Cross posted on clearfogblog
State of Washington:
Initiative 1033 - Tim Eyman's measure to limit property taxes. This is a basic "starve the beast" initiative. The theory is limiting government income will control government spending and excess regulation. While that may be true and I'd love to send a message to our Democrat controlled legislature and city and county councils, I have to agree with Chris Vance (former State Legislator, King County Councilmember and State Republican Chair) when he says, "As a fiscal conservative, therefore, I hope I can say this with some credibility: King County really does have a revenue problem. In fact, it is closer to a revenue crisis." The Eyman initiative will only exacerbate the problem and in the end not be effective because the Legislature can repeal or revise the initiative (by two-thirds vote in first two years, majority vote after that). One can bet the farm that regardless of which party controls Olympia, if passed, 1033 will be gutted by 2012. Worse, it will serve as one more reason to impose an income tax. A reluctant vote "No" on 1033.
Referendum 71 - The everything but marriage act (State Senate Bill 5688) was passed by the Legislature last session. A citizen signature drive placed the law on the 2009 ballot as Referendum 71. A good sumary of the law can be found on ballotpedia.org. A "Rejected" vote rejects the law. I am tempted to agree with my Liberterian friends that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the religious groups. Unfortunately, laws affecting children, property ownership, health and retirement benefits, inheritance and a host of case law are based on the traditional one man, one woman definition of marriage. A few states have expanded marriage to include same sex couples while others have revised the laws regarding adoption, benefits etc. by passing so called "domestic partner" legislation. Senate Bill 5688 falls in the latter category just short of the Gay community goal of full marriage but it opens the door to all manner of law suits and legally forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Much of what is in Senate Bill 5688 is currently available to domestic partners. It comes too close to redefining marriage and threatens my right to hold a biblical view. What's next, polygamy? However, I fully recognize there are strong differences of opinion. Many leading citizens of good will, including some in the religious community, approve of Ref. 71. I just plan to draw the line here and vote "Rejected"..
Also see Same Sex Marriage, Yea or Nay and A Sermon on Homosexuality
King County:
Executive - Dour Dow vs Sunny Susan. Anyone following the performance of King County - election debacles, cost overruns, mismangement, state audit reports, budget crisis - knows the County needs a major shakeup. It sure won't get it by elevating a long time insider and narrow minded liberal from the Council to the Executive's office. Only Susan Hutchison offers change and reform. Even the Seattle Times endorsed her. Vote for Hutchison for County Executive.
Sheriff - Incumbant Sue Rahr is unopposed.
Assessor - There was no primary due to the last minute resignation of the incumbant. Five people are running for the unexpired term of two years. Lloyd Hara has the government and management experience for the job. Vote for Hara.
County Council Districts 1 - Bob Ferguson, ,3 - Kathy Lambert and 5 - Julia Patterson are all unopposed. (Weren't we told making the Council non-partisan would encourage more choice? Do you think the political parties would have let these incumbants go unchallenged?)
Reagan Dunn in District 9 has an opponent but Dunn is the clear choice for re-election.
Charter Amendments 1,2, and 3 - All appear to be house keeping. Vote yes.
Charter Amendment 4 makes it more difficult for the County to sell , alter or transfer certain open space land already owned by the County. Vote yes.
Court of Appeals Div 1, Dist 1 - Anne L. Ellington is unopposed.
Port of Seattle:
Position 1 - John Creighton is unopposed.
Position 3 - Rob Holland is the union, ACORN guy. David Doud has broad support across the political spectrum. Vote for Doud.
Position 4 - Tom Albro is widely endorsed and is past president of the Municiple League. His opponent is a former Democrat legislator backed by the unions. A clear choice, Vote for Tom Albro.
City of Seattle:
Proposition No. 1 - Low Income Housing Levy - The whole question of taxpayer funded housing aside, this measure replaces the expiring $86,000,000 low income housing levy with a $145,000,000 levy. Proponents say it will only cost "the typical Seattle homeowner $5.50 per month". It's the nickel and dime property tax increases, when added up, that price people out of there homes and apartments. Not in a recession. Vote "No".
Mayor - This race makes one long for Mayor Corpulent Greg. People voted for Obama hoping against hope that he would govern from the center despite his past statements and association with radical leftist. Mike McGinn is similar. He expresses concern about the tunnel costs but his real agenda is anti automoble extremism. Joe Mallahan is at least a little more reasonable. Vote for Mallahan
City Attorney - The Seattle Times endorsed challenger Pete Holmes in part because of their battles with the city over disclosure of public records. They felt incumbent Tom Carr represented the city and not the people. However, the City Attorney is the city's lawyer just like the State Attorney General represents the state. Carr got an "Outstanding" rating from the Municiple League and besides, the cops endorsed him. Vote for Tom Carr.
City Council:
Position 2 - Incumbent Richard Conlin is one of the liberals on the Council but then so are the rest of them. There is nothing to be gained by replacing him with Dave Ginsberg thus losing Conlin's experience. Vote for Conlin.
Position 4 - An open seat sought by David Bloom and Sally Bagshaw. Looking at her endorsements in the Voter's Pamphlet, she appears a shade or two less less left of center than Bloom and besides, the cops endorsed her. Vote for Bagshaw.
Position 6 - Stick with Nick or Jump to Jessie? Our experience with young women elected to the Council (Judy Nicastro, Heidi Wills) has been less than sterling but Nick Licata has been in office since 1998 and Jessie Israel makes a strong case for change. Besides, the cops endorsed her. Vote for Israel.
Position 8 - Perhaps the most important City Council race in years. A McGinn clone on cars (he proposes tolling selected city streets to discourage automobiles), Mike O'Brien is opposed by Robert Rosencrantz, a common sense (at least by Seattle standards) candidate that would bring some degree of idelogical balance to the City Council. Clear choice, Vote for Rosencrantz.
Seattle School Board
Director District 1 - Incumbant Michael DeBell is unopposed.
Director District 5 - Kay Smith-Blum is the clear choice over the ineffective incumbant, famous for voting "no", Mary Bass. Vote for Smith-Blum.
Director District 7 - The School Board could use the perspective of a scientist. Vote for Wilson Chin.
Posted by warrenpeterson at October 19, 2009 10:27 AM | Email ThisDSHS is bloated and needs to be trimmed. We need to quit providing services to illegal aliens at all levels of government. Various departments and agencies can be eliminated because the benefit to the whole does not justify the expenditure in tight financial times.
There is a great deal of current city and county and to some extent state services which can be privatized and improve delivery and cut cost and in addition take the pressure of the retirement system. There are a large number of jobs which are kept just to placate the union bosses and their liberal polictical lap dogs, which can be eliminated entirely or privatized.
I am gettin extremely tired of the same old tactic; that when times get tough the goverment threatens to cut vital public safety services, fire and police, to scare the public and meanwhile leave in place arts commissions, youth commissions, convention bureaus and every other type of limited value programs.
We don't need more public money spent on private projects which only benefit a few people. Example the money provided to the Fox Theater in Spokane for the privately run and owned Symphony. It is nice to go to something like the Symphony, but if you give most of us the choice we would rather have more policemen or firemen.
Therefore, because we have tried to use other means to rein in our lawmakers with little to no success, I now support limiting the access to the hard earned money of the citizens so as to force the tough decisions.
Posted by: Dale Cummins on October 19, 2009 02:03 PMSure, there's no secret that folks are pushing for marriage equality in Washington, but I'm not sure exactly what this statement above means.
Ref. 71 is NOT marriage.
And laws in other states and countries have NOT resulted in more than a couple of lawsuits or legal challenges from traditional folks having "acceptance" forced upon them.
The idea that teachers might refer to same-sex partners as "couples" in the classroom or that businesses might be expected to treat a same-sex couple the same as a married husband and wife may be entirely offensive to some... but this is no different than the way our society and government currently react to interracial couples or divorced couples or unmarried partners or the like.
You can't kick an interracial couple out of your restaurant because you disagree with their lifestyle. Teachers might happen to acknowledge that divorced couples exist or that teenagers often have sex before marriage... without your children being taught that either divorce or sex before marriage are acceptable according to your family's values or religious beliefs.
Posted by: Mickymse on October 19, 2009 03:23 PMMy goal is to get Susan Hutchison in as KC Executive.
Posted by: Joshua Normand on October 19, 2009 03:41 PMI think requiring government to request additional funding above the automatic increase levels included in the bill will, while not forcing restraint, at least force a more-or-less sober reconsideration.
The current calculus employed is something like "will a sufficient number of voters complain that I ought not consider this expenditure..." Apathy being a consistent attribute of the (at least they should be)-voting public, the answer is almost always 'no'.
Under 1033, this calculus is replace by something more like: "can I convince enough voters to approve this increase" -- a question that is much more difficult to answer in the afirmative (save perhaps in Seattle).
To vote "no" on 1033 is to vote for the status quo. It's to declare that spending us into $10 billion deficits is just peachy. It's to avoid what we have here, which is the opportunity to send a message that all levels of governments in this state have to hear.
That Chris Vance is against it is just another sign how utterly clueless he is and was as GOP chair. And, I note, that you also left out the rest of Vance's whine, indicating that King County actually MUST raise taxes.
That the legislature would even touch it (Like they've got the guts?) or not is, in no way, ANY reason to vote AGAINST this. Nor can an income tax be "imposed" on us... nor does this make it any more likely that we'll even see that effort.
These guys are rightfully terrified that 2010 will be 1994 revisited. There is precisely ZERO chance they'd try it.
So, yeah... I'm a hard "yes" on 1033 because those in charge seem incapable of controlling themselves when it comes to wasting/spending OPM. They need to be reined in... and unless you've got a better way to do it, this one will have to do for now.
Posted by: Hinton on October 19, 2009 05:04 PMI commend your principles.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 19, 2009 05:20 PMThat fear seems to be unwarranted. How would visitation rights open up the door for lawsuits? I think this is a bogus claim.
threatens my right to hold a biblical view
That is absurd. You have the right to hold your view. But you do not have a right to impose your biblical views on the rest of us.
I think instead of using fear and religion to justify denying equal rights to gay couples, you should analyze what purpose government should serve in our lives. Not determining who we love, I think.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 19, 2009 05:26 PMum, he represents wealthy taxpayers, definitely not the average taxpayer, and not the underrepresented/lower class taxpayer.
that's why he's bankrolled by freeman and his ilk.
frankly, this abortifacient to voter-approved legislation is about as moronic as eyman himself.
Posted by: mike on October 19, 2009 05:40 PMIf the economy were in better condition and property values went up instead of down, I would be supporting it. Such a thing as timing.
Posted by: KDS on October 19, 2009 06:21 PMour legislature didn't create tim eyman.
the legislature is doing their job.
conservative definition of success - 12 of 16 eyman initiatives/refs have been rejected or declared unconstitutional. 5 have failed to even qualify for the ballot.
if timmy was really for anything, he'd put his money where his mouth is and run for office. til then, he's just a whiney pawn for kemper, et al.
he's also been caught telling wild tales on numerous occaisions.
Posted by: mike on October 19, 2009 06:57 PMjust got a robo call "survey" on ref 71.
question 1- were you aware of ref 71
question 2- are you for or against it
question 3- where do you stand on abortion
question 4- will you be voting democrat or republican
question 5- do you consider yourself lib, cons, or moderate.
Something about the way this was phrased sounded like it was dressed up like a survey, but wasn't. If it was a survey- it seemed hackish and unprofessional.
It used the words "homosexual" about 50 times in the first 30 seconds.
It smelled like the following
80% chance it was done by morons
15% A far right group bandying about the gay phobia.
15% A far left group up to something equally as repulisve
Those add up to more than 100 because each of the 15% also falls into the 80%.
Posted by: andy on October 19, 2009 08:05 PMDirector Mary Bass grew up in the CD, went to public schools here in Seattle, and studied both economics and public administration. She knows this city and district. Her family were some of the first Black educators in Seattle. She is a fiscal conservative and knows how to follow the dollar and make the numbers add up before blindly rubber stamping any budget or other proposal.
But most important, Mary Bass truly believes in public schools as the way for any person from anywhere to move up into the middle class and become an active, productive citizen. Perhaps that's what bothers so many corporate profiteers about her.
Director Bass wants to make sure that we have the best possible work force coming out of our schools into the businesses and industries of our community.
Re-Elect Director Mary Bass to school board!
Posted by: real folks on October 19, 2009 08:32 PMOne think I LIKED about the robo survey, was that in question 4) they allowed "Other." I'm a Libertarian.
One thing I didn't like is that they only allowed cons, lib and moderate in 5. I'm cons on about 1/3 of the issues, lib on about 1/3 and neither on 1/3. And on none of them am I moderate. I'm a pretty radical capitalist, and a pretty radical defender of individual liberty. So there was no option for me.
By the way, I'm a strong supporter of Eyeman's initiative, and will vote for 71 as well.
Comment 9 is right on target regarding 71.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 19, 2009 08:36 PMWithout our screwed up government, there would be no Tim Eyman. If we didn't have a moron as a governor suggesting tax increases in the midst of a horrific recession, there would be no Tim Eyman.
So yeah, he IS a creation of the legislature... and any initiative Eyman got passed is one more then his naysayers... like those who say they're gonna vote no while offering absolutely nothing as an alternative.
Posted by: Hinton on October 19, 2009 08:38 PMI think you meant "our 'leaders' about THEIR spending" as I don't spend my tax money in an irresponsible manner. That's the job of useless politicians like Chris Gregoire.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 20, 2009 05:20 AMWhen would the economy EVER shrink?!
Posted by: John Jensen on October 20, 2009 10:23 AMYou just made my point...
Posted by: DoppioLover on October 20, 2009 11:00 AMOn R-71 I could have gone either way until all the court action to force disclosure of personal petition information to groups known to harass people. That told me more about who and what is behind the different campaigns. As a result I'm voting to quash this toe-in-the-door approach.
Posted by: Victor on October 20, 2009 12:44 PM1. Right now the States do manage "marriage" and its counterpart divorce. There can be a reasonable argument that the separation between state and religion is already recognized in the fact that the state's view on divorce is a lot more liberal than many religion's viewpoints (e.g., Catholic view). The religions allow the state to control divorce, therefore, it has abdicated to the state to manage marriage also. The question should be should the state manage both these actions?
2. I do not buy the argument that gay marriage will be harmful to marriages. It is probably a lot less harmful than no-fault divorces and spousal abuse. If religious groups really want to attack the decline in marriages, then maybe it should tackle the biggest factors that contribute to the divorce rate.
As for me, even given the above, I would vote to reject R-71 because I do believe it leads to slippery slope arguments. What is the purpose of marriage, if at all, given this law, one could be domestic partners and get the benefits of marriage and not have to pay the taxes that married couples have to. If domestic partners would be willing to pay taxes and count combined income for loans, student aid etc., then I would consider the law.
Posted by: tc on October 20, 2009 01:12 PMYou should reconsider. The state is bound by law to release those names. If that law is Unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States would actually be creating a right.
The motive about the "people behind" the campaign to approve ref 71 is equal rights for our gay friends, neighbors, and family members. Nothing more.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 20, 2009 02:03 PMMost people pay less taxes when filing jointly. Of course they're willing and even wanting to do these things. The Federal government prevents them from doing it.
The state should create equality where it can, and not wait for the Federal government to catch up.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 20, 2009 02:15 PMKeep scoring own goal? Precisely the point again. When economy shrinks, everyone tightens the belt, and government should be no exception. When economy grows, I-1033 allows growth indexed by the growth of the general economy. What is so wrong about that? I work for a multi-billion dollar company that cut 15% of its workforce and cut more than $500 million in spending due to the recession. So, why is this initiative a measure that would "starve the beast" to begin with?
Posted by: DoppioLover on October 20, 2009 07:58 PMThe legislature is out of control and has dug the state into a multi-billion dollar hole. If they can't control themselves, and it appears that is true, then the taxpayers are obligated to do it for them. It's our ultimate way of giving notice to the legislature and the useless governor that they need to change the way they look at the state budget.
As for R-71, it's another case of follow the money. They want spousal benefits for all the alternate lifestyles, they want to be considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and they want more rights than I am willing to give them. I cannot condone their lifestyle, no matter how they look at it, so I'm voting No on R-71.
Posted by: Clean House on October 20, 2009 08:45 PMYes on 1033. If Chris Vance is against it, that's all you need to know. Just look what a raving success the GOP has been in WA.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 20, 2009 10:41 PMKC spends about 90% more than it should. this initiative keeps spending inflation and population adjusted level with where it is now. Quibble about this being an exceptional year and a bad yardstick to set things at if you want but realize that you are squabbling over a few percent one way or another when the real problem is much much bigger than that. It is like debating whether we can afford a 15 or a 20 dollar tip on a 100 dollar meal when the real question is why dinner cost 100 bucks when it should only cost 5 bucks.
Posted by: Lysander on October 20, 2009 10:50 PMper your argument, it would be the equivalent of a $52 dinner...
Posted by: mike on October 20, 2009 11:11 PMif KC is spending $100 for dinner, then it 'should' cost about $53 dollars, not $5.
but i can see how that'd be hard for you to grasp...
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 07:34 AMOne of my highest priorities is opposing, and breaking through, the Democratic Party monopoly over Seattle politics. Endorsing Democratic candidates, even in non-partisan races, only accepts and even promotes that monopoly by strengthening the political influence and political legitimacy of the victorious candidate. Democratic candidates, even in non-partisan races, sincerely support and promote other Democratic and liberal candidates and causes. While the responsibilities and scope of some local offices is limited, the political capital accumulated by victorious Democratic candidates is also used to propel local candidates to more influential offices in the future.
Therefore, ultimately, when the chips are down, candidates who have strongly and sincerely supported Barack Obama, Governor Christine Gregoire, Mayor Greg Nickels, Congressman Jim McDermott, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Senator Patty Murray will follow their conscience on key issues, and will use any accumulated political influence and political capital to support candidates and policies that are not beneficial to the people of Seattle, Washington State, or the nation.
Look at it this way: would any of the city council or mayoral or school board or city attorney candidates endorse me if I run for office next year? Certainly not - and I understand why not - the political disagreements they all have with me. They oppose my political priorities and my political goals. Well, if they have "x" number of disagreements with me, I have the same number of political disagreements with them.
That's why I do not endorse, support, or vote for any Democratic candidates, even in non-partisan races. Since all of the Seattle mayoral, city council, city attorney and school board candidates are Democrats, I won't be voting for, or endorsing, any of them.
Posted by: Steve Beren on October 21, 2009 10:43 AM'there are no 'third candidates'
except for write-ins...
liberal policies are beneficial to the people of seattle. that's why they keep approving liberal levies like the libraries for all, fire levy and the parks levies.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 11:42 AMWho are supporting for county chief?
Posted by: Lysander on October 21, 2009 03:46 PMWho are supporting for county chief?
Posted by: Lysander on October 21, 2009 03:46 PMThe point is you've created a straw man. You've said gay people don't want to pay taxes or have a marriage penalty. That's not true. Gay people want -- surprise -- gay marriage. They want the federal government to recognize gay marriages -- and recognize domestic partnerships and treat those as marriages.
Federal law being outdated is one thing. Keeping state laws outdated intentionally is another.
And you know what? Somethings are more important than tax revenues. Equal rights, for example.
Additionally, when applying for loans, student financial aid, etc., both incomes are considered, whereas, with domestic partners only have to declare their income. They can declare the others income, but in the case of student financial aid it generally works against them.
Again, change the law if that's where the direction should be. But absolutely no one in the world is fighting for equal rights so they can get all the things that marriage brings, plus some financial benefits. Money is not more important than liberty.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 22, 2009 11:07 AMAdditionally, their legally binding contract should not violate the constitution by not allowing for people to organize into groups to form a corporate civil union. Sure, the state has the right to limit people to being involved in only one civil union at a time, but they can't make a law that limits who they can form that legal entity with, at least within the bounds of being a citizen of the states. - anyhow, that would be the case if they choose to make this law.
Posted by: Doug on October 22, 2009 10:51 PM