Poverty Action initiative endorsement: YES on 1098 & 52, NO on everything else

This year, there are a record number of issues, initiatives and measures on the ballot in Washington State. And ALL of them will impact our state’s investments in the health and wellbeing of our communities, particularly our low-income communities and communities of color.

hands in air "voting"Solid Ground’s Statewide Poverty Action Network combed through all of the election information, researched what impact these ballot measures would have on our families, friends and neighbors, and came up with a list of endorsements. Solid Ground’s Board of Directors also endorsed these positions (with the exception of taking no action on I-1082 and Ref 52).

In short, Poverty Action urges you to vote YES on I-1098, APPROVE Referendum 52, and vote NO on everything else.

And here’s why:

VOTE YESVOTE YES ON I-1098 & REF. 52

I-1098 invests in Washington communities. Vote Yes
I-1098 would raise over $1 billion per year for health care and education by establishing a limited income tax on the wealthiest 3% of Washingtonians (individuals who make over $200,000/year or couples who make over $400,000/year).

Ref. 52 makes our schools safer and creates jobs. Vote Approve
Approving Referendum 52 means that our state can continue our commitment to making schools safer, saving energy and creating 30,000 new jobs.

VOTE NOVOTE NO ON EVERYTHING ELSE.

Big oil, big developers, big insurance and big banks have bankrolled these five dangerous initiatives that would cost Washington communities more than $1.2 billion.

I-1053 is Tim Eyman’s latest anti-tax disaster. Vote No
I-1053 would require a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature or voter approval for every tax increase, surely leading to more cuts to priorities like education, health care and other critical programs.

I-1107 would lead to further cuts to education and health care. Vote No
I-1107 would cut $300 million from our schools and kids by repealing a small tax on soda, bottled water, candy and gum.

I-1082 is bad for you and good for the private insurance industry. Vote No
I-1082 would privatize our workers’ compensation insurance system, which protects workers who are injured on the job. This would cost our state millions, drive up employer costs and prioritize corporate profits over workers’ health.

I-1100 & I-1105 put our jobs, education, health care and public safety at risk. Vote No
By privatizing the sale of hard liquor, I-1100 & I-1105 would strip $350 million each year from local schools, health care, police, firefighters, and alcohol and drug abuse programs, and lead to more underage drinking, drunk driving and alcohol-related crime.

Still have questions? Email vote@povertyaction.org and we can help you figure it out.

Want to help us spread the word about these ballot measures? Email volunteer@povertyaction.org and we’ll get you set up.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. The proponents of I-1105 deregulating liquor sales fail to mention that not only will they strip away all liquor taxes, but if Tim Eyman’s I-1053 passes and the Legislature needs a 2/3 vote to raise any tax or fee, it will be politically impossible to replace any liquor taxes. This will leave a hole of hundreds of millions of dollars in city, county and state budgets. Health and human services, drug and violence prevention and treatment will suffer the most.

  2. The voters have been taken to the cleaners too many times with debt financing for irresponsible spending on projects that fund (1) labor union jobs at high prevailing (union) wages and (2) exorbitant transaction fees for Wall Street’s debt finance brokers and consultants (some of which can turn into political campaign contributions), while adding to the public debt that threatens the government solvency.

    An example of this was the destruction of the multi-purpose Kingdome, rationalized by ‘poor esthetics’ and a leaking roof, in order to build two new limited-purpose stadiums that left public debts on both the non-existent Kingdome and the new stadiums. (King County had reallocated roof maintenance funds to subsidize tenant rental provisions, resulting in the roof problem.)

    Referendum 52 for bonds to pay for school retrofits is another example of such a scheme, made even worse by its mandate to raise the state constitutional debt limit in a dubious value proposition to fund uncertain energy savings. Vote “NO” on Ref. 52 !!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: