A friend following the action in the Democrat-controlled legislature e-mails:
The Appropriations Committee is having its cut-off meeting for bills originating in the Senate. One of the bills in front of us is SB 6078, the Senate proposal to amend the Initiative 601 spending limit in various ways and to eliminate the requirement that a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature is needed to raise taxes. We just got word that Rep. McIntire (D-Seattle) will offer a striking amendment to the bill providing as follows:UPDATE: Correspondent reports:(1) After July 1, 1995, any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises state revenue or requires revenue-neutral tax shifts may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each house, and then only if state expenditures in any fiscal year, including the new revenue, will not exceed the state expenditure limits established under this chapter. However, for legislation enacted between the effective date of this act and June 30, 2007, any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises state revenue or requires revenue-neutral tax shifts may be taken with the approval of a majority of members elected to each house, so long as state expenditures in any fiscal year, including the new revenue, will not exceed the state expenditure limits established under this chapter.The same bill was passed by the Democrats in the 2002 session. The bill was SB 6819. The only thing different in that 2002 bill from this striking amendment to 6078 is that 6819 said "June 30, 2005" rather than "June 30, 2007." It appears that every time the Democrats want to raise taxes, they just pass a bill saying, in effect, "We herein disregard what the people said when they passed I-601."
6078 as amended by the McIntire striker passed the Appropriations Committee 15-13, all Republicans and two Democrats, Haigh and Linville, voting no.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 02, 2005 05:37 PM | Email ThisRep. McIntire: "This is a simple, straightforward amendment allowing the majority to govern."
"No need to amend 601. It's unconstitutional anyway. Just ignore it."
It's very easy to say that. Prove it. Or are you just blowing smoke?
Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2005 07:17 PMJust ignore the trolls and idiots. Not worth the time or effort.
Posted by: Norm on April 2, 2005 07:35 PMSECTION 22 PASSAGE OF BILLS.
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.
Governmental continuity during emergency periods: Art. 2 Section 42.
Initiative 601 is not a bill. It's an iniatiative passed by the people of this state in order to limit the tax-hungry legislation. I'm sure that after this session there will be a slew of initiatives that will be born to do the same. Also the Democrates will get rosted (except in those areas where the voters are dead, voting twice, illegal citizens, or just plain dumb).
JP out
Posted by: JPnYelm on April 2, 2005 08:16 PMBTW: Note that while Rep. McIntire's striking amendment modifies the current SSB 6078 Sec. 2 changes to RCW 43.135.035(1), don't overlook the significance of the additional SSB 6078 Sec. 6 changes to RCW 43.135.010(4)(a).
The House Appropriations committee is debating amendments to and passage of SSB 6078 on TVW right now. One of the (D)s just (in effect) said that it is the will of the people to raise taxes more than the current limits allow. No doubt the majority on the committee will send it on to the full House. grrr....
The most outrageous part of SSB 6078 is of course Sec. 9; where the (D)s use an emergency clause to avoid having to put this tax increase to a vote of the people; and at the same preclude the ability of the people to subject this bill (or at least Sections 1-5) to Referendum. As a practical matter what that means is that twice as many signatures would have to be gathered to turn it into an Initiative instead of a Referendum.
LATE NEWS FLASH: The McIntire amendment was just adopted by voice vote. Expect the committee will be voting on passage of the bill shortly.
Methow Ken
Methow Ken
The current tax system works for no one, of course. We all probably would agree that it's dumb -- and I expect our agreement would stop there.
The real issue is not whether our taxes will go up, but how will we fairly pay for the services that people want from government. You can all probably guess what I would do, even though my ox would be gored . . . .
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 08:34 PMOn what basis do you believe the people want more government and more taxes? Have you not been paying attention the last 5 years?
And on what basis can you argue that more money gives better anything from government? Name one government organization that operates efficiently. Just one. We're spending more $9,000 a year per student on public school education and look what we're getting for it. Did you read the WA DSHS audit report and see the multi-million dollars of unaccounted for money?
More money for more services? You gotta first show your handling the billions you're already receiving well before anyone is going to vote for more.
Grab a clue.
Posted by: sup doc? on April 2, 2005 08:51 PMjust got in from a lovely evening here in Dallas with a stunningly beautiful woman...and I didn't even require more confiscatory taxes from the people. The people don't want more government services. They want competent government services. And since your pea-brain equates more money with more services, I can see that WA is in putrid hands if being run by people like you.
I hear that the People's Republic of China is looking for more emigration...have a nice trip.
Completely off topic...God Bless Pope JP II.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on April 2, 2005 09:01 PMdpkcowboy....sure it's OT, but are things serious with this 'stunningly beautiful woman'?? Let us know if it goes anywhere permanent! :-)
Posted by: Michele on April 2, 2005 09:32 PMWhat this really means is more "entitlements" from the government, as in:
"Life, Liberty, and the Purchase of Happiness."
Sup Doc -- my basis is I actually listen to the people, the majority of voters. I get off of this blog once in awhile and go out in the real world. I recommend it to you. If you want to stay in your house, go read some polls.
dkpcowboy -- glad you had a nice evening. Was there an intellectual point to your comment? Was it just that anyone who can see farther than the end of his nose is a communist?
None of you are even willing to think about the tax structure of this state, all you can think about is that you think your own taxes are too high. I hope none of you live in the small cities that are defunding essential services, like police and fire, because they have no money thanks to Republican backed anti-tax initiatives. All you know how to do is say, "No," you are unwilling to get to work to fix the problem. Shame on you.
When will you realize that an income tax and universal health care will be the salvation of business in this state?
Think about it, if your brain cells haven't atrophied from parroting back your own dogma.
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 10:24 PMWhen? Probably never. No, I don't think adding more tax to an already crushing burden is a great idea. Plus, we know how fiscally responsible our elected officials are with their ill-gotten booty. Universal health care? Yes, it's worked so well for our neighbors to the north. Oh, sure, you bet.
Posted by: Ken on April 2, 2005 11:29 PMIn fact, the wording of 601 would seem to indicate that even make ammendemnts to 601 that would result in increased taxes requires a 2/3 majority. So, one has to wonder if anybody in the legislature has stopped to consider the possibility that they are breaking the law by ammending 601 with less than a 2/3 majority.
If the state surpreme court were not a banana court, I'd suggest that someone challenge the ammendment based on this argument. But, alas, it is a banana court, so it wouldn't be worth anyone's time.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 2, 2005 11:43 PMBut, not all people want the SAME increases in government. It is up to elected officials to decide which roles of government actually provide a societal benefit that is worth the cost. They should not simply say "yes" to every whining call for an increase in government "services."
Similarly, when you ask people if they want more of something - ANYTHING - they usually say yes. Want more house? Yes. Want a better car? Yes. Want more furniture? Yes. Want to eat out more often and to better restuarants? Yes. Worse, ask a kid if she wants more candy, and she will invariably say yes.
Thus, it seems logical that if you ask people if they want more police protection, they will say yes. Or, if they want more fire stations, they say yes. If they want all people to get Harvard educations for free, they will say yes.
So, when politicians and "progressives" talk about how increasing taxes are justified by the wants of the people, it just doesn't carry much weight when one thinks logically about it. After all, who doesn't want more? Our entire society is built on the notion of wanting more. In fact, that is pretty much a condition of the human species.
Politicians, however, are elected to make CHOICES, not just to provide more. They usually take the easy way out, so 601 was intended to force them to make choices with an already bloated budget. Even after 601, they don't want to make those hard choices, do not want to do the cost-benefit analysis and say "no" to somethings.
In the end, you get ammendments to 601, and you get people like DocBenton explaining in simpleton terms why the legislature does it.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 2, 2005 11:57 PMThey can't be doing the work of the people for the people when they ignore the people's will.
They remind me of drug addicts - oblivious to everything in pursuit of their drug....(our money).. The people of this state tried to *rehab* the Dems when they passed 601....
We are witnessing and relapse...it's time for an intervention......heh....They're insane!
Where do they think they are going with this? Has someone given them a laundry list of bizarre ways to p*ss off the people of this state? I can see lawsuits by individuals launched at individual legislators - for even authoring these bills!
We need Rossi as Governor with veto power.....NOW.
Posted by: Deborah on April 3, 2005 12:16 AMThere is no private sector employer-provided health insurance economic model that does not end in the collapse of the system, with a lot of pain and the loss of insurance for most along the way. Health care expenses are extremely high and will only go higher, so it becomes imperative that the risk pool be as broad as possible -- universal coverage, funded by, you guessed it, taxes. Gotta pay for it somehow and indiviudal businesses can't and shouldn't. The cost of health care and the social and economic consequences of huge sections of our society having no insurance are just too large not to spread the burden among all of us. Some of the most vigorous if quiet advocates of universal health care are the largest corporations and, hence, the largest employers, in this country, because they have realized that not even they can provide the health care (through insurance) that their workers need and demand for much longer. Hospitals are another, because they are getting royally srcewed providing services to the huge number of uninsureds. And where is it written that health insurance should be employment-based, anyway?
The reason taxes come at us from every direction in this state is that it has just about the most f*cked up tax structure imaginable. The government has such crappy sources of revenue that it makes sure it has a lot of them. Until you substantially revise the system and base it upon a personal income tax, this state will never be favorable to business and the state will continually attempt to tax anything you can think of. (All but a very few states have a personal income tax and many of them are far more attractive to business than Washington, so an income tax is not per se unattractive to business.)
These two policies, income tax and universal health care, are very pro-business. They are also very pro-consumer. But I'm willing to bet that not one of you will be able to get beyond your blind knee-jerk reaction against new taxes and big government to even start thinking about how well these could work to everyone's benefit, especially businesses (except the insurance companies).
What I generally hear from Republicans is that businesses shouldn't have to pay for their employees' health insurance and that businesses shouldn't have to pay taxes, resulting (at its logical extreme)in a work force that gets no benefits from employers and no benefits from government. Can you spell, R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N. I knew you could.
DeadManVoting
Your 601 majority was barely that 12 years ago. As I recall around 750,000 people voted for it, barely 51%. 3,000,000 voted in the last election. Since '93, the electorate owerwhelmingly voted for more government services, at least in the area of education, in two other initiatives. If you put health care to a vote in this state, I'm willing to bet the electorate would go for that, too. I think it's fair to question whether your majority still exists (and, for that matter, whether it ever really existed).
Fred is right, though, it does take the legislature to vote to undo an initiative, theoretically. But practically, they can more or less do what they want, because of the high probability that 601 is unconstitutional. You guys won't sue claiming violation of 601, only to face the high risk the courts would hold the initiative unconstitutional. You're better off with the uncertainty and whatever political force is left in 601, if any. The Democrats won't vote to repeal it, because they're a bunch of candy asses. So they'll fiddle with it and do what they think they have to and the Republicans will criticize them for it. Business as usual.
A: Because D's have driven so many employers out of state that most are happy w/ any job they can find. Complain about Walmart all you like, but when the state makes the business climate so prickly, those are the only jobs left.
I have not seen one action by this legislature that will create a new [non-government] job in this state.
Posted by: Andy on April 3, 2005 04:34 AMI ask you, DocBenton - are you also going to take on the role of the executive and the legislature? You've already determined to act as the judiciary. You're a dictator. Until the Court says that I-601 is unconstitional, it IS legit. Why not challenge the Initiative yourself? You can. You can sue claiming that it's not constituional and try to win. You certainly would have standing as a citizen of this state. Or, if you claim that folks want more government, just draft an initiative that says so, and pass it, thus over-riding 601.
But please, quit your hyperbole and stop trying to do an end-run. Be up front with the voters.
I know that's a difficult concept for you "Doc" - by the way, we don't accept "Doc's" if your PhD is in Voodoo policital science.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 3, 2005 04:37 AMSince you know so much about what "is" and "is not" constitutional... is there a provision in our state constitution for a personal income tax? If not, then it likely would be unconstitutional. The only way the federal gov't was able to get away with it was by amending the constitution.
Why do you want to tax "income"? Why not "assets" or "wealth" or something else? "Income" per se, does not make one "rich" - but I'm quite sure that you thought there were "tax cuts for the rich" when income tax rates were cut, right? Now, if a "wealth tax" was proposed, watch rich Democrats like Teddy Kennedy squeal - he has plenty of "wealth" but not much "income" (for tax purposes). Better yet, Doc, let's just pass a law that says that you can steal money from me, and give the money to other people.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 3, 2005 04:46 AMAfter a mourning period, the cardinals will gather at the 16th chapel.They will vote by secret ballot for a new pope.
White smoke will apear above the chapel if a new Pope is selected.
BUT THE VOTES MUST BE BY 2/3 MAJORITY.
Posted by: Chris on April 3, 2005 07:33 AM
It is true that the Legislature can modify 601 in any fashion, on any whim. Two years have passed since enactment. Doesn't change the fact that the will of the people will have been violated. But hey, when you work hard enough to steal all three branches of government, you gotta go for the gusto and get everything you can before your keister goes to jail, I guess. (Maybe some of it sticks after the feds come in and prosecute some of the corrupt)
Constitutionality? Strawman, and you have merely to twist the one subject rule in an agonizing manner to get there. As a courtesy, I would toss the same constituionality issue right back at 728 and 730, if you want to go there. (Funny, the things that irritate the taxsuckers are always 'unconstitutional' while the things they like are solid. Contemptible. Hell, the GMA is unconstitutional, for that matter. Wanna play the constitution? Let's play.
The fact of the matter is that there was plenty of money prior to putting a tax on vienna sausages. You think for a minute that the'will of the people' demanded hundreds of millions of dollars going to splitting departments into three new departments? You think it was the will of the people to take highway money, constitutionally mandated to go to roads and highways, and in a tortured manner, send it elsewhere? You think that we REALLY need to spend so much extra money on DSHS for feelgood programs instead of spending the money on the things you really want? You think it was the will of the people to hide the unpopular programs, and threaten only the publicly desired programs hostage until they supported new taxes to pay for the things that were already paid for?
I am tired of the bait and switch, tired of the corruption, and tired of the myopic little trolls that demand a right to impose upon me their agenda. This State is better than that. OUR citizens deserve better. OUR constitution is far more supportive of honest dealings than we have seen, yet the corruption persists.
In the spirit of the City of San Francisco, and the State of California, who have declared the genes of obese men to be inferior and undesireable in the gene pool, and are sponsoring programs of free vasectomies to such people, I hereby declare the trolls and subversives to contain inferior genes and will gladly pay state monies to provide free vasectomies, abortions, and euthanasia events to anyone of that ilk. See? I support private medical decisiona, and am 'progressive' after all.
:)
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 3, 2005 09:10 AMI will NEVER support an income tax in this state. Nor will the people who were born and raised in this state. Nor will people who have any inkling of the corruption.
The fact of the matter is that people have tried to impose that tax for years, and it's never happened. We know the deal, impose an income tax and never get rid of the sales tax. (By the way, 'reducing' the sales tax lasts a very short time. We natives may be hicks, but we're sharp enough to see that one coming) No way in Hades we'd let someone sucker us like that.
So, you think the income tax is the answer, and you are ready to promise me that we'll ditch the B&O and sales taxes. Let's look at Oregon for a moment. They DON'T have a sales tax, preferring the progressive income tax. The same thing that is going to save our state, right? And, have any of us read the paper down there lately? Class? Yes, THEY are under pressure to impose a sales tax now.
Sorry, am NOT buying this one. What is desired is as many taxes as possible in place so folks can raise them at will and in conniving ways to pull even more money out for their little projects.
Do I think that it will happen? Yep, the day they get more transplants than natives in here. Transplants seem to come from states with income taxes and it's normal to them. And they typically come in with wild ideas of how to make my state better, with my money, and most times, against my will.
(Caveat - I do not think ALL transplants are evil, hold those views, or are corrupt. Just the ones that stand up in a smarmy manner and tell me how to make my state better with my money. Forgive my nativistic thinking this morning)
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 3, 2005 09:21 AMIf that passed I imagine all the libs saying it is unconstitutional as it has more than one item in it (income tax, tax rate, B&O tax, sales....) and therefore it should all be struck down except the income tax portion so that it is a single item change.
Posted by: Fred on April 3, 2005 10:18 AMDemocrats gain votes by providing non essential services. Wasting money by over-paying for services is also a 'vote getter' because the waste also hands out more money to those involved in the racket. Democrats buy votes and they need lots of people from which to steal the money.
p.s. if they can't get enough votes their old fashioned way, they open up elections and allow 'partners' to stuff the ballot box.
Posted by: MB on April 3, 2005 11:27 AMFor the amendment to happen, the Legislature has to come together to create and pass the resolution, then it goes out to the voters of the state for ratification. And, they know they can't muster enough illegal votes to meet the standard for passage. (And that's what it would take, for on the basis of legitimate votes, they'll not do it for years)
Brings up some troubling things. First, I never did care about how constitutional amendments were created in this state. The people have no means to amend the constitution, leaving the Legislature an automatic veto over everything the people want. (Yes, we have 'representative government' in this state, meaning that our politicos will represent everyone but the citizens. Of the people, by the people, for the people? A quaint notion, but not a reality here.)
Forget the Bill Gates Sr income tax idea. Not going to happen, no matter how much Harvey and Nelson want it. (I know... this view differs from that of the 3.14 and the ST, therefore putting me out of the 'mainstream' that Harvey speaks of. Apparently, it's an attempt to shame me into cowing to their designs. Oooooo, I have an independent thought, based on logic, reality, and supportive of the individual rights that the Washington State Constitution supports. That makes me dangerous, and I should be marginalized. Big deal!)
Thanks to whomever set the record straight on Article 2, section 22. The Legislature would have only created liability had they enacted the initiative prior to the vote of the people. They chose not to, therefore there's no jeopardy. Bonehead! However, according to Article 2, Section 1, we see the specifics of initiatives, which puts the people at the same level as the Legislature. Since 601 is involving a function of the Legislature, there is no jeopardy. (Fritz vs Gorton, Ford vs Logan) Doesn't violate the provisions that violate the constitutional restrictions on the Legislature (Culliton vs Chase, Gerberding vs Munro). So, until we get to the tortured logic that would issue a constitutional challenge on the basis of the one subject rule, 601 is valid, law, and in keeping with the constitution. And, until that happens in court with a decision that would declare it unconstitutional, the fact of the matter becomes someone issuing an opinion they think is fact. Bringing into question, of course, their ability to use logic, understand law, and exist in society as a productive member. Yet, we let people like that vote and breed. (sigh)
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 3, 2005 02:31 PMTHIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM WE ARE UP AGAINST IN THIS STATE.
DocBenton's solution for a bad tax structure is more of it. A health care system being crushed by government imposed mandates will be remedied by more of the same. Fine, that is what we will get so long as the DocBenton's of the world are in charge. DocBenton and Christine Gregoire have a great deal in common. No wonder we get the approach he takes to taxation and economic policy.
Doc cites his background as an business owner in order to establish his professed interest in improving a positive business (profit making) climate through liberal socialist tax schemes. He neglects to mention that he is an attorney and the business he refers to is a law firm.
Like all businesses, law firms must pass the cost of any increased taxes/regulations and the like on to the consumer. However, quite unlike most other businesses, the services offered by law firms are essential and their cost to the consumer is a far less discretionary consideration. As is true with other essential professional services, if you need an attorney, you need an attorney, and cost is scarcely the issue. Either you can afford the fees or you can't, and those who must ask how much it will cost--cannot afford it. Many law offices exploit insurance companies whose ultimate clientele are captive ones, namely premium payers like you and me. Some offer legitimate essential services to the public.
Most businesses offer goods and services which are not essential enough to survive the threshold economic decisions required by essential services, and thus they will not tolerate the high prices driven by heavier burdens of taxation, unfunded mandates and regulation. Doc knows as well as anyone that this will cause business to leave Washington State, and further erode employment here.
DocBenton couldn't be bothered discussing this analysis for the simple reason that he is only nominally affected by increased taxes. His practice will continue regardless even if he has to lay off experts, support staff and associates. After all, that is their problem, not his. His Mercedes will still be black, and his bank account will still be fat. Doc has options, and that is all that matters.
If someone proposed creation of a government mandated socialized legal system similar to the government mandated socialized health care systems touted by liberals, it would be universally rejected as absurd. In a way such a system exists (pro bono work), but it is strictly limited, and people like docbenton are not adversely affected by it, because of it's strict limitations. If ordered to limit his practice one substantive specialty determined by a state agency, and defend clients for a flat fee split with the state regardless of any other considerations, and fund staff to fill out endless administrative paper work out of his end of the profits, docbenton would sing a different tune. He doesn't care because they are doing this to the Medical--not the legal--Profession.
The classic liberal dilemma applied by docbenton is the key thing ignored in his analysis of health care. The simple fact is that there is no necessity to "spread the burden [of health care]among all of us." Doc, you damned well know as well as I do that health care is not a right! Your pretense on this point is not an indictment of me or conservatism, but an example of obdurate presumptions asserted by you as though they are foregone conclusions.
Doc, can you spell, H-e-a-l-t-h c-a-r-e i-s n-o-t a r-i-g-h-t !
Like many in his profession, I suspect that doc sees the so-called "free market" as a ruse created by "Republican Corporations" hogging wealth and robbing the poor of their due. I wonder if Doc ever reads history and realizes that the key to prosperity is the reality of free markets and that in the bigger scheme of things, his own fortunes rest on encouragement of growth through market economies. Health care is no exception, indeed it is in trouble because of unfunded mandates by liberals who are attempting to force a government health care system down our throats. They would like to end all discussion of the issue by asserting health care as a right. This anti-freedom, anti-market approach is why we need to get attorneys like doc and greggie out of power. Raising taxes will hurt the markets in Washington State, and further injure the economy. DocBenton is not stupid, he knows that raising taxes will hurt the Washington economy, but he doesn't care because right now, he doesn't have to.
In short, DocBenton and his colleagues don't care much because nothing forces them to. They have a license to steal--a bar card, and--at least for now--liberals provide warm comfy lucrative places for attorneys. As far as doc is concerned, the rest of the Washington State's economy can go to hell because Doc has got his, and it always looks better along side others failure. Wouldn't surprise me if doc becomes a judge. How appropriate. He'll probably preside over the impeachment of Gregoire.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 3, 2005 04:38 PMWe should get up a ballot initiative to bring about such a system. I am sure the initiative would lose, but it would be interesting to see from where all the money comes to fight it.
Good point, so would I!
It never ceases to amaze me the extent liberals will go to in order to avoid the obvious. Especially highly "educated" would-be lawyer attorneys like docbenton who should know better but still insist on maintaining a world view composed of faulty assumptions based on arbitrary prejudiced thinking.
Maybe it's something they put in the food during law school, I'm not sure, but his view is way out in left feild and damaging to the rest of us. I am forced to believe it is a selective arrogance and narcissism resulting from a combination of taking their education too seriously (esp. the liberal indoctrination of it) and the natural consequence to an immature ego given control over other peoples destinies.
The kind of power attorneys have over their clients lives and/or fortunes has a way of causing them to conclude that they are smarter and know better than others. In the legal profession the un-written rule is "never, under any circumstances, no matter what, admit you are wrong" because it is a sign of weakness. Power to negotiate is everything, and you have to keep that edge. It never occurs to most of them that admitting fallability might also prove they are honest. However, honesty is not really important, even to the client; it's winning at all cost, that matters. It's more important to establish that you will not give-in, because that is what you are paid for; fighting others battles. Un-tempered egos provided power can be dangerous, because they tend to believe they know something others don't.
Imagine docbenton ever admitting that he is wrong about government health care, and you'll see my point. Even if he is proven wrong he will never admit it, and neither will Christine Gregoire. She has no idea in the world about how to be a governor, so she will run it like she does everything else. Pretend that she knows better than everyone else, throw huge amounts of money at the problem (client's/taxpayers money), create piles of paper around herself to cover her own a$$, and never, ever admit to being wrong.
Reminds me of Hillary and HillaryCare. Beware!
Thanks, Radiomat
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 3, 2005 06:43 PMApparently.... Socialist activist groups are going to wait until the budget is done and signed, then are going to sue the citizens of the state for not funding THEIR programs to their satisfaction. So.... our legislature is going to fund everything but what their buddies want, wait to lose the suits, then come back and raise taxes to pay for the new court ordered stuff. After all, we citizens will lose the lawsuits, and we have to obey the courts. (They'll make sure that we lose the suits.)
This, after raising taxes across the board, ignoring the voter's will on 601, and refusing to listen to anyone BUT their buddies.
What a sham! What a scam! What an outrage!
Yet, the mindless sheep, aka the mainstream, are going to stupidly buy these shennanigans, and force the rest of us to pay for this sleazy, kickback laden, political payoff.
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 3, 2005 08:22 PMTom