You are taking a partisan stance even if you don't realize it. Or perhaps you are taking a stance and don't realize the partisan spin on it.
Sure, there was disagreement about this measure in Democratic organizations, as the side effects of the I-732 were very Republican. Net increasing taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts for business and wealthy. Total net cut in taxes, making problems with school funding worse.
Actually, I am not. You are just so fixated on making the point that the bill failed for partisan reasons that you can't acknowledge the point I actually made.
No, I want you to not spin this.
The most important reason why this I-732 failed was the near total Republican opposition. And this bill was aimed at Republican goals, other than climate change. Why are you fixated on why some Democratic organizations not supporting it and also not opposing it?
The second most important reason why I-732 failed was the lack of revenue neutrality. With this and near total Republican opposition, I-732 was doomed.
I get annoyed at the other Washington's fixation on spin. Making your point is repeating spin, especially as you didn't mention larger factors.
golfcart wrote:Here is my direct original quote.
Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax ... but things have a way of getting testy when it comes time to split up the pot of money generated. That is one of the main roadblocks to new taxes in general, taxpayers often feel like the taxes never end up getting used to directly address the problems that justify the tax in the first place. We've seen the bait and switch used too many times.
IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.
Notice again what you emphasized, and what you didn't mention, and what you misnamed.
Missed the Elephant of near zero Republican support. Totally missed it.
I-732 was NOT revenue neutral. It was NOT revenue neutral
. You are factually incorrect. Exactly backwards.
A tax cut to the wealthy might be "business friendly", but shouldn't we call it a tax cut for the wealthy? Wouldn't that be more honest?
Not supporting isn't the same as opposing.
In spite of all of this, a large majority of progressive voters voted for I-732. Many holding their noses, I'm sure. In spite of all of this, many progressive organizations did not oppose it. If it had been revenue neutral, it might have passed, but if it looked likely the oil companies would have unleashed a torrent of money, as they did for I-1631. If even a third of Republican voters had supported it, it might of passed.
golfcart wrote:You have consistently cherry picked portions of multiple articles to make different points, claiming that they disagree with me, while ignoring the portions of the same articles that support the point I made.
It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you are factually wrong. I-732 was not revenue neutral
It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you totally missed the largest point, the near total Republican rejection of a bill aimed at Republican goals, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and defunding the government, other than the military and police.
golfcart wrote:If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.
I-1631 was designed to meet progressive goals and was revenue positive by design. I-1631 got support from all of the progressive organizations, and got 3% better at the ballot box. How to divide that 3% increase between progressive goals and lack of fiscal disaster isn't clear, but yes, you do have a valid point. Tiny, and out of context, but valid.
Your point would be larger in France, with a carbon tax to fund a tax cut for the wealthy started the "yellow vest movement". But France has rather different politics.
As long as you don't ignore the elephant, I don't disagree. With near zero Republican support, any carbon tax in the USA is doomed. Not just in Washington, but the rest of the country. Republicans generally don't seem to care about the details. Democrats might, to some extent.