Before You Vote ...
Read Why Newspaper Editorial Boards Across Washington Say:
No on I-1029!
NO! The Seattle Times (10/8/08)
“Voters should reject I-1029, because it is the sort of specialized bill that belongs in the Legislature. I-1029 is not in the public interest and should be defeated.”
NO! The Spokesman Review (10/5/08)
“Right now, the case hasn't been made, and Washington's economic condition won't tolerate millions in added costs on the strength of anecdotes and speculation.”
NO! Seattle Post-Intelligencer (10/14/08)
“There's a sensible, forward-looking, responsible way to improve the training of long-term health care workers in Washington state. It starts with rejecting the atrociously political Initiative 1029. Manipulating the process to thwart good lawmaking is completely wrong.”
NO! The Tacoma News Tribune (10/15/08)
“A big concern here is cost vs. benefit. With a yawning state deficit, lawmakers would have to scare up $30 million in the next biennium to pay for the measure.”
NO! The Everett Herald (10/16/08)“This is a complicated issue that should be negotiated in the Legislature, not made part of an oversimplified initiative campaign.”
NO! The Olympian (10/13/08)
“The financial effects of I-1029 should be a real concern to voters. We urge voters to reject I-1029 and send this issue to the Legislature where it will be subject to scrutiny, public testimony and compromise.”
NO! Wenatchee World (10/11/08)
“It will add to the trend of unions purchasing favorable laws that the Legislature would not pass. The initiative’s benefits are doubtful, its costs are real. Vote no on I-1029.”
NO! The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (10/9/08)“This initiative seems to be unnecessary and will only drive up the cost of long-term care while doing nothing to actually improve it. This is a self-serving proposal that the voters should reject.”
NO! Yakima Herald-Republic (10/14/18)
“Out of a campaign war chest of $800,500, all but $500 has come from the SEIU. If that's not trying to buy an election, it certainly appears to be a special-interest takeover of a ballot issue. Legislation .. this complex and rife with unknowns should not be drafted by a special interest group.”
NO! The Enterprise Newspapers (Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Mill Creek, 10/15/08)
“Initiative 1029 … is a proposal that we don't need and can't afford. I say this as someone who depends on home caregivers to get me into and out of bed and for help with personal hygiene. My experience is that the quality of the aides has little to do with time spent in training sessions.”
NO! Kitsap Sun (Pam Dzama, 10/16/08)
“We don't need this unnecessary and expensive initiative. Please vote NO on I-1029.”
NO! The Stranger (10/16/08)
“As the state faces a budget deficit of $3.2 billion, it's hard to justify saddling taxpayers with yet another unfunded mandate."
Independent editorial boards across the state are urging you to vote NO! on I-1029. About the only one saying yes to this bad initiative is the union looking to rake in tens of millions of your tax dollars. So ask yourself, who should you listen to?
SAY NO TO INITIATIVE 1029!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
