Op-Ed: The Ballot Initiatives – From a Human Services Perspective
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Beratta Gomillion is the Executive Director of the Center for Human Services, a community-based, not-for-profit youth and family services agency since 1970, located at 17018 15th NE in Shoreline's North City neighborhood, serving Shoreline and Northshore families.
Op-Ed by Beratta Gomillion
As Executive Director of the Center for Human Services I have analyzed the upcoming ballot’s state and county initiatives with the eyes of how they will impact non-profit human services. The following synopsis contains my personal opinions as a private citizen.
Initiatives 1100 and 1105
These two initiatives were written by large corporations who want to sell liquor. We should be concerned about how these initiatives, if passed, will increase the number of outlets selling hard liquor from the current 315 to at least 3,350 (according to the sate auditor’s report) and how these establishments (gas stations, mini-marts, convenience stores, etc.) are much more apt to sell to minors. But, in addition, you should know that the current system (state-run liquor stores) are not only closely regulated but also brings in about $350 million to state and local governments for core services like education, health care, human services, police and fire fighters. The Office of Finance Management says the I-1100 would cost the state and local governments $275 million over 5 years and I-1105 would reduce revenue by more than $750 million. The Center for Human Services would lose approximately $26,000 from the City of Shoreline alone that goes toward providing substance abuse treatment to youth and adults. I urge a “NO” vote on these.
Initiative 1107
This initiative would repeal the small, mostly temporary tax on non-essential items like candy, soda, bottled water and gum. I admit that there are some issues about this existing tax around what is taxed and what is exempted from being taxed, but human services cannot afford for this tax to be repealed. The money that is raised by the tax goes to fund schools, health care, and human services. This initiative is almost entirely sponsored by the American Beverage Association (the national lobbying arm of the big soda companies). A “no” vote is a vote for your community.
Initiative 1053
This initiative established a “two thirds” rule on any revenue-raising bills. In other words, it gives a small minority (17 legislators) the ability to prevent the majority from taking action on a responsible, balanced approach to the budget. If I-1053 had been in place this year, more families would have been cut from the Basic Health Plan and lost health care coverage for their children. Please vote “no”.
My hope is that everyone will read the “for” and “against” statements in the voters guide very carefully to understand the real impacts of voting for them.
2 comments:
To paraphrase, a little bit of analysis is a dangerous thing. You might want to look into I-1100 and I-1105 a little bit more carefully. The state stands to MAKE more money through privatization, so if that's you're argument...start with this: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/415114_booze06.html
It's not nearly as simplistic as it's made out to be.
Maybe you should look into it more carefully. The data in this Op Ed piece comes from the OFM Fiscal Impact Statements for initiatives on the November 2010 ballot:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/default.asp
There's nothing in the PI article that provides any concrete analysis on the financial impact of the liquor initiatives.
Post a Comment