Statements on state support for education from 32nd District state senate candidates
Thursday, July 17, 2014
By Evan Smith
Incumbent Democratic 32nd District State Sen. Maralyn Chase, Democratic challenger Chris Eggen and Republican challenger Robert Reedy recently sent these statements about what the legislature should do to comply with the court order to provide full state support for basic public education.
The 32nd District includes Shoreline and part of northwest Seattle, Lynnwood, Woodway and nearby unincorporated areas of southwest Snohomish County, and parts of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace.
The top two vote getters in the Aug. 5 primary, regardless of party, qualify for the Nov. 4 general-election ballot.
Chase is seeking a second four-year term in the State Senate after serving nine years in the House of Representatives. Eggen is in his seventh year on the Shoreline City Council. Reedy ran unsuccessfully for a Mountlake Terrace City Council position in 2011, for state representative in 2012 and for a Snohomish County Council position in 2013.
The three will appear Thursday at 7pm at a candidate forum at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church at the corner of Northwest Richmond Beach Road and 15th Avenue Northwest in Shoreline.
Here are statements on complying with the State Supreme Court’s 2012 McCleary decision from the three candidates in the order they will appear on the primary ballot:
32nd District State Senator-
Maralyn Chase (Prefers Democratic Party)
Increasing state revenue to pay for education requires the legislature to balance the three components of total personal income and the state’s regressive tax system.
Earned income is compensation for labor services. Property income is from ownership of capital (dividends, interest and rent). Transfer payments are safety net and social security.
The working poor, selling their labor to earn income, pay 17% of that income in taxes. Owners of intangible property, pay about 3% of their personal income in taxes. A capital gains tax on income from property wealth, plus reducing tax expenditures, could fund education with justice and fairness.
Chris Eggen (prefers Democratic Party)
The McCleary decision requires the state provide billions of additional dollars for basic education. I am committed to this because our must important investment is our children.
There are several possible approaches:
- The state could “take over” local levies for basic statewide education. I am concerned that this approach would reduce funds for schools in the 32nd Legislative District.
- The state could permanently divert other funding (probably human services) to education. However, this could reduce some critical services.
- Finally, the state could propose new taxes. I don’t like this, but would consider it if voters approve.
Robert Reedy (Prefers Republican Party)
First of all let us define education. The food programs are an issue, I understand that there are hungry kids out there and we should help them, But it is wrong to use education dollars for such a ploy to mask the really bad economy. It is an old dodge to hide the truth behind a false pretense. We the People (Seattle), refused a latte' tax for childcare. They don't want to pay more taxes to babysit someone else's kids. So, the State invents a 3-23 program that will use tax dollars for child-care babysitting. Thank you.
Evan Smith can be reached at schsmith@frontier.com.
Posts
5 comments:
Chris Eggen states billions are requred for the CCleary decision and then identifies 3 sorces of revenue, dismisses 2 of them, and then says it is up to the voters! So typical of Chris, no courage and indecisive, Mr. Abstention punts the football again. Yet he is delusional enough to believe he will be more effective and will play well with others (like the GOP) in hyperpartisan Olympia.
As usual Chris has no solution for education funding. And yet he claims he is eligible to be a State Senator? Give me a break! He has no ideas, no plan, no qualifications!
Bob Reedy is right. Spend the education money on education. I'm ready for Reedy.
The voters approved of the State Constitutional Amendment that resulted in the billions of dollars that the state must pay and now Chris says it is up to the voters to plug it.
Why doesn't Chris let the citizens of Shoreline decide if the City should assume Ronald Wastewater or not if he has such faith in the voters? After all, that is what Maralyn Chase's bill would have done, the bill she sponsored that he thinks is so terrible.
Chris forgot a fourth education funding option: City charity. Has he forgotten the $2M 'funding' the Shoreline City Council provided to the Shoreline School District. First, the City 'forgot' to bill the schools for surface water management services for 17 years (they remembered to bill the rest of us). Then, when the auditor caught it the superintendent held turned out her empty pockets, and the Citygave them a two year a 'hall pass.' All they need do now is take over Ronald Wastewater District, have the schools teach the kids about numbers one and two, and let the new super flush their toilet bill down the drain, and if the ever convince or coerce Seattle into selling the SPU water system to Shoreline--you guessed it, free drinking water in every schol corridor.
Post a Comment