January 11, 2010
Governor Gregoire Can Redeem Herself ... A Little Bit
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 This
1. This state deserves so much better than the fiscal irresponsibility Gregoire has foisted onto us. Spend only what you have, Ms. Gregoire, not what you don't....just like all the families in WA have to!
2. Back here, in this Washington, the Democratic Party owns this economy, lock, stock, and barrel. They have nothing, and no one else to blame for this. It's just a matter of time until the average liberal voter figures this out. I'm not holding my breath since it seems to take these types an incredibly long time to figure out anything.
I think there's a better chance that Al Gore admits AGW is a fraud.
Gregoire 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.
4. Palouse: if she signs it, she has no rational cover.
5. Veto? What's that? Has she ever vetoed anything? I think people have forgotten the governor even has veto power, since it's rarely ever used.
Pete, the liberal voter NEVER wakes up. The states and cities in this country that are financial basket cases have been under majority democrat governance for decades. No one ever associates that with their sad state of affairs.
"Please sir - I want more" Oliver Twist
What's her motivation to do anything different? So her approval ratings are low. She may not want a 3rd term anyhow. The worst she has to be worried about is that next year one house of the legislature may go Republican (maybe both, who knows). So really, that just behooves her to get the really nasty stuff done now. The legislature will pay the political price for this, not the Governor.
And 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.
8. Expecting Gregoire to do anything that will actually help this state is humorous. Look around the country, the liberal enclaves are the cities and states in bankruptcy. Democrats will do what they always do. Secure deals and pass legislation for unions and tribes, while promising more to their naive and willing victims in exchange for votes.
9. Wouldn't it be immoral for Gregoire to veto a bill passed by the legislature? Eyman claims that it's undemocratic to ignore the "will of the people" as they've expressed in the past. But we live in a representative democracy. Surely a constitutional scholar like pudge believes that the governor should accept the will of our democratically elected representatives!
10. Erich@7, you have made an argument for why Gregoire will do what she thinks is right without regard to politics or favors. Is that what you meant?
Bruce: Wouldn't it be immoral for Gregoire to veto a bill passed by the legislature?
How 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.
12. If Gregoire thinks two years after the people speaking is enough time passing to overturn their will, perhaps we should put her governorship up to the same test. What's the recall law in WA?
Pudge@11- Thanks for making my point: Just as Gregoire has the legal and moral right to check the legislature (by vetoing a bill they just passed), so does the legislature have the legal and moral right to check the popular vote (by repealing an initiative the people passed 2 years ago).
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.
Actually the last sentence of my previous post should read:
You 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.
Bruce: Thanks for making my point
False. 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.