Sound Politics: Ghost Bill In Washington Legislature

February 09, 2010

Ghost Bill In Washington Legislature

On taxes, naturally.

A strange thing happened in Olympia today. This morning a bill was introduced in the Senate, SB 6853, which has no text.

I don't think this is what is generally meant by transparency.

Call me suspicious, but I fear that SB 6853 will not be good for the taxpayers of this state.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

Posted by Jim Miller at February 09, 2010 02:23 PM | Email This

Comments

1. S-4568.1 _____________________________________________
SENATE BILL 6853
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2010 Regular Session
By Senators Rockefeller, Kastama, Tom, Regala, Gordon, Ranker,
Prentice, Oemig, Keiser, and Kline
Read first time 02/09/10. Referred to Committee on Ways & Means.
1 AN ACT Relating to creating the legislative review of tax
2 preferences act of 2010.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act shall be known and cited as the
5 legislative review of tax preferences act of 2010.
--- END ---

Posted by: waguy on February 9, 2010 02:58 PM

2. Maybe the Republicans should ask for the rules to be suspended and the Senate be call to a committee of the whole to pass the bill as presented.....empty.

Posted by: Smokie on February 9, 2010 03:39 PM

3. I saw this earlier today, but if you go to the state legislature page for the bill and click "Original Bill" about halfway down the page, the pdf it links to has the actual content of the bill. It's not clear where WA Policy Center got the one they posted.

Posted by: Pubic Servant on February 9, 2010 04:45 PM

4. 6843 does look a lot like 6853, but a careful look will show you the difference.

Posted by: Jim Miller on February 9, 2010 06:41 PM

5. jim,

do you really not know how the legislature works?

it's a title-only bill.

how a bill becomes law

senate rule #63

maybe this is why the GOP is so uneffective at governing?

Posted by: mike on February 9, 2010 09:54 PM

Rule 63. The first reading of a bill shall be by title only, unless a majority of the members present demand a reading in full.

it's a title-only bill.

Rule 63 means that no matter how long a bill is, on the first reading, they only have to read the title. It does not mean that the first reading is just for bills that contain only a title.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 9, 2010 10:28 PM

7. it's a place holder.

and it can mean that the first reading is just for bills that contain only a title.

it happens quite a bit, actually. i think 8 or 9 times today...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6113.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6109.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6130.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6684.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6793.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2281.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2308.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3054.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3140.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2281.pdf

Posted by: mike on February 9, 2010 10:59 PM

8. Yes, most of us out here are totally ignorant on how government functions. Laws are written by and for lawyers, social workers and other assorted paper pushers. We have no idea how their brains function. We're not sure they do.

Posted by: teapartygrandma on February 10, 2010 11:49 AM

9. My state Senator Eric Oemig is one of the sponsors and I've asked him to explain it and the lack of transparency. He's also one of the betrayers that voted to repeal I-960 yesterday. These Dems don't have a clue what's about to hit them in November.

Posted by: Reality on February 10, 2010 11:56 AM

10. Mike, SouthernRoots is right, the bill only needs to be read by title only (small words: they only have to read the title) unless the majority wants to read the full text of the bill. For "Title Only" bills, that wouldn't be much more information so why even object to reading the title only?

You should watch the process in place for this specific bill. Thanks the Washington Policy Center, there's a post that shows the full process on this bill. Take note on several things:

1. When the request to suspend Senate Rule 45 (5 day rule for public hearing) is made and voted on, it looks like they didn't even have a quorum if you look at how many seats are vacant you can clearly see that there's not enough for a majority vote. The seats eventually fill up by the end (when they actually vote). So, most of them missed the 5 day rule being suspended. Yeah, I'd be fired if I missed things like that.

2. When the public hearing was held and the only person came up having a hard time discussing this bodiless nonsense the committee (and audience) laughed. Also, notice all the whispers after testimony before the committee responds as if they are trying to figure out why the bill is there. Yes, whispering happens, especially with microphones in front of you, this is just perception.

Obviously this is allowed but doesn't really make for a voter friendly process. This specific bill from what I can tell is a bill to change how the legislature reviews the upcoming Tax Preferences Act of 2010 not the actual act. Of course, this is pure speculation cause all we have is the TITLE of the bill, no body. Second reading should have more text (maybe).

Posted by: Unfit For The Internet on February 14, 2010 10:24 AM