I-1631? Unfair, ineffective tax that costs too much, in return for too little

Climate policy is too important to be decided in an initiative written by the very people who end up controlling the purse strings. …

That’s why a new study by NERA Economic Consulting — the only independent, private analysis of I-1631 by either side — is so compelling. …

The NERA analysis says the total net cost per household is projected to be $440 in 2020, the first year under I-1631, increasing to $990 per household by 2035.

Assuming that all of the money collected under I-1631 will be spent on clean energy and reducing emissions, NERA’s analysis finds that after 15 years and $30 billion in new taxes, the state will not reach its emission reduction goals and we will leave 93 percent of Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions untouched. Even in a best-case scenario, I-1631 will have no impact on climate change – here in Washington or in the country. …

Lately some of my friends are saying about climate change: “We’ve got to do something.” And we do. First, vote down this very poorly written initiative. Second, demand that our state Legislature come up with a plan that works for everybody. Not just the special interests who wrote the initiative.

I-1631 is a costly, unfair and ineffective tax that costs too much, in return for too little benefit, if any at all, for the environment.

I’m voting no on I-1631.

Read the Complete Article »