Wednesday, October 27, 2010

2010 Election Endorsements

Here are my endorsements for the 2010 Mid-Term Election. I have included my endorsements and those of the two major news reporting agencies in Seattle.

If you agree with my opinions, great! Go Vote!

If you don’t agree with my opinions, OK. But still, Go Vote!

I-1082: Privatization of workman’s compensation insurance
Vote- YES.
Washington is one of only a handful of states with a government monopoly on workman’s compensation insurance coverage. While I agree that government should step-in to provide such coverage when none exists, I do not agree with government freezing-out private competition. It’s time for Washington to modernize and move forward by providing those who are providing jobs some choice in their workman’s compensation insurance provider. The current Department of Labor and Industry is pretty broken-down and offers mediocre service at rather high prices, privatization just seems like a win-win here. Allow the State to focus on governing and not on insuring.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

I-1098: Installation of a State Income Tax
Vote- YES.
Most folks hear “State Income Tax” and run for the hills. I was one of those people. However, I am also one who believes that those who have benefitted from living in the State of Washington should pay their part. This initiative places an income tax on those with an “adjusted gross income” of over $200,000 (individual) and $400,000 (joint). To quote Chris Rock (talking about having to pay alimony in a stand-up routine)- “If I’m making $500,000 a year and the wife wants half, I ain’t stavin, but if I am making $35,000 a year…” That sentiment rings true here for taxes. Forget regressive sales taxes that penalize all and disproportionately take a greater percentage of income from the less-wealthy and tax those who A) can afford it and B) are making money living in the very system that allowed them to succeed.

Seattle Times: No.
Seattle PI: Yes.

I-1100 & I-1105: Liquor Privatization
Vote- NO.
I realize this endorsement flies in the face of my I-1098 argument, but they are different beasts altogether. First and foremost disclosure: I was once employed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board as a liquor store clerk. That being said, loyalty to a former employer has little to do with my decision. Mostly, I like having the state in control of hard liquor. Having worked for the board I know that the clerks are paid well and offered a good benefit package which creates an appreciation for the job that creates a diligence in distribution of liquor that makes me feel safer. I have little faith in some 18-year-old gas station attendant to keep from selling hard liquor to those who shouldn’t have it. Just look at the CWU situation, it was the kids who mixed hard liquor with the malt beverages who got themselves sick, do we really need to make it easier for situations like that to occur? I think the cost of state administration is well worth the safety/oversight provided. And if you REALLY NEED liquor on a Sunday or at every corner store…I don’t think state initiatives are your biggest worry. Simply put, state liquor stores are not that great of an inconvenience and are money fairly well spent, keep them around.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

I-1107: Candy Tax
Vote- NO.
Tax the vices! That has long been a mantra of mine, even before I was of voting age. I have no problem taxing things like alcohol and tobacco, and many folks agree with that sentiment. Candy should be on that list of vices, as it’s an indulgence. Which in and of itself, is just fine, but when done to excess can cause health problems…the same can be said of alcohol and tobacco. Since these overindulgences can cause harm, either financial or physical, to other citizens (be it drunk driving or increased healthcare costs) such actions/products should be taxed. Not as a deterrent, but as a measure to recoup some the expenses associated with the harms these overindulgences can incur. Leave the tax in place.

Seattle Times: No.
Seattle PI: No Endorsement.

Prop 1: King County Sales Tax Increase
Vote- NO.
“Just a lil bit more,” then a few years later, “Just a lil bit more.” Such has been the pitch from King County for years, and years, and years. I remember a sales tax in the 6-7% range back when I was in high school, and now we are looking at a double-digit sales tax rate? Where will it end? Enough is enough. I am normally the bloodiest of bleeding-heart tax-and-spend liberals, but it’s time to say, “No.” It’s time for the county to become fiscally responsible and work with revenue the voters of King County have already granted them in previous sales tax hikes. The economy is too weak and the tax too regressive to be viewed as a viable fix. Look to the long-term instead of reverting to the equivalent of an irresponsible teenager asking the parents for lunch money because they already spent their allowance for the month.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

State Senator
Vote- PATTY MURRAY.
I don’t trust Dino Rossi. I view him in the same light as Tim Eyman, someone who seems to love the political spotlight, yet offers nothing of substance to actually benefit the voters they are asking the support of. Meanwhile Patty Murray has been a steadfast and active representative of Washington State in the “other” Washington. Murray was instrumental in returning the Air Force Tanker contract to Boeing when it had all but been given to a non-domestic company in Airbus. The bulk of this endorsement is based-on a simple dislike/distrust of Rossi, but when you begin to review Murray’s track record, the Senior Senator deserves the job.

Seattle Times: Murray.
Seattle PI: Murray.