Another in a series of selections of the latest bills filed in Olympia.
There's some good stuff in here, but note especially that if HJR 4209 had been in effect, we very well might not have faced any deficit this year. It is the implementation of what Gregoire for years said we needed to do, that we did not do: to save money when we have good times so we don't have to face huge spending cuts or tax increases when we have bad times.
House Bill 2011 (regarding firearms safety education programs)
Introduced by Rep. Maralyn Chase, (D-Shoreline) (D) on February 6, 2009, requires the superintendent of public instruction, within existing resources, to develop a program of instruction for firearms accident prevention for students in kindergarten through grade twelve.
House Bill 2023 (ending sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole for certain juveniles)
Introduced by Rep. Sherry Appleton, (D-Poulsbo) (D) on February 6, 2009, provides that at the effective date of this act, a convicted juvenile who was fifteen years or younger at the time he or she committed the crime, may not be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole. Those who are serving life sentences currently, who were fifteen years or younger at the time of their crime, shall be granted a re-sentencing hearing where the defense attorney shall make a motion for relief of the sentence.
Senate Bill 5911 (Performance measurement of tax preferences)
Introduced in the Senate on February 6, 2009, modifies a number of provisions of the tax code to adopt the citizen commission for performance measurement of tax preferences' recommendations.
Senate Joint Resolution 8213 (Changing school levy election timing provisions)
Introduced by Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, (R-Wenatchee) (R) on February 6, 2009, proposes an amendment to the state Constitution to change school levy election timing provisions to not more than eighteen months prior to the date on which a levy is to be made and not ofetener than twice in such eighteen-month period.
House Bill 2057 (reducing sales tax on new home construction to increase economic activity)
Introduced by Rep. Mike Hope, (R-Lake Stevens) (R) on February 9, 2009, lowers the sales tax rate on sales of tangible property and new construction to three and one-quarter percent until January 1, 2010.
House Bill 2058 (providing an annual sales and use tax holiday to assist families with educational supplies)
Introduced by Rep. Mike Hope, (R-Lake Stevens) (R) on February 9, 2009, provides a temporary exemption from sales tax for the purchase of certain items used for school, such as art supplies, computer hardware under fifteen hundred dollars and clothing intended for school wear. Expires at the time the United States congress grants individual states the authority to impose sales and use tax collection duties on remote sellers or when/if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that a state can impose sales and use tax collection duties on remote sellers.
House Bill 2063 (requiring notice of the incarcerated status of a convicted felon in any solicitation posted on the internet)
Introduced by Rep. Ed Orcutt, (R-Kalama) (R) on February 9, 2009, requires full disclosure of a convicted felon's incarceration status in any solicitation on behalf of or for the benefit of that person. Includes any internet solicitation, such as soliciting for financial support, pen pals, or any service or money being raised on behalf of the convict, whether or not the convict has consented to the solicitation. Prescribes penalties.
House Joint Resolution 4207 (amending the state Constitution to include an expenditure limit)
Introduced by Rep. Ed Orcutt, (R-Kalama) (R) on February 9, 2009, proposes an amendment to the state Constitution to include an expenditure limit, effective July 1, 2010. Gives specific instructions for legislative accountability for spending, to include the mandate that the legislature shall not impose responsibility for a new program or an increased level of service under an existing program unless the provisions for the costs of the new services or program are determined. Also directs that the spending limits shall be lowered appropriately as the cost of any state program is shifted away from the general fund.
House Joint Resolution 4208 (placing restrictions on tax increases)
Introduced by Rep. Ed Orcutt, (R-Kalama) (R) on February 9, 2009, declares that a tax increase may be imposed only by a favorable vote of two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature. Expands the definition of "tax" to apply to a charge or fee imposed on a person, property, or transaction for the general support of government.
House Joint Resolution 4209 (Requiring extraordinary revenue growth to be transferred to the budget stabilization account)
Introduced by Rep. Barbara Bailey, (R-Oak Harbor) (R) on February 9, 2009, requires that extraordinary revenue growth be transferred to the budget stabilization account. "Extraordinary revenue growth" is defined as the point at which growth in general state revenues for that biennium exceeds by one-third the average biennial percentage growth in general state revenues over the prior five biennia.
Senate Bill 5942 (Concerning the taxation of newspapers)
Introduced by Sen. Margarita Prentice, (D-Renton) (D) on February 9, 2009, decreases the business and occupation tax rate on the printing and/or publishing of newspapers until July 2015.
Senate Bill 5951 (Protecting voter information on returned ballots)
Introduced by Sen. Pam Roach, (R-Auburn) (R) on February 9, 2009, provides that the return envelope for a voted ballot must shield the voter's signature and optional telephone number.
Another problem with 4209 is that state revenues shouldn't be considered in a vacuum but rather in combination with federal and local government revenues, and in the context of what each takes responsibility for. (E.g., if the federal government cuts taxes and imposes unfunded mandates, it seems reasonable for states to raise taxes to pay for them.) But this would be impractical to put into a rigid law; it is better handled through the political process -- except that politicans (reflecting their typical constituents) instinctively prefer spending to saving.
Bottom line: a rigid law like 4209 is bound to be flawed and lead to unintended consequences. The question is whether it can be improved (perhaps with an "emergency" exception clause, which of course can be abused) so that it is more good than bad.
(Disclaimer: I haven't read the actual bill nor studied similar bills, so my comments are based more on math and logic than practical experience.)
Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2009 10:24 AMWow, now I've seen it all. Bruce prefers to blame the citizens because their representatives waste their money. A responsibile politician understands that he is simply the steward of the peoples money. The problem is, once they have our money in the coffers, it is no longer considered (by that representative) as OUR money, but theirs to spend however haphazardly that may be. This is true for both political parties, but most certainly prominent amongst the Democrats.
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/fox_cavuto_cong_joe_knollenberg_its_not_your_money/
The jackass in the clip above was a Republican in the house for 16 years that got booted in the next election.
Meanwhile, Democrats with the same attitude keep going back to Washington D.C. and continue to send our money down a rat-hole.
I haven't read the actual bill nor studied similar bills, so ...
... your analysis is worth nothing. I mean, come on.
Pudge@4, as I wrote that disclaimer I figured that someone would be juvenile enough to take it out of context. You bit.
Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2009 12:50 PMas I wrote that disclaimer I figured that someone would be juvenile enough to take it out of context
Well, you were obviously wrong, as no one took it out of context.
When you wrote those things about the bill you, by your own admission, had no idea whether any of them were actually true, since you didn't actually read it.
I assumed that if the bill adjusted for inflation or population growth, the summary would include that important fact.
You're wrong. It is a SUMMARY.
No attack, Bruce, but ME spending MY money rather than saving it is not comparable in any manner to a REPRESENTATIVE spending MY money rather than saving it should the revenues run high during good times for the state.Because it's "instinctive" doesn't make it right, nor does it make them good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. Just because it's in the coffers doesn't mean it can or should be allocated to theirs or any other representatives pet projects only to have them come squealing to us about the state having budget shortfalls a few years down the road.
The problem with your statement is that you gave the politicians sort of a pass by adding the qualifier, " reflecting their typical consituents". The two are apples and oranges.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 11, 2009 03:48 PM