It’s no secret that Democrat Jim Moeller, Representative for the heavily Democrat 49th Legislative District in Washington State is pro taxes. We have even nicknamed him “Da Taxman” over this love of hanging more and more taxes on the backs of taxpayers, even though his district is in the 4th year in a row of double digit unemployment.
To combat this ‘tax happy’ attitude of Olympia Democrats, who have maintained a stranglehold on the state government for over a decade now, voters have repeatedly passed constitutional initiatives requiring the legislature to have a two thirds ‘Super Majority’ vote in order to stick more taxes on us.
Each has been discarded by the governor and legislature as soon as legally possible, giving the Democrat majority an easier time taxing us to death.
Enter Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 in 2010 once again requiring the legislature to achieve that two thirds majority to impose and raise taxes on us or put them to the voters for a majority vote. The initiative was passed by voters with a wide 64% margin statewide. Locally, including Moeller’s own district he says he represents, it passed by a 71.3 percent margin.
Completely ignoring that the “will of the people” is that the legislature require such a two thirds Super Majority vote for taxes, Special Interests and some Democrats, including Jim Moeller filed a lawsuit against the people’s voice claiming, “Changing the constitution and our right to vote by initiative, no matter what percentage it passed by, is unconstitutional.”
The right to Citizen Initiative is written into the Washington State Constitution, Article II Section 1.
The case was recently argued before King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller and is in his hands.
Chris Korsmo, CEO of the League of Education Voters representing “a consortium of plaintiffs that includes the Washington Education Association and a number of House Democrats including Rep. Jim Moeller” claimed, “This initiative prevents legislators from having all of their constitutionally protected powers at their disposal for making budget decisions. In fact, it turns democracy on its head by giving the minority all of the power. Why would you put barriers around what the Legislature can do and needs to do, especially in these economic times?”
Since when does such a majority of voters, who have repeatedly stated this is what we want “turn democracy on its head?” Isn’t the very definition of “democracy” majority rule?
Why would we “want to put barriers around what the legislature can do?” Could it be that a majority of voters around the state, both Democrats & Republicans have looked at how the legislature has acted and are dissatisfied with their actions? From where I sit, it is a clear message to stop raising and imposing new taxes and live within the means sent to Olympia.
Republican 17th Legislative District Senator Don Benton rightfully noted “a healthy change in the budgeting process by creating necessary limits on spending” saying, “I wholly support 1053 and the concept behind 1053. Because we have a Legislature that is very out of touch with what the people want, we have Tim Eyman. The initiative has forced lawmakers to say no when there is not enough money to spend on something. And I think that’s a good thing.”
Tim Eyman says, “It made tax increases a last resort. It did exactly what voters wanted.”
Ignoring the wide margin the initiative passed by, Jim Moeller cried, “It makes a sham out of what we currently have. We can expand tax incentives but not close them with a simple majority. That’s ridiculous,” adding “It’s not an issue of partisanship. It’s about hampering the majority’s ability to govern…”
Since when does the “ability to govern” mean hanging endless taxes on the backs of struggling middle class taxpayers, as did Moeller ill-fated “candy tax.”
I am especially taken aback by Moeller’s claims of the “will of the people” “making a sham out of what we currently have.” Moeller, a member of the majority in Olympia has been elected to office by a majority vote of the voters within the 49th Legislative District. Does he see that as “making a sham out of what we currently have?”
Moeller it needs noted, was a leader in the House in the effort to waste the first half of the last regular session to ram homosexual marriage through, ignoring a $1.5 Billion budget gap and requiring a special session and many long contentious hours spent working out a budget. All of which cost taxpayers more money in per diem for legislators as we saw the Democrat majority once again resort to some “felony gimmicks,” kicking the can down the road still.
We now see warnings of Next Year’s Budget Could be $1.7 Billion out of Whack, Research Council Says coming out already.
We hear claims of massive spending cuts, but Moeller doesn’t hang label of “sham” on all of the lawsuits filed by groups representing unions and illegal aliens blocking those cuts, as reported in the Seattle Times last November.
No, he only labels the will of the majority of voters in his own district and the state as a “sham” to his desire to hang more and more taxes on our backs.
It is unknown just how Judge Heller will rule on I-1053, but if he follows the precedent when the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a similar lawsuit in 2008 to overturn a similar two thirds requirement initiative, it will stand.
Will Jim Moeller label the court’s ruling a “sham” should he rule that way?
The real “sham” is that someone as disconnected with reality as Jim Moeller is returned to Olympia so many times.
