Washington state House Dems, led by freshman Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-Tacoma), introduced HB 2078 yesterday, a bill that would narrow a tax exemption for mortgage lenders and eliminate the sales tax exemption for out-of-state shoppers, using the revenue generated to fund early education. According to the Olympian the measure would restore about $170 million of the $191 million the House recently cut from a program that reduces class sizes in grades K-3.

Which is great and all that. I love the fact that 11 freshmen took the lead on this bill, and that at last count nearly the entire Democratic caucus has signed on. But it really amounts to little more than a feel-good symbolic gesture unless the Dems grow some balls and do what it takes to make this proposal a reality.

So how do the Dems enact this bill in the face of the two-thirds supermajority requirement currently in place under Tim Eyman’s constitutionally questionable I-1053? Well, they could refer this or some other revenue package to voters, which I’m guessing is not entirely out of the question, though still unlikely considering the utter lack of boldness we’ve seen from the caucus this session. Or they could use this worthy (and I’d wager popular) proposal as an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of I-1053 once and for all.

Here’s how it works: Gov. Gregoire leaves the state for a day on some sort of personal or public business, thus handing the keys to the governor’s mansion over to Lt. Gov. Brad Owen. This in turn removes Owen from his role as President of the Senate, replacing him with President pro Tempore Margarita Prentice. The Senate now passes a version of this bill on a simple majority vote, which Prentice affirms based on her interpretation that I-1053 is unconstitutional. Gregoire then returns to the state and retakes the reins, the bill goes to the House, where it too is passed on a simple majority vote, affirmed by Speaker Frank Chopp, who hands it on to the governor for signing. She does.

Next come the lawsuits, which is okay, since we want to bring this bullshit two-thirds requirement before the state Supreme Court, where most constitutional scholars believe it will likely be tossed out. The tax loopholes are closed, our children are educated, and we’re finally done with Eyman’s biennial for-profit two-thirds initiatives. Case closed.

But of course, that scenario would require the Dems in Olympia to finally grow a pair of balls. So good luck with that.

14 replies on “House Dems Propose Repealing Tax Exemptions to Pay for Education. (If Only They Had the Balls to Follow Through)”

  1. Time for an initiative.

    I think that it should require a two-thirds majority vote of the Citizens to continue any tax exemption for a corporation (including non-profits) with a gross of more than $1 million, after the first two years in existence, with a renewal period of between two and four years each time it’s voted on by the People.

    Every tax exemption is more taxes for every other corporation. Just read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” on the subject – he goes into this in great detail and warns us of the perfidy of the Merchants who will try such exemptions in many places in his multiple books (note: there are more than three).

  2. My head is spinning. The Stranger gets all bent out of shape when the Seattle City Attorney challenges the constitutionality of an initiative. Now we have the Stranger telling us that the Democrats in Olympia have no balls because they won’t challenge the constitutionality of an initiative.

    Must . . . drink . . . bourbon . . .

    ah, now I feel better. Why does the Stranger make sense only after I’ve had a stiff belt of booze?

  3. Starting out by stating that certain legislation will never pass is definitely the best possible way to advocate for that legislation.

    But, hey, at least perpetual pessimism means you’ll never be disappointed.

  5. I wish people would stop referring to Timmeh’s Oligarch Empowerment Initiative as a 2/3rds super-majority requirement when it is really a 34% super-minority requirement.

  7. Who’s better off because of the 2/3 requirement? Are we GLAD the legislature has been neutered as far as enacting revenue-generating (yes, TAX) legislation? Is it GOOD we have to fight so hard to get money for education? And @2, your false equivalency is obvious, the state voted on the 2/3 requirement but the CITY should be able to decide if we’re going to extract more blood from the stone to pay for any tunnel.

  8. @7: So the City should cut $1 million from its general fund that supports human services, to pay for an election so we can have a vote, and then find out the initiative and referendum are unconstitutional? No thanks.

  11. Good idea. Let’s just do it and let them sue.

    We can pay them from the under-budget profits from the Tunnel of Doom construction if we lose.

  12. Yeah, but at least the newbies are showing something. Maybe someday when they are the leadership, finally something will happen in somewhere in the future. Meanwhile the Senate just whacked the bejesus out of higher ed.

  14. What’s all this nonsense about “having balls” as a sign of courage? Those little things are the most sensitive parts of male equipment – one serious poke and the whole body writhes in pain, unable to function at all.

    So let’s put an end to this phony standard. Courage is courage, and balls have zilch to do with it.

Comments are closed.