An economic elitist is on the Washington ballot

On the Washington ballots about to be mailed out to voters are four initiatives that aim to reverse decisions reached by the Legislature.

These are not the work of ordinary Washington citizens waging a grassroots revolt against their elected representatives in Olympia. Instead, the common thread behind all four is this: Hedge fund owner Brian Heywood, a self-described “economic refugee” from California and now a Redmond resident. Heywood’s $6 million investment is the dominant reason why these measures are up for a vote.

Keep that in mind as you weigh the following:

Initiative 2066 — This would repeal House Bill 1589, a measure passed with Democratic support to begin transitioning the decarbonization of homes and buildings. By 2027, utilities affected by HB 1589 are required to submit plans to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.

HB 1589 is tailored toward utilities serving more than 500,000 natural gas customers — in other words, Puget Sound Energy, which has more than 1.2 million electric customers and 900,000 natural gas customers.

By contrast, Avista serves about 375,000 natural gas customers in its service area.

In a statement, PSE said: “HB 1589 does not include a ban on natural gas, and it does not change PSE’s obligation to serve natural gas to our customers. ... Nothing in the bill forces electrification. What it does is require PSE to develop a scenario demonstrating the costs of electrification that will be part of the integrated system plan we submit to our regulators in 2027.”

Initiative 2109 — This would repeal the state’s new 7% tax on capital gains of more than $250,000 from the sale of stocks and bonds.

And you can see why people such as Heywood don’t like it.

Washington’s refusal to launch an income tax leaves the state reliant on regressive sales taxes — a system that forces working- and middle-class families to pay three times the amount of their incomes toward taxes than do people of wealth.

This attempt at tax fairness is targeted. Retirement accounts are spared. Also excluded are capital gains on real estate, small family firms and farms.

That leaves fewer than 4,000 people — or about 0.2% of the state’s population — who would pay this tax.

But it produces about $900 million that is earmarked toward helping small, rural communities with inadequate property tax bases meet their school construction needs. The money also is aimed at improving public schools, higher education, early childhood education and child care.

Initiative 2117 — This would repeal the Washington Climate Commitment Act of 2021.

No doubt this effort at imposing greater restraints on industrial pollution and transitioning the state from fossil fuels has caused pain at the gas pump — as much as 40-to-50-cents a gallon.

But ask yourself: What’s to be gained by reversing the 2021 legislation?

There’s no guarantee that the state’s fossil fuel producers would pass along the savings to consumers. As the Everett Herald observed, I-2117 would produce “Perhaps — if the oil companies are feeling generous — a 10-cent to 20-cent break on a gallon of gasoline.”

What is certain, however, is that I-2117 would undermine the billions of dollars being invested in weaning the state from fossil fuels by investing in wind and solar, public transportation powered by electric vehicles and preserving imperiled salmon runs.

This is no time to abandon efforts at reversing climate change. If you doubt it, ask the people of Florida and North Carolina who are digging out from deadly superstorms.

Initiative 2124 — By allowing people to opt out, this would bankrupt the state’s long-term care insurance program.

Here’s an example of not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. For all the criticism leveled at this relatively novel effort, it provides a modest social safety net for aging people.

After paying a 0.58% payroll tax for 10 years, workers would be eligible for a $36,500 benefit, which will be adjusted for inflation.

Like Social Security, it’s not intended as a panacea. But it does offer some protection for people who will require long-term care. For those who can remain at home, this benefit could compensate care providers or family caregivers. For those who require residential care, the benefit offers at least a financial cushion before it becomes necessary to drain assets.

The Tri-City Herald summed it up: “Those who focus solely on WA Care’s current limitations miss the bigger picture: It represents a crucial first step in addressing a complex problem that will only grow more pressing with time.”

Pass I-2124. Then what? There’s no assurance lawmakers would pick up the pieces and start over.

Were any of these measures a valid expression of popular rebellion against government overreach, the calculus might be different. But this is the work of an economic elitist who believes he’s entitled to his own way, regardless of what’s best for everyone else.

Vote no. — M.T.