She took it all away - Gregoire couldn't bring herself to throw some crumbs to the peasants or prove that even enemies can show respect. In the end, she took away all of Initiative 960 -- the 2/3's vote requirement for tax increases and its' transparency policies.
The voters viscerally oppose what she and the Democrats have done.
Here's the results of KING 5's poll.
And here's where you can watch video of KING 5's news story on it.
"It's heart-wrenching," said I-960 author Tim Eyman as he watched the Governor sign the bill to suspend his initiative. "It's like watching one of my kids walking to school and getting mugged. It really hurts."
For the past 2 years, I-960 worked exactly as voters intended, protecting struggling taxpayers and our fragile economy from BILLIONS in higher taxes. It worked - it can work again.
Please go to our website and help us bring back the 2/3's with this year's Initiative 1053.
Power to the sheeple...
Posted by: Rick D. on February 24, 2010 09:44 PMand, I see the last school levy vote in my 'hood garnered maybe about 25% of the total voter turn-out who bothered to show or mail...
you get what you deserve or fight for...or vote for...so stop the frikkin analyses
we vote for & get what we deserve...shyt is shyt...get tuned-in or just go over the falls in a collective canoe like all the other passive rowing sheep...
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on February 24, 2010 10:44 PMNow, will this state elect representatives who are concerned about small business owners struggling to pay the bills, and high taxes of every type, and keep from hiring workers, giving raises, and health benefits? Or, will government spending take precedent, and the desire to keep the hated GOP, those undesirable Bible believing, horror of horrors, creationists, pro-family, pro-private property right traitors who might want to bring fiscal discipline to government, like Susan Hutchinson, that don't have a heart for the poor and downtrodden of our socialist state?
It will be a difficult choice! In the end, the voters will not make a great change, folks. Predictably, liberals will stay in power, and it will always be that way here, like Oregon, California, New York, and Massachusetts. Or will they?
Scott Brown and the new governor of NJ were game- changers in normally liberal Northeastern states!
The Gipper is actually smiling from his grave! There is hope for our state after all.
Posted by: The City On a Shining Hill on February 24, 2010 10:53 PMHere is the latest Union Democrat Talking point--
"The problem with this is that Government Workers affected by layoffs or paycuts will reduce purchases of goods and services from the private sector and more private sector employees will lose their jobs"
This is the moronic, childish talking point of the Union Democrats. Think about it.
Govenment workers do not produce wealth. They are consumers of taxpayer wealth..in exchange for services created mostly by Union Democrats.
You argument is soooooooo bogus. You Union Democrats want to take more money out of the Wealth Creating sector! You should be putting more money INTO the wealth creating sector...that's how real jobs are created and tax bases increased.
The bogus Union Democrat talking points beg the question...why give it to State Union Employees to spend? Why not leave the money with taxpayers who actually CREATE wealth??
Philosophically, the Atheist Progressive Movement really believes all wealth, jobs & everything good flows from the government...not the private sector.
This is the philosophical battlefield that heas lead to the death of Progressivism. The Progressive Movement is currently on life-support and has already been declared Brain-Dead!! The plug will be pulled in November, 2010 and 2012!
Now look at TOTAL Wages/Benefits/Paid time-off for the entire State Government and see what a 10% reduction in wages and 20% reduction in Benefits and Paid Time-off will do----
Wages $6.5 BILLION X 10% ==$650 Million
Benefits $1.8 BILLION X 20%==$360 MILLION
PTO $1.4 BILLION X 20%===280 MILLION
Reducing Salaries by 10% and Benefits/PTO by 20%===$1,290,000,000
There is almost 1/2 of the deficit
Now lets get into Cushy Contracts with outside consultants and contract employees etc.
There we'll find another $100 MILLION or so of excess.
Now let's start cutting staff at the University of Washington and other colleges that claim they are in poverty.
Get rid of the Dept. of Ecology, Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The list goes on & on.
All without a tax increase.
Keep taxpayers money where it belongs..with the private sector Wealth Creators!
And perhaps with less personnel, the state would have less time to figure out new ways to screw over taxpaying citizens.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 25, 2010 08:44 AMThe state appears to not have cut back on capital building projects for various education, health and other facilities. If one reviews the projected budget, you could pick out handfuls of 100-million dollar projects that you could simply delay and put off for a few years, thus reducing the overall spending in the 2011-2012 budget.
I mean, is it absolutely critical if Evergreen Hospital gets a new expansion, or if Everett Community College has to put off an arts and sciences building for another year?
Are these critical functions of the government? Really?
Posted by: Boxxerace on February 25, 2010 12:34 PMWhere did Eyman state this?
Posted by: Palouse on February 25, 2010 03:59 PMfrom now on, don't send your vote in until the very last day of elections....
at least this way, Seattle can't just come up with extra fraudulant ballots...
on the east side, we need to get rid of Alex Wood and the other idiots...
there should be no rat left standing...
it'll mean contributing to campaign and having signs in your yard and getting the right people out to vote...
all these years of Rat rule in the governship....insanity....
Posted by: lee on February 25, 2010 04:56 PMNot only are they balancing the budget... but they are also adding $1.4 Billion to the budget! IN A RECESSION!!!
These fools don't deserve another day in their positions!
Posted by: John on February 25, 2010 05:14 PMYard signs ???
I live in Maple Leaf. I put up a Mallahan yard sign. Mallahan. A democrat, but not a member of the Sierra Club.
The next day my next door neighbor taped a front page headline and article from The Stranger across our secure mailbox cluster.
MALLAHAN IS AN IDIOT ! Remember that one?
During the last presidential campaign I placed a McCain yard sign in my Obama traffic circle. It was ripped out each night and finally removed by some open minded neighbors.
Being a conservative in Seattle is slightly worse than being a Level Three Sex Offender.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 25, 2010 05:57 PMEyman, 2/3, testifying in Olympia: "Democrats in Olympia are violating the law, sidestepping the Constitution, and eliminating the public's right to know what they're doing."
Eyman, 2/11, SoundPolitics: "their word means nothing, they have no honor, they are above the law, exempt from the rules, higher than the Constitution."
Eyman, 2/13, SoundPolitics: "We assumed they wouldn't violate their oath to uphold the Constitution -- we shouldn't have."
Of course Eyman has never been able to point to any law or constitutional provision that the Democrats broke in repealing I-960, because there is none. They followed the constitution precisely in passing legislation, which is (duh) the legislature's job. Ironically, Eyman knows a lot about breaking laws, since he paid a $50,000 fine in 2002 for stealing money from his initiative campaign fund.
Posted by: Bruce on February 25, 2010 10:21 PMActually there is one other restraint. It's pretty subtle so I understand that you overlooked it. It's very sophisticated so I understand that even a student of political theory like you may not comprehend it. It's called "elections"....
Recently there was a "non-violent" protest at Evergreen College. Students took over the student union building for the weekend. Police made the decision to just let them stay. They partied. Their statement of why, was not only please give us more hours in the student union building, but also to protest the reductiion of government money given to students.
Today, I read an article about a student protest at Berkeley. Same time period. Same reasoning. Berkeley was violent.
I'm just a little ole grandma, but to me these two protests look co-ordinated. Not good.
I understand the theory. I've never seen it work; e.g., Reagan promised to abolish the Dept. of Education. How'd that work out? Did he, Bush, or Bush abolish it? Cut its funding? Stop its harm? Long-term trends exist for a reason, and no election can stop them.
Posted by: tehag on February 27, 2010 06:04 AMGregoire is desperate to get her greedy mitts on your cash, but she's not the only professional politician who wants it! :)
Posted by: AD on February 28, 2010 12:36 PMLegislators wanted. Incumbents need not apply.
Posted by: Ed on February 28, 2010 08:59 PM