In the wake of the supreme court ruling that a majority is needed for a tax increase like the state constitution says, Rodney Tom has decided to huff and puff about it and maybe change the rules.
Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, the Democrat who abandoned his caucus to lead a Republican majority, has issued a statement explaining his plot to make an end-run around today’s state supreme court decision. That ruling found a two-thirds voting requirement is unconstitutional. But Senator Tom says never mind: tweaking parliamentary rules could mandate a nearly-impossible-to-attain two-thirds majority for any tax increases.
I’m not sure how you change the rules in the middle of the session. I assume he can if he’s proposing it, and it’s just a bad idea instead of an empty threat. But if he’s as sure as he seems to be about the caucus he’s leading, I don’t see why the 2/3 rule would be necessary.
I’m sure he’s just brainstorming. Funny, when the US Senate’s Majority Leader was more or less doing the same thing to end-run around that nagging 60-vote rule, I don’t recall people on HA being all that upset about it.
Voters first authorized the two-thirds requirement in 1993. They reimposed it in 1998, 2007, 2010 and reaffirmed it in 2012, at least in part because of lawmakers’ penchant for suspending the requirement to raise more revenue.
http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....dsxml.html
On one of yesterday’s threads, HA libbies were all over the GOP for thwarting the will of the majority/public opinion (plurality, really, but since when has a fact stood in the way of a liberal in full-throated assault on the GOP?).
http://horsesass.org/?p=49304#comment-1216062
http://horsesass.org/?p=49304#comment-1216089
OK, maybe it was just one HA libbie this time. I won’t let that fact stand in my way of plastering all of you with the concept – by not disagreeing with him, clearly you all agree, right?
Since the WA electorate has, repeatedly, made clear that the 2/3 thing is a good thing, will HA libbies rise in support of continuously demonstrated public opinion and back Rodney Tom?
Seems only fair, in the name of consistency.
Or is public opinion only useful to you when it’s on your side of an issue?
Bob,
“by not disagreeing with him, clearly you all agree, right?”
Huh…I’ve not read anywhere where you disagree with Hitler imprisoning and killing Jews. By not disagreeing with him, clearly you agree, right?
@ 3
Darryl, in a couple of posts I’ve been accused of agreeing with something awful said by someone else on my side of the political spectrum, because I didn’t repudiate it. It’s what I had in mind when I wrote what I did.
You probably could have made a case similarly damaging me if you were to allege that I’m in agreement with everything RR has said that I don’t get around to taking issue with in specifics. And then I could say that you condone violence against people with whom you disagree because you don’t refute him, either.
Or we could go back to talking about issues that matter, I suppose.
@Bob: What a whiny-assed pussy! And fucking stupid too.
You’re just a purse dog pile of shit looking for a shoe.
Would a Senate rule requiring a 2/3 vote to raise taxes be allowed under the constitution whereas a law (passed by initiative) is now not?
@ 5
Now that hurt my feelings.
Tell me, how am I wrong in comparing Rodney Tom’s musings about changing procedure to overcome an obstacle with similar musings by Harry Reid, Zotz?
Bonus points if you can address my question without resorting to a personal attack. ’cause I don’t want my feelings hurt again.
Seems Bob’s trying to throw his weight around regarding procedure. Perhaps it’s time for the folks who run this thing to restate the house rules. They might need a bit of updating, though. How many current participants remember who “Klake” was?
Please, Dominic (and everyone else in the media), stop referring to Tom as “D-Bellevue.” He’s an R, and always has been. And the next time Tom tries to run for office as a “Democrat,” the FTC should sue him for false advertising and deceptive trade practices.
@ 8
Throwing my weight around? Really? Lessee, I don’t have the F-word @5 in my screen name. Twice in this thread I have, without profanity, defended myself after a comment by another. I also made mention of similarity between Rodney Tom and Harry Reid insofar as the the thread topic is concerned. I also had a point about the disconnect between an obvious desire on the part of Dems in this state to raise taxes and a repeated vote by the electorate to set a high bar for doing so.
What’s my specific, offense, Art? I’m conservative with a bit of spare time in the morning?
And I have no idea who Klake is/was.
@10 See HA ad hoc posting rule #7:
1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here, except JCH.
3. There is no censorship.
4. As liberals, our mission is to verbally kick the living shit out of these America-hating trolls.
5. No mercy for wingnuts!
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender, and there will be trials.
7. klake is a nazi.
Any questions?
# 9: I was thinking that when he puts his name on the primary ballot, under party affiliation he could write “Democrat, but prefers Republican Party”.
Of he could just write “Gee, I dunno, which way is the wind blowing today?”
@10 “with a bit of spare time in the morning?”
You have a LOT of spare time, and not just in the morning.
@12 Let’s recap Tom’s party affiliation. R, then D, then R again. I suspect some R’s are thinking, “how long before he knifes us again?” People like Tom end up being distrusted by everyone.
@ 12, 14
That’s why I wrote
http://horsesass.org/?p=49305#comment-1216072
what I did.
If he’s so malleable, Dems would have stood a better chance of getting him to switch back had they not trashed him after he elected to caucus with the GOP.
Too bad, really, burning those bridges the way y’all did. Cryin’ shame, actually.
Cereal — “Tell me, how am I wrong in comparing Rodney Tom’s musings about changing procedure to overcome an obstacle….”
Rodney Tom is not trying to overcome an obstacle, he’s trying to preserve it. That is a very different action than what the Democrats were trying to do in the Senate.
Then why the fuck are you hanging around here?
@15 Why shouldn’t Democrats trash a man who has proved himself to be a liar and turncoat? We’ll never take Tom back, just as we’ll never take Peter von Reichbauer back.
Federal budget sequester kicks in today. Republicans said they wanted spending cuts and now they’ve got the cuts they voted for in August 2011. I want no complaints from them about cuts.
Cue another major crisis in the Middle East to restore full funding for the Department of Endless War in three…two…one…
If you can’t ammend the state constitution with a simple initiative it probably can’t be amended by a Senate “rule change” either.
From 11,
Who are Klake and JCH?
From 20,
Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised to see such a manufactured crisis to justify more nosing around in Islamic countries’ affairs. I thought the French thing in Mali was going to turn into another mess for us, but it hasn’t…….so far! Give it a month or two.
@23 I saw your comment over at (un)SP. For your info, Pudge has banned just about everybody who disagrees with him, including me. It provides some insight into what it would be like if the likes of Pudge ran America.
From 24,
Well, that certainly does not promote healthy debate!
Not much difference between a horse’s ass and a jack ass. Rodney Tom must have some heavy duty political and financial backing to engage in this kind of jackassian maneuvering.
In an attempt to bring progress & compromise I propose we hold a vote requiring a 2/3 super majority.
All in favor of Kap’n Kornflake – Serial RENEGER paying off his November 2012 lost wager with me on the outcome of the presidential election by writing a check in the amount of $1,000 payable to Northwest Harvest and mail it to Darryl, say “AYE”.
@24 Welcome to the club. Soon pudgy will have no one to talk to except himself. Apparently that’s how he likes it: Being his own rapt and adoring audience.
@26 We can assume he’s tapping into the usual rightwing money bags.
@27 Doesn’t he claim to have already paid? (Yes, yes, I know better than to believe what a wingnut says … I’m asking only for the fun of it.)
So, lemme get this straight. A bunch of you libbies go onto a local conservative site, don’t agree with what you read, and argue your points.
Why, then, do any of you have a problem with a conservative coming on to HA to do the same thing? I suppose I could direct my comment specifically at Art @ 8, who seems to be trying to gin up some way to get me deleted, restricted, or something.
Just about any time I’m here it’s 20:1 against me and yet I’m ‘throwing my weight around’. Right, Art.
I don’t mean just to single out Art. After all, it’s not just Art @ 8 who wishes that my spews would be disappeared more regularly.
A few months ago I posted that Artur Davis had left the Democrat party and become a Republican.
Had that post been deleted, and had Liberal Scientist not seen it, then he would not have been compelled to drop his mask and post
http://horsesass.org/?p=47501#comment-1198028
such a blatantly racist response.
Lib Sci certainly wishes I was around less.
Oh, Lib Sci? You can google ‘Artur Davis minstrel show’ and the thread in which you made your comment pops up right on the first page. Your children must be so proud.
The Washington State Supreme Court decision said Article II, sec. 22 “prohibits either the people or legislature from passing legislation requiring more than a simple majority for the passage of tax legislation – or any other ordinary legislation.”
They also stated “The Supermajority Requirement unconstitutionally amends the constitution by imposing a two-thirds vote requirement for tax legislation.
More importantly, the Supermajority Requirement substantially alters our system of government, thus enabling a tyranny of the minority.”
So on the whole principle of fairness and democratic rules and constitutionality, Rodney Tom says he’ll do whatever he can to block raising revenue or repealing tax loopholes, including trying to figure out how he can allow a minority of legislators to overrule a majority.
Sounds to me like he’s the kind of guy who would choose a Party label for the convenience of getting elected but wouldn’t be bothered by changing his allegiance to his stated party if it conveniently helped him gain power.