(1) I definitely worry about verifiable chain of custody of mail-in ballots. In short, there is none. With detailed polling data, it is theoretically easy to intercept ballots from a given zip code (conveniently provided on the return address on the outer envelope) and steal enough of them to change the outcome of certain races. Who can prove missing ballots were mailed in the first place? Who's there to keep an eye on them every step of the way?* A modestly paid, unaccompanied postal worker. We've seen enough election tampering in recent times that I wouldn't put bribing postal service employees past a certain class of political operatives.

(*This, by the way, is the reason you should use registered rather than certified mail if you absolutely have to be sure that something actually gets delivered. With registered mail, someone has to sign for the item every step of the way, and if something doesn't get delivered, the culprit is readily identified. This is not the case with certified mail.)

(2) I would definitely like to see postage prepaid, to ensure that not having any stamps on hand (or for some, not wanting to pay for a stamp) doesn't deter *anyone* from voting.

(3) While I enjoy being able to take my time on the ballot and double-check my decisions on more obscure races or issues at home, I *do* miss the ritual of going to my polling place, seeing my neighbors, and having election monitors present to make sure no hanky-panky takes place. (Of course, I've never run into election monitors like William Rehnquist when he worked for the GOP in Arizona or the Florida Secretary of State's goons in 2000.)

The latest SurveyUSA poll has I-1100 ahead 50-41, with 9 percent undecided.

Conversely, I-1105 is very likely not to pass because it wipes away all the taxes and also transfers the liquor distribution monopoly from the state to a small number of distributors.

Here is the SurveyUSA poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ed33e615-a849-457e-8849-2a68010e92ce

Not yet. You can check the status of how many ballots are left at the S.O.S. website here:
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/VoterTurnout.aspx?ElectionID=37

As of now, they report having 237,000 ballots on hand to count, so they should be done by the end of this week. The normal process is that is does take about two full weeks to count all the ballots.

The only race that hasn't been called statewide is the race for Supreme Court between Sanders and Wiggins. Sanders has a 4000 vote edge right now, but it has been trending in Wiggins favor, who is winning in King County, and Wiggins is likely to pull ahead. If the final tally is less than 0.5% difference they will do a recount (I believe that is correct, someone can correct me if not)

Best
~MB

The $9 million No on 1100/1105 campaign is 90 percent funded by Big Beer like Budweiser and MillerCoors and beer distributors from 42 different states. These are the same companies that hammer us over the head with sexist and demeaning beer commercials and have fought against a legal drinking age of 21 and a lowering of the national blood-alcohol limit. These are not companies that care at all about the welfare of Washington state. They care only about selling as much beer as possible.

So it's laughable to see these are the same people behind the sappy and ridiculous ads against 1100/1105, whose primary message seems to be "What about the children?" Do you think Budweiser cares about the children?

Easiest explanation I've heard comes from The Stranger:

"Imagine two families, one rich and one poor, going to the same store and buying the same basket of goods and subjected to the same sales tax. For the poor family, it's a much heavier burden than for the rich family."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/tax-the-filthy-rich/Content?oid=4837455

If you are paying $10 in sales tax for a bag of groceries, or $3,000 in sales and property taxes for a year, that amount hurts more if you make $20,000/year versus $200,000/year. That's how people who make less money end up paying a greater percentage of their income in taxes under the current structure.

From an economic standpoint, 1105 is better for small booze retailers, breweries and wineries, but also for distributors (who will remain the mandated middlemen). 1100 is better for Costco and people who care about getting cheap booze above all else (as long as they're willing to go to Costco). Both claim to be good for the state's revenue but are probably shitting us.

In terms of revenue for the state everything is confusing and contradictory. Currently WSLCB brings in money from booze markup and taxes. It pays for itself, liquor enforcement, and a ton of other stuff. Both would get rid of the markup revenue.

1100 mostly makes money from licensing - retailers pay $1000/yr, distributors pay $2000/yr. Great for Costco, shitty for small stores that want to get in on it, shitty for the state after the initial rush of license applications is over. Also since Costco will be its own distributor, it can slash the markup: less markup means less tax.

1105 would get rid of the taxes and "direct [the WSLCB] to devise the new licensing process in a way that will generate at least an additional $100 million in state revenue." Yeah. Obviously a profitable licensing process is obvious and simple to figure out, thus it has been left as an exercise for the reader. If 1053 also passes this would pretty much mean bye-bye $330 mil/year in liquor tax revenue.

From a public health standpoint I'm of the opinion that they're both bad ideas. 1100 claims it will increase funding for enforcement and education; I call bull.

Overall: IMHO they're both too costly to the state, no matter what they claim. I suspect that the WSLCB will respond to the pressure generated from these by opening new stores and expanding hours, though that's just my speculation. I'll be voting no on both.

Sources:

ambivalent summary of both: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/shut-up-and-swallow/Content?oid=4786957

about the money angle: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/17/dueling-booze-initiatives-could-each-cost-the-state-millions

long with background; slightly pro 1105: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ballot-boxing/Content?oid=4282189

no on both: http://megaawesome.com/index.php/tag/no-on-11001105/

pro 1100: http://yes1100no1105.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-are-differences-between-1100-and.html

anti 1100: http://bellinghamsbestbeer.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/beers-and-the-law/

The short answer is no. For the longer answer, see below...

From the IRS 2009 Instructions for Schedule A (form 1040) (link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sca.pdf), page A-3: "You can elect to deduct state and local sales taxes instead of state and local income taxes. You cannot deduct both."[emphasis in original]

So, if you're one of those few Washingtonians who earn more than $200,000 (single) or $400,000 (filing jointly), then you would have to choose whether to deduct your state and local sales taxes or your state income tax from your federal taxable income. You wouldn't be ineligible to take the sales tax deduction, but you would have to choose between taking it or the income tax deduction.

But if you're one of the large majority of Washingtonians who earn less than the threshold for paying the income tax, then you won't pay any state income tax anyway and so you could still deduct state and local sales taxes, as before (assuming, as you do, that the deduction is extended).

Either way, you can still take the sales tax deduction. But if you're rich, you might do better taking the income tax deduction. (This is not tax advice. Consult a tax advisor for that.)

It's something about excise tax versus property tax and a disputed ruling in 1933. It's certainly not going to stop me from voting for 1098. The 1098 team is overflowing with legal expertise (you don't get the law library at a major university named after you if you're a second-rate lawyer) and I am inclined to trust their judgment, and if it comes to it, their skill in the courtroom.

Below is a pretty good summary from http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=110028

Constitutionality

Some commentators have noted that the Washington Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down an income tax law in 1933 and believe that the constitutionality of I-1098 is in doubt. A former Justice of the Supreme Court has argued that those precedents are indeed binding and that I-1098 is clearly unconstitutional. Another tax law expert has argued, to the contrary, that today's Supreme Court would hold, as forty-eight other states have done, that the rationale for those decisions was flawed and that I-1098 would pass constitutional muster. In either case, if I-1098 is passed, court challenges are likely to ensue.

And here's Yes on 1098's statement on it:
http://www.yeson1098.com/morefacts.html

Is I-1098 constitutional?

[. . .] the constitutional experts consulted by the Yes on 1098 campaign say that the key precedents that led to that ruling have been overturned in ensuing decades. If the voters approve I-1098 and it is challenged in court, our state’s leading constitutional scholars are confident that it will be upheld as constitutional.

Way more info from Yes: http://www.yeson1098.com/YesOn1098_Const_0826.pdf
And more info from No: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/poi/opinion/102562359.html

Go to "My page" and then click the "Widgets" link under your picture. Should be pretty self-explanatory from there.

Here is a history of the top tax bracket. It was actually over 90% during the 1950's. They dropped significantly under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush I. This is one of my favorite graphs to show conservatives who claim that they are being taxed to death, and good ammo against the nonsense known as "trickle down" economics.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Anything is possible, but I don't see how you come back from losing three statewide elections in a row. (Especially if you're a conservative who was probably in favor of "Three Strikes, You're Out.")

My guess is that if Rossi loses, and is still interested in a political post, he'll have to wait until Republicans are back in power and seek an appointment of some sort.

The Stranger's Cienna Madrid wrote a great, long answer to this question right here, in a piece called "Shut Up and Swallow."

Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna will likely run in 2012. The Democratic field is more crowded, with Rep. Jay Inslee, state Sen. Majority Leader Lisa Brown, Snohomish Co. Executive Aaron Reardon, King Co. Executive Dow Constantine and Treasurer James McIntire all mentioned as possible candidates.

November's election will determine the balance of power in Olympia. If Democrats maintain control of the Legislature, as is somewhat likely, going into 2012 they will own all the problems the state is currently facing. That would make it easier for McKenna. If the Republicans take one of the chambers that could unsettle things.

If he runs McKenna will almost certainly be a general election candidate. For the Democrats the picture is less clear.

Chris Grygiel, seattlepi.com

Hey Bryan,

Good point, you should join the group. Hope you're counting me in the middle! :-)

Hope you're well...

~MB

Charles, here are two sources of info that could help you understand some of the possible arguments against privatization:

1. The Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute at the UW has published a handy resource brief that links to research on the relationship between government regulation and alcohol abuse (plus lots more.)

2. The Seattle Times today has a front page article that discusses some of the fears of small brewers and others regarding the initiatives.

--Jim Brunner, political reporter for The Seattle Times

The 'Trojan Horse' argument is one of the most powerful ones raised against I-1098.

The initiative adds an income tax that would be paid by couples with income of more than $400,000 ($200,000 for singles). It also would cut some business and property taxes.

Sponsors say it's a "myth" that the income tax would later be expanded to include everyone.

Indeed, for the first two years after the initiative passed, it would be extremely difficult for the Legislature to expand the tax.

That's because the state Constitution protects voter-approved initiatives from Legislative meddling for the first two years after passage by requiring a two-thirds majority for any changes.

But, as opponents point out, after two years the tax could be expanded to the middle class with a simple majority vote of the Legislature.

I believe expanding the tax downward would be politically difficult -- maybe even political suicide -- even after that two-year waiting period. But the fact remains it could be done. (I wrote a piece for The Seattle Times earlier this year about the Legislature's long tradition of rewriting initiatives.)

Of course, it's also possible the Legislature would narrow the income tax after that two-year period. Lawmakers have, after all, added hundreds of special tax breaks and exemptions to the tax code over the years.

What would actually happen? I can't predict the future. The key decision for voters is whether they trust Olympia to keep the income tax at the level it was promised.

--Jim Brunner, political reporter for The Seattle Times

Thanks for asking!

I-1098, a graduated income tax proposal that will only affect joint income of couples earning more than $400,000 a year.

It will bring in about $2 billion a year and dedicate that money to education and healthcare!

visti our website: www.yeson1098.com