Where are the 2/3 vote requirements for those tax breaks?

And why aren't they subject to a Vote of the People?

Beer is recession-proof and it'd be better to keep all that beer money in-state instead of sending it to Coors or Anheuser-Busch. If the money stays here, it ends up in state hands at some point.

Jut sayin', it's not necessarily one or the other. Don't create false dilemmas.

As most sloggers know, I am one of those mean fiscal conservative, all-cuts-budget supporters. And I am fully behind Goldy on this point. While there is no good time to be thinking up new special interest tax breaks, now is the worst possible time.

Cognitive dissonance.

Look, if they can get a 2/3 vote of the people for these tax breaks, after explaining the benefits, I'm all for them.

But if they need 2/3 vote to increase spending, they need a 2/3 vote to get a tax exemption or tax deduction, cause it just means the rest of us have to pay for it.

... be careful what you ask for, a supermajority swings both ways, especially in Hawaii.

God its good you're around Goldy to make sure this shit does not go unnoticed.

The 2/3 majority only applies to tax increases. Tax cuts can be passed with a simple majority...
2nd the cognitive dissonance comment...

That's because conservatives don't see tax cuts as increased deficit spending.

Come on you guys! You know this!

Republicans start from the notion that the government should be completely unfunded... i.e., there are no taxes at all. Then, they apply some taxes, all the while declaring those taxes as horrible and evil and terrible, but we need them and there's nothing else we can do, so please don't hate us for taxing you. And besides, they only want to use those tax dollars as frugally as possible. Mostly just to pay to defend the country (and more importantly, Big Corporation) from invasion from a foreign nation and so forth.

At least, that's what they tell their corporate masters. What the conservative/republican/teabaggers do in real life is totally different... but I'm just stating their platform here.

So please don't belabor the point that, (gasp), republicans don't even consider tax cuts to the billionaires to be deficit spending. That should be standard knowledge by now. Yes, it's idiotic and backwards, but still, you should at least KNOW that that's what they're selling.

This is especially insidious, because it takes only a simple majority to pass these special exemptions but if they pass it would take a 2/3 majority to undo them.

Of course, if we want to take advantage of Eyman's new rule we can always look for direct spending that can be replaced with special tax breaks.

It's an all for me none for you mentality. I should have moved to Canada 5 years ago.

Urgutha @ 9: Are you aware that there are more D than R sponsors for each of the cited bills, that the WA state legislature that is about to pass these bills is fully controlled by Ds, and that the WA govorner who is about to sign them is a D? I'm not quite sure how you spin it that these tax breaks are the doings of the Rs and Tea Party.

The problem here isn't Democrats/Republicans - it's all elected officials who coddle Special Interests over the Public Interest.

You have to pay sales tax to buy a condom, but not Viagra!

You have to pay sales tax on a new baby's crib, but a poultry farmer doesn't have to pay sales tax on bedding materials for chickens!

The Legislature is seriously considering cutting Basic Health before they even talk about repealing the sales-tax exemption on Botox!

Why?

Because they - Democrats and Republicans alike - lack the courage to vote for a "tax increase" implicit in repealing even the most stupid of tax loopholes!

Steve Breaux
Washington Public Interest Research Group

Hey Goldy I went to link and found the list.
What is this one all about? It is the first listed and the largest.
Let's go after the big fish...

Giveaways to Wall Street banks: $100 million per year
The B&O deduction on interest from first home mortgages was originally intended to help a major bank headquartered in Washington compete with other national banks. There are no longer any major banks headquartered in here and the vast majority of mortgages are originated by out-of-state banks or sold to out-of-state banks. The deduction no longer makes sense.