I am disgusted by both Washington’s new income tax and the way its repeal is described on our ballot.
Washington voters have repeatedly rejected income-tax proposals, including a tax on higher earners in 2010. This isn’t the identical proposal, but the Legislature’s decision to impose an income tax anyway shows, in my opinion, a troubling disregard for that longstanding public resistance.
Now we’re being told that voting YES on Initiative 645 to repeal it “would decrease funding” for schools, colleges, and health care.
Here’s the missing explanation: this tax hasn’t begun collecting revenue. Most of its anticipated revenue would go into the general fund. Repealing it would mean less PROJECTED revenue, but decisions about funding individual services would still belong to the Legislature. The measure DOES NOT itself order cuts to schools or health care.
Why leave that distinction out? Why specifically name services people are afraid of losing without explaining that their funding depends on future budget decisions?
To me, that reads like an effort to frighten voters into keeping the tax. I expect advocacy in the pro/con arguments. I EXPECT ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, AND NEUTRALITY IN THE OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION, and so should you.
Explain the revenue consequences honestly. Explain that lawmakers still make the spending decisions. Then let voters decide without putting a thumb on the scale.
Reneé Ruud
Yacolt
•••
Readers are encouraged to express their views by writing to the editor of The Reflector.
To submit a letter, please read our guidelines.
Letters may be submitted via our online form, email at letters@thereflector.com, or by mail to:
The Reflector, Attention: Letters to the Editor, 209 E. Main St., Suite 121, Battle Ground, WA 98604
