golfcart wrote: WetEV wrote:
golfcart wrote:IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.
The fact that it was a large net tax cut of $225 million per year probably had more to do with it. Schools were already short funding.
It was sold as being revenue neutral, but cut more in other taxes than it would have collected, and then gave even more away as a rebate. In spite of this, it carried the liberal precincts, and lost very badly in the conservative precincts.
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/2016 ... ounty.html
I'm aware that attempts have been and are being made to rewrite history. Don't be fooled. The vote distribution speaks for truth. King Country is majority Democratic. I732 carried King County. Spokane County is majority Republican. I732 lost there with 32% of the vote.
I didn't say anything partisan I said that various "Justice" groups refused to get behind it. Nothing you said refutes that. Did the following groups support the measure?
You should ask why? This is the compelling argument, but not the whole Sierra Club statement.
Washington Environmental Council
There remains justifiable concern about I-732's revenue projections. While I-732 was intended to be revenue neutral, the State Department of Revenue predicts I-732 will result in about $200 million of lost revenue per year in its first four years.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Despite the initiative’s intent to be revenue neutral, the state Office of Financial Management has analyzed the policy and found that enacting it would create a $797 million hole over the next three biennia in the already insufficient state budget. That’s over $130 million every year, at a time when the state is struggling to pay for vital services and public education. This budget hole would increase burdens on vulnerable populations, and reduce dollars for enforcing existing environmental laws, not to mention preventing needed investments in transitioning to clean energy.
Took no position.
Under these circumstances, we decided that this is a debate that should be settled by Washingtonians.
Number one reason to oppose was revenue negative.
1. It is revenue negative: Rather than being revenue neutral as intended, I-732 would create nearly a $1 billion hole in the state budget over the next four years. This deficit threatens to pit funding for climate against public education, social services, and other vital government services. The passage of I-732 could lead to reduced public services, deepening the challenges for vulnerable people
I can't find the full pre-election statement. They did endorse it, then reverse after the budget shortfall and other issues became apparent.
Latino Community Fund
Sorry, but I'm not very aware of either of these organizations policies or positions on climate change. A short DuckDuckGo session didn't help.
golfcart wrote:If they did not, why did they say that they didn't? Do those reasons align reasonably well with what I said? If so then what is your disagreement?
The budget shortfall. You called it "revenue neutral". It wasn't revenue neutral.
Sure, you can find other reasons. But that was the most persuasive for many of the people I talked to.
The parts of the state that voted against I-732 are not heavily influenced by any of these organizations. The reasons why Republicans voted against this are:
1) It is a tax.
2) It paid rebates to low income people and they didn't earn them.
3) Global warming is a Chinese plot. Or something similar.
4) It isn't revenue neutral, so might cause the state to pass an income tax to get out of the fiscal crisis made worse by I732.
The last point almost makes sense.
And remember that this passed in the Democratic areas. And failed badly in Republican areas.
Disclosure: I voted for, donated money to, and campaigned for I732.