Ballot issues

I received some comment to the effect that putting my choices in red could be confusing. Just to be sure, I've added a checkmark to my picks.


Initiative 1185, taxes and fees, would require 2/3 legislative approval or a vote by the people in order to raise taxes, and a simple majority of both houses to increase fees. This is a re-run of  I-1053 which was found illegal. Classic Eyman blueprint for destroying government. The simple majority of both houses to increase fees ought to work well. Remember the brouhaha over raising annual dog licenses from $7.00 to $10.00? Now imagine both house and senate having to vote on every single one of these.

http://www.majorityrules.org/2012/05/eymans-initiative-1185-is-road-to-nowhere.html

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2012/General-Election/Pages/Online-Voters-Guide.aspx

    yes

√  no

Initiative 1240, education, would allow 40 public charter schools in the state over 5 years. Very popular with Tea party types, Libertarians, and the people who paid millions to get this on the ballot - Walmart heirs, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bezos family members. Washington Education Association is against it because they see charter schools draining scarce $ out of public schools. I agree. Fix the schools we have rather than building new and different ones to get around them. What we see in other states is that for-profit businesses are taking over public education, and this is one way they do that. We also see the religious right injecting their agenda and curriculum into charter schools.  I say if  a school has a problem the community needs to step in, not offer it to those with a profit agenda.

http://ourvoicewashingtonea.org/issues/charter-schools/

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2012/General-Election/Pages/Online-Voters-Guide.aspx

   yes

√ no

Referendum 74, marriage, should same sex marriage be legalized in Washington? Well, duh! A vote for approved favors same sex marriage. If you really feel you need to read the arguments pro and con, go to: https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2012/General-Election/Pages/Online-Voters-Guide.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_74_(2012)

√  approved

    rejected

Initiative 502, marijuana, would legalize and regulate sale of small amounts of marijuana to people 21 and older. Sigh. Here is an issue for which I have fought these 45 years, and the version that is on the ballot is less than satisfactory. Of course I favor legalization. Lest you think I’m one of those dope smoking hippies, that was then. I quit smoking 25 years ago. But I really would like to grow my own fibre hemp. 502 does not allow that. I was lectured sternly that this is a beginning and we can always improve on it later. I am dubious. I really don’t like setting up a system which makes the only providers large corporations who are able to go through a long and expensive approval process. There’s also the issue of drivers having to prove, via a blood test, that they are not under the influence - except that traces remain in the system for up to 6 months, so a test would prove nothing. There is just too much potential for abuse of privacy and individual rights written into this version. I hate to have to, but I’ll be voting no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502_(2011)

https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2012/General-Election/Pages/Online-Voters-Guide.aspx

    yes

√  no

Senate Joint Resolution 8221, budgets, to include the recommendations of the commission on state debt. As far as I can tell this is an arcane amendment to  how debt and interest due is calculated. It claims to be non-controversial. It probably is.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_State_Debt_Amendment,_SJR_8221_(2012)

√  approved

    rejected

Senate Joint Resolution 8223, Public Universities Amendment, education, provide authority to state research universities to invest funds. At present the universities are very tightly constrained in how they may invest their endowments, which amount to $1.5 billion at the moment (after losing half a billion in the recession). This would allow them to invest their endowments in private stocks. That sounds pretty dicey to me. Those private stocks haven’t done so well for their investors in the last few years.  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=8223&year=2011

    approved

√  rejected

Advisory Vote 1 (ESB 6635)  The legislature closed a tax loophole for out of state banks who hold mortgage paper in Washington. They were not paying B&O tax on the interest they were earning in Washington. With the new Eyman requirement, after the legislature acted, the matter now has to go to a public vote. Do we, or do we not, want out of state banks to pay their fair share? This will remove preferential treatment for “certain large banks.” It will bring in upward of $18 million now being avoided by out of state banks. The question as written is: “This tax increase should be [ ] repealed or [ ] maintained.” I don’t see it as a tax increase but the closing of a loophole. Yes, we should maintain that loophole in a closed position so those out of state banks don’t have an advantage over in-state banks, and the state gains a little bit of desperately needed revenue.

http://www.nwcua.org/member-resources/anthem/washington-legislative-update-state-bank-tax-exemption-to-appear-on-november-ballot

    repealed

√  maintained

Advisory Vote 2 (SHB 2590)  Here’s another bill passed by the legislature which now has to go to a public advisory vote. This one involves retaining the Petroleum Products tax. This is a tax on the first possession of a petroleum product, currently 0.5% of the wholesale value.  This bill delays expiration of the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency’s funding by not allowing the tax to expire until July 2020. “The mission of the Pollution Liability 
Insurance Agency (PLIA) is to make 
pollution liability insurance available and 
affordable to the owners and operators of 
regulated petroleum underground storage 
tanks (USTs) and heating oil tanks by 
offering reinsurance services to the 
insurance industry.” It goes on to say that this program receives nothing from the general fund. This is an award winning program preventing groundwater contamination by assuring that storage tanks are safe. So why exactly would we want to let the program expire? This is on the ballot because of a previous Eyman initiative (I-960) similar to 1185 above. Eyman and his wonderfully cynical sponsors assume the public is ignorant and will automatically vote against what they see as a tax increase. Of course this is not. Oh, and its a non-binding advisory vote.  http://www.plia.wa.gov/ 

    repealed

√  maintained