Ballot Issues

Here are the statewide issues which will be on the ballot:

Referendum 90

Subject: Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5395 concerning comprehensive sexual health education.

Concise description: This bill would require school districts to adopt or develop, consistent with state standards, comprehensive age-appropriate sexual health education, as defined, for all student, and excuse students if their parents request.

Should this bill be:

Approved

Rejected

There is a great deal of heat around this referendum. Basically, the referendum authors (and a whole lot of candidates) are convinced that SB 5395 mandates teaching babies what to do in bed and perverting all of our children. Actually, the law requires that any public school which offers sexual health education must meet the following standards:

- medically and scientifically accurate

- age appropriate

- appropriate for students regardless of gender, race, disability status, or sexual orientation

- includes information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

These standards are worded broadly to allow for local decision-making.

If you really want all the gory details, check out the August 4 Politiblog. Its in the intro section. I don’t want to repeat all of that so will keep this (relatively) short and sweet. 

Parents or legal guardians may excuse their children from such instruction by submitting a written request to the school. Parents and guardians may review the curriculum on request.

In 2019, legislation provided that Social-Emotional Learning help students build awareness and skills in managing emotions, setting goals, establishing relationships, and making responsible decisions. The legislation directed OSPI to adopt standards and benchmarks and revise as appropriate.

The major focus of this education will be on “Affirmative Consent”, teaching children that they have a right to say no to unwanted advances, as well as something they call ‘bystander training,’ which in this context seems to mean “see something, say something.” 

For grades K-3 the content will be Social-Emotional Learning.

For grades 4 -12, the curriculum must include

- physiological, psychological, and sociological development processes

- development of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to communicate, respectfully and effectively, to reduce health risk, and to choose healthy behaviors and relationships based on mutual respect and affection, free from violence, coercion, or intimidation.

- health care and prevention resources

- understanding the influence of family, peers, community, and the media

- affirmative consent and recognizing and responding safely and effectively when violence or a risk of violence is or may be present, with strategies that include bystander training.

What I take away from all of this is that the schools have figured out that children are being confronted with situations they do not understand. For their safety, they need a certain level of awareness at an early age, about saying no or telling a trusted grownup when something untoward happens. And as they grow older they do need to learn about peer pressure, dealing with one another in a respectful manner, and all the other points raised. It seems to me an unfortunate choice of terms to call this ‘comprehensive sex education.’ Rather, this is education in growing up safely and decently. 

So of course there’s a whole gang yammering about debauchery of small children. One wonders how many of them have read the actual language of the bill.

I checked with the Secretary of State’s office just to be sure. They affirm that a yes vote means you want to keep the existing legislation in place.

I will be voting  Approved

And here we have Tim Eyman’s odious advisory votes again. They have no legislative effect. They’re expensive. They’re a pain in the underwear. Eyman’s intent was to alarm us all about the legislature “imposing taxes without a vote of the people.” Do we really need to have a statewide election on every single issue? Isn’t that why we elect legislators? 

Ok, here’s the latest crop:

Advisory Vote 32, ESSB 5323

The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, a retail sales tax on pass-through charges retail establishments collect for specified carryout bags, costing $32,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

Repealed

Maintained

We’re all familiar with those single use plastic carry-out bags offered by grocery stores. You can find them littering highways and city streets, and accumulating in the guts of sea birds, fish, orcas, and others. The legislature has finally agreed to ban those. The ban begins 1-1-21 and phases in slowly. Stores will be required to charge a “pass through” of 8¢/bag until 2025, when theoretically they won’t be allowed at all. People who use WIC or SNAP will be exempt from that 8¢ charge. Is it really that big a deal to bring your own grocery bags? The legislation specifically excludes the bags you use for produce, bulk foods, prepared foods – basically anything other than the big grocery bags. I am pleased to report that this legislation is the work of South Whidbey's own Sego Jackson. Way to go, Sego.

This is nowhere near enough in the battle to rid ourselves of plastic film, but it’s a step in the right direction. I will be voting to Maintain.

Advisory Vote 33,  SSB 5628

The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, a tax on heavy equipment rentals to consumers by heavy equipment rental property dealers, costing $103,000,000 in it first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

Repealed

Maintained

This one gets pretty murky. Anyone who owns property pays property tax. We assume this applies only to land and houses. In fact, it also applies to “personal property” (its not nailed down) if you use it in the course of business. There has until now been an exemption for heavy equipment rented for construction purposes. This bill closes that loophole, charging a 1.25% tax on the rental of that equipment. Proceeds from the tax will be split 50/50 between the Motor Vehicle Fund and the Multimodal Transportation Account. I’m not altogether clear on the nexus between a tax on heavy equipment and transportation, but I do recognize the need and don’t see why equipment rentals should get to skate. I will be voting to Maintain.

Advisory Vote 34,  ESSB 6492

The legislature increased, without a vote of the people, the business and occupation tax rate for certain businesses, while reducing certain surcharges, costing $843,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

Repealed

Maintained

All of us in business know about the B&O tax. It is part of Washington’s super regressive tax structure. It taxes all the $ that goes through a business’s books rather than the profit of that business. A whole lot of the biggest businesses in the state are somehow exempt from B&O. This bill closes at least some of those loopholes. The funds are specifically designated for workforce education. While they don’t name names, see if you can guess who they mean by: “advanced computing businesses that have worldwide gross revenue of more than $25 billion but less than $100 billion”. They (can you say Microsoft?) will pay a 1/3 surcharge. For “advanced computing companies” with worldwide gross revenues of more than $100 billion, they will pay a 2/3 surcharge. The total amount of surcharge will range between $4 million and $7 million/year. 

This took effect 4-1-20.

Given that we, the people of Washington, have been mightily generous to Microsoft, Amazon, and other huge companies, I have no problem at all with asking them to kick back at least as much as we little folk do.

I will be voting to Maintain.

Advisory Vote 35, ESB 6690

The legislature increased, without a vote of the people, the business and occupation tax on manufacturers of commercial airplanes, including components or tooling, costing $1,024,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

Repealed

Maintained

And here’s the Boeing B&O tax. The title is “Concerning aerospace business and occupation taxes and World Trade Organization compliance.” It seems that back in 2004 Boeing scored a 40% break on its B&O taxes, along with a bunch of other bennies – like property tax and sales tax exemptions. Every session the legislature then expanded and extended these exemptions. If you remember, Boeing was threatening to pull out of Washington. The last round of major exemptions was in 2014, and it extended the increased exemptions out to 2040. You may also be aware that Boeing and Airbus have been involved in a trade war all these years. On behalf of Airbus the European Union filed a grievance with the World Trade Organization, which found that the world’s two largest aerospace companies received billions of dollars of unfair subsidies. In order to settle the case, Boeing agreed to eliminate its B&O exemptions. That went into effect 4-1-20. Meanwhile, there are negotiations in process to reinstate at least some of the exemptions, as long as Airbus gets a similar favor. There’s more, but this is the gist of it. Since Boeing and the WTO asked to cut back the exemption, 

I will be voting to Maintain

Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8212

Subject: a constitutional amendment on investment of public funds.

Concise description: would allow public money held in a fund for long-term care services and supports to be invested by governments as authorized by state law, including investments in private stocks.

Should this amendment be:

Approved

Rejected

For the most part, the state is required to invest any long-term funds in fixed-income securities such as government and corporate bonds and certificates of deposit. There is, of course, a reason for these limitations. The stock market goes up, and the stock market goes down. And of course there is the temptation for public servants to invest public funds to their personal advantage. 

At present several major funds are exempt from these limitations: any public pension or retirement fund, the industrial insurance trust fund, and funds held for people with developmental disabilities. Now we have a new fund, for long term care. This legislation would add that long-term care fund to the exempt list.

There’s not a whole lot of information out there, but the other funds seem to be managed appropriately, and this new fund falls into the same category, so I’ll be voting Approved.