Its that time again, an
election – which means its time for Marianne’s election crib sheet. We have
almost no contested positions this time, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have
important questions.
I have not listed all the
many positions on the ballot county-wide. Sorry, my focus is south Whidbey. But
if you want information about those other positions and the people running for
them, here’s a website with the names and contact information:
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/elections/Candidates/WhoFiled?countyCode=IS
First, there are two
initiatives, one very good and one very bad.
Then there are a whole
series of “advisory votes.” This is something new, forced on us by one of Tim
Eyman’s initiatives. The wording is intensely one-sided and prejudicial. The
issues are beyond obscure. And yet they’re very important. They all involve
closing peculiar little (and not so little) tax loopholes. Eyman’s initiative
defines closing a loophole as imposing a new tax, and we now have to vote on
any increase in income to the public coffers.
These are pretty heavy
wading. I’ll try to be as clear as possible. The language in italics is what
you will find on your ballot.
11-5-13 General Election
ballot
Initiative to the Legislature 517
Concerns initiative and referendum measures
This measure would set penalties for interfering with
or retaliating against signature gatherers and petition signers; require that
all measures receiving sufficient signatures appear on the ballot; and extend
time for gathering initiative petition signatures.
Should this measure be enacted into low?
Yes
No
This is another Eyman
special. The claim is that petition signature gatherers are being ‘interfered
with.’ This initiative would make
‘interference’ a crime. There is a long list of what constitutes
‘interference’, including “maintaining an intimidating presence within 25
ft”. It further expands the locations
where signature gathering must be allowed, including “all sidewalks and
walkways that carry pedestrian traffic, including those in front of entrances
and exits of any store, inside and outside pubic buildings such as sport
stadiums, convention/exhibition centers, and public fairs.” Turns out that
includes schools, hospitals, post offices, libraries, the works. It goes on to
say that law enforcement must vigorously protect signature gatherers. The crime
would be disorderly conduct.
There’s one more item, and this
may be the more important part of this initiative. Many of Eyman’s initiatives
are tossed out by the state Attorney General because they fail some basic legal
standard. This part of the initiative says that, regardless of the Attorney
General, if an initiative gets the signatures, it must be put on the ballot.
And then, just to be sure,
the time for gathering signatures would be extended to 16 months.
Tim Eyman makes a lot of
money running initiative campaigns for anyone willing to pay. Some are truly
bizarre. Others bollix our entire government and end up costing huge sums. I’m
sure you have noticed that government appears to be broke. Thank you Tim Eyman.
One of his early initiatives said that property taxes may be raised no more
than 1%/year. That’s a lot less than inflation and doesn’t take into account
the increased cost of government from increased development. So cities and
counties in Washington have been tightening and tightening their belts, with no
respite in sight. Now imagine him having 16 months instead of 6 to get more of
his hare-brained initiatives on the ballot – and having to put up with
signature gatherers just about everywhere.
This is an Eyman job
security initiative. If I could vote NO a hundred times I would do so.
I recommend in the strongest
terms that we all vote NO.
http://www.no517.org/
Initiative to the Legislature 522
Concerns labeling of genetically engineered foods
This measure would require most raw agricultural
commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using
genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when
offered for retail sail.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
Yes
No
In the interest of full
disclosure (and no surprise to anyone who knows me) I have been actively
campaigning for 522 for months now. This initiative would require the labeling
of GMO (genetically modified) foods. Its that simple. Monsanto and the Grocery
Manufacturer’s Association have thus far put up over $17 million to fight the
initiative. I’ve received several mailings and seen ads on various web sites.
They tend to focus on: 1. its expensive. 2. its confusing. 3. its unfair.
Bullfrogs. Producers change their labels overnight and we all get used to the
new label. No big deal, no big expense. As for confusing, I think we’re all
grown up enough to know the difference between a label which says “contains GMO
ingredients” and one which says “organic”. No confusion. Yes, there are lists
of products which need to be labeled and those which don’t. If you think about
that a bit, the logic becomes clear. Yes, breaded chicken needs a label because
the breading is likely to contain corn or soy, both of which are mostly GMO. A
plain old chicken contains no GMO because they’re not modifying chickens (yet).
As for the fairness issue, unfair to whom? Everybody eats, and everybody has a
right to know what’s in their food. If the industry thinks it is unfair to
force them to reveal what they do to our food, maybe they shouldn’t do it. And
if they think GMO food is such a great thing, then surely they would trumpet it
on their labels. What do they have to hide?
I am voting an emphatic YES
and hope you do too.
http://yeson522.com/about/read/
http://www.votenoon522.com/
Here come the Advisory
Votes, a whole slew of them. Note the slanted language “the legislature
eliminated, without a vote of the people”. And note that each issue is described as "This tax increase . . . " Note also the claim that this costs
some huge amount of money. What it actually does is bring that amount into the
public treasury. And finally, note that in each case the first option is to
repeal, and then to maintain.
As you may have noticed, the
bottom fell out of the economy in 2008. You can ascribe blame where you will. I
lay it at the feet of Wall Street market manipulators. At the same time Eyman
and his friends in the legislature were eliminating one tax after another.
Great, you say, fewer taxes. But those taxes actually do things for all of us,
and without them you start to see things like the recent I-5 bridge collapse
(no money for infrastructure maintenance). So the legislature, hamstrung by the
ban on new taxes, looked for ways to plug loopholes in existing taxes. There
was a major fight over what constituted a new tax vs closing a loophole. All of
the Advisory Vote issues are loopholes being closed, which must now be approved
by us voters or they will be reopened. And I have to say, all of them are truly
obscure, so hang on.
Advisory Vote No. 3 (Substitute Senate Bill 5444)
Concerns a leasehold excise tax credit for taxpayers
who lease publicly-owned property.
The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the
people, a leasehold excise tax credit for taxpayers who lease publicly owned
property, costing approximately $2,000,000 in the first ten years, for
government spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
All of us who own property
pay property tax. There are people/businesses who lease public land. One of the
biggest is shoreline leases from the state. Those people use the public's land as if it
were their own but pay no property tax. So the state created something called
the leasehold excise tax to make up the difference. The leasehold tax has been
around for a long time. This bill amends the act to reduce workload for
assessors, and to provide for the same exemptions which apply to property tax.
It also provides a break for agriculture and marine product uses of leased
land.
I’m going to presume that in
this instance the legislature knew what it was doing. I will be voting
MAINTAINED
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5444
Advisory Vote No 4 (Senate Bill 5627)
Concerns an aircraft excise tax on commuter air
carriers in lieu of property tax.
The legislature imposed, without a vote of the
people, an aircraft excise tax on commuter air carriers in lieu of property
tax, costing approximately $500,000 in its first ten years, for government
spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
We all pay annual tab fees
on our cars, trucks, boats, etc. Airlines pay the equivalent of annual tab fees
on their planes. In this case its called the state aircraft excise tax. For
some reason commuter air carriers were exempt from this tax. They’ve been
paying all of $125.00/year for a
turbo-jet, multi-engine, fixed-wing plane. The new schedule bases the rate on
plane weight, ranging from $500.00 to $4000.00/year.
I will be voting MAINTAINED
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5627
Advisory Vote No 5 (Engrossed Substitute House Bill
1846)
Concerns the insurance premium tax to some insurance
for pediatric oral services.
The legislature extended, without a vote of the
people, the insurance premium tax to some insurance for pediatric oral
services, costing an amount that cannot currently be estimated, for government
spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
This is actually a tiny part
of the Affordable Care Act. Under Obamacare, states are required to make
available a menu of health care services. One of the items on that menu is
pediatric oral services – being able to take your kids to the dentist. Some people
go for a separate dental plan. Others have health plans which include pediatric
oral services. The state charges HMOs a 2% tax on the premiums we pay. Right
now pediatric oral services are exempt from that 2% tax on health care
premiums. The legislature moved to close that loophole, beginning in 2015.
I will be voting MAINTAINED
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1846
Advisory Vote No 6 (Second Engrossed Second
Substitute House Bill 1971)
Concerns a retail sales tax exemption for certain
telephone and telecommunications services.
The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the
people, a retail sales tax exemption for certain telephone and
telecommunications services, costing approximately $397,000,000 in the first
ten years, for government spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
This is actually a big one.
We all know that phone communications are changing rapidly. A lot of people
don’t have land lines any more. If you
look on your (land line) phone bill, you’ll see a line item called Washington
E911 surcharge. On my August bill it comes to $0.25. That surcharge funds the
911 network. Cell phones have not been subject to the E911 surcharge. The
legislature has moved to close that loophole, now that well over half of the
population uses cell phones instead of land lines. This is all a part of a
major shift in telecommunications. It seems fundamentally unfair to me that one
form of phone service is subject to the surcharge but another is not. And its
not exactly a killer at $0.25/month. I think 911 is a good thing and we all
ought to support it.
I will be voting MAINTAINED
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1971&year=2013
Advisory Vote No 7 (Engrossed House Bill 2075)
Concerns estate tax on certain property transfers and
increased rates for estates over $4,000,000)
The legislature extended, without a vote of the
people, estate tax on certain property transfers and increased rates for
estates over $4,000,000, costing approximately $478,000,000 in the first ten
years, for government spending.
This tax increase should be:
Repealed
Maintained
Washington has a tax on the
transfer of property at death, with the first $2 million exempt. Farm land, family
businesses, and estates passing to spouses are also exempt. The tax ranges from
10% to 19%. This gets really complicated, but the upshot is that the tax rate
needs to be indexed to inflation, and that’s what the legislature did. They
provided a grid that indexes both the tax rate and the minimum taxable estate
to inflation. Its hard to call that a
new tax.
I will be voting MAINTAINED
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2075&year=2013
No comments:
Post a Comment