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 Lynnwood, Woodway and nearby unincorporated areas of southwest Snohomish County, parts of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and part of northwest Seattle.
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 Counci. 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 7 p.m. at a candidate forum at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church 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.