Posts tagged with " home care provider"

Absontee Election Ballot Coverage

Tuesday, 28/10/2008 ≅14:56 ©brainycat

I'm working on my ballot.

Initiatives are my favorite part of voting. Except the drivel that comes from Tim Eyman. I-985 is a joke at best, and a wasteful debacle that jeopardizes public safety everywhere in the state. Oddly enough, both sides quote the same report for their numbers about what the real costs and benefits are. This bill explicity refuses to allow money to go to alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, and takes money away from infrastructure projects in the rest of the state. BAD IDEAS!!!!

I-1000: The "best" argument against it is that persons on the crap end of capitalism will kill themselves sooner than if they were on the wealthy end. NewsFlash! Poor people are ALREADY dying sooner, and have been for time immemorial! I don't see any of these superstitious jesusfreaks falling over themselves to fight for affordable healthcare for everyone, now do I? The way we die is too intimate and private, especially after a long illness, to do anything but allow real options and real dialogues between patients and providers.

Speaking of healthcare, I-1029 doesn't seem like the best way forward for anyone but SEIU. There is a bill in the state house right now that would provide a certification path all the way from part-time home care provider to RN, and the PI says the other plan is cheaper as well. I'm all for the unions, but I can't ever stand to get behind a dumb idea.

I'm actually opposed to making the Elections Director an elected job. It WILL become partisan if it does. It's easier to have an executive fired than recalled if they screw the pooch. Additionally, as long as it's not an elected position, the whacko people like Eyman won't be able to influence it as easily. NO on Amendment 1!

Amendment 2 adds the language "disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" to the  list of cardinal civil rights rules the county and it's contractors must abide by. YES, DUHHHH!!!

One thing I've noticed: King County loves to absorb power for themselves! Amendment 3 concentrates all the power of the existing regional councils into fewer hands... Then it gives these small cabals MORE power!! WRONG! FAIL!

I'm voting against Amendment 4 for two reasons. One, we the people already decide who's properly qualified when we cast our ballots. Two, there's some frighteningly vague wording about "Additional qualifications my be enacted by ordinance..." Picture, if you will, the far-right in charge of -just- enough votes to pass an ordinance saying, for example, "The sheriff must meet community standards of decency." And that means whats-her-name could be disqualified for being gay, nevermind that she's the best sheriff we've had in King County in ten years.

Amendment 5 wants to create a new county council, dedicated to providing economic and financial forecasts to the county every year. I don't think we need more politicians trying to be economists, we need more economists to be paid consulting fees for rendering a vital service. More public servants sucking up my tax dollars while they fiddle numbers to suit their political careers is not what King County needs more of.

Speaking of taking the time to fiddle the numbers, Amendment 6 requires the budgets to be turned in 20 days sooner than they are now. I think this is a good idea, it's nearly 3 extra weeks to work with the proposals.

After that little bit of generosity, King County goes back to their powerhungry ways again. They want to require citizen initiatives to require twice as many signatures - 20% vs. 10% of the number of people who voted for or against the county executive  - to get an initiative on the ballot. No, NO, NO!

The last amendment removes the party-based language from the election process for county executive, county assessor and districting comittees. I'm voting for this ONLY because our primary system is totally fubared in this state, and taking the party out of those positions puts more power back into the hands of the people.

But enough about rules and procedures. Let's get on to the popularity contest.

Obama and Gregoire, duh. Jim McDermott voted AGAINST the Wall Street bailout, so he's made a fan of me for life. Brad Owen is clearly deserving to win a 3rd massive majority for Lt. Gov.  Jason Osgood is clearly the best guy to run our elections as Secretary of State - he actually understands why the Diebold machine is an Orwellian implement. Jim McIntire, running for state treasurer, has the endorsements of the state Labor Council and NARAL, which are good enough for me. Brian Sonntag's opponent for State Auditor mentions church and prolife organizations in his bio, so Brian is in. Our current Attorney General hasn't done much for me, but that's because I'm not incorporated. John Ladenburg is the new man. Goldmark is picking up my vote for Commisioner of Public Lands, because the incumbent didn't stop the new mines from going in nicely.  Randy Dorn is clearly better suited for Superintendent of Public Instruction, as his opponent has completely bungled the budget, WASL and NCLB. Kreidler has labor's endorsement for Insurance Commisioner, and he has stood up to the industry pretty well so far.

I don't really get into local politics too much. I just go with the leftest of the candidates. I like Reuven because he still has kids in public school right now.

There are 3 uncontested races for State Supreme Court. I can't conscionably vote in an uncontested election. The same goes for the two uncontested Court of Appeals positions.  There are some contested seats in the Superior Court. I like Parisien's experience, and that she's worked thousands of pro bono hours for victims of domestic violence. Holly Hill gets my vote, as she has labor's endorsement and her opponent has the Seattle Times' endorsement.

And then we get back to Seattle propositions. Prop 1 is asking for a new tax to pay for upgrades to the Pike Place Market. That facility is making money - if they need to tax anybody, they can tax the cruise lines or figure out how to pay for it with the profits it's already generating. Prop 2 is more money for the parks department. They ask for more money EVERY ballot, and I give it to them EVERY time.

Of course, Sound Transit has another levy. I don't always agree with ST or their strategy, but at least they're trying to do something despite all the naysayers blocking them every step of the way.