Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[BigSkyBob]

^

I don't think anyone needs the intent explained.  It exists to raise revenue by enforcing an existing statute to almost nitpicky levels. 

Your formulation evades the essential reality of third-party participation. Companies that install and operate the systems are tax farming, pure and simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the tax farmer levies taxes much greater than the amount they pass onto the treasury it makes perfect sense to note how inefficient a method of tax collection that is.

P.S. taxes on cigarettes are not "evenly distributed" either, but, they are clearly taxes nevertheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would hazard to guess that the average voter is completely unaware that red-light companies [the tax farmers] demand contracts in which the cities are prohibited from increasing the duration of the yellow lights, for instance.

Sounds like someone had to pay a ticket after running a red.

Never. That's beside the point. My objection to red light cameras is twofold.

First, as I noted, it is tax farming. Tax farming is an unacceptable practise.

Second, tickets should be issued by officers whom are present at the scene and judging the totality of the circumstances. Redlight cameras consider about one factor: when your vehicle crosses a line. To make the whole tax-farming system work the presumption of innocence is completely negated. The system can't prove your guilt given the totality of circumstances, so people ticketed are presumed to be guilty. Sure, they have the opportunity to attempt to prove their innocence, but, that isn't how our system is suppose to work.

[BigSkyBob]

Your formulation evades the essential reality of third-party participation. Companies that install and operate the systems are tax farming, pure and simple.

When the tax farmer levies taxes much greater than the amount they pass onto the treasury it makes perfect sense to note how inefficient a method of tax collection that is.

I would hazard to guess that the average voter is completely unaware that red-light companies [the tax farmers] demand contracts in which the cities are prohibited from increasing the duration of the yellow lights, for instance.

Are you saying red light camera companies are badly skimming somehow?

Again, I said that the tax farming system is inefficient in the sense that the effective taxes levied on the public is significantly less than the actual revenue gained by the government.

I'm not going to speculate as to what the appropriate rate of return tax-farmers ought to gain on their investment because I do not believe any tax-farming ought to be allowed in any circumstance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said "randomly or evenly distributed" -- you can't remove a critical component of the statement like that and expect it to stand

Let me reiterate:  Calling increased punishment of an existing statute a "tax" simply because it increases the mean amount a taxpayer pays to the government, doesn't make sense to me.  Are all enforced statutes, for instance, "taxes"?
[/quote]

So, you are admitting cigarette taxes are not "evenly distributed," so you meant by "randomly or evenly distributed" merely "randomly?" Let me tell you, the distribution of smokers in a population is fairly random. Sure, the probablity that any particular individual is a smoker varies with factors such as age, race, income and religion, but, within such subgroups the distribution of smokers is random.

And, yes, if the state entered into to some private company an agreement to enforce some other statute on a revenue-sharing basis, that would be tax farming.

[Napoleon]

Steve Litzow (R-Mercer Island) is a Yes on gay marriage, and the Times editorial board virtually awards him a Medal of Honor for it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017179497_edit09litzow.html

Gay marriage isn't a big deal at the yacht club.

[CultureKing]

@BibSkyBob: Where did you get the term "tax-farming"? I honestly have never heard it before (and am sort of interested as to who in the media is trying to put it out there).

It very much sounds like something Tim Eyeman would pick up.

[BigSkyBob]

@BibSkyBob: Where did you get the term "tax-farming"? I honestly have never heard it before (and am sort of interested as to who in the media is trying to put it out there).

It very much sounds like something Tim Eyeman would pick up.

It is my reference. It refers to the practises of Polish nobles. Basically, they rented their estates for a flat fee, and the person paying the flat fee squeezed as much taxation out of the peasants as was [in]humanly possible.

[Alcon]

Again, I said that the tax farming system is inefficient in the sense that the effective taxes levied on the public is significantly less than the actual revenue gained by the government.

I'm not going to speculate as to what the appropriate rate of return tax-farmers ought to gain on their investment because I do not believe any tax-farming ought to be allowed in any circumstance.

And, yes, if the state entered into to some private company an agreement to enforce some other statute on a revenue-sharing basis, that would be tax farming.

I'm reading the "tax farming" article, and I'm still not sure what you're specifically claiming.  Can you just say it in plain language?

So, you are admitting cigarette taxes are not "evenly distributed," so you meant by "randomly or evenly distributed" merely "randomly?" Let me tell you, the distribution of smokers in a population is fairly random. Sure, the probablity that any particular individual is a smoker varies with factors such as age, race, income and religion, but, within such subgroups the distribution of smokers is random.

I understand the point you're making, but unless by tax, you mean a tax on going through a red light, the analogy to cigarette taxes to prove it's a tax fails, no?  The analogue to a cigarette purchase in this case is running a red light, at which point your analogy requires that all fees associated with punishments be "taxes."  My point was that this analogy failure would only be fixed were the fee randomly or evenly distributed, because then it would no longer be associated with the law-violating act.

[Alcon]

The narrowly Democratic King County Council (including Reagan Dunn) has voted 8-1 to urge the legislature to pass gay marriage.  The dissenting vote was Kathy Lambert (R-Redmond), who just made a statement about wanting the voters to decide instead.  Reagan Dunn (R-Maple Valley), who's running for State Attorney General, voted yes but argued that a statewide vote would give gay marriage "more legitimacy and authority moving forward," and said he had"no question" voters would approve gay marriage.  His amendment adding the desired vote clause failed 5-4; the three others being Lambert, Jane Hague (R-Bellevue) and Pete von Reichbauer (R-Federal Way).  Hague and von Reichbauer voted to endorse gay marriage in the final vote.

The majority vote as supported by all of the Democrats: Also-AG candidate Bob Ferguson (D-West Seattle), Joe McDermott (D-North Seattle), Larry Phillips (D-North Seattle), Julia Patterson (D-SeaTac) and Larry Gossett (D-Central District).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2017198837_king_county_council_supports_g.html

[Alcon]

Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) continues to kind of awkwardly hedge on her gay marriage vote.

This article, which is a stupid meaningless initiative by some dude, suggests that Dem leaders might be using the lack of an emergency clause, and the inevitability of a ballot challenge, as "cover" for Haugen if she's willing to play ball.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, I said that the tax farming system is inefficient in the sense that the effective taxes levied on the public is significantly less than the actual revenue gained by the government.

I'm not going to speculate as to what the appropriate rate of return tax-farmers ought to gain on their investment because I do not believe any tax-farming ought to be allowed in any circumstance.

And, yes, if the state entered into to some private company an agreement to enforce some other statute on a revenue-sharing basis, that would be tax farming.

I'm reading the "tax farming" article, and I'm still not sure what you're specifically claiming.  Can you just say it in plain language?

I'm specifically claiming that the contracts for the red-light systems are structured on a revenue-sharing basis that is speculative for the red-light companies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand the point you're making, but unless by tax, you mean a tax on going through a red light, the analogy to cigarette taxes to prove it's a tax fails, no? [/quote]

You are simply wrong there. If the topic was that which was "randomly or evenly distributed" then it was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn't the one to frame that debate.

Actually, the analogy is perfectly valid for cigarettes because embedded in the cost of each pack of cigarettes is the tobacco settlement. Both the tobacco settlement payments and red-light tickets are civil, right?

[Alcon]

I'm specifically claiming that the contracts for the red-light systems are structured on a revenue-sharing basis.

How much revenue are they "sharing" and in what circumstances?

You are simply wrong there. If the topic was that which was "randomly or evenly distributed" then it was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn't the one to frame that debate.

I don't understand how that rejects what I said at all.  In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean.  "If the topic was that which was"?  Frame what debate?

Re-read what I said again: Construing this as "raising taxes on the public by several dollars doesn't really make sense because this isn't a randomly or evenly distributed tax."  In other words, it doesn't affect the public, but rather a subset of the public.  The cigarette analogy is a bit different because that's an explicit tax, not a punitive measure. When you refocused the debate, I just noted that calling this a "tax" doesn't make much sense because it is limited to those who break the red light law (not the public, because breaking the law isn't random/evenly distributed)...those were separate issues which you're confounding now.

Actually, the analogy is perfectly valid for cigarettes because embedded in the cost of each pack of cigarettes is the tobacco settlement. Both the tobacco settlement payments and red-light tickets are civil, right?

Not understanding the significance.

[BigSkyBob]

I'm specifically claiming that the contracts for the red-light systems are structured on a revenue-sharing basis.

How much revenue are they "sharing" and in what circumstances?

You are simply wrong there. If the topic was that which was "randomly or evenly distributed" then it was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn't the one to frame that debate.

I don't understand how that rejects what I said at all.  In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean.  "If the topic was that which was"?  Frame what debate?

Re-read what I said again: Construing this as "raising taxes on the public by several dollars doesn't really make sense because this isn't a randomly or evenly distributed tax."  In other words, it doesn't affect the public, but rather a subset of the public.  The cigarette analogy is a bit different because that's an explicit tax, not a punitive measure.

Now, you are the one not making any sense. If something is not a "tax," then doesn't it immediately follow that that thing is not a "randomly or evenly distributed tax?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not understanding the significance.
[/quote]

Traffic tickets are civil fines. The tobacco settlement was a civil judgment. People whom run red lights are subject to a punitive fine. Those that smoke pay the punitive civil judgment embedded in the cost of a pack of cigarettes. The analogy is nearly perfect.

[Alcon]

Bob, I may very well not be making sense, so I'm going to elect to respond to your post once I'm less sleep deprived.

In other news, in what I think is a pleasant surprise, Sen. Cheryl Pflug (R-Maple Valley) has become the second Senate Republican to pledge a "yes" vote on gay marriage.  I didn't entirely expect this, since Pflug hasn't had a consistent record on less controversial LBGT issues, and her new district is substantially more socially conservative than her last.  Pflug also explicitly opposes a referendum clause (again, surprised.)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017205198_edit11pflug.html#.TwzbmAJdq_A.facebook

Apparently, every pro-gay Republican gets their very own custom Seattle Times editorial hug.

[bgwah]

Bob, I may very well not be making sense, so I'm going to elect to respond to your post once I'm less sleep deprived.

In other news, in what I think is a pleasant surprise, Sen. Cheryl Pflug (R-Maple Valley) has become the second Senate Republican to pledge a "yes" vote on gay marriage.  I didn't entirely expect this, since Pflug hasn't had a consistent record on less controversial LBGT issues, and her new district is substantially more socially conservative than her last.  Pflug also explicitly opposes a referendum clause (again, surprised.)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2017205198_edit11pflug.html#.TwzbmAJdq_A.facebook

Apparently, every pro-gay Republican gets their very own custom Seattle Times editorial hug.

That's the Seattle Times for you...

[CultureKing]

Awesome! Things are actually looking much better than I ever would have dreamed.. Though that also makes me nervous to a certain degree. Are there any democrats we should be worried about who should be yes votes?

[ottermax]

Awesome! Things are actually looking much better than I ever would have dreamed.. Though that also makes me nervous to a certain degree. Are there any democrats we should be worried about who should be yes votes?

Placed in the context of the previous domestic partnership debate, several seats changed from Democratic to Republican senators (4). 30 senators voted for domestic partnerships (27 D, 3 R). So assuming that everyone votes the same except the changed seats, the vote would be 26-24. However of the Republicans who supported it, Curtis King of Yakima already stated his opposition, Brandland has been replaced by Ericksen who is also opposed. Pflug has stated her full support, but this would place the numbers at only 24-26.

Then Litzow stated his support, bringing it up to 25-25.

But Haugen wants a referendum, so without her support we are back to 24-26.

Thus, Andy Hill, Joe Fain, or one of the Democrats who were against domestic partnerships needs to support the bill for passage w/o a referendum.
But if Haugen has her way a referendum will be necessary.

I'm also nervous about Steve Conway (D-29) because he is new and from a district that I don't think supported R-71. Besides Conway, Kastama, Eide, and Hobbs are uncertain votes.

We will have to wait and see how those 5 above Democrats decide to vote because unless another Republican comes out to support the marriage bill this may be tough.

[bgwah]

^ There are 49 Senate seats, not 50.

If we start with the 27-22 partisan breakdown, subtract the four anti-equality Democrats (Hatfield, Sheldon, Hargrove, Shinn), we're down to 23 in favor. Subtract swing voter Haugen and it's 22. Add pro-equality Republicans Litzow and Pflug and we're up to 24... So we'll need to get Haugen or one of the Republicans you mentioned for that 25th vote.

[Alcon]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017211173_apwaxgrgaymarriage1stldwritethru.html

According to the AP, Democratic yes-leaners are Rosemary McAuliffe (D-Bothell) Karen Fraser (D-Olympia), both of whom I didn't even realize were undecided (Fraser?  Seriously?)  All of the "purely undecided" Democrats the AP got a hold of opposed domestic partnerships last time: Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond), Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) and Paull Shin (D-unspellable/Edmonds).

The AP finds two undecided Republicans, which are -- unsurprisingly -- Andy Hill (R-Redmond) and Joe Fain (R-Auburn).

They also note that "two Democrats are among the 18 declared 'no' votes on the gay marriage proposal," which must be Tim Sheldon (D-Potlatch) and possibly Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), who'd previously been vague at a town hall.

If Hatfield, Kastama, Shin, Hill and Fain are all in play, I'd be surprised if this fails.  I just can't see McAuliffe and especially Fraser (whose constituents would castigate her) voting "no."

[Alcon]

Needs 25

Strong Yes 18 (-1)
Lean Yes 7 (+2)
Unknown 4 (+1)
Lean No 1 (-2)
Strong No 19 (nc)

Yes 25 (+1)
Unknown 4 (+1)
No 20 (-2)

My personal guesstimate as of now:

Yes 27 (+2)
No 22 (-2)

Strong Yes
Brown (D-Spokane)
Chase (D-Edmonds)
Conway (D-Tacoma)
Frockt (D-Seattle)
Harper (D-Everett)
Keiser (D-Olympia)
Kline (D-Seattle)
Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle)
Litzow (R-Mercer Island)
Murray (D-Seattle)
Nelson (D-Seattle)
Pflug (R-Maple Valley)
Prentice (D-Renton)
Pridemore (D-Vancouver)
Ranker (D-Friday Harbor)
Regala (D-Tacoma)
Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island)
Tom (D-Medina)

Lean Yes
Eide (D-Federal Way) - AP count data pending
Fraser (D-Olympia)
Haugen (D-Camano Island) - With referendum clause only
Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens) - AP count data pending
Kastama (D-Puyallup)
Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor) - Personally think he's a solid "Yes"; AP count data pending
McAuliffe (D-Bothell)

Unknown
Fain (R-Auburn)
Hatfield (D-Raymond)
Hill (R-Redmond)
Shin (D-Edmonds)

Lean No
Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) - AP count data pending

Strong No
Baumgartner (R-Spokane)
Becker (R-Eatonville)
Benton (R-Vancouver)
Carrell (R-Lakewood)
Delvin (R-Richland)
Ericksen (R-Ferndale)
Hewitt (R-Walla Walla)
Holmquist Newbry (R-Moses Lake)
Honeyford (R-Sunnyside)
King (R-Yakima)
Morton (R-Orient)
Padden (R-Spokane Valley)
Parlette (R-Wenatchee)
Roach (R-Auburn)
Schoesler (R-Ritzville)
Sheldon (D-Potlatch)
Stevens (R-Arlington)
Swecker (R-Rochester)
Zarelli (R-Ridgefield)

[Alcon]

Updates based on AP count here.  Confusingly, the article listed Karen Fraser (D-Olympia) as undecided while this says Strong Yes.  I'm checking for a clarification.

The article confirms probable supporters have committed: Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way), Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens) and Derek Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor).  It also confirms that likely opponent Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) is now committed against.

On the other hand, surprise Republicans are apparently in play: Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) and Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee), both of whom are noncommittal.  Ericksen said he "didn't know" and has "no opinion," while Parlette was noncommittal but wants a vote of the people if it passes.

That leaves us with:

Strong Yes 21 (19 D, 2 R)
Lean Yes 2 (2 D)
Toss-up/Unknown 8 (4 D, 4 R)
Lean No 0
Strong No 18 (2 D, 16 R)

In-play:

Lean Yes
Fraser (D-Olympia) ??
McAuliffe (D-Bothell)

Undecided - Want to talk to constituents
Fain (R-Auburn)
Hill (R-Redmond)
Kastama (D-Puyallup)

Undecided - Grappling personally/Don't want to talk about it
Ericksen (R-Ferndale)
Hatfield (D-Raymond)
Shin (D-Edmonds)

Undecided - Won't support anything that doesn't allow a vote of the people
Haugen (D-Camano Island)
Parlette (R-Wenatchee)

[ottermax]

Shin is LDS, which does not bode well for his support although his constituents likely are supportive.

Sorry I forgot the number of districts in WA. Silly me.

Also, do we know how the LD's voted on R-71?

[Alcon]

Shin is LDS, which does not bode well for his support although his constituents likely are supportive.

He is, but like all the other undecideds save for Haugen and the yes-leaners, these are people with no apparent history of supporting LGBT civil unions/domestic partnerships.  In other words, he's claiming to be reconsidering the issue.  I think it's a sign for some tepid optimism, at least.

Also, do we know how the LD's voted on R-71?

Fraser (D-Olympia-22nd): 63-37 Approved
Hill (R-Redmond-45th): 60-40 Approved
Shinn (D-Edmonds-21st): 57-43 Approved
McAuliffe (D-Bothell-1st): 55-45 Approved
Haugen (D-Camano Island-10th): 51-49 Approved
Fain (R-Auburn-47th): 49-51 Rejected
Ericksen (R-Ferndale-42nd): 48-52 Rejected
Hatfield (D-Raymond-19th): 46-54 Rejected
Kastama (D-Puyallup-25th): 42-58 Rejected (but running for higher office)
Parlette (R-Wenatchee-12th): 38-62 Rejected

[Seattle]

I'd be verry surprised if Hill votes no, 60-40 for domestic partnership? That's a certain pass for gay marriage too. Much less certain for Fain, but if Erikson or Parlette are considering..... Who knows. It's really interesting to watch!

[Alcon]

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/01/11/1945143/mckenna-is-still-a-no-on-same.html#storylink=cpy

Sen. Fraser (D-Olympia) is committed Yes; earlier reports were in error.  The committed vote is now 22-18 Yes, with 1 yes-leaning Democrat, Rosemary McAuliffe (D-Bothell).

In essence, "yes" supporters need 2 of these 8 self-reported undecideds:

Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale)
Sen. Joe Fain (R-Auburn)
Sen. Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond)
Sen. Andy Hill (R-Redmond)
Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island)
Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup)
Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee)
Sen. Paull Shin (D-Edmonds)

[Ogre Mage]

If that is where things stand, I feel optimistic we will pass marriage equality.  We may even be able to do it without a referendum clause.  I think Hill is very gettable on this issue -- if he needs to talk with his constituents first, the message from them should be clear given that district's vote on R-71.

[Alaska2392]

Am I missing something here? Doesn't Brad Owen get to vote on this if it's a tie?  Or is that not somehow not case with the Washington state lieutenant governor?  Should we be talking about him?