Our Democrat-majority Legislature finally found a performance audit they can get whole heartedly behind.
They fought performance audits tooth and nail for year after year. Performance audits go beyond the normal accounting that money for fund A got spent on fund A things, to ask did "this program accomplish what it was supposed to do?"
When the will of the people got stronger they sought to innoculate the issue by devising "performance audits" where the elected state auditor could only do audits that were approved by an appointed panel. I don't know the exact makeup, but I recall it was dominated by Olympia.
Tim Eyman beat them cold by filing Initiative 900 that enables the auditor to do his job with performance audits and provides funding. It passed easily.
This week the state house easily passed performance audits - for tax cuts. Those tax cuts had better be effective or they will be embarrassed in the harsh spotlight. The Olympian reports:
However, the Democrats, joined by nine Republicans including Rep. Tom Campbell, did act on one bill that could make the effectiveness of tax cuts easier to gauge.On a 61 to 34 vote, they approved House Bill 1069, which subjects tax breaks to reviews or “performance audits” to show whether they deliver the benefits promised.
Because Democrats' existence is based solely on their ability to take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't, but will vote for Democrats if the price is right. Without raping the achievers and earners in our society, Democrats have absolutely nothing to offer their base except what they can steal from taxpayers.
That's their legacy, besides putting politics above the security and safety of Americans.
Posted by: MJC on February 12, 2006 09:41 PMEven with such an impossibility of actual success in this case, that is not what is most offensive about this legislation. Rather, that is the assumption that whenever the legislature determines a tax is needed that rather than put the burden on the necessity of the program or the tax being taken on the first place, the burden of proof is now put on those who want to limit the scope (and the take) of government. Performance audits are rightly called for when the government spends limited funds that it has, but they are not rightly used to prevent those who disagree with the scope of expenditures to limit them.
Posted by: Marc on February 12, 2006 09:56 PMThere can't be any barriers to taking our money. But there better damn well be barriers to allowing us to keep any. The government's income is mandatory. Our income is negotiable.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 12, 2006 11:53 PMYou're either misrepresenting the history of performance audits legislation, or you haven't bothered to learn it.
Democrats had been pushing -- and implementing -- performance audits for years. And the differences between the bill passed last session and Eyman's initiative were minor, and mostly centered around a Citizen's Advisory Board that helped set priorities in the former, and a dedicated funding source in the latter. When you say that Democrats don't support performance audits because they didn't support your version of the bill, you are not adding anything to the public debate.
And then you come back and criticize performance audits for tax expenditures. Why? Why shouldn't tax loopholes and breaks be just as critically analyzed for performance as other budget expenditures?
What do you really know about these bills? I bothered to go down to Olympia last session and testify on BOTH performance audits bills. Didn't see you there.
Posted by: Goldy on February 13, 2006 09:22 AMDemorat’s with a “MORAL OBLIGATION”... a walk through the ocean of demorat’s souls would hardly get your feet wet!!!
Moral Obligation, is not Ted “My car has killed more people that your gun “Kennedy in charge of that ?
Forgetaboutit
... thereby betraying his belief in the unspoken assumption that ALL MONEY BELONGS TO GOVERNMENT and that a tax break means GOVERNMENT IS "GIVING" YOU SOMETHING.
Sorry to break the news to you, Horse's @ss, but I OWN ME. The government doesn't own anyone, except maybe clowns like you. The money I earn is MINE, and while I realize that some taxes are actually necessary, most government spending is a waste time and a pile of crap. It's just a make-jobs program (mostly for Democrats) and full-employment program for the parasite class.
So letting me keep more of MY OWN MONEY doesn't need to be analyzed as a budget "expenditure." The money's MINE to begin with and it's not "costing" the state anything. Get it?
Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 13, 2006 12:56 PMDavid KLOWNstein and the other Folk Marxists are 100% incapable of understanding that. Therein lies the problem. It's a matter of perspective.
KLOWNstein believes what's his is his........
and what's yours is OURS!!!
Simple formula.
Now some people will call Goldy a selfish pr*ck or worse.
Personally, I think he is retarded.
did you read that article about "Folk Marxism" last week? Interesting stuff.... lots of people don't realize they have actually Marxist belief systems.... the government schools have done a remarkable job of indoctrination.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 13, 2006 03:53 PMGoldy unmentionable doesn't see the difference between that hobbling system and I-900? The difference is clear - the bills Goldy testified in favor of proected the state bureaucracy from meaningful audits, protected by an obscure committee. Tim Eyman wasn't so nice - the auditor has to take the heat hiimself if he does the same.
Some time about 10 years ago a performance audit bill passed the legislature, but was vetoed by either Governor Lowry or Gary Locke. I don't remember the details, since it was moot immediatley and it was so long ago.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on February 14, 2006 07:55 AM"I have been very clear that granting a tax break is spending money."
-Chris Gregoire
Posted by: Palouse on February 14, 2006 08:31 AMa rare moment of honesty from one of the parasite class. They really DO think your money is actually theirs.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 14, 2006 09:42 AMIn case anyone is interested, the quote is in this article about how she is contemplating vetoing some tax breaks:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002804111_taxbreaks14.html
Posted by: Palouse on February 14, 2006 11:39 AM