On Saturday morning, Olympia's Democrats in the House had a hearing on their maddening repeal-of-Initiative-960's-policies bill. Those opposed to the Democrats' bill did a great job.
Here's what I calmly said during my testimony at the hearing (in a suit and tie, without ever raising my voice):
"My name is Tim Eyman from Mukilteo and I'm opposed to the bill.
"For the past two years, under I-960, the Legislature was forced to follow the law, abide by the Constitution, and keep the people and the press informed on what the Legislature was doing.
"Two years.
"Chairman (Ross) Hunter is quoted as saying that I-960 makes the process "unworkable." It's quite an admission that Olympia can't function if it's forced to follow the law, abide by the Constitution, and keep the people and the press informed.
"Two years.
"For two years, I-960 has worked exactly as voters intended.
"Two years -- the voters have learned that that's the maximum amount of time the Legislature can be restrained by a citizens initiative like I-960."
The rest of my testimony was read directly, without voice inflection, but was intended to be taken as sarcasm, "When we did I-960, we made a mistake: we allowed a legislative session to be held without I-960's protections. We assumed that restrained by an upcoming election, that the Democrats would never, ever disrespect the voters this much.
"We were wrong. The voters, our supporters, and the sponsors of I-960 underestimated the Democrats' audacity, their arrogance, their shamelessness."
Ross Hunter then interrupted, slamming down his gavel, upset that I had impugned the motives of the Democrats, urged on by cheers and catcalls from the anti-960 people there.
I calmly continued: "We can never make that mistake again. Two years is the maximum.
"So that means the 2010 legislative session must always serve as the poster child of what happens when Olympia is not restrained by the law, not bound by the Constitution, nor obliged to keep the public and the press informed.
"Voters have approved I-960's policies 3 times, in 1993, 1998, and 2007. Yet without hesitation, Olympia's Democrats are getting rid of them. They shouldn't."
-- END --
Yes, we assumed they had honor -- we shouldn't have. We assumed they cared about the will of the people -- we shouldn't have. We assumed they would keep their campaign promises to not raise taxes -- we shouldn't have. We assumed they wouldn't violate their oath to uphold the Constitution -- we shouldn't have. Yes, we assumed too, too much.
Let me say, with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek: yes, yes, we made a mistake.
The most effective, constructive, meaningful response to their arrogant attack on citizens' rights, struggling taxpayers, and our fragile economy? Committing ourselves to getting Initiative 1053 on the ballot and resurrecting the 2/3's vote requirement for tax increases.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by Tim Eyman at February 13, 2010 05:09 PM | Email ThisAbove comment by ''Dufus McBroke'' gave me an idea:
Mr. Eyman, how about an initiative to the people that would automatically require that ANY act by the Legislature that overrides an enacted initiative by the people, must itself AUTOMATICALLY be referred to a vote of the people at the next election ??
I am aware of the fact that without changing the Constitution neither an initiative or an act of a sitting Legislature can bind FUTURE Legislatures, but since a requirement that an act that overrides an initiative would have to go to the voters would not really ''bind'' future Legislative action, perhaps a carefully worded initiative on this issue would pass Constitutional muster in the courts ??
I realize some legislators have no shame, but one would think (or at least hope) that it would be REAL HARD for many legislators to in effect directly go on the record as opposing the right of the people to speak on acts by the Legislature.
Would be interesting to get the opinion of a good Constitutional law attorney on the above. . . .
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
Trashing four votes of the people to restrain their spending is despicable.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 14, 2010 10:34 AM:-D
More Dufus policy ideas!!!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 14, 2010 10:38 AMKeep up the good work Mr. Eyman!
Posted by: Amyzzon on February 14, 2010 11:01 AM''the people .... also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.''
From the perspective of looking at the Constitutional language that would be critical to winning a court challenge (you can almost take it to the bank that there would be one), perhaps the most pertinent part of last above is the ''at their own option'' phrase:
As a practical matter how can we the people exercise that ''option'' ??....
Well, only by VOTING to exercise it, of course.
Yeah.....:
As per my 1st above, an initiative to force ANY Legislative act that overrides an initiative to be referred to the ballot at the next election, sounds better and better.
Expect it's already too late to start the process on another major initiative this year; and we've got I-1053 to focus on (which was filed way back on 4 Jan 2010). But remember for next year....
FOOTNOTE: Think I know the answer to the ?? by Amyzzon; i.e.:
Could we the people propose and vote on an initiative before the Legislature overturns the last one ??
If it was properly worded, I'm almost sure the answer is YES; if nothing else by making trivial ''no-op'' (computer term) changes to all of the RCW Sections that were impacted by the last prior initiative. :-]
Why don't they try cutting some of the highly paid upper management in all divisions? I don't think they need approval of any unions for these cuts, because these individuals are at will employees. How about getting rid of all those newly made departments that didn't exist 20-30 years ago. You know the state operated just fine without them 20-30 years ago. How about combining Department of Ecology, Department of Wildlife, Department of Game and Fishing, and Department of Natural Resources. Seems to me a lot of duplication is done that could be utilized collectively.
Personally, I believe in no taxation without representation, but in our state all taxes go into the general fund pool. If a special interest project needs funds, it should come from those that benefits from it and not from those that never will.
How can you vote on a bill that has nothing on it? Would anyone buy a house or property without terms known in a contract? I know many of our elected are attorneys and I wonder would they advise their clients to do something without a written contract? Maybe, this is just standard practice in law in our state, things "evolve" right?
Posted by: John W. Aiken, Jr. on February 14, 2010 02:08 PMIf we get started now we might be able to get that on the ballot before 1053 is overturned by the legislature in 2013.
Posted by: Mike on February 14, 2010 03:32 PMYes, there's going to be a whuppin' in November.
If the WA Republicans don't stand up, then the leftist media machine will be doing the whuppin'.
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 15, 2010 04:35 AM"I am fully committed to letting as many of you speak as possible.
And to that end, let me lay out the ground rules for today’s meeting so we’re all clear.
At no time will I allow anyone to impugn the motives of any person or any piece of legislation being discussed. We all care deeply about our state and the families and businesses within its borders. We might disagree about how to manage this budget situation, but I will insist that today’s hearing remain focused on the merits of the bills in front of us.
At no time will I allow anyone to use threatening language or disruptive behavior. I will not indulge members of the audience in cat-calling, name-calling, whistling, cheering, booing or any other disruption to the hearing.
I will keep a strict time limit of two minutes for every speaker. Two minutes is about 200 words. Two minutes is 120 seconds. Every speaker will get two minutes and no more."
The ranking Republican member Rep. Ed Orcutt made similar remarks
Posted by: What Happened on February 15, 2010 07:59 AMTaken literally some of Rep. Orcutt's words may have been similar to some by (D) Chair Hunter in this case, but IMO the intent of those 2 members are worlds apart. An objective review of the record indicates that Rep. Orcutt is one of the good guys.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 15, 2010 10:21 AMI can't make out what he's saying, except that somehow raising taxes is necessary and good for us, and doesn't really violate the letter or the spirit of the will of the people. Oh, and that the will of the majority of the elected representatives IS the will of the majority of the people.
Posting shortly. Please read and comment.
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on February 15, 2010 09:36 PMGoogle the Microsoft subsidy bill. You will see Ross Hunter, sponsor of the fraudulent Microsoft Subsidy Bill, HB 1487 .
Olympia lawmakers led by Ross Hunter, secretly approved the "Microsoft Subsidy Bill", HB1487 effective July 1, 2009. The bill passed as an emergency measure to avoid a public referendum .
In lawmakers' haste to approve the bill, they failed to check facts, math, or hear opposing testimony. The bill was literally written by Microsoft and passed with almost verbatim (see www.tinyurl/microsoftsubsidy) for details.
The bill contains material errors and omissions. For example,
Ross Hunter did not disclose that the bill's beneficiaries, Microsoft foreign visa workers, ALREADY receive generous tuition reimbursement benefits from Microsoft.
Washington taxpayers now fund college tuition subsidies for Microsoft's temporary corporate visa workers and their family members. These subsidies cost Washington taxpayers approximately $10,000 per student per year.
The bill's beneficiaries, Microsoft temporary foreign visa workers (H-1B and L-1) earn on average $92,000 per year, double the Washington per capita income (Source: USDOL ETA 2008)
Washington State taxpayers, including laid off Microsoft workers that were replaced by the bill's H-1B and L-1 visa beneficiaries, are now forced to fund generous financial subsidies. The bill's beneficiaries did not ask, organize, or lobby for the benefit.
With high incomes and tuition reimbursement benefits, the beneficiaries do not need the subsidy and do not qualify for financial hardship assistance. With annual salaries of $92,000, the expected family contribution for college is $22,000, allowing these families to comfortably afford tuition at every college in the state.
During the same legislative session corrupt lawmakers chose to fund Microsoft private interests with public taxpayer dollars, the state eliminated basic healthcare benefits for 110,000 Washington residents in need and cut 2,500 teacher jobs.
During the first 6 months of the bill, WA state financial losses are over 200% of the annual plan. Word of WA state's subsidy is promoted in India - a free ride to college courtesy of WA taxation without representation and corrupt politicians. (source: India's happyschoolsblog.com)
Why should you care?
Try getting a seat in local colleges. College faculty now ask students to volunteer to drop over-subscribed classes...
MANY of these seats are occupied by foreign visa workers and displace WA state families -
Returning veterans
Recent HS graduates
Laid off workers.
WA state voters have paid their dues and taxes. We SHOULD NOT be displaced from classrooms nor should we be forced to pay for college educations for people that did not need, did not ask, did not organize, nor lobby for the benefits they receive on our dime.
WA State's corrupt politicians need to go. Lawmakers still have a fiduciary responsibility to serve their electorate and WA State families in need - NOT Microsoft greed.
Washington State. For Corporate Greed. Buy Microsoft Wins. Washington State voters loose.
Insist your lawmakers repeal 1487, block Hunter's latest corrupt tax dodge scheme, and vote all 1487 YEA voting lawmakers out of office.
Posted by: Taxation without Representation on February 15, 2010 11:08 PM