State legislators are in Olympia this week for "committee days" where they are discussing legislation that they plan to push in 2010. The Associated Press reported: "Top Democrats say it's virtually certain they'll suspend the two-thirds requirement for raising taxes."
To tax or not to tax, that is the question that defines this year's legislative session.
Voters anticipated that question and gave their answer when, in 2007, they approved Initiative 960 requiring 2/3's legislative approval for tax increases (thanks to our thousands of supporters who donated the dollars and collected the signatures to get it on the ballot). At the time, Governor Gregoire said "the extra handcuffs weren't needed" but voters approved it anyway. And it's a good thing they did, given Gregoire's on-again, off-again, on-again support for raising taxes.
The voters' decision paid off: no taxes were raised in 2008 and 2009, saving struggling taxpayers and our fragile economy from billions of dollars in recession-extending tax hikes.
But now, with Gregoire and the Democrats under strict orders to start raising taxes or else their Big Labor backers will stop bribing them (STATE DEMOCRATS FACING REVOLT BY LABOR, SEATTLE TIMES, NOVEMBER 11, 2009), they've made clear that raising taxes is now their top legislative priority.
The greatest threat -- to struggling taxpayers, our fragile economy, and job-producing, tax-generating businesses that can follow Boeing right out of Washington -- is the Democrats' tax-hiking agenda. The 2/3's legislative vote requirement for tax increases is the only thing standing in their way so that's why they want to get rid of it.
Our 2010 initiative: Don't Take Away 2/3's Vote for Tax Increases.
Government is the most dangerous when they don't think the people are watching. Our 2010 initiative puts a very bright spotlight on the Democrats' tax-hiking agenda and their scheme to jettison the 2/3's requirement. With enough pressure from the public and the press, we are hopeful that their legislative assault on the 2/3's requirement can be thwarted. But if Gregoire and the Democrats dismiss the people and succumb to Big Labor's bribery, then we will work very hard to give the voters in November 2010 the opportunity to reinstate the 2/3's requirement at the ballot box.
There is broad support for keeping the 2/3's legislative approval for tax increases requirement -- Gregoire and the Democrats shouldn't take it away. Raising taxes will only kick the taxpayers when they're down and extend the recession. Gregoire and the Democrats made this mess -- they need to clean it up themselves with existing revenue and not make it worse by raising taxes.
During committee days in Olympia this week, let's hope they hear the people's message: Don't Take Away 2/3's Vote for Tax Increases.
whaddya think?
Posted by Tim Eyman at December 04, 2009 07:58 AM | Email ThisFor starters, it is completely disingenuous for our representatives (including the governor) to turn around and violate things we have voted for. And I am not a fan of more taxation.
But really, why do we need this rule in place? It's not like these people are not elected. I can only presume that if they continue to stay in power (including our governor), then a majority of the people in the state are in favor of the work they are doing. If we don't want more taxes, then for crying out loud don't vote for people who have committed to raising taxes.
Also, I didn't read the Times article, but on what planet is 'Big Labor' going to stop supporting the Democratic party? One of the biggest corruption paths in this country is the relationship between Labor and the Government. That relationship mostly benefits the Dems (although I am sure there are quite a few Republicans drinking at that trough).
I have never like the "initiative-driven" government we are attempting to build here. Especially when it seems (to me, at least) that most of these initiatives either expire or are worked around, but still give the legislators a convenient 'out' when making demands. Instead, let's just force them to make decisions, then vote them in or out based on those decisions.
Posted by: erich on December 4, 2009 09:36 AMOlympia is on the same course as Sacramento. WA will be bankrupt just like CA, and there are even more reasons for businesses to leave WA than CA. The best course of action now is unfortunately to simply let Democrats and Olympia bankrupt this state. It will be far better to stand back and watch them, then to loudly scream STOP. Because anyone who tries to stop them will only be Eymanized. Eventually, WA voters will realize that Democrats have lead them off the cliff.
Tim has fought a valiant fight, thanks Tim.
Posted by: A new perspective on December 4, 2009 10:32 AMRemember Librarian Deborah Jacobs' edifice complex? The ~$180,000,000 monument to herself she just had to have? That kool Koolhaas glass house? Deborah got her boondoggle, and then had to cut back hours and service. That was a sneak preview of things to come in 2009 when millions of dollars were taken away from SPL before giving back about half.
So SPL has less to spend for books, and has fewer hours at most branches for patrons to read books. But SPL seems to have big bucks for competing with NetFlix. Check SPL's catalogue: all those DVDs, all those CDs, many lost (stolen), many too quickly damaged to play. Do the math, and then start asking whiskey-tango-foxtrot questions.
And then there's Gregoire's own UW. To keep taxpaying riff-raff out of its buildings, and to keep trash off its public PCs, UW has fanatically filtered Guest Research Stations, paid for by us. For protection of the unwelcome public, dot-coms are not allowed.
So maybe it's ok that Goldstein's sewage, BrandX.org, gets through the filter, but that the pristine soundpolitics.com doesn't.
But wait. There's more. Dan Savage's sludge at BrandX.com also gets through the dot-com filter. And slate.com. And msn.com,. And the Jayson Blair Times' nytimes.com. And Ariana's dot-com Huffington Post. But not Drudge, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, or WSJ's conservative opinionjournal.
In fact, there's a pattern there. Radical progressive trash on filtered machines is ok (as long as you're paying for it), but fairness and balance? No way.
Posted by: bookin' on December 4, 2009 10:38 AM
1 - The Democrats are indeed nervous about 2010. And if they are nervous in a state like WA, where they control almost everything, imagine the back room panic going on across the country. Their Tax and Spend agenda has risen and bitten them in the Glutteus Maximus and they are now terrified at the increasing frustration in the public. Their chosen "one" has increased it so far and so fast that he has woken up the proverbial sleeping lion of public scrutiny.
2. Labor clearly does not care, and does not see the hazard in their policies and agenda. Labor is out to save the union idea from becoming extinct, and if scarfing at the public money trough is the only way, that is what they will do, regardless of the fact that states that have gone this route (Michigan, California) are now bankrupt, possibly beyond saving. That article makes me think that Washington is too far gone to ever come back, and that its time to sell and move to a battleground state like Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania, where my taxes have a better chance of staying low, and where my vote can actually make a difference.
There comes a time, my friends, when you have to realize the battle is lost, and regroup somewhere else so you can win the war. I think the writing is on the wall for Seattle and WA state. Hard to say for a lifelong Washingtonian. I've voted for almost every Eyman initiative, despite not being a big fan of his personality (met him at a few events) and I do appreciate the battle he fights for all of us. We really need him fighting in winnable battles, which WA just isn't. We have simply have too many imported Californians that are trying to recreate CA here, after fleeing it for the exact same reasons.
Time to regroup and focus on winning the war boys.
Posted by: JackGreer on December 4, 2009 10:40 AMTheres a strong argument that says that Tims initiatives help to set the tone for debate on issues in this state. Anyone else notice how carefully the dems have tried to make sure they AREN'T raising sales and property taxes this year? Without Mr. Eyemans support, I doubt they would have held off on sticking it to us common taxpayers.
Agree with that point or don't, but if nothing else, anytime Tim puts something on the ballot, it siphons off 10's of millions of dollars of special interest money that the left uses to try to defeat the initiative at the polls. That's money that they would have put into a more radical agenda.
Remember the Alamo. They actually lost at the Alamo, but the work of those valiant men and women sidelined the enemy long enough for our team to regroup and smash them in the next battles. Tim's last initiative effort was kind of like that.
Posted by: johnny on December 4, 2009 12:00 PMAll of Tim Eyman's efforts to impose a 2/3rds vote (Hell, why not go for broke with 3/4ths?) are just feel-good stuff, the old "Send Them a message!"
In short, I agree with Erich @2 -- if you really want to limit taxes, then elect people who subscribe to that platform. They're on the ballot every two years, after all.
The 2/3's legislative vote requirement for tax increases is already law -- it's been on the books since 1993. The voters reinstated it most recently in 2007 when they approved I-960.
Lisa Brown tried to get the Court to get rid of it, but in January, 2009, they ruled 9-0 to dismiss her lawsuit.
Our 2010 initiative does not seek to create a new law or a new requirement -- it simply reinstates an existing law THAT GREGOIRE AND THE DEMS ARE SIGNALING THEY'RE GOING TO GET RID OF.
I-960 passed in 2007 and in 2008 and 2009, Gregoire and the Democrats didn't raise taxes. It's because of I-960 that they didn't. Our new initiative seeks to deter them from raising taxes, something that makes sense both at an individual level (taxpayers can't afford higher taxes) and at a macro level (higher taxes will only make these tough economic times even worse and extend the recession).
Posted by: Tim Eyman on December 6, 2009 08:41 AMThe problem with that idea being a viable save is two fold.
1 - The leftist idealogue media manages to convince large blocks of unthinking, over-educated people that government can actually fix tings, and actually run things. Government cant, and the track record proves it, but that kind of influence in elections means the usual tax and spend morons get elected by the brainwashed masses.
2 - Even if a decent, tax lowering individual squeezes through and gets elected, they get converetd all too often by the other politicians to become aprt of the system instead of changing anything and lowering taxes, reducing government, rolling back expansion of powers. Its like "body Snatchers", eventually, they have to fall asleep, and the pod next to them takes over. Thats why I support term limits.
@11 - Please reread my first post. I am not suggesting we surrender or run. Just regroup. Lets concentrate our forces and resources on the areas we can win, then use them as an example that our ideas are superior (not too mention logical) and expand into their areas. Thins of the board game Risk. Sometimes, you have to retreat strategically to come back stronger. California and Michigan are so F'd Up that their influence is diminishing every day. As they lose more people, more industries, more commerce, they lose money and influence to the debate. The more the Auot industry in Michigan falters, the less union members there are to vote and mess things up. India and France are two examples of countries that got so bad, the course reversed itself and things are back on track, running in the right direction. If all the Conservatives in CA, WA and MI moved to Ohio and PA, the national elections would ALL go our way. We'd own the white house, and those states would have more reps in congress, not too mention more economic power and influence. CA, WA and MI would eventually become insignificant to the national picture. Regroup, not surrender