The good, the bad, and the ugly v.2024

It's the always unsolicited 2024 version of Jabe's voters' guide! If you find this useful, please forward/post it far and wide, especially if you have undecided friends willing to think about the recommendations (or, better, undecided friends willing to blindly follow the recommendations). The fine print:

The views expressed here are mine and mine alone, etc., etc..
I focus on ballot measures but comment on a few candidate races.
If you want my half-informed opinions on other races (or just want off this list) send me an email.
For details and generally good summaries, check out the State and King County Voters' Pamphlets.
For generally great candidate and issue summaries and links, check out the most excellent Fuse's Progressive Voters Guide.
The following will make a lot more sense if you have your ballot in front of you.

Thanks!

Only have 60 seconds? The Reader's Digest version:

Initiative 2066: The Seattle Times gets it wrong once again. And, no, frack gas isn’t 'clean'. Vote NO!
Initiative 2109: Pink Floyd was wrong, we actually do need education. And childcare. And a fair tax system with a cap gains tax. Vote NO!
Initiative 2117: Maybe if we just ignore it, climate change will go away and the clean energy system will build itself. What? It won't? Vote NO!
Initiative 2124: Imperfect but critical social safety nets need fixing, not torching. Vote NO!
Advisory Votes: This meaningless exercise is no more! "Ding-dong, Tim Eyman’s gone! Which old Tim? The wicked Tim!"
Commissioner of Public Lands: I'll admit Beutler has a spine. She’s also a far-right environmental disaster. Vote for Upthegrove!
Superintendent of Public Schools: Olson doesn’t even have a spine, he’s just a far-right educational disaster. Vote for Reykdal!
Seattle Proposition 1: No, it's not more expensive, yes, it's saving lives. (And its opponents can’t do math). Vote YES!
At the bottom find recommendations on a few candidate races.

Have 20 minutes? Here's some more detail.

Defend Washington has a great one-stop site on all four of these bad initiatives.

Initiative 2066: The Seattle Times gets it wrong once again. And, no, frack gas isn’t 'clean'. Vote NO!

I'm just going to save us all time by quoting from Sightline's most excellent and balanced article on I-2066. But you really should read the entire article as well as their likewise excellent debunking of the Seattle Times op-ed endorsing I-2066, which was ill-informed and misleading even by the Times' low standards. Sightline's takeaways on 2066:

"Burning gas to heat homes, generate electricity, and power industry is responsible for a quarter of Washington State’s climate emissions.
"Meanwhile, high efficiency electric appliances like heat pumps can reduce people’s annual energy bills and offer cooling as well as heating solutions.
"Policymakers have passed a suite of laws in Washington to try to reduce pollution from burning gas and make it easier to transition from gas to electric appliances.
"Initiative 2066 would repeal several of these policies and could impact others. Four policies that the initiative could affect are: Washington’s move toward high-efficiency electric heat pumps in new construction, Seattle’s zero emissions standards for big buildings, a new opening for gas utilities to explore climate-friendly thermal energy networks, and a requirement that the state’s biggest utility assess alternatives to new gas pipes."

Ironically, its likely that passage of I-2066 will increase energy costs. Why? Requiring that gas infrastructure be maintained and expanded, even though gas use is already declining in favor of electrification, increases operational and depreciation costs for utilities which have to pay for an underutilized system. It forces them to operate inefficiently. Who does this cost get passed on to? Us, especially those left holding the (gas) bag, which will, as usual, be disproportionately those living on low or fixed incomes.

Finally, I'll note that one of the most successful – and evil – fossil fuel industry campaigns has been to convince people that methane is 'clean'. Because uncombusted methane is anywhere from 30 to 70 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and because so much of it is released straight into the atmosphere during production and delivery, it is often only marginally better than coal as a source of energy. Recent satellite tracking of methane leakage show that methane can even be worse than coal. We could (and should) make methane somewhat better by preventing and capturing leaks but – surprise, surprise – the same fossil fuel companies supporting I-2066 are quite effectively opposing regulations to reduce leakage. But even leaving climate aside, fracking – which is how we produce 2/3 of our methane in the US – is a very dirty, toxic process, especially with regard to water. Finally, it turns out that home cooking with so-called 'clean gas' has serious health impacts. So, no, it's not 'clean'. And it's only 'natural' in the same sense that, say, arsenic, lead and mercury are natural. Drink up!

The short answer is that there is simply no way to stop climate change without eventually weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, including methane. We can't and won't do it overnight. But the suite of laws our legislature has passed over the past several years to gradually reduce our use of methane are not just entirely reasonable but absolutely necessary.

Initiative 2109: Pink Floyd was wrong, we actually do need education. And childcare. And a fair tax system with a cap gains tax. Vote NO!

This one is simple. Largely because of Jurassic-era restrictions in our state constitution against a modern and fair tax system – something we might be able to change someday! – Washington raises its revenue in one of the most regressive, unfair ways in the country. That’s not hyperbole, we were 50^th out of 50. In 2021 the legislature passed a capital gains tax on its very wealthiest citizens which moved us up to… wait for it… 49^th!! It is near certain that you reading this post don’t pay this tax as only about 0.2% of Washingtonians have $250K of capital gains a year. They are doing just fine. And, no, retirement funds, real estate, small family-owned business and farms do not pay this tax, they are all exempt from it.

Now 49^th is still crappy – our poorest citizens still pay more than 3 times as much of their income in taxes as our wealthiest. But our capital gains tax still raises roughly half a $B per year for education and childcare. If we repeal this, 99.8% of you won’t "Pay Less" as the proponents claim. Only the wealthiest 0.2% will pay less while the other 99.8% will actually pay more as we have to rely more on regressive funding sources to fill the hole in education and childcare funding.

Here's more info on I-2109, and on WA's regressive tax code and what we can do about it this upcoming legislative session!

Initiative 2117: Maybe if we just ignore it, climate change will go away and the clean energy system build itself. What? It won't? Vote NO!

In 2021, the Washington legislature implemented what is widely considered the best-in-the-country and arguably best-in-the-world carbon pricing system, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which 2117 is trying to repeal. There are several things that make it an improvement on the pioneering California system: it has much more restricted use of allowances and offsets that make other systems at best porous and at worst gameable; invests most of the revenue towards building the clean energy system that we have no rational choice but to build; it directs the money in a much more progressive way.

Let's start by stating what should be the obvious: The single most important thing the CCA does is reduce carbon emissions. Which we have to do! The second most important thing it does is speed the deployment of a clean energy economy. Which we have to do!

Does it raise gas prices? Yes, by at most $0.16/gallon. Any carbon pollution pricing system – which every serious economist believes is critical to reducing climate change emissions and speeding the deployment of clean energy– makes gasoline prices higher. How much? Not remotely the $0.40/gallon that the proponents claim. The most robust study that has been done puts the impact at $0.24/gallon in 2023, down to $0.16/gallon in early 2024, and probably lower now, as carbon auction prices have dropped by half since the first auction.

(For the policy nerds, this lowering of auction prices was 'by design', as the allowances are turned in on a 3-year cycle to give business more flexibility in managing their carbon risk, leading to anticipated risk-averse over-buying of allowances early on.)

Is carbon pricing regressive? At the collection end, yes, it is regressive, as poorer people generally spend a higher percentage of their income on things like gasoline than wealthier people (though in absolute terms the wealthier emit far more per capita). But you have to look at both how the funds are collected and how they are invested. The CCA requires that at least 35% of the program's funds be directed towards communities disproportionately harmed by pollution and other environmental harms.

Finally, as part of the 'grand bargain' that permitted its passage, the Climate Commitment Act funds a huge chunk of WA's transportation projects, which those at the lower end of the economic spectrum are the most dependent upon. If I-2117 passes, expect roads and traffic to get much worse.

Of course the proponents of I-2117, who are the same as the proponents of I-2109 (see above), don't give a rat's ass about either economic fairness or climate change. And nothing is as regressive in terms of disproportionate impact on those least responsible for – yet most impacted by – climate change than doing fricking nothing, as I-2117's supporters would have us do.

All of which is why there is such a huge coalition fighting to defeat I-2117.

PS – For those who might have heard him shilling for I-2117, Cliff Mass, while indeed an 'atmospheric scientist', studies meteorology – weather – not climate. He's well-respected as a meteorologist, but he is not a climate scientist and his past pronouncements on climate change are extreme outliers among actual climate scientists. Further, he does not have expertise in the impacts of climate change on society, the economics of carbon pricing or taxation systems, clean energy development and deployment, and so on. Caveat emptor.

Initiative 2124: Imperfect but critical social safety nets need fixing, not torching. Vote NO!

I am not as well-versed in the Long-Term Care Act passed by our legislature in 2019 as I wish I were. I know that many who voted for it in the legislature felt that it had areas that could and should be improved on and had plans to do so last legislative session. But once I-2124 qualified for the ballot, the legislature couldn't legally make those improvements themselves. So we're presented with a choice between voting No, leaving the Long Term Care Act as is, and letting the legislature make their intended improvements in 2025, or voting yes and effectively gutting the system (and the services and protections that most modern democracies provide to all their citizens as a basic right).

When I look at who is on the Yes side of it – the right-wing tax-dodging hedge fund manager who put I-2109, I-2117, and I-2024 on our ballots – versus who is on the No side – pretty much every organization that I am aligned with on pretty much every issue – I chose No. I wish I had more of an independently formed opinion but at least I admit when I don't. 😊

Advisory Votes...

Thanks to our legislature we no longer have to go through this meaningless exercise forced upon us in the past by Tim Eyman! "Ding-dong, Tim Eyman’s gone! Which old Tim? The wicked Tim!"

Commissioner of Public Lands: Beutler has a spine. She’s also a far-right environmental disaster. Vote for Upthegrove!

Jaime Herrera Beutler was one only 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Trump in 2021. It was a courageous thing to do and she deserves credit for that. And that is beginning and end of why anyone reading this should vote for her ever again. While in the House she voted with Trump more than 80% of the time. Her lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters is 14%. She voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, against legislation to stop oil industry price gouging, and has long worked to undermine environmental protections for land and water. Simply put she has a terrible environmental record and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our forests.

Meanwhile Dave Upthegrove actually has an academic background in environmental and conservation science and has been focused on land and water conservation issues for his entire political career. He's the most qualified candidate for this position we've had in decades. And he's had a long track record of working effectively across divides on complex issue, which is critical in this job with oft conflicting goals. Upthegrove will navigate the necessary compromises – like how and where to log, and how and where to maximize carbon credits by not logging, or when and when not use thinning and prescribed burning to restore forest health – much better than Beutler. Her web site has the usual vague verbiage about doing this, but there is absolutely nothing in her political background to suggest that she will.

Superintendent of Public Schools: Olson doesn’t even have a spine, he’s just a far-right educational disaster. Vote for Reykdal!

Reykdal has been, well, 'OK' in this job, which, to be fair, is a particularly challenging one in our state that has chronically underinvested in education. A number of my go-to education advocacy friends preferred his primary opponent Reid Saaris. But all of them now strongly support Reykdal over Olson. As I've said before, when The Stranger and the Seattle Times agree on an endorsement, it's probably right. From The Stranger...

"The GOP’s pick for superintendent, David Olson, throws up about a thousand red flags. ...he told the GOP convention in Spokane that we’d save America if every student went into the trades and every four-year university went bankrupt. We love the trades, but that kinda anti-school talk seems pretty radical coming from a guy who wants to run the schools. The proudly anti-DEI Olson claims to stop short of wanting to ban books. Instead, he tells parents who are upset about trans children playing sports to join their local chapter of the book-banning political extremists, Mom’s for Liberty."

and the Times...

"Olson bragged that he’d led 'the first school board in the state to ban controversial social issues like critical race theory, DEI and all that horrible stuff.' Shockingly, he went on to say that if every high school graduate opted for the skilled trades instead of pursuing a four-year degree, universities 'could all go bankrupt and that would save America.' This is disqualifying. Washington cannot have a schools chief who advocates for the end of higher education."

Seattle Proposition 1: No, it's not more expensive, yes, it's saving lives. (And its opponents can’t do math). Vote YES!

I'll start and end with the same disclaimer: I'm not a transportation expert. (Though everyone I know who is, supports Proposition 1!) But I do know math while the opposition either doesn't or is intentionally lying. Either one is a bad look.

Let's start with their main argument, that this levy – which isn't new but a replacement for a 2015 levy that expires in 2024 – is a "75% increase" over the previous one. I don't know where that number comes from. The 2015 levy was $930M, this one is 1.55M, that's a 66.7% increase, not 75%. But 66.7% is a lot, right?

Let's pause and talk about inflation for a second. In unadjusted $$, a gallon of gasoline in the US cost an average of $0.65 in 1978. By 2022 it cost $4.19. But when you adjust for inflation, which is the only valid way to compare historical price changes, gas cost $4.37 in 1978! Gas prices actually decreased from 1978 to 2022!

So what's happened to prices in Seattle since 2015? They've increased by 41.1%. Taking that into account, in constant $$, the 2024 levy is only an 18.1% increase over the 2015 levy. (I'll note here that construction prices have increased significantly more than other prices in the CPI, so if you look at what the levy actually has to pay for, the inflation adjusted increase would be much less than 18.1%.)

And then there's population growth. The only meaningful metric of the cost to the Seattlites is the price per Seattlite, i.e. the per capita cost. What's happened to Seattle's population since 2015? It's increased by 16%.

Take this all into account the the total cost of this levy is, at most, 1.9% higher than in 2015. And, again, if you used the prices of the things that levy has to pay for – largely contruction – it would actually be a decrease!

Another argument heard from opponents is that it isn't effective, because traffic fatalities in Seattle remained flat over the period of the last levy, which also had some focus on reducing fatalities. Two comments on that. Once again, the meaningful metric is fatalities per capita, not total fatalities. If total fatalities stayed flat while the population increased by 16%, that's a decrease in the fatality rate. Meanwhile the background is that traffic fatalities nationally have increased by 13% over this time period. Even the Seattle Times, while opposing Proposition 1, acknowledged this:

"So while the state and nation have seen an upward trend in road deaths, Seattle remains flat. [SDOT's Francisca] Stefan said this flat trend is even more notable when considering the gain in Seattle’s population over the same period."

That all said, there are reasonable questions about whether the levy spends enough on transportation infrastructure repair and maintenance. See the graphic below for how the money will be spent or, if interested, this complete description of the proposition from SDOT. It seems a reasonable mix to me but you might come to a different conclusion. Just don't be mislead by false claims on the impact of safety measures or the price tag.

Other races where I have strong recommendations.

I've got a very small number of candidate recommendations this year. But email me if you know me and want to ask about specific races. Or, better, just consult Fuse's Progressive Voters Guide.

If you live in WA's 3rd Congressional District you should (of course!) be voting for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez who is so what the D party needs if it is ever again to win rural races where the voters favor D policies but dislike D candidates. And her opponent isn't just a run of the mill R, but a full-on bat-shit crazy, conspiracy-theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene type. And if you don't live there, you should still be sending her campaign any spare $$ you have (after maxing out to GOTV orgs in PA, MI, WI, and GA).
If you live in Seattle, vote for Alexis Mercedes Rinck for Seattle City Council Position 8. No one would ever call me particularly woke, and I'm glad that the council is less lefty than it was a few years ago. But Tanya Woo, as Fuse put it well: "has been a vocal advocate for rolling back numerous hard-fought progressive victories. She opposed a plan to build more affordable housing in Rainier Valley and joined an effort to withhold funding for equitable development. Like last year, her campaign is funded by large corporate donors that want to reduce the minimum wage and avoid paying what they owe in taxes. She has previously faced criticism for failing to vote, including in the critical 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Woo's conservative-leaning positions and perspectives are not a good fit to solve Seattle's current challenges". Fool me once, shame on you Tanya Woo, fool me twice, shame on me.

Thanks!!