Tim Eyman gets another notch in his belt—his belt for losses. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that I-776 cannot repeal a prior Sound Transit motor vehicle excise tax (MVET).
The Sound Transit MVET was authorized some four years before I-776 passed in 2002, and resulted in the issue and sale of Sound Transit construction bonds. But I-776 stated “Any motor vehicle excise tax previously imposed under the provisions of RCW 81.104.160(1) shall be repealed, terminated and expire on the effective date of this act.”
In other words, I-776 attempted to retroactively repeal a tax enacted by a regional taxing authority for a regional transportation project, even though the construction bonds were sold in 1999 and matured in 2028.
The lower courts held that this part of I-776 was unconstitutional because the bonds were an “obligation of contract” and that laws impairing such obligations are prohibited by the State Constitution. Thus, it should be no surprise that the Supreme Court voted to uphold the lower court ruling :
The intervenors (Salish Village Home Owners Association, one of its members, and Permanent Offense, sponsor of the initiative) seek reversal of the trial court ruling, contending, among other arguments, that the bonds are not impaired. The crux of the intervenors’ argument appears to be that the people, through initiative, have the right to repeal taxes, pledged as security for capital intensive projects such as highways and bridges, when they no longer want to pay such taxes. However, the contract clause of our state constitution guarantees that “No . . . law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.” Wash Const. art. I, § 23.
The intervenors ask this court to ignore the contract clause and long-standing case law in order to repeal MVET taxes securing Sound Transit bonds. Unfortunately, the intervenors point to no authority for their contentions which are contrary to well-settled law and the plain language of our constitution.
Pretty solid logic. But, over at (un)SoundPolitics, there is an “alternative” interpretation of the ruling. Said Stefan,
The statist Alexander Court again upheld executive preference to ignore the will of the voters
I’m not sure what he means by the phrase “executive preference,” but it is very interesting that Stefan used the word statist. Statism refers to government meddling in “personal, social or economic matters.” But the real statism in this case comes from initiative (I-776)—a statewide initiative that prohibits people in smaller (regional or local) tax districts from taxing themselves. Initiative 776 attempted to retroactively repeal a regional tax that was supported by 57% percent of the voters in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Furthermore, I-776 lost by 57% in the Sound Transit Taxing district.
“Will of the people,” indeed, Stefan. I suppose Stefan meant the will of people outside of the Sound Transit taxing district. But, why the hell should the will of people in, say, eastern Washington be considered?
The “statist Alexander Court,” by the way, is made up of eight justices including Justice Charles Johnson. (Oops…I grabbed the wrong Justice Johnson. Justice Jim Johnson didn’t rule on the case.) Only Justice Sanders dissented.
The bizarre theory that Justice Sanders offered in his minority opinion is that
Sound Transit lacked authority to pledge to levy MVET notwithstanding possible repeal.
[…]The State authorized Sound Transit to levy MVET. Former RCW 81.104.160(1) (1998). And it authorized Sound Transit to pledge MVET revenues. RCW 81.104.180. But it did not authorize Sound Transit to pledge to levy MVET for all time notwithstanding repeal. Accordingly, Sound Transit’s pledge to levy MVET in the future was ultra vires [beyond their power] and invalid.
Uh-huh—Like we should be surprised that a regional transit authority, with billions of dollars in transportation projects would have to issue 30 year construction bonds. In fact, the minority opinion contradicts the notion that Sound Transit’s bonds overstepped authority of the authority:
In RCW 81.112.030, the legislature authorized two or more contiguous counties each having a population of more than 400,000 persons or more to establish a “regional transit authority.” Such authority is to “develop and operate a high capacity transportation system as defined in chapter 81.104 RCW.” Id. The regional transit authority is responsible for planning, construction, operations, and funding of transit system within its area. See, e.g., RCW 81.104.070(2). The regional transit authority is authorized, after receiving voter approval, to levy taxes and issue bonds to finance the transit system. See, e.g., RCW 81.104.140, 81.112.030, .130.
More than anything else, this case brings up a perplexing political issue: since when did the Wingnuts decide that big government should override local control of taxation and spending? This seems paradoxical to me (just as I find their professed interest in small government and fiscal responsibility dripping with paradox as the federal government grows and accrues unprecedented debt under the Republicans). I mean, aren’t Wingnuts supposed to want control of taxation and spending at lower governmental levels?
I can only conclude that the disapproving tone of Stefan’s post is little more than contrarianism.
Good thing Stefan didn’t become a lawyer, because he would’ve been a lousy one. Wonder how his claim for damages against King County Records and Elections is coming along? Is he having trouble convincing the judge that the 600,000 documents KCRE gave him was 3 or 4 too few?
KCRE also gave Stefan the full-time services of a county-paid staff member and the use of a taxpayer-funded room for 6 weeks. That’s a lot of freeloading on the taxpayer dime for a guy who doesn’t believe in government.
To be fair about this contracts thing, if the anti-taxers’ want to argue that Sound Transit doesn’t have to honor its contracts with investors who bought their bonds, then the customers of these anti-taxers shouldn’t have to honor any business contracts they’ve made with the anti-taxers. I don’t think you can let people have one rule for their own convenience and another rule for everyone else. You have to be consistent. It’s one way or the other — either all contracts are sacrosanct, or none are.
Unless, of course, your name is Mark the Redneck Welsher, in which case a bet, marriage vow, or any other solemn contract isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
Roger Rabbit has posted 100% of the comments on this thread. If you don’t like it, write your complaint here __ and wipe your ass with it.
Of course, Goldy, the ultimate paradox of Stefan’s bogus “statism” argument is that without the state — i.e., government, meaning laws and courts and police — there can be no private property and all private contracts would be unenforceable and worthless. In which case, there would be no economy, commerce, or private wealth.
The more closely you examine Wingnut arguments, the more contradictions, inconsistencies, and illogic you find. Wingnut ideology doesn’t hold together under scrutiny.
I suppose I could’ve put all these comments into one post, but I broke them into little pieces so the wingnuts could read them. Reading more than 1 sentence at a time is physically and mentally exhausting for them.
Correction @6 should read, “Of course, Darryl, …”
The right wing asswipe rethugs are against big government – except when they’re for it.
My analysis — I-776 just wasn’t worded to do what its backers were hoping to do. Simply a matter of interpretation. The courts can’t rewrite the initiative — especially can’t add what would effectively be entirely new paragraphs that weren’t there in the first place.
Sound Transit has been imposing two main taxes — a 0.3% per year MVET on the screwily calculated “value” of motor vehicles registered within the district, and a 0.4% sales tax on retail sales (and also “use tax”) attributable to the district.
These two taxes have been pledged to support various 30 year construction bonds issued by Sound Transit. The 0.3% MVET provides about 20% of the total revenue, while the 0.4% sales tax (and possibly something else) provides the other 80% of the revenue.
In November 2002, when I-776 was adopted, the bonding capacity of these two taxes was far from exhausted. Had these two taxes been used solely to pay off the then-issued bonds, they could have been retired long before their maturity date and the taxes would no longer have been needed to honor the bond contracts.
However, nothing in I-776 exactly says that Sound Transit had to do this. Yes, if Tim Eyman and his advisers had wanted to put this language in there, they could have said that all tax revenues dedicated to existing bond contracts that relied upon the to-be-repealed MVET could only be used to pay off existing bonds and could not be pledged or used for any other purposes. But I-776 doesn’t say this.
And you certainly can’t blame Sound Transit for not doing this. They could have done this of course — stopped issuing bonds, and used existing taxes (both 0.3% MVET and 0.4% sales) to pay off existing bonds in just a few years, to keep the MVET from being imposed for 30 years. But this would have violated their duties in other statutes and public promises to actually build the Sound Transit system. And I-776 certainly didn’t actually say to scrap Sound Transit.
By the way Darryl — your reference to Charles Johnson is misplaced. You were probably thinking of Jim Johnson — the justice elected in 2004 who was heavily supported by BIAW. You will notice that Jim Johnson is not among the eight justices signing the majority opinion. Instead, you will see “John A. Schultheis, Justice Pro Tem”.
Jim Johnson was Tim Eyman’s lawyer in drafting I-776 and handling the ballot title and other issues back in 2002 when the initiative was being written, campaigned for, and passed. Johnson, of course, was in private practice back in 2002. So he had to recuse himself, since he had previously been involved as an attorney in this controversy.
The 0.3% MVET will, of course, be legally repealed when all bonds issued prior to November 2002 by Sound Transit have been paid off. Sound Transit couldn’t — and almost certainly didn’t — pledge the 0.3% MVET revenues to support any bonds issued after November 2002. However, this probably won’t happen until 2030 or so.
Actually, I-776 did include language to this effect (well, non-effect actually):
Repeal of taxes by 2003 c 1 § 6 (Initiative Measure No. 776): “If the repeal of taxes in section 6 of this act affects any bonds previously issued for any purpose relating to light rail, the people expect transit agencies to retire these bonds using reserve funds including accrued interest, sale of property or equipment, new voter approved tax revenues, or any combination of these sources of revenue. Taxing districts should abstain from further bond sales for any purpose relating to light rail until voters decide this measure. The people encourage transit agencies to put another tax revenue measure before voters if they want to continue with a light rail system dramatically changed from that previously represented to and approved by voters.” [2003 c 1 § 7 (Initiative Measure No. 776, approved November 5, 2002).]
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/def.....81.104.160
The Supreme Court evidently interpreted that language in a prior decision, and determined that it was merely precatory — i.e. expressing a desire, but not legally binding in any way on Sound Transit.
This Section 7 actually says three different things, none of which would have been effective to retire existing bonds and allow the 0.3% MVET to expire earlier than 2008 — even if the language had been mandatory, rather than precatory:
(1) First sentence — even if other revenues were used to retire the existing bonds, the 0.3% MVET would still be required by the existing bond contracts. Nothing in the first sentence would have required that existing bonds be retired EARLY.
(2) Second sentence — the Sound Transit board appears to have honored this. I-776 would have been proposed in January 2002 and passed in November 2002. The existing bonds were all issued in 1999, as far as I can tell. Sound Transit didn’t sell any new bonds after January 2002 pledging the 0.3% MVET revenue. Nothing would have legally prevented them from doing this, of course, but it is viewed as bad political form. But this sentence still doesn’t stop the 0.3% MVET from expiring prior to 2028.
(3) Third sentence — totally unrelated to the subject and title on I-776. Has nothing to do with repealing the MVET or making the repeal effective as early as possible. Good thing the Supreme Court ruled in an earlier case that Section 7 of I-776 was merely precatory — otherwise it would have violated the title and single subject provisions of the state constitution.
All that being said, none of this really has to do with the electoral majorities supposedly representing the “will of the people”, or where those electoral majorities may have been located. Which applies to the political arguments of both Darryl and Stefan. It is irrelevant as to whether voters approved Sound Transit, whether voters approved the taxes in question, or whether voters approved I-776. It is simply an interpretation of the laws enacted by I-776 and their effect given the laws and bond contracts previously in effect.
Roger, your arguments about property rights are spot on. The example I always use is:
Wingnut: But I own my home!
Q: How do you know you own your home?
W: I have a title to it!!!
Q: How do you know that title is valid?
W: Because my title insurance company said so!
Q: And who sets the standards for title insurance?
W: Errrr….. the government?
re 14, Richard Pope: “Which applies to the political arguments of both Darryl and Stefan.” This phrase is open to interpretation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
You used to hear a lot from Republicans about favoring “local” government over “state” or “national” government. When they didn’t want something to happen, they argued that it was a “local matter”, and the national government should stay out of it. But that was when the Democrats controlled the Congress.
Once the Republicans took control of the Congress, suddenly the local governments weren’t so important. Suddenly, the national government could order the local governments to provide services, without providing any funds for them to do so (a/k/a “unpaid mandates”).
Tim Eyman’s initiatives follow the similar trend. Get credit for reducing taxes state-wide, leaving the local governments with the job of providing road improvements without the authority for local citizens to tax themselves to pay for it.
And then they complain that the nasty “Democrats” and their unions aren’t keeping up with road maintenance/improvement better.
Richard Pope,
Thanks for offering you insights.
By the way Darryl — your reference to Charles Johnson is misplaced. You were probably thinking of Jim Johnson — the justice elected in 2004 who was heavily supported by BIAW. You will notice that Jim Johnson is not among the eight justices signing the majority opinion. Instead, you will see “John A. Schultheis, Justice Pro Tem”.
Yep…that’s what happens when you grab for the first Johnson….
Jim Johnson did’t rule on this case (as you point out). According to the majority opinion:
The dissenting opinon is signed by Sanders.
I was wondering why Justice J.J. didn’t rule. Conflict of interest obviously.
I’m a red letter Christian. I don’t care what Republicans tell me about their motives, I just follow what Jesus said about analyzing people.
It was this: “By their acts shall ye know them.”
When we apply this simple, yet profound, observation to this administration we see a truly diabolical and evil force at play in the world. There is not one single thing any Republican has done since the days of Ronald Reagan that has had any idea behind it other than to make the rich richer and more powerful and, conversely, to take away the rights, wealth, and privilege of anyone in a lesser economic position than the fabulously wealthy.
The rich and powerful are, after all, only human. How can another human being do things that are clearly detrimental to the vast majority of people and still consider themselves to be anything other than evil?
Easily, it turns out.
One need only embrace a false ideology. It’s really a very simple and a very pernicious and evil ideology — despite the mountain of pseudo-intellectual garbage that supports it — that goes thusly: “I am rich and whatever helps ME is good for everyone else.
Selfish and false ideology.
“By their acts shall ye know them.” Jesus H. Christ
I am very tired of tim Eyman. I think he is as much responsible for the state GOP problems as anyone. In my opinion, the legislative process is hijacked by this “abuse” of the initiative process. I think republicans are often too distracted by, and hopeful of tax cutting initiatives, and lose focus on the legislative process. The shortcut doesn’t and shouldn’t exist to replace the duty of elected representatives of the people. If republicans spent their efforts tryin to effect change in the legislature, ie; winning elections, and quite the shrotcut game, maybe they would have more clout with voters. Might motivate the base more if Tim wasn’t out there being such a distraction.
Are any of you even a little bit embarassed to have someone as fucking stoopid as Senator Dimbulb “representing” us?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/.....E_ID=53283
EXACTLY!
Republicans spend all their time trying to convince us to elect them to DO NOTHING. Not terribly inspiring.
WingNut Daily is NOT a CREDIBLE source, asshole.
Eight billion dollars and counting.
Eyman is the only political force out there that protects taxpayers from government greed and the kooky ideas of the libruls around here.
#21 –
Not a whit; the value of Senator Dimbulb’s seniority in the Senate far exceeds the petulant trivialities of culture warriors trying to shove Christmas down everyone’s throats.
Moving on.
@19 what do you consider rich?
please explain this because you are making an old argument about the GOP being the party of the rich…which is just nonsense. there are an equal # of Dems who are “rich” as Reps. This is a tired old argument.
Did you know that the top 1% of wage earners pay 34% of all income taxes? The top 25% of earners pay 84% of all income taxes. And last but not least, the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% off all income taxes. So I ask again. who is “rich” and who pays.
http://www.house.gov/jec/publi.....shares.pdf
“Eyman is the only political force out there that protects taxpayers”
If he’s the best you can do you might consider getting another champion. Unless, you know, you like failing at your quest.
21 Nope.
RightStuff: My God, the world must be coming to an end. I agree with your post in # 20!
MTR at 24: “Eight billion dollars and counting.”
I assume MTR is repeating the tired old claim that Tim Eyman’s initiatives actually saved Washington taxpayers money.
Eyman’s initiatives haven’t saved Washington taxpayers a dime. They only postponed needed transportation projects into the distant future, when they will cost many times the current cost to complete. In the next few years we may see the Alaskan Way Viaduct collapse and the 520 bridge sink, as they are both beyond their projected lifespans, and may well not survive another earthquake/windstorm. At that time we will have to pay for their replacements, whether it comes out of car tab fees or higher gas taxes, property taxes, tolls, etc.
Five years ago I put off replacing the siding on my house. At the time the estimate was $12,000, but instead of replacing the siding I put money into my kids’ college education.
Two days ago I got a new estimate – $28,000, and it may cost more if the delay in replacement caused damage to the plywood under the siding.
Under MTR’s logic, I saved $12,000. Yet I still will have to pay $28,000 for new siding.
Strange logic.
LSoS (aka MTR)
Pay your debt, welcher!
Now, go fuck yourself!
We do have a problem in that some taxes are not well indexed to inflation. When inflation occurs, it takes some time for it to come to the attention of the legislature that taxes intended to impact only a small number of very wealthy people are beginning to reach into a larger number of those with more moderate incomes.
An example is the federal Alternative Minimum Tax, and potentially the state estate tax.
I think it would be wise of Congress and the State Legislature to modify those taxes to take into account the impact of inflation. That would avoid the potential political impact which guys like Eyman use to try to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
But of course, that is their (the Republicans’) real motive. They don’t want to see these tax laws to be reasonably amended. Instead, they want to use them as a hot-topic issue to get rid of the reasonable taxes which primarily affect those that finance them, to promote their own self-importance, and to collect names, addresses, and phone numbers as a fund-raising base to support their business of creating regular “people’s initiatives”.
If the facts don’t support their positions, they make them up – as I saw at the Bellevue QFC last initiative season, where a paid signature-gatherer was assuring potential signers that (a) EVERYONE was going to pay the estate tax, regardless of how much money they had, (2) that the current estate tax was putting family farms out of business, and (3) a foreign citizen could sign the petition, they just couldn’t vote for it later.
The initiative process in this state was shot to hell the first time paid-signature gatherers were permitted. True Believers – volunteers – with clipboards have been supplanted by harvesters gathering names for bucks. Now that’s democracy. This mistake was compounded when we decided, in a tangential matter, to permit Deep Pockets to pick up the tab for special elections. Simply amazing.
Before sloppily written initiatives in this state became the vocation of flamboyant watch salesmen, ballot initiatives weren’t nearly so prevalent. Elected representatives had to put in a bit more sweat equity.
The faux populism of Tim Eyman is enough to gag a maggot on a gut wagon. He’d command some legitimate respect if he hadn’t turned his tax crusades into a personal retirement plan.
Moving on.
HMM, I had forgetten about this time-line.
“Rumsfeld, 74, is one of the longest-serving defense secretaries in U.S. history and is the only person to have held the position twice. His first stint was from November 1975 to January 1977, when he held the distinction of being the youngest defense secretary in history.”
(News Item, I just lost the link, however).
Gee, that was during Ford’s term of office, and Rumsfield would have been in charge of crafting the defense budget (through FY 1977-78)and organizing the volunteer military after the draft ended.
Yet Carter gets all the blame for soldier’s pay, benefits, and supplies being sub-par during his administration.
I’ll have to look at this further, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Rumsfield didn’t have quite a few “deferred expenses” in his budgets which negatively impacted later budgets. Republicans have already done this currently, as the outgoing Republican Congress is refusing to pass a FY 2006-2007 budget, leaving to the Democrats to have to do the dirty work for them. I’m sure they are planning to blame the Democrats for the huge budget deficit they will inherit from the Republicans.
I do know that Carter had serious budget problems during his administration, in that Republicans were screaming for budget cuts, while at the same time we were paying for a big transition in the structure, doctrine, and technology of our military. In short, we were spending a lot of money on technology so we could rely upon a much smaller, more professional military force. This meant billions in research and development for such programs as the M1-Abrams tank, new helicopters, the Bradley armored personnel carrier, stealth technology, and cruise missles, yet until the conversion was complete we still needed a large manpower force to deter Soviet moves in Europe. Some of the items couldn’t even be revealed in public budget documents.
So, it makes me go, HMMM??????
GOP Ethics Panel Whitewashes GOP Scandal
“WASHINGTON (Dec. 8) — The House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders were negligent in protecting male pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley’s improper advances, but they did not break any rules in handling the Foley case, a congressional aide said Friday. …
Committee leaders said in early October that the investigation would be finished in weeks, not months, and members have said privately they did not want to carry the matter over until next year. …”
http://tinyurl.com/yba3o7
Can’t imagine whyyyyyy …
35 … they sure wouldn’t want DEMOCRATS conducting that investigation, would they? Might get an honest result.
Gee, illusory tax savings and deferred expenses seems to be the Republican stock-in-trade.
Remember the $600 “tax refund” we received back in 2001? It wasn’t even a tax reduction, tax deduction, or tax credit. It was simply a loan against any future refund we would receive in 2002 for 2001 taxes. The real tax breaks were reserved for the big-money Republicans and their sponsors.
And the tax reductions which Republicans taught as their major accomplishment? They were paid for with borrowed money, to be re-paid by our children in future years (with interest). Of course by then, the Republicans expect to blame the Democrats for the massive tax burden, hoping people will have forgotten by then who originated the debt.
11 Uh … Richard, Eyman was trying to kill Sound Transit’s funding after bonds had already been issued. This isn’t a wording problem. The court (sensibly and predictably) said you can’t renege bonds; that’s exactly what Eyman was trying to do. There was no interpretation problem; the court understood the initiative’s intent perfectly. The problem was the intent, not the wording.
Did anybody ever really expect a different result in that investigation? It was conveniently timed for the results to be submitted after the election, before the Christmas break, and certainly before the new Congress took over.
My guess is that the conclusion page was drafted the day after the panel was named, and the investigators were told to issue a report which supported the conclussion page. I understand that a number of the pages who reported contacts were not even interviewed.
Investigator: “Gee, did you know Rep. Foley was going to send innapropriate and suggestive e-mails to male pages?
House Maj. Leader: “Of course not!”
Investigatore: “Well, that’s good enough for me! Sorry to have taken up so much of your time, Sir….”
15 Sequel:
Q: After the wingnuts renege the Indian treaties, and the tribes take back their land, and nobody’s title to their home is valid anymore, and the title companies all go bankrupt, how will homeowners collect on their title insurance policies?
A: Um, ahh, how about a taxpayer bailout?
See what I mean? Wingnuts aren’t actually against big government. They’re only against liberal policies. They’re all for government when it benefits them.
17 You used to hear a lot from Republicans about favoring “local” government over “state” or “national” government.
That only applies to segregation.
re 21: You mean Congressman Dimbulb, don’t you?
19 I wonder if there’s any connection between that and another of Jesus Christ’s teachings: “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.”
44 I guess what it boils down is that all the evil, grasping, diabolical Republicans are going to Hell. At least they’ll all be together and can have a big social get-together when they get There.
21 You’re using “WorldNetDaily” as a source? For anything?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Pay your gambling debt, double-welsher!!
re 26: Please explain which poor people the Republicans are attempting to help and precisely and exactly what it is they are doing.
Hey double-welsher, who wrote that article — Judge Roy Moore??
“On July 26, 2006 WorldNetDaily announced that Moore would be joining the publication as a columnist. In his debut column, Moore argued that God is the ‘sovereign source of our law,’ echoing his language and reasoning used in the failed Constitution Restoration Act.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
P.S., pay your gambling debt, you fucking cheapskate/liar!!!
24 What’s the bill for your failed military adventure in Iraq up to now?
This reminds me of Roger Rabbit on this blog: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xmDPdCzCfFM
26 Did you know that the top 1% of wage earners pay 34% of all income taxes?
Since they have 50% of the country’s wealth, when are they going to cough up the other 16%, so the rest of us can get some tax relief?
20 If Republicans spent more time trying to solve this state’s problems and provide for its citizens’ needs, instead of taking up space in the Legislature doing nothing, they might have more than 30% of the seats someday. The only thing they ever did during the 10 years they controlled the senate was kick 40,000 poor kids off Basic Health.
After GOP control of the state senate was eliminated by the 2004 election, the Democratic governor and legislature got more done in 2 months than had been accomplished in the previous 10 years. Republicans are nothing but fucking obstructions. That’s why the voters kicked their asses 6 ways from Sunday back to the holes they crawled out of.
re 26: President Bush (your President , not mine) said in a speech that raising taxes on the rich would not work because they would just find a way to avoid paying the tax. Hewent on to explain that the rich pay no taxes, they just pass them on to you and me with their tricky exwmptions and such. So, how is it they pay all the taxes and none of the taxes.
How does that happen?
On a more personal basis I think that you are not so much trying to elucidate the truth so much as to obscure and obfuscate it. Because all Republicans are self-centered liars.
“By their acts shall ye know them.” Ted Haggard
If eastern Washington ever wants to be relevant or have any say in state policies, they’ll have to vote Democratic. The troglodyte eastern WA Republicans represent less than 15% of the state’s voting population. They control all the legislative seats and local offices in their part of the state, but they’re so out of step with the other 85% of the state that they’re nothing but background noise.
Gee, can you imagine the state trying to float bonds for ANY construction project if the State Supreme Court had ruled otherwise?
Wingnut economics – they don’t even understand public financing of long-term politics. Or they just don’t want any government projects. I guess the bridges/highways/viaducts can just build themselves?
24, 30 How could Eyman’s initiatives have saved the taxpayers any money when they were all invalidated by the courts because Eyman doesn’t know how to write an initiative and is getting incompetent legal advice (or no legal advice).
32 Bush knew perfectly well the AMT would effectively repeal all of his tax cuts that went to the middle class within a few years, and never intended to make permanent anything except his tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. The GOP congress had years to fix the AMT and did nothing. Does that tell you anything?
33 The faux populism of Tim Eyman is enough to gag a maggot on a gut wagon. He’d command some legitimate respect if he hadn’t turned his tax crusades into a personal retirement plan.
Let’s not forget that Eyman LIED to his supporters about putting their donations into his own pocket until he was caught by the newspapers. Let’s remind them of that frequently.
50 Sorry, I don’t have broadband, so I can’t download video; you’ll have to explain it.
Roger:
I responded to your charges of being overly “global” in my comments regarding the military on the open thread.
Republicans: Why do you want to belong to a party that has to DEPEND on its main voting base to be ignorant, prejudiced, and small-minded. It’s because you have to be so narrow-minded to be a Republican that there’s no room left for a brain.
http://bible.cc/matthew/23-33.htm
“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
________________________________________
saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
________________________________________
therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
________________________________________
“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
________________________________________
“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
________________________________________
“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,…….
…………………………………………………………………………
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?”
“therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
________________________________________
“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.”
That bears repeating you REPUBLICAN GENERATION OF VIPERS!!!!!!
We beat you more than fair and square in the political contest and now you are going to pay the price for your sins!!!
bessell 47 – Please explain where the constitution says it’s the fucking job of gummint to steal from The Producers and give it to the parasites?
Please explain where the constitution says it’s the fucking job of gummint to steal from The Producers and give it to the parasites?
Indeed. Why should Paris Hilton get tax-free wealth as an inheritance when people should have to earn their daily bread AND pay taxes on it?
I’m glad that MTR has joined us on the side of thinking the estate tax is fair, but he’s still a welcher.
Nice tolerance Ted
I guess YOUR god thinks 52% of the US population that voted for GWB is going to hell. Nice. Guess that puts you in the category of “radical” christian.
And….
I see that you have no real response to the hard facts as to how wages and taxes are earned and paid in the US. Cutting taxes effects 97% of all wage earners. The old DEM line of a family who earns less than $29,000.00 a year isn’t benefitting from a tax cut is silly. That group of wage earners are only paying 3.5% of the taxes. You don’t get a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes. simple.
Roger,
top 1% wage earners equal ~17% of all wages, but pay ~35% of the taxes. That is the very definition of redistribution.
Top 10% wage earners = 33% of all wages, and pay ~66% of all taxes.
So where is this wrong? Top wage earners pay a much larger share of their earnigns to taxes than lower wage earners. How is that not “fair”? I mean, I think it is ridiculous. I am way more in favor of a flat tax, but that will never fly, because that would be the end of redistribution.
re 64: How do you feel about Shay’s Rebellion? Do you think “the producers” use their special position to make sure that they and only they are and remain “the producers”?
What I’m saying is that “the producers” have set themselves up as an elite.
You are not in that elite. You are oppressed by it.
re 64: Where does it say that you can’t?
Roger Rabbit @ 38
Jim Johnson simply didn’t write I-776 well enough. That’s all there is to it. Of course, you can’t renege on bonds, and the actual language of I-776 doesn’t propose to do that. Nor did it require the bonds to be paid off early.
They could have, however. They could have (1) recognized that existing MVET taxes had been “bonded” to secure existing bonds, (2) recognized that these existing bonds had been secured the existing MVET taxes and other revenue sources, and (3) required that all these revenues be used solely to pay off existing bonds (including other existing bonds secured solely by non-MVET taxes, if those non-MVET taxes secured the bonds secured by MVET taxes). This would have ensured the earliest possible retirement of existing bonds and the earliest termination of MVET taxes.
Most likely, Jim Johnson is a pretty smart lawyer. He must have told Tim Eyman that language like this was actually necessary to eliminate the Sound Transit MVET early. Eyman must have considered this legal advice and decided to reject it. (We will never know for sure — attorney-client privilege.)
You see, Tim Eyman never wants any initiative to actually WORK and DO THE ENTIRE JOB. If that happened, he would be out of business. People would have no more need for his services.
But this way, the Sound Transit MVET remains in place, and probably until the 1999 bonds are paid off in 2028. The Supreme Court decision of course seems unfair, since Sound Transit obviously could (in theory) have paid off the 1999 bonds way early. So Eyman can write another initiative, which could try to require Sound Transit to put every possible penny towards paying off the 1999 bonds early, so that the Sound Transit MVET may expire early.
Your argument is a lightweight sham that has been repeatedly refuted on this blog. What more can I say except fuck off, loser.
Mark The “I don’t can’t read the Constitution” Retard @ 64:
Article 1, Section 7:
“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. . . ”
In case you don’t understand the meanings of these BIG words whenever the government “raises revenue” it means collecting a tax. Congress also writes the legislation determining how the “raised revenue” will be distributed.
OK, your nanny is getting ready to read your favorite story: “My Pet Goat.”
Buh-bye now. Oh and pay your gambling debt, pussy.
re 70 re 66. The last time the tax rate was this low on the rich was that memorable year, 1929. Tell me your relatives didn’t benefit from FDR Liberalism and I’ll call you the liar youare.
Again tolerant Ted. I’ll try antoher time to reach you. I have the IRS data to support my argument.
you wrote
“The last time the tax rate was this low on the rich was that memorable year, 1929.”
Are you referring to us “rich folk” who earn more than $30,000.00 a year?
Tax cuts benefit all those who are paying taxes…….
Those who pay more, save more. Remember, those who are the true top 1% wage earners, who earn more than $292,000 pay 34.27% off all the income taxes.
Why can’t you just admit that we already redistribute wealth here in the USA…
Tax cut for the wealthy is a lazy, unsubstantiated myth carried forth by DEM congressional leadership. Check out the IRS or House of Rep web sites. all the stats are there…” And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
Oh and Ted
” here endeth the lesson”
Boooyah!
peace brother!
64 Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says: Please explain where the constitution says it’s the fucking job of gummint to steal from The Producers and give it to the parasites? 12/08/2006 at 1:37 pm
We were wondering ourselves on what authority Republicans have been doing it for the last 100 years.
66 “I guess YOUR god thinks 52% of the US population that voted for GWB is going to hell.”
Since you asked, yes — all those hacked touch-screen machines are going to Hell, along with the bastards who hacked them.
66 “top 1% wage earners equal ~17% of all wages, but pay ~35% of the taxes. That is the very definition of redistribution.”
Nice try, liar, but we’re not talking about the top 1% of “wage earners,” we’re talking about the richest 1% which is an entirely different thing. The richest 1% get most of their income from capital gains, stock options, dividends and interest, rents, and other non-wage income. But since you brought up the subject of progressive taxation, yes, I’m for it. I don’t see why we should raise taxes on people making $29,000 a year so people with salaries over $1 million can buy a bigger yacht.
The Supreme Court upholds the will of the people”
Call me crazy but I would believe that the “will of the people” was the initiative that they passed”
re 73: If one guy has $1,000,000 and is taxed at 10%, he then has $900,000.
If another guy has $20,000 and is taxed at 10%, he then has $18,000.
If the guy with $1,000,000 is taxed at 90%, he still has $100,000.
In your mind, then, “fairness” means taxing the man with $20,000 at a 90% rate.
If you think like that you are living in a purely theoretical world that has no relation to reality and you end up out of power — forever — because you are clinically crazy.
Rob @ 78,
No, Rob, you missed the point. The people in the Sound Transit taxing district (you know, the ones who pay the Sound Transit MVET), voted to allow tax themselves for the purpose of building transit, and they voted against the Initiative. Who give a fuck what someone in Spokane thinks about the Sound Transit MVET–they don’t pay it!
Hence, the will of the people was upheld when the Supreme Court upheld the lower court position.
CONGRESS RE-ENACTS SALES TAX DEDUCTION
Both houses of Congress, by overwhelming majorities, passed a bill that retores the sales tax deduction for taxpayers in states without a state income tax.
http://tinyurl.com/yngtyz
78, 80 Even for a wingnut troll, “rob” isn’t a deep analytical thinker.
We’re now up to FOUR defective construction cranes in Bellevue, and counting – another “market failure” …
… the only thing holding those cranes together is spot welds, baling wire, a prayer, and Redneck’s invisible hand … oops, I forgot Redneck’s invisible hand is busy elsewhere …
ANOTHER GOP ALLEGED CROOK!
Local GOP activist Larry Corrigan is not only an alleged child predator, he’s an alleged thief:*
“Theft charges may be added to sex case
“By Natalie Singer
“Seattle Times staff reporter
“Larry Corrigan, the former financial director of the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office charged with allegedly trying to arrange sex with a 13-year-old girl, could face additional criminal charges for embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from Prosecutor Norm Maleng’s campaign committee.” http://tinyurl.com/yct9en
* All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
roger@77
So are you then saying that the richest 1% of Americans are Republicans?…….
You my friend are going to have a real hard time selling that snake oil to anyone…..
And the last time I checked my taxes, any captital gains, dividents, and interest were as recorded as income…
The reality is that there are as many ultra wealthy DEMS as REPS. This is one LIE that the left is very quick to make but the facts, some of which I linked from US Govt sources, bare out a different conclusion.. Now, who said anything about raing taxes on those earning $29K/year, or anyone, other than the incoming Democrats who want to END the current tax cuts? If the redistribution isn’t enough, then fine, lets have that converstaion. should we tax the top 1% of wage earners 50%? Top 10 80% and on down? No problem let’s have that conversation, but we are already in the business of redistribution, it is just a question of how much….