You (MAGA Initiatives) Shall Not Pass!

Vote No On All Four MAGA Multimillionaire Backed State Initiatives

Vote No!

(Credit to 350 WA for the Gandalf Meme)

Vote no on the four statewide initiatives.

These come from MAGA millionaire Brian Heywood, of whom the Seattle Times says is like “Tim Eyman with a gigantic bank account.” He is joined by dirty industrial barons that hate taxes and love polluting, including such out of state ne'er do wells as Koch Industries. 

(But, Vote Yes On Seattle’s Proposition 1)

(Seattle voters, be sure to still vote Yes on Proposition 1, which funds road and bridge repair, bikes lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian safety and some transit)

No on I-2109

I-2109 repeals Washington’s modest tax on extreme capital gains windfalls, and is only applicable to earnings above the $262,000 threshold each year. In addition to this huge annual exemption, the 7% tax also excludes small businesses, farms, and primary homes. Last year it applied to fewer than four thousand families. The repeal would defund education, childcare and early learning by billions over five years. Vote no.

No on I-2117

I-2117 repeals the climate commitment act (“CCA”). The CCA caps greenhouse gas emissions through a market-based permitting mechanism, and it uses those permits to raise billions for electrification, clean transportation, ferries, and forest fire protection. It invests in stream health and tribal lands, free transit for kids, and addressing pollution-driven health disparities across the state. Last year the CCA  raised $1.8B to fund these critical projects and repeal would devastate our ability to achieve a clean future or frankly manage basic transportation effectively. Vote No. 

No on I-2066

I-2066 is a functional ban on state support for electrification. I previously wrote that this bill literally forces natural gas down communities’ throats, and that this is an assault on asthmatic kids, consumers, and the climate. Even though state law already requires utilities to provide gas service, I-2066’s corporate welfare queens want to force taxpayers to prop up their declining fossil-fuel industry, to slow the steady stream of consumers choosing electrification options like heat pumps. It is opposed by public health and physician groups (bad indoor air kills kids and other vulnerable people), Democrats, environmentalists and labor. Its supporters include admirers of Halliburton, and a bunch of pawn shops and gun stores. Vote no on I-2066!

No on I-2124

I-2124 seeks to dismantle WA Cares, Washington’s long-term care safety net. I-2124 could strip over 3 million workers of $8.1 billion in guaranteed, earned benefits that are waiting when they face the deep hardship of a long term care need. WA Cares is funded by one of the state’s few relatively progressive* taxes, and it creates a critical social safety net for our neediest citizens. Proponents pretend it is about consumer choice; but those “choices” are designed to make it so the wealthy can opt out and collapse the system. Vote no on I-2124.

(The Seattle Exception: Vote Yes On Prop 1.) 

I was critical of Harrell’s back-to-the-seventies initial draft of the transportation plan, which significantly defunded transit investments and was pretty tepid when it came to pedestrians and bikes. The City Council seemed happy to go along, but the community showed up and stood up for safety for people on foot and bikes, or in cars, and for more more, safer spaces for people on bikes.

The council blinked and turned it into a just-good-enough bill, adding a sizable dollop of funding for road safety, sidewalks, and bike infrastructure. (Huge credit to the Disability Mobility Initiative, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, and Transportation Choices Coalition for their leadership!). Given the center-right bent of the council, the bill is better than might be expected, and much more than the Chamber wanted. A no-vote would also devastate SDOT’s ability to function. Votes yes on Proposition 1.

*The WA Cares tax is statutorily flat, which is, relative to our main revenue sources of sales and property taxes, much more progressive. Also, because high earners subsidize lower earners, the program is significantly redistributive–which is something Washingtonians say they support again and again. Ergo, it’s relatively progressive.