YES 1100 --- NO 1105

Regarding the Washington State election, most of the issues are clear. However there are two different initiatives to privatise State liquor stores. (As with soda pop, which another measure wants to stop taxing, I never touch the stuff.) Go to this site to find out the difference.

"http://yes1100no1105.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-are-differences-between-1100-and.html?spref=bl"

Apparently, 1105 designates certain private distributors as the only source for liquor sold in the state. That makes no sense to me. The point is to free it up. As usual, there will be businesses that use the police powers of government to support their enterprises. I never said business is always ethical. I have said that free competition can only come about without government intervention. That is what initiative 1100 aims for and I hope can deliver. Many commentators have the "It's Golden" Blogovich attitude when they see all of the revenue from liquor sales. In other words, they want to skim some off for themselves or for the State. (Which, for state employee unions is the same thing.)

Other Washington State Ballot Measures:

Initiative #1053 -- The voters keep passing initiates requiring two-thirds legislative votes or voter approval to raise taxes. The legislature keeps repealing the peoples wishes. (and you wonder why this is called chickenshitnewworld). Vote yes to reinstate the requirement. (The legislature MUST cut spending, not raise taxes, get it?)

Initiative #1082 Vote Yes to end the state monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Companies would be able to purchase private insurance, which would have to comply with state guidelines. This would eliminate the higher cost of inefficient government services and save the state and businesses money. It is a step in the right direction.

Initiative #1098 No, a thousand times no on state income tax. (I suggest a voluntary state income tax for a few millionaires who have publicly supported it. Oh, excuse me Mr. Gates, I meant billionaires.)

Initiative #1107 - Yes, obviously. This would reverse interesting government attempts to nudge us by tax laws into "green" or other "socially desirable" behavior. (Tax on candy and carbonated beverages and a few other benign sounding recent legislative enactments. Kick that camel in the noise. There's no room for him in this big tent.)

Referendum #52 To authorise funds, via a bond issue, for "energy efficient" construction projects in schools. I am surprised they let us vote on this. Vote no, no, no. Do not trust anything that they call energy efficient. That would no doubt include every lamebrain "green" proposal that their brother-in-law's company came up with. Environmentalist seem incapable or unwilling to make break-even calculations to determine what is actually efficient. This smells like another environmental boondoggle scam.

Senate Joint Resolution #8225 would amend the State Constitution to use an accounting gimmick to raise the State debt limit. The Statement For in the voter pamphlet is either disingenuous or leaves something out. This, I believe, has nothing to do with whether the State receives federal money as they seem to suggest. The federal government is, for now, giving states money for shovel ready projects. This will not last long (we hope). The resolution would allow more state borrowing, based upon receipt of those funds. The payments on that borrowing would last a long time. As Rep. Jim McCune in the Argument Against states, "Change our addiction to spending, not our constitution. Vote no."

House Joint Resolution #4220 would amend the constitution to allow courts to deny bail to those accused of a crime possibility punishable with a life sentence. I do not like the idea of legislation tying the hands of the court regarding sentencing or bail. It would be reasonable to deny bail to anyone who is likely to commit other violent crimes. I think I will vote yes on this because it is not mandatory on the court. On the other hand, it could encourage changing sentencing guidelines toward more life sentences. I do not support mandatory sentencing either. The constitution should not be amended lightly. Courts already are able to impose very high bail requirements in cases where there is a propensity to violence. Maybe it should stay as it is for now. Your choice.

The Federal Offices:

Dino Rossi over Patty Murray, of course. In Dino's radio and television spots, he comes across like a candidate for Certified Public Accountant. He says the right things in a passionless way. That seems to be his only weakness. (I do not think he would ever vote for Cap-and-Trade, which was my only fear about him originally.) In any case, he gets a score of 95 to Patty Murray's 0. If she ever voted other that liberal statist progressive down the line, I do not know when. (Not that she seems to know what Statist Progressivism is. She needs to educate herself regarding the other side of the argument. The argument between freedom and tyranny, that is.)


Doug Cloud to replace Norm Dicks

Keep Dave Reichert, instead of Suzan DelBene

Dick Muri, not Adam Smith