Categories
Accountability Common Sense initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

Evergreen Eyman

“Initiative 1366 is blackmail,” one plaintiff charged.

No; it’s just political hardball.

Washington State voters have cast their ballots five times (by initiative measure) to require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the state legislature, or a vote of the people, to increase taxes.

Though the rule is neither hard to understand nor difficult to implement, legislators have repeatedly overruled the people they supposedly serve, overturning the measure and then, finally, suing to overturn the repeatedly re-enacted two-thirds requirement.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that only through a constitutional amendment could citizens place upon their representatives the two-thirds mandate. And — you guessed it — the state’s initiative process doesn’t permit constitutional amendments, only statutes.

As I reported back in June, Tim Eyman and Voters Want More Choices haven’t skipped a beat. Their grassroots army collected over 335,000 voter signatures to place a new initiative on the ballot. This measure would cut a penny from the state sales tax unless legislators propose an amendment to the state constitution establishing the rule that taxes can only be raised via a two-thirds legislative vote or a popular vote.

The day after the signatures were verified and the measure placed on the ballot, a group of legislators and various special interests sued to block the measure from going to a vote. Last Friday, the court declared that Initiative 1366 would remain on the ballot for voters to decide.

So, whether “blackmail” or ingenious hardball, it looks like voters will have a chance to send a very direct message to their representatives: Do what the people want or else.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Stubborn Beast

 

Categories
Common Sense education and schooling folly general freedom tax policy

Money (for Us) Good, Profit (for Them) Bad

“One thing that we’ve done,” Dennis McBride of Support our Schools-Wauwatosa told a crowd at a free event hosted by the non-profit Wisconsin Public Education Network, “is we’ve made sure every time one of our legislators pops up his or her head above the foxhole, we’re there to shoot at them.”

The crowd laughed, reports the watchdog John K. MacIver Institute, which ran the story under the headline, “Panelist Jokes About Shooting Legislators at Public Education Summit.”

No worries, though: it was just a metaphor.

The genuinely kooky thoughts were less figurative.

One speaker encouraged the audience never to say the two words, “Scott Walker,” for fear of giving “the Wisconsin governor” higher name-recognition.

“Some of the first voucher supporters,” asserted Jonas Persson of the Center for Media and Democracy, “outside of this kind of new right core group of ideologues and wealthy entrepreneurs, were white supremacists. . . .”

Incredibly, he insisted that this movement “drew most of its support from, quote, ‘white flight areas*.’”

Somehow, no one mentioned voucher program successes, or the grassroots support for vouchers in African-American communities.

“The ultimate goal is about breaking down public schools and to be honest with you,” said Jennifer Epps-Addison of Wisconsin Jobs Now/Schools and Communities United, “it’s about profiting off of the education of our kids.”

Heavens! Making a profit by serving parents and children “consuming” education? Unthinkable.

Meanwhile, Epps-Addison pushed the “Wisconsin Freedom Compact,” which calls for doubling the tax dollars going to public education.

Will she guarantee that no one will profit from that?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article contained the term “white flight Aryans” in Jonas Persson’s quote. After review of notes and audio recordings, the phrase has been corrected to read “white flight areas.” The context and overall significance of Persson’s statements are not changed, but the quote is updated for accuracy.


Printable PDF

Teacher's Union

 

Categories
tax policy

You Can’t “Give” Me What’s Already Mine

A mooching relative borrows $500 from you, wastes it all in a drunken spending spree, never pays you back.

Eventually, he loftily hands you a fiver.

He says, “I don’t even know why I give you this money, but I’m a nice guy. Use this gift to create jobs or something, okay?”

In response, do you a) Punch him in the nose; b) Punch him in the nose; c) Punch him in the nose; or d) Thank him for the gift.

We all know which three of these four options is the correct answer. Yet, again and again in tax cut discussions, people talk as if reducing the amount of money the IRS grabs from someone is tantamount to “giving” that person something.

Political commentator E.J. Dionne recently repeated this fallacy. “For years,” he wrote, “Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy.” Dionne adds that Obama “is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly.” And Dionne thinks this a good idea.

So, why not just grab all the money the wealthiest people earn and divide it amongst the have-nots? Sure, this would kill the economy. But at least the terrible “middlemen,” the producers who make a complex economy possible, will be cut out of the loop.

An accomplishment we can all cheer as we starve to death.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.