The coalition working to protect Washington from this year’s crop of bad statewide initiatives unveiled its latest TV spot today. It shares some visuals with its older siblings, but unlike them, it is geared primarily towards making a cost of living argument against the measures, all funded by multimillionaire hedge fund manager Brian Heywood and right wing groups like the Building Industry Association of Washington.
Titled “We’ll Pay More,” it explains that what all of the initiatives have in common is that they would raise Washington families’ costs. Here’s the spot:
And here’s a quick primer from NPI on how each of the measures would make living in Washington more expensive, especially for low and middle income households.
I‑2066
Initiative 2066 would lead to higher energy bills for households that remain on petroleum gas (also called natural gas, though it’s not “natural”) in the next few years. It would repeal language currently in state law that provides tools for the state’s largest utility, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), to manage the transition to a clean energy future.
The market is already embracing electricity: many who can afford to dump gas are doing so, which is why state legislators passed a planning bill (House Bill 1589) to help PSE get ready for the next few years. I‑2066 would strike key provisions from HB 1589, while leaving the rest of the law untouched. The market for gas is set to shrink regardless of whether the initiative goes into effect, but still to be decided is whether the transition will be smooth or bumpy for Washingtonians who aren’t rich like Heywood is.
Advocates for low income families and experts in energy economics warn that I‑2066 will leave the most financially stressed families at the greatest risk of bigger bills.
I‑2109
Initiative 2109 would lead to higher childcare bills because it would wipe out $5 billion in funding for childcare and education over the next five years by repealing the capital gains tax on the wealthy our elected representatives adopted four years ago.
The tax, which has already survived a long legal challenge from the right wing, supports the Education Legacy Trust. Daycare owner Diana Llanes, who owns a bilingual daycare center in Burien, spoke to the stakes at a campaign event she hosted several months ago, warning that families have a lost to lose.
“Not only the parents need the childcare, but if the funding ends, it will affect the families, and will affect my own business, my small business,” Llanes told reporters and advocates. “And I won’t be able to provide work for my staff.”
I‑2117
Initiative 2117 would repeal the Climate Commitment Act, depriving Washington of billions of dollars currently being invested in our statewide transportation infrastructure and projects to reduce air, water, and soil pollution. Thanks to the CCA, all Washington youth can currently ride transit and ferries for free, for example, but Initiative 2117 would eliminate the funding that made that breakthrough possible. Money for new ferries and multimodal projects in every corner of the state would go away, too.
Also at risk: the Washington Families Clean Energy Grants Program.
The NO on 2117 campaign explains that it “provides crucial support, including an annual $200 utility bill credit for low-income households, helping reduce the strain of utility costs. This program is more than just financial support; it is a lifeline for low-income households struggling with high costs. Ending this program under I‑2117 would mean ending a vital support system for our most vulnerable residents, leaving them to bear the brunt of increased costs and stretching already tight household budgets.”
The result? A future with more traffic and more pollution. A future in which it takes longer to get from Point A to Point B, which means higher trip costs, especially those who don’t have electric cars or high-efficiency hybrid vehicles.
I‑2124
Initiative 2124 would sabotage the WA Cares Fund by allowing people to opt out. Actuarial analysis has found that the initiative’s implementation would trigger the system’s collapse, leaving Washingtonians at the mercy of unaffordable private long-term care insurance, wrecking a groundbreaking system legislators created several years ago to help Evergreen State families, which has been benefiting from incremental improvements the Legislature has adopted, including the portability of benefits.
“7 in 10 Washingtonians will need care services and support as they age, but long-term care is not only for older people,” the Fund’s website explains. “Some of us will have accidents or illnesses that require care at some point in our lives.”
“Before WA Cares, in order to pay for long-term care, people had to spend down their life savings to qualify for Medicaid. Family caregivers who reduce hours or leave the workforce can lose income as well as health and retirement benefits,” the website goes on to explain. “WA Cares gives families resources that can reduce the burden. By contributing a small amount from each paycheck while we’re working, we can rest assured that long-term care benefits will be there to help us when we need them.”
I‑2124 threatens the Fund’s very existence. If it were to financially collapse, it wouldn’t be able to serve Washington families in their hours of need any longer. That would lead to greater financial hardship and anxiety across the state.
Vote NO on all of this year’s statewide initiatives
Brian Heywood and other proponents of this year’s statewide initiatives are lying to voters. If the measures are adopted, they will lead to greater costs for most families.
Heywood and rich men like him will be the only ones coming out ahead, though only in a limited financial sense. The interesting thing is, the initiatives would actually hurt them too, because they’re part of our society. They have chosen to live here, and any declines in quality of life affect them, even if only indirectly.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone was fond of saying that we all do better when we all do better. The inverse is also true: we all do worse when we all do worse.
These measures were written under the mistaken belief that quality of life goes up when everyone is focused on looking out for themselves and getting theirs.
That’s the proponents’ ideology: Brian Heywood is an Ayn Rand acolyte.
However, that’s not the Washington way. This state was founded on values like freedom and cooperation. Since statehood, Washingtonians have pooled their resources together to get things done. The Constitution has a lot to say about taxes. If you read it, you can see that our Framers saw taxes as investments: a means to building a better and more prosperous society. These initiatives from Brian Heywood are wholly at odds with the philosophy of everybody in, nobody out, which is the approach that guided the creation of the Education Legacy Trust, the Climate Commitment Act, the WA Cares Fund, and the energy price stability law that the Legislature worked hard to bring to fruition.
NPI has taken positions strongly opposing all four measures and organizing for their defeat. We are proud to be part of the Defend Washington coalition. We urge you to join us in voting NO on all four by Tuesday, November 5th at 8 PM Pacific Time.
“We’ll pay more”: Defend Washington’s newest ad emphasizes that Brian Heywood’s bad initiatives would raise families’ costs is a post from NPI's Cascadia Advocate, the journal of the Northwest Progressive Institute. Published continuously since March of 2004, NPI's Cascadia Advocate provides thoughtful commentary and analysis on regional, national, and world politics. Keep The Cascadia Advocate going by making a contribution to sustain NPI's research and advocacy here.