Stranger Election Endorsements Cheat Sheet
Now With SECB Four Loko-Powered™ Election Coverage!
Find our SECB Four Loko-Powered™ Election Coverage right over here!
Glenn Beck says you're not going to vote this year. Bill O'Reilly says you don't have the guts. Sarah Palin says you're going to toss that ballot straight into your socialist recycling bin. And Christine O'Donnell says masturbation is a sin and she's not a witch and she's you and you're not going to vote.
Stranger Personals
Here's why they say you're not going to vote: because the Republicans are unstoppable. They're going to take the House and the Senate and the pennant and the Oscar and the Emmy and the cake. And they know this because they heard it—and said it—in the echo chamber that is Fox News.
And they're wrong. You're going to vote because races this year are close and winnable (see Patty Murray holding her lead over real-estate tool Dino Rossi), and you can help block the GOP from taking a majority in the Senate or the House. And there's local shit you're going to want to vote on, too, like liquor sales and school levies and those always-thrilling King County Charter amendments. And if you want eye candy, behold the dashing prince running to represent the 34th District—Joe Fitzgibbon.
Squeeeeeeeeee!
Vote. Prove Beck, Palin, O'Donnell, and the rest of the health-care-killing, Wall-Street-loving, anti-gay, pro-kitten-rape dickwads wrong.
The SECB is Paul Constant, Christopher Frizzelle, Dominic Holden, Tim Keck, Cienna Madrid, Eli Sanders, Dan Savage, and Gloria Gaynor. The Stranger does not endorse in uncontested races.
Initiative Measure 1053
Vote No
Initiative zombie Tim Eyman is behind this thing—reason enough to vote no. But if you want policy reasons, here they are: Initiative 1053 would require a two-thirds majority to pass any tax increase in the state legislature. Sound familiar? That's because Eyman got voters to pass essentially this same stupid initiative in 2007. (Realistically, there's no way the legislature can get a two-thirds vote on a tax measure when it takes a mere 17 Teabagging Republicans in the state senate to block any tax—even a tax that makes sense.) Thankfully, after the requisite two-year waiting period, Democrats suspended the two-thirds majority requirement this year and then raised a handful of taxes to maintain the most basic state services (like health care for the poorest kids in the state) during the worst recession in state history. Has that worst recession in state history ended? No, but Eyman thinks that putting the legislature in a straitjacket by conning voters into passing I-1053 is a great way to cure what ails us. Want proof that he's full of shit? See California, which is a bankrupt, cracked-out, never-ending clusterfuck thanks to its two-thirds majority requirement. Vote no.
Initiative Measure 1082
Vote No
The conservative Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) has compared environmentalists to Nazis, called Governor Chris Gregoire a "power-hungry she-wolf who would eat her own young," spent tons of cash backing two-time Republican loser Dino Rossi, and takes advantage of the state workers' compensation system. The complicated part is understanding how, exactly, the BIAW has managed to turn workers' comp into a cash cow for itself (put most simply, it's a complex kickback program that the BIAW has been working for years), but what you really need to know is that this cash cow has been producing a lot less cash for the BIAW lately and so... this year the group bankrolled Initiative 1082, which would privatize workers' comp.
The BIAW wouldn't have put over $1 million behind this thing if it didn't think it had big money to gain if it passes. "We've been pretty clear about that," BIAW spokesperson Amy Brackenbury told The Stranger in June. And while no one thinks the state workers' comp program is doing just fine—it needs reform—this initiative would privatize workers' comp in a way that hurts workers (by doing away with necessary oversight), screws small businesses (by hiking premiums as much as 18 percent), and helps greedy insurance giants like AIG (which, here's the genius part, would then be in a position to kick the conservative fucks at the BIAW more money in commissions than the state ever did). Vote no.
Initiative Measure 1098
Vote Yes
Washington State has the most regressive tax system in the nation. The poor pay 17.3 percent of their income in taxes, while the rich pay only 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. Say it with us: That is NOT. FUCKING. FAIR.
Especially at a time when our state is broke and services that help the poor are being slashed so that rich people can keep not paying their fair share. Initiative 1098 seeks to even out the playing field by laying an income tax on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and couples who make more than $400,000 a year. And it only taxes them on the income above those amounts. Doing so would raise more than $2 billion a year for public education and health care. (And, to sweeten the deal, I-1098 would lower everyone's property taxes and cut almost everyone's B&O taxes.)
Class warfare? SHUT. FUCKING. UP. The system we've got now is class warfare—with the rich waging war on the poor. And Bill Gates Sr.—not really known for throwing bombs—is leading the charge on this. Local titans of industry should pay a little more, Bill Sr. says, given how much they benefit from this state's expensive-to-maintain infrastructure, an educated workforce, and a population that's not dying in the streets from preventable illnesses. Rich and poor will benefit if voters approve I-1098.
VOTE. FUCKING. YES.
Initiative Measures 1100 and 1105
Yes on 1100, No on 1105
Every year for the past 13 years, lawmakers in Olympia made a choice. They could pass a bill before them to allow grocery stores to sell hard liquor alongside beer and wine, or they could keep the system we have. The current system looks like this: Liquor is sold at a small handful of state-run stores—stores that look like an homage to East Germany—that aren't open at the time of day when an adult might run out of vodka.
Lawmakers kept that idiotic system.
Why? The short story is that unions representing the employees in those 316 liquor stores intimidated lawmakers into maintaining an inefficient status quo. So since the end of Prohibition, our liquor outlets have been difficult to get to and frequently run out of products, inconveniencing bar and restaurant owners and underscoring how mindfuckingly stupid it is for the state to hold a monopoly over one industry.
Initiatives 1100 and 1105—which would both end the state's stranglehold on all retail and wholesale of liquor in slightly different ways—are the natural consequence of the legislature's fecklessness. But passing both initiatives would result in a tangled mess of laws that could be untied only in courts and, god forbid, with meddling from the legislature. So don't do that.
Instead vote only for I-1100.
I-1100 would allow private businesses to buy licenses at $1,000 a pop to sell liquor starting in June of next year. It would cut out the state's markup on booze (which accounts for half the cost of liquor) while keeping existing state taxes in place. Retailers could buy directly from liquor manufacturers instead of having to buy through a distributor, which is why Costco and Safeway are throwing money behind this initiative (they become wholesalers, essentially). Restaurants and nightlife folk have also endorsed I-1100, because it creates the most flexibility for their businesses.
But I-1105 is a shitty proposal. It gets rid of both the state's liquor markup and taxes, meaning that if Eyman's I-1053 passes—that's the one that effectively prevents the legislature from raising taxes—the state would lose all liquor-tax revenues for at least two years at a time when money is tight. That would devastate some good programs. It would also require a distributor middleman for all booze sales forever—essentially shifting the monopoly from the state to the hands of private distributors. So vote no on I-1105.
You're going to hear a lot of arguments about why you should vote no on both. Those arguments all come from the state Democratic machine that was too lazy to fix the broken liquor system for the past 13 years and the beer industry bankrolling its opposition campaign. Argument 1: This will cost the state money because we forgo the markup on liquor. That's true, but the cost to the state budget is only about $15–$17 million a year (a token sum compared to the billion-dollar deficits we're facing). And two years after we pass this, the legislature can reinstate some of that markup in the form of a tax increase—meaning the state can get that money back and more—so the revenue loss is minimal and temporary. Argument 2: Minors will be able to buy hard liquor. There may be more noncompliance at the convenience stores, true. But let's compare Washington to another state that has privatized liquor. California has an underage-drinking rate of 26.3 percent of teenagers, far below Washington's 31.3 percent rate, according to the federal government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. California's binge-drinking rates are also much lower. And with our state out of the liquor-selling business, the liquor control board can focus on what it's good at: enforcement.
If you want to see what the anti-liquor initiative campaign is really all about, follow the money.
The opposition campaign, Protect Our Communities, has raised over $8.2 million to fight the initiatives. Most of that dough comes from the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Beer Institute, a trade association of major brewers (the chairman of the Beer Institute board is also the president of Anheuser-Busch), which are in this because they don't want beer to compete with liquor on grocery-store shelves. Their official arguments are bullshit. They oppose these initiatives because they want to protect the profits of beer megacorporations.
Anyone who tells you that the legislature will pass a better law on its own or that a party who doesn't have a financial stake in privatizing liquor will run a better initiative next year is lying to you. The legislature will never act, and someone's bound to turn a profit when the state gets out of a business it sucks at running and never should have been in to begin with. This is our best chance to shed a crappy system. There's plenty of opportunity to fine-tune the improved system in the next few years. Vote yes on I-1100 and no on I-1105.
Initiative Measure 1107
Vote No
This measure would repeal temporary taxes on soda, candy, and bottled water.
The reason this tax exists at all is because the state has a budget shortfall, despite cutting billions from departments for the last two years. Lawmakers had to either pass this tax or cut health care for kids, essential funding for public schools, or other programs that help the poorest people in the state. So while it's an arguably regressive tax—sales taxes consume a larger percentage of poor people's income than rich people's—it produces roughly $130 million per year to help the poor. And it's their only hope for funding those programs.
The people behind I-1107 make lying sacks of shit look honest and odorless. The American Beverage Association—they're lobbyists for the world's biggest soda companies—has poured $16.7 million into the campaign in an effort to convince Washington State voters that it would repeal a tax on groceries. This is not a tax on food. Only about $4 million a year would come from a slight uptick in taxes on some processed foods. It's a tax on soda pop. And the American Beverage Association is not in it for the little guy. They're in it to protect the enormous profits of some of the country's biggest companies. Vote no.
Referendum Bill 52
Vote to Approve
Classrooms in schools and colleges are cold in winter, sweltering in summer, and energy inefficient all year long. By passing Referendum 52, voters would allow the state to expand its bonding capacity to issue $505 million in bonds to pay for energy-efficiency improvements in schools. Extending a sales tax on bottled water pays for the bonds; if that tax gets repealed (see I-1107), other money from the state's general fund pays off the bill. Not only would these improvements save energy (which saves the planet and saves the state money), they'd create jobs. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Council estimates that every dollar the state spends will be leveraged to bring in another three dollars from other sources. All told, that will create 30,000 new jobs, according to the state's Office of Financial Management. Vote to approve R-52.
Amendment to the State Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution 8225
Vote to Approve
This constitutional amendment would change the way the state calculates its total debt interest (moving to "net" interest rather than "full" interest as the basis for the calculation). This does not change the total debt limit, but allows us to borrow more federal money for important infrastructure projects. Vote to approve.
Amendment to the State Constitution
Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220
Vote to Approve
This constitutional amendment is a direct response to the murder of four Lakewood police officers last winter by Maurice Clemmons, who'd been released on bail just before the murders, despite a record that should have kept him locked up until trial on other violent-offense charges he was facing. Voting to approve allows judges to hold people who are charged with crimes potentially punishable by life in prison (and who are truly dangerous) without bail until trial. If this had been the case in 2009, those four police officers would probably be alive today. Vote to approve.
King County Charter Amendments 1, 2, and 3
Vote Yes on All of 'Em
King County has a charter that reads like stereo instructions translated from hieroglyphs and, thanks to the county council discovering a new typo every 40 seconds, needs to be amended by voters each fall. Three amendments are on your ballot. Just vote yes for all of them and skip to the next endorsement. (Just in case you're one of those uptight douches who has to know what you're voting on: The first amendment changes the charter's preamble to clarify the word "environment"; the second eliminates a reporting redundancy for political campaigns; the third transfers some public-safety employees' bargaining responsibility from the King County executive to the King County sheriff. That would deliver a more independent and accountable sheriff's office, we say. Fascinating stuff, huh? Next time just take our word for it, and vote the way we tell you to, just like everybody else. Christ.)
Proposition 1
Vote to Approve
King County is in a crisis. After cutting $140 million from its general fund over the past two years, the county faces another $60 million shortfall in 2011. County Executive Dow Constantine says that, unless we find a way to bridge that gap, we need to eliminate 71 positions from the sheriff's department, 22 deputy prosecutors, and 42 people from the superior court, and slash human services (like helping victims of sexual assault). That would suck, particularly if you were a victim in need of speedy prosecution of your case, an accused person who needs a public defender, or anyone who expects sheriff's deputies to respond to a 911 call before your next birthday. To save those services, Prop 1 would raise the county sales tax by 0.2 percent. This not only lessens the blow described above, it generates millions for cities (Seattle would get $13 million to help with its own budget problems). Critics of Prop 1 say the budget woes are the county's fault for failing to prioritize public safety. But after two years of slashing, "there's simply nothing left to cut," says Maurice Classen, a King County deputy prosecutor and Prop 1 supporter. Prop 1 would pencil out to less than $3 a month for the average household, supporters calculate. As Bruce Hilyer, presiding judge for King County Superior Court, says, "The bottom line is, do you need those services so much that you are going to fund them with the only tax source you have?" Vote yes.
U.S. Senator
Patty Murray
Patty Murray was right on the Iraq war (voting no when everyone else—hello there, Senator Cantwell—was voting yes), she was right on health-care reform (firmly supporting a public option when lots of other people—hello there, Senator Cantwell—were wavering), and she's just an all-around legislative badass, rising from little-known "mom in tennis shoes" to Senate majority conference secretary. Republican Dino Rossi would have you believe that Murray single-handedly engineered the Great Recession and was the chief architect of the Obamacare Death Panels. But you're not that stupid. You're not going to be taken in by a sleazeball real-estate salesman who's lost two statewide races in a row, wants to repeal Wall Street reform and health-care reform, and proudly said in 2008: "It's amazing what you can get away with if you do it with a smile on your face." What's amazing is that this race is so close.
Vote Murray.
Congressional District 2
U.S. Representative
Rick Larsen
Rick Larsen is a Democrat who represents Everett, Coupeville, Ferndale, and a bunch of other way-north-of-Seattle places that you drove through that one time you got lost on your way to Stevens Pass. But he's part of the current Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and he's in trouble. John Koster, a conservative "third generation dairyman" and Snohomish County councilman, tied with Larsen in the August 17 primary (they each got 42 percent of the vote) and could unseat him on November 2. Need motivation to care about this race? Larsen is pro-choice and voted against the Iraq war, while Koster brags about his "100 percent pro-life voting record" and says that gay marriage would "undermine" traditional families. Vote Larsen.
Congressional District 3
U.S. Representative
Denny Heck
This seat currently belongs to Democrat Brian Baird, who's retiring to "pursue other options," and there are now two possibilities for the seat's future. One: It falls into the hands of Republican lightweight Jaime Herrera—who can't keep her positions on privatizing Social Security straight (she was for privatizing before she was against it) and who recently launched a commercial criticizing "that Washington" while she was sitting in "that Washington" raking in money with Republican creeps. Two: It goes to Democrat heavyweight Denny Heck, elected to the state legislature at age 24, chief of staff to former governor Booth Gardner and all around earnest do-gooder who has the business chops to actually help a district with the highest unemployment rate in the state. Give 'em Heck.
Congressional District 7
U.S. Representative
Jim McDermott
If you typed one word for every year that Jim McDermott has been Seattle's congressman, it would be this many. Three more words and then we'll say no more: Send Jim back.
Congressional District 8
U.S. Representative
Suzan DelBene
There's some chatter lately about this race being closer than expected. We assume it's not because of Republican congressman Dave Reichert's recent brain trauma (a tree branch fell on his head, a blood clot formed on his brain, it lingered for two months unnoticed, parts of his body went numb, eventually he had emergency surgery, and now a doctor who works for the U.S. Congress says he's doing just fine, no worries, nothing to see here, everybody move along). Instead, we assume it's because—even if he is doing just fine—Reichert still sounds like an idiot who's flip-flopped on earmarks (against then for), environmental issues (against or for, depending on who's listening), "don't ask, don't tell" (against then for), and health-care reform (against repeal, now for it). Let's face facts: Reichert was an idiot before a tree branch fell on his head. His challenger, Suzan DelBene, is a right-on-the-issues former Microsoft executive who reminds a lot of people of a certain former Microsoftie who twice came close to unseating Reichert (Darcy Burner). But it's looking like this one may actually have a shot. Here's hoping. Vote DelBene.
Legislative District 34
State Representative, Positions 1 and 2
Eileen L. Cody and Joe Fitzgibbon
Yeah, yeah, Eileen Cody. We want her to beat Ray "Reluctantly Republican" Carter in the race for state representative. Now, please, enough about Cody. Shut up. We want to direct every last bit of our attention to Joe Fitzgibbon, whose plump lips have never uttered a word that didn't make us go, "Squeeee!" Fitzgibbon's opponent is Mike Heavey, whose only qualification is having been shot out of a state senator's balls some nine months before he was born. So Heavey's daddy was a state senator. Big fucking deal. Fitzgibbon—squeeee!—has, at the tender age of 24, racked up more real-world political experience than Heavey could ever hope to have absorbed by osmosis at family gatherings. Fitzgibbon worked in Olympia as legislative aide to Sharon Nelson (D-34), who is endorsing him, and has served on the Burien Planning Commission. He is a defender of bikers (he wants the legislature to reconsider a bill that would up the punishment for drivers who hit them), a fan of staggered bar-closing times, and an opponent of efforts to put Seattle on the hook for downtown tunnel cost overruns. HOT. Vote Fitzgibbon.
Legislative District 36
State Senator
Jeanne Kohl-Welles
State Representative, Position 2
Mary Lou Dickerson
Their opponents are a couple of right-wing loons. Vote for Democrats Kohl-Welles and Dickerson.
Legislative District 37
State Senator
Adam Kline
State Representative, Position 2
Eric Pettigrew
Both Dem incumbents with challengers in this district—state representative Eric Pettigrew and state senator Adam Kline—have been savvy go-getters on behalf of low-income residents of their Southeast Seattle district. They deserve another term.
Legislative District 43
State Representative, Position 2
Frank Chopp
We'll admit, we're intrigued by "World Champion Ski Racer" Kim Verde, the elderly widow who's running against Democratic house majority leader Frank Chopp. But she's a nutty Republican. On the other hand, we think Chopp is probably, deep down, the righteous lefty that he claims to be, but you wouldn't know it from his aggressive centrism down in Olympia. Yeah, we know, being house majority leader means you have to look out for the Democrats from the sticks. Well, you know what, Chopp, you also have to look out for your base. If we don't see you swinging for Seattle's interests this session (especially on the downtown tunnel cost overrun bullshit) then we're going to show up at your house in the middle of the night and pee on your lawn.
Legislative District 46
State Representative, Position 2
Phyllis G. Kenney
Incumbent state representative and reliable Dem Phyllis Kenney gets shit done. Next session, she wants to introduce a corporate tax. Her challenger, Beau Gunderson, is a pro–Tim Eyman mess. Vote Kenney.
County Council District 8
Joe McDermott
Joe McDermott would be the first out homo ever on the King County Council. Even better, he's qualified. McDermott has served in the state legislature since 2001 representing the 34th District (in the house and then the senate), which shares most of its footprint with King County's 8th District. He's sponsored stacks of progressive legislation and helped push through domestic-partnership bills. The Municipal League of King County rated him "outstanding," while his opponent, Diana Toledo, got a paltry "good" rating. More scary, Toledo is a "nonpartisan" with endorsements from right-wing kooks like KVI's John Carlson and Women of Washington. Vote for pole-smokin' Joe.
State Supreme Court
Justice Position 6
Charlie Wiggins
No one pays attention to state supreme court races, which is how you end up with guys like 65-year-old supreme court justice Richard B. Sanders—anti-choice, "not a fan" of Martin Luther King Jr., and a two-time veteran of hearings before the state Commission on Judicial Conduct—sitting down at the Temple of Justice in Olympia for 15 years straight. Sanders claims he's a libertarian, and for three terms he's been conning liberals into supporting him by plying them with marijuana-law-reform rhetoric and siding with accused criminals so often that lefties think he's secretly a progressive. But here's the truth: Sanders is a Tea-Party-rally-attending conservative Catholic whose supposedly live-and-let-live libertarianism applies only to himself. How else to explain the following: Sanders signed an opinion in 2006 denying marriage rights to gay couples because, according to the opinion, gays are all nonmonogamous sluts whose relationships don't last long and whose households are unsuitable environments for children. Meanwhile, Sanders has been divorced twice (his second marriage ended when his only daughter was 14), and this election season it became clear that he's in open relationships with two women. Uh. (Who's the nonmonogamous slut now, Richard?) Charlie Wiggins, the former court of appeals judge who's running against Sanders, said he would have voted the same way in the same-sex marriage case, but he's been claiming something of a campaign-trail conversion on marriage rights in light of the recent federal court ruling against Prop 8 in California. Given a choice between six more years of a proven hypocrite like Sanders and a roll of the dice on a vote-hustler like Wiggins, we'll take the hustler this time. Vote Wiggins.
Municipal Court
Judge Position 1
Ed McKenna
What's normally the dullest race in Seattle—after the Ambien-sponsored campaigns for the Port of Seattle, that is—this year morphed into a spitting match with allegations of backroom deals, illegal spending, and incompetence. Get the popcorn.
This vote comes down to a referendum on the Seattle Municipal Court's current presiding judge, Edsonya Charles. While Charles has the demographic qualifications that warm liberal hearts (she's an African-American woman who has climbed to the top of the city's court), she gives us pause. Actually, she brings us to a full stop.
The results of a recent survey by the King County Bar Association (KCBA) shows Charles, who has sat on the bench since 2004, with the lowest rating of anyone on Seattle's court, and even the lowest rating of any municipal or district judge in the county. And as presiding judge in Seattle, her politics are terrible. She protested the city council's effort to eliminate one of the court's eight positions (which would save the city approximately $1 million)—while every other department was making cuts—by threatening to sue the city. That despite a report that showed Seattle's court has a lighter caseload per judge than other nearby municipal courts. Charles also pushed back against city attorney Pete Holmes's compassionate proposal in June to avoid deporting legal residents who weren't citizens (fortunately, Holmes's policy prevailed). In her day-to-day tasks, Charles is infamously caustic on the bench and boorish on panels and boards.
So we're endorsing Charles's opponent, Ed McKenna—despite his supporters. McKenna has the enthusiastic backing of a PAC of DUI attorneys. Apparent conflicts aside (defense attorneys in one specific practice campaigning to oust judges they dislike seems weird), McKenna has a tenure as an even-keeled assistant city attorney, the endorsement of six city council members, and the backing of lots of progressives. The KCBA also rated McKenna in a separate report as "exceptionally well qualified," while Charles got a "qualified." Sorry, Charles, being merely "qualified" is unacceptable for a presiding judge after nearly seven years on the bench. Vote for McKenna.
Municipal Court
Judge Position 6
Karen Donohue
While Judge Michael Hurtado has done some great things on the bench—he's helped shape Seattle's excellent mental-health court, for one—we think it's time that he take a break. At our endorsement meeting, Hurtado dismissed several accounts of angry courtroom outbursts that led to two admonitions from the judicial-conduct commission, retracted his previously stated intent to leave the bench, and now says he has regained his "fire in the belly" for his job. It helps that his challenger, Karen Donohue, isn't some know-nothing greenhorn; she's served as pro tem judge since 1994, and she has a four-point plan to modernize Seattle's archaic court system (ideas include electronic record keeping so that judges can actually have all the facts on hand, unlike the current paper-centric system). Bring the courts into the future. Vote Donohue.
Seattle School District 1, Proposition 1
Vote Yes
Another damn school levy? Seriously? Even though we've passed a slew of levies for Seattle Public Schools in the last few years (two this year alone), we need another one. Revenues from the state and school district have fallen short, meaning that Seattle schools are facing an estimated $28 million in cuts for 2011–2012. This three-year property-tax levy would give Seattle Public Schools $48.2 million to help keep vital school programs running, buy new textbooks and materials for students, and pay for an improved teacher contract that provides incentives for better performance. A property worth $200,000 would pay around $22 next year. Critics argue that since the funds aren't dedicated, they won't go into classrooms or to support students. We don't buy that argument. Over 80 percent of the district's operating budget is spent on wages and salaries for teachers and staff. More cuts would mean less staff, worse schools, and a life of perpetual guilt. Vote yes.
1
Not this year. You blew it. I don't know why you all decided to take mescaline, but you're obviously strung out on drugs with half your endorsements.
5
The Stranger said vote yes on all those prior regressive tax increases too, because there was "no other choice" to get past the "temporary" crisis. Next time around will you say no more regressive sales taxes? Or is this "temporary" crisis business all a sham?
I say, there has to be a point where you refuse to raise sales taxes any higher. It's violence against poor people to take so much of their money. The claim that there is no alternative is a lie. Replacing sales taxes, entirely, with progressive income tax, is possible but it takes commitment and balls. No more of this kicking the can down the road.
6
I'm waivering on the soda pop thing though. I'm not much of a candy eater (empty calories) and I don't buy bottled water (tap water or Brita works for me) or HFCS-laced soft drinks. But I do loves me some Diet Coke. And unhealthful as it may or may not be, I purchase a lot of it. Still, I'll re-read the initiative and re-consider.
Thanks again for the guiding light, SECB!
9
Hurtado is endorsed by ALL of law enforcement and rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the KC Corrections Guild. You know, the people that actually work with defendants day in and day out and actually experience the competency, attitude and vigor of the judges every day? Also endorsed by labor and many community organizations. He's a great judge and is the only judge around here that takes drunk driving treatment seriously. He MAKES defendants finish their agreed-upon treatment, when other judges just let them slide.
She appears to be supported by the monied in her circle and not much else.
Donahue said at the bar forum that that made him biased! Really? Protecting public safety by holding people accountable to the treatment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant is BIASED? Did you ask her if she thought holding addicts accountable to treatment, as mandated by the law, was a BAD thing?
17 years on the bench and only 2 complaints? In reality, in the case of telling that attorney to shut up, he should have held her in contempt. If you haven't listed to the tape, they are available.
By my reading, this Donahue person has been a part time attorney and part time judge, with little community involvement outside Laurelhurst Beach Club (! really?) and support of her kids uberposh private schools. I know these races are supposed to be non-partisan, but you figure it out.
Now that there is hope of new leadership in the court, there are many people reconsidering staying at Muni. The culture is currently pretty darn toxic and it's a rotten place to work sometimes because of that.
Donahue got all butthurt when she wasn't deemed as qualified as Adam to be court comissioner and bailed on being a pro-tem. You guys should really check into this claim of hers that she's been a pro-tem for 14 years - it's easy to verifty this basic stuff. Check the resume, too.
Plus, all the dirty rumors she's spreading around this place are just gross.
13
Judge Hurtado is a great guy, and has done wonderful things for the community. He should have retired this year. Unfortunately, it is now up to the voters to retire him.
15
The short version of what I mean (great analysis in your writeups, by the way, even if your conclusions are flawed) is pretty much: Yes on 1098 and Ref 52 and Schools 1 and No on everything else other than the charter amendments.
Your CD and LD endorsements are pretty good tho.
We all want cheap booze at 7-Eleven, but when your main justifications for four other items are based on getting more money to the state in its time of need, how can you justify voting for the one that takes it away?
Fascinating.
22
IMO the only thing worth voting for are the Amendements without opposition (all of 'em).
I am voting against everything else.
I'm amazed you drank the Kool-aid on 1098.
That explains your other support positions, you were tripping when you chose to support income tax (IMO Prohibition was a better idea). You recited "We have the most regressive tax...." ARE YOU NUTS? WE VOTED FOR IT !! ALL OF IT !!
We need to take responsibility for allowing the state to change any revenue stream to the general fund after 2-5 years, leaving holes in where our funding for 'Schools and Health Care', or "Police and Fire Departments" comes from. Why do all the tax issues mention them?
Just to get you to vote for the bait, then they give you the switch.
On alcohol, something should cut loose, esp. three tier system & posting laws, but small shop protections should exist, or you allow Costco to purchase a loophole and become the defacto washington state alcohol distributor. just goes against the grain (!).
Both are flawed and worse long term than the current status quo.
IF Ref 52 limited 50% or more to primary and secondary schools, I would give it another think, but 'higher education' and for-profit
'colleges' will reap a windfall on my dime.
8225 is a financial shell game that we will have to pay for with interest later vs. normal accounting. Where is the sense in this? Idunno.
Did you fall get your medical marijuana cards, BEFORE you read your voters info, then gave these half-baked recommendations?
Vote NO except Amendments without opposition.
Just my opinion. Really, MY suggestion is to read all you can that is NON-partison on the subjects, and make your own informed choice.
26
27
29
As for all the comments whining about the 1098 slippery slope--I look forward to the day when we can replace our ridiculous sales tax with a sensible income tax. And since there is no way that a broad-based income tax will get through the legislature any time soon, in the meantime I'll hope to be so blessed as to be taxed under I-1098.
You use a common fallacies of economic thinking. Businesses do not hire because they have extra money they don't need, nor do they fire people because the owner wants to make exactly $1,000,000 annually and now that his taxes have gone up he needs to make up the difference. Businesses try to maximize profits. They hire to make more money. It is not the case that if a business owner's taxes go up $50,000, he can fire someone who works for $50,000 and get that money back -- if that employee was really contributing nothing to his bottom line, he would have fired them anyway. Basically the calculation a business owner makes is will firing this person save me more than I will lose from being able to do less business? And because money given to employees is not taxed, a change in the income tax rate does not affect the answer to this question.
45
2) @37: You realize that people, even the poor, have to buy things other than food, right? HAVE to, not want to; basic necessities off the top off my head include clothes, soap and other toiletries, and gasoline. That is with literally two seconds of thought, though the argument could be made that gasoline is not a necessity. Also, there is no tax on rent, but property tax gets passed on to renters by the property owner.
3) The slippery slope is a bad argument in every iteration. There is literally no situation where it is a valid reason not to do something. For 1098, it is stupid to suggest that a legislature which up until now has not enacted an income tax will suddenly develop the political wherewithal to institute one across the income spectrum. Further: If they tried, it would be INCREDIBLY EASY to pass an initiative to do something about it. Further: if they tried, our current (Democratic) Governor would veto it.
4) @33: In a manner of speaking, yes. In two years, with a 2/3 majority, the state congress could modify the initiative to cover a broader income. They almost certainly will not, though, because they already have the capability to institute an income tax. They simply do not have the wherewithal (some would say desire) to do so.
A final word on 1098: Listen. We all reap the benefits of living in an educated society, even those of us without children. At the very, very least, everyone should contribute taxes equally; right now, the rich pay a ludicrously small percentage of their income to the state (2-3%), whereas the poor pay over 17. It is incredible to me that anyone can hear this information and still say that we shouldn't try to do something about it.
If this passes, the local craft breweries and Washington wineries are going to be crippled.
Read the pi's take before you make your vote:
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/426359_…
47
VOTE NO ON BOTH 1100 1105!!!
both are just sloppy and stupid. until someone puts together a PROPER FIX to the liquor situation in WA, DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!!
DO NOT FALL FOR EITHER LIQUOR INITIATIVE!!!!!!
VOTE.FUCKING.NO
Also, the State Auditor has done everything but send up a bat signal on the state of finances at the district. What part of the following did you dismiss so easily?
“The District’s Board and Management have placed public resources at risk.” State audit
7 out of 7 federal grants - out of compliance with federal regulations and this includes the long-suffering Native American program(state audit)
99% of teachers vote no confidence in the Superintendent.
Not having textbooks as a line item for over a decade (and THAT's why they are asking for new money now for books - not doing their job on basics in the first place)
Half-a billion dollars in backlogged maintenance; a safe and clean classroom is an education basic (they've cut maintenance nearly in half since the late '70s) - none of the levy goes for that
So go ahead and vote yes if you feel guilty about voting against the levy. But it's a tax like any other one and if you don't examine the reasons they want it and what it will be used for, well, you hurt the kids.
Thanks for clearing up the liquor initiative, SECB!
I believe they are deeply mistaken on this and #42 is on target.
Far too much rightwing money has flowed in for Initiative 1100, so I've been looking at it considerably more closely.
The end effect of this privatization would be like all the rest of such privatizing events, consolidating the market control of the major, corporate chains, while destroying the local breweries and distilleries and wine merchants.
Once they have undercut them and put them out of business, they then usuriously jack up the prices. This has occurred time and time again.
And during these times, we need all the local businesses and local employers we can muster.
"99% of teachers vote no confidence in the Superintendent."
This superintendent has long been a supporter for the privatization of schools, something that unfortunate faux crat Obama administration has long supported as well.
Fortunately, the Chicago Teachers Union finally won their lawsuit against Obama's stooge for their unlawful termination.
He has gone to schools for 17 years talked to children about their discisions and the consequences. Brought them to his courtroom and had them visit the jail and hear the sound of steel doors closing you in your cell. I remember Judge Hurtado having an documentary done on him by MSNBC Investigates and shown on television. Also the Discovery channel did a documentary on him and it was shown on television. You can also see that Judge Hurtado has been endorsed by every Police Ass. and his opponent has NOT! You can also find out how much MONEY she has spent on this race. As for litigation matters she herself said most of her litigation cases were heard 16 YEARS ago! Her time in court has been minimal compared to 17 years! For her time in court...Stranger you know the "Saying you can count them on your fingers." Stranger as to the involement of the CJE'S and its
involemnent with Mckenna...just how far have THEY GONE with their shenanigans againsts the other Judges who are so called hard on DUIS and their opponents? HMMMMMMM!!! My VOTE is for JUDGE HURTADO who said in your first article that he goes after the second offender of DUIS and sees to it that they spend a little time in jail and sees to it that they get help with their addiction! Not to send them out into the public to possibly cause a tradgic death from a DUI! How simple can that be for you Stranger? I am APPALLED at you decision for MC Kenna and CJE'S. You should be ashamed of youselves!!! This a Peoples Court and I can certainly see that Judge Hurtado looks outs for the citizens of Seattle before a DUI offender, and is on the bench to protect us. As you can see I know the heartache of loosing family members to a DUI.
I have never voted against one in my life. But after teaching in Seattle schools for the past few years, I know that I won't see a dime of that money. The levy is one giant blank check to the district. Sure, they claim that some of it will go to wage increases or funding for new positions, but the increases are only for those who decide to opt-in to the new test-scores-as-evaluation system, which when written used the test that the super was on the board of directors for. It also will "fund" stipends for teachers with exceptional rankings, which unfortunately if the building is following all district mandated procedures right are impossible to get-- you can only be excellent for innovations to curriculum, but at the same time another program requires 100% fidelity to the prescribed curriculum. Those stipends are only funded for a few years, some require teachers transfer to high needs buildings, and it's unclear what happens if after transfer on the first evaluation a teacher (understandably) drops in ranking. In all there are too many ways for the district to weasel out of getting the money where it belongs. Our students likely will never see a benefit, only more testing, more curriculum proven ineffective by all objective studies available, and fewer choices as the money gets conveniently "misplaced" by the district.
DO NOT give someone with a history of poor money management and no oversight a giant blank check. The school board and super have blown raspberries at the state audit findings (which was a fail). Until they can get their act together, provide real oversight, proven long-range planning, and an actual concern for the students, not their own Broad foundation agenda (and associated pocket books), they don't deserve anything but scorn.
54
Karen Donohue has been involved in her local community, and has experience as a judge pro tem, a magistrate and a commissioner, as well as working both sides of criminal cases. She's articulate, well read, and very smart. These are qualities that are important for judges, not community service.
As for Ed McKenna - what the SECB doesn't mention - he was endorsed not only by current City Attorney Pete Holmes, but also previous City Attorney Tom Carr. Tom "I hate alcohol and drunk driving and fun and bars" Carr. The most anti-alcohol politician I have ever met. To even insinuate that Ed McKenna would be soft on drunk drivers is asinine at best. What he would bring is competence. Competence is a good thing. Especially on the Court.
55
Surprisingly the SECB missed that one - probably while they were drinking all the free hard liquor from their advertisers that made them endorse 1100.
So add Jay Inslee (1st CD) to the list.
59
Instead, I pay a much higher portion of my income into state taxes.
Now, if you want to go all GOP and implement a flat income tax in the State of Washington, and get rid of the sales tax, go for it. It will still be a tax cut for the vast majority of us, and a huge increase for you. With the current plan, assuming you're even calculating things correctly, you're going to see a 3.3% increase in your tax burden. If that puts you under, if that makes you bankrupt, then you obviously have other spending issues that need addressing.
61
thunderchaps @42: The local wineries and artisan breweries are divided on this issue. Some, like the Family Wineries of Washington State strongly support I-1100. I've spoken with individual brewers who welcome I-1100. Other producers oppose it.
What's driving it the opposition is that at present there are all kinds of laws restricting competition in the alcohol beverage industries that we don't have with any other consumer products. The restrictions don't do anything to protect public health and safety. Some firms benefit from them at the expense of other firms, and at the expense of consumers. The laws are relics from post-Prohibition, but Legislatures find it hard to get rid of them because of lobbying pressure from the firms that benefit most from the special treatment. For example, it's illegal for a grocery store to buy beer and wine from a supplier on credit. No other products have that restriction. It generally helps better-known brands --if a grocer has to pay cash up front to stock a product, he'll be more inclined to stock a known-quantity product which he believes can sell quickly, and less likely to take a risk on a lesser known product if he doesn't know how quickly it will sell.
I-1100 gets rid of the outdated economic regulations while preserving the regulations that protect public health and safety. It creates a free and fair marketplace that benefits consumers and the companies that serve them the best. Some winemakers and brewers feel that the current regulations protect them from competition. Others think they can be even more successful in an open marketplace where they're free to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements with retailers who might not otherwise carry their products. A lot of small winemakers know that if they can sell on credit, it would make it easier for smaller stores to take a risk to try putting their lesser-known products on the shelf. So they support I-1100.
As a consumer, I think we're served better by an open marktplace, not by regulations that make it harder for companies to compete for our business.
The ones who are most motivated to keep the anti-competitive regulations in place are the big brewers and beer distributors. That's why they're pouring millions of dollars from around the country into this campaign in order to preserve their favored position in the marketplace (= reduce choices and raise prices for Washington consumers)
thunderchaps @42: The local wineries and artisan breweries are divided on this issue. Some, like the Family Wineries of Washington State strongly support I-1100. I've spoken with individual brewers who welcome I-1100. Other producers oppose it.
What's driving it the opposition is that at present there are all kinds of laws restricting competition in the alcohol beverage industries that we don't have with any other consumer products. The restrictions don't do anything to protect public health and safety. Some firms benefit from them at the expense of other firms, and at the expense of consumers. The laws are relics from post-Prohibition, but Legislatures find it hard to get rid of them because of lobbying pressure from the firms that benefit most from the special treatment. For example, it's illegal for a grocery store to buy beer and wine from a supplier on credit. No other products have that restriction. It generally helps better-known brands --if a grocer has to pay cash up front to stock a product, he'll be more inclined to stock a known-quantity product which he believes can sell quickly, and less likely to take a risk on a lesser known product if he doesn't know how quickly it will sell.
I-1100 gets rid of the outdated economic regulations while preserving the regulations that protect public health and safety. It creates a free and fair marketplace that benefits consumers and the companies that serve them the best. Some winemakers and brewers feel that the current regulations protect them from competition. Others think they can be even more successful in an open marketplace where they're free to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements with retailers who might not otherwise carry their products. A lot of small winemakers know that if they can sell on credit, it would make it easier for smaller stores to take a risk to try putting their lesser-known products on the shelf. So they support I-1100.
As a consumer, I think we're served better by an open marktplace, not by regulations that make it harder for companies to compete for our business.
The ones who are most motivated to keep the anti-competitive regulations in place are the big brewers and beer distributors. That's why they're pouring millions of dollars from around the country into this campaign in order to preserve their favored position in the marketplace (= reduce choices and raise prices for Washington consumers)
Why no endorsements for State 48? Bellevue, right across the lake, helloooOOO!!
P.S. As you've probably guessed, I'm against Obamacare too. And I'll ALWAYS vote againt any law that lets the majority "stick it" to a minority. Hell, why don't we just vote to let the government take everything Bill Gates has and give it to us? Sounds fair, huh? It must be if it's the will of the majority, right?
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
66
Cause that's where you're getting your funding, chump.
What a joke. Yeah throw a few F-bombs in there and complain about the "rich" not paying enough taxes. Typical Stranger drivel...nevermind all the incumbents you endorsed who can't balance a state budget or spend within their means.
If you're a consumer who enjoys the wide variety of choice currently afforded at your local pub or grocery store, you'd be wise to vote no on 1100. If you're a pure free-market capitalist who drinks Bud Light, vote yes.
PATTY MURRAY (FUCK YOU AND I HOPE IT HURTS DINO GRINNING MAFIA DON BOZO!!!), CHARLIE WIGGINS, RICK LARSEN,
1098,....and
DEFINITELY NO ON 1053!!
But then I've automatically voted no on anything TIM BLINDASS EYESORE sticks on a ballot since he squirmed in out of the sewers.
(and sorry for the double post at 62/63. My lame)
I'm a fan of craft beer. Like most folks who prefer craft beer, I'm willing to pay more for the good stuff and will never switch to Budweiser no matter how cheap it gets.
I also have faith in American entrepreneurs and their ability to innovate and compete for customers when given a fair chance to do so.
And again, Anheuser-Busch/InBev is one of the biggest investors in the NO on I-1100/1105 campaign. They have more financial analysts working for them than the local craft brewers do. I suspect they've projected that the free market will give them tougher competition from good beer as much as it will give them tougher competition from good whiskey.
I am.
77
Thanks SECB.
78
As for privatizing liquor stores- you LIKE the idea of taking $'s from the state and giving them to Walmart, Kroeger's, et al? You LIKE the idea of making liquor readily available to teens? You LIKE crapping on local breweries, wineries, etc? Quit looking at your navels and wake up. Vote NO on both 1100 and 1105.
The Stranger failed to analyze the situation. Read the State Audit these SPS folks are tossing money right and left down rat holes.
See the $800,000 contract that wasn't there approved by 4 school directors. A no bid contract that did not qualify as no bid.
No time to think or follow rules when these folks are in a big hurry to spend more.
STOP this nonsense with a sane "NO" vote.
http://mathunderground.blogspot.com/2010…
83
Thanks for not helping!
P.S.: Election's over - already helped six people fill out their ballots - any chance we can get the TV channels to stop the stupid ads?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ed…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUaebxOlR…
I don't trust your statistics. The statistics you cite are in reference to underage drinking in general, not in regards to underage drinking of liquor. Drinking beer is far less harmful and dangerous than drinking spirits. Given that liquor is far less available than regular beer, I can only surmise that most of these kids (like most adults) are drinking beer. The Kids drunk driving rate in Washington is also far LOWER than California's (488 arrests vs 1,468!). In 2008 in Washington, there were 3,536 arrests under liquor laws for minors. In California, 5,181. How do you explain this discrepancy? Maybe kids don't admit to drinking until they get arrested for it?
And if you say that kids and homeless people can't buy liquor, guess what, they don't have to buy it. Explain to me why there are always six packs at safeway missing one or two bottles? People try to swipe beer from grocery stores constantly.
I also find folly in your characterization of Beer Companies as evil entities. What about Vodka Companies? Do you think they're in it for your health? This is also taking even more money away from the state and giving it to Costco, which I don't see as an improvement.
All things said and done you dedicate more than 800 words AND A GRAPHIC to the liquor initiatives and 152 to the school levy. Let it never be said that the Stranger doesn't know it's audience.
Boy. 87 posts and still no pie. I was hoping to get something off of here that bordered on substance, but most of it is same old opinion and creatively manipulated statistics, like derptard's.
There are one or two bottles missing from six-packs at Safeway because yesterday I went in and bought them. I wanted two beers, not a whole six-pack.
If you're going to dump on this initiative because kids allegedly steal bottles of beer out of six-packs, you're going to have to pass legislation to keep them out of every other aisle in the supermarket, too.
Or, you know...hire better security.
Washington with a lower kids drunk driving rate? Based on those figures you cite? Dude, did you fail math, too? There are more people in Los Angeles County than in the entire state of Washington. By 4 million! The state of California's population is SIX TIMES the population of Washington.
Oy.
It may be a drop in the bucket, but then again, IT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET. Beyond the revenue loss to the state, what is the impact to jobs? Will QFC and Wallmart hire more employees to support the selling of liquor in their stores, sufficient to offset the loss of jobs in the state run stores? And beyond jobs, what is the impact to local breweries and wineries that many have raised?
Plenty of "clever" here but a real lack of helpful information.
Fail.
I didn't expect you to endorse Dino, but supporting Patty? Oh hellllllllls no! Oh Patty says all the right things, and then does the opposite! Ask anyone in the LGBT community how they feel about Patty after last week when she betrayed us all by not signing the petition to ask Obama not to send DOJ to appeal DADT. 21 senators were on that list, neither of Washington's senators could be bothered. Our "Fierce Advocate" and his minions have betrayed us again, and this time it's the final straw. Democrats continue to oppress the gays and drag us along with empty promises about equality, meanwhile they've spent more time promoting "amnesty" for the illegals and protecting the cult of Islam. The democrats have reset the default party setting for the LGBT community, especially since we now know it was republicans that won the DADT court case while the real gay rights groups were throwing cocktail parties and selling us out to the Obamabots. Do you think the gays are rushing out to vote for Pro-Illegal Patty who is nothing more than a farmhand on the democratic plantation of empty promises? Patty was doomed before the events of this week, the gays were bailing off the Democratic wagon all year, this just seals the deal and confirmed all our fears about the "Fierce Advocate". We're 4% of the electorate nationally, perhaps a little more in Washington, and Patty just kissed those votes goodbye!
Enjoy 11/2, and you might want to start protecting the stacks you send out onto the Seattle streets, I will be taking every issue I see and turning them into paper mache. ;0)
*spits*
94
Thanks much for the hard work you put into your Endorsement edition this year. I'll have it with me when I vote my King County Mail In ballot.
The service you provide with your Endorsement issue each election is of great value. Although, while reading the endorsements to a loved one, my face turned a shade similar to that of my red Left Bank Books t-shirt because of the words you chose to use, I nonetheless got a great deal out of the wisdom and logic your team shared with readers.
As always, but especially during these bizarre economic and cultural times, an informed and passionate electorate is of the utmost importance for our representative form of government. Kudos to The Stranger for taking its duty of informing the public seriously.
I applaud the people who choose to vote and empathize with those who don't,
Tom Hundley
Belltown
Is your tiny business a luxury soda company bringing in half a million dollars in income a year for yourself (with a private security squad so you don't need public safety services)? I can't see any other way the taxes would hurt, and not help, your business.
-Another SSD teacher.
1098 - Hell yes. What the financial crisis taught me, with its bailouts, bonuses, and golden parachutes, is that the rich will always look out for the interests of other rich people. They can always get the government to take their risks for them. The middle class has taken enough punishment for their benefit, and needs to start looking after its own interests. The class war so far has been entirely one-sided; it's time to fight back.
The real genius of Rush Limbaugh (and other right-wing talkers) has been his ability to convince his lower- and middle-class listeners that their interests are the same as those of multi-millionaires like himself.
Wtf. Your "statistic" argues AGAINST your point.
First, 488 vs 1468 isn't even a god damned rate. A rate is like "Washington state has one under age drunk driver for every 12,300 persons in the state". You could then compare that rate against another rate like "califronia has one under age drunk driver for every 24,500 persons in the state". That's a comparison that's worth while. Comparing absolutes is at best dumb, and worst deceitful. I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're dumb...
You're basically saying that washington state has roughly 1/3 the number of under age drunk driving arrests as california. This would be fucking brilliant if it weren't for the fact that california (population: approx 36 million) has roughly six times the population of washington state (population: approxy 6 million). Thus washington state right now has roughly 2x rate of california per capita. Take this into account and then do the math on your literals (hint I did it above, dumbass).
Quite ironic that you question other people's statistics when you can't even understand the fundamentals of statistics.
P.S. I'm drunk. I'm not driving. And even I could figure this out. What's wrong with you?
I really don't get why anyone buys into this line of reasoning. If we pass I-1098, it won't make it any easier for the legislature to pass an income tax for everyone. Seriously, why would the legislature plot to convince people to vote for an initiative to create an income tax for just the rich and then pass one for everyone, when they could just pass an income tax for everyone anyway without bothering with one for just the rich?
I know there must be others who think this is how things work; I've heard ads to this effect. Someone explain the logic to me. Seriously, I want to understand how people who think this way think.
101
So thanks for the direction on the judicial races and the liquor initiatives, but I KNOW about the schools and I'm voting NO on the levy.
With regard to Initiatives 1100 and 1105, a short review of economic history is in order.
Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, Prohibition (1920-1933) was enacted. This legislation outlawed alcoholic beveridges, thus removing a large chunk of taxes from the American tax base back then.
This tax shortcoming exactly equates to the tax cuts for the super-rich enacted by the Bush administration.
Certain bankers had bought the various distilleries and breweries, prior to the passage of Prohibition (which they helped finance), and together with the active criminal element, accumulated great sums of money in their bootlegging and smuggling activities; thanks to their tax-free, illegal, liquor monopoly.
Today the business press would refer to these unregulated funds as "dark pools."
The banksters laundered their unregulated (criminal) funds through the stock market, similar to the present capital flow of unregulated funds (hedge funds, private equity funds, sovereign funds, etc.) of questionable origin.
Next year, many individual states will require a bailout from the federal government due to severe reductions in the tax base brought on by the dismantling of the American economy over the previous 35 to 40 years.
These two initiatives will hasten Washington state's likelihood of falling into this category.
Obviously, unprecedented and unsustainable levels of corruption are responsible for this situation, both at federal, state and local levels. An unbroken string of corrupt mayors in Seattle (Royer, Ullman, Rice, Schell, and Nichols) and corrupt governors as well, haven't wisely served the public interests.
Whether it is a Norm Rice, who as mayor used H.U.D. funds earmarked for low-income housing to subsidize the Nordstrom family business, or a Gov. Gary Locke who offshored jobs at 49 out of 53 state agencies (Locke has since moved on to Secretary of Commerce -- where he signs waivers for federal stimulus funds to flow overseas instead of aiding the American worker and national economy); the local economy has not been well servered!
While it may be more convenient for the consumer should these two initiatives pass, sometimes it is more noble to behave like an actual citizen and think of the greater good and the immediate future.
And for the sake of the greater good of the local and state economy, the best choice is to invest in the local breweries, distilleries and wine businesses (and tax base).
Therefore, we should all vote a resounding NO on Initiatives 1100 and 1105.
I don't know where these tax numbers came from: "the poor" pay 17.3% of their income in taxes and "the rich" pay 2.6%?? Does anyone else see an outright lie here?
PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR 1098. Because even if you don't make more than $200k per year you'll still have to file your state taxes (costing you time and money, neither of which will benefit the state). And slowly, they'll turn up the heat, every year they will lower that threshold until everyone squeals under the pain. But most important, 1098 DOES NOT FIX the tax burden problem. The rich will still get exemptions, just like ever before. How about voting on a tax system that prohibits bullshit exemptions!
Immediately after winning that election, Schell starts planning for the WTO to come to Seattle (although it certainly didn't turn out the way Schell, aka Schlacterhausen, envisioned it).
The Stranger endorsed Schell for mayor, just as they have endorsed Intitiative 1100.
Don't be a sap many times over (this is directed to any Zombie Stranger Readers).
That doesn't answer my question at all. We're voting on an income tax that only affects the rich. It can only create an income tax that only affects the rich. To create an income tax that affects everyone, we or the legislature need to have a vote on an income tax that affects everyone. That can happen whether or not there's ever a vote on an income tax that only affects the rich.
It Only effects the rich NOW. Did you read my comments at all? The state legislators can change the threshold of the income cap after two years. Thats fact. So if you feel comfortable paying an income tax on top all of our other taxes then vote for 1098. I just hope that this does not pass and in the near future my self employed ass doesnt have to with-hold even more money i dont have. In case you didnt know its expensive to live.
The anti-1082 groups pull out the buzzwords, "Republican" and "AIG," but don't really explain in any detail why allowing private workers' comp. insurance will cause workers not to be compensated, premiums to increase, etc. The only decent point I can see on their site is that the private companies will headhunt all the low-risk companies and increase the overall risk of the state option, thus increasing premiums. A decent argument, but I'd like to see some point-counterpoint.
As for the pro-1082 side, all I see is the standard right-wing "JOBS ARE GOOD, HIPPIE."
Anyone want to take a stab at this?
111
@109: I like how you missed the point entirely and then STILL acted like the victim. Listen. They are the state legislature. They have within their power the ability to institute a state income tax covering all income ranges at any moment that they're in session. They have not. They simply do not have the desire or political wherewithal, and even if they did, our governer has said she'd veto any such bill. This is all true INDEPENDENT of I-1098. The slippery slope argument is NOT LEGITIMATE.
No on 1098. If you think that, in 10 years, we will not all be paying a state income tax, you are fooling yourselves.
Yes I read your comment, did you read mine? The legislature does not need us to vote on this initiative if they want to institute an income tax. With a simple majority vote, right now, they can do that. This initiative does not in any way make it easier for the legislature to do what you claim they'll do if we vote yes (or what you claim we'll prevent them from doing if we vote no). Seriously, if we vote no, they could vote on a state wide income tax the next time they're in session, and it wouldn't require any more votes to pass than if we vote yes.
This year, I am flushing everything down the toilet that looks remotely like a chance of a tax increase or larger government. It has just gone too far. Career politicians have to go. The government has to be made responsible to the tax payers.
A society based on growing government entitlements is not sustainable because if things keep going the way they are, there won't be enough of a private sector economy to support it. It's just simple math.
117
@116: How are big government and over-taxation killing our state?
118
HTH, HAND, *HUGS*
Are you a veteran? Student? Homeowner? Taxpayer?
Trying to start your own small business? Busting your ass pursuing a higher education? Trying to keep healthcare affordable and available to everybody?
Well, if these issues are important to you, VOTE PATTY MURRAY!!!! I SURE AM!
You really think Dino Grinning Mafia Dumbshit Rossi gives a fuck about Joe Washington State Citizen?
Rossi supports THE WEALTHY. He's John Boehner's transplanted Northwest stooge: HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AND ME.
Do you GET it now?
Population of CA = 36.9 million people
Population of WA = 6.7 million people
Population of CA >> Population of WA
So if we normalize the number of DUIs and MIPs by population, then we find that the proportion of these infractions to state population is much higher in WA than CA. Using your numbers and normalizing by population, there are 1.8 times as many DUIs in Washington than California, and a whopping 3.8 times as many MIPs in Washington than California.
Hmm... despite the state's restrictive control of alcohol, we still have a problem. Clearly, state-run liquor control does not equate with less drinking by minors. Vote yes on 1100 and lets have the alcohol control board focus on enforcement of alcohol laws and not sales.
Population of CA = 36.9 million people
Population of WA = 6.7 million people
Population of CA >> Population of WA
So if we normalize the number of DUIs and MIPs by population, then we find that the proportion of these infractions to state population is much higher in WA than CA. Using your numbers and normalizing by population, there are 1.8 times as many DUIs in Washington than California, and a whopping 3.8 times as many MIPs in Washington than California.
Hmm... despite the state's restrictive control of alcohol, we still have a problem. Clearly, state-run liquor control does not equate with less drinking by minors. Vote yes on 1100 and lets have the alcohol control board focus on enforcement of alcohol laws and not sales.
126
Also, I'll be voting for both liquor privatization initiatives because, while you have a point about it creating quite a mess to untangle, I think it is far more dangerous split the vote and lose completely. Vote for both and send the message, "We want better access to booze and we're not willing to risk blowing the shot we've been waiting years for!" The argument about kids having easier access to booze either don't have children or haven't been in a government liquor store lately. Before I quit smoking recently, I got carded for smokes each and every time I went to Safeway or Walgreen's (to name a couple) but I can't even remember the last time I was carded for alcohol at a government store. I'm not that old...and darn it, I don't look my age!
127
The rest of us have a more expansive vision of what a great state Washington can be, and are willing to invest in its future.
What say we offer "Terrible Tim" $1,000,000 and a free plane ticket to leave Washington to the people who are willing to pay their fair share of our state's expenses and investments in its people?
We need this in Chicago!!!! We know you love Chicago... PLEASE help us with a voter's guide here, in Chicago!!!
Please!!
Thank you!!
We're also smart enough to choose the initiative that makes sense over the one that doesn't.
Yes on 1100, No on 1105
Somalia.
There's no taxes, no Big Government getting in the way of entrepreneurs, no burdensome regulation oppressing small or big businesses...
It's F'ing Galt Gulch! Somalia, paradise for the Captains of Industries!!
As fo 1098, I'm torn. I agree that a truly progressive income tax is needed and preferable to our sales tax, and if 1098 instituted that progressive tax AND did away with the sales tax, I'd be completely on board. However, it does neither. And the argument that I've seen here that the legislature doesn't have the political will to expand the income tax to us all or else they would have already instituted one seems fallacious to me. It takes far less political will to expand something already in place than to do the whole thing from scratch. I have no problem with the income tax eventually being expanded to us all as long as the sales tax goes bye-bye, but I absolutely do not trust the people in charge to do this. Politicians, as a general rule, don't like to do away with revenue, even if it can be replaced. Better, in their eyes, to keep both.
135
138
Seattle was bad enough in the 1980s but it's gone to the dogs now.
I must be the only white person in America who took a course on Black Republicans (SCCC).
And I never looked back!
139
Join the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King!!
What I love about the tea party is they can't stand RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans and insist on true conservative values regardless of their party affiliation!
Well, stay sober on November 2, 2010 and don't forget to vote!
We have to say NO to the status quo and find ways for the parties to come together in order to turn things around. There are answers, but we have to get beyond being slaves to the party labels.
There is a great article at TheSUNBREAK.com, please read it and share with friends.
http://thesunbreak.com/2010/10/20/im-ask…
Read the story and find out why I'm voting for DIANA TOLEDO for King County Council!
144
Also, for the record, rent is taxed, just not obviously so. Property tax is passed on to the poor by the property owner.
While we're at it, why don't we put Dino Rossi on that outgoing plane, too?
It's non-biased information, but I'm sure you can all make up your own minds using it.
It's non-biased information, but I'm sure you can all make up your own minds using it.
This article says otherwise (that the tax is only on business profits, not revenue):
http://search.sequimgazette.com/guest-op…
152
This year is not any different. Other than voting yes on 1100 (free the sale of liquor) I am voting exactly the opposite of every stranger recommendation.
Thank you very much, Stranger! You do it for me every time!
here is one article that states the taxes on gross income.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stori…
If it's that big an issue you can switch to a C-Corp.
Also, regarding small business and the 200k tax rate, it's a bit old, but as a data point, "In 1998, only 3.4 percent of tax filers with positive small business income had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000...By contrast, 67 percent of tax filers with positive small business income had adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…
We're VERY grateful for how generous life has been to our family, and we feel incredibly fortunate. We nearly always vote for tax increases, regardless of the impact to us. We agree that those with higher incomes generally get more value from society's institutions such as schools, police and fire protection, roads, etc. and want to pay our fair share for those institutions.
I don't know where the 2.6% tax rate comes from, and thus far no one has offered any data supporting that assertion. (And I do realize it is provided in the context of $200K single/ $400K joint income levels.) I'm presenting my own personal data as evidence that people with higher income don't pay a ridiculously low tax rate. I am happy (!!) to pay taxes, but would also like to set the record straight.
Vote Democratic. Hell, vote Socialist if you like. Just try to also accept the fact that many folks with high income pay a hell of a lot in taxes - without griping about it.
157
158
So, because we currently have a regressive sales tax that disproportionately hits the poor, we're going to install a new income tax that hits only the rich, but does not eliminate nor even reduce the regressive sales tax? This kind of topsy-turvy reasoning is straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
What 1098 is saying is:
1. We are doing nothing about our current regressive state tax structure. Nothing.
2. We need money. We're taking it from the rich.
3. In two years, if we feel like it, we'll take it from the rest of you.
The only intelligible take-away message from the post above is that somewhere between 10:44pm on October 23rd and 1:59pm on October 25th, Eric Cartman's keyboard suffered a catastophic Caps Lock failure.
Christ, man. For someone who's struggling mightily to conceal his crazy, the all-caps thing just ain't doing you any favors.
first 1098 being written by a lawyer who knows that when the 2 year mark hits the legislature will lower the threshhold and Washington will have a state income tax on top of the horrid sales tax add those up and were in trouble down the road.second initiative 1100 is a biased initiative placing citizens at risk of more drunk drivers and crime related to excessive purchasing and drinking at all hours of the day it also makes small establishemnts pay he higher costs that the larger private wholesalers would avoid!
Third, vote no on referendum 52 wtaxpayers pay too much money on schools that has been wasted continues to be wasted. Fourth Vote no on SJT 8225 it surplants the finaces in the wrong direction for washington citizens,Fifth ESHJR 4220 Vote no as the system as it is already covers this, A judge can hold anyone without bail as it currently is within court rules and the lawsof washington those wanting to change it are looking to subvert the system so discrimination against all races and creeds wil occur if they pass this.Sixth,Seventh and Eighth , Vote no on all of the King county charter amendments are the drafters of these charter amendments want to change the way the charter reads from what it is now so they can take advantage of voters. the sheriff should not be his own bargaining agent for collective barganing as this leaves room for corruption and no over sight within this process, campaign fincance and the paper work should not be only filed with the state PDC as this leaves also room for corruption, any changs to the charter by amendment are a bad idea and those who vote yes for them will find it out afterr the cast that vote.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues…
All of the other endorsements outside these 8 by the stranger seem to be right .Im suprised the stranger is leaning in this direction as the stranger is usually on track to the issues and how they affect the voters. VOTE THE RIGHT WAY OR WASHINGTON WILL BE IN GREATER TROUBLE THAN WE ALREADY ARE IN NOW !
170
171
Those that are bad and treat the people with disrespect and discord.Bless the underdog and to hell with the overlords of hate and disdain .
our system needs to be reformed back to checks and balances that arent corrupt to the core , the system as it is now is that the consumer citizen is paying for everything taxes included oppinions will vary on this issue as those who are corrupt will say dont change a thing while those who are on the constant paying end will say its time for checks and balance reform,
when people in the legal and political seats forgot who put them there and who pays the bills is where it started to go wrong, Americans need to support american products and put the money back into the local economy and not to china and other nations. 75 % of all goods and services should be made in america and assembled in america.if real change is to occur , judicial reform and political reform need to race to the fore front to save the average citizens from despair and poverty. Bless those who are fighting for the underdog and making way for real change that works for the average human being.
I'm voting no for the simple reason that more people drinking at home means less people drinking in bars.
There are many bars in Seattle right now that are struggling to stay in business. I believe that the passage of either or both of I-1100 and I-1105 would divert business away from the bars and toward big box retailers. If bars start closing, jobs will be lost, our local economy will suffer and what little pulse Seattle's nightlife has will be brought to a dead halt. I realize that "Restaurants and nightlife folk have also endorsed I-1100", but I think those who have are shooting themselves in the foot.
The Yes to 1100 website claims that the initative's passage will create private sector jobs. I find it hard to imagine that there will be a hiring frenzy at Safeway just because there is a new set of shelves to fill.
I ignored the Stranger's advice and voted no on both I-1100 and I-1105. I encourage others to do the same.
My advice to you: get really really REALLY drunk, and...miss out on the election.
Or are you one of those 12-year-old hackers who doesn't have anything constructive to do because you're still at home with Mommy and Daddy?
Dino Rossi does NOT represent the people of Washington State. PATTY DOES!!!
Have fun paying for his corporate greed, Dumbshit.
But---not all is lost for you. Maybe you can win a free t-shirt and $10 worth of cabfare from Kelly O next Tuesday night.
As the ACLU of Washington puts it:
HJR 4220 would amend the Washington Constitution to expand the authority of judges to deny bail to individuals accused of various crimes based on potential dangerousness. The measures have been put forward in response to the recent tragic shootings of police officers.
As an editorial in Spokane's Spokesman-Review rightly pointed out, “… this is a time to guard against overreaction based on emotion and outrage." Bail is a fundamental protection of our legal system against incarceration of individuals who have been accused but not convicted of crimes. If there is evidence that an individual is dangerous, judges already can consider this in setting bail. Rather than hastily curtail everyone's right to the presumption of innocence in response to these tragedies, we should look for systemic changes that could actually prevent their recurrence.
185
It is a truly progressive tax; it will be applied to ALL workers in a progressive manner.
Oregon has had an income tax since the 1910's, and they voted to increase the amount that the wealthy paid into the system. Net result, enough of these people have left the state that it negates the increase.
That's right, they won't make any extra money on them at all, and if the trend continues, they will start to lose money.
So what if the richest man in the world supports this measure, he is retiring from a job that pays $385,000 a year. He will never pay a cent of income tax to this state.
Pick one, sales tax or income tax. One is fair, having both is not.
Have you ever fought for your country? I don't mean wave the flag at some Bush rally, I mean, really fight for your country. You know, carry a gun, have enemy combatants shoot at you, that sort of thing? I didn't think so. If you did, you wouldn't be so cavalier about your "DAM PATTY HASN'T DONE US ANY FAVORS" statement. Patty Murray voted against the Iraq war and has busted her ass for veterans and continues to do so. Go ask a bunch of vets about Senator Murray -- then learn how to use the shift key on your keyboard (hint: it's next to the Caps Lock key).
If they put in an amendment or some form of law that would not allow representatives to change the laws without a public vote (i.e. NOT an initiative) that had income tax for everyone and repealed sales tax on the very same day, I'd go for it. That would be fair, and then everyone would pay based on their own income. But 1098 is a piece of crap that is going to turn us into a state of working poor who will eventually have to move away anyway because employers are not ready/willing to hike wages up high enough to make it reasonable for people to stay here for work.
Vote yes on 1098 if you have absolutely no interest in preserving the middle class or small businesses.
If they put in an amendment or some form of law that would not allow representatives to change the laws without a public vote (i.e. NOT an initiative) that had income tax for everyone and repealed sales tax on the very same day, I'd go for it. That would be fair, and then everyone would pay based on their own income. But 1098 is a piece of crap that is going to turn us into a state of working poor who will eventually have to move away anyway because employers are not ready/willing to hike wages up high enough to make it reasonable for people to stay here for work.
Vote yes on 1098 if you have absolutely no interest in preserving the middle class or small businesses.
193
194
Also: "I hate poor people SO MUCH."
More: "I loathe education, because I dream of a society where incompetence is hailed and reason is reviled."
Finally: "I am demonstrably stupid and routinely make poor decisions."
I hope I-110 passes because that opens the window for a multi level income taxe like we should have and we can control such tax for social and economic programs that help us Washingtonians.
Yes Yes it lowers the taxes in certain areas but they are not taking into account that more people will buy booze and more people will have extra money from not having overpriced booze for other things that require taxes or for paying off debt in WA.
197
199
Except for the liquor stuff. I voted yes on 1100 and no on 1105.
200
Too funny! There are 69 stores in King County alone (22 of which are in the city of Seattle). And yet you can't find one. (Probably not even the one at 12th & Pine.) What a hoot!
And as if that's not enough (HEEEE!) they not only "aren't open at the time of day when an adult might run out of vodka" (because an adult can never predict when that might happen and plan accordingly), you find then aesthetically unpleasant! Stop, stop! I can hardly breathe!
And then you pull out the big guns for a spectacular finish with "There's plenty of opportunity to fine-tune the improved system in the next few years." Ha! Because that happens all the time! Oh you guys! You should take it on the road!
Seriously. Get the fuck out of town
But if I'm alone, and mass-market piss is the only economically feasible beer, then why should the state structure the rules in order to protect the craft breweries? If they can't compete, they can't compete.
But if I'm alone, and mass-market piss is the only economically feasible beer, then why should the state structure the rules in order to protect the craft breweries? If they can't compete, they can't compete.
Enough on the taxes. We pay the highest gas tax in the country and yet we don't have enough funds to build roads. We have the only interstate that has surface crossings at major interchanges that we can't fix but we're putting up light rail.
Every ballot there are more taxes, more initiatives. We wasted $1B of taxpayers $ on monorail then gave that to Paul Allen and cronies for land development.
It's time out on taxes and fix what's broken. No way we can let these bastards get into our pockets with an income tax--it's just the beginning of a life of butt fucking with no reach around.
** Signed vote Democrat, Not a Tea Bagger or radical, just trying to apply some common sense.
211
212
A vote for Charlie Wiggins for WA SC is a vote for a big, obnoxious Savage-Miller wedding where the two guests of honor get dangerously drunk and wildly inappropriate at the reception!!!! Hey, who couldn't back that?
Common sense doesn't appear to be so common, anymore. Sigh.
And BOY am I ever relieved that she won her 4th term. Patty cares about the people of Washington State!
Hug a veteran and hail Patty on November 11!
Also by Stranger Election Control Board
All The Other Shit
Ballot Measures, State Races, and There’s a New Sheriff in Town
1 comment »
The Biggest Winners and Losers
Who Really Kicked Ass and Who Really Got Their Ass Kicked
7 comments »
RSS
Twitter
Comments (219) RSS