"Vote yes, so I can pay less"

“Vote yes, pay less,” the Initiative No. 2117 yard sign reads. A catchy slogan, but is it true? In repealing our state’s CO2 tax, 2117, we’re told, will benefit low-income working people by cutting costs, including gasoline and energy. A look at provisions in the other three initiatives might shed light on this claim. All four were created and put on the ballot by the same political committee: Let’s Go Washington, founded by millionaire hedge-fund owner Brian Heywood. If 2117 is designed to save money for low-earners, then we can expect the other three measures to reflect or at least not conflict with this purpose. That isn’t the case, however.

How 2066, which would repeal “regulations that discourage natural gas use and/or promote electrification,” will impact low-income people isn’t clear. However, natural gas prices are likely to rise sooner or later while electricity remains comparatively cheap in our state.

2124 “would decrease funding for Washington’s public insurance program providing long-term care benefits and services.” For low-income seniors, then, affordable long-term care may become a thing of the past. 2109 would decrease funding for early learning and childcare, among other things. Where does that leave working families with young children? Moreover, it “would repeal an excise tax imposed on the sale or exchange of certain long-term capital assets by individuals who have annual capital gains of over $250,000.” Who’s saving money here? Not low-income individuals.

No, a consistent pro-working-people stance doesn’t come through in these four initiatives. This calls into question the claim being made about 2117. Let’s be wary of believing that yard sign. “Vote yes, so I can pay less” might be more accurate.

William Engles

Pullman