A pair of new reports outline financial consequences if voters approve ballot measures this fall repealing Washington’s capital gains tax and scrapping its cap-and-trade program.
Passing the initiatives will dry up significant streams of revenue the state government is counting on for programs ranging from child care and early learning to electric vehicles and clean energy research.
But the amounts at risk with Initiative 2109 dealing with the capital gains tax, and Initiative 2117 concerning the Climate Commitment Act, differ from forecasts presented to lawmakers in February.
And, in the case of the capital gains tax, it’s billions of dollars less.
That’s according to analyses for each measure prepared by the Office of Financial Management, which is required by state law to write statements of fiscal impacts for initiatives. The statements are posted online and will appear in the voter’s guide for the Nov. 5 election.
OFM’s analysis for Initiative 2124 to make Washington’s long-term care benefit voluntary came out in early July.
Each statement is written in as plain and neutral language as possible. OFM’s examination of Initiative 2109 is just over three pages while Initiative 2117’s spans 15 pages, an indication of how interwoven it is to the state’s operating, capital and transportation budgets.
Initiative 2109
This measure takes aim at the capital gains tax,which lawmakers approved in 2021 and the state Supreme Court upheld in 2022.
It generated about $786 million in 2023, its first year of collections. As of May 15, collections in 2024 totaled $433 million. To put those numbers into perspective, the state’s current two-year operating budget is nearly $72 billion.
Each year, up to $500 million from the tax is deposited into a state account for K-12 schools, colleges, early learning and child care programs. Any tax collections beyond that amount go to an account that helps pay for school construction and renovations.
In its fiscal impact statement, OFM estimates passing the measure will result in a loss of $2.2 billion for the Education Legacy Trust Account over five fiscal years: $424 million in the current year that ends June 30, 2025 and $1.78 billion over the ensuing four years. It will net less than $500 million in each year.
It is a stark contrast from February when a fiscal note provided to lawmakers estimated a loss of $5.6 billion in the same five-year period.
Money in the Education Legacy Trust Account supports K-12 education, expands access to higher education and provides funding for early learning and child care programs, according to the report. The fiscal analysis does not cite any specific program at risk of losing revenue if the measure passes.
Initiative opponents say if the tax goes away it will worsen child care and education funding crises, and put pressure on lawmakers to make up the lost revenue with new taxes.
Backers of the measure, however, say the state collects enough revenue to pay for education and child care without a capital gains tax. And they note it’s a volatile form of revenue, prone to up and down swings, especially during recessions.
In the meantime, the fiscal impact statement projects state agencies will save an estimated $10.1 million over five years as a result of the initiative.
The Department of Revenue, which administers the tax, would save money as it winds down the program. The attorney general’s office anticipates some savings due to less litigation and less time spent advising the Department of Revenue.
Initiative 2117
OFM’s analysis for Initiative 2117 – which repeals the Climate Commitment Act and ends the auction of carbon emission allowances – is lengthy.
That’s because auctions, which began in February 2023, have generated $2.15 billion in revenue to date and lawmakers have spent some in all three of the state government’s budgets, according to the report. For example, $150 million will cover the cost of providing a $200 credit on electricity bills of hundreds of thousands of households by mid-September.
The next scheduled auction is Sept. 4 and would be the last if the initiative passes. Three remaining auctions scheduled in the current fiscal year would be canceled resulting in a projected revenue loss of $758 million through June 30, 2025.
Overall, the state would lose out on $3.8 billion in proceeds from auctions between December, when the measure would take effect, and June 30, 2029.
Initiative 2117 eliminates five accounts created under the Climate Commitment Act and directs the remaining funds to be transferred to two new accounts.
Thirty-seven state agencies have spending authority from Climate Commitment Act funds in the current biennium for programs, projects, and as grants for local governments, community groups, school districts and tribes. The initiative would eliminate the revenue source that pays for these programs.
State lawmakers prepared for this possibility in this year’s legislative session by delaying spending for certain programs until Jan. 1 when the fate of the ballot measure is known.
For each of the various accounts, the fiscal impact statement itemizes “significant activities” that would be eliminated in the current fiscal year and “future impacts” as a result of losing out on money counted on from auctions.
Examples of projects and programs that would see funding reduced or eliminated in the current budget include $42 million for construction of hybrid-electric ferries and electrification of ferry terminals; $29.9 million for public bus and transit facility projects; $5 million in grants for electric boats for federally recognized tribes, tribal enterprises and tribal members, and $1 million for transportation planning for the the 2026 World Cup matches to be played in Seattle.
Looking to the future, the state Department of Transportation would not get money it counted on to cover the cost of allowing those 18 and under to ride for free on state ferries and Amtrak. And funding penciled in for building new hybrid-electric ferries would not be realized.
Slimming or eliminating programs also means jobs will be cut. Overall, 318 full-time positions spread through more than a dozen agencies face elimination, per the report.
— By Jerry Cornfield, Washington State Standard
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on Facebook and X.
I can better use the savings than the government can redistribute it, probably the most regressive tax we have is the carbon tax, how to screw the little people raise the cost of their energy by 25%.. city taxes are goin up sounds like fire taxes gone cost a additional grand a year. The state wants to rais taxes the federal government that is currently in charge wants to raise taxes. Those on the lower end of pay scale are getting screwed by the government that claims to champions us. Facts of life here in Washington. Government for bigger government and the biggest cost is of those who can least afford it. And I know you hate to hear it but in this state the Democrat party that has lead to our disparities in taxation.
It is not the Democrats who want tax disparities. It is the Republicans who just want the tax breaks for the rich. The most regressive tax in our state is the sales tax, which everyone has to pay no matter how much money they have, but the wealthy REPUBLICAN hedge fund manager Brian Heywood didn’t target that one in Initiative 2109. Instead he targeted the capital gains tax which will give him a huge tax break. The capital gains tax only affects a small number of people with lots of stocks and bonds above a certain threshold (meaning wealthier people), and does not affect most of us. It exempts real estate. This tax tries to even out the state’s taxation, making the wealthy pay their fair share and should not be repealed. Vote No on 2109.
Arlene, I’m sorry that is simply not true. I hate to remind you but the Republicans don’t come to Seattle (The richest people on the planet) for the big $$$&. The Democrats (Biden was just here) go to all the billionaires here. I can read a list but let’s start with Bill & Melinda Gates, Schwartz, McCaw..Jeff Bezos I can go on and on. That Republicans and the rich ship sailed long ago and it’s been the Democrats for years. Sales tax (that supposedly every one shares). Also has a percentage rate on top of the tax that ONLY businesses pay. So small business is charged a banking fee and they have to collect the money from people. The division you suggest never helps a discussion. We are all suffering from taxes. Bottom line if more democrats get in we suffer more. I.e exactly what has been happening.
Well the Senate Republicans just blocked the Child Tax Credit which would have helped 16 million children living in poverty. And Republicans want to extend the Trump tax cut where half the benefits would go to the top 5% of taxpayers, while Democrats want to only keep the tax cuts for the middle and lower class. Republican priorities are skewed to the wealthy, so I will not stop pointing that out because average income people should realize who has their interests at heart–the Democrats.
Based on “a couple of reports?” What?? This sounds like fear tactics. This state doesn’t handles the money it gets now..what makes us believe they can handle more? I don’t support any division of our state government regarding any funding because they never decrease something that doesn’t work. I’m not sure they do a look back to see if anything has worked. No more taxes and no more green UNTRACKABLE funding. We need better auditors. Or any auditors that look where the funds are going. Almost daily we read about monies that were “lost.” African computer hackers..monies supposedly put in wrong accounts..etc etc
Jim, something we can agree on..
There is nothing in the 2117 initiative to repeal the cap and trade program that will require oil companies to reduce gas prices. The oil companies will just pocket the money and taxpayers will have to pay more to make up the lost revenue to pay for mitigating and adapting to climate change such as for wildfire reduction programs and replacing ferries. Climate change is here and it will cost us dearly., including rising insurance rates on homes from storm and wildfire damage. We can’t let the oil companies pocket their excessive profits while we pay all the costs of dealing with it. The way to bring down gas prices is to reduce demand, so that means driving less, taking mass transit when possible, walking, riding a bike, and making your next car an EV. I also support giving rebates to lower income folks to help with their energy costs. Vote no on 2117.
If the guy who created the initiative wanted to lower gas prices, the initiative would have lowered the gasoline tax.
He could have had the initiative lower gas taxes, but he didn’t. He doesn’t seem to want lower gas prices. He seems to just want lower oil company expenses.
Lower expenses means higher profits.
The question is, what could increasing oil company profits have to do with running a hedge fund?
Mr. Maxwell – we have exchanges about this general topic before. I will only focus on CCA for now. The CCA is a political slush fund that is totally unrelated to transportation (it is forbidden in the text of the CCA) and other separately funded budget items (we have a fully-funded transportation budget). The CCA lacks any transparency as to the outcomes and discretion with which it is spent. I do a great deal of carbon and mandate related work and can assure you and readers that California and Quebec (who share a carbon and mandate market) are not going to let Washington’s CCA market anywhere near theirs. Why? Lack of transparency and accountability and the CCA is not revenue neural, but a slush fund to feed to political desires of the political masters and their political allies who want access to CCA funds. The CCA needs to go away and be revisited in a form that can harmonize with the California/Quebec market. Further, you obviously understand energy markets.
Mr Pierce,
I agree. We need to be able to tweak and fix the cap and invest. You are correct that the current effort to integrate with California will force better discipline for Washington’s cap and invest. We’re new to this. Still learning.
That’s why you need to vote no. A yes vote denies us a chance to get this right. A yes vote commits us to decades more of global warming pollution. I believe you agree with me that we have to stop that global warming pollution as soon as we can. I know that you have been working on doing that yourself. And I thank you for your decarbonizing work.
There is no effort to integrate with California. CARB will not permit the discussions until the CCA is dead and recreated in a rational form. A vote Yes is the rational thing and will force market-oriented constraints on the Washington system rather than bald, poorly thought out, and destructive political ambitions.
Though Mr. Pierce claims otherwise, there is an effort to link Washington’s Cap and Invest with the California/Quebec market. It is a shame that Mr. Pierce is trying to dismiss this effort. https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/july-2024/linkage-update-laying-the-groundwork-for-connecting-carbon-markets
The “guy” didn’t create a multisubject initiative that could be shot down.
You are correct. Faced with a choice of either cutting gasoline prices or cutting oil company costs, he chose to cut oil company costs. On other issues he cut taxes, but not for gas prices. I’m sure he has his reasons.
No you don’t; but he was well advised about how to draft and structure his initiatives. He doesn’t control costs or prices anymore than you or I do (remember the losses oil producers offered several years ago?). Raising oil prices helps who? BTW, the CCA is presently structured and operated, there aren’t enough credits to satisfy the obligors’ mandated requirements. Well thought out? Hardly.
Competition and the free market system will result in tax savings from repeal of cap and trade being passed onto the consumer. The increase in gasoline prices caused by this government tax is extremely regressive, impacting most younger families and low/middle income citizens. Vote for initiative 2117. It’s time citizens send signal to government that we are tired of them camouflaging their increase taxation in measures like cap and trade. The same analysis applies to long term care and hopefully the initiative dealing with this will pass as well, allowing citizens to opt out of this payroll tax.
No there is nothing in this initiative that will force the oil companies to lower gas prices. It will just ensure that oil companies get to pocket the money. If the hedge fund guy had wanted to lower gas prices he would have thought of some other initiative. Instead rich people like him will pocket the profits from their oil and gas investments. Just like all of the Republican trickle down ideas for the economy… trickle down to the average person doesn’t work. That’s why the rich keep getting richer and richer and inequality is skyrocketing.
Arlene is correct. And it’s very confusing, because the hedge fund guy who paid for this initiative says it will lower gas prices. How could he say something that is not true? Very confusing.
Part of the confusion is that some people think that businesses work on cost-plus pricing. Cost-plus pricing is you figure out your costs and add something like 7% for profit. As your costs go down, there is no increase in your profits. You stay at 7%.
You know what happened as COVID wound down: Oil company profits skyrocketed. How come? The answer is that they don’t price by cost-plus. They price by supply and demand. The more demand, the higher the prices. You see that every summer: as road trips increase demand, gas prices go up. Same deal with supply: when the Northwest refineries recently needed repairs, supply went down and gas prices went up.
This initiative affects oil company costs. It does not change your demand or their supply.
That’s not entirely true: by canceling EV charging stations, the initiative keeps demand for gasoline high, and keeps prices high.
Again Mr. Maxwell, you don’t understand energy markets. In addition, is the reference to “the hedge fund guy” really necessary? D you feel the same about Tom Steyer, a hedge fund guy, who made his billions buying and selling East Kalimantan high sulfur coal?
Keep in mind, when it comes to taxes and liberal/ progressive democrats, more is never enough. Always a seemingly good cause , always failed results and especially when it comes to social/ environmental causes. One just gets worse no matter how much money is thrown at it and the other is simply a money grab at the alter of what is essentially non issue. Never any accountability for the failures.
Nice to hear about accountability. Will the hedge fund guy send us all checks if the gas prices don’t go down?
Will you?
Do I look like a hedge fund guy to you?
What does a hedge fund guy look like? I represent several involved in renewables, et al. They are all different. I never viewed hedge fund associations as an insult.
Keep in mind when it comes to Republican tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy more is never enough. That is why the rich get richer and the regular folks will have to pay for things like higher insurance costs on their homes because storms and fires from climate change are putting insurance companies in the red. Regular folks will have to also pay higher health insurance premiums because climate change is increasing risks from heat and smoke and tropical diseases moving north. Climate change will be so costly to adapt to but Republicans only think of putting money in the pocket of the wealthy. They are failing our children and grandchildren even as they claim they are all about the family. They most certainly are not. I care about the children and what they are going to face as they grow. It won’t be a habitable world if everyone doesn’t pitch in and help reduce methane and carbon dioxide emissions. As someone recently told me, if climate isn’t the number 1 priority, there won’t be any other priorities to worry about.
The folks who comment on these Initiatives are mising a big picture in our state.. The revenue that these tax increases produced has been destined for more state employees. The current governor and legislature have broken the all time record for state employee hiriing. I fear that local governments are following this trend as well. When do we as citizens declare that we have reached the saturation point and want to rduce the number of state end some local empoyment levels. The time for responsible governing is needed to lesson the tax burden on families who are having a difficult time meetting their monthly expenses.
The current Capitol gains tax is unconstitutional. Under Article VII of the Washington Constitution, all taxes must be uniform within the same class of property, and property includes “everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership”. The Washington State Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a person’s income is considered property, and any taxes on income must conform to the uniform 1% limit.
The IRS has forever ruled income from capitol gains stock sales are “income” for purposes of the federal income tax laws. In 2021 Democrats in the Legislature passed a 7% Capitol gains tax. The State Supreme Court in 2023 ruled 7-2 that it was not an income tax but rather a excise tax and therefore constitutional under state law. The Dissent said: “A tax is determined by its incidents, not by its legislative label. The structure
of the capital gains tax shows that it is a tax on income resulting from certain
transactions—not a tax on a transaction per se. Therefore, the tax is an income tax,
not an excise tax.”
Initiative Measure No. 2111 seeks to remedy the bizzare majority decision.
The measure would prohibit the state, counties, cities, and other local jurisdictions from imposing or collecting income taxes, defined as having the same meaning as “gross income” in the Internal Revenue Code.
Petroleum product prices dictate a lot of the cost of virtually everything at present. When we switch to to all electric power, electricity will pretty much dictate a lot of the cost of virtually everything else. Certain laws of Economics are unbreakable. That’s probably why it’s often called the dismal science. The cap and trade laws are designed to make petroleum and natural gas look expensive and electricity look cheap. The truth is both are terribly expensive now and will probably get worse as climate change becomes more dire and human population continues to multiply pretty much out of control. I don’t know the exact science but I suspect world population has at least doubled since I was born almost 80 years ago. I don’t think we will be able to science our way out of what inevitably will happen to the human race. So, why do we continue to heavily tax things we all must have like petroleum and electricity so the rich can just get richer? We are smart enough to limit taxation on food somewhat but nothing else. Clean water gets more expensive every day in the form of taxes. Something that should be virtually free, (like air) and we turn it into an expensive commodity. There are no limits to human stupidity and gullibility.
Did a little quick research last night and found out that human population actually tripled since the ’50s rather than doubling as I guessed. From 1950 the World went from about 2.5 billion to about 8 billion at present and is predicted to top out at around 10.5 billion or so in the next few decades. The rate of growth has slowed somewhat causing the top out prediction. As usual we are talking about possible solutions to what isn’t really causing the problem. Just Too many people, using too much energy, is really causing climate change and I just have to wonder how the type of energy used is really going to solve the too many people problem? This is sort of like hoping DADU’s on every inch of unused city housing space will solve the “affordable” middle housing problem but not considering how this added tiny housing will impact our storm sewer, waste sewer and water problems that already aren’t being solved due to guess what? Just too Damn many people. But, I digress . . . . . .
It’s amazing, Clint. And what each person can do to things has changed. In 1960, 20% of households owned no vehicles and 60% owned only one. Now 20% own 3 or more and 40% own 2.
Even with fewer people and fewer machines per person, we needed to learn how to avoid overwhelming our natural systems to avoid repeats of the dust bowl and the burning Cuyahuga.
Needing to learn to do things differently goes double now. Or triple! Or more!
This map is a great summary of the benefits of the Climate Commitment Act that will directly help individuals and families. https://riskofrepeal.cleanprosperousinstitute.org/
Take a look! You may be surprised.
As someone who grew up in central WA, I’m delighted to see the help the CCA funding is providing help for agriculture and transportation in the Yakima Valley.
I’ll be voting NO on I 2117 and hope you will too!
Initiative 2117: The Climate Commitment Act has cost the consumer over $2B in added gas & heating oil prices. Jay Inslee told us we would not experience higher gas prices. He promised they would be lower. False! It has cost us 43 to 50 cents per gallon more to fuel our vehicles. Now they are saying prices went up more than expected but it’s worth it because it will reduce CO2 emissions. How are they really spending the money? The state said they would target grants to poorer communities. False. Actually the money is benefiting government and it does not prioritize decarbonization. This is not about clean air or carbonization. Did you know that Washington is paying twice as much as California for the cost of decarbonization? The rich guy everyone seems to hate has spent more of his time and money on this campaign than he could ever hope to save. He is a good guy on a mission to cut the size and scope of government. #1 .50 cents per gallon more on the price of gasoline. #2 THE WINDFALL of $2B has not been allocated to reducing carbon and the programs are NOT reducing CO2 emissions.
How would you prove that you or I have ever paid anything into that $2B?
It looks to me that all of that was paid by global warming polluters.
Businesses pricing is based on supply and demand. That $2B is putting in EV chargers that increase how many people buy EV’s. EV buyers don’t buy gasoline. That reduces demand. Reduced demand lowers prices for the rest of us. More EV chargers means lower gas prices.
Mr. Maxwell – refining margins are quite low. Oil pricing is transparent – at least a half-dozen indices to confirm daily, future and past pricing from all resources – globally. As for EVs, $42bb distributed by the Feds and 7-8 installations? The entire US EV market has been skewed by incentives for short-lived vehicles that have substantially higher CI than most internal combustion vehicles in their manufacture. All that stimulus has led to horrible mercantilist exploitation and trading in Africa (mostly by China). As you say – supply and demand, except the govt mandated demand side is wagging the supply side tail.
You didn’t see the enormous oil company profits last year? Where do you think those come from?
You haven’t seen the regular headlines about higher prices in the summer because road trips raise demand? How do you think that works?
Of course you don’t provide any evidence for your claims. The program only began on Jan. 1, 2023. It is just getting started. Reducing carbon emissions is not something that happens with the snap of the fingers. As Nancy Johnson showed with her link, there has been plenty of projects set up that will reduce emissions. The Climate Committment Act is funding EV chargers, Electrification programs to provide subsidies for lower income homeowners to get heat pumps and inductions stoves, and just today there was a Seattle Times article about a new program to provide state rebates (there are federal rebates too) for lower income families to buy EV automobiles. It will cost much more for renters (through rising rents) and homeowners to pay for the increased insurance costs that are already occurring because insurance companies everywhere are raising rates or exiting the market when fires and floods and storms make it too unprofitable to operate at current rate levels. You have to look at the whole picture of the costs of climate change. It will really break families to deal with all the losses coming at us if we don’t do something fast. Repealing the Climate Committment Act will make things worse. And you don’t want kids and grandkids dealing with the terrible future we will give them if we don’t act.
All that matters is that we walk around in a circle, strutting our stuff, and smugly, sanctimoniously shout “we are saving the planet”
Politicians LOVE the initiative…great photo-ops with bigger and more govt consuming YOUR $$$$$$$ … and the sheep bend over and beg ‘thank you Sir, may I have another’
…just sayin’
I have made several comments on this string and all have been deleted. I am one of the country’s leading energy attorneys – renewables and other – and it seems my comments aren’t being published as they don’t conform with the apparent narrative. Publisher – care to comment?
Hi John — you made several comments over the space of an hour while I was away from my computer. I just published them all. Even I need to take a break occasionally from comment moderation. — Teresa
I’m still a fan of MEN, but I was a much bigger fan of MEN when there wasn’t moderation and comments were posted in real time. Rather than moderating I advocate for a return to simply expelling those whose comments do not follow MEN’s rules.
Hi Ron — you and I have had this conversation so I will repeat my thinking here. With our readership growth comes a large number of inappropriate comments that violate our standards, and it isn’t possible to have comments posted without moderation first.
Thank you for moderating the comments, Teresa. In this speak before you think/civility-waning time I’m sure it’s extremely time consuming, as well as depressing to wade through all the verbal sludge.
In spite of rumors otherwise, Washington State is now working on improving our Cap and Invest to integrate with California See https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/july-2024/linkage-update-laying-the-groundwork-for-connecting-carbon-markets
If I-2117 passes, that’s all sunk and we can’t restart. Oregon will get ahead of us.
Not rumors. I have had direct dialogue with CARB on this matter. Ecology’s press releases are A__ covering that reflect poor understanding and advance planning on the subject matter. There is no reconciling or harmonizing with California/Quebec with the CCA in its present form.
With respect to Arlene’s comment, I know more about the subject matter than either she or Mr. Maxwell. I have renewables and other energy for 30+ year. as well as on carbon abatement for almost as long, and originated carbon abatement programs with many of the biggest local and national firms, and still do. The CCA was poorly conceived and has been poorly executed and will have to go away and come back as something that can harmonize with California’s and Quebec’s markets. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) will not permit Washington access to its well-considered and transparent market, despite Ecology’s A__ covering happy talk, until the is reincarnated as something transparent, accountable, and not a political slush fund. BTW, why all the talk about transportation de-funding when the CCA is explicitly not to be used to fund transportation and a fully-funded transportation bill was passed? Stoking a bit of fear for the cause maybe?
John, this discussion is engaging, and I value your insight and expertise. I intend to vote in favor of Initiative 2117. However, I am concerned about a legislative intent to create a transparent and accountable bill is possible, rather than a political slush fund. I would argue that slush funds from the governor and legislative branch are business as usual for the Washington state government.
We shouldn’t settle for Business as Usual and lies. It can be done and California (after a few trials and errors over a decade or more) refined a good system to replicate (which is what Inslee said was done but wasn’t). The funds should be used to decrease emissions, not fund partisan groups, try to buy off tribes, and keep a particular party in place. Transparency, accountability, et al. Repeat. Why should we accept less.
Sounds great. The only problem is that yes on 2117 means the CCA can’t come back. 2117 would put an end to any cap and invest program.
You would like something better. Me too. Better is better. But as a wise man once said, “You can’t always get what you want.”
Yes on 2117 means we can’t get anything better.
2117 begins: All state agencies are prohibited from implementing any type of carbon tax credit trading, also known as “cap and trade” or “cap and tax” scheme…” which means there could never be another “reincarnated” law. This is why I feel you have a hidden agenda. Your comments don’t add up. And I If you are such an expert, Mr. Pierce, why are you using such vague and dismissive language like “slush fund.” I really would expect more from an expert that doesn’t have a hidden agenda. And just because you claim to “have talked to” CARB does not make it real. CARB is a large organization with a board of 16 members. The CARB would not have issued a joint statement with Washington if what you say is true. The CCA also has funded projects in clean transportation, so if that was not allowed as you claim, it would not have happened: https://climate.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/How%20the%20CCA%20invests%20in%20Washington%20March%202024.pdf. I don’t know what your agenda is, but there can be many legal professionals on both sides of an issue depending on who their clients are and what their political connections are. What I can say is that you definitely are not working to make this law better, so in my eyes your opinions are pretty biased against it and suspect.
Yours is just an ad hominin attack; I haven’t questioned your motives, integrity or character. I am against the CCA because it is unaccountable, not transparent and is, in-fact, a slush fund. I agree with cap and trade when it is structured correctly, but the CCA is not. The CCA is a sham and can only be improved in a re-write which can happen in the future. It wouldn’t be hard, simply copy what California and Quebec have modeled. Perhaps the publisher should sponsor a public forum on the matter.
You claimed to know more about this than myself yet you didn’t seem to realize that initiative 2117 would not allow the rewrite of the law or allow any other cap and trade law to take its place. That does not show expertise. And talking about all the good programs that the CCA is funding as a mere slush fund also does not show expertise. Whether it’s willful ignorance or hidden agenda I don’t know but if you really do support cap and trade you would cone out strongly against 2117 which would ban it in all its forms. My motives are very simple… I fear for the children and grandchildren including my own. I fear for the animals as well. I am sad for the wonderful forests of Washington that will burn at a greater rate taking many people’s homes as well. I fear for the stable economy that we have now being overtaxed by climate disasters that will raise insurance costs… how will people afford homes? We can’t delay. We have to get things done as best we can.
Donald Williams, out of all the above remarks yours is the smartest. It’s all about separating our money from the very people that are elected into office. Government never does a look back to see if a department idea or job etc worked. Never. It just keeps growing. Our government has people working there that I doubt they know their goal. It is way overgrown, instead of taking people from departments that have failed they hire more people. Years ago we had common sense, and we didn’t have a huge problem with disposable plastic bottles, diapers, well everything. That helped the planet. Yes, they had one car. However, they only needed one car as we only needed one person who was the bread winner. Now, we need both parents (if your lucky enough to have 2 parents) to support one family. Now this would take MORE of that family’s money. Reminds me of the 3 companies Obama started for the green movement in Seattle area. All have failed. We spent millions. Were those electric, windmill? Can’t remember. When you vote green..you have no real idea where that money goes, if it worked, when it doesn’t. Throwing away cash..waiting for those Nigerians online??
Arlene – I will give you that you are adept at personal attacks. I know the CCA quite well. The CCA can be replaced but after a term of years (if that time prohibition is even enforceable – I doubt that it is and it will be challenged). The subject can indeed be revisited and in a better way; as I said – simply copy California’s market. No hard, it just requires politicians (as Ms. Trevino alludes to) to separate themselves from the discretionary and politically motivated spending. BTW – I do a great deal of work in Asia – none of what Washington is trying to achieve (spending based on no metrics, just political aspirations) will overcome what China and India are doing in terms of building new coal, oil and gas units. Again, perhaps the publisher should consider a public forum on the subject.
The first section of 2117 says “All state agencies are prohibited from implementing ANY type of carbon tax credit trading, also known as “cap and trade” or “cap and tax” scheme, INCLUDING the climate commitment act previously codified as chapter 70A.65 RCW. ” It doesn’t say just the climate commitment act. It says: “prohibited from implementing ANY type of carbon tax credit trading.” ANY means any new law you think would be better. This is why I don’t think your expertise can be trusted because 2117 isn’t very long. This is in the first sentence in Section 1. You are a lawyer. Haven’t you read 2117?
I have and as I said before, I don’t think that that prohibition will stand up if challenged. I have given such advice. You can’t outlaw legislation prospectively.
Folks, after 60 comments and lots of opinions exchanged, it’s time to close this thread.
Teresa
Friends – who can spend our money more wisely? Us? Or the State of Washington?
I have to wonder if this game of trying to make one energy source look more expensive by adding a carbon tax and then giving that money out to electricity interests (from subsidizing electric car purchase to low income electric energy rebates) is really accomplishing anything. When I see two or three coal and/or oil trains a day offshoring our carbon footprint, I’m skeptical. I’m a firm no on getting rid of the Billionaire tax because it has a bogus premise and really adversely impacts maybe less than 20 or so people. That Initiative is just ultra rich folks protecting their extreme wealth and I could care less about that. They will be fine either way it goes. I’m a no on L.T. care because it is largely a feel good symbolic non-fix to a major problem and could result in more extreme payroll taxation later on to make it even questionable to keep it. The payout doesn’t even begin to keep pace with the likely inflation making it less and less useful over time. I tend to agree with Mr. Pierce on Cap and Trade, though, as it seems like kind of the right idea but being done wrong. Anyway, Mother Nature will eventually handle the too many people problem – root cause of our climate problems.
Thanks. The long-term care law is just foolish; too small an amount to be in any way consequential, but politicians can take credit for it. The capital gains tax should be unconstitutional on its face as it conflicts with the express language of the State’s constitution; the State will spend it before they have it (via bond issuances, et al) and argue that they have committed the State so it has to be maintained. Further, it has already led to many of the most impacted to leave the State (Bezos and others). The CCA, I have been clear on that. BTW, the CCA doesn’t necessarily benefit electrical interests as described – PSE and Avista – as there aren’t enough credits for them to satisfy their obligations under the CCA (again, by poor design). EV advocates – maybe; but the Feds and the State have so manipulated the EV demand side and the charger supply that the market is buggered up (Fisker gone, Rivan on fumes, Tesla makes most of its income from being a major participant in California’s carbon market). Further, there isn’t enough electric power to execute on a poorly considered plan. Doubt it, look at yesterday’s Seattle Times article which details Inslee’s sought after ignorance (not wanting to have studies done on the impacts of data center power).
John Pierce is correct. The long-term care law is useless but it will create more government jobs, increased spending and ultimately will add to our debt as our big spending legislature expands eligibility and increases payouts to buy votes. If left to stand this will become a huge agency with burgeoning deficit spending. We better stop it now before it is too late. Also, the capital gains tax is unconstitutional. All the arguments we hear from the left regarding the US Supreme Court actually do apply to Washington’s Court.
John and Scott,
You’re both right about the long term care law. Useless and it has already created more government jobs and oversight of eligibility to receive the maximum $36,500 lifetime benefit, which is a pittance compared to the actual cost of long term care. It creates excessive governmental expenses and minimal benefit to those eligible. Here is my comment on a thread about the WA Cares tax:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/07/making-was-long-term-care-program-optional-will-create-costs-for-state/#comment-529906