It just shows (again) that the rules don't apply to them
I was there for I-960's conception, I was there when I-960 was born on the day voters approved it, I watched it work for the past 2 years exactly as voters intended, so I had to be there to watch the Democrats shove a pillow over its face and smother it. I drove down to Olympia late last night to see firsthand the Democrats violate the voters' recent mandate called the Taxpayer Protection Act. It was painful to watch.
While there, I learned from staffers and legislators and other Olympia regulars and watchdogs what really happened on this. As everyone knows, Democrats killed I-960's 2/3's vote requirement for tax increases on Tuesday. Right after that vote, the Democrats claimed they didn't know what was in the bill they were voting on, citing 'miscommunication', prompting last night's vote.
I learned that's not true at all.
Democrats weren't incompetent, they knew exactly what was in the bill. What had happened was they had a struck a deal with the Republicans (drop your 15 floor amendments, avoiding floor debates on I-960's transparency provisions, and we'll only get rid of the 2/3's vote requirement). It was a standard political deal that happens all the time in Olympia, especially in the senate.
But immediately following the final vote, Senate Democrats got an earful from House Democrat leaders, who said essentially 'are you nuts, you struck a deal to avoid a few embarrassing floor debates and floor votes, but your deal lets the voters see our voting records in this November's voters pamphlet? That's a terrible deal. You totally screwed up, do whatever you have to do, make up a story, we don't care, just get rid of all of I-960.'
An hour later, the Democrats reneged on the deal.
For the past 48 hours, they've publicly claimed that it was all a misunderstanding, that they didn't know what they were doing, that they had always intended to eliminate all of I-960's policies. It was always an unbelievable story, but Democrats preferred feigning incompetence, rather than bad faith, and the Republicans were satisfied with the Democrats' fabricated story because it made them look 'bad enough'.
But it's not what actually happened.
It just shows (again) that the rules don't apply to them. They made a deal but then decided afterward not to honor it. It shows (again) that their word means nothing, they have no honor, they are above the law, exempt from the rules, higher than the Constitution. Their arrogance is only exceeded by their shamelessness.
On Tuesday, Democrats took away the 2/3's vote requirement, a policy the voters have approved 3 times.
In the dead of night on Wednesday, Democrats took away I-960's transparency requirements which for the past two years have kept the public and the press informed on tax bills' costs, hearing dates, legislators' sponsorship, voting records, and contact information. As Senator Benton said last night "It's never an emergency to keep the citizens in the dark about what we're doing down here."
He continued: "The Democrats are taking away the citizens' right to referendum with the emergency clause. They are taking away the citizens' notification of tax bills and how to contact the sponsors. They are taking away the long-range fiscal impact of a bill so the people will not know the true cost of the proposal. What's more, they are making sure their names will not show up in the November 2010 voters' pamphlet for voting to increase taxes by taking away the required disclosure under the Taxpayer Protection Act. It's a sad day in Washington when elected leaders deny citizens their voice in how they are governed and even sadder when they try to hide how they voted."
The most effective, constructive, meaningful response to their arrogance? Committing ourselves to getting Initiative 1053 on the ballot and resurrecting the 2/3's vote requirement for tax increases. Let their arrogance fuel your efforts.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by Tim Eyman at February 11, 2010 01:04 PM | Email ThisI think that the GOP leadership should be working hard now on how to handle their standard "But taxes support Policemen and Firemen" smokescreen by building ads and messages that highlight all the fat in state and KC government.
Ads showing the recent video of the 3 security guards standing around while that teenage girl got beat in the transit tunnel would also be a good thing since that was our "tax dollars not a work." (Yes, those security guards were actually from a private firm, but the contract they followed was written by government bureaucrats more worried about lawsuits than law and order.)
Posted by: johnny on February 11, 2010 02:25 PMI always thought pot wasn't a deeply addicting drug, but you're fixation on the subject give appearances to the contrary.
Posted by: johnny on February 11, 2010 03:01 PMYou can get all the dope you want in California and the weather is much nicer.
Posted by: Jack on February 11, 2010 03:07 PMNo thanks! My drug of choice is Mac & Jack's African Amber!
Oh yeah, I used to live in CA. Too hot for me, and they have a state income tax. That's enough to keep me away.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 11, 2010 03:11 PMCome November, I am going to knock on as many doors as I can and show the Bill with No Content and the repeal of 960 and the budget deficits and mismanagement and point out that that was what "D" gets you!
At the same time, I am going to excoriate any "R" who won't stand up for a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending so that the "D"s can never do this again.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 11, 2010 03:33 PMRepublicans, make no deals with these people. They don't respect the taxpayers; their word means nothing. They really don't care what taxpayers want or think. They hate the taxpayers and only care to the extent that they can get a buck out of their wallet and give it to their Olympia special-interest campaign contributors. Never mind what's good for taxpayers, or being responsible. Disgraceful!
Posted by: Michele on February 11, 2010 04:08 PMThe bottom line is that the Republicans didn't have the votes to retain any part of I-960.
Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2010 06:57 PMDims are the elitist party of the rich...taxes are most burdensome by the little people....
and lets for God's sake not cut the budget and all these state workers top notch pay/benefits/pensions....no, lets not do that...
Posted by: lee on February 11, 2010 08:56 PMresponse: they did. the citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to referendum on bills but the Democrats slapped emergency clauses on all these bills making them "referendum-proof". so we have a guaranteed right to challenge their bill, collect signatures, and put it on the ballot for the voters to decide -- and they negated that right by slapping an emergency clause on.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on February 11, 2010 08:57 PMDemocrats have more than enough votes to do anything - R's don't have the votes to stop them. But by offering 15 amendments forcing floor votes, they threatened to expose their indefensible efforts to remove I-960's transparency provisions.
To avoid that, Democrats agreed to leave the sunshine provisions alone and only target the 2/3's.
It was only after the House Democrat leaders ripped the Senate Democrats a new one that they reneged and went with the 2nd day, 2nd debate, do-over.
Their word means nothing, they have no honor, they are above the law, exempt from the rules, higher than the Constitution.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on February 11, 2010 09:03 PMNationwide too. You know, we hear all the time that "everyone supports the troops." Well, a good place to start is by getting some of these Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans elected to Congress:
http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com/ Check them out. None listed for WA yet, but sure would like to see a smart savvy vet take out Inslee.
Posted by: Lucky in the 45th on February 11, 2010 10:22 PMBring your video cameras to the rally on Monday.
Go to washingtonvotes.org and post your comments (if you don't know about that site, it's a MUST).
Go to http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/ and support the fight (team of Tim Eyman) against what was done yesterday.
With this vote, our "servants" effectively rendered our authority second to the their own. This is an outrageous power grab, aggressively assumed against our expressed will. A gun has been held to our heads on this one and it's up to us to wrestle it away from them and stop them from picking our pockets clean!
Posted by: Tristan Benz on February 12, 2010 11:55 AMYou have let Eyman hijakc this blog. In the past, this was a place to come for thoughtful analysis and deep research/thinking. Now it's a shouting blog for Tim.
Please reconsider giving him full access to this site. It's really not the place for such screaming...it just downmodes the overall experience of your great site.
Posted by: Reader on February 12, 2010 04:00 PMNo one has refuted this claim yet, so in a civil debate, it stands.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2010 11:48 PMIs there a reason why you can't run an initiative which would end abuse of the emergency clause- like up the standard for a 2/3 vote to invoke the emergency clause?
or does that require a state constitutional change which can't be done by initiative?
Posted by: Andy on February 13, 2010 10:31 AMI would be willing to sue the state for violating the state constitution so that I could petition the S. Ct. to take up this issue (not a political issue at all!): did the legislature declare an emergency when no emergency existed (presumably, but not a necessary corollary to the issue stated, in order to act in a way that it knew would not survive a referendum)? That would require the court to define the limits of the legislative power to declare an emergency, if those limits are not already defined. If they are defined, I want the court to decide in this case whether the legislature exceeded them.
One more thing - in other areas of law, (the Administrative Procedures Act, for example) actions taken in violation of procedural rules (that trample on citizens' rights) are allowed in cases of an emergency, but the action is void once the emergency passes (120 days max), and if the agency still wants to regulate, it has to start over with full due process. Is there a similar sunset provision for "emergency" bills like this one, that would either terminate, or revive the right to a referendum once the "emergency" is over? If not, I would like to challenge the emergency clause, both facially and as applied, on those grounds, too.
Posted by: srogers on February 13, 2010 11:04 AMThe founders NEVER intended that supermajorities be required for simple government operations like taxataion, spending, etc. Supermajority was ONLY supposed to be required for highly serious acts like ammending the Constitution, or impeachment.
We live in a representative democracy. Deal. If you don't like our current fiscal policy, vote your own candidates into office!
Posted by: Proteus on February 15, 2010 11:23 PMGIVEN a super-majority requirement for increasing taxes: IF the sponsors of a bill that would increase a tax convince 60% of the legislative body that the tax increase is necessary, or that whatever fiscal pressure giving rise to their desire for increased taxation cannot be relieved by cutting spending somewhere in the general budget, then they, the convinced 60%, CAN AND WOULD vote for the tax increase. Therefore, super-majority requirements DO NOT make it IMPOSSIBLE to get things done, but rather, they raise a requirement that things get done for compelling reasons in bipartisan manner.
Since your primary postulate is proven wrong, your related historical reference is necessarily wrong - without delving into the actual historical records (the hand-written notes of Madison, King, Morris, and Hamilton, for example, or The Federalist), none of which, if memory serves, mention any prospective intention to limit the internal rules of state legislative bodies.
QED
Posted by: srpgers on February 16, 2010 09:33 AMBut no worries! Visit France, Germany, or China, and see their gleaming new infrastructure. China is building over 40 200mph+ rail lines in the next 4 years. We can barely build one. Dubai built the worlds tallest building (2x higher than the Empire State building)...while we still D*CK around at Ground Zero.
The current partisan BS is unsustainable. We need to stop the bickering and GET IT DONE. Start rebuilding America, and the jobs will come. Requiring a supermajority to agree will result in complete gridlock..and a stagnant, or even declining nation
Posted by: Proteus on February 16, 2010 05:19 PMWhy can't we build a simple bridge? Because NIMBYs and environmentalists oppose anything to be built near them or that doesn't cripple transportation by modes other than bikes and trains, never mind the fact that 90% of people chose, for very practical reasons, to get around the Seattle area by car, and moving cars is the reason we need to build a bridge. And the NIMBYs and environmentalists use legal tools given to them by activist lawyer/judge lefties who have gone before, so they can increase the cost of building the bridge to the point that its virtually unaffordable. You reap what you sow.
A super-majority requirement to raise taxes is just a means of stopping the bleeding until rational, intelligent people who understand why government power needs to be limited can be persuaded to re-enter the world of politics.
Posted by: srogers on February 16, 2010 06:51 PMStill, we've got to forge ahead. We cannot afford to stagnate in this highly competitive global environment. And note that STRONG central government is necessary to build good infrastructure.
Posted by: Proteus on February 17, 2010 08:18 PM