Search Results for: i-1053

My questions in bold; Sarajane Siegfriedt’s as is.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

Obviously, the state is not living up to its paramount duty. The judge in the McCleary case made this crystal clear, as did another judge in a similar case in the 70s. “Paramount duty” is most often interpreted as 50% of the state budget. We are currently devoting only about 42% of the $32 billion budget to Basic Education. (Basic Education was expanded by the legislature in the 2011 session.) We are $4 billion short. The “down payment” of $1 billion for K-12 Basic Education is due in the 2013-2015 biennial budget. We have to make up another $3 billion by 2018. As the Governor said and as both candidates for Governor failed to grasp, we have to raise taxes to pay for this.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

I am not the only candidate or legislator who will refuse to vote to raise the sales tax. For a decade, I have long fought for social and economic justice as part of the Poverty Action Network. Three years ago, I joined with Fuse, the WA Budget & Policy Center and many others as the Our Economic Future Coalition to propose progressive plans to increase revenue. I support a capital gains tax, which falls on the top 3% and exempts sale of a primary residence. It’s time to revisit the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. It’s been 10 years since Eyman’s initiative eliminated it, economic times have changed, huge budget cuts have been made and transit and ferries have suffered without the tax. The MVET is inherently a progressive tax. We also need a per-barrel tax on oil. The 60% tuition increases at our colleges and universities since 2009 constitute one of the worst taxes on the poor (especially community college and voc/tech) and they need to be reversed. This is a wealthy state, but our tax system doesn’t reflect that fact. Wealthy individuals and corporations need to pay their fair share.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

I disagree with your premise. I believe we will be able to pass more progressive taxes for several reasons. One reason is that the challenge to Eyman’s I-1053 was ruled unconstitutional. I believe the Supreme Court will sustain this ruling before the beginning of the 2013 session. I believe the Democrats will retain a working majority in both houses, based in part on Obama’s popularity and the presence of the marijuana and equal marriage initiatives on the ballot. Second, education is widely supported by both parties and we have the McCleary ruling, which makes raising taxes imperative under any governor. Third, we have a bipartisan legislative task force that must come up with a plan to raise $1 billion for Basic Ed before the session starts—or else. Fourth, we have the House Democratic Caucus coming up with their own progressive plan to raise revenue. Fifth, we are far more likely now than in prior years to reform the system of tax exemptions, because the Grover Norquist pledge was broken by the Republicans last session when they sponsored and voted to repeal the Wall Street Bank tax exemption. There are 570 tax exemptions that lack a statement of legislative intent. This will change, and measurable outcomes for tax exemptions will be demanded.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

I’m the only candidate endorsed by the 46th District Democrats, the King County Democrats, and Rep. Phyllis Kenney, whom I hope to succeed. I have a record of fighting for social and economic justice on state issues. I have been focused on Olympia since I lobbied there for alcohol and drug treatment fulltime in the 2002 session. Afterward, I joined several boards, including Solid Ground, one of the largest social service agencies in King County. We recently produced 50 units of low-income family housing at Sand Point, with 50 more on the way. I am the only candidate who has been involved with the Democratic Party. Since 2004, my involvement has been with issues, writing platforms and more recently as Legislative Action Chair of the King County Democrats—their volunteer lobbyist, if you will. The job includes working with labor and all the major progressive coalitions and with legislators to form a consolidated legislative agenda. I track bills, send out legislative alerts and organize a lobby day. More than anything else, this position has given me the breadth of experience to make informed decisions on priority legislation in Olympia. Our number one priority has been progressive revenue reform, in order to pay for everything else, including education, the safety net, housing and the environment.

I have lived in the 46th District for the past 15 years, in Lake City. I’m involved in my district, with issues of homelessness and plans for transit-oriented pedestrian-friendly mixed-income communities at Lake City and at Northgate. I’m also the only candidate with an appointive public board position. I serve on the King County Board of Equalization, hearing appeals of property tax assessments. I’m the only candidate with an MBA and with a background in business. I’ve worked for AT&T and for Boeing (for seven years). I combine private sector and non-profit management experience with public service and extensive knowledge of state issues.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

How can we argue that wealthy individuals and corporations should pay their fair share, meaning they pay more than they get back, when we don’t expect the wealthiest county in the state to do the same? There are several counties that cannot perform the basic functions of county government, as required by law, without substantial state assistance. Does that mean the other counties should have fewer requirements?

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I will fight for my district to get its fair share of transportation funds to maintain State Road 522, otherwise known as Lake City Way/Bothell Way, because it is a state highway carrying far more heavy truck traffic than before tolling began on the 520 bridge. The town of Kenmore, with 22,000 residents, is being forced to pay $68 million in road repairs on its “main street” that should be the state’s responsibility. The state is paying for the 520 bridge and most of the Hwy. 99 tunnel. When it comes to funding education and social services, two of the state’s top responsibilities, why is it inherently better or worse to fund a teacher or a foster children’s case manager in Seattle or in Yakima? In the end we must trust these state departments to allocate their funds on the basis of need, not silos or fiefdoms. (Trust, then audit?) Perhaps the founders of Kentucky and Massachusetts got it right when they named them “commonwealths,” not states. The name emphasizes an idea that has been neglected. We are all in this together.

My questions in bold, Gael Tarleton’s answers are below.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

We are not fully funding public education. It is the moral and constitutional obligation we must meet. To fully fund public education, we must think about providing early childhood education through lifelong learning. We need to change the discussion so that we prioritize funding to achieve shared education goals:

– We want 80 percent of high school students earning their high school diplomas 10 years from now. Therefore, we should fund public school systems to help them reach that goal – and that means working with teachers, administrators, parents and kids to help communities with the resources needed to succeed.

– We want early childhood learning centers in every school district in the state to be accessible and affordable. Therefore, we must fund programs in parts of the state with limited numbers of early childhood learning centers.

– We want our higher education system focused on serving our residents who are ready for college-level courses and technical school programs. Therefore, we must fund programs that help high school teachers and college deans and departmental chairs co-develop high school curricula, especially in English, Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, Applied Mathematics, and Sociology/History.

– Our higher educational institutions must have the No. 1 priority of making higher education affordable and accessible to all our citizens for lifelong learning. Any newly available revenues must immediately support hiring new teachers so that more courses are taught, which in turn will allow higher ed to admit more students each year. At a minimum, we should aspire to have 70 percent of incoming undergraduate students at our four-year institutions each year be Washington residents. We should expect and plan for having 90 percent of first- time students in our community colleges and technical schools be Washington residents. We must place special priority in the next decade on having our higher education system serve high school graduates from low-income and immigrant communities, returning veterans, and adults who have lost jobs and are preparing for a new career.

The most important task we face is to set shared goals now, develop a 10-year funding plan, and examine how existing revenues must be more effectively allocated to get to work on these four goals. As new revenues are available from various sources, we will have a strategic plan for how best to allocate those dollars.

We have the following options for public revenues: school bond levies in local jurisdictions; state tax revenues to support low-interest student loans, salaries, operations, capital infrastructure, and programmatic initiatives; federal grants to match state programs for student loans, free- and reduced-lunch programs; and potentially new taxes if the state’s Supreme Court upholds the King County ruling that I-1053 is unconstitutional.

From a budgeting and planning perspective, we must have two scenarios in mind: what we do if I-1053 is overturned, and what we do if it is not. The obligation to fully fund public education is the constant in a sea of uncertainty. How we meet this obligation is up to us. After working for eight years at the University of Washington to help secure millions of dollars in grants and gifts for faculty and students, I know the impact that these investments have on the economy, environment, and quality of life for all Washingtonians. We must meet this funding challenge.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

Yes, I will be an advocate for the following kinds of revenue options and reforms:

– Examine the current constraints on how local jurisdictions, especially special-purpose districts, are able to use their existing taxing authority with property taxes.

– Develop strategies for enabling local jurisdictions to enter into time-limited partnerships where they create funding mechanisms for building a 21st Century infrastructure for a clean economy: multi-jurisdictional transit systems; construction and technology solutions to stop toxic runoff from local communities to protect Puget Sound, rivers and streams; shared investment in renewable energy infrastructure such as electric charging networks; and other capital-intensive investments that local jurisdictions cannot handle on their own.

– Develop a rate-paying “environmental infrastructure district” system to have all users pay into the equivalent of a public utilities district. This is the kind of progressive reform that makes all of us responsible for clean air and clean water infrastructure investments.

– Adopt “system tolling” on critical transportation corridors to fund regional transit solutions and safe pedestrian/bicycling corridors that separate freight and autos from bikes and pedestrian users.

– Identify a more fair and equitable way to use B&O revenues to reinvest in what small-business owners need most and do best: to help them hire and retain more employees, reduce the cost of start-up loans, incentivize innovative strategies for clean energy and clean trade; and make them the centerpiece of how we build a modern economy beyond fossil fuels.

– When we pass legislation regarding tax exemptions, we must understand what programs will be most affected by exempting private entities from paying their taxes. State legislators should identify what sources of revenue will be used to protect against the constant erosion of critical funding obligations resulting from tax exemptions.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

There is an equally good chance that the Governor’s Mansion, State’s Attorney General, and both State legislative bodies will be controlled by Democrats. Recent Elway polls show that the state’s political climate and voter party affiliation are not growing more conservative: voters are instead becoming more independent. Some observers believe independents tend to vote Democratic more frequently than they vote Republican. The 36th District is frequently described as the anchor of liberal, progressive Seattle politics. It is also home to more than 20,000 working-class jobs in the Ballard-Interbay Manufacturing Industrial Center, including 15,000 jobs related to the fishing and seafood processing markets. There are thriving small business communities in every corner of the District. The District is where the working class and middle class co-exist. This strengthens our communities because we believe in teachers, metal workers, fishers, start-up companies, family-owned small businesses, parks for kids, and the dignity of work with living wages, regardless of the type of job a person might hold.

We have an aggressive agenda for job creation, expanding higher education affordability, providing healthcare, and protecting our environment. We are also home to a recreational boating industry that generates $3.5 billion in revenues across the state, as well as home to the grain terminal at Pier 86 that makes Washington’s agricultural firms competitive in a global economy where 90 percent of their business comes from exports through the Port of Seattle. When we focus on creating jobs, expanding markets for Washington companies, and strengthening opportunities for Washingtonians to pursue higher education, we will help legislators from all over the state share common cause.

That said, I’ve learned from experience that solutions to problems don’t happen with group think. I don’t just reach across the aisle; I’ve reached across continents and communities to do the hard work of creating jobs, building bridges, and protecting communities. To help create an international earthquake monitoring network, I worked with Russians and Ukrainians and the International Atomic Energy Agency. To fight human trafficking, I’ve worked with State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36, and King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert. To help rebuild the South Park Bridge, I worked with the South Park Neighborhood Association, the Machinists, and colleagues at the Port, City, County and State to find the funding. And to build the Rental Car Facility that created more than 3,700 jobs in South King County, I worked with elected officials in the State Legislature as well as Sea-Tac, Des Moines, and Burien.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

We’re all asking the voters to hire us to do a job. We may share the same values, but we all have different experience and qualifications to do the job of a lawmaker. I’m asking the voters to hire me because I have the experience and skills of working in the public and private sectors creating jobs, solving difficult problems, and managing millions of dollars in budgets. When it comes to solving tough problems with responsible funding strategies, my experiences working in federal, state, and local governments as well as in a technology company and international markets give me a deep reservoir of ideas, lessons learned, and experts to help find solutions. These are the resources that will help me do the work that voters are hiring me to do.

As a Port Commissioner, I have helped create 7,000 living wage jobs through critical public works projects. At UW, I’ve worked with scientists, engineers, historians, political scientists, archeologists, musicians, and cybersecurity experts to help secure millions of dollars in grants and endowments for faculty and students. I’ve worked with legislators from all over the state to help criminalize human trafficking, create more open contracting laws, and build transit and transportation corridors that help our companies compete globally. To accelerate a clean, green trade agenda in Washington, I’ve supported partnerships with the Port of Seattle, WSU, Climate Solutions and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to develop an aviation biofuels market based in Washington, while also supporting investments in electrification and renewable energy infrastructure. And as a federal government employee, I’ve written policies and run programs regarding critical national security interests and concerns.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

We all have a stake in the success of our schools and our students, regardless of their home base. We will all benefit if we have affordable access to public health centers and community clinics. We all share a stake in tackling climate change and building the foundation for a clean economy in the 21st century. If we reflect on how the concept of the public commons emerged in Washington, it will help us understand how to think about sharing resources with communities and regions that don’t live in our own backyard.

All property owners pay property taxes to build infrastructure and invest in healthy, safe communities. However, not all people who benefit from investments in the public commons are paying property taxes. Does that mean we stop paying our fair share of taxes? No. It would be short-sighted when we want to collectively improve the quality of life for everyone, not just the District we represent. The state pays only 7 percent of the annual operating costs of the University of Washington, its flagship public university. Just 20 years ago, the state paid closer to 40 percent of the total annual operating costs. Yet UW benefits the public commons of the whole state, Pacific Northwest, the nation and the world. UW’s nursing and public health graduates are the people who staff community health clinics and protect public health systems throughout the state and the Pacific Northwest. The UW School of Medicine receives $700 million a year from the federal government to educate the doctors who will be serving rural, low-income, and underserved communities with safe healthcare. Researchers at UW spawned the life sciences research community that has become home to the Gates Foundation, PATH, and Nobel Laureates – all in our district.

When we talk about who is getting their “fair share” of the tax pie, it is a familiar refrain that another part of the state benefits from King County’s and Seattle’s wealth. But the people in Seattle and King County who like to go skiing in the Cascades, own homes on Lake Chelan, go hiking on Mount Adams, or take weekends sampling wines in Walla Walla are only able to enjoy these benefits because they can fly there, drive there, drink clean water, and benefit from cheap electricity. And they benefit when their kids decide they’d rather go to school at WSU or Central Washington because they like the idea of dry, sunny weather three weeks in a row.

We will create jobs, opportunities, and a cleaner economy if we invest in research at Central Washington University or in social services for returning veterans in Tacoma or Yakima. The 36th District’s small businesses want to hire people who are prepared for jobs in the trades, fishing industry, biotechnology companies, or software start-ups. One of the most important roles I will play in Olympia for my district is making sure we are showing how tax revenues are used to create jobs, prepare employees for high-demand job markets, and give all our communities a chance to live a decent life and pursue affordable education.

My proposal to create a sustainable funding base for public health revolves around this idea of a shared stake in a common network. The “Public Access To Health Services” (PATH) center calls for reforming the way we use property tax authority of special purpose districts in the state. If we allow special purpose districts to share their property taxes to create local health centers, we stand a chance of putting public health services on a sustainable financial path. My district would help lead the way, as we have thousands of public health professionals, caregivers, and small business owners who would be potential partners in making affordable health care, family planning, adult day care, and other essential services available to our communities.

Our district also believes in investing in a clean economy future. Our ideas and know-how for designing and building environmental infrastructure systems for homeowners and small business owners will create best practices for others around the state. When we share knowledge and solutions that help our own communities, we are creating the foundation for helping all Washingtonians live in healthy, safe communities where they will enjoy a better quality of life.

Via Slog:

Tim Eyman’s 2/3 majority requirement for raising new state revenue is unconstitutional, according to King County Superior Court Judge Bruce E. Heller.

The law enacted through Initiative 1053 is ruled unconstitutional; it directly contradicts the Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 22:

No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

Of course, the ruling will be appealed and, ultimately, settled by the Supreme Court. With any luck, the Supreme Court won’t be able to weasel its way out of a substantive ruling this time….

The next question: If I-1053 is unconstitutional, what should be the fate of its latest incarnation, I-1185, should it get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot? Will AG Rob McKenna sue Eyman to keep an unconstitutional initiative off the ballot?

You know, like AG Christine Gregoire did with Goldy’s Horses’ Ass initiative.

It will be worth listening to Governor Christine Gregoire on KUOW this morning at 9:00. Cool stuff is the table.

One big issue is yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that:

The State has failed to meet its duty under article IX, section 1 by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature recently enacted sweeping reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and it is currently making progress toward phasing in those reforms. We defer to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty, but the judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State’s plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. We direct the parties to provide further briefing to this court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction.

As Publicola points out, this feels like

…one of those damning federal court orders to put a bankrupt business or corrupt union in receivership

The real problem isn’t that lawmakers somehow dislike funding education. Rather, the education funding problem arises from four issues:

1. The worst economy since the Great Depression that has resulted in drastic shortfalls in projected revenue
2. Another Constitutional duty, a balanced budget, that has resulted in massive cuts in numerous state services
3. Republican obstructionism in adequately funding the government
4. Lawmaker’s inability to raise new revenues with a simple majority to a great extent because of the 2/3 majority requirement in Initiative 1053

Many of us believe I-1053 is unconstitutional, and a July court case is pending. The Supreme court has previously weaseled its way out of making a decision about whether an initiative can impose a standard on lawmakers that trumps the state Constitution.

Yesterday Gregoire announced that:

…she plans to bypass the state attorney general’s office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Gregoire says, “fuck you, Rob McKenna,” and goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Given that I-1053 is one of the biggest impediments for lawmakers to adequately fund basic education, and given that the Supreme Court is now playing an active role in forcing lawmakers to meet this Constitutional duty, Gregoire’s request is an offer the Supreme Court cannot refuse.

A couple of months ago some prescient political analyst filthy liberal blogger suggested a way to provoke a constitutional test of the I-1053 two-thirds majority:

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

And look at what just happened (via Publicola):

Late last night, the state house Democrats forced a floor vote on Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27, Tacoma) bill to repeal an $83 million bank loophole and shift the money to K-3 class size reductions. While the Democrats needed a two-thirds majority and only got 52 votes (it was 52-42 in a straight party line vote), the losing vote wasn’t just a symbolic effort to embarrass Republicans for voting against kids and for banks.

PubliCola has confirmed that the Democrats took the vote to set up a formal court challenge to I-1053, the rule that requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.

As Publicola explains, the Democrats followed some procedures required by the state Supreme court in their dismissal of I-960. In other words, the Dems removed one important way for the Supreme court to weasel out of making a decision on the constitutionality of such initiatives.

I-1053 may well get its day in court. Who knew the House Dems had it in ’em?

In my post on I-1053, I wrote, “I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people.” This post will expand on that a little. Initiatives are simply a tool to make laws. We shouldn’t treat them as anything more or less.

The biggest problem is that they are a blunt tool. The legislative process has hearings and amendments. Better (or worse) ideas make it into the final product. With initiatives, the final outcome is the same one people were collecting signatures on months and months prior. It doesn’t take into concern the opposition. You don’t need to talk to attorneys to see if it passes constitutional muster, or look into other ways of doing something. It is all or nothing.

And this all or nothing approach tends to hamper debate. If an initiative passes, then it’s the will of the people. This despite the fact that the people didn’t get any alternatives. Their will was based on if they approved the language of the initiative or not, not on what their most preferred alternative might have been. That has real value, and should be respected, but we should also keep it in perspective. And when an initiative fails, it often kills momentum for whatever was being worked for, like the income tax (although, I’m not sure how much momentum it actually had, and oddly it hasn’t done much about liquor privatization).

Another problem is the influence of money. Most of these Eyman initiatives in recent years have got on the ballot with the financing largely of one man. Of course, most normal people can’t afford to do that. And when they do get on the ballot, even political junkies like me get sick of seeing all the ads and getting mailings. Money does play too large a role in the initiative process. Still, money also plays too large a role in the legislative process. The rich and powerful will use their power in the crafting of laws, no matter how we make those laws.

Because of all this money, often the more grassroots voices the initiative process was envisioned to give a voice get shouted out. It’s tougher for grassroots signature gathering efforts to get a foothold amid the paid signature gathering. It’s tougher for the opposition to raise the money to compete with some of the corporate campaigns we’ve seen recently.

Still, even for all the faults in the process, people still do get to vote on specific issues, and that is rather remarkable. So, how do we judge an initiative? The same way we’d judge any law: who wins, who loses, who it helps, and who it hurts.

Oh look, here’s a press release from Representative Katrina Asay. Enjoy.

Last fall, voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 1053 (I-1053), which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve tax increases. Voters in the 30th Legislative District approved I-1053 by more than 66 percent.

Yes. I think it was a mistake. Did voters realize what would be cut if the legislature passed a no new taxes budget? Did they make a guess about the revenue forecasts that have come in since then? Would they vote for the kinds of cuts that Republicans (and too many Democrats) want if those cuts were on the ballot? I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people. However, I don’t think we can divine the will of the people about this budget by any Tim Eyman initiative. And I certainly don’t think we can figure out the will of the people with regard to local tax revenues.

Voters have approved the tax constraints found in I-1053 several times, most recently with Initiative 960, which was thrown out by the majority party last year. This allowed the majority party to increase taxes with a simple majority vote, or 50 plus one. In no mood to be taxed even more in this battered economy, voters in November quickly repealed a host of tax increases put in place by the majority party in the 2010 legislative session.

I know what Rep. Asay means, but that first sentence seems to imply that I-960 happened after 1053. Also, the will of the people is Democratic control of both houses of the legislature. Has been for a decade. Yet, oddly I don’t see Republican press releases demanding whatever Democrats want in the legislature.

That’s why I was so disappointed when majority Democrats in the House passed an amended version of Senate Bill 5457, the so-called “congestion relief bill.” Despite the catchy title, I voted against this bill because, as it was changed in the House, it does an end-around the voter-approved two-thirds vote requirement to increase taxes.

1053 didn’t say anything about counties or municipalities. We’re now divining the will of the voters based on things they didn’t vote for or against. That simply wasn’t on the ballot. In fact, King County was pretty close to evenly split. I’d bet Seattle and some suburban cities opposed it. Does that mean that their city councils should have majority rule like the framers of the state constitution envisioned?

Senate Bill 5457, as amended, would authorize a simple majority of King County Council members to impose up to an additional $20 in annual car-tab tax to help maintain Metro transit service. From all reports, the King County executive, once the bill is signed into law, will ask for the full amount of the tax. This would raise an estimated $25.5 million for each of the two years the tax will be in place.

Awesome. As a King County resident and a car owner, I’ll gladly pay my share. If enough people don’t like it they can either try to block it at the ballot like many of the state taxes last year, or if they don’t like it but not enough to do that, they can vote out the people who agree to the taxes. Democracy. Awesome.

What makes Senate Bill 5457 so offensive to me is that while the voters approved I-1053 to ensure any tax increase would be required to receive a two-thirds supermajority vote to be approved, the measure violates the will of the people by allowing a simple majority on the King County Council to approve the additional tax.

Again, NOBODY VOTED ON IF KING COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A 2/3 MAJORITY TO PASS ANYTHING. It wasn’t on the ballot. You can’t call the will of the people on an at best tangentially related question. This is crazy.

I see this as a way for the majority party to raise the ante when it comes to how many shenanigans voters will put up with when it comes to how new and increased taxes are approved. I feel as though they are basically telling citizens that while voters clearly and unequivocally directed the Legislature to have a supermajority consensus to increase taxes; they can snub that directive with a simple majority vote of legislators. Now, we are faced with a bill that could allow local governments to skirt the newly-approved mandate from last fall.

Local governments aren’t skirting anything. The mandates were to the legislature. And they were dumb. But even if they were the most sensible policy ever, they have nothing to do with King County.

If there is a good case to be made for higher taxes, let those who are asking for them convince others to support the idea. It’s that simple.

You mean like a majority of the King County Council, the King County Executive, enough voters not to sign a county wide referendum or initiative on that, or if there is a referendum to vote on it? You mean convince those people? Because there are already plenty of checks and balances in the system.

Additionally, and not to be lost in this debate, is that voters approved Initiative 695 specifically to ensure car tabs would cost no more than $30. Whether you like the idea or not, it’s what the people of this state approved. However, each year the Legislature has offered local governments the opportunity to add $20 here and there, weight fees and now this. Senate Bill 5457 is another example of why voters again decided to put such strict standards in place to raise taxes.

695 was ruled unconstitutional. So basically, we have to uphold the will of the people to support one unconstitutional thing, possibly another unconstitutional thing (the previous 2/3 rules have all been on standing, not on the merits). Also, 695 failed in King County. So by this logic, the will of the people is that they have higher car tabs. Why do you hate the imagined will of the people based on something that they didn’t really vote on, Katrina Asay?

This bill is a bad deal for taxpayers and breaks faith with voters. Because the House amended a Senate bill, it must now go back for the Senate to approve or reject the change. For all of our sakes, I can only hope the bill is set aside. It’s the right thing to do to maintain the integrity and spirit of I-1053.

It gives the voters plenty of say. As does every question before a legislative body in Washington. And it helps Metro get through tough fucking times.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-23) makes the case for ending some of the 567 special tax preferences on the books in Washington:

Faced with a deep state deficit and deep cuts to vital services we should look first at ending unjustified tax breaks.

Many breaks on the books subsidize a privileged few at the expense of ordinary citizens. The notion of tax fairness, that everyone pays his or her fair share for core services that benefit everyone, has been trampled under the feet of special interest lobbyists.

These tax breaks are conveniently embedded in obscure tax law and routinely ignored, yet they divert billions of dollars into wealthy pockets. As a result, essential public services like education and health care are starved for funding.

Rockefeller admits that passage of I-1053 make the task more difficult. Given the widespread opinion that the 2/3 majority requirement of I-1053 would not pass Constitutional muster, if only we could get into the courts, why not use the budget crisis to force a showdown?

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

But would they sue? The reality is that I-1053 is most potent when it stays out of the courts. The threat to I-1053 is serious enough that, perhaps, a bill to repeal tax preferences might just get that 2/3 majority as a way to avoid Judicial scrutiny.

As a certain Mayor-elect puts it:

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

I dunno… sure does sound like a definitive statement of fact to me:

The Legislature cannot raise taxes.

But of course, that’s not true. The Legislature can raise taxes. It would require a remarkable display of bipartisan support—exactly the kinda bipartisanship the Seattle Times editorial board so often breathlessly pines for—but it can be done, even under the unconstitutional two-thirds strictures of I-1053.

For example, let’s say there was some kind of devastating natural disaster, a tsunami or an earthquake that required hundreds of millions of dollars in immediate emergency spending for relief and reconstruction… could (and should) the Legislature raise taxes to meet these needs, despite statewide voters “emphatic votes on three separate ballot measures” this past November?

I’d like to think so. So isn’t this really just a question of priorities? And isn’t that what politics is always about: priorities?

So no, neither the Legislature, nor the governor, nor the voters, nor the Times gets off that easily. We can raise taxes, if we want to. And if we don’t raise taxes to help offset the proposed devastating cuts to education and social services, then the human suffering and long term costs these cuts create is on our heads.

I don’t want to make excuses for Gov. Christine Gregoire; she fought for our state’s top job, so the buck surely stops at her desk. But she certainly doesn’t seem too happy about balancing the budget primarily on the backs of the poor, the sick and the young:

“I hate my budget,” she said, tearing up. “I hate it because in some places, I don’t even think it’s moral.”

Can’t argue with that. But the Republicans…?

Sen. Joe Zarelli of Ridgefield, the Republican’s chief budget expert in the Senate, called the budget a step in the right direction…

What Gov. Gregoire calls immoral, Sen. Zarelli calls a step in the right direction… you couldn’t ask for starker ideological contrast. And you also couldn’t ask for a better opportunity for Republicans to ultimately prove that they are not the heartless, Social Darwinist bastards that I think they are.

I mean, it sure does appear that, unlike Gov. Gregoire, Sen. Zarelli really does want to cut a couple billion dollars from education, and 100,000 people or so from the health care rolls… that he believes it’s a step in the right direction to impose a couple more years of double-digit tuition inflation, and to zero out funding for state parks. In fact it sounds like he would have preferred the governor gone even further.

But if he doesn’t, well, there is something he can do about it. It wouldn’t be easy, but with enough support from Zarelli and his fellow Republicans, the legislature could pass a bipartisan revenue package intended to soften the harshest blows, and the governor would sign it. Unconstitutional as I-1053 may be, its supermajority requirement does put control of revenue proposals in the hands of the Republican minority, so let’s be absolutely clear: regardless of who is its putative author, this immoral all-cuts/no-new-revenue budget is a Republican budget.

This is the kind of budgeting philosophy that they campaign on, and thanks to Republican-backed I-1053, this is the kind of budget that we’ll get. 35 kids in a kindergarten classroom? That’s a Republican kindergarten. Tens of thousands of children with no health insurance? That’s Republican health care. College tuition rising out of reach of the middle class? That’s a Republican university system.

Or if it’s not, Republicans know exactly what to do to prove me wrong.

Those hoping beyond hope that the Washington State Legislature would attempt to soften yet another $6 billion-or-so budget shortfall by boldly proposing new revenue sources, might be disheartened to learn that the House Democratic Caucus kicked off its latest round of belt-tightening last Friday by eliminating the House Finance Committee… the panel that considers all revenue proposals. That was the word from Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, who I cornered at last night’s 37th LD Dems holiday party.

I guess with the passage of Tim Eyman’s I-1053, and the governor’s subsequent no-new-tax pledge, there wasn’t going to be much for the committee to do, and so its responsibilities were folded into that of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which now becomes all the more powerful in the wake of this leaner/meaner House reorganization.

But before the anti-tax crowd rejoices too loudly at this symbolic victory, they should remember that while the occasional tax increase did make it through the Finance Committee and onto the floor, by far the larger chunk of the panel’s legacy this past decade was its crafting of the billions of dollars of special interest tax exemptions that ultimately helped plunge our state budget into its current fiscal crevasse.

So a good part of me can’t help but mutter “good riddance” at the committee’s demise.

We keep hearing from pundits and politicians that, what with the passage of I-1053 and I-1107, and the failure of I-1098, new revenue sources are off the table as legislators seek to close a $5.7 billion gap in the next biennial budget, and a $1.1 billion additional shortfall just between now and June, but of course, that’s a load of bullshit. It is possible for legislators to raise new revenue this session, and it would be both cowardly and irresponsible of them not to consider this option.

Yeah, I know, I-1053 requires a two-thirds supermajority in both houses to raise any tax or eliminate any of our billions of dollars in tax preferences exemptions breaks loopholes. But a two-thirds majority would be a slam dunk with Republican support, a not unreasonable if unlikely scenario, in order to, say, raise the money to restore school levy equalization funds.

Alternatively, if both houses were to pass a revenue measure by a simple majority, and Gov. Gregoire were to have the balls to sign it into law, we could finally have that legal showdown over the highly questionable constitutionality of the two-thirds supermajority requirement… a showdown most of the constitutional attorneys I’ve talked to think Tim Eyman’s and his measure would likely lose.

Finally, legislators could always put a revenue package on the ballot, and ask voters to voice yay or nay on, say, a two-cent per can tax on soda pop in order to raise the money to restore school levy equalization funds. I-1107 failed in King County; give much of the rest of the state a good reason to support such a tax, and perhaps the beverage industry won’t be quite so successful snowing voters next time around. (And it sure would be fun to force Coke and Pepsi to spend yet another $16 million. In fact, we could make an annual game of it, padding the earnings of local radio a TV stations in the process.)

New revenue is an option. It simply is. Not an easy option, but an option nonetheless. So don’t you let a cowardly pundit or politician tell you otherwise.

If the state Transportation Commission approves new tolls for the 520 floating bridge or any other roadway, in flagrant violation of I-1053’s supermajority requirement on raising taxes and fees, and initiative profiteer Tim Eyman doesn’t sue to uphold the letter and spirit of his recently passed measure… well, I will.

Because honestly, this might just be our best shot ever at forcing the state Supreme Court to finally rule on the constitutionality of this clearly unconstitutional provision.

It’s not like others haven’t attempted to challenge the constitutionality of previous two-thirds measures, but the popularly elected members of the Supreme Court have so far managed to avoid invalidating a popularly approved initiative by ruling that the issue simply wasn’t ripe, or that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring suit. And since the absence of a tax for fee increase at best raises a hypothetical harm, how does one sue over something lawmakers haven’t done? At least, that has been our Court’s cowardly approach thus far.

And since multiple legislatures and governors have never had the balls to affirmatively violate the two-thirds provision, we’ve never had the opportunity to put its constitutionality to the test.

But if the appointed members of the Transportation Commission were to simply ignore Eyman’s objections, and impose tolls on the 520 bridge and/or other structures without legislative approval, there’s your test case, for once I’m forced to pay this toll, well, I obviously enjoy standing as a “harmed” party, and the issue instantly becomes ripe.

Of course, the Supremes might still try to wiggle out of the underlying constitutional issue by somehow ruling that the Commission’s toll-setting authority falls outside the restrictions imposed by I-1053—get a bunch of clever lawyers in a room together, and anything can happen—but, well, you take the opportunities that come your way. And Eyman’s arrogant bluster over this issue is an opportunity his opponents would be stupid to ignore.

The Washington State Transportation Commission is proposing a variable rate toll on the 520 floating bridge, ranging from $1.10 to $3.50 each way, depending on the time of day… an average rate that, adjusted for inflation, is pretty much in line with the 35 cent toll drivers originally paid when the bridge first opened in 1963.

But initiative profiteer Tim Eyman apparently intends to fight the tolling plan:

Eyman testified Tuesday that the commission lost the power to set toll rates when his I-1053 passed this month. The initiative says all legislative action raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, and any new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

Tolling is expected to cover $1.1 billion of the $4.6 billion price tag of the 520 bridge replacement, and with at least a third of the Senate prepared to automatically vote against anything Seattle might want, you can pretty much kiss this and any other revenue proposal goodbye.

So how does Timmy propose financing this and other crucial highway projects? Um… he doesn’t. Which pretty much makes SUV-driving Tim Eyman our state’s most effective anti-roads/anti-car activist.

So move over all you car-hating hippies at the Stranger and Publicola, girdle your pocket-protectors Seattle Transit Blog geeks, and prepare to be eclipsed Cary Moon. Mayor McGinn can and huff and puff all he wants against the Big Bore Tunnel, but if you want something not done, you need to learn a lesson from the guy who knows how not to do things right. And that guy is none other than Tim Eyman: Anti-Roads Hero.

Just like the Seattle Times, I too have budgeting advice for state House Speaker Frank Chopp:

With revenue forecasts showing no sign of recovery, a Republican majority in the US House virtually assuring the cutting off of federal money, and I-1053’s ridiculous requirements back in place, our state budget is now what economists technically refer to as “totally fucked.” So hell yeah, Frank, give the Republicans what they asked for: dismantle the welfare state and finally let Republican voters in rural Washington pay for their own roads, their own healthcare and their own goddamn schools.

Read the whole thing over on Slog.