House Republicans Fight Late Into The Night For I-960

The voter’s shield against runaway government spending by the State of Washington, Initiative 960 is perilously close to temporarily losing its most crucial piece, the requirement that the state Legislature pass a two-thirds vote for measures to increase taxes. The engrossed version of Senate Bill 6130 was moved to the House floor for consideration and a vote, and House Republicans in Olympia kept the lights on until close to midnight Tuesday after forcing a six-hour floor debate on a series of GOP-sponsored amendments, the net effect of which would have been to “indefinitely postpone” the Legislature’s plan to put voter-approved tax restraint law I-960 in cold storage.

If SB 6130 becomes law in its current form it would postpone enactment of I-960’s two-thirds requirement for tax increases until July 2011.

For those Washington conservatives who have griped that Republicans in Olympia are indistinguishable from their tax-and-spend neighbors across the aisle, the tone and spirit of Tuesday’s flurry of impromptu speeches offered a sneak peek at something different.

“We are not California. We are Washington, and we are Washingtonians. We’re strong and we’re proud people… we’re not going to bow down to recession by putting burdensome taxes on our people,” Rep. Brad Klippert said. (Click here to listen to Rep. Klippert’s remarks.)

Rep. Glenn Anderson later picked up the ball and succinctly encapsulated what is different about Republicans and the majority Democratic Party.

“Economic growth is essential,” Anderson said, going on to characterize Democratic tax-and-spend solutions as “chasing a Band-Aid to avoid the pain” of difficult choices.

Their voices were only two among a unified chorus of Republicans calling for a bipartisan step back from the precipice both to assess the ethicality of reversing the will of the voters as well as to visit the total budget – expenditures and revenues – before gutting the tax restraint provisions in I-960 and further eroding the faith of the people in their government.

A small ray of light did pierce the House’s dark decision in the form of its adoption of the Finance Committee amendment that allows the transparency provisions of I-960 to remain in effect. Careful observers will recall that the original Senate vote last week had left these requirements intact and that body actually took a second vote to correct the oversight of preserving public notification when Olympia begins to move to raise taxes. That silver lining tarnishes in light of the Legislature’s practice of floating “ghost” legislation – also known as “title-only” bills – that defy transparency rules by offering nothing for the public to review.

The evolution of modern political systems has come to recognize that in free societies in order for the social contract to be consummated individuals will naturally require built-in defenses to guard against an oppressive government. In the United States Constitution the Bill of Rights embody those protections, and in Washington state we have codified our necessary stalemate between the government and the governed in our initiative process.

In order to register your strong opposition to SB 6130, the resulting avalanche of new taxes that will undoubtedly spring forth, and the requisite loss of liberty, please call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 to let your elected representatives in Olympia hear your voice.

If you have any interesting conversations with our legislators feel free to post details in the comments section to this post.

Saturday hearing scheduled for bill to shelve I-960

The Democrats in Olympia have been grinding their teeth to stumps since voters across the state passed Initiative 960 in 2007 with strong voter support. The measures imposition of a rule that any tax increases at the state level would require a two-thirds vote from the Legislature was tantamount to societal Armageddon in the opinion of the majority party. Bridges would crumble to dust and children would be forced to wander the streets when their schools were closed for lack of funding.

Continue Reading

“Ghost” Bill Part II: The Execution

Calling Drs. Venkman, Stanz, and Spengler. Expertise in paranormal phenomena is needed in Olympia, Wash. to contain Senate Bill 6853 – the “ghost” bill – that is still working its way through the legislative process despite having no material form.

SB 6853 was introduced Tuesday as a title-only bill pertaining to the investigation of tax preferences, placed on the Ways and Means agenda for the afternoon, and by early evening had cleared committee without so much as a verb, noun, or other defining language added to indicate what its sponsors intended to do to the state’s tax system.

Anyone coming in after the initial 45 seconds of the Senate Ways and Means’ hearing on SB 6853 would also miss the committee’s vote waiving the rule requiring that bills be made public for at least five days prior to any executive action. After a single witness – Association of Washington Business representative Amber Carter – gave a cover-all-the-bases statement for the record, the bill of potentially limitless effect was passed out of committee during the executive session.

The Politburo did not work so efficiently as did Sen. Rockefeller’s committee. Jason Mercier, the Washington Policy Center’s government reforms director, assembled a real-time video album of the young life of SB 6853. Even if you’re on a tight schedule, the entire process of how a Washington state bill reaches the Senate floor can be viewed in less than a few minutes. In the implication that the public is again being kicked out of the room when their representatives craft laws that will affect them, Mercier’s clips should be sent for consideration to SyFy’s Ghost Hunters.

Perhaps SB 6853 will become to this legislative session what the Flying Dutchman is to nautical myth, a ghostly vessel doomed to sail forever and never come home. Methinks we shan’t be so lucky. Shutting down public comment on a bill is a pittance compared to the cavalier manner in which the state Senate cast aside the will of the people by voting to “suspend” Initiative 960’s requirement for a two-thirds vote by the legisalture to increase taxes. In fact, Senate lawmakers were so excited to trample on the voters that in their haste they voted to pass the wrong version of their amending legislation.

There’s no cause for panic, however. Their error was noted and will almost certainly be corrected forthwith.

Democrats let loose “ghost” tax bill in Olympia

While Tea Parties and concerned citizens focus their energies on changing the dysfunctional legislative process that is the status quo in the other Washington, lawmakers in Olympia are ignoring widespread voter demands for transparency into the sausage mill of lawmaking. The State Senate is entertaining discussion about a bill – Senate Bill 6853 – that could have dramatic effects on state residents and business owners. What effects, you ask? Therein’s the rub, as the bill lacks all of the detailed language that would ordinarily be required to begin deliberation over its contents.

As reported Tuesday morning by the Washington Policy Center blog, SB 6853 was introduced with only a header naming the bill’s sponsors (an all-Democrat squad), the required statement of purpose – “creating the legislative review of tax preferences act of 2010” – and no enacting language.

“This bill may make major changes in the tax code, and could result in a significant increase in the tax burden state lawmakers place on citizens, so it would be nice to know what the bill actually says,” WPC vice president Paul Guppy writes. “[I]t is hard … to make a fair assessment of a major bill when the public has no idea what it says, or how it may affect our lives.”

The bill was also scheduled onto the Senate Ways and Means committee calendar for Tuesday’s 1:30 p.m. meeting at which time it could be moved quickly to a Senate vote bypassing the body’s own five-day sunshine rule. It also lacks a fiscal note containing dollars and cents associated with enactment.

TVW is scheduled to webcast the Ways and Means Committee meeting LIVE.

Weekly InDIGESTion: Rodney Tom’s Crusade against Crisis Pregnancy Centers

State Sen. Rodney Tom (D-Bellevue), known affectionately by some as “Turncoat Tom” for his party switch a few years ago, is frustrated because some crisis pregnancy centers don’t offer women the opportunity to kill their unborn children.  He’s offered a bill (SB 6452) to remedy the “problem.”

The bill encourages people to sue crisis pregnancy centers under the Consumer Protection Act if, for example, a center commits such atrocities as not immediately disclosing that they don’t provide or refer abortion services.  It allows an “aggrieved party” to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an “aggrieved party”.  Someone can make a claim against a center and be awarded damages without even proving any damages.   The kicker–the bill only applies to pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortion.  Basically, Washington law would require a person to prove damages if they sue an abortion clinic but not if they sue a crisis pregnancy center.

Like many Democrats in the legislature, Tom is in a pickle.  His largest funders (i.e., public employee unions) are mad at the Ds because even with large majorities in both the House and Senate they’ve been unable to muster the gumption to raise taxes rather than cut spending (those pesky voters just keep getting in the way of labor’s agenda).  The largest unions have been threatening to run hard-left candidates against the more “moderate” Democrat legislators, and have even re-routed their usual campaign contributions to a new PAC rather than the caucus campaign funds.  The Democrats need to energize part of their base heading into the 2010 elections.

Voters aren’t in the mood for the sort of tax increases labor is advocating (funny how recessions and a 10% unemployment rate can do that).  Tom needs something to appeal to his liberal base, and this is the magic bullet.  When all else fails, bowing to the Sacrament of Abortion is a sure-fire winner (after all, it’s just a safe, routine medical procedure).

Tom is one of those eastside Democrats who claims the “socially liberal (or moderate), fiscally conservative” mantle.  Yet while the Democrats are grappling with how to fill a $2.6 billion deficit, Tom’s bill actually increases state spending.  Moreover, his voting record on spending only reaffirms what columnist Mark Steyn astutely observed about such folk:

“The reality is that almost every ’socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ politician turns out to be fiscally liberal — in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, it’s not hard to figure which taste will predominate.”

At best, Tom is short-sighted.  He’s emblematic of the left’s penchant for creating lavish government programs while giving people the “right” to kill off the very generations the county will need to pay for all of it.   The declining birthrates in the West (tempered only by the influx of immigrants) are building a fiscal tsunami on the horizon as the baby boomers begin retiring.

It’s a sad irony for the left–they would be wise to actually encourage breeding so tomorrow there are enough workers/taxpayers to pay for the welfare state they’re building today.  Alas, political expediency triumphs.

Ultimately, Tom’s bill is an effort by the abortion industry and liberal Democrats to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of operation.  How’s that for choice?