Why Initiative 1098 (washington) lost

[Hannah Bell]

DO PEOPLE oppose the idea of taxing the rich?

NO. WHEN 1098 was first made public in the spring, a large majority supported it. It collected nearly double the signatures needed to get on the ballot.

WHAT WAS the key reason people voted "No"?

THE NO on 1098 campaign hammered two themes relentlessly: 1098 will drive jobs out of the state, and if 1098 wins, the legislature will extend the income tax to everyone. The first claim had some influence, but the key argument was the second one.

WERE THESE arguments valid?

The second argument was tougher to defeat. 1098 itself had a clause that the tax rates and the people they applied to could not be changed without a new popular vote. However, the Washington state constitution allows the legislature to change any initiative after two years.

People feared that the legislature would use that clause to impose an income tax on everyone. The 1098 campaign explained that the legislature already has the power to impose an income tax on everyone and has never done this--and that it would be political suicide for them to do so. Finally, the campaign argued that Washington state is prone to initiatives, so any major change in 1098 would provoke a new initiative campaign anyway. All of these counter-arguments were not enough to overcome the fear of an income tax on all.

WAS THE failure of 1098 part of a conservative tide in the electorate?

NO. THE results on other initiatives were often progressive. Voters rejected privatization of workers' compensation, which would have hurt workers and provided a boondoggle for insurance companies. They rejected privatization of liquor sales, which would have cost the state millions in revenue.

This shows that people were distrustful of corporations as well as of the politicians who defend corporate interests. They rejected the regressive tax on candy, soda and bottled water. They did, however, show their opposition to the politicians by tying their hands with a super-majority requirement to raise new taxes.

This was part of the anti-tax mood in the face of the recession. However, even the anti-tax mood was mixed. Some school levies passed, for example. In general, ordinary people were trying to defend their interests against the politicians and the rich, but were sometimes confused about how to do that.

WHOSE FAULT was the defeat?

THE MAJOR culprit for the failure of 1098 was the legislature, the governor and especially the Democratic Party. The record of the Democrats in consistently defending the interests of corporations set up the distrust that led to 1098's defeat.

Related to this is the political strategy of the labor movement in the state (and nationally). The labor leaders have tied their futures to the Democrats. They raised millions of dollars to elect the governor, Christine Gregoire, who then turned around and stabbed state employees and service recipients in the back by cutting the budget.

Because they have put so much time and energy into electing the "lesser-evil" pro-business party, they have neglected to promote workers organizing and fighting back directly.

In fact, it got worse than this--the strategy of union leaders is often to dampen down potential struggle so as to make deals with employers and politicians. Because there has been little collective fightback against the budget cuts, people have been encouraged to look to individual solutions to the recession. Part of the quest for individual solutions was "Keep my taxes low at all costs." There were also some failures of strategy and tactics in the 1098 campaign.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/11/30/why-initiative-1098-lost

[KT2000]

1. I don't think the Democrats

are at fault. Everyone I talked to about this was concerned about the income tax changing to include everyone after two years. It was regarded as a Trojan Horse.
I voted for it but knew it would not pass.

[regnaD kciN]

2. Please don't hold the liquor issue as a progressive victory...

They rejected privatization of liquor sales, which would have cost the state millions in revenue.

The current state-run liquor store system is one of the most irritating things about Washington state -- with only a handful of stores in most areas, each keeping utterly inconvenient hours (Know of any places where all the liquor stores are closed evenings and weekends? We've got some here.), selling drastically limited selections -- generally restricted to the largest-selling brands -- for prices higher than in any other state. After all, they've got a monopoly.

So, why did voters reject the proposals to let regular stores sell hard liquor? Not out of any progressive motivation; rather, because of massive contributions from the beer industry (keep in mind that beer and wine can be sold in grocery stores; if hard liquor was made available there, too, people might not opt for Bud, Miller, or Coors as the only thing easily available), mainly spent on scare-tactic advertising warning parents that, OMG!, if these laws pass, Our Children will be easily able to purchase alcoholic beverages at the local convenience store. Of course, by that standard, that's no more or less likely than what children might be able to do now with beer and wine, but no matter -- the ads stirred up the conservative religious crowd to unite against the proposals in the name of Protecting Our Traditional Family Values. There was nothing progressive about the results of those votes...in fact, just the opposite.