Once again, I’m trying to understand how letter writer Bruce Peterson has managed to distort the intent of my Nov. 21 letter to the opinions page of The Chronicle. My letter was referring to the three initiatives that failed at our recent election.
The three were:
• A capital gains tax on the wealthy to help fund schools
• A carbon fee system for climate change
• A payroll tax for long term health care
I never said Sen. John Braun didn’t want long term health care. I questioned, why keep the current method that costs the taxpayers millions of dollars to help the folks needing care? Why not let the folks working pay into a program that could make a huge difference in their life when in need of help and care. I never suggested that the government would pay for the program as Mr. Peterson made it sound like I did.
Mr. Peterson then goes on to say “perhaps” a wealthy person paid for trying to pass all four initiatives. Public disclosure tells us Mr. Brian Heywood spent around $6 million to pass initiatives. If as Mr. Peterson stated that unions contributed to initiatives being defeated, then it was for the very purpose of supporting their members. If they don’t do what’s best for their (union) members, they will probably cease to exist.
In fact the “capital gains tax” initiative was defeated in 32 of 39 countries in the state. So the voters in this state believe and voted to keep the 7% capital gains tax on profit over approximately $262,000 per year, with exemptions for real estate sales and retirement income.
Bright red counties in Eastern Washington voted to keep the capital gains tax in place. The climate change initiative was even defeated in some red counties.
I believe the opposite of Mr. Peterson. Not supporting some moderate climate change laws will have the potential to destroy our economy eventually. Not that climate change policy will destroy our economy.
I suggest to Mr. Peterson to take a little more time reading various letter writers’ articles (opinions). And to not try changing the intent of their letters. Just stating your opinions will suffice.
Speaking disparagingly of unions as Mr. Peterson did, I have a much different opinion. My experience has been a lifetime of witnessing most union members having a better level of income, health care, retirement, etc., than the non-union sector. The dues members pay, that Mr. Peterson was so concerned about, are well worth it, as benefits received by the workers make the dues well worth the cost.
A healthy, vibrant community is formed when all share in the prosperity. Like most organizations, unions aren’t free of mishaps or faults, but the benefits of union membership usually always enhance the lives of workers and their families.
Brian Dow
Centralia
