Tomorrow's legislative special session in Olympia should be an object lesson in political expediency. Or is the metaphor abject lesson?
With the State Supreme Court tossing out I-747, Gov. Christine Gregoire and the near-Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature have been quick to keep their collective skirts out of the electoral mud-pit presented to them by their colleagues on the bench.
Gregoire is pushing a bill which is touted to restore the 1 percent cap on property tax increases.
Turn on any AM radio station and you've probably heard Tim Eyman, the fountainhead of I-747 excoriating Gregoire over the issue of "banking capacity". Prior to a week ago you wouldn't have been able to find one person in a hundred who could tell you what the term meant.
Although it is an arcane funding tactic, Eyman and others, including Bob Williams at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation contend that implementing the 1 percent property tax cap, while allowing local governments to parlay tax increases with the banking capacity loophole, will leave state taxpayers liable to a potential tax hike of $259 million.
Already during this period of legal limbo, the city council of Port Townsend has voted 4-3 to increase city taxes and to use $198,000 of banked capacity.
The matter of banking capacity was addressed in I-722, another Eyman initiative which was passed in 2000 and rejected by the court the following year. Eyman and his supporters will state that I-747 was written and passed with the assumption that 722 would be in place.
If politics were blackjack, Eyman sees the dealer is in trouble and is doubling down.
For Democrat die-hards the special session must be galling. What is the point of electing liberal and progressive candidates if they are going to cave to the state's biggest conservative boogeyman when the court has already done the dirty work of torpedoing yet another one of his initiatives?
There is still the chance enough Democrat legislators will shout out a collective "Sike" and nix Gregoire's proposal. But with heavy-hitters like Frank Chopp at the plate and the reality that not every Democrat has a safe seat located somewhere between Federal Way and Green Lake the odds are that at least the 1 percent cap will be reinstated.
The only question now is if Gregoire and Co. have the guts to look across the gaming table and call Eyman's bluff.
Hope they tax themselves into a shanty town!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 28, 2007 12:17 PMBut what else should we expect, when the Port of Seattle commission has a solid REPUBLICAN majority?
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 28, 2007 12:27 PMConsidering how quickly the fringe left morons were kicked to the curb after the 06 election, you'd think they be used to it by now.
Posted by: Hinton on November 28, 2007 12:40 PMThese damn judges better remember who's paying their salaries. The same damn people who wanted this tax cap.
Posted by: Ray Borbon on November 28, 2007 12:44 PMThey've had 3 years worth of rope.
Posted by: Andy on November 28, 2007 01:17 PMJoel Connely had another hit piece on this subject (sorry, name calling abounded despite his claim of innocence- where's Stefan when you need him). In this case he blasted Gregoire as well as Eyman.
As always, he used some lame conversation with another person who was hurt by the original initiative to bolster his point.
I think Joel is for any tax increase he doesn't have to pay into. I think that goes for a supermajority of the local socialists.
Posted by: swatter on November 28, 2007 01:18 PMWhen you think about it, it means so much more than "metaphoric object lesson"...
Posted by: John Galt on November 28, 2007 01:29 PM"Sike" is the proper 1980s spelling of the term "psych" as in to "psych-out" or to mislead.
If you were a kid in the '80s using the term "sike" you most likely used the phonetic spelling while writing the word on notes and other messages. Of course my slang usage comes from White Center. Your particular ghetto might have its own varient.
Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sike
DW
Posted by: The Tim on November 28, 2007 01:47 PMAs soon as the issue was brought up by Tim Russert in the Demo debate Oregonians have started an initiative petetion and the Governor has issued an executive order to tighten up proof of identity and citezenship requirements for obtaining driving licenses. Google it and you will see plenty.
I have not heard a word about this in Wa. Funny since I thought Oregon was actually more Liberal in its coddling of Illegals.
Posted by: daveo on November 28, 2007 02:09 PMNot when I came here in 1995!
Posted by: Army MedicVvet on November 28, 2007 02:37 PMAnd as Democrats, they are just dumb enough, and just arrogant enough, to try.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 28, 2007 03:00 PM(snicker) Well, Richard ... you could always run for the seat.
Posted by: jimg on November 28, 2007 03:20 PMBeen there, done that :)
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 28, 2007 04:00 PMBut we will remember their names, and be continually reminded of their votes.
Anything short of canning the Banking issue, will be deemed as their failure to come to grips with what the people of this state said ever so clearly in the last election.
Enough is enough, we are all taxed out!
Posted by: GS on November 28, 2007 04:37 PM
I've heard a lot lately about how local municipalities are going without police, fire, parks, sewers, libraries and other necessities like public pools because they lost their funding source under the initiative.... but the initiative didn't prevent raising taxes entirely, just doing it by fiat, right?
If the local governments really need those facilities, they can make a proposal to the voters as a supplimental levy and the people can decide whether the cost and benefit make sense, right? I have seen several of these for schools, libraries, fire departments and water districts where I have lived over the past few years. Generally the levys for things people care about (water quality, fire station, etc) get passed wheras the ventures of dubious benefit ("community centers") get voted down.
In King county, who would have voted for a property tax increase to fund water taxies? Especially if the other choice on the ballot was to fix that bridge Postman was talking about.
If I'm right, the real outcry is not over the ability to fund things, it's having to explain to the public what the money will be used for and, even more galling I am sure, ask for permission.
Am I correct in my thinking?
Thanks,
-Ian
Posted by: Ian on November 28, 2007 07:42 PMOn the day of the court's voters-are-stupid ruling and every day since, King County Assessor Scott Noble has repeatedly said reimposing a 1% doesn't fix, in his words, the "crisis", the "catastrophe", the "disaster" that the courts created. There are over 1700 local governments in Washington. Because of the courts, Rep. Ed Orcutt, ranking minority member of the House Finance Committee, reports that according to the Department of Revenue earlier this week that there's a total of $282.4 million in BANKED CAPACITY -- that's the amount that local governments can increase property taxes without a vote of the people (above the 1%). Gregoire's bill repeals $23.4 million of that amount, but leaves in place $259 million (county breakdowns are listed below). So the governor's bill threatens taxpayers with A QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ABOVE HER 1%.
Governor Gregoire has repeatedly promised a 1% cap, but her bill doesn't deliver a 1% cap. It's 1% plus $259 million. It's 1% plus whatever amount local governments want to exceed it by. Port Townsend just did it. Port of Seattle just did it (they also did it in 2002). King County just did it. Spokane did it. AND THOSE ARE THE ONES WE KNOW ABOUT. There are 1700 local governments -- the media can't possibly report on every tax-lusting local government that jacks up taxes -- there's just too many to keep track of. And Scott Noble points out that if not fixed by November 30th, then all these tax hikes are irreversible, that they can't be rescinded retroactively in January. They have to do it on Thursday or else taxpayers are going to get royally screwed.
Taxpayers clearly want a real 1% cap bill, NOT the governor's bill which promises 1% but delivers 1% plus a $259 million property tax increase.
We want her $259 million property tax increase repealed. The Washington Policy Center wants it repealed. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation wants it repealed. So does Dino Rossi.
But Rep. Orcutt has a prudent, compromise solution -- require local governments to get the voters' permission to impose any of that $259 million in banked capacity if its levy exceeds 1%. That's consistent with what the voters are being promised: a 1% cap and anything higher is OK with voter approval.
The governor's bill isn't a 1% cap -- it's a fraud, a sham, a lie. It's not a real 1% cap. It can be, if the Legislature and Governor follow Rep. Orcutt's (and Sen. Benton's) lead in requiring voter approval to impose any of that $259 million.
Everyone knows that's what the voters want and expect and deserve.
Each of the county assessors is compiling totals for governments within their county. Here's the ones received so far:
KING COUNTY:
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in KING COUNTY are threatened by $175,044,147 ($175 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 21.93% higher than the 1%.
PIERCE COUNTY
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in PIERCE COUNTY are threatened by $28,224,443 ($28 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 16.57% higher than the 1%.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in SNOHOMISH COUNTY are threatened by $36,237,117 ($36 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 22.22% (exact percentage expected later today) higher than the 1%.
YAKIMA COUNTY
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in YAKIMA COUNTY are threatened by $25,297,930 ($25 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 36.24% higher than the 1%.
LEWIS COUNTY
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in LEWIS COUNTY are threatened by $9,086,443 ($9 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 20.90% higher than the 1%.
SKAMANIA COUNTY
Just imposing 1%, and not repealing 21 years of unused taxing authority (which the governor's bill doesn't do), means property owners in SKAMANIA COUNTY are threatened by $1,503,633 ($1.5 million) in higher property taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. That's 26% higher than the 1%.
A 13% tax increase in my property in just 2007 alone.
Without the courts opening pandora's Tax Box.
Be sure and read your property statements this year before you vote!
Posted by: GS on November 28, 2007 09:04 PMWasn't the banked taxing authority available under I-747 as well? All the local governments you talk about could have done this same $259 million property tax increase, had the state supreme court upheld I-747. So how can you call it a tax increase, if the legislature simply reinstates I-747 tomorrow?
As for the Port of Seattle -- the largest abuser of banked taxing authority in the entire state by far -- isn't the port commissioner controlled by REPUBLICANS? Four out of five members of the outgoing commission (that just used $10 million of banked taxing authority this year, and which has used over $30 million more between 2002 and 2006) are either admitted Republicans, or were endorsed by the King County Republican Party and/or by prominent Republican elected officials. And with the offsetting defeats of two incumbents a few weeks ago, the incoming port commission will also be four our of five REPUBLICANS as well.
To summarize -- (1) you are blaming Democrat Christine Gregoire for enacting a non-existent tax increase tomorrow, which in all likelihood will simply reinstate I-747 and (2) you are saying virtually nothing about the biggest abuser of banked taxing authority by far -- the Republican Port of Seattle commission (and certainly nothing about it being a Republican-controlled body)
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 28, 2007 11:40 PMSecond of all, Mr. Pope, stop your blowviating. Have you been paying attention at all? I-722 covered the banking authority, so I 747 didn't need to address it. It was already addressed, but thanks to the Supreme Court it too was thrown out. Go find something else to do. Yes. I am blaming Gregoire for "caring so much about the citizens of Washington" that she can't wait to charge us 7% on tax deferred property taxes. We don't want our taxes deferred. WE DON'T WANT NEW TAXES AT ALL.
We voted for I-747. Then an alcoholic judge decided that we didn't understand what we were voting for. Last time I checked her job is to read the law NOT read people minds. I guarantee you, she can't read my mind, because I have more than a few choice thoughts for a judge who has NEVER been held to account for a hit and run driving accident, yet sits on the court and believes she is above the law.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if not for a judge who is conveniently retiring after screwing every citizen in this state.
2008 is an election year. Gregoire is just giving us an early Christmas present. Hopefully the citizens of this state will wise up and vote her gludious maximus out of there. And send the democratic held house and senate with her.
As for the Port of Seattle, THESE ARE NONPARTISAN POSTS!! At least get your facts straight. Oh, you're a democrat, that's not possible. And as for being endorsed by the republican party, Port Comissioner John Creighton was also endorsed by Gary Locke, remember him? And Alec Fisken, pos. no. 5, he was endorsed by Rom Sims, Frank Chopp, Gary Locke and Mike Lowry. Bob Edwards, was endorsed by Ron Sims as well. LLoyd Hara was endorsed by Gary Locke and Mike Lowry. These names ringing ANY BELLS for you? All democrats.
Republican controlled you say? Of course, like most democrats you love to cry foul when you have no clue what you are talking about.
Two words Mr. Pope. Go AWAY