I-884 - Raise sales tax 1% for education.
Pros: Education is always a good thing to raise money for. If not now, when?
Cons: Sales tax is a regressive tax by definition, and it's already really high in Seattle (this might put it past 10%, depending on who you ask). The money goes into a trust fund which is managed behind closed doors, including money for "high priority research" at state colleges. The board (which is only accountable to the Governor) gets to decide what is "high priority".
Advisory Measures 1 & 2 - Locally Funded Transportation Plan and Taxing Source
What's with The Stranger recommending us to leave these blank?
In 2003, after a poll showed little voter support, officials quietly shelved a plan for a Regional Transportation Investment District, a multi-billion-dollar roads and transit package. These nonbinding advisory measures, which seek to gauge support for yet another transportation package and a list of possible taxing sources, amount to a taxpayer-funded poll. We urge you not to participate. Don't vote on either Advisory Measure No. 1 or No. 2.If the taxpayers have already "funded" this "poll", shouldn't we at least make our opinions known (since we taxpayers already "paid" for it)?
It seems like a vote of NO is a better protest vote than taking your marbles and going home. It would make more sense to vote NO on Part 1, and then pick a good tax plan for part 2 just in case part 1 passes. I'm leaning towards the gas tax or the excise tax on vehicles based on their value. The sales tax is regressive (see above), as is the flat tax. The tax on miles traveled sounds big-brother-ish and it will cost a lot in overhead to maintain.
Lt. Governor - Democrat Brad Owen, or Green Bern Haggerty
Voting Green might split the left/liberal vote and deliver the race to Wiest (R). On the other hand, Owen is a DINO, having taken a hard stance against medical marijuana. Furthermore, there's a Libertarian candidate on the ballot (Langlois), who might also split the right/conservative vote.
Supreme Court 6
Sanders - anti-gay, anti-monorail. but other than that, he's big on civil liberties.
Sebring - is this guy even alive? what has he ever done?
County Court 23
Garratt - more experience, more "by the books"
Darvas - seems more interested in "fairness" and "the little guy", more down to earth
(two women, btw, which is awesome)
Please, let me know your opinions on any of these! I'd love to be swayed either way. Also, feel free to bring up any other items if you feel strongly about them (knowing I've already colored in the boxes on my ballot if I didn't mention the item above...sorry Jake)
One last thing to remember: Political Unrest Sustains Society, Yeah!
Update: janak has her own run-down of the issues
Update 2: jana's blog also has a good pro I-872 argument made by joshp. I don't agree with him, but if you're still undecided, it's worth a look.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
The way it works is, you want more money in the state coffers, for whatever reason. Maybe you want road repairs, or to crack down on vagrancy, or maybe even to fund a new aquarium. Whatever the reason, you have projects you want to get done. So, what you do is, you divert money from a publically loved area to your project, and then suggest you raise taxes to help the publically loved area.
The analogy is, you have a lack of money in Washington DC, and you want a greater alottment from the HoR to run the city. You realize that you could reduce the amount you run the Metro. You could let the power grid get antiquated. Or, you could close the Washington Monument to tourism. So, you go to the HoR and say "We need X dollars, or we have to close the Washington Monument". Since closing the monument is unthinkable, you get the money. The reason being that you diverted funds from the general fund that would normally go to park services and put it to the Metro.
Or whatever, you get the idea.
The 1% sales tax increase is the same ploy. They offer a tax to help education because they hope that will pass. Divert some funds from Education to the Parks...raise the tax to fund Education. If the ballot initiative was a 1% increase to fund parks, or wildlife reserves, or lighthouse upkeep...it would never pass.
The worst part of the 1% sales tax is that with two of the large Washington cities on the borders of lower or no tax states, it encourages people to purchase out of state. In other cases, it encourages people not to spend at all. If sales totals drop by .75%, then the 1% sales tax is only netting an extra .25%. If the sales totals drop 1% because of out of state purchasing, you gain NO extra funds, and have now put more financial burden on the poor who can't afford to shop out of state.
So...to recap.
1. It's a scam on the voters
2. It won't be as effective as it could be
3. It hurts poorer people.
What we should have is Legalized slots where the profits go to education instead of property taxes.
The 1% sales drop is irrelevant. It would have to be a 10% drop in sales. Remove that point from my argument (Though, it will decrease sales, which hurts merchants, which, in turn, hurts the economy.)
For instance, lets say there is a big online book seller in Seattle. Since they are located in Seattle, they charge tax to Washington state residence. With the tax being charged becoming almost 10%, Washington residents would be less inclined to buy from that online bookstore and more inclined to buy from a different online bookstore.
What Washington really needs is an economy. With Boeing out, the dot com collapse, and farming becoming less lucrative, Washington is suffering from a lack of industry. Increase revenues and product, and the existing taxes will be sufficient.
Measure 1 & 2: I'm leaning towards the same as you. "No" and a vehicle (gas, excise) related tax. Probably gas as that theoretically may reduce the amount people drive (although demand for gas is extremely inelastic).
Lt Gov: My instinct is that the Republican challenger doesn't have a prayer beyond people voting the party line (Seriously, have you seen his statement in the voter pamphlet? Did a 4 year old do the punctuation for him?), so I think you can vote Green if you want to.
Supreme Court: No opinion.
County Court: GARRATT! And I'm not just saying that because she's my priest's sister. (Actually, that IS the only reason I have. But her brother is a great guy who is extremely down-to-earth and sympathetic towards the little guy, and if they are anything alike, you get the good points of both candidates in one.)