Subverting people’s will with taxes leads to freeloaders
I was pretty outraged to learn that our Democratic governor and Legislature struck down the initiative [I-960] requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to raise taxes [“ ‘Will of the people’ often subjected to tinkering,” page one, Feb. 25]. I guess the will of the voters doesn’t matter to them at all.
I usually vote for the person and not the party, but I intend to vote a straight Republican ticket in the next state election. I don’t agree with the Republicans on some issues — like abortion and gay marriage — but I have to vote with controlling taxes as my main concern.
I understand the need for roads, schools, police and fire service, but the cuts the Democrats refuse to make are primarily social services and college assistance. I have to pay for my housing, food and medical care. I paid for my own college by working and paying my own way — I didn’t even live with mommy and daddy and I actually supported myself.
I don’t feel obliged to pay even more than the already excessive taxes I pay so that others can have for free what I had to work for. When did the “land of the free” become “the land of the freeloader”?
— Dennis Doucette, Auburn
Alternative to taxes is unacceptable
I hate taxes! I am retired, living on a fixed income and really hate it when the state raises my taxes. But I am willing to have the state raise my taxes now, as the alternative is unacceptable. We send our legislators to Olympia to spend our money well and to address many needs: education, health care, public security, the environment, etc. Any further cuts are unacceptable to me.
Tim Eyman has complained that our legislators are ignoring the will of the voters by raising taxes. He’s in a fortunate position from which to complain. Not being a public servant, he has no constituents to whom he must answer. He also has no obligation to students, the poor, the hungry or the sick — other than a moral one that he chooses to ignore. He only answers to the benefactors paying his salary.
Our legislators have made massive cuts to programs. It’s now time for all of us to step up and address the needs of our community so that we can limit the pain from the current recession.
— Darrell Johnson, Bellevue
I-960 is paradoxical
It seems odd to me that an initiative that received 51 percent voter approval can require a 67 percent “majority” to approve any tax increases — including closing loopholes that will “increase” taxes for the beneficiary. What happened to the 15 percent of voters whose interests have been denied?
If an initiative would require a 67 percent majority, then it should be required to pass with 67 percent voter approval. Anything less denies a voice to a large portion of the population.
— Paula Joneli, Des Moines
Understanding the initiative
I teach state constitutional law at the UW School of Law. Recently, a conservative and a liberal friend of mine jointly asked me why the Washington Legislature is able to override the I-960 requirement that tax increases be adopted by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. The Seattle Times’ readers might be interested in the answer I sent them.
First principle: The Washington State Constitution does not permit amendments to itself by initiative. Initiatives are just a mechanism for passing statutes.
Second principle: Ordinary statutes can be amended at any time by the Legislature.
Third principle: Under the state constitution, a two-thirds vote of each chamber is required to amend statutes during the first two years after voter approval.
Fourth principle: After the first two years, a statute adopted through the initiative process may be amended at any time by the Legislature, just like any other legislation.
Applying these principles — since it has been more than two years since I-960 was passed — the Legislature can amend that statute, suspend it, repeal it or do whatever a majority decides.
— Hugh Spitzer, Seattle