If you agree that legislators should be allowed to legislate, then you will appreciate the statement made by Hoquiam Democratic State Senator Jim Hargrove concerning his vote to suspend Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960:
I-960 requires that two-thirds of the Legislature approve any tax increase, a significant hurdle compared to the simple majority approval needed for other bills. The Senate endorsed suspension of that rule until July 2011, when the next two-year budget cycle begins. It’s a move majority Democrats said they needed to make as they deal with patching a $2.6 billion budget deficit.
Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, said that he doesn’t take tax increases lightly, but “this is a crisis.”
“This is a very, very difficult session,” he said. “We need a little flexibility to get it done.”
If you don’t know Hargrove, you should know that he is generally considered to be a conservative Democrat. It’s a nice surprise to see that, in this case at least, conservatism doesn’t have to be an obstacle to a reasonable approach to our budget situation. You can criticize Democrats for being timid on pushing for a more progressive tax system, but you can be certain that any kind of meaningful reform will only come from the Democrats.
Consider the Republicans in Olympia, who subjugate themselves to Tim Eyman and defend his shoddily crafted initiatives against their better judgment. The GOP amendments defending I-960 were self-conscious and silly. One of them would have “[required] e-mail notifications to be sent to the public on tax measures.” I don’t know what’s worse: that the GOP thinks voters don’t know Democrats are going to raise taxes, or that the public knows this and votes for the Democrats anyway.
Um, but I thought only 51 percent of the voters voted for that.
Didn’t more than 70 percent vote for I-728 and I-732?
Heck, Eyman can’t even meet the two-thirds bar for a constitutional amendment, and he and his comrades have the gall to tell us we need a two-thirds vote?
Sorry, Tim Eyman or not, I’ve got a big problem when the government arbitrarily overturns initiatives approved by voters.
This is ok, but everyone bitched and moaned when the city went over our heads on the tunnel and stadium votes.
Or do you just want to have your cake and eat it too?
@2 – you mean like I-728 and I-732?
@3 Um…I think my post makes it pretty clear on where I stand on overturning or suspending voter approved initiatives.
Would it help if I complained that my average class size is now 38 students?
@2/4 Broken clock twice a day, etc., but I have to agree with Will in Seattle on this one. It is a pretty basic principle that you can’t have the majority require a supermajority. I-960 is patently unconstitutional in that it binds the Legislature, which has plenary authority except as limited by the State Constitution or federal law. And even if it weren’t, the State Constitution permits the Legislature to amend initiatives after two years by a majority vote.
Voters pass a lot of stupid initiatives that often don’t work. If they’re unconstitutional, why shouldn’t the Legislature ignore them, and if they’re unworkable, why shouldn’t the Legislature amend them?
As for the voters, well, if they’re really pissed, they can pass a new (unconstitutional) amendment and hope the Legislature abides by it, or throw the bums out.
And I’m taking a wild guess here, but maybe the reason your average class size is so high is because, ummm, a voter initiative purported to require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to raise taxes, and state taxes are the source of most school funding. Ya think?
(BTW, the voter initiative requiring smaller class sizes was a classic stupid initiative. It required smaller class sizes but provided no funding. Of course the Legislature is going to ignore something that stupid.)
I’ve been promoting the idea that the only fair tax is an Asset tax.
This thread documents some articles along that line:
http://yrihf.com/viewtopic.php?t=3942&hi…
Such as:
http://www.progress.org/coburn01.htm
Consider Asset Taxation
Asset taxation is proposed to replace the current federal income tax and federal inheritance taxes with a 2% tax on the market value of all assets, including but not limited to land, improvements, licenses to use natural resources, and any and all properties that can be disposed of or rented to generate income to the owner.
@5 I agree with your logic, but if the bill is unconstitutional I would rather see it shot down by the courts rather than the majority party.
What’s the point of voting for initiatives if they can be tossed aside so easily?