Monday, September 27, 2010

Our state initiatives.

.
We have an unusually large number of initiatives to ponder this go round. Generally, every initiative supported by the left should be opposed; every initiative opposed by the left should be supported.

Generally, every initiative opposed by the left cuts revenue or leftist work force (That is union) numbers. Of course, in the midst of this Obama recession, any measure accomplishing those two goals is likely sound and a natural response to the economic circumstance of debt and confusion the left have brought us to.

Generally, every initiative supported by the left increases an already unnecessarily bloated state budget by increasing, or more easily allowing the increase, the extortion of the hard earned dollars from an increasingly smaller pool of tax payers who are finding themselves increasingly responsible for paying the bills of the left.

With that in mind, here are the initiatives and the correct votes on them all:


.
This is Eyman's latest effort. It requires a 2/3rds vote to jack up our taxes in the legislature.
.
The left hates it. Unions hate it. Clearly, we need it desperately.
.
This is a yes.
.
.
The point of this exercise is to privatize Labor and Industry insurance.
.
The left hates it. Unions hate it. Clearly, we need it desperately.
.
This is a yes.
.
.
Obviously unconstitutional in our state, shilled by those ashamed to even call this a state income tax, it's class warfare at it's worst. A classic "camel's nose under the tent flap approach," anyone buying into the obvious lie that this number won't plummet to far below the $250,000 these scum shill as the ceiling for this tax (The lowest ceiling in America for states with an income tax anywhere else that has it is $13,000... does anyone really believe that it won't take long for this money vampire to stick it's fangs into every one's jugular?)
.
No one has yet to be able to point out where imposing this fiscal slavery has made any state "better," any government "stronger," any people "better off." Make no mistake: the sole purpose of this idiocy is to give the government cow bigger teats for the left to suckle.
.
The left loves it. The unions are paying for it they love it so much. It's obviously a disaster, because if a state income tax was the problem, then why are Oregon and California such horrific train wrecks?
.
This is an obvious and absolute "no."
.
.
I put these two together since they both address the long overdue privatization of liquor sales in this state.
.
There is no reason for the state to be in the consumer goods sales at all. Period.
.
Privatization of many state functions as a part of fiscal reform should be front and center in the next legislative session. Removing the yoke of oppression of state employee unions; dramatically cutting their numbers, pay and benefits to reflect the economic reality those of us paying the bills face every day... these things should be done immediately.
.
The differences (or some of them, anyway) are laid out by the TNT here:
.
1100
.
1100 allows liquor to be sold anywhere beer and wine are sold and it eliminates price controls... meaning larger retailers (Costco) will get volume discounts (You know, like they do for everything else?)

Allow retailers to negotiate with manufacturers and distributors for volume and other discounts on liquor, beer and wine. Currently, restaurants and other retailers pay the same price for products. If a Washington retailer buys something from a California winery, the winery has to make that same product available at the same price to all Washington retailers.

Let producers pay for shelf space in stores. Some retailers, including Costco, do not take that kind of payment in states where it is allowed.

Permit distilleries, wineries and breweries to give gifts to retailers. Currently, only small gifts of little value such as coasters and T-shirts are allowed.

Allow liquor, beer and wine manufacturers and distributors to extend credit. Currently, they must take payment on delivery.

Let retailers centrally warehouse alcoholic beverages, like other products.

Remove a law that requires retailers to pay the same price whether a distributor delivers to them or they pick up their product from the distributor.

1105

Backed exclusively by two large liquor distributors who ponied up $2.2 million, it would allow retailers to receive volume discounts on liquor, but not beer and wine.

What bothers the state’s small grocers about I-1105 is that it would prevent them from buying liquor directly from manufacturers. Small stores often buy from small wineries and breweries that are too small for distributors.

The left hates these, as do the unions, for entirely self-serving reasons that make no sense.
.
Deregulation means smaller government. I don't even drink, so I don't have a financial dog in this fight. The principle of this thing, however, means that every state taxpayer has a dog in this fight, no matter the outcome. And I support shrinking government under any circumstance. The lack of deregulation in 1105 means, to me, that it's much more smoke and mirrors than 1100.
.
I, personally, am a "yes" on 1100 and a "no" on 1105.
.
.
This initiative has been the subject of many posts here on CCP, and is the result of Jim Moeller (Communist-49) jacking up our taxes on certain candies and soda pop. Of course, in Moeller's world, some candy is candy, and some is not... which is a perfect example why. The Democratian's efforts to protect Moeller by deliberately failing to tie this tax to him directly notwithstanding, the Candy Man should be fired this November and his tax dumped with him.
.
The Left loves it. Unions love it. It's an obvious crap pile done to feed the insatiable appetite of the leftists in government who never met a tax they didn't love.
.
I'm a yes on getting rid of this turd.
.
.
This bill requires yet another half-billion in state debt.
.
The Left loves it and the unions love it. We can't afford it.
.
I'm a "no" on this.
.
.
The Seattle Times says this about it:
Under a new program, Build America Bonds, the federal government pays 35 percent of the interest on taxable state bonds. It is an alternative to making the bonds federally tax-free, and for the state it is a better alternative for short- and medium-term bonds. The direct subsidy allows states to borrow more money to
build roads, ferries, buildings, etc., with no extra cost to state taxpayers — not now, and not ever. From a state's point of view, it is free money.
There's a catch.... there's always a catch. First of all, our state ALWAYS views our money as "free money."
.
What they're leaving out is that it adds to the debt.
.
The Left loves it. Unions love it. And that's why I'm a "no" on it.
.
I'm a "no" on this.
.
.
Leftist hate this. Unions hate this. I'm for it.
.
Vote "yes."

See, it's simple, really.
.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You and I may have our differences, Lew, but this is a very well written synopsis of the measures. I will be sharing this with others (and giving you all the credit, of course!).

Thank you for this.

Striker991 (Greg Owens)

Just a guy said...

I cannot tell a lie: Lew didn't write this... I did... and I is Hinton.

Kriss Mitchell M.Ed., LPC, CRC said...

The only comment I have on taking hard liquor out of contained areas is it makes it more accessible to under age individuals. I know they can get it through other means, but why make it easier?

Just a guy said...

The laws concerning availability vis the issue of age and checking ID remain unchanged, and while I, personally, don't drink, it is a legal product and the state should not, in my opinion, be in the retail business for liquor any more than guns or drugs or any other legal product.

And while the state does have pharmaceutical operations out there, they are limited and not available to the general public... as in, state hospital pharmacies.

At the end of the day, the issue of "availability" of a legal product that the private sector is perfectly capable of providing should not be a factor in allowing the state to unfairly engage in a competition with that private sector as a means to keep the roles of public employee unions filled.

Government should, in my opinion, always consider privatization, but particularly in economic times like these when those actually required to pay the taxes are forced to do more and more while the recipients of those dollars; public employees, continue to get raises and cost of living increases as if our horrific economy didn't exist, and everything is sweetness and light out there.

A wide variety of government functions can be done by the private sector. And government, at every level, should be doing all it can to explore those options and to adopt them when they are viable... particularly as a means to help our private economy.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Kelly. I had just come from reading Lew's blog to yours. Good work!