Here is the letter I received from Eric Oemig. Make no mistake, he makes an effort to explain himself and sent this out VERY promptly, considering I only called him a couple of days ago - just try to get a reply out of our State Senators or the Governor? Even a form letter? But I'll let him speak for himself. I hope somebody can explain what he's saying.

**********************************

Thanks for taking the time to call me. Let me try to cover this issue in its entirety. After two years, it is perfectly legal to amend, suspend, or overturn an initiative with a simple majority vote of the legislature. It has been done a number of times before by both Democrats and Republicans. When Republican Dino Rossi was the chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee (the Senate's chief budget writer) the legislature shelved I-728 (reducing class sizes) and I-732 (teacher pay raises). Both of those initiatives passed by healthy margins.

I'm fine with changing initiatives within the rules when the times and circumstances change and when it makes sense. Let me give you an extreme example: if initiatives could not be changed then Oregon would be stuck with a Ku Klux Klan sponsored anti-catholic private school initiative that passed in the 1920's. I'm sure Washington has passed a number of initiatives that we're glad we don't have any more.

But I understand your frustration. I knew full well that some people would be furious with me for voting to temporarily suspend I-960. It would have been easier for me personally to vote against this legislation, but I don't think it would have been the right thing to do. Let me explain the reasons why I did what I did, and please hear me out.

Here's why I don't believe I'm going against the "will of the people" by voting to temporarily suspend (not overturn) I-960. First of all, even though in 2007 I-960 passed state-wide (51%-49%), my constituents in the 45th legislative district turned it down. And in 2009 voters in the 45th, and state-wide, rejected Tim Eyman's I-1033, which would have limited revenue growth for city, county and state budgets. 56% of voters state-wide voted against it, slightly more in the 45th. Recently the vast majority of school levies across the state were approved by the voters. Times are very different from when I-960 passed and I think voters are making it clear that they don't want to devastate public education or vital public services.

The will of the people is determined by listening to the majority's voice. In the Legislature, a bill that earns the support of a majority of the people's elected representatives is said to reflect the people's will. I-960, however, turns this upside-down. It says that we should listen instead to the voice of the legislators in the minority to uphold the will of the people as we solve our state's budget problem. I do not support undermining the democratic process and yielding all power to manage state revenue to a minority legislative voting bloc. In the case of closing loopholes, raising penalties against polluters, charging new users fees, raising tobacco taxes to discourage youngsters from starting to smoke, or generally updating fiscal policy, the legislature is established by the constitution to manage this. Where provisions of I-960 would NOT survive a constitutional challenge, I support the constitution. Finally, I support the initiative/referendum process and the power it gives people to add a check and balance on government.

We are keeping the sunshine provisions of I-960 largely intact. One inefficient provision of I-960 is a requirement for lengthy reports to be generated and emailed for bills that will never get a public hearing. So, one efficiency is to amend I-960 to save staff time and wait until a bill has been actually scheduled for a hearing before requiring staff time to generate reports. This is the same standard we use internally when requesting fiscal notes on bills. This makes sense because so many hundreds of bills get introduced and never heard. We don't need to waste money on bills that won't even get a hearing. I do, however, strongly support the richer disclosure requirements of I-960. I think democracy works best when people can see what is going on in the light of day.

Another reason I voted to temporarily suspend I-960 is to CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES. Today, we are in an awkward position of wanting to close a tax loophole for out-of-state companies that put Washington companies at a disadvantage and are subsidized by Washington citizens. Also still on the books are tax breaks for banks making foreclosure sales. Keep in mind that if we were to send a tax measure before the voters, it would be fall before we could get the results. We don't have that much time; the state would be in default by then.

It's no secret that the economic crisis that has gripped the world has also devastated our budget. But we are not alone. We are one of 47 other states affected by this crisis. Our state's two-year budget shortfall is around $12 billion. Last year we cut $9 billion without raising taxes. We balanced the budget last year but since then the economy performed worse than forecast, and now we're another $3 billion in the hole.

Let me be clear: THERE WILL BE MORE CUTS. As a start, already this year the House and Senate have approved new budget reductions that, when finalized, will cut the state payroll, continue an extended salary freeze for many state workers, curtail equipment purchases, out-of-state travel and the filling of open positions. The legislature has led the way by cutting its own budget significantly. We instituted unpaid furloughs, slashed travel, and we have less staff than we did 20 years ago.

The Senate has approved plans to eliminate, consolidate or suspend almost 100 state boards and commissions among a raft of other government reform measures. The Senate will continue to mine for cuts and efficiencies as it compiles its budget proposal.

I've been hearing from some that we should solve the crisis by cutting pay and benefits for state employees. But we can't solve the budget crisis solely on the backs of state workers even if there were the necessary votes to do so. First, there are contractual limitations and we cannot renegotiate the signed wage and benefits contracts with the state employee union unless they agree to renegotiate. They understandably don't want to do that because there would be no guarantee that they then wouldn't suffer both givebacks in addition to layoffs, etc. Second, I don't think it would be fair; the pay and benefit cuts would be huge and I believe we need to all share the burden. Studies have shown that state employees make less than comparable jobs in the private sector. State employees will share the burden when the final budget is passed.

When a recession hits, businesses have fewer customers and thus need fewer employees. But with government it is qualitatively different. When a recession hits, we have many more "customers" and we still have to serve them even when government revenue is down. More people need social services, more people are trying to go back to college because there are so few jobs. We have a wave of new students in our public schools as parents pull their children out of private schools to save money.

We will keep working to make government leaner. But we must be smart when cutting the budget and use a scalpel not a meat cleaver; continuing to cut deeply into essential public services - schools, colleges, health care, mental health treatment programs - at a time when the public needs them the most -- will do more damage to our communities and our long-term economic future than targeted revenue enhancements ever could. Note the word "targeted"; please remember that I am opposed to tax increases that will hurt small businesses or low and middle income people.

It should be noted that state spending as a share of personal income has been declining for over a decade and Washington ranks as the best-managed state in the nation, according to the Pew Center on the States in 2008.

There is a myth going around that Governor Gregoire took the state into a deficit. That's incorrect. Our state constitution requires a balanced budget. We could have spent less, but the idea that Governor Gregoire overspent has been exaggerated. In 2003-05 (before I was a legislator), when the legislature used a cuts-only approach to address a less serious shortfall, the state cut health care for 20,000 people, eliminated dental care for low-income adults, and froze funding for better teachers and smaller classrooms. When Governor Gregoire was elected there was a lot of investment to make just to get back to previous levels of service. Demographics and inflation have to be considered. With an increase in population, inflation, and service costs Washington made investments in education, health care, public safety and the environment before the Great Recession hit. Some people criticize the Governor for not preparing enough for a downturn. But most of the "experts" on Wall Street didn't see this terrible downturn coming, and neither did other governments, small business owners, or consumers.

No one believes our kids are too educated, our families are too healthy, our communities are too safe, or our air and water are too clean. In fact, King County Superior Court just ruled that the state is not fulfilling its constitutional "paramount duty" to amply provide for basic education. We will have to make more investments in education, but the timeline on how that will happen is still undecided.

I believe government can help with economic development. I'm working with others to help the private sector create more jobs. We want to create a temporary 18-month job creation tax credit of $2,000-$4,000 for small businesses that create new family wage jobs (SB 5899). We're working to strengthen small business development centers that are key to helping small businesses survive and thrive despite the economic downturn (SB 6669).

I support putting people to work through local infrastructure projects. Without raising transportation taxes, we're crafting the Transportation Budget to be a jobs package that will ripple through the whole economy: $4.9 billion is being spent on projects that provide 49,000 jobs over the course of the biennium, the construction for which will generate almost $300 million in sales tax revenue to state and local communities this biennium. We're funding more projects, and putting more people to work. How? A major reason is that 87 percent of contracts signed in 2009 came in well below engineers' original estimates. This has allowed the funding of additional projects.

Last year we passed a home weatherization bill to reduce heating costs for 10,000, while providing hundreds of living-wage "clean, green jobs" for skilled workers, apprentices, and veterans over the next 2½ years. An expansion on those efforts this year could include boosting local financing and removing barriers to implementing energy conservation programs (SB 6656, SB 6468).

We are attracting entrepreneurs for the innovation economy. The Stars program recruits the tops minds from around the world to work at our research schools. It helps accelerate and escalate our economic recovery by creating new industries that will employ Washingtonians in high-skilled, high-paying jobs. This year, we could modestly expand the program to include two new hires in the field of smart grids -- that's the delivery of electricity in ways that control appliances inside consumers' homes to save energy, reduce costs and increase reliability. The Tri-Cities has just been awarded $150 million in federal research grants. The researchers we're recruiting right now can put that money to work to create more new industries and jobs for us (SB 6594, SB 6706).

Let me conclude by saying that I didn't run for election to be part of the political status quo or to be popular. I'm here to make government work more efficiently and to keep the long-term view in mind. My wife Mary and I have two young children, Cray and Cate, and I'm here in Olympia to help make sure they have a bright future. I want that for your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and neighbors, too.

Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading my response. What is great about this country is that we can disagree with each other in a civil way that promotes mutual understanding. That's essential for a healthy democracy.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric Oemig
State Senator
Legislative District 45
www.sdc.wa.gov/senators/oemig