Does it matter that one conservative California billionaire, Brian Heywood, funded all four of Washington’s state initiatives on November’s ballot? Does it matter that Governor Jay Inslee seems to care more about saving the environment and enhancing his national political standing than he cares about causing higher energy costs and inflation in Washington?
That is the backstory for each of the initiatives that I researched and evaluated in my August columns. Since we will receive our mail-in ballots soon, it’s important for you to have the initiatives briefly explained and reviewed so that you can make wise decisions when you vote. Save this column.
Let’s first deal with Initiative 2109. This initiative is by far the most conservative. Its goal is to dupe Washington voters into repealing taxes on capital gains. Who supports this initiative? People who earn profits from “the sale or exchange of certain long-term capital assets by individuals who have annual capital gains of over $250,000.” There is a 7% tax on amounts above $250,000. (ballotpedia.org).
That means that almost no one reading this column will have to pay more taxes if they vote no. About 4,000 residents are affected by this 2022 law. (ballotpedia.org) Washington has been a tax regressive state for much of its history. Before the law was passed in 2022, the less a person made, the more they pay in taxes in proportion to their income. The reverse was true as well. The more one made, the less one paid as a percentage of their income in taxes.
Exemptions to this law include real estate, retirement accounts, business assets that are depreciable, commercial fishing privileges and “goodwill from the sale of a franchised auto dealership” (ballotpedia.org). It’s in your interest to vote no on I-2109.
(For more information, read, “The rich want to get richer through I-2109”, Aug. 11).
I-2124 also favors the rich. If passed, this initiative will require the mandatory payment of $.58/$100 for long-term care in Washington State. It will set aside $36,500 per employee. Heywood funded this one because the more someone makes, the more it costs.
In my column on this initiative, (Aug. 21, “I-2124 is about community good vs. personal gain”) I left it up to the voter to decide for themselves. I now am going to vote for it because although $36,500 is a pittance for long-term care, it’s better than having no savings at all for average people. The wealthy can afford to subsidize their poorer neighbors, since long-term care will not be much of a problem for them.
Let’s get into Governor Inslee’s badly developed and inflationary laws on taxing natural gas out of existence as an energy source. Two initiatives deal with natural gas: I-2066 and I-2117. We can all agree that natural gas pollutes the atmosphere. The problem is that leading state Democrats ignore facts and offer no proof that these laws will cut pollution and save the environment without drastically raising inflation.
Natural gas is the least polluting petrochemical energy source. Taxing it out of existence is pretty stupid since we don’t have enough other energy sources to make up the difference. Natural gas is also inexpensive and abundant. I-2066 is supported by the construction industry. The construction industry doesn’t want to lose natural gas as a fuel source, and neither do I.
(See my Aug. 28 column, “Washington wants natural gas option — approve I-2066”.)
Inslee got this law passed because he wanted to get a federal job in the administration of a Democratic president. Democratic state legislators in the 5th legislative district refused to answer my questions on I-2117 or even discuss this issue with me. They’re afraid of Inslee’s wrath.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Ferguson has admitted publicly that the “cap and invest” law that I-2117 is trying to overturn needs work and revision. Collecting $5 billion from taxpayers to buy electric ferries and buses and to pay low-and-medium income workers $200 one time will not have much of an impact on cutting pollution and will only increase inflation for all of us, affecting especially the poor.
I encourage you to vote for both I-2066 and I-2117. The Climate Commitment Act needs to be abolished. It’s not supported by economic sense or evidence that the law will cut pollution, let alone benefit the citizens of Washington State.
Democratic refusals to answer objections to the Climate Commitment Act and their opposition to I-2117 and I-2066 speaks volumes about their real motives. Democratic leaders want to be seen as environmentalists when their real goal is national notoriety. Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm for opposing I-2066 by not being willing to “show [us] the money” should be all the proof we voters need to know the truth.
A conservative California billionaire’s support for the four initiatives shows his desire to protect the rich from paying their fair share, but his self-interest also benefits us all.
Which party is really concerned about serving the common good? That depends on the issue.
Richard Elfers is a columnist, a former Enumclaw City Council member and a Green River College professor.
