Gordaen's Blog

I suppose I ought to do the obligatory “I’m trying to pretend I am just saying my views on the voting issues but really I am implanting subliminal messages into your brain so that you will vote the way I did” post. Here we go, measures first and then people:

AGAINST: Initiative 920
Washington law currently imposes a graduated tax on the transfer of certain Washington estates having a taxable value of more than 2 million dollars. Certain property, described in statute, is excluded from the taxable value. The revenues from this tax are deposited in the education legacy trust fund. This measure would repeal this estate tax. The repeal would apply to the taxable estates of persons dying on or after the effective date of the measure.

I don’t like taxes, but I like education. Somehow I’d rather have rich people taxed when dead than force living poor (in comparison) people to pay more. If people are rich and not smart enough to have a legal advisor secure their estate with a will and other necessary measures… they probably shouldn’t have been rich when alive, and certainly should not be rich when dead.

FOR: Initiative 933
This measure would require government agencies to consider the effects of and alternatives to regulating private property. Compensation would be required when regulations are enforced that damage private property use or value, including regulations prohibiting or restricting property uses that were allowed as of January 1, 1996. Exceptions would exist for regulations applying equally to all property subject to the agency’s jurisdiction. Development regulations that would prohibit existing legal property uses would not be permitted.

After reading through the actual text of this initiative, I think this makes sense. This helps to ensure the government is not abusing the power of eminent domain.

FOR: Initiative 937
This measure would require investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities with 25,000 or more customers to meet designated targets for energy conservation, including cogeneration as defined, and use of eligible renewable energy resources. Renewable energy resource targets may be met by designated investment levels, including energy resource credits. Utilities not meeting conservation and renewable energy resource targets would pay penalties to the state, to be used for purchase of renewable energy credits or certain energy conservation purposes.

This one is actually a bit more detailed than it sounds. Hydroelectric generators from before March 31, 1999 do not count as renewable for the percentage goal of this initiative, but expansions to those facilities and efficiency improvements do count. Pretty much every other kind of renewable power counts (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.). This initiative also contains text to prevent a company from clear-cutting an old growth forest in order to plant crops for biodiesel.

The utility company would have to derive 3% of its power from renewable sources as defined by the initiative by January 1, 2012. By 2016, it would have to reach 9% and by 2019 it would have to reach 15%. The initiative also contains provisions that prevent this from being ridiculously expensive. For instance, if a company spends 4% of its revenue in a given year on the costs of renewable resources or renewable energy credits, the company is in compliance with the initiative. The initiative gives the penalty cost per megawatt-hour of shortfall ($50) and explains that this money will go to renewable energy (in one of many possible forms).

Considering that most of the energy companies in Washington derive their power from hydroelectric sources and power use is continually rising, they can simply expand their facilities and improve efficiency to meet this initiative… something they are already doing!

FOR: House Joint Resolution 4223
This amendment would authorize the legislature to increase the personal property tax exemption for taxable personal property owned by each “head of a family” from three thousand ($ 3,000) to fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars.

Personal property valued at $3,000 does not seem valuable enough to be taxed. I can’t imagine that those taxes would benefit the people as much as they would hurt the people by making life harder on people who plan to start small businesses.

U.S. Senator
DEM – Maria Cantwell
REP – Mike McGavick
LIB – Bruce Guthrie
I – Robin Adair
GRN – Aaron Dixon

Mike McGavick says, “the war to defeat radical Islamic terrorism the single most important issue facing America.” Looks like you just eliminated yourself. My tendency would be to lean toward Maria Cantwell due to her party affiliation (I am somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat, but democrats traditionally have the strongest case against republicans), but she voted for the Iraq war and the US PATRIOT act.

All-in-all, it was between Cantwell and Guthrie. I’ve been reading quite a bit about both of them, and some of what I read swayed me toward Bruce Guthrie. He showed a lot of dedication by raising the funds he did, and he also stood by his positions and openly pointed out the mistakes of democrats and republicans. Although I think he relied too much on anti-democrat/anti-republican speeches in the debate and was a bit under-prepared (likely due to not knowing that he would be in the debate until a few days before it), he did a good job of showing himself to be different from the other two candidates, who seemed far too similar to each other.

United States Representative
DEM – Rick Larsen
REP – Doug Roulstone

Doug said this: “I do not support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is no reason to support federal funding for research that has produced tumors in lab rats.” This is referring to a case in which a lab rat was cured of a Parkinson’s-like disease, but the cure was possibly linked to a brain tumor. We definitely shouldn’t see if we can make adjustments to the treatment, we should just GIVE UP! I’m not saying whether stem cell research is right or wrong or whether the government should fund it. I’m simply saying his logic is pathetic.

How about some more quotes? “…we have discovered that this is part of a national campaign by Democrats to distort the positions of their opponents.” He is referring to what he calls an “attack” on him for his position on stem cell research by Rick Larsen. He is either A: a complete idiot (politics has been about slinging mud for a long time…) or B: deceitful (“Republicans never try to make their opponents look bad… yeah… that’s it…”).

Doug actually believes that the war in Iraq will become much easier once Saddam is convicted. They are fighting us because of ideology, not because of some pathetic dictator. If you support wars that you don’t even understand, you don’t need to be in power.