June 13, 2012
Inslee "believes in democracy" except when democracy demands making it tougher to raise taxes
Congressman Jay Inslee, the Democrat candidate for Governor, is a trained lawyer and thus a gifted wordsmith ... so he knows how to twist words into a pretzel when he wants to. He did so yesterday during his debate with Attorney General Rob McKenna.
He was asked whether he favors or opposes our initiative making it tougher to raise taxes. Inslee's response: "I fundamentally believe in democracy." Here's a news flash for the Congressman: initiatives are democracy. Guaranteed by our state Constitution, the initiative process gives every citizen the opportunity to vote on public policy -- one person, one vote, exactly as Inslee claims he supports ("I believe all of my fellow citizens are entitled to one vote"). Inslee supports that principle except when he disagrees with the decision the voters have repeatedly made.
Such is the case with the voters' longstanding decision to make it tougher to raise taxes with initiatives like I-1053 which the people and democracy approved with 64% of the vote in 2010. "Let democracy rule," said Inslee yesterday. I-1053 passed overwhelmingly everywhere except Seattle -- so Inslee is siding with Seattle over everyone else. We've had 28 years of Democrat governors representing Seattle -- do we really want 4 more?
If Inslee believed in letting democracy rule, he would accept the clear and consistent decision of the people. But he doesn't. Inslee doesn't support democracy when the people want it to be tougher to raise taxes -- he's mirroring Governor Gregoire's 8 year opposition to I-1053.
Why is this important? Because since running for governor, Inslee has given carefully crafted, Gregoire'ish statements about increasing taxes. Inslee keeps saying "I'm not talking about raising taxes" which is exactly the phrase that Gregoire used as a candidate. But as we all remember, after winning election/re-election, she consistently ignored her pre-election promises and imposed billions and billions in higher taxes ($6.7 billion in 2010 alone). If Inslee was planning on keeping his promises to not raise taxes, he wouldn't care if it was easy or tough.
And we cannot ignore the fact that while in Congress, Inslee never met a tax he didn't wanna hike. So it's simply unbelievable that Inslee has suddenly become a Grover Norquist clone.
What's happening is this: Inslee is following candidate Gregoire's playbook and hoping the voters will forget what the last Democrat Governor did to us on taxes. But the Congressman's opposition to tougher-to-raise-taxes I-1053 and his "no vote" on this year's Initiative 1185 is proof positive that Inslee is simply seeking to fulfill Gregoire's 3rd term. Eight years of bait-and-switch by Governor Gregoire has been tough on taxpayers; we can't afford four more years of getting snookered on tax hikes by Congressman Inslee.
This year's Initiative 1185 is the absolute best insurance for all taxpayers regardless of who wins the governorship or which party controls the Legislature for the next 2 years.
Please help us get Initiative 1185 over the finish line.
Here's our website.
Posted by Tim Eyman at June 13, 2012
07:44 AM | Email This
Sure, an initiative vote is democratic, but the initiative itself is neither democratic nor constitutional if it undermines democracy and conflicts with the constiution.
You would be more honest if you acknowledged what the judge said in ruling 1053 unconstitutional: An initiative can't change the democratic system of voting defined in our constitution. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.
2. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. It may seem to be unconstitutional to those who want to keep raising taxes. But That is an opinion. You have a lot of Seattle Judges that want to raise taxes. You have Unions that want to raise taxes. Who pays the taxes the people of this state buying any product or service. The bottom line Every year Washington state spent more than the previous budget. They have never cut spending on a whole. And to maintain the spending levels they have to take more in taxes. Eventually you drive businesses from the state and jobs leave and you need more and more in taxes to pay for all the new government spending items. We have not recovered from the recession . We know we have a big shortfall in the budget. But why is that it is because they do not cut anything. and the Democrat answer is always Cut Law enforcement and Teachers but thier special interests never lose a dime. Blame the rich for not paying enough in taxes every time. Pay your fair share is the motto. It that the fair share gets more and more of everyones salaries. Eventually the choice may be between paying taxes and buying food to feed the family. THe LORDS of Government want all the money for themselves and never allow the people to keep thier money.
3. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a 2/3 majority to raise taxes.
Strange, then, that the Washington State Constitution doesn't agree with you.
And, sadly, we have to put up with another poorly drafted, unconstitutional initiative from Eyman just so he can line his pockets and lie to us some more.
If (and that's a huge "if") the Supreme Court finds these initiatives unconstitutional, the people will still have been allowed a voice... a voice that terrifies the left and emboldens the right.
Odd that those on the left can be such hypocrites about so many things related to the vote.
It's clearly against the state constitution, and I'm really surprised to see McKenna taking such a strong stand over a case that he's bound to lose.
A good question to Rob would be, "If the 2/3 majority is ruled unconstitutional, would you veto any bill containing tax increases if that bill did not pass by a 2/3 majority?"
EYMAN RESPONSE: 3 supreme court rulings have dismissed lawsuits just like this one. I hazard a guess that's why McKenna is so confident.
More thorough explanation here:
@3, Which court case are you referring to Lionel, in which the Washington State Constitution has been found to be at odds with the 2/3 majority? And/or do you have some other reasoned argument?
The only Constitutional argument I've seen is that the WA State Constitution sets forth a requirement that a bill pass a "majority" vote. Now unless it explicitly states "simple majority," I'm gonna have to say that argument is full of crap because last I checked 2/3 majority is still a majority.
7. Inslee is the creepiest politician both eastern and (now) western Washington have produced in many years. Snohomish County voters must need psychotherapy!
8. Great site! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am bookmarking your feeds also
9. I precisely wished to appreciate you again. I do not know the things I would've done without those ideas documented by you on my concern. It was actually an absolute terrifying case for me, but witnessing a new specialised avenue you resolved that made me to jump with gladness. I am just happy for your guidance and even hope that you really know what a great job that you are undertaking instructing the others via your site. I am certain you've never come across all of us.