Reuven Carlyle: Supermajority for Transit Spending Unacceptable

At last, a legislator with some cojones!

There are no council Republicans or Democrats on the King County Council. Now that these are no longer partisan seats, councilmembers have now suspended any previous party loyalty and now work strictly in the interest of their constituents.

I agree that ‘non-partisan’ elections are a farce. Real change will have to come from divorcing the parties from the government (state funded primaries, districts being decided by the parties, etc) not from pretending that differences will vanish b/c you pass a law saying so.

Groovin’ Reuven is already one of my favorite legislators with just a few months under his belt.

Calling the initiative “an unconstitutional, poorly designed and undemocratic restriction on the Legislature to responsibly manage the public’s tax resources,”…

Had the legislature “responsibly managed the public’s tax resources”, in the first place, there never would have been I-1053.

Calling the initiative “an unconstitutional, poorly designed and undemocratic restriction on the Legislature to responsibly manage the public’s tax resources,”…

Had the legislature “responsibly managed the public’s tax resources”, in the first place, there never would have been I-1053.

Representative Carlyle is definitely right about this one. As he points out, it is one matter (bad enough) to impose arbitrary rules on taxation by initiative on the Legislature, but it is quite another matter for the voters of Clark County to dictate how King County shall manage its transit funding.

Whether it’s constitutional or not is a question that was raised during the I-960 era, but at that time legislators found it expedient not to find out. The Legislature could vote to suspend the rules and pass a tax increase with a simple majority, thereby provoking a lawsuit and having a court settle the matter. I don’t know the laws well enough to say, though I am not terribly optimistic, as I recognize that unconstitutional does not mean the same thing as “I don’t like it”.

The entire non-partisan system and notion is a criminal sham that needs to be upended and discarded as an affront to every ounce of common sense.

Had some rich baby Koch brother trolls not backed up a dump truck of money at Tim Eyman’s door step, there never would have been I-1053.

I think over time the benefits will grow, mainly making more centrist candidates viable.

I generally don’t agree with you, but it is true. The people in the center wouldn’t have gone for this had government not continually grown. The penny tax here, penny tax there has really added up over time. I would have preferred that it be a government stabilization law though, limiting both growth and cutting.

Is this the place to make this stand against Eyman? Metro faces 20% cuts to the system without this funding…at least half of those cuts will come from Seattle because that is where over 60% of the service is. Why doesn’t he just make a kick ass speech on the floor? This bill may not pass with his amendment.

Did the Koch brothers pay off 64% of the voters, as well?

If there hadn’t been an emergency session of the Legislature to force Safeco Field on us, there wouldn’t have been Eyman,

so let’s get this straight. The Democratic party says the 2/3 requirement is unconstitutional, but they sit in the legislature abiding by it for the legislature every day — with no one challenging it in court?

While props to Groovin’ Reuven for saying it shouldn’t apply to the county councils, um….has he said it should not apply to the leg either?

BTW let’s stop calling it supermajority, mm? “Un-American, un-democratic, Unequal Minority rule — just like the parliamentary shenanigans foisted upon us by old King George” would be a more apt description. “No more one man, two votes!” Becuase that is what it is — it doubles your voting power if you’re against a tax hike by requiring twice as many pro as con. Quite the con, eh, they really know their cons, these con-servatives.

The problem with the initiative process is that it brings us “mob rule”

Government hasn’t grown continually, at least not in Washington. Over the last decade, per capita state revenues have gone *down* while per capita outlays have remained flat, all while state economic productivity (state “GDP” so to speak) has gone up. See here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/11/01/honey-ive-shrunk-the-government and http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-problem-isnt-runaway-spending/Content?oid=7336259.

you are spreading falsehoods, the state govt. as % of state economic product has been going down.

you are spreading falsehoods, the state govt. as % of state economic product has been going down.

Too ALOT of people the local, state and federal governments are one in the same.

Groovin’ Reuven is serving his second term.

From another Publicola article today: “the $4.4 billion in spending reductions which include cutting: I-728 funding for class size reductions, saving $1.2 billion; higher education funding by $482 million; K-4 classroom reductions by $216 million; and state contributions to pensions for higher education employees by $57 million.”

So, the state can cut education by billions, and kick thousands of people off the basic health plan, but cutting bus service in King County is unacceptable? What a load of garbage. Cut the bus service. Nobody will die.

and it may not matter whether it passes or not without that amendment. will get 2/3rds of the county council, or 2/3rds of the county, to pay for this? Doubtful.

Ahhh the Koch brothers, the invisible men behind the curtain, the George Soros for the looney left.

So by mob rule, you actually mean ‘democracy’.

Yeah, Groovin’ Reuven will stick his neck out for a $20 tax….

Hogwash. The Teahadists are well on the way to achieving Grover Norguist’s goal of “drowning government in the bathtub.” The core problem is the increasing disparity of wealth and income. Factoid: the 400 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. own more wealth than the bottom 50% (over 150,000,000 people). The rich simply don’t want to pay their fair share, and they have been increasingly successful since Reagan.

And Norman shows his true colors.

undemocratic restriction

Only in the Imperial State of Washington is 66 percent of the people, voting three times to restrict the ability to raise taxes considered undemocratic.

And what exactly is a transit emergency ?

“ALOT” of the people are idiots.

“ALOT” of the people are idiots.

The Democratic Party doesn’t say 1053 is unconstitutional. Individuals say that they believe that it is. It isn’t unconstitutional until it’s ruled unconstitutional by a court.

Again, if anyone wants to sue a court to rule on it, go ahead. Back up your claims in court, but you’re going to have to pay $$ to do so and spend years doing so. Until then, Eyman wins and will continue winning.

Maybe.. but more likely alot of people have much more busy life then those of us who can afford to check Publicola, Slog, Citytank all day

Did I use the words “Per capita” and “relative to the economy”? No.

However, here is the state’s take on the per capita tax burden of our state compared to the nation (these are in nominal dollars, which appear to be increasing, probably with inflation):
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2010/Compare10/Chart%202.pdf

The sales tax rate for those living in Seattle has increased by about 23% since 2001.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/TID/ResultsHistorical.aspx?Location=1726

Here is an interesting table on the historical changes to state taxes over the years
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2010/Compare10/Chart%203.pdf

Hogwash? I don’t disagree with anything else that you say, but how else do you explain Eymans initiative passing with such a margin? At some point, people get tired of always being asked to pay just a little bit more; be it reality or perception.

Exactly!

I am embarassed to be wrong! Thank you for the correction.

I disagree. The fact that most other political offices are still partisan AND that each party already has a dedicated machine means that most candidates will be drawn to one party or the other for support. Even if they can’t officially declare, it’s pretty obvious which one they support and which party supports them.

That’s why these types of superficial changes will have little to no effect unless more fundamental changes take place to weaken the parties themselves.

Slight correction on the secon link, it is misleading. I should have said, after taking out the state sales tax, the remaining sales tax has increased 23% for those living in Seattle.

The point being, this tax is collected all together as just one tax in the the payers’ eyes. At some point, that overall tax rate is what people see and decide is too much, even if the overall tax burden remains about the same.

The “progressive’s” creed.

A “transit emergency” is when the High Priests of Public Transit feel their congregation isn’t tithing enough.

and props to Publicola for fixing their Disqus problem. Good job.

our overall tax rates are lower than many western european nations’. you are spreading falsehood in saying we are overtaxed.

ah yes “Eyman wins and continues winning” what a brilliant way to fight for progessive ideals. “LLet’s give up! If someoine criticizues the democratic party for taking this shafting, let’s tell that voice, ‘hey buddy! *you*( go so!”

Wow the solidarity is amazing. Oh wait, you mea the Democratic PArty official position is that the 2.3 vote requirement is constitutional? Wow, our Democratic Party agrees with Eyman. Let’s rename it the Eyman Democratic party in that case.

rioght, you didn’t use the words per capita and relative to the economy becuase you can only tell your lies if you don’t use those words. “I am a rich man!” “Oh wait I forgot to tell you I have 12 kids, but is that material?” What a load of crap. And your first link that is in nominal dollars stretching back to 1975? WTF? Another “let’s lie with statistics” You really are smarter than that and if you can’t rebut the assertion backed up above that govt. hasn’t grown relative to per capita and per state gdp then just admit you were wrong. Oh wait, that would admitting you’re wrong.

not once did I say we were over taxed.i said alot of people have the perception they are being nickle and dimed. They are fed up and they see systems getting more money yet less results. Pass some you cannot sue the government laws, crack down on abuse and fraud, and all the Lashaunda’s at the DMV and you might see people more amenable to taxes.

Sorry that I linked to state data and didn’t have a blog to link to instead. I’m not attempting to rebut that government hasn’t grown at the same rate as the economy. I said government has grown and @Rachael Ludwick said it hadn’t and then brought in all the relative data.

Sorry that I linked to state data and didn’t have a blog to link to instead. I’m not attempting to rebut that government hasn’t grown at the same rate as the economy. I said government has grown and @Rachael Ludwick said it hadn’t and then brought in all the relative data.

The five formerly known as Democrats on the council will support it. Jane Hague testified in Olympia in support of the bill. It is capped at two years. I think the council will support it.

Actually, Grover, cutting bus service makes it more difficult for students to get to schools and libraries and community centers. It makes it more difficult for seniors to get to their medical appointments. And it makes it much more difficult for low income communities to get to jobs.

The kicker for conservatives to pay attention to is that most of those folks will STILL have to do those things whether there’s a cheap transit alternative or not. So, you’re both raising the cost of living for thousands of citizens AND you’re adding more cars on the road in front of yourselves.

That data is very misleading. The “take on tax revenue per capita” ignores the more salient statistic — the rate each person pays per $ of income. See http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/486.html And even that data doesn’t account for the differences between rich and poor. E.g., with Washington’s heavy reliance on the regressive sales tax, the rich pay far less tax per $ of income.

People in the middle and lower income brackets are responding to the shift of the burden from the rich to them. They feel the pinch, but instead of voting for an income tax (I-1098) that would shift the burden back up the income scale, they let corporate/wealthy donors convince them to vote against their own interest. The total take in constant dollars by government has been falling for years; why else do you think state legislatures are hacking the hell out of our services? (Which pain could be avoided to come extent in WA if the Leg would have the guts to cut a bunch of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, such as “End sales tax exemption for security brokers — $106.5 million” [source: oionline.org/tax_reform/publications.htm]).

Yikes! Once again I find myself agreeing with @Blue Light.

I agree with your assessment. I think most voters look at ‘value’ not total revenues and expenditures. If a poor person is paying more per $1k of income but receiving less because the rich (or politicians or whoever) are shifting the tax burden to the poor, then of course the perception and reality is that the masses are paying more and getting less and so cutting government seems like the ideal answer.

While I often disagree with your take on things, I do appreciate the manner in which you present your points and do feel like you make me think more about my own position (unlike many others around this place).

Is the data misleading because it doesn’t support your view?

No. Read my post again. Jaker’s cited stat for proposition that “per capita” tax revenue is the relevant number. I said (and say) that’s misleading; more relevant is the amount taken from each dollar of income since incomes have gone up more than the tax revenues. Also not considered is the different proportions of income taken from rich person’s dollar v middle/lower income person’s dollar. The rich get richer and the rest have real income drop and vote to shrink the government instead of pushing back against the rich. How much clearer can I get? Do you have some counter argument beyond snark?

Jakers–comment appreciated.

You mean subsidized transit would be slightly less convenient and slightly more expensive for users? So what?

We have a constitution to prevent majority rule when it tramples on minority rights. Justice and human rights should not be up for a vote. The problem here is that economic justice (i.e., no extreme maldistribution of wealth leading to poverty, etc.) runs right into our society’s love affair with ‘individual liberties’ which is (mis)used by the corporatists to justify property rights uber alles in order to perpetuate that very same economic injustice.

It’s not easy to tease out the overlapping threads of economics, civil rights & liberties, property rights, and ‘democracy’ and governance, but we must do so if we’re going to have an intelligent public debate about where we’re headed. On a closely related subject, check out Danny Westneat’s column today: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2014693677_danny06.html

I mean PUBLIC transit may see cuts of as much as 600,000 service hours — which will be MUCH less convenient for transit-dependent riders and MUCH more expensive for those who are forced to use a car.

No you didn’t. However you claimed the government has grown continually – if you just meant that it increased spending in an absolute sense then I don’t disagree. However most government spending must grow if population is growing if we want to maintain services at their existing levels. As WA cannot borrow like the Feds, the state has had to make many cuts over the last decade to deal with the long-term revenue shortfall. How can a government that cannot borrow extensively and is taking in 25% less (relative to the size of the state economy) be said to be growing? The overwhelming majority of state services require growth as population and business activity increases – social welfare, education, roads, utilities, policing, etc are all services that, to be effective, must grow with population and businesses. So while the statement about “continual growth” is true, it’s not true in the sense it is used in most budget discussions where “out of control” government spending is cited to support huge spending cuts to fix a deficit.

Saying a particular rate has increased is fairly irrelevant if the state doesn’t actually take in more money (per capita or as a share of economic productivity). This is in fact what has been happening with sales tax which is a huge component of state revenue. So I think you’re really arguing that the particular tax burden as seen by an individual tax payer is offensively large. That might be true (though I doubt it because otherwise why is per capita state revenue down?) but is a different argument. I don’t believe you can meaningfully say the state government, which must balance it’s budget and has debt limits, is growing when its revenue is falling as compared to the population it must support. It’s just treading water at this point.