Monday, October 17, 2016
Protecting Vulnerable Seniors From Fraud
I-1501 Protecting vulnerable seniors from fraud
Ballot language: Initiative Measure No. 1501 concerns seniors and vulnerable individuals. This measure would increase the penalties for criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or vulnerable individuals; and exempt certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure. Should this measure be enacted into law?
endorsed by FUSE Washington http://fusewashington.org/fuse_2016_washington_ballot_initiative_guide/
Seniors are one of the most common targets for unscrupulous telemarketers and financial scams. Initiative 1501 will discourage identity theft and consumer fraud against seniors and other vulnerable residents by increasing penalties and preventing the state from releasing personal private information about vulnerable people and their in-home caregivers.
Opposed by Freedom Foundation https://www.freedomfoundation.com/blogs/liberty-live/i-1501-isn%E2%80%99t-about-privacy-it%E2%80%99s-about-protecting-the-unions%E2%80%99-monopoly-over-public which asserts that this is really about “protecting the unions’ monopoly over public information.” Huh? Ok, now I get it. The claim is that protecting seniors is really all about forcing people to join the AFL-CIO or SEIU. “I-1501 is a thinly veiled attempt to deny everyone else access to the same names, addresses and phone numbers SEIU was given when it filed its own Public Information Request back in 2002 pursuant to forming a new union.”
I have worked with seniors. Some are sharp. Others are gullible. I have had to write those nasty letters to book clubs and magazine subscription desks, and even to the Seattle Opera to cancel inappropriate and expensive subscriptions and purchases. The more we can prevent seniors from becoming prey, the better in my book. The Freedom Foundation’s diatribe against unions is not very persuasive.
I will be voting YES on I-1501
Carbon Tax
I-732 Carbon tax shift
Ballot language: Initiative Measure No. 732 concerns
taxes. This measure would impost (sic) a carbon emission tax on certain fossil
fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity, reduce the sales tax by one
percentage point and increase a low-income exemption, and reduce certain
manufacturing taxes. Should this measure by enacted into law?
This initiative is sponsored by Carbon WA https://yeson732.org/ and would impose a carbon emission tax on certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity. Sadly, many environmental organizations have opposed I-732 because it does not do everything for everybody. I was very much involved in the early discussions about which initiative to support and what was possible. Several of the large environmental organizations (Fuse WA and Sierra Club) insisted that they were going to run an initiative and that 732 was just not the right vehicle. So we waited – and we almost waited too long because the alternate initiative never happened. So its 732 or nothing.
Here is partner Steve’s response to critics of I-732: The claim that I-732 is going to “blow a hole” in the state budget is grossly misleading. The respected progressive think tank Sightline analyzed this claim. See http://www.sightline.org/2016/08/02/does-initiative-732-carbon-tax-have-a-budget-hole/ as well as the other articles in their series analyzing I-732 and discussing the disagreement about it.
Sightline’s conclusion is that the supposed budget deficit created by I-732 is at worst 1% or less of the entire state budget. For all practical purposes, this is within the margin of error of budget forecasts.
We can pass I-732 and finally start orienting our economy in a sane way. Tax what we don’t want (pollution) - or wait for an unknown and uncertain effort by the entrenched Seattle-centric “progressive” and green organizations. Really, there is no alternative to which to compare I-732, because the progressive and green opposition has yet to produce anything other than a very long list of “principles” and a requirement that any action must have “buy-in” from every conceivable faction and constituency. Frankly, I’m reminded of so-called revolutionaries in the 1960s who spent all of their time arguing dialectics and scheming against each other instead of ever getting off their butts, organizing people, and getting out in the streets to stop the war and make change. There really is more than a little bit of turf guarding behind the “progressive” opposition.
Of course, the actual ‘no’ campaign is simply using this
conflict to hide behind. FYI: the 5 biggest donors to the ‘no’ campaign (run by
the Association of Washington Business) are:
Kaiser Aluminum
Ash Grove Cement Company, Inc
Northwest Pulp & Paper Association,
Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc.
Western Petroleum Marketers Association
Climate deniers
all, and fossil fools.New information is coming out practically by the minute and I can't keep up with it. I may well post updates as more comes to light.
Back to my own opinion (as of 10-17-16):
I listened to a rather heated debate between Duncan Clausen of Carbon WA and Jeff Johnson of the Washington State Labor Council. Johnson asserted that yes, climate change is real and we really do need to do something about it, but nobody supports 732. He agreed that we needed to put a price on carbon but again, 732 is not the way to do it. He claimed that charging a tax on carbon would not decrease the amount of fossil fuels being used. He said the price would simply be passed on to consumers and the pollution would be exported. He said energy intensive industries don’t like this. He gave the usual argument about not having an alternative source of energy in place to take up the slack as fossil fuels are reduced.
Duncan Clausen countered that pricing carbon was really the only way to reduce its use, and 732 is the first tool to make that happen. A state mandate was passed in 2008 and it is not being met. 732 went to the legislature this year and they punted and said they wanted to see the issue on the ballot. Ok, now its on the ballot. Climate change is the single biggest issue of our times and this is a policy which we can put in place now, rather than waiting for someone to come up with something better someday.
It is painful to see the environmental community divided like this. I have checked the positions of the pro and con groups and find the con groups, many of whom I have supported and worked with for years, acting like spoiled children because its not their proposal on the ballot. We have to start somewhere – and they have to grow up.
Here’s how this will work. A tax will be levied on fossil fuels at the wholesale level, starting at $15.00/ton of CO2 emitted and increasing incrementally to $100.00/ton by 2059. It is understood that the cost will indeed be passed on to consumers. To offset that cost, the state sales tax will be reduced by 1¢. There will also be tax rebates of up to $1500.00/year for low income households. And the B&O tax, acknowledged to be one of the most regressive in the US, will be reduced or eliminated for manufacturing. The intent was to create a revenue-neutral measure, one which shifts the burden from consumers to fossil fuel generators & suppliers. And behind all of this is the intent to reduce the generation and use of fossil fuels in Washington.
This system has been in place in British Columbia for a while now and it seems to be working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax The graph in the referenced article shows that petroleum consumption in BC has declined significantly since 2008 when the carbon tax went into effect. Bottom line: we have an example before us and 732 is modeled on that example.
Out of a sense of fairness, here’s a link to KUOW’s piece on the issue http://kuow.org/post/should-carbon-emissions-be-taxed-washington-voters-will-decide
We have to start somewhere. Waiting for something better someday maybe is just not an option.
I will be voting a resounding YES on I-732
Repeal Citizens United
I-735 Repeal Citizens United
Ballot language: Initiative Measure No. 735 concerns a proposed amendment to the federal constitution. This measure would urge the Washington state congressional delegation to propose a federal constitutional amendment that constitutional rights belong only to individuals, not corporations, and constitutionally-protected free speech excludes the spending of money. Should this measure be enacted into law?
Sponsored by WAmend.org http://www.wamend.org/ I-735 would urge a federal constitutional amendment that limits constitutional rights to people, not corporations. Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT speech. All political contributions must be regulated and made public.
Most people are aware of the Supreme Court’s horrible decision in Citizens United, which declared that corporations are persons and have the rights of persons, including the right of free speech. It then went further to claim that the Koch Brothers’ businesses spending $1 million to buy an election is exactly the same in the eyes of the law as J Q Public getting up on a soap box in the town square. Right.
The only way to right this very great wrong is to amend the Constitution of the United States, no easy task. Among other things, it requires ratification by 2/3 of the states. I-735 would in effect say that if and when the time comes, Washington will ratify such an amendment. It also asks Washington’s congress members to raise the issue in Congress.
I’ve been watching the utter devastation of the electoral system in the US since Citizens United. This needs fixing and I-735 is part of that fixing.
I will be voting YES on I-735
Advisory Votes
Two advisory questions will be on the November ballot, as well.
Be aware that these advisory votes have no effect. They are merely advisory. This is yet another example of Tim Eyman making life unnecessarily difficult, confusing, and expensive. The rather ominous language is very specifically dictated in the initiative Eyman rammed through. That closing language “costing $X for government spending.” means that someone has made an estimate of how much the tax or fee will actually bring in to the state. Think of it as Bizarro language: it is exactly the opposite of what it looks like.
Advisory Vote No. 14 House Bill 2768
Ballot language: The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, the insurance premium tax to some insurance for stand-alone family dental plans, costing an indeterminate amount in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:
The Taxation of Stand-Alone Dental Plans Advisory Vote asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a tax on certain dental plans whose premiums are $25 to $50 per member per month,
With the Bizarro admonition in mind, this is a measure we have seen year after year, introduced by the dentists’ lobby. Most businesses pay B&O tax. These dentists do not and they are instead asked to pay a tax on insurance premiums paid for their services. They’ve been trying to get out from under this equivalent tax all this time. Just suck it up, dentists, and pay your fair share.
I will be voting to MAINTAIN this tax.
Advisory Vote No. 15 Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2778
Ballot language: The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, certain limitation on the retail sales and use tax exemptions for clean alternative-fuel vehicles, costing $2,000,000 in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:
The Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles Advisory Vote asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a sales tax exemption on the first $32,000 of the purchase price of qualifying new alternative fuel vehicles.
This one has to do with promoting clean cars, mostly electric. There is a sales tax exemption for buying a non-fossil fuel car. This proposal limits that exemption to the first $32k of the purchase price. The MSRP can be no more than $42,500.00. Sorry, still gotta pay tax on a $100k Tesla.
It sets a most peculiar limit on the exemption, namely 2 months after Dept of Licensing determines that 7500 eligible vehicles have been titled since 7-15-15 – or 6-30-19, whichever comes first. Why? Got me.
Primary opposition to this bill (already passed and in effect) is that it excludes a lot of cars which cost more than $42,500.00 but which provide far greater range (mostly BMW and Tesla) and that limiting the exemption to cheaper cars provides no incentive to continue research and development on better electric cars. I sympathize with BMW and Tesla, and want to see them continue their research. I hope we can amend the limits at some future date, but for now something is better than nothing, and I suspect a whole lot more people are buying Nissan Leafs than are buying BMWs or Teslas.
Since my favorite environmental organizations, along with Nissan and GM favor it,
I’ll go with a vote to MAINTAIN this tax.
Proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution No 8210
Ballot language: The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on the deadline for completing state legislative and congressional redistricting. This amendment would require the state redistricting commission to complete the redistricting for state legislative and congressional districts by November 15 of each year ending in a one, 46 days earlier than currently required. Should this constitutional amendment be:
Approved
Rejected
As you know, the federal government conducts a census every 10 years. One reason for that census is to readjust congressional district boundaries to reflect changes in population. Redistricting is a very politically contentious issue, as the size and shape of districts can often determine which party will win that seat. Washington established a Redistricting Commission in 1983. There is a very specific protocol for how and when commission members are chosen. This amendment would tighten the work schedule of the Redistricting Commission. The votes in favor in both the House and Senate were unanimous – for what that’s worth.
The Advancement of Date for Completion of Redistricting Plan Amendment was designed to move the deadline for the completion of redistricting for state legislative and congressional districts from January 1 of each year ending in a two, to November 15 of each year ending in a one.
I am not at all sure of the implications of this, but to the extent that it prevents mischief by Redistricting Commission members with too much time on their hands, I think I favor it.
I will be voting a slightly puzzled APPROVED on the proposed amendment.
President/Vice President
Donald J Trump/ Michael R Pence R
Hillary Clinton/ Tim Kaine D
Alyson Kennedy/ Osborne Hart Socialist
Workers’ Party
646-922-8186
Gloria Estela La Riva/ Eugene Puryear Socialism & Liberation Party
206-367-3820
Jill Stein/ Ajamu Baraka Green Party
801-303-7922
Darell L Castle/ Scott N Bradley
Constitution Party
901-481-5441
Gary
Johnson/ Bill Weld Libertarian Party
PO Box 4422 Salt Lake City
84110
Like many of you, I’ve just suffered through the endless
barrage of Trump/Hillary news, along with the
first and second presidential debates. Absent, of course, were all but 2 of the
candidates. I’m going to cop out and not even bother with all those minor
candidates. We have a full-fledged crisis on our hands and there is no room for
waffles, votes of conscience, or anything else, including ‘sitting it out’. The
choice is, sadly, between a new-Dem centrist and a narcissistic woman-hating
Fascist. I have a visceral hatred for Fascism, so there really is no choice. I
wanted so much to be able to vote for Bernie. That new-Dem centrist sabotaged
my guy. If there were any way to do so, I would not vote for her. I would
perhaps, write in Bernie or vote for Jill Stein. This year we don’t have that
luxury. We vote for Hillary or we watch our
world disintegrate around us. Frankly, I am very afraid the fascist and his
enablers will steal the election – again.
I’ll be holding my nose and voting for Hillary Clinton/ Tim Kaine.
US Senate
The R machine candidate. He had a campaign reception with
Carly Fiorina.
education: WWU, BA in Political Science.
Former state rep, King County Councilman, WA State R chair.
issues:
1. Reducing
the national debt, growing the economy, saving Social Security & Medicare
by capping discretionary spending and reforming entitlement programs.
Pro-growth tax reform. No limits on military spending. Increasing Social
Security contribution cutoff, increasing retirement age, adopt the ‘chained
CPI’, raise Medicare eligibility age, expand means testing for Medicare.
2. Climate.
against carbon taxes or cap & trade, promote new energy technologies.
3. Free
trade is good for the world. Very pro- TPP.
4. Health
insurance. Wants to reform Obamacare and let the insurance companies design
their own plans.
5. Immigration.
Better border security. After that’s done, a path to legal status for those who
have been here a long time, have had no run-ins with the law, are willing to
pay a fine, and undergo a background check. A guest worker program (remember
the braceros?). A better visa program for highly skilled workers from overseas.
6. Security.
“We must spend what it takes to maintain our nuclear deterrent and conventional
forces . . .” “the United States must
assemble a coalition to destroy ISIS.” Obama
was terribly wrong to make a deal with Iran.
7. Second
amendment. Banning semi-automatic weapons would be unconstitutional.
8. Abortion.
The people of Washington have spoken. He will continue to block funding, but
will not vote to ban it.
9. Marriage.
He won’t try to overturn the law, but will vote to protect churches and
non-profits who have a different view.
10. Marijuana.
Legal in WA, illegal federally. He will respect the agreements which allow
that.
He’s got the classic R philosophy and positions, all of
which I despise.
Incumbent, 4th ranking Senate Dem, sits on very
influential committees: budget; health, education, labor and pensions; veterans
affairs; appropriations.
I disagree vehemently with Patty’s
support of TPP, but am right there with her on most other issues.
I’m not seeing a specific issues list on her campaign
website, which bothers me, but some of the news items she cites are: Patty and Maria Cantwell have introduced a bill to
prevent mining in the Methow headwaters. Helped pass an equal pay resolution
for the UW Women’s team soccer stars. She’s been pushing the House (which needs
a push or two) to fund Zika virus research – which I understand is on the verge
of passing. She’s working on how to deal with student debt. Began her career as
a citizen lobbyist for environmental and education issues.
Her issues:
~supporting agricultural production and agricultural
communities
~Environment: helped create the Wild Sky Wilderness,
expansion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, designation of Pratt and Middle Fork
rivers and Illabot creek as Wild and Scenic.
- Worked
on funding for Puget Sound cleanup and the Salmon Recovery Fund.
- Pushed
for regular funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which finances
federal land acquisitions.
- Worked
to create the Hanford Reach National Monument, protecting 51 miles of the river
for salmon spawning.
- Supports
a permanent ban on offshore drilling.
- Shaking
loose Hanford cleanup funding.
- Working
on climate change.
- Protecting
public lands. Ensuring funding for the National Park Service and the Forest
Service.
- Defending
the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act from legislative attacks.
- Her
Earth Day pledge was to support climate action.
~ Strong supporter of women’s
reproductive rights.
~ pushed for background checks for
gun purchasers.
There’s a ton more on her senate website http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/
but I’ve got a deadline and you can look for yourself.
Endorsed by FUSE Progressive Voters.
I’ll be voting for Patty Murray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)