Washington State Anti-Tax Initiatives and the Shrinking of Public Services

Conservative anti-tax proponents pushing initiatives like I-1053 and I-1107 on this year's Washington State ballot are pushing lies about our ever-expanding state government.  The fact is that the percentage of our state's resources (as measured by collective personal income) devoted to public services like education and health care for seniors and children continues to decline.

The following is taken from a post by the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and deserves wide distribution to help educate the public:

Despite the claims being made by Initiative 1107 and Initiative 1053’s proponents, Washington actually devotes a smaller share of its resources to public services like education and health care than a decade ago. And given the magnitude of the recession, the state will likely continue to devote a smaller share of its economy to public services than before.

Typically, economists measure changes in government spending over time by analyzing how much of a state’s total personal income – or the sum of its collective resources – goes for public services. But as the graph below shows:

•The share of our resources that are spent on education, health care, public safety, and other important services has actually dropped since the late-1990s;

•As of June 2010, state spending in the current 2009-11 biennium is projected to fall to about 5.4 percent of total personal income in Washington – lower than the 6 percent share that went for public priorities the late-1990s.

This percentage will decline even further due to the recently-announced, 6.3 percent across-the-board budget cuts.

In other words, a smaller share of our collective resources is going to public priorities like educating our kids or providing health care than before.

And it is declining.

The post adds a link to get more detailed information. See the full report by Andy Nichols entitled Budget Claims Lack Context, Belie Deep and Painful Cuts. 

I urge Washington Voters to vote No on Tim Eyman and Oil Industry giant BP's Initiative 1053 - which would give 17 out of 147 Washington State Legislators veto power over our state budget. Vote No on I-1107 which would repeal a short term tax on bottled water and soda. The American Beverage Industry is bankrolling this effort.
For more information on the initiatives on the November ballot go to http://www.protectwashington.org/ and http://www.stopgreed.org/.

King County Democrats Nov 2, 2010 General Election Endorsements

The King County Democrats at their monthly meeting in September finalized their endorsements for the Nov. 2, 2010 General Election ballot.  King County will be an all mail in election so ballots need to be postmarked by Nov 2, 2010 at the latest.

You can see the King County ballot pamphlet here and can taylor it to your specific Legislative District.


KING COUNTY DEMOCRATS NOV. 2, 2010 GENERAL ELECTION ENDORSEMENTS:

Position Candidate

United States Senator - Patty Murray

United States Representatives:

District 1 - Jay Inslee

District 2 - Rick Larsen

District 7 - Jim McDermott

District 8 - Suzan DelBene

District 9 - Adam Smith

Washington State:

Legislative District 1, Position 1 - Derek Stanford

Legislative District 1, Position 2 - Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Position 1 - Gregory Scott Hoover

Legislative District 11, Position 1 - Zack Hudgins

Legislative District 11, Position 2 - Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 30, Senator - Tracey Eide

Legislative District 30, Position 1 - Mark Miloscia

Legislative District 30, Position 2 - Carol Gregory

Legislative District 32, Senator - Maralyn Chase

Legislative District 32, Position 1 - Cindy Ryu

Legislative District 32, Position 2 - Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Senator - Karen Keiser

Legislative District 33, Position 1 - Tina Orwall

Legislative District 33, Position 2 - Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Senator - Sharon Nelson

Legislative District 34, Position 1 - Eileen Cody

Legislative District 34, Position 2 - Joe Fitzgibbon

Legislative District 36, Senator - Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Legislative District 36, Position 1 - Reuven Carlyle

Legislative District 36, Position 2 - Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Senator - Adam Kline

Legislative District 37, Position 1 - Sharon Tomiko Santos

Legislative District 37, Position 2 - Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 39, Position 1 - Eleanor Walters

Legislative District 41, Senator - Randy Gordon

Legislative District 41, Position 1 - Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 41, Position 2 - Judy Clibborn

Legislative District 43, Senator - Ed Murray

Legislative District 43, Position 1 - Jamie Pedersen

Legislative District 43, Position 2 - Frank Chopp

Legislative District 45, Senator - Eric Oemig

Legislative District 45, Position 1 - Roger Goodman

Legislative District 45. Position 2 - Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Senator - Scott White

Legislative District 46, Position 1 - David Frockt

Legislative District 46, Position 2 - Phyllis G. Kenney

Legislative District 47, Senator - Claudia Kauffman

Legislative District 47, Position 1 - Geoff Simpson

Legislative District 47, Position 2 - Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Senator - Rodney Tom

Legislative District 48, Position 1 - Ross Hunter

Legislative District 48, Position 2 - Deb Eddy

King County County Council District 8 - Joe McDermott

JUDICIAL -

Washington State Supreme Court:

Justice Position 5 - Barbara Madsen

Justice Position 6 - Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals, Div 1, District 1 - Michael Spearman

King County District Court

Northeast District, Position 6 - Michael Finkle

Northeast District, Position 7

- Donna Tucker Dual Endorsement

- Larry Mitchell Dual Endorsement

Shoreline District, Position 2 - Marcine Anderson

Southeast District, Position 2

 - Darrell Phillipson Dual Endorsement

- David Meyer Dual Endorsement

Southeast District, Position 6

- Matt Williams Dual Endorsement

- David Tracy Dual Endorsement

Southwest District, Position 2 - Susan Mahoney

West District, Position 5 - Anne Harper

City of Seattle - Municipal Court

Position 1 - Ed McKenna

Position 3 - Steve Rosen

Position 5 - Willie Gregory

Position 6 - Karen Donohue
 
Initiative 1053 - NO
 
Initiative 1082 - NO
 
Initiative 1098 - YES
 
Initiative 1100 - NO
 
Initiative 1105 - NO
 
Initiative 1107 - NO
 
Referendum 52 -YES
 
HJR 4220 - YES
 
SJR 8225 _ NO
 
King County
 
Charter Amendment 1 -YES
 
Charter Amendment 2 -YES
 
Charter Amendment 3 - NO
 
Proposition 1 - YES
 
Seattle School District
 
Proposition 1 - YES
 
for more information on the initiatives and propositions go to the endorsements page.
 
You can get more information on the King County Democrats by going to their website. 
 

Did Eyman Forget to Turn in all His Petitions for Initiative 1033?

I guess its time for another Eyman Initiative 1033 grassroots joke. In two separate comment threads over on Crosscut on Initiative 1033 Tim Eyman makes the following statement:

"out of 48,148 supporters who were mailed a I-1033 petition in February, an extraordinary 34,588 sent back a partially filled or fully filled petitions"

Over at the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate, Andrew reported that:

"The Secretary of State's office tells NPI that they received 19,317 petitions, not all of which are full. Eyman claimed to have submitted 314,277 signatures. "

So what happened to the remaining 15,271 petitions from his grassroots supporters? Did Eyman lose the extra petitons? Or is it again just another example of Eyman trying to falsely hype what is really a dismal grassroots effort? Didn't Eyman get into trouble for something like this before? I think it was about not being paid when he was because he thought it sounded better to say he was working for free even when he wasn't.

I'm sure Eyman's not in any legal trouble on this, it's just another one of many times that he is fast and lose with facts and figures, trying to put a spin on something to say what he thinks people want to hear or what he thinks sounds better for his self image. In this he is trying to convince people what a tremendous grassroots effort this campaign is when in reality it was mostly a paid signature gathering effort funded over 86.5% by 3 individuals.

I suspect the truth is that he sent out 48,148 petitions and only received back 34,588 signatures. That means that out of the final 315,444 signature count, the rest were probably from paid signature gatherers.

34,588/315,444 = 10.96% of signatures turned in from mailing to "grassroots"
Could it be true that only 11% of Eyman's signatures were from the "grassroots" supporters?

Maybe as many as 1700 petitions came back if all were full. This seems like a much more realistic return rate based on Initiatve campaigns I've been involved with.

Moneywise it also seems accurate. 315,444 signatures total - 34,588 from grassroots leaves 280,856 he paid for. He spent $598,081 to get his signatures, including mailing, which is about $1.89 per signature for the total amount. This is in the ballpark for cost per signature in campaigns these days.

While we're at it we should actually note that Eyman did not collect 315,444 valid signatures. A small point but I am tired of Eyman's misrepresentations of fact. He had a 12% invalid rate which means that only 277,591 signatures were declared as valid. A minor point but lets keep our figures straight for the record.

List Growing of Organizations Opposing Initiative 1033

The list is growing of organizations opposing Eyman's Initiative 1033 which will be on the November 2009 ballot. I-1033 is Eyman's latest attempt to impose his Orwellian view of hogtying and limiting state, county and local government spending by ratcheting down revenues available every time there is a recession.

When times are good he will transfer funds mainly derived from sales taxes everyone pays, to reduce real estate taxes for the wealthy. The more property you own the more of a real estate tax break you will get. It's sort of a reverse perverse Robin Hood scheme that benefits large corporate land owners like Boeing and Weyerhauser and shopping mall owners and real estate developers and owners of McMansions and second homes.

Here's the latest list of organizations opposing I-1033. They would rather see our tax dollars go to provide services for everyone, not just wealthy property owners getting another tax break at the public's expense.

AARP Washington
Amalgamated Transit Union 1015
American Federation of Teachers Washington, AFL-CIO
Alzheimer's Association, Western and Central Washington Chapter
Asian Pacific Islander Coalition of King County
Central Washington Progress
Heart of America Northwest
King County Democrats
Lutheran Public Policy Office
Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
Fuse Washington
Futurewise
The Nature Conservancy of Washington
OneAmerica
Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington
Puget Sound Sage
Raising Our APA Representation
SEIU 775
Sahngnoksoo
Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Surfrider Foundation
Transportation Choices Coalition
UFCW Local 21
Washington Association of Churches
Washington Bus
Washington Education Association
Washington Low Income Housing Alliance
Washington State Council of County and City Employees, AFSCME Council 2
Washington State Hospital Association
Washington State Labor Council

You can go to the No 1033 campaign website to add your organizations name to the list and learn more about the campaign.

Why You Should Vote No on Initiative 985

Initiative 985 is the 2008 incarnation of Tim Eyman's Annual Initiative Campaign as he plays citizen legislator. Eyman basically buys his spot on the November ballot each year by hiring a slew of paid signature gatherers to collect enough signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.

Most voters never read the back of the initiative and the fine print of what Eyman wants them to vote into law. They should because Initiative 985 is another one of Eyman's Trojan Horse Initiatives. Hidden in the text of I-985 is language that directs so called congestion relief money to building more roads and opposing spending money for transit.

The Washington State Attorney General's Office has done a terrible job of assigning a ballot title and summary to Initiative 985. It is misleading and misses the main use of the money appropriated under I-985.

Reading the ballot title lulls you into believing that this measure might actually reduce traffic congestion as Eyman's seems to claim. It sounds like the $145 million or so Eyman wants to appropriate from the General Fund and red light fines each year will be used to open car pool lanes, synchronize traffic lights and add emergency vehicles to clear roads.

After you put up a few signs saying car pools lanes are open after rush hour to traffic, get your computer synchronized lights set up and add a few more tow trucks in the first year what happens to the bulk of the $145 million collected each year in Eyman's dedicated fund?

This is when you find out what Eyman's plan really is. It is to dedicate millions of dollars more each year to just building more roads. This is above and beyond the already dedicated funds collected from gas taxes that is restricted to roads.

I-985's purpose is not to solve traffic congestion but to eliminate all measures to reduce congestion except road building. It is another one of Eyman's Trojan Horse Initiatives.

Hidden in the fine print of Initiative 985 is the fact that after you've synchronized traffic lights, opened car pool lanes and added some more emergency vehicles, the remainder of the $145 million collected each year can only be spent on "reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles"

This may sound O.K. until Eyman's I-985 adds "Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail."

The money collected to reduce congestion is put in a dedicated fund but can't be used for buses or park and ride lots or bike paths. The state gas tax is already dedicated to road building and Eyman wants to add more money for road building.

I-985 reflects Eyman's is anti-transit bias and his support for more roads. This measure will not reduce congestion but add to it by spending more money on road building rather than alternatives to get people out of cars and into more efficient modes of transportation like buses.

Initiative 985 needs to be rejected by voters. The public needs to vote no on more road building at the expense of other proven methods of actually reducing congestion.

I-985 is not good public policy but is just another Eyman attack on public transit.
Vote No on I-985.

for more information go to the official No on 985 campaign at www.noon985.com .

November 4, 2008 Washington State Ballot Measures

11/05/2008 8 AM Update:

Initiative 985 has been decisively defeated by the Washington voters while Initiative 1000 and 1029 have been passed by wide margins.

Initiative 985 41% yes/59% no
Initiative 1000 59% yes/41% no
Initiative 1029 74% yes/26% no

For latest update and specific vote numbers go to the Washington State Secretary of State's election webpage for statewide initiatives.

previous post:

Three statewide initiatives will be on the Novemebr 4, 2008 Washington State ballot.

Majority Rules Blog recommends you vote:

No on Initiative 985
Yes on Initiative 1000
Yes on Initiative 1029




BALLOT MEASURE I-985
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 985 concerns transportation.

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes.

No on 985 - http://www.noon985.com/

BALLOT MEASURE I-1000 (Death With Dignity)
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns allowing certain terminally ill competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions.

This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents medically predicted to die within six months, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician. The measure requires two oral and one written request, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of an informed patient decision. Physicians, patients and others acting in good faith compliance would have criminal and civil immunity.

Yes on I-1000 http://itsmydecision.org/

BALLOT MEASURE I-1029
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 1029 concerns long-term care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

This measure would require long-term care workers to be certified as home care aides based on an examination, with exceptions; increase training and criminal background check requirements; and establish disciplinary standards and procedures.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
Beginning January 1, 2010, this measure would require certification for long-term care workers for the elderly and persons with disabilities, requiring a written examination, increased and additional criminal background checks. Continuing education would be required in order to retain certification. Disciplinary standards and procedures would be applied to long-term care workers who are certified as home care aides. Certain workers would be exempt based on prior employment, training or other circumstances.

Yes on I-1029 - http://www.yeson1029.org/

Note - State Ballot Measures Nov 2008 – for actual text go to http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2008