Let's be honest here, Governor Gregoire: you are most of the problem. Our deficit problems were caused by you. And you knew it at the time. You said, several times, in previous State of the State addresses, that we needed to stop the cycle of spending during good times, followed by cutting essential programs and raising taxes during bad times.
But that's exactly what you gave us: a state budget that increased 33 percent in your first term, and now we're faced with billions of dollars in deficits.
You can talk all you like about the recession and so on, but you knew a recession could be coming, and you knew what we needed to do to reduce its impact, but you didn't take your own advice. If we'd held the budget increases to reasonable levels we wouldn't be facing significant deficits at all.
You are -- along with the Democratic legislature that passed the spending bills you signed -- the reason we have this problem. It's why your job approval ratings are the worst they've ever been.
But you can redeem yourself, a little bit. You can promise to veto any removal of the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, or any bill that increases taxes, that doesn't get a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate. Back when you were running for re-election you brought back the 1 percent cap on property tax because, you said, "The voters approved Initiative 747" and "it has been in place for five years." The two-thirds requirement has been on the books for 17 years, and was reaffirmed only three years ago; does it not deserve the same respect?
Or do you really not care about whether the voters approve something, as you said you did when you were running for re-election?
You can say all you want that we can't cut our way out of this. But we know that's not true, because you spent our way into it. You know, we know it, and you can drop the charade.
[NOTE: some of you might want to consider looking at the EFF's no new taxes petition.]
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 11, 2010 10:32 PM | Email ThisGregoire has political cover on the 2/3 vote, after all it's not her removing the requirement, it's the legislature.
There is no doubt in my mind that they will raise taxes. It's all they know how to do. And it won't change until people stop electing the same politicians to office.
Posted by: Palouse on January 12, 2010 08:22 AM"Please sir - I want more" Oliver Twist
Posted by: Borderland on January 12, 2010 09:03 AMAnd really, even if she does butcher the state economy, why would that even stop her from getting re-elected. Locke came straight out and insulted the voters publicly, and he was still popular. Face it, we have enough people in this state that are either 'getting' from the government or that think their moral imperative for government spending programs should be required by everyone.
I think there is hope for conservatives in Washington, but I surely don't think we can expect Gregoire to change her actions based on anything she has ever said.
Posted by: Erich on January 12, 2010 09:05 AMHow could it possibly be immoral to veto a bill passed by the legislature?
Don't bother answering, since I know you have no coherent answer.
Eyman claims that it's undemocratic to ignore the "will of the people" as they've expressed in the past.
Where "the past" is two years ago.
And Gregoire herself said that the legislature should respect the will of the people as expressed via initiative, even when an initiative was passed as many as five years ago, let alone two. So you're arguing against Gregoire here, as much as you're arguing against anyone.
(Well, Gregoire in campaign mode, anyway. As her friend Nancy Pelosi says, people say lots of things during campaigns. But respectable citizens expect their officials to actually mean what they say.)
we live in a representative democracy
... where the governor has -- from the people, through the Constitution -- the right of the veto. The veto is no less a democratic expression of the will of the people than the legislature passing bills is. Obviously.
Weak sauce, Bruce, even for you.
Furthermore, how long should a law stay law before it is morally OK to repeal it? 2 years? 10 years? 100 years?
You can disagree with Gregoire's tax policy, but you have no grounds to criticize her for using her constitutional authority. You cheapen your claim of principled devotion to the constitution on other occasions when you make phoney arguments like this.
Posted by: Bruce on January 12, 2010 01:57 PMYou can disagree with Gregoire's and the legislature's tax policy, but you have no grounds to criticize them for using their constitutional authority. You cheapen your claim of principled devotion to the constitution on other occasions when you make phoney arguments like this.
Posted by: Bruce on January 12, 2010 02:00 PMFalse. No one, neither you nor I, made the point that anyone has a "moral right" here. And no one that I've seen denied that the legislature and governor have legal rights to pass and sign such a thing.
Furthermore, how long should a law stay law before it is morally OK to repeal it?
Again, no one here is talking about the morality, except for you.
you have no grounds to criticize them for using their constitutional authority
That's idiotic, Bruce. I have the greatest, most important, and most relevant grounds in the world: I am a citizen and I disagree with them.
You cheapen your claim of principled devotion to the constitution on other occasions when you make phoney arguments like this.
I defy you to show any example of me saying anything that in any way contradicts or disagrees with the Constitution, in word or in principle. You cannot.