Wednesday, October 23, 2024

2024 General Election Part I: Initiatives & Federal Offices

 

 

2024 General Election Part I: Initiatives & Federal Offices

I research a lot when voting. Starting in 2016, I began compiling my research and thoughts for friends.

If you're a left or liberal voter, you may agree with my recommendations. If you're conservative, you probably won't. Regardless, I include links so you can read sources.

This year, I am doing a two-part voter guide because there is so much on our ballot. Stay tuned for Part II! You can find the official Thurston County Voters' Pamphlet here.

I have included info on what polling says about voting your conscience over Gaza without putting Trump in office. But if you have friends in swing states, ask them to vote for Harris.


INITIATIVES

The shortest answer here is NO on all of these. Each of these initiatives are trying to repeal good laws that our legislature passed, so a no vote is a yes for good policy. Skeazy people purposefully word initiatives like this to trick people into voting in their favor. 
 
Furthermore, some of them don't just repeal a law - they prohibit the legislature from ever making a similar law. The Stranger and the Progressive Voters Guide recommend voting no on all four.
 
Did you know we have a new Tim Eyman? His name is Brian Heywood. He's a hedge-fund exec, a "Republican megadonor and self-described 'economic refugee' from California". Maybe he got lost on his way to Texas and rather than ask for directions, he's trying to make us TX.
 
Anyway, he funded these initiatives. Vote no on all of these to prevent him from Texifying WA.
 

Initiative # 2066: vote NO

Fact: the climate crisis is real and we have to do something about it. And Washington has! 
 
Back in 2008 and 2020, Washington passed laws about how we're going to reduce our emissions. A lot of these laws have to do with Puget Sound Energy - they basically require PSE to make a plan to lower emissions without screwing over poor people.
 
This initiative doesn't just overturn those specific rules, it "actually adds language that forbids the state from doing anything to 'in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.'” The Stranger's overview on this is a good one. 

The WA Progressive Voter's Guide not only recommends a no vote, but they point out that "a study from April found that passing I-2066 could raise the utility bills of gas customers by an average of $150 per year."
 
Vote no to maintain our decarbonization laws and allow the legislature to make pro-climate laws in the future.

Initiative # 2109: vote NO

This would repeal our tax on very wealthy people making a ton of money on stocks and other capital assets. Again, The Stranger's overview is good:
"The capital gains tax skims 7 percent in profits from stocks and bonds and other assets over $262,000. Unfortunately, the tax doesn’t apply to the sales of homes, small businesses, farm land, farm equipment, livestock, timberland, commercial fishing, and auto dealership sales, so it hits fewer than 4,000 people in a state of 8 million, a little less than half of whom file taxes. If you’re reading this, then there’s a 99.9% chance that you do not pay this tax."
We've been using this money to pay for important things like early childhood education.

Brian and his buddies would like to make our tax system even more regressive than it is and probably use the extra cash they'd save to fund more initiatives like this in the future. 
 
Vote no to continue taxing the super-rich!
 

Initiative #2117: vote NO

Fact: the climate crisis is real and we have to do something about it. And we did!
 
WA's Climate Commitment Act instituted a cap-and-trade emissions program that has added "billions of dollars in funding for transit programs, ferries, clean energy projects, air quality improvement", and other anti-climate-crisis, pro-environment plans. At least 10% of the funds must be used on Tribal-supported projects. It ramps up the carrots-and-sticks over time to get companies to pollute less.

Here's how it works: 
"The state sets an emissions cap and then regularly holds auctions where polluters can buy and sell permits that allow them to comply with the cap while continuing to pollute. As the cap lowers, the price of these allowances rises, which incentivizes polluters to find ways to lower their emissions. Voila, a market-based way to curb carbon emissions."
A side effect is that it's estimated to have raised gas prices by approximately 25 cents per gallon. We know that because historically, WA and OR have had similar gas prices and that's the difference in our gas prices post-passage of WA's cap-and-trade law. Here's the study on this. No one likes higher gas prices, but this is a very important law to uphold.

Also, this initiative wouldn't just repeal the Climate Commitment Act, it would prohibit the state from ever implementing a similar law
 
Vote no to keep our pro-climate law and allow the legislature to continue to address the climate crisis in the future.
 

Initiative #2124: Vote NO

 
Washington passed a small, state-run long-term care insurance program called WA Cares. This initiative would kill that program by making it opt-in. I know that opt-in sounds good and there are good-sounding arguments for the "soft-repeal" but here's why that's wrong: 
 
 1. Opt-in will kill this program. 
 
There will not be enough money to keep it solvent and it would end by 2027. That's the point of this initiative. People are terrible at planning for difficult, expensive, bad things, which is why less than 5% of people actually buy this coverage on the private market even though 70% of us will need it at some point.
 
2. This is a better benefit that we will get anywhere else for the cost. 
 
Long-term care is expensive, and you won't even be able to get it if you're too old or have a pre-existing condition. Like all health insurance, having everyone pay in a little bit is what makes it possible to provide the benefit to those that need it.
 
3. $36,500 will increase with inflation and YES, it is actually a useful amount of money. 
 
I, too, thought it was a laughable sum for long-term care in a skilled nursing facility but this benefit can be used for so much more than that. The money can be used for:
  • In-home care
  • Meal delivery
  • Transportation to appointments
  • Mobility and assistive devices
  • Care supplies
  • Part-time caregiver
 These things are a huge help when you have a family member or friend that requires serious care. Even if it only funds three months of full-time care, that's an important three months for the rest of the family to figure out how to help mom the help she needs after that.

4. Women will get screwed by getting rid of this benefit. 
 
Women still do majority of family care when old age or disability creates a need for a caregiver. This benefit will help take the unpaid load off of women. 
 
5. No, Medicare will not cover this. 

Medicare does not cover long-term care. MedicAID does but you have to spend down the person's entire life savings to less than $2,000 and you are very limited to some very sketchy places that take Medicaid.
 
Vote NO to keep our long-term care insurance program. It's a baby step, but it's a good one.
 

PRESIDENT

The short answer here is Harris. But if you have strong feelings on Gaza, you will probably be able to vote for anyone but Trump in WA without swinging the state.

If you have friends in swing states though, make sure they're voting for Harris because a second Trump presidency will be far, far more damaging than the first. Every vote in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona is extremely important. Margins are razor thin in the swing states.

Voting against Democrats: Recent polling shows Harris with a 10+ point lead in WA, so if you want to vote your conscience on Gaza (or whatever) you should probably be able to vote for anyone who's not Trump without contributing to our slide into true authoritarianism. On the other hand, polls have been wrong about Trump many times in the past and he has been gaining on Harris in recent polls nationwide. It's not without risk.

If you choose to vote against the Ds, though, please send a postcard to Harris and/or your other elected representatives to tell them why you voted for someone else. Without that feedback, they won't know how many people are serious about changing these policies. And we need them to know.

Voting for Harris/Walz: The Democrats took a big and unusual (for them) risk in getting Biden to step down. In addition to the fact that a Harris win gives us more time to save our democracy, it will let the Democrats know that they did the right thing in getting Biden out. And we need a Democratic party that is more responsive to younger people and, in general, our current reality, if we are going to avoid worse outcomes for ourselves, Gaza, Ukraine, etc. I'll be voting for Harris.

 

FEDERAL OFFICES

U.S. Senator: Vote for Maria Cantwell or no one/write in.

Maria Cantwell is a so-so democratic Senator. She's a reliable vote on most positive legislation in the Senate and we desperately need that if our federal government is going to do anything beyond simply staving off the worst of right-wing authoritarianism. The reality is that if we get a Senate majority we might get a few good bills across the finish line; if we don't, we need Senators to hold the line. Cantwell supports reproductive rights and she'll fight for social security. The Stranger, Planned Parenthood, and various unions have endorsed her.

That said, she should be doing more on Gaza and she is polling well ahead of her challenger so if you want to make a statement this vote is a good place to do so. Either don't vote, or write-in someone and then send a postcard to her office letting her know why. 

 Or do vote for her, and send a postcard to her office telling her to do more, which is what I will be doing. 

Whatever you do, don't vote for her challenger. Dr. Raul Garcia is a Republican running on the vaguest platform he could possibly devise as a way to court moderate voters. Here's a sample of his tepid nonsense. He's endorsed by a long list of individual Republicans and the Farm Bureau. That's it. Frankly, I don't believe his answers: for example, he says he's anti-abortion but says he will fight to uphold WA's pro-choice stance.


CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT #10: Vote Strickland

Marilyn Strickland is a former Tacoma mayor who has represented us in Congress for two terms. She does decent work on things like housing, infrastructure, support for service members and veterans, and reproductive rights. She's endorsed by a ton of people and groups including The Stranger, the Progressive Voter's Guide, Planned Parenthood, a long list of unions, the Tacoma Pierce County Black Collective, Olympia Indivisible, the Korean-American Democratic Committee, the list goes on

Her opponent, Don Hewett, is running on a typical Republican platform of less government, more family values, more police/military, and "America First". His website includes such nuggets as: "I believes that the United States maintains a military to protect our homeland and impose America’s will on its enemies and to prevent a would be enemy from doing so to the United States" and "I believes that law and order is paramount for our society.  These are the guy who keep us safe and make sacrifices that we many never know to do this."



Now available: Part II: State and local offices

 






No comments:

Post a Comment