Editor:
How do we sort out fact from all the fiction in the Voter’s Pamphlet?
Looking at sponsors can tell us a lot; that’s the part I pay most attention to. Notice that all four state initiatives are primarily sponsored by hedge fund millionaire Brian Heywood. Do we really believe that he is spending millions to promote these initiatives because he is worried about us? Or would the initiatives benefit him?
Let’s start with I-2117. Who benefits from repealing a carbon tax on big polluters? It would not guarantee lower gas prices. Instead it would protect profits for big polluters like those the Initiative sponsor invests in. Sponsors for No on 2117 include over 500 social and environmental justice groups, Tribes, labor organizations, medical professionals and firefighters. What’s in it for them with a No vote? Healthier lives for all.
And then there is Initiative 2109, the most obvious example of a millionaire protecting his own wealth. It protects the wealthiest people from paying capital gains taxes. Protecting his profits comes at what cost to the rest of us? It would mean major cuts to our schools from pre-K through college.
What about the other two bad initiatives, 2066 and 2124? Taking away incentives for clean energy with 2066 only benefits the dirty energy providers. If Initiative 2124 passes, we would all pay the price when we face the need for long-term care.
Vote NO on all four.
Marjie Fields
Edmonds
Agreed, no on all of these. Furthermore, enough with these ballot measures that are clearly intended to override popular policies by wording these things so confusingly that many people don’t even really know what they are saying yes or no to.
Good point. We elect people so they have the time to figure things out and talk them over. The Climate Commitment Act is a good example of that. Our elected representatives talked it over for five years.
VOTE YES PAY less!
So much effort on the Vote No kind of makes one want to vote Yes…
…just sayin
That’s the most moronic thing I’ve heard all week. Its the equivalent of a child not wanting to clean their room because their parent told them they should.
Vote no on all four of the billionaire’s initiatives. All of these initiatives utilized paid signature gatherers. Washington’s only way to possibly restore the salmon runs is by funding from the Climate Commitment Act, which would be destroyed by 2117.
Vote yes, and we then regress.
Do you have the same complaint with other millionaires/billionaires funding initiatives – Hanover, Gates, Ballmer, et al? If not, why not? What does it matter that Heywood funded these? Good on him. Better than having Hanover funding initiatives that he won’t be impacted by (Seattle cap gains taxes); he lives in the Highlands and would be outside the reach of such taxes. Vote yes on the entire slate!
Point of fact here – the capital gains tax is for all of WA not just Seattle.
I spend a ton of money supporting the system of three branches of state government. I vote for their members to enact, execute and adjudicate laws on my behalf. For me it makes no sense to have people, who I have not elected, decide to shortcut through initiatives the system of government that is in place. Initiatives are fine for generating public support. They are not a way to legislate.
Nor, Don I am just sayin’, is casting a vote only to be contrary, acting very responsibly.
The initiative process is in-fact the creation of the first go round of Progressivism (T Roosevelt, et al). It is a very valid tool against the one-party state apparatchiks we have to suffer under.
Vote yes, pay less!
The initiatives are simplistic and the wrong way to make public policy. They provide simple solutions to complex problems that need to be crafted in the legislative process and not put forward by one of the “elites” only trying to help themselves. Just vote NO to all of these.
Our one-party “elites” aren’t capable of complex solutions, only demands for more and more funds (when they have never had so much). Initiatives provide a citizens’ response to over-reach.
Those gathering the petition signatures were paid by Heywood.
As have all the liberal progressive initiatives – not by Heywood, by others. Any that is meaningful how?
I would ask Ms. Fields, what prompted the hundreds of thousands of citizens who freely, with no pressure from anyone, much less this big bad millionaire, to reach out and freely sign the petitions? That is, to put this on a ballot to allow all citizens to make a personal decision to vote for or against it?
So, these initiatives are only on the ballot because the hundreds of thousands of citizens who read the petition and signed it willingly, were somehow dupped by a millionaire?
Most, if not all of these initiatives will be passed, based on the high rate of Washington state citizens who freely signed the petitions to put them on the ballot. Sorry.
If one disagrees with the initiatives, that does not mean that those who approve of them were manipulated, stupid, ignorant, or simply not capable determining for themselves what is best.
A lot of what prompted them to sign is misleading, aggressive (paid) signature gatherers AND slogans like vote yes, pay less which sound great but don’t tell you WHO pays less. Hint: it’s not very many and probably no one in this comment section.
It is important that we have the option for Initiatives; however when someone with lots of money pays people to sign initiatives, it undermines the entire process. It becomes a way that the wealthy can continue to use up our country’s resources, which should be for all of us. As noted above, our representatives worked for several years to finally approve the Climate Commitment Act, and it has been working, so in order to keep addressing so many of our current problems, we must “VOTE NO on INITIATIVE 2117”
Two good reasons why the initiative process is the law of the land in the state of Washington:
Checks Government Power: It provides a way for citizens to bypass the legislature if they feel their representatives are not addressing certain issues.
Promotes Innovation: Citizens can introduce new ideas and solutions that might not be considered by traditional legislative bodies.
Regardless of one’s stance on any specific initiative, suggesting that those who sign it have been manipulated, compensated, or are simply unintelligent does not constitute a strong argument.
We seem to be a nation full of Simpletons who just love to be controlled and dominated by self serving rich people. I managed to become debt free in life because my mother taught me to always do what rich people do and pay myself first. Take care of “Numero Uno” first, then you might have some money left to help others. Heywood didn’t pay for all those signatures to save you, he paid for them to stop the very fairly applied property gains tax which is how people like him get paid big bucks while avoiding high taxation. Does anyone out there really think gas prices are immediately going to go down 50 cents a gallon if 2117 passes? Once they know people will pay it, they will figure out a way to charge it. As CMP Vivian Olson pointed out last night, our already broke city stands to lose over $2M if 2117 actually passes. Maybe you want to keep paying the Fat Cat’s share of taxes but I don’t. Vote NO on these ill thought out “fools gold” Initiatives.
Brian’s point is valid and, in the past, has provided new ideas for how we govern. It is interesting to note that Tim Eyman worked on several initiatives. I 747 at its core was to limit what local governments could do to increase taxes without a vote of the people. I think the prior limit was 6% without a vote. I747 was passed by a 58/42% but later found to be unconstitutional. The legislature passed a bill to impose the 1% limit and did so with 85%. Doubtful those same legislators voted that way for the original I747. In this case the citizens had a new inovative idea and using the imitative process helped the legislature make the change.
The statement made above, “when someone with lots of money pays people to sign initiatives” is simply not accurate. Allow me to correct it to make the statement accurate: “when someone pays people to offer others the option to sign or not to sign a petition… in order to put an issue on the ballot” No one pays anyone to sign a petition. Nor does anyone pay anyone to vote for an initiative that has attained the required number of voter signatures to put it on the ballot.
How does giving the citizens a way to put an issue before the people with the requirement that a valid number of the voting population must approve putting it on the ballot, and then it will only be approved into law if a simple majority of state voters approve it, “undermine the entire process”?
In fact, it promotes the process of democracy. No one is forced to sign the petition nor vote a certain way if it achieves the legal requirements to put it on the ballot.
Marjie,
I disagree with voting against Initiative 2024. WA Cares long term care program should be eliminated. Voting yes on 2024 would be a step in that direction.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/07/making-was-long-term-care-program-optional-will-create-costs-for-state/
Excerpts:
“WA Cares applies a 0.58% tax on Washington workers’ paychecks.”
“Beginning in July 2026, those who qualify can access a $36,500 lifetime benefit”
In-home and facility long term care are both expensive. The “lifetime benefit of 36,500” would provide care for only a few months.
“Opponents say too many people are required to pay the tax who may never use the full benefit or even qualify for it.” Also, if the “worker” moves out of state, his contribution does not move with him.
Funds contributed to the program have been used “mostly for adding staff at two state agencies to handle increased workload”
The cost of “adding staff” to run the program is excessive and dramatically reduces funds put towards the “$36,500 lifetime benefit.” The 0.58% tax pays the salaries of the additional staff.
Please read my and others’ comments to the above article:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/07/making-was-long-term-care-program-optional-will-create-costs-for-state/#comment-529906
I appreciate your input on Initiatives 2117, 2109, and 2066. Please vote FOR Initiative 2024 based on this information about the poorly conceived WA Cares.
Joan is correct. I am happy to see 2024. 36,000. is nothing when you are talking about in home or in a retirement facility. Joan do you know if the 36 grand would be considered income and then taxed again?? Thank You.
Joan, I agree with your criticisms of the law but disagree with killing it with 2024 being the right approach to solving the problems. The right approach would be to give the legislature time to fix the things that are wrong with the law by getting down the cost of administering it and increasing the eventual pay out as much as possible.
I’ve had to manage the financial situation of two people (my mother and then my wife) who died from two different types of Dementia. Moms was long term and my wife’s the more rapid and body crippling type in nature. Even with my mother having managed her finances well and my wife having three years of Long Term Care Insurance this was a most difficult task in both cases. In my wife’s case the insurance covered one third of her expenses and the rest took both of our incomes for three years. My mom’s took all but $180K of her estate. This law is an attempt to make people take some responsibility for their own long term care needs and it should not be discarded by this ill thought out initiative promoted by a self serving rich person. Millions of our citizens are unprepared for any sort of long term care situation they will face eventually.
Clinton,
Would a “$36,500 lifetime benefit” (for those who “qualify” likely by income, as with reduced property taxes for qualifying seniors) have significantly helped your situation?
WA Cares is not “an attempt to make people take some responsibility for their own long term care needs” as you suggest. It’s a tax on “workers,” not on retired seniors, that a small portion of the population will benefit from.
The bureaucracy required to manage WA Cares is not worth the meager lifetime benefit that a few will obtain after jumping through the state’s bureaucratic hoops to receive it. $36,500 is far less than what ONE staff member hired to manage the program would receive in pay and benefits. The staffing costs will continue to far exceed the amount of the eventual payment of benefits.
Joan, In my mother’s case it would have paid for about 10 months of her care in her adult family home and her Estate would have been richer by about that amount when she passed. In my wife’s case it would have covered about six months worth of her care in an adult family home. If she had lived six more months, we would have maxed out her long term care insurance that covered one third of our total costs. So we would have had six more months of insurance help with the new law. With dementia care, every little bit of financial resource helps. So the answer to your question is a resounding YES in both my cases, and you and other really smart people are being duped here by this self serving rich guy on this and the other Initiatives that he has bankrolled. It will be a shame if any of them passes.
A $36k benefit may mean a lot to many working class people who live paycheck to paycheck and will rely on their social security benefit in retirement. Many people said the same thing about the Wash Paid Leave tax, yet I know several people who have been injured outside of work, had to take time off work to heal and were able to make ends meet because of the Wash Paid Leave benefit. I’m not sure what you are basing your statement that most people will never receive it on other than personal opinion.
I understand the parking places behind buildings for employees or store owners. That considering our parking situation seems fair. So, 700 of those issued. But the other 700 issued for downtown residents. Does that mean only for people who live in the Bowl? 7 cents a day. 2.10 cents a month? Seriously? I would easily pay you 30 dollars a month for one of those resident parking places. Would someone please explain this to me a property tax paying and homeowner in Edmonds for 32 years? 30 dollars a month would bring our city based on 700 of those would bring in 252,000.00. Now that would indeed help our city. Tell me what ya think about this Edmonds Residents. Thank You.
Deborah, it is always great to talk about new revenue opportunities, we need the money. Some of your points need to be clarified. Parking behind businesses or residences belongs to those property owners. Same is true for parking on the property like ACE hardware and banks for example. Some businesses have signs that allow public parking after hours.
The 700 residential and 700 employee permits are sold by the city and allow parking on some city streets. There are 3 zones downtown that if you own a residence, you can buy 2 yearly permits that are attached to the car and a visitors permit which is portable and they are good only for your home zone. The 3-hour limit does not apply but the day limit does. The only streets that cannot be used with these permits is 5th from Walnut to Bell, and Main from 3rd to 6th.
Employee permits have more restricted streets but are not sold by zones. Employees can share permits if they work on different shifts or days.
A parking study was planned for a few years ago but council did not approve. What we do not know is what how many permits would be sold if the price doubled. Selling half the permits at double the price would not produce added revenue. But more spaces would be available.
Darrol, Thank you so much for this info. Well, I totally think it’s fair and good for store owners and their employees to have this parking at a low cost. That is important to retain staff I would think. I do think but maybe I am wrong that most people living in the Bowl probably could easily afford to pay 30 dollars a month for all of that extra parking. Maybe they if asked would out of the goodness of their hearts be willing to say sure if it helps our city then great. It’s worth a try to see. Maybe. I love to try to think of ways to help our city citywide and that includes the Bowl of Edmonds. I love the Edmonds Bowl and always have. I will keep thinking of other ways. I wish I knew more but darn this stuff is complicated for me who has never really been involved with the inner workings of Edmonds. I am proud of our city, and I like our new Mayor and I just want to help not boss around just help. SO how do we help as citizens? Please let me know if you have ideas and I will try to imagine a way to expand on those ideas with my poor grammar, but I like to think good heart. Deb.
I agree with Darrol, Brian and Mark. Which way people vote on this is their business not mine. A lot of things have happened in our state over the past 4 years, and it seems much of our state tax dollars we don’t really know where they went. I hope initiatives any time they are wanted actually get people more involved and also more informed. When this initiative talks first came out, I was reading about it and I was curious how it worked. So, I set out to see what all the fuss was about. What I found was that there to my knowledge nowhere to even go in Edmonds or Shoreline or Montlake or Mill Creek or Mukilteo to even go to sign. There was one spot in Lynnwood up off of 128th St in a building of some sort. There was one in Everett and one in Seattle someplace. I mention this because imagine after our meeting and responses how many yes votes there would have been if citizens of these spots, I mention had had a place to get to easily to sign?? I haven’t decided myself, but I do think it’s something to think about. I could care less about Heywood he is just another zillionaire using his influence both parties have them here and everywhere.
If it were a true grass roots Initiative of the people that some rich guy didn’t pay people to go out and collect signatures on I would agree with you Mark. When he pays people to gather signatures, just as Tim Eyman did when Eyman was a professional Initiative Peddler, it certainly begs the question about what might be in it for him. For Eyman it was a hidden lively hood where he siphoned off donations to buy his own stuff. For this guy it was a crafty way for him to claim the excess capital gains tax was a hidden income tax that will cost everyone millions, when it really affects a small group of people, probably just like himself. I’m not questioning the guy’s right to do this as he has to live with himself in terms of what he wants out of life , but I do question people’s gullibility to think he is doing them some big service because he most assuredly is not. He’s really just taking care of “Numero Uno” and using the Initiative process to do it. The Initiative process wasn’t meant to be a cottage industry but that’s what it has become.
Years ago in Washington, it was tradition if not the law that signatures on initiative and referendum petitions were gathered by volunteers. It was true grassroots democracy. In order to get onto the ballot, the cause needed some widespread support among the people.
But that all changed when the US Supreme Court ruled that states could not prohibit paid signature gathering~ Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), a unanimous opinion by Justice Stevens. Now it’s entirely legal for one wealthy individual to literally buy his way onto the ballot simply by hiring enough signature gatherers.
But making it legal does not make it good public policy. When signature gathering departed from its grassroots origins and became a business, a commercial enterprise, my automatic response has been to Vote NO, especially this year when all the initiatives were essentially bought and paid for by one man.
What’s really at stake for I-2117 opponents is funding that the elites are counting on, including rebates for their new Teslas and to ensure they can drive onto the new electric ferries and charge up at state-funded charging stations for free. Proponents of the state’s disastrous cap-and-trade scheme have crossed the line, threatening Washington families by holding vital road construction projects hostage. They’ve made it clear: if we don’t keep their crony system in place, “every road project, will be in jeopardy.”
Meanwhile, the rest of us are left paying the bill.
That is the choice: Pay to line the pockets of oil company executives and the people who own oil companies and finance their lavish lifestyles, or take that money away from their profits to chip in on programs to make your own life better and improve the lives of people here in Washington State. You choose who you want to give your money to. I choose Washington. I’m voting No.
Mr. Maxwell – please direct me to the correlation between I-2117 and improving the lives of people in Washington? There are no metrics, hence no capacity to measure. Perhaps the state can spend its already outsized budget solving real life demonstrable problems that seem to evade their efforts – properly caring for wards of the state (whether foster children, the mentally ill, the all too abundant drug addicts on our streets), the mismanaged ferry system, proper care for our state forests (yes – cutting, culling and replanting), among other things. Your solution seems to equate throwing money at problems with will good intentions as being solutions. They aren’t, it is just wishfully throwing money at things.
I am sorry but check out let’s go Washington and read the truth about these bills and learn how Ma y of your neighbors signed the petitions. Vote Yes on all initiatives do your homework.
Connie,
The two programs aren’t comparable. Paid leave is temporary, and goes to the worker who pays into the program. Long term care is needed until the end of life. A person with dementia, and/or disabled who needs help dressing, feeding, bathing, requires 24 hr care and supervision. Someone with dementia can live for years following their diagnosis. 24 hour care is extremely expensive, given the cost of in home and facility care. The “36,500 lifetime benefit” would rarely cover the cost of care until the end of the beneficiary’s life.
Joan: I’m familiar with both programs, I wasn’t comparing the programs. My point was people balked at the tax imposed for wash paid leave and the qualifications for benefits but I know many who have benefited from it. I’m simply saying Joan that many people would benefit from $36k when long term care is being financed.
Connie and Clinton,
Based on your input, and my offline email exchange with Clinton, I have decided to vote against Initiative 2124. I hope that whatever happens, others will advocate for reduction of the bureaucratic overhead that is already crippling the program. One way to do this is for the state to enlist every Senior Services agency in Washington (Homage in Snohomish County) to assess seniors who may qualify and facilitate applications for WA Cares. State staff could then focus on younger disabled individuals who may qualify, reducing the number of staff hired to assess eligibility.
Senior Services agencies (every county in the state has one) have social workers on staff who can facilitate applications AND help seniors and their families plan for what happens when the $36,000 lifetime benefit runs out.
Good points, Joan!
Employers should offer a buy in or not option through a group insurance for long term care, and some do. State offered benefit, would not cover a long term care facility you would like to live in.
The climate change tax, funds only propaganda not real change. There is no science that anything humans have done, has helped with this natural occurrence of global warming. Companies can do better, why not offer tax write off’s for companies that make environmental impact changes, why a tax? Encourage change. Are we not taxed out?
Natural gas, is affordable energy for homes unlike electricity, I remember the heat monitoring when I was a child. Gas heat help’s Washington State families by being affordable and when the power goes off I still have heat. Electrical demands cause blackouts.
The Political cries of affordable housing,
although the government allowing millions of immigrants into the country has caused part of the housing crisis. Additionally, by increasing property taxes because of the shortage, less people will be able to afford a home, the end of the American dream.
The Government was not meant to run our lives.
The exact opposite was the intent of our founding fathers. Many people worked to get the signatures needs for the initiatives. They were not paid, they were ordinary citizens like you and me.
I contacted Let’s Go Washington and this is the response of their Director of Communications to the criticism voiced above: “LGW started out with volunteer signature gatherers, but the demand for more gatherers in more locations outweighed the volunteer support we received. We hired gatherers to ask people for signatures (which also created local jobs in the area), no one was paid in exchange for their signature.”
As for myself and all my helpers, we were not paid to collect signatures, we signed willingly, and we volunteered to collect other signatures for the campaign because we believed in the initiatives. That some signature gatherers were paid does NOT mean that it wasn’t a grassroots effort! Also, how about giving equal criticism to all the billionaires funding the campaign against the initiatives?!
Vote Yes
Pay Le$$
🙂
Just sayin’