Christine Gregoire calls a special session to reinstitute I-747. Dear Andrew over at NPI is very, very hurt by this.
I leave you to your chuckling.
UPDATE: Goldy is angry too, though not nearly as entertaining in being thus piqued as Dear Andrew.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 19, 2007 09:30 PM | Email ThisGovernment is not a curse. It is a liability, in the accounting sense. We should expect the government to first make a pass in reduction for better efficiency, and then to ask for more if more is truly needed.
This still won't be enough to get Greogire re-elected, but it is amusing that her only chance is to pander. We can expect more sudden Gregoire sanity throughout the remainder of her campaign, as she tries desperately to mask the appearances of the past three years.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 19, 2007 10:00 PMBut the truth of leadership, will be if she can tame the massive democratic spenders in her group, and I wish her well on this massive task.
Her Liberal Court has thrown out 3 of Tim Eyman's and the majority of voter's initiatives.
It is Damn time that the people of this state got listened to over the Employees of this state!
Congratulations Gregoire, if you can pull this off, but my bet is that you cannot even in an election season, pull out any tax limits in this tax happy state.
We'd like to keep just a few dollars that we earn for our own needs in our pockets thank you!
Sorry!
Posted by: GS on November 19, 2007 10:29 PM
This is "OH MY GOD, I HAVE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION AND ROSSI'S RUNNING AGAIN" expediency.
Chrissy, you really don't want to show what your transparency reveals...and, trust me, we aren't interested in seeing it either.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 19, 2007 10:54 PMI found this section particularly telling: "Initiative 747 is cheap right wing policy that addresses a symptom, not a cause. It hurts our common wealth but does nothing to fix our broken and regressive tax structure."
He equates the "right wing" with fiscal responsibility. Well, fine...I'll take it.
"Broken and regressive," following closely after "common wealth" makes two things especially clear...anything but a constant push to increase the percentage of tax paid by the well off is anathema, and secondly "common wealth" has been redefined. Normally, it is a term meaning for the general good of society. His implication is that "progressives" should have the ability to dip into the private assets of individuals pretty much at will.
At least that's the way it looks to me at the end of a very long day.
It does bring up an interesting rhetorical question; at what point would the concensus of the liberal left agree that enough taxes were being taken from "the rich" that the taxation structure was now fair? I suspect that the answer would be something to the effect of "when the assets of the 'rich' had been reduced to the point of their dependence upon the government."
Posted by: scott158 on November 20, 2007 12:49 AMRemember that these Democrats will not be proposing "eliminating" any taxes to offset an Income Tax. They will not cap an Income Tax or give the voters any kind of Veto of Income Tax increases. The Democrats have little "Gates Commission" sycophants running aropund everywhere in Olympia and they are even running one for State Treasurer.
The only interesting part of the emergency session and the up coming short session will be to see if the Governor and Frank Chopp can keep all of thier cats in the herd and stop Jacobsen or Oemig from doing something stupid...again.
Posted by: Huh? on November 20, 2007 06:35 AMI wonder if Andrew has a clue what effect any of these initiatives have had on local municipalities or if he is just trumpeting the Democratic leadership talking points. (For a short summary- they were bad for small cities but they have worked around them- I don't see any filing for bankruptcy- and the large cities, well, get you other ways).
His article seemed to be more about emotion than thought, or typical radical left-wing bloggers.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 07:13 AM
Scott, it's even worse than that. The "progressives" are already dipping well-beyond a "fair share" into the pockets of the wealthy. And it's increasing at a rapid rate:
Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.
On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.
Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.
Source: Dr. Thomas Sowell's recent column about income tax, income distribution.
I fear for this country if the attitude of "soak the rich!" grows further, or if Ms. Clinton with her blatantly Marxist approach to taxation wins election. The flight of resources and wealth from this country - a trickle right now - will become a massive flood.
Marxists like Andrew (after all, he does seem to advocate that income redistribution is a positive position, and that concept is clearly Marxist) are leading this State and this country to a massive crash. It is only by encouraging CREATION of wealth - not redistribution of it - that the economy, and hence the country, can grow.
It's also proven time and again that stimulating the economy by making it favorable for the creation of wealth - usually best done by a few at the top - will raise the standards for all.
Andrew and his ilk need to revisit Marx's 10 point plan for implementation of a Marxist state. Numbers 2 ("progressive" income tax), 5 (central banking) and 10 (free education) are here; they are pushing HARD for number 3 (inheritance tax), and functionally have number 1 (try property taxation). Marxism is close, and with the class warfare waged by the "Progressives" I fear it's going to be here sooner than later.
I agree with all the arguments for a state income tax, but I've opposed it for several decades because of the reasons given in the mega-post by PI.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 08:23 AMProgressives know that Marxism and Liberal are terms that have already gained a stigma with most rational and normal Americans who are capitalists whether they know or understand the term. So they call themselves Progressives. That too will be exposed.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 20, 2007 09:12 AMOur Queen is pushing for two bills in the special session, one regarding the initiative and one to defer payment of property taxes for those households earning less than the state median income ($57K).
Hmmm
Posted by: danno on November 20, 2007 09:14 AMRossi can't run on "I thought of it first," even if Gregoire is only doing it for her political survival, as is the case here.
Posted by: cliff on November 20, 2007 09:17 AMI'm writing him another little check today. (Nothing special - a few hundred bucks.) If he weren't fighting for the taxpayers, how many of us wouldn't be able to afford our home right now?
Posted by: johnny on November 20, 2007 09:23 AMI came from California, where they TAX everything. So if anyone buys the idea they will only tax your income are fools!
Given the chance to tax, they will and often.
That you can take to the bank.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2007 09:44 AMSo may I suggest that all you screwballs, who are bemoaning 1% maximum property tax increases: Back up your bullsh*t bluster and get with it. Common boys, start signing those checks!
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2007 10:00 AMSo may I suggest that all you screwballs who are bemoaning 1% maximum property tax increases: Back up your bullsh*t and get with it. Common boys, start signing those checks!
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 20, 2007 10:01 AMI'm willing to bet your office of "approx 50 odd folks" is located in or very close to the Seattle socialist echo chamber, allowing me to agree that your co-workers undoubtedly are quite "odd", at least to the rest of us.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 20, 2007 10:10 AMAnd scott158 really makes an excellent point. Note how Andrew separates the word commonwealth into two words common and wealth. Freudian slip.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 20, 2007 11:30 AMIf Rossi keeps hanging out with the idiots down at the Discovery Institute he's going to have a bigger percentage loss than Ellen Craswell did in '96. Washington State never elects the religous nutzos.
This is about as well thought out as it is spelled. Who knew I lived in a such a "sructured" enviroment?
On the other hand, they have come to realize that after a point, Gregiores hanging out with the state employee unions stops being about living wage jobs and starts being about buying very expensive votes using tax dollars that come from the pockets of middle class tax payers.
We'll see which affiliation has a bigger impact on the election this year, but it's not going to be hard to paint Gregiore as very beholden to special interests that have gotten too much money and power at the expense of the common man.
Do you really think that after winning the election last time twice, the Seattle democratic slime machine is suddenly going to be able to paint Dino as massively out of step with the Washington voter?
Posted by: johnny on November 20, 2007 01:10 PMI really liked this one: "columbo's glass eye says: re 1: What exactly do you mean by "class envy"? Define your terms." That's utterly hilarious, being the root of the great divide between left and right for several decades now.
Just wait until someone introduces some new concepts like diminishing rate of return, marginal tax rate, and efficacy. I predict here and now, should someone do this, the reaction would be "look, why do we have to bother with that stuff? Lets just take what we want. It's only fair." And I'd put quote marks around "fair", only they wouldn't.
Yes, because the GOP can't show that Dino has done anything productive since the last election. He hasn't spoken up against Gregiore, he didn't run for the state House, all he seems to have done is made a few speeches while running an illegal front organization for his campaign. I don't think the Dem's will have to work very hard to prove Dino is slimy, it practically oozes out of him.
King County is even bigger than it was four years ago, fruit is being exported to foreign markets, overall trade is up. Gregiore certainly seems to be in touch with the states voters on both sides of the state.
CATO.
All areas have grown. Most of all in Sno.
The only markets I have seen that seen is Boeing.(fruit) But they have major problems with that too
Yeah, mainly from all those liberals looking for cheap home prices that they can't find in King Co. Everett is coming into it's own, it's no longer just a Boeing town. Sno. is also becoming bedroom community for the Redmond folks.
The only markets I have seen that seen is Boeing.
Wine has grown exponentially, 200th winery in Washington opened this year. Local wines getting top marks at home and abroad.
Washington becoming a Biodesiel hub is good news for state farmers. Technology is also doing well with more and more tech companies opening satellite offices in the Puget Sound region.
I'd say Gregiore has her bases covered.
Posted by: Cato on November 20, 2007 03:33 PMUmmm....maybe they're not happy because they think they are seriously hurt/dying and called 911? Not exactly the best time to gauge their political rants and raves. You guys hitting a lot of potholes on the way to the Hospital?
Wine is a big employer if you happen to live in Walla Walla. It brings in lots of tourists who eat at the restaurants, sleep in the hotels, and buy trinkets in the area. I'm surprised, no complaints against Biodesiel?
Many hate the road taxes.
Yeah, well what do they want? More lanes? Not around Puget Sound, property values are too high to waste on buying land to build roads.
And if you like tolling, how about $20.00 toll on every person using a public road to access a Tribal Casino? I know the Governor couldn't swing a compensation deal so I guess we should act through the legislature to address the "impacts" causes by these high traffic facilities.
Posted by: Huh? on November 20, 2007 05:41 PMI LOVE it! But $20 is too little, how about $50? Then the FUN, FUN, FUN tribal casino operators would be down in the mud with the rest of us...taxed to death.
All except Cato. Minimum wage earners don't pay a whole lot of taxes...
Posted by: Saltherring on November 20, 2007 06:09 PMWhy, one might believe they doth protest too much.
Posted by: Hinton on November 20, 2007 10:58 PM(I don't agree with Cato on much else either, but that is an aside.)
I spoke with a number of what I call "backbone citizens" during the days traveling, sat in on the "community update" events, for the service clubs, etc. and what I came away with is they these people are peeved. It's a citizen revolt in a way I haven't seen one in a lot of years.
The biggest hot button seems to be illegal immigration, which has been with us for a while but BOY did it bubble to the surface. (That whole license thing in NY really hit a nerve.) Behind that is property taxes.
I hear Cato when he says something might be going right in the produce industry, he might have numbers I don't. But the farmers weren't bragging about good times, they were bitching about bad times, and it had little to do with getting seasonal workers as much as "red tape" and problems with state agencies.
I sense a real undercurrent for change I actually didn't feel last time Rossi was up. It just seems like there's a wind of change out there.
I don't think the dems even believe it when they say different. It's a lot of whistling past the graveyard right now and maybe some overconfidence based on the last election.
I love how the governor giving in to what the people voted for, essentially, twice, is "caving to Eyman and Rossi." Most people would call it recognizing the democratic will, when it fails on a technicality (although that may be a little bit too generous to our court ... how many acts of the legislature have been overturned because of such weak "technicalities"?).
Oh and one more point: Andrew, bless his tiny little heart, thinks the 1% limit is draconian. Even though revenues across the state have increased about 50% since its institution. Not only has 1% been proven to not be a significant limit, but most people reserve the word "draconian" for limits the STATE puts on its PEOPLE, not the other way around.
Think about that when you think about the word "progressive."
Goldy is off, too. Yes, he's right that this won't win her points among the right wing. But she is not fighting that. She is fighting the (accurate) perception that her government has been a bastion of taxandspendism, which many moderates -- and even some liberals! -- greatly dislike. The Rossi Democrats are still out there, and she needs to make them consider that maybe she's done a good job. The 1% limit is absolutely essential for that.
And yes, she does take the Democratic base for granted.
I mean, duh. They will vote for her no matter what. How could they not? They control the legislature and the courts and the governor. Why would they throw that away over a policy that has been in effect for several years and has not been a significant impediment to government growth?
Posted by: pudge on November 21, 2007 04:14 PM