containers in public would be prohibited, etc. The pro-502 website is here. The official anti-502 website, which is pro-legalization, is here.
My Position: I don't fully buy the arguments supporting the drug war, but I also don't buy a lot of the arguments opposing it. My libertarian leanings run up against path dependency, and I remain agnostic on the drug war as a whole.
I am opposed to I-502 because it won't bring any of the benefits of legalization, yet will create a massive new state bureaucracy under the guise of legalization.
My Reasons:
1) I-502 will directly contradict federal law, under which marijuana production, distribution and possession will all remain illegal. If passed, the initiative is likely to be struck down entirely or in part in federal court. (The counterargument is that I-502 allows but does not require violations of federal law, so that it is not pre-empted and will not be struck down. However, I-502 does seem to require violations of federal law by state marijuana regulators, particularly the prohibitions on possession and distribution of marijuana. The feds may also consider it money laundering to accept funds raised from the marijuana tax.)
2) Even if I-502 is not struck down, the threat of federal prosecution for marijuana crimes will prevent the benefits of legalization from being realized. Licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers will have their names, addresses and precise details of their businesses recorded in a state database. Any guesses on how long it takes that database to get into federal hands? Anyone who opens a marijuana business is betting big on that never happening. New producers will be discouraged from entering the market; existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
3) Furthermore, the regulatory system set up by I-502 will place legal marijuana sellers at a substantial disadvantage to illegal sellers. Legal marijuana sales will have a cumulative tax of at least 68%, and possibly more than 100% if the production and distribution chain contains more than two steps. Then there's the significant regulatory burden placed on legal sellers-- the fees they must pay to the government, or to third parties because of government requirements; the restrictions on where they can sell, where and how they can advertise, what other businesses they can be involved in; and all of it with the threat of federal prosecution still hanging over their heads. Again, new producers will be discouraged from entering the market, and existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
4) The existing (illegal) marijuana market is an international one, yet legal marijuana sellers under I-502 will be limited to Washington state, both in who they buy from and who they sell to. With the other disadvantages placed on legal sellers, they will never be able to compete with existing illegal sellers, and those illegal sellers have scant incentive to become legal.
Whatever benefits full legalization might provide, we won't see any of them under I-502. Meanwhile, the state will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up a bureaucracy to regulate a market that will likely fail to materialize.
I will be voting NO on I-502.
I-502, Marijuana
The Issue: I-502 would make it legal under state law (but not federal law) to possess and sell marijuana under a system of strict regulations. Marijuana producers could not have any financial interest in marijuana retailers and vice versa. Licenses to produce, process or retail marijuana would cost $250 to apply plus $1000 per year per location, with samples regularly submitted to state labs for testing.
Furthermore, marijuana would be taxed at 25% at each level of production and distribution, prior to state and local B&O and sales taxes. At the legally-mandated minimum of two steps of production (producer -> retailer), state taxes on marijuana would be approximately 68%. Total tax, including the state average for local sales taxes, would be over 70%.
I-502 also establishes many alcohol-equivalent rules for marijuana use. For example, marijuana possession would remain illegal for those under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana would be illegal for everyone, open containers in public would be prohibited, etc. The pro-502 website is here. The official anti-502 website, which is pro-legalization, is here.
My Position: I don't fully buy the arguments supporting the drug war, but I also don't buy a lot of the arguments opposing it. My libertarian leanings run up against path dependency, and I remain agnostic on the drug war as a whole.
I am opposed to I-502 because it won't bring any of the benefits of legalization, yet will create a massive new state bureaucracy under the guise of legalization.
My Reasons:
1) I-502 will directly contradict federal law, under which marijuana production, distribution and possession will all remain illegal. If passed, the initiative is likely to be struck down entirely or in part in federal court. (The counterargument is that I-502 allows but does not require violations of federal law, so that it is not pre-empted and will not be struck down. However, I-502 does seem to require violations of federal law by state marijuana regulators, particularly the prohibitions on possession and distribution of marijuana. The feds may also consider it money laundering to accept funds raised from the marijuana tax.)
2) Even if I-502 is not struck down, the threat of federal prosecution for marijuana crimes will prevent the benefits of legalization from being realized. Licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers will have their names, addresses and precise details of their businesses recorded in a state database. Any guesses on how long it takes that database to get into federal hands? Anyone who opens a marijuana business is betting big on that never happening. New producers will be discouraged from entering the market; existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
3) Furthermore, the regulatory system set up by I-502 will place legal marijuana sellers at a substantial disadvantage to illegal sellers. Legal marijuana sales will have a cumulative tax of at least 68%, and possibly more than 100% if the production and distribution chain contains more than two steps. Then there's the significant regulatory burden placed on legal sellers-- the fees they must pay to the government, or to third parties because of government requirements; the restrictions on where they can sell, where and how they can advertise, what other businesses they can be involved in; and all of it with the threat of federal prosecution still hanging over their heads. Again, new producers will be discouraged from entering the market, and existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
4) The existing (illegal) marijuana market is an international one, yet legal marijuana sellers under I-502 will be limited to Washington state, both in who they buy from and who they sell to. With the other disadvantages placed on legal sellers, they will never be able to compete with existing illegal sellers, and those illegal sellers have scant incentive to become legal.
Whatever benefits full legalization might provide, we won't see any of them under I-502. Meanwhile, the state will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up a bureaucracy to regulate a market that will likely fail to materialize.
I will be voting NO on I-502.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Approve R-74, Same Sex Marriage
With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes on both I-1185 and I-1240.
R-74, Same Sex Marriage
The Issue: R-74 is a referendum on Senate Bill 6239, which extended the legal term "marriage" to include relationships previously included only under the term "domestic partnership" and restricted the term "domestic partnership" so that it would not overlap the term "marriage." SB-6239 also granted special immunities to clergy and religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize any particular marriage.
SB-6239 was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in February of this year. Opponents gathered enough petition signatures to require a referendum; that referendum is R-74. Approval means the law will be enacted; rejection means it will not be enacted. The pro-approval website is here; the pro-rejection website is here.
My Position: Whether or not to marry and who we marry if we do is one of the most deeply personal choices we can make, and the government has no place in it. Unfortunately, that option isn't on the table.
Current law in Washington has already established same-sex "domestic partnerships" which are legally equivalent to marriage in all but name. R-74 is not about relationships or love or God's will or anything else its supporters and detractors claim. Everything that could happen under R-74 would also happen without it. R-74 is a very narrow question that is entirely linguistic: Should the legal term "marriage" also refer to what are now same-sex domestic partnerships?
Twice now, I've deliberately referred to "marriage" as a legal term, because in this instance, that is all that it is. State law cannot change the popular meaning of a word, only its use in legal terminology. I don't care one way or the other about legal terminology. A rose by any other name...
However, R-74 also grants special protections to religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. This provision gets closer to my ideal marriage policy than any other proposal I've ever seen-- You should be free to marry whoever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. I would prefer if these protections were granted to everyone, not just religious organizations. Even so, R-74 enshrines the right to disagree, and this, I think, is a very important first step towards my ideal.
I will be voting APPROVE on R-74.
R-74, Same Sex Marriage
The Issue: R-74 is a referendum on Senate Bill 6239, which extended the legal term "marriage" to include relationships previously included only under the term "domestic partnership" and restricted the term "domestic partnership" so that it would not overlap the term "marriage." SB-6239 also granted special immunities to clergy and religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize any particular marriage.
SB-6239 was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in February of this year. Opponents gathered enough petition signatures to require a referendum; that referendum is R-74. Approval means the law will be enacted; rejection means it will not be enacted. The pro-approval website is here; the pro-rejection website is here.
My Position: Whether or not to marry and who we marry if we do is one of the most deeply personal choices we can make, and the government has no place in it. Unfortunately, that option isn't on the table.
Current law in Washington has already established same-sex "domestic partnerships" which are legally equivalent to marriage in all but name. R-74 is not about relationships or love or God's will or anything else its supporters and detractors claim. Everything that could happen under R-74 would also happen without it. R-74 is a very narrow question that is entirely linguistic: Should the legal term "marriage" also refer to what are now same-sex domestic partnerships?
Twice now, I've deliberately referred to "marriage" as a legal term, because in this instance, that is all that it is. State law cannot change the popular meaning of a word, only its use in legal terminology. I don't care one way or the other about legal terminology. A rose by any other name...
However, R-74 also grants special protections to religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. This provision gets closer to my ideal marriage policy than any other proposal I've ever seen-- You should be free to marry whoever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. I would prefer if these protections were granted to everyone, not just religious organizations. Even so, R-74 enshrines the right to disagree, and this, I think, is a very important first step towards my ideal.
I will be voting APPROVE on R-74.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Yes on I-1240, Charter Schools
With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. Voting Yes on I-1185 was easy; I-1240 is more difficult.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Yes on I-1185, the Two-Thirds Tax Requirement
The election is upon us! In recent days I have received both the poorly-named, 143-page voters' "pamphlet" with sample ballot as well as my actual ballot. I have until 8pm on Election Day to get it back to the government, so it's time to do my homework. First up is an easy one:
I-1185, the Two-Thirds Tax Requirement
The Issue: Current law in Washington state requires tax increases to be passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature, or by a simple majority in a popular vote. This law has been passed four times by popular initiative, most recently in 2007 and 2010. It was overturned by the legislature upon losing initiative protection in 2010. I-1185 renews the law to prevent it from being overturned in 2013. The pro-1185 website is here; the anti-1185 website is here.
My Position: I wholeheartedly support I-1185, and indeed any law that provides a check on the government's ability to take my money at will. The two-thirds requirement makes it more likely that taxes will only be raised when it truly is necessary.
Counterarguments: There seem to be four main arguments against I-1185:
1) Taxes should be higher, and I-1185 makes it more difficult to raise them as high as they should be, negatively impacting government services. (Rebuttal: No, taxes should not be higher. Important services can be funded by cutting non-important spending. If everything the government is doing is so important that none of it can be cut, then it should be easy to get a two-thirds vote in the legislature or a simple majority popular vote.)
2) I-1185 is unfair because it allows tax cuts & loopholes to be passed with a simple majority, but reversing those cuts & loopholes requires a two-thirds majority. (Rebuttal: This is true, but I have to admit, I'm just fine with a system that's biased towards letting me keep more of my own money.)
3) A two-thirds requirement is undemocratic. (Rebuttal: I-1185 allows tax increases via direct, simply majority popular votes. Nothing could be more democratic than that.)
4) A two-thirds requirement is unconstitutional. (Rebuttal: I would certainly prefer a constitutional amendment that does what I-1185 does, but constitutional amendments must be proposed by the legislature, and wouldn't you know it, they don't seem to like amendments that limit their own power. If an initiative as beneficial as I-1185 actually is unconstitutional, that would be a failure of the state constitution, not the initiative.)
I will be voting YES on I-1185.
I-1185, the Two-Thirds Tax Requirement
The Issue: Current law in Washington state requires tax increases to be passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature, or by a simple majority in a popular vote. This law has been passed four times by popular initiative, most recently in 2007 and 2010. It was overturned by the legislature upon losing initiative protection in 2010. I-1185 renews the law to prevent it from being overturned in 2013. The pro-1185 website is here; the anti-1185 website is here.
My Position: I wholeheartedly support I-1185, and indeed any law that provides a check on the government's ability to take my money at will. The two-thirds requirement makes it more likely that taxes will only be raised when it truly is necessary.
Counterarguments: There seem to be four main arguments against I-1185:
1) Taxes should be higher, and I-1185 makes it more difficult to raise them as high as they should be, negatively impacting government services. (Rebuttal: No, taxes should not be higher. Important services can be funded by cutting non-important spending. If everything the government is doing is so important that none of it can be cut, then it should be easy to get a two-thirds vote in the legislature or a simple majority popular vote.)
2) I-1185 is unfair because it allows tax cuts & loopholes to be passed with a simple majority, but reversing those cuts & loopholes requires a two-thirds majority. (Rebuttal: This is true, but I have to admit, I'm just fine with a system that's biased towards letting me keep more of my own money.)
3) A two-thirds requirement is undemocratic. (Rebuttal: I-1185 allows tax increases via direct, simply majority popular votes. Nothing could be more democratic than that.)
4) A two-thirds requirement is unconstitutional. (Rebuttal: I would certainly prefer a constitutional amendment that does what I-1185 does, but constitutional amendments must be proposed by the legislature, and wouldn't you know it, they don't seem to like amendments that limit their own power. If an initiative as beneficial as I-1185 actually is unconstitutional, that would be a failure of the state constitution, not the initiative.)
I will be voting YES on I-1185.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
