October 10, 2010
Recomendations for the 2010 General Election

Clear Fog Blog Recommendations for November 2, 2010 Election

Ballots will be mailed to every registered voter this week and must be returned post marked by midnight November 2, 2010. All voters should also receive a Voter's Pamphlet which lists all candidates and issues by election jurisdiction. It has candidate statements and pro/con statements on ballot issues. There is an on-line version at the following site: Voter's Pamphlet. Another good source with in-depth analysis of most ballot issues is the Washington Policy Center.

The Candidates:

All levels of government need to be sent a clear message: Spend less, tax less, intrude less in citizens' lives. A Republican tsunami win would do just that. So for all legislative races from U.S. Senate to every U.S. House race, to all Washington State legislative races, cast your vote for the best Republican candidate you can. (Washington's Top Two primary system has caused some general election races to be between members of the same party.)

King County Council District 8 - This is a special election to fill the unexpired term of Dow Constantine. See "clear message" above and vote for Diana Toledo.

Judges (only if two candidates)

Supreme Court Justice - Vote for Richard Sanders. He is a controversial individual but brings a needed libertarian viewpoint to the court.

Seattle Municipal Court

Position No. 1 - Vote for Ed McKenna. A lawyer friend, not associated with the DUI attorneys opposing Judge Charles, is supporting McKenna because his judicial temperament and knowledge of the law is better than Judge Charles.

In Position No. 6 - Vote for Karen Donohue.

The Ballot Issues:

Many of the ballot issues directly affect the clear message needed to be sent to all levels of government: spend less, tax less.

Initiative No. 1053 - Reinstates requirement for two- thirds vote by legislature to raise taxes. Vote YES

Initiative No. 1082 - Worker's compensation insurance currently is from the state or self-insurance. This initiative would allow private insurance companies to compete and eliminates, as in all but four states, employee contributions. Competition works, Vote YES

Initiative 1098 - An income tax on the "rich" but no protection against the Legislature expanding its reach after two years. Vote NO

Initiative 1100 - Takes the state out of the booze business. The basic question is: Should the State of Washington be in a retail business? Competition works. Vote YES

Initiative No. 1105 - See Initiative No. 1100. It frees up the market to a greater degree than 1105. Vote NO

Initiative No. 1107 - Repeals new taxes on bottled water, soda and candy. Definitions are truly odd (Twix is not defined as a candy because it has a flour based biscuit in it.) Every tax increase just keeps the legislature from facing the hard decisions on spending. Vote YES

Referendum No. 52 - A state stimulus package on borrowed money. Vote NO

SJR No. 8225 - Increases state debt limit. Vote NO

HJR No. 4220 - Denies bail for persons charged with certain crimes. Vote YES

King County Charter Amendments:

Number 1 - Vote YES

Number 2 - Saves duplicate work. Vote YES

Number 3 - Allows the County Sheriff to bargain with union on matters other than wages and benefits. Vote YES

King County Prop. No. 1 - Another attempt to blackmail voters by threatening basic services cuts if we don't increase the sales tax. Vote NO

Seattle Schools Prop. No. 1 - This is the first time the Seattle Schools have asked for a supplemental operations levy. It's another "frog in the heating water" tax, not much per household but when added to all the other taxes boils the frog. What is supplemental this time will become permanent the next time. Vote NO

Posted by warrenpeterson at October 10, 2010 08:55 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Initiative 1098 - An income tax on the "rich" but no protection against the Legislature expanding its reach after two years. Vote NO

This is ridiculous (il)logic. No initiative protects against the legislature doing anything after 2 years. Our state constitution doesn't allow that. But 2 years of protection against a broader income tax is 2 years longer than we have without 1098. By your "reasoning" you would vote NO on every initiative.

Posted by: Bruce on October 10, 2010 09:36 PM
2. 1098 is the camels nose in the tent. Its a HELL NO

And I agree with the rest.

Posted by: gs on October 10, 2010 10:15 PM
3. Ballots coming out this week already?

On 1082, does the elimination of the employee payment portion of the premiums mean the employers would now be responsible for ALL the premium? If so, how is that an improvement? Service businesses are already hit with a HUGE B&O tax increase this year from the anti-busines democrat legislature; this would be another unfair hit to business.

Posted by: Michele on October 10, 2010 10:46 PM
4. Agreed, Warren, on all counts regarding statewide measures.

i've never figured out how such an anti-tax populace persists in electing so many extreme left, tax-and-spend politicians to state and national offices.

Perhaps it's due to the "dumbing-down" effect, courtesy of our thoroughly compromised and corrupted public education system?

Posted by: Saltherring on October 11, 2010 06:50 AM
5. Sorry, but I don't know anything on County number 3, Sherrif being allowed to bargain with the union on things other than wages and benefits. Since, I don't know what it says, I'll just offer a caution. As someone who has had to bargain with state employee unions, I find the particulars of our law that require us to only bargain certain things a Godsend. If we were required to bargain some other items, those unions would no doubt raise those issues and force us to bargain them. Otherwise all we've ever had to say was, state statue doesn't require us to bargain those issues, we're done.

Posted by: Doug on October 11, 2010 07:39 AM
6. Bruce @1: Right indeed. I-1098 doesn't grant the legislature any more power to expand an income tax than it already has.

Warren's synopsis of the measure is a distortion. Let's see if we can help him out with something that's clearer:

I-1098 - Reduces taxes on the middle-class, especially self-employed and small business owners, while raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Washingtonians who currently enjoy some of the lowest state tax rates in the country. Restores vital funding for education and health care. Vote YES.

Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2010 08:12 AM
7. Let me guess.

All Republicans, right?

Even Reichert who voted for what amounts to defacto the biggest tax hike in US history.

Look, like I said November 2nd, 2010 is Groundhogs Day. We will be repeating the mistakes of our past and in the process making the relection of Reichert guaranteed.

Was 2006 so long ago to forget how the Republicans were betraying us?

Posted by: CnR on October 11, 2010 09:25 AM
8. Sorry, I mean the Re-election of Obama guaranteed. Just like what happened with Clinton in 1996.

Groundhogs Day.

Posted by: CnR on October 11, 2010 09:32 AM
9. Bruce @1 - scottd is laboring mightily on behalf of obfuscatory class warfare, so let's admit some sunlight into the discussion:

I-1098 would ratify the cowardice of the Legislature by imposing an income tax on a few now, under color of 'the people' wishing to see them plundered. The Legislature, in future, could continue the frog-boiling by simply raising the rates and lowering the plunder-bar 'joost a leetle' at a time, until the next tax revolt which would find its current members conveniently out of office.

Let the legislature match its expenditures to revenues, rather than installing I-1098 as the frog-cooking pot for taxpayers.

Vote NO.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on October 11, 2010 09:40 AM
10. @ Bruce and scottd: I 1098 will only lower the state portion of property tax by 20%. It is estimated that the state portion is 20%. Which means that it will lower property tax by 4% - less than $200 per year for the average family. In return, the income tax will be levied only on "the rich" for two years, at which time the legislature can vote (with majority only) to lower the income rate to any point it chooses, even to those who make below the poverty line. Given the history of our state legislature, voting yes on I 1098 is a huge risk for a very low reward.

Posted by: Belle on October 11, 2010 09:43 AM
11. Bruce and scottd, like all good neo-marxists with their blinders on want to give more power to the State and have been sufficiently dumbed down. Ignore their propaganda for it is false and misleading.

Vote NO on I-1098 for your future economic security.

Posted by: KDS on October 11, 2010 10:11 AM
12. How would voting for 1098 ever send a message to the state legislature that some amount of tax reform, combined with reduced spending is what should be done to get us out of the budget mess we're in?

All I see it doing is giving them a blank check. I'm voting No.

Posted by: Smoley on October 11, 2010 10:31 AM
13. Warren, I totally agree with your recommendations on the initiatives. You sound very libertarian! :)

As for the candidates, I'm not so sure. At the federal level, the Republicans would expand foreign wars, and that is incompatible with fiscal conservatism. Many of them are also anti-gay and anti-abortion social conservatives. For these reasons I don't think I can vote for any of them.

In Congress, I like to see gridlock, so I hope the R's can even up the numbers in both the House and Senate, but I'd also hate for there to be such a Republican trouncing that they think they have another mandate to do what they want. I'd hate to see an attack on Iran, or something fiscally damaging like the GOP's Medicare drug benefit, more corporate bailouts, or another federal TARP stimulus, all of which had broad GOP support. I like the state-level nullification efforts against Obamacare, since repeal is not possible anyway without a new President.

So I will with-hold my vote from the GOP, so that their victory in November is not quite so extreme... Not that my single vote would wiggle the needle at all...

But I DO have high hopes for those initiatives! We all need to do something to help prevent a state income tax. I think that's the bad outcome with the greatest likelihood of happening. Contribute to the NO on 1098 campaign today! Put a bumper sticker on your car, and a yard sign in front of your house!

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 11, 2010 11:24 AM
14. The same morons whose party violated the will of the people by overriding the spending limits given from initiative 601 are now on here lying and trying to convince folks that they won't dig into their pockets, just "the rich". The problem is that for the socialist redistributionists, if you have a job, then you are rich.

No one likes to have to live within a budget, but as individuals we must. If we cannot afford it, we don't purchase it. It is time for this out of control state government controlled by spend happy Democrats to stop spending beyond our means.

NO on I-1098. It is NOT for the children. In fact it enslaves the children to nothing but hardscrap below poverty level wage slaves.

HELL NO on the income tax I-1098!

Posted by: Hell No on 1098 on October 11, 2010 11:42 AM
15. As a Washington small business operator - one of the newly designated "RICH" everybody seems to want to tax these days - I'm completely opposed to this ridiculous tax proposal. I'd rather hire more employees and buy more inventory than send more money to the cash sucking black hole in Olympia. Make no mistake, while the initial limits are high, once in place this will morph into a full scale income tax all the way down to ordinary folks. Remember, EVERY CITIZEN OF WASHINGTON will now have to file a tax return from day one, not just those who will actually have to pay the tax. Once they get the processing infrastructure in place and the snout of their tax camel under the tent it will be all over for everybody and we'll look just like Oregon - but WITH a huge sales tax. And don't think for a minute they won't raid the "lockbox" like they have done for every other so called "dedicated" revenue source like lottery proceeds.

Washington is one of the few refuges left where taxes are based more on consumption and real property ownership rather than income. Let's not screw it up, particularly for this flimsily veiled play for all of our wallets.

!!VOTE NO ON 1098!!

Posted by: Aaron Burr on October 11, 2010 12:27 PM
16. It is a fact that 1098 would leave many small business paying BOTH a state income tax AND B&O tax. What a ripoff! NO on this garbage!

Posted by: Michele on October 11, 2010 12:41 PM
17. If old man Gates and his son Billy are so concerned, they can write a check tomorrow that would eliminate state deficits for decades. They are hypocritical liars. NO on 1098!

Posted by: pbj on October 11, 2010 12:44 PM
18. on the statewide ballot, well done and bravo!

I'm not in KC, so you'll have to tend with your own marxist soup kitchen mobsters on those items.

Posted by: Andy on October 11, 2010 02:18 PM
19. I'm not rich and I'm not poor but I am smart enough to realize I have no business putting my hand in another persons pocket.

Posted by: Huey on October 11, 2010 02:23 PM
20. The right-wing Republican Washington Policy Center provides "in-depth analysis"?

You're joking right?

Posted by: Jeff Welch on October 11, 2010 02:34 PM
21. #13 "So I will with-hold my vote from the GOP, so that their victory in November is not quite so extreme..."

All Republican candidates are not necessarily better qualified for office than all Democrat candidates but this year, and perhaps in 2012 too, it's all about the message: less spending, lower taxes, less government intrusion into citizen's lives. By this measure, Republican candidates are clearly more likely than Democrats to translate this message into policy and law.

Posted by: Warren Peterson on October 11, 2010 02:41 PM
22. Jeff Welch @ #20. OK Mr. Welch, could you please comment specifically the parts of the analysis by WPC that are wrong so that we can all get in on the joke?

Oh yes, I almost forgot, could you also point out the evidence that WPC is "Republican"?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 11, 2010 03:29 PM
23. @21 Warren Peterson on October 11, 2010 02:41 PM,

"it's all about the message: less spending, lower taxes, less government intrusion into citizen's lives. By this measure, Republican candidates are clearly more likely than Democrats to translate this message into policy and law."

No Warren. It has never been and will never be about the message in any election for people. It is about the people and the policies they intend to work for.

There's a reason that around the country the list of Witch, Birther and weekend Nazi reenactors all fall on the Republican side of the ledger.

The GOP has done an excellent job at juicing the anger, but absolutely failed to self examine and adjust in the past 4 years.

In the state of Washington it is even worse for the GOP.

Sure, the Republicans will pick up seats nationally and in Olympia. But for those who voted for them you are still stuck where you were.
WTF are they going to do?

Oh, for the deregulation crowd I give you the banks in step with 40+ AGs wanting to stop/investigate mortgage foreclosures.
The limited (piss poor) regulation we had has created problems that will take a decade to sort out. What that means to you is that not only has the dollar value of your house decreased, you're going to be stuck in an incredibly illiquid position as the cost of title insurance will sky rocket.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on October 11, 2010 04:35 PM
24. It is a fact that 1098 would leave many small business paying BOTH a state income tax AND B&O tax.

And it is a fact that 1098 would leave many small businesses paying NEITHER. What, no love for them?

Here's another fact. I-1098 would increase the B&O tax exemption by $4380/year. A small business, owned by a married couple would need to earn a net profit over $487,600/yr before I-1098 ended up costing them a dime. That's net profit, after paying for employee salaries, supplies, rent, and other expenses. A business earning less than that would save money under the initiative -- plus additional savings in property taxes.

Sounds like a good deal for most small businesses and self-employed -- I know it is for me.

Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2010 06:33 PM
25. Here's another fact. I-1098 would increase the B&O tax exemption by $4380/year. A small business, owned by a married couple would need to earn a net profit over $487,600/yr before I-1098 ended up costing them a dime. That's net profit, after paying for employee salaries, supplies, rent, and other expenses. A business earning less than that would save money under the initiative -- plus additional savings in property taxes.

Sounds like a good deal for most small businesses and self-employed -- I know it is for me.

Posted by scottd at October 11, 2010 06:33 PM

@24 - I say these are bogus numbers, unless you are able to supply the actual evidence or calculations. Your ass-umptions are faulty - first, the proposed income tax WILL change after 2 years, if it passes, which I know you have not factored in.

Waiting for your evidence...

Posted by: KDS on October 11, 2010 06:44 PM
26. I say these are bogus numbers

And I say you're lazy and ill-informed, or maybe just unable to perform simple arithmetic.

The increase in B&O tax exemption is in the initiative. Take time to read it before commenting further.

The initiative exempts the first $400,000 in income for a married couple. That's AGI on the federal tax form, which includes business income after expenses and allows subtractions for retirement savings and some other exclusions.

The I-1098 tax rate is 5% for AGI over $400K. The B&O tax savings is $4380, so the couple would need to earn an additional $4380/5% = $87,600 before their increase in income tax would exceed their savings from B&O. Add that to the $400K exemption and you get $487,600.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you understand.

Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2010 06:57 PM
27. @26 - And I say you're lazy and ill-informed, or maybe just unable to perform simple arithmetic.

And I say you are a pompous scam artist and a shill, until proven otherwise...

That doesn't cut it. It would take a CPA or documentation written by a CPA to verify this - send us the applicable link. As I pointed out earlier, you neglect to factor in changes that will occur after two years and they will.

You have only focused on a small business and neglected the rest of the majority on non-small business owners. That portion is a weak argument at best

Posted by: KDS on October 11, 2010 07:33 PM
28. KDS: You're just embarrassing yourself. I provided a simple example -- it doesn't take a CPA to understand it although it's apparently beyond your ability.

You said my numbers were bogus. Yet you haven't been able to point out what's incorrect about them, even after I took you by the hand and walked you through them. You just know I'm wrong but you can't say why. That's pretty sad.

Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2010 07:42 PM
29. @28 - you don't get it. I don't believe you have provided ALL tax information. Until you forward the documentation I requested to verify a complete tax return, that does not provide convincing evidence. This would be insufficient evidence in a courtroom as it is here. I said your numbers were bogus and not the whole story, until proven otherwise and you haven't proven that yet. Since you made that case, it on you to support it with complete evidence from an unbiased source. If not, that is only your opinion, which only applies for 2 years after implementation.

The information that you provided may well be correct, but that's not my contention. My contention is that there is more to it than that, besides you neglect to go out beyond 2 years and you are only speaking for a minority (small businesses) and not the rest of the public, who will be ultimately hosed if they reside here beyond 5 years after implementation as a majority of residents will.

Posted by: KDS on October 11, 2010 08:20 PM
30. Warren, your ballot measure recommendations are spot-on: Exactly the way I have been planning to vote. State government is NOT ''underfunded''; it has been and is grossly OVERSPENDING.

SIDEBAR: Efforts by leftie trolls to convince people to vote YES on the I-1098 income tax that will just be on ''rich people'' are beyond laughable. . . .

Posted by: Methow Ken on October 11, 2010 08:51 PM
31. @30 - Spot on ! I heard Slade Gorton debated old man Gates on I-1098 tonight. I am not much of a Slade Gorton fan, but he is on the correct side here. Eternal vigilance is how trolls need to be dealt with, especially when they trot out their straw men in their lame attempts.

Posted by: KDS on October 11, 2010 08:56 PM
32. Ken: Agree fully on your SIDEBAR comment. The Pro 1098ers really swallowed the Hemlock when they chose Gates Sr. as their poster boy. I mean, a limousine liberal attorney?? My God, do they think we're all a pack of stupid Seattlites?

Posted by: Saltherring on October 11, 2010 09:02 PM
33. Why do you wingnuts seem to have such a hard time with FACTS?

Scottd is absolutely right. I challenge anyone..ANYONE reading this to show how the tax will affect them personally. Most people who earn more than $400k/year in PROFITs don't have time to read blogs. $400k/year represents less than 1% of the US population.

From the comments here, its clear people don't understand tax law, or basic math.

Posted by: Proteus on October 12, 2010 06:06 AM
34. Why do you wingnuts seem to have such a hard time with FACTS?

Scottd is absolutely right. I challenge anyone..ANYONE reading this to show how the tax will affect them personally. Most people who earn more than $400k/year in PROFITs don't have time to read blogs. $400k/year represents less than 1% of the US population.

From the comments here, its clear people don't understand tax law, or basic math.

Posted by: Proteus on October 12, 2010 06:06 AM
35. Proteus X 2:

Polls have revealed that 90% of Washingtonians believe our legislature would waste little time (after the 2 tamper-proof years) lowering I-1098's $400K income threshold subject to taxation while increasing the percentages of tax obligation. Soon most working (and probably retired) citizens would be stuck paying yet another tax to the greedy little socialists in Olympia.

Washington voters elect some of the most incompetent idiots on the planet to represent them in government, but usually get it right on tax initiatives. I-1098 should prove no different.


Posted by: Saltherring on October 12, 2010 06:47 AM
36. #33 and 34 - Nothing but another red herring. It is clear that you are a dishonest shill and a statist. You refuse to address the big picture like scottd.

Read my post #29 very carefully and respond in kind, at your own peril.

Posted by: KDS on October 12, 2010 08:09 AM
37. MBS - you lefties are bizarre. There are already millions of pages regulations between local/state/federal and you want MOAR MOAR MOAR!!!!

Posted by: Crusader on October 12, 2010 11:02 AM
38. What I would have loved to have asked of old man Gates at the debate on 1098 is whether he would agree to tax WEALTH, not just income. I mean if he is serious he should be for it, right?

I bet you wouldn't get a straight answer out of him on that one.

Posted by: ponder on October 12, 2010 11:57 AM
39. #33,

"Scottd is absolutely right. I challenge anyone..ANYONE reading this to show how the tax will affect them personally. Most people who earn more than $400k/year in PROFITs don't have time to read blogs. $400k/year represents less than 1% of the US population."


The state constitution requires that taxation not occur unequally. If this passes, it will be challenged and in order to resolve the unconstitutionality, the tax will be on everyone equally. The politicians will throw their hands up and shrug as if they didn't know all along this is precisely what will happen.

Democrats are liars. Never trust them. Obama - Remember how Rev Wright was "like and Uncle" until he threw him under the bus? Remember how we were promised by Democrats that unemployment would stay below 8% if we passed the Obama stimulus? Lies, lies and damned lies.

Posted by: Truth on October 12, 2010 12:00 PM
40. Ponder@38, I suspect Gates's answer would have surprised you. He has already spoken eloquently on the desirability of a higher estate tax, which is the closest thing to a wealth tax that Americans have ever seriously considered. A true wealth tax would be a political nonstarter.

Posted by: Bruce on October 12, 2010 03:32 PM
41. Bruce@40 -

No it wouldn't surprise me. For all the faux sincerity, you can bet you can bet your bottom dollar that both old man Gates and Billy boy have an army of accountants to shield their wealth from taxation.

If they were sincere about redistributing their wealth, they would write a check today and end the state deficit.


Posted by: ponder on October 13, 2010 10:53 AM
42. G Jiggy @#22,

You said: " please comment specifically the parts of the analysis by WPC that are wrong so that we can all get in on the joke?"

It's no joke.

Here's your specifics: http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/are-bus-drivers-overpaid-1/

You said: "could you also point out the evidence that WPC is "Republican"?"

Sure: http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/joke-of-the-day-washington-policy-center-nonpartisan/

Anything else I can do for you?

-jw

Posted by: Jeff Welch on October 16, 2010 09:34 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?