When I am asked my opinion about Initiative 2124’s chances of passing, I’m torn.  

Working in the initiative’s favor? Voters already asked lawmakers to do away with WA Cares once before in an advisory vote. WA Cares is an unlikable, unpopular program. More and more people understand the lack of a guaranteed benefit for Washington workers, even though they are forced to pay 58 cents of every $100 they earn to fund this program that’s meant for possible long-term care. More people also understand that money is taken from workers with lower wages and will be given, in many cases, to people with higher wages and who are not in need of taxpayer help. 

Working against the initiative to make WA Cares optional? The state has a questionable marketing campaign that has been going on for years saying WA Cares should offer workers peace of mind. People have been hearing this over and over. 

People are also being misled to believe making WA Cares optional takes something away from workers. It doesn’t. No one has a WA Cares benefit right now. Workers have been forced to give wages to the program, which has spent a lot of money already administering and marketing the program and making false promises. 

Some of the other factors muddying my crystal ball? 

— SEIU 775, which stands to benefit from a mandatory WA Cares, is connected to many caregivers and has spent serious money from its ballot fund to defeat the initiative. 

— Older people vote more reliably, and people past working age aren’t being taxed for WA Cares.

— Polling is inconclusive, and polls haven’t been using the final language that will accompany I-2124 on the ballot. 

— The ballot language for I-2124 might confuse voters.

Ballot presentation of I-2124

On July 26, it was stipulated and ordered in a Thurston County court that the ballot title and a Public Investment Impact Disclosure (PIID) for I-2124 “shall be displayed on the ballot substantially as follows:”  

“Initiative Measure No. 2124 concerns state long term care insurance. This measure would provide that employees and self-employed people must elect to keep coverage under RCW 50B.04 and could opt-out any time. It would repeal a law governing an exemption for employees.

“This measure would decrease funding for Washington’s public insurance program providing long-term care benefits and services.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

As Ballotpedia says, a “yes” vote supports allowing workers to opt out of “paying the payroll tax and receiving benefits under WA Cares.” A “no” vote opposes allowing workers to opt out of WA Cares. Is that clear?

At a conference about long-term care, an industry source tells me there was concern that the language was odd in that a “no” vote means the tax continues and a “yes” vote makes WA Cares optional. This worry about confusion was even before the attorney general offered up the PIID to accompany the ballot title. (The PIID was neutered a bit in court to read as it does above.)

In addition to saying there likely would be decreased funding for WA Cares with the passage of I-2124, saying “yes” also would increase the wages of all employees opting not to participate in the program. Saying “yes” to I-2124 could also do away with high administrative costs associated with WA Cares, as a loss of participants might finally bring the Legislature into agreement with voters to get rid of WA Cares. Actuarialists, lawmakers and the commission overseeing WA Cares are right in thinking that the program would not be able to pay its way if it became a voluntary program. It already has solvency concerns as a mandatory program. Lawmakers would be wise to repeal the law that created WA Cares as soon as possible.

If lawmakers choose to keep an even weaker WA Cares with more solvency trouble, new legislation should be proposed and passed to insist that WA Cares pay its own way, with no bailouts. Lawmakers bailed out the state’s paid-leave program when it had money trouble. They talk about needing to do that again. We don’t need another program that is unsustainable.