I've attended several public bill signings. What normally happens is the legislators and lobbyists who pushed the bill stand beside the Governor, get their photo taken, and receive a Governor's pen. Since it is a public bill signing in a public building, anyone can attend. So when it comes to Gregoire and the Democrats' elimination of I-960, I felt it important to go and speak out against what they did.
So I went (clean-shaven, suit and tie). I was the first of the 'regular people' escorted into the Governor's conference room for the bill signing -- I walked up to Gregoire who asked me "So Tim, are you standing with me on this?"
"Actually, I'm standing opposite you on this, actually," I replied.
No legislator or lobbyist wanted to be anywhere near the Governor as she took away I-960. I stood next to her as she signed the bill, holding my nose with one hand, going thumbs down with the other for the official photo, and got a pen (which I've been using to collect signatures for this year's Initiative 1053).
Here's KIRO's photo and KOMO's photo.
Some found it offensive, others funny, some heroic. To me, it was just my way to peacefully protest an enormous injustice. It also gave me an opportunity to counter Gregoire's statements and speak out. As you can imagine, feedback almost perfectly matches KING 5's polling results -- the 24% who think the Democrats were right to suspend I-960 are outraged by my protest, the 68% who oppose the Democrats' suspension of I-960 are supportive or OK with my protest, but most people rightly don't care one way or the other. After all, my disrespect for the Governor won't cost taxpayers anything -- whereas Gregoire's disrespect for the voters by overturning voter-approved I-960 will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in higher taxes.
For your own financial safety, as well as everyone else's, please help us bring back I-960's protections by getting this year's Initiative 1053 on the ballot. We need 300,000 signatures by July 2nd -- that works out to be over 2000 signatures PER DAY, a huge challenge.
Go to our website and help.
Maybe you can tell me, because nobody else is able. What percentage should I pay in taxes?
Thanks.
You know, I'm about fed up with you liberals demanding we conservatives come up with solutions to the mess you made.
We told you the budgets weren't sustainable. Yet, you passed them.
We told you a downturn would eventually happen and a 33-percent increase in spending wasn't fiscally responsible. Yet, you passed the budgets doing just that.
Now we're not supposed to criticize your irresponsibility? We're supposed to help fix something we told you not to do?
Nope. You made the mess. You clean it up. All by yourselves.
Posted by: jimg on March 1, 2010 02:38 PMIf people are sick of being taxed to death as you folks in the choir keep preaching to each other, why did they just vote to maintain or increase those taxes, from Aberdeen to Zillah. And yes in Mukilteo, too, Tim! (I think the reason you are holding your nose is because you're trying to block the smile on your face from the money you'll personally make from Initiatives 'R' You.)
I'll tell you why: because the question was "Will you spend X to get Y." When people see what specifically they are getting for their tax dollars, they are willing (within reason) to pay.
But when demagogues decry "Big Government" and cite selective annoying budget items like public art, it's pretty easy to rile up the troops/teabaggers. Just like it's easy to convert people into state employee haters when they forget that those state employees are the nurses, fire fighters, corrections officers and other friends from their neighborhoods.
Posted by: LaborGoon on March 1, 2010 03:09 PM
I have spent the winter in AZ, and the property taxes there on my home would be about 25% of what I pay in Washington. We are seriously thinking of putting into motion a relocation, which of course, includes our two businesses.
Posted by: Rae on March 1, 2010 03:24 PMAnd yet they wonder why raising taxes often means less revenue.
Posted by: Gary on March 1, 2010 03:30 PMHere is Bloomberg with a report today on Unions stunned by losses. Private sector unions continue to decline because Americans have figured out that if they want jobs and successful businesses in their state, they need open shops so they can do away with union leadership that long ago gave up the cause of workers rights, and instead are interested in getting in bed with Democrats and enhancing the fat cat lifestyles of their leadership.
Soon, Americans will wake up on public sector unions as well. Because with all of the regulations inherent in government, why can't the government simply police itself and do away with the massive overhead of unsustainable union benefits?
Unions were to protect us from allegedly greedy corporations, but now all of the greed is in government. But we've never seen anything in a corporation like the greed of Gregoire and Obama.
Unions are now about protecting government, and the average working Joe American is figuring this out and rejecting the high priced bloat that is moving jobs overseas or out of the bankrupt, high-cost-of-living, highly unionized Blue States. Of which, WA is one.
Sales tax where am is now 9.5%. My nursing license fee went up from 50 to 70 bucks last year.
It's called a fee but it is really just another tax and that went up 40%. Pretty steep increase, if you ask me.
And since we live on the West side, even though we get very little benefit from Sound Transit, we still have to help pay for all the ineptitude of that whole debacle.
Again I say, what am I getting for my 10K, and on a property that has decreased in value at that?
Posted by: Rae on March 1, 2010 05:01 PMIn part it is because in the case of those levies they are told very clearly "If you pay X you'll get Y."
What you left off is the fact that "Y" in the case of your examples just happen to be things that our cynical politicians know in advance most voters actually want and/or need.
If you ask me, requiring a high level of support for tax increases and enforcing some transparency seems like it would help to foster a more informed electorate. The problem here is that tax-and-spend junkies don't *want* the taxpayers to know what "Y" they're spending "X" on.
By your own example, the argument that "oh, we can't let voters have a say in taxation! They'll always vote against taxes!" is proven absurd. If voters see government spending (nay, MANAGING) money responsibly, and providing a useful service (recall, government is supposed to SERVE us, not the opposite), they are much more likely to support or even directly approve taxes.
Posted by: RookieRick on March 1, 2010 07:00 PMHopefully a similar effect will occur over I-960. God knows Oly could use some shaking-up.
Posted by: travis t on March 2, 2010 02:35 AMJeff B @ #17: Excellent synopsis of what is on the horizon for unions both in the public and private sector. And your comment: "But we've never seen anything in a corporation like the greed of Gregoire and Obama." couldn't be more right-on. There is a large seething undercurrent against government now that the statist liberals are completely misreading, unaware of or they are just whistling past the graveyard hoping it will go away.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 2, 2010 10:27 AMGood luck to you and yours.
Posted by: David on March 2, 2010 03:23 PMI'm sure it would be as effective as the 960 vote: set aside as an inconvenience.
Posted by: tehag on March 3, 2010 05:54 AMMESSAGE FROM EYMAN: the easiest way is for anyone who wants to sign to contact us -- 425-493-8707 or jakatak@comcast.net -- and request a petition. that way, you can sign, family members can sign, co-workers can sign, employees can sign, and then mail it back to us. OK?
Posted by: katomar on March 3, 2010 07:08 AM