Jake's Washington Initiative Voter's Guide
I realized with the election coming up, I haven't really discussed the initiatives that are in this election.
Here are the issues I feel most strongly about.
Ppl. Ini. 960
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 960 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.
This one sticks in my craw, because it's an Eyman...whom I hate. However, putting aside my animosity for the man, I don't find anything particularly offensive about this bill. It requires a 2/3rds vote by the legislature or voter approval for tax increases.
With the recent abuses of governments on all levels, I'm very much in favor of defanging a simple majority. We've seen at great length the damage caused when there is no power by a dissenting group. Wars, budget plans, health care reforms that devastate low income families have been caused by slim majorities. Since our current tax base is mainly percentage based, it automatically grows with the economy. I'm in favor of 2/3rds majority or voter approval for tax increases. Really, what is the worst case scenario? A new tax requires additional support? It certainly beats the alternative.
Yes on 960
Ref 67
Ballot Title
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5726 (ESSB 5726) concerning insurance fair conduct related to claims for coverage or benefits and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.
This bill would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt.
This is a no brainer. I believe insurance companies should be on the hook for heavy damages for withholding claims or denying reasonable claims. Certainly, without any sort of sufficient inducement to the contrary, it would be in their interest to deny most claims if the worst that can happen is they have to pay the original due amount, plus small penalties. Insurance companies know full well most people can't afford lawyers, and take advantage of that excessively. In addition, most insurance companies are FLUSH. They aren't teetering on the edge. Making them accountable for unethical behavior is only just.
Yes on Ref 67
Hs. Jt Reso. 8212
Ballot Title
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on school district tax levies.
This amendment would provide for approval of school district excess property tax levies by simple majority vote of participating voters, and would eliminate supermajority approval requirements based on voter turnout in previous elections.
Should this constitutional amendment be:
Approved Rejected
For the love of god, this needs to be rejected. This constitutional amendment needs to be rejected, stomped flat, and tossed out the door.
This is another attempt to reduce the checks and balances of a decent all people democracy. The change from a super-majority to a majority is from 60% to 50%. You may wonder, why do they want to reduce the effort required to create excess levies 10%? The reason pretty much speaks for itself. Currently, more than 40% of the people generally are not in support of these excess levies. This amendment is expressly created to take power from that section of the people. Super-majority and 2/3rds vote requirements are there for a reason. The reason being, too often the majority tromps on the minority opinion. Approving this measure is actively tromping on minority opinion.
Let's keep in mind that super-majorities are attainable! You can still have your excess levies, but it requires you to have a convincing argument and be able to get a 60% yea vote. Please, do not quiet the little guy.
Reject this amendment!
Here are the issues I feel most strongly about.
Ppl. Ini. 960
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 960 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.
This one sticks in my craw, because it's an Eyman...whom I hate. However, putting aside my animosity for the man, I don't find anything particularly offensive about this bill. It requires a 2/3rds vote by the legislature or voter approval for tax increases.
With the recent abuses of governments on all levels, I'm very much in favor of defanging a simple majority. We've seen at great length the damage caused when there is no power by a dissenting group. Wars, budget plans, health care reforms that devastate low income families have been caused by slim majorities. Since our current tax base is mainly percentage based, it automatically grows with the economy. I'm in favor of 2/3rds majority or voter approval for tax increases. Really, what is the worst case scenario? A new tax requires additional support? It certainly beats the alternative.
Yes on 960
Ref 67
Ballot Title
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5726 (ESSB 5726) concerning insurance fair conduct related to claims for coverage or benefits and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.
This bill would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt.
This is a no brainer. I believe insurance companies should be on the hook for heavy damages for withholding claims or denying reasonable claims. Certainly, without any sort of sufficient inducement to the contrary, it would be in their interest to deny most claims if the worst that can happen is they have to pay the original due amount, plus small penalties. Insurance companies know full well most people can't afford lawyers, and take advantage of that excessively. In addition, most insurance companies are FLUSH. They aren't teetering on the edge. Making them accountable for unethical behavior is only just.
Yes on Ref 67
Hs. Jt Reso. 8212
Ballot Title
The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on school district tax levies.
This amendment would provide for approval of school district excess property tax levies by simple majority vote of participating voters, and would eliminate supermajority approval requirements based on voter turnout in previous elections.
Should this constitutional amendment be:
Approved Rejected
For the love of god, this needs to be rejected. This constitutional amendment needs to be rejected, stomped flat, and tossed out the door.
This is another attempt to reduce the checks and balances of a decent all people democracy. The change from a super-majority to a majority is from 60% to 50%. You may wonder, why do they want to reduce the effort required to create excess levies 10%? The reason pretty much speaks for itself. Currently, more than 40% of the people generally are not in support of these excess levies. This amendment is expressly created to take power from that section of the people. Super-majority and 2/3rds vote requirements are there for a reason. The reason being, too often the majority tromps on the minority opinion. Approving this measure is actively tromping on minority opinion.
Let's keep in mind that super-majorities are attainable! You can still have your excess levies, but it requires you to have a convincing argument and be able to get a 60% yea vote. Please, do not quiet the little guy.
Reject this amendment!