"You peasants don't understand, the rules don't apply to us"
A vote on the floor of the Senate yesterday by the Democrats eliminated the 2/3's legislative vote requirement for tax increases. Voters have approved that law 3 times and that 2/3's law has survived 4 court challenges -- the voters are clearly on record demanding that that be the law. Nonetheless, Democrats in Olympia took it away yesterday without hesitation -- they are clearly planning on violating that voter-approved law in the coming weeks and during all of next year's legislative session after the election. But in their zeal to steal more of the taxpayers money, they realized after their vote, that the citizenry would learn of their treachery because of I-960's transparency provisions.
So now they're saying yesterday's vote doesn't count. Now they've ordained they're entitled to a 'do-over' vote, eliminating not just the 2/3's vote requirement, but all of I-960's sunshine policies, especially bills' costs and legislators' voting records.
Democrats in Olympia aren't bound by 3 votes of the people, nor are they bound by their own vote yesterday. They are above the law, above the rules, above reproach, above criticism.
With their dictatorial, banana republic approach to governing, why are they even having another vote? Why not just 'decree' that Democrats don't have to follow the law, aren't required to follow senate rules and cut-off dates, and don't have to disclose the costs, hearing dates, sponsorship, and voting records of legislators? Why are they even pretending to follow the rules or abide by the Constitution? Such strictures only apply to us mere mortals, not to the demi-gods in the Democrat party.
During the debate on the Senate floor yesterday, Democrats didn't even allow for a full discussion, voting to cut-off and truncate debate. Rodney Tom's exasperated "let's get on with it" captured perfectly the Democrats' arrogance. Citizens worked for 300 days to qualify and pass I-960, waited nearly a year for a unanimous state supreme court rejecting Lisa Brown's lawsuit, and yet Democrats whined about spending a couple of hours discussing the ramifications and implications of eviscerating this 3 time voter-approved policy.
Their 're-do' vote will completely eliminate I-960's policies. What does the complete elimination of I-960 mean:
* Under I-960, when a bill increasing taxes or fees is introduced, it is analyzed by the state budget office to identify its short-term and long-term cost -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Under I-960, after its analyzed, the press and interested citizens are told how much it costs, and which legislators are sponsoring it and how to contact them by phone and email -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Under I-960, when a hearing is scheduled on a tax/fee bill, the press and interested citizens are told when and where and told the members of the committee and how to contact them by phone and email -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Under I-960, when the tax/fee bill is voted out of committee, the press and interested citizens are told how legislators voted -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Under I-960, when the tax/fee bill is voted on the floor of the house or senate, the press and interested citizens are told how legislators voted -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Under I-960, unelected bureaucrats in state agencies cannot unilaterally jack up fees or create new fees -- I-960 gave that sole authority to the elected representatives in the Legislature -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Prior to I-960, the Legislature was found guilty in Snohomish County Superior Court for transferring money from various accounts so they could spend the same money twice, a way to get around the spending limit -- I-960 prohibited them from spending the same money multiple times -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Prior to I-960, the Legislature claimed that a tax increase wasn't a tax increase if it didn't get deposited into the general fund -- I-960 said a tax increase was a tax increase regardless of what account or fund it was deposited into -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* The Legislature constantly abuses/overuses/misuses the emergency clause to make controversial bills "referendum proof", meaning the citizens are prohibited from exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to referendum, to collect signatures and put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. Under I-960, voters can't stop the tax increase and can't stop them from slapping emergency clauses on the tax hike bills, but they at least get to be notified how legislators voted on the 'emergency' tax increase at the next general election (2 pages in the voters pamphlet are set-aside for that purpose) -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
* Also with regard to 'emergency' tax increases, voters can't stop the tax increase and can't stop them from slapping emergency clauses on the tax hike bills and can't exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to referendum and receive a binding vote on the legislature, but under I-960, they at least get to express their opinion on the 'emergency' tax increase at the next general election -- NOT AFTER GREGOIRE SIGNS THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF I-960 INTO LAW (WHICH APPLIES TO THE REMAINING PART OF THIS SESSION AND ALL OF THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
There's no justification for legislators' voting records to be kept secret from the public.
The Democrats' plan is to make sure that taxpayers get screwed, and to make sure the citizens have no right to know who screwed 'em and by how much.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Regards, Our Expanded Team of co-sponsors for I-1053, the "Save The 2/3's Vote For Tax Increases Initiative": Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, Mike Fagan, Mike Dunmire, Senator Don Benton, Senator Janea Holmquist, Erma Turner, Nancy Nelson, Dagny Lord, Keli Carender, Senator Pam Roach, Rep. Matt Shea, John Ahern & Ken Morse
Legislators in Olympia effectively said yesterday that "It's not that you, the voters, don't matter.It's just that we,the Democrat party, doesn't care."
Posted by: Rick D. on February 10, 2010 12:50 PMThe lines are still being crossed.
You have gone too far.
I presume that you are merely playing Devil' Advocate, but you have correctly identified the problem.
We do NOT have a democratic government.
We have a republic.
And I want to get rid of it.
No matter what the people want, the legislators can give us what THEY want.
Of course it is always said that doing so endangers their re-election, but I want our gun's barrel closer to their temples.
America, at every level of government, is a democratic republic. It is both a democracy and a republic.
A democracy is a system of government wherein the power flows from the governed to those who govern. A republic is a system of government whereby the governed elect leaders to make certain decisions on their behalf. We are BOTH.
In fact, this situation here clearly illustrates the tension between the two coexisting spheres. The people have written these laws and our elected leaders are repealing them. It's all legitimate. Let's not pretend they're breaking the law just to be sensational.
Let's just vote them all out of office and pass the law AGAIN (a proposition which, unfortunately, will have less of a chance of succeeding because of Tim Eyman's self-centered politics of personal profit).
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2010 02:35 PMThe difference is often important and worthy of note. For example, people who come here and say "it's OK to do X because a majority of people want it, and we live in a democracy." The proper response is that majority support is not sufficient in our system, which is explicitly not "a democracy."
But yes, often the difference is immaterial.
Let's just vote them all out of office and pass the law AGAIN (a proposition which, unfortunately, will have less of a chance of succeeding because of Tim Eyman's self-centered politics of personal profit).
Ugh. Whiners who argue ad hominems are annoying.
What we have here in the U.S. is a government by incumbentency, not by democracy.
You fully agree with me in your last paragraph.
Thanks for the support.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 10, 2010 03:34 PMAnd people ask me why I go armed when going to Seattle.
Sicking!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 10, 2010 03:54 PMYou mean the part of the Constitution that says the legislature's job is to pass legislation? Or the part of the Constitution that says that the legislature is allowed to repeal initiatives after 2 years?
Tim, you can write this idiocy over and over again (and you surely will), but it will never be the slightest bit true. You simply don't like what the legislature is doing. Even though you can get a majority of the voters to sometimes vote for your irresponsible anti-tax initiatives, you can't get a majority of voters to elect politicians from your wacky tea party. So instead you lie about whether the legislature is violating the law or the Constitution because you think your supporters are too stupid to understand the truth. Which is precisely why thinking Washingtonians reject you more with each successive initiative.
Posted by: Bruce on February 10, 2010 04:10 PMThat part.
Let me repeat that for the more ignorant:
ALL (You do, presumably, understand the word ALL, don't you, Bruce?") political power comes from the people.
NOT the legislature.
Get it now?
Posted by: Hinton on February 10, 2010 04:32 PMDemocrats in Olympia are not following that law, they want to violate it.
They certainly are not following the law that the voters approved. it is nonsense for anyone to argue that they are abiding by the 2/3's law when they're clearly not.
And they are violating the people's constitutionally guaranteed right to do a referendum by slapping an emergency clause on their 'end 960' bill.
They are violating this voter-approved law and taking away the people's constitutional rights.
is it any wonder that voters are furious with what the Democrats are doing?
Posted by: Tim Eyman on February 10, 2010 04:42 PMThe problems we all have with our democracy (that it can devolve into a "tyrrany of the majority," problems of entrenched incumbents, etc) these are all problems our founders envisioned and feared, to one extent or another, far before they ever ventured to set it in motion. And the solution is simply an educated electorate. So our work continues...
Pudge, seriously, is it an ad hominem to claim EYMAN is in it for himself? Did Eyman take money from his contributors and not report it? Did Eyman get caught by reporters? When confronted, did Eyman come clean or did he lie about it? Tim Eyman is a politician who refers to himself in the third person in every post he makes on this blog and his history is a matter of public record. He profited from his politics. He lied about it. Now he pretends that the fact that he's honest about his personal profit makes it okay or somehow less skeezy.
This does not fit the definition of ad hominem, pudge. :)
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2010 04:44 PMThe only person who seems to be trying to protect me from government extortion is Tim Eyman.
All my liberal friends in Seattle HATE him.
But they sure don't seem to be complaining about paying less to license their cars.
That includes Joni Balter.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 10, 2010 04:50 PMSo any prudent citizen would vote yes on the initiatives. No one should even consider writing the skeeze a check though. He's merely an irrelevant placeholder, cashing his checks. Let's all resolve to hold out for a conservative WITH INTEGRITY.
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2010 04:57 PMYes We Can!
Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 10, 2010 06:16 PMThere is no violation (seriously, Tim, this just makes you look ignorant).
Also, why didn't you raise the "violation" argument when they overturned initiatives you hated (like 732 and 728)?
Posted by: Hmmm on February 10, 2010 06:27 PM"I believe further cuts would be irresponsible, I am in favor of temporarily suspending I-960 to allow the legislature to raise revenue and cover our essential funding priorities during this temporary financial crisis. 99.9% of the calls and emails I have received so far indicate you are all (mostly) in favor of this suspension as well and I thank you for your support for revenue options."
Wow. 99.9%! I and at least 4 others that I know of have sent him letters/emails opposing this. This means he has received at least 4,995 emails supporting it.
C'mon Mr. Pettigrew. Are you certain it's 99.9%? Are you certain it's even a majority? Yes, you do represent one of the most liberal districts in the state, but most liberals in the 37th aren't smart enough to even know there's a vote going on, especially 4,995 of them.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 10, 2010 07:21 PM"You ask, what services should they have cut further in order to support an all-cuts budget, you ask? Well, ahem...they should've cut all that Waste, Fraud and Abuse...yeah, that's it. Could've saved at least 20 percent." Yes, I can hear it now. A message that will resonate well in all those districts that already send 3 Republicans to Olympia
Posted by: Roger P. on February 10, 2010 08:55 PMThat came up in Tim's first Iniatiative.
I was appalled about Tim's lack of knowledge, but outraged that his Initiative wasn't immediately returned as not fulfilling a fundamental requirement.
How on earth did it even get past the first review by the Secretary of State?
Let alone into the Voter's Pamphlet and it's great fanfare in the media.
Then along comes a Referendum two elections back with two subjects in its title. I complained, but learned there is no single subject line requirement for a Referendum.
It would seem that Iniatiatives are held to a very high standard. In fact, so many signatures are required that a common citizen can't even begin to start down the road.
If Eyman cuts himself a small check for his efforts, I say that's fine. He's representing me. Unlike the people in the legislature whom we pay billions to, but who don't actually represent us.
Thank you, Tim.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 10, 2010 09:58 PMLooking out for the little guy = pandering
"Violating" = I don't like it, so I'll puff up and keep calling it illegal...even though I know it's part of the game
"I" = My Sugar Daddy Mike Dunmire
"steal" = I really don't like it when they out-manuever me politically...so I'll demonize them
Don't get me wrong. I think the Legislature is screwing up pandering to the unions and not CUTTING expenses first and heavily.
And Timmy's right that the people are furious. But, I would be loathed to get in bed with him over it and think the Republicans would be doing them and the citizens a disservice to support a one-person pandering liar that has become corrupt and financially tied to the very system he claims to rail against.
The people of Washington would be better served if they voiced their opposition directly to the Legislature than ceding it to a morally shaky Robin Hood caricature skimming a cut for himself.
Operators are standing by. http://www.leg.wa.gov/pages/home.aspx
Posted by: Matty on February 11, 2010 08:42 AMI will be sending you another small check. Please spend it as you see fit. I know you will use it far more wisely than the government uses my tax dollars. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jack on February 11, 2010 09:47 AMIt's also because teachers are retiring at a much lower rate than usual. That's attributable to the bad economy. Retirement savings have not recovered from the investment losses of the last few years, other job prospects are fewer, and people are sticking around longer than they ordinarily would. That makes the teaching staff we have to pay for through state formula allocations more expensive.
Posted by: stu on February 11, 2010 09:46 PMIrrelevant to my comments.
Pudge, seriously, is it an ad hominem to claim EYMAN is in it for himself? ... This does not fit the definition of ad hominem, pudge. :)
In fact, that is the very definition of ad hominem. Arguing to the man, instead of to the issue.
Out they go! New people, even those with no experience, cannot be any worse than the current crop of stupids who won't cut the budget in the middle of a recession and won't listen to the voters who way they don't want to pay higher taxes.
Posted by: Clean House on February 12, 2010 07:09 PMI'm up for getting rid of the tax raisers and the initiative gutters so use a scalpel and get rid of the Democrats - they're the ones gutting I-960 and raising taxes.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on February 12, 2010 07:14 PM