I emailed a bunch of legislators about this and got this response from Senator Kline of the 37th District:


Thanks for your regarding the suspension of I-960. Although I disagree with your stance on this issue, I appreciate hearing your opinion. I’d like to tell you why I voted for the suspension.



I’ve heard from hundreds of folks from my district, the 37th, about our recent decision to temporarily suspend Initiative 960. More than 90% of the calls and e-mails I’ve received from constituents support the suspension.



As you may remember, I-960 was enacted in 2007 with a mere 51% of the statewide vote. (Note that this is far less than the supermajority vote that the initiative requires to be made in the Legislature for any tax increase. Almost 69% of the good folks in the 37th voted against I-960.) Along with requiring that any tax increase to pass each house of the Legislature by a two-thirds vote, I-960 also allows tax increases be sent to a vote of the people. Tax increases may also be referred to voters for their approval or rejection. The initiative also mandated that any fee increase, regardless of whether in excess of the fiscal growth factor, must have prior legislative approval. In addition, the Office of Financial Management must publish cost information and information regarding legislators’ voting records on bills imposing or increasing taxes or fees. (Prior to implementation of this expensive process, this information was already available to the public.)



Given the fact that less than 22% of the people in my district supported I-960, I was happy to co-sponsor the original legislation calling for the suspension. After all, these are the people who elected me to represent them in the Senate. As you may have heard, we ran into a snag during the passage of this legislation. We passed the original bill, SB 6843, on February 9 after a very long debate during which many opponents of the legislation talked about how suspending the initiative would violate the will of the people. For many of the opponents, this was a disingenuous argument, since they had previously supported changing other initiatives that they don’t like, such as the initiatives limiting class size in K-12 schools or requiring Cost-of-Living raises for teachers. Another prime example of an initiative that many legislators have tried to amend over the years is the 1998 initiative that set our state’s minimum wage, and required that it be adjusted yearly based on the federal Consumer Price Index. This initiative passed with over 65% of the vote, but Republicans have prime-sponsored more than 20 bills since it passed to suspend, amend or do away with the initiative. (Some Democrats signed onto these bills.)



Although the opponents often mentioned that our constitution enables The People to pass laws via initiative, they failed to mention that the same document also gives the Legislature the right to amend these statutes after two years.



Due to a complicated misunderstanding and paperwork error, we had to revisit I-960 once again on the Senate Floor on the following day. The new bill, SB 6130, was passed out of the Senate and is now scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Finance. It would suspend all of the provisions of I-960 until July 2011.



The provision calling for a supermajority to vote Yes on any tax increases has no place in our democracy. In our representative democracy, legislators are elected by people to legislate according to the will of the people in our district, and our constitution makes it clear that a majority vote is the method we are supposed to use for this purpose. By imposing a requirement for a “Yes” vote by a supermajority, I-960 gives a small minority of legislators the ability to hold up the majority’s work. It also has problems with regards to the definition of taxing, and requires costly extraneous notice and fiscal determination provisions of information that is already available to the public.



Tim Eyman, the initiative salesman who makes a good living passing initiatives like I-960, testified at the hearing of the original bill. At the hearing, I asked Tim the question I’ve been asking forcefully for many years: what programs do you want us to cut if we can’t raise the revenue to pay for them? He has never given me a substantial answer to this question. I’ve asked this question of him in legislative hearings, in newspaper articles, at press conferences, and via e-mail. He always cavalierly shrugs it off and says that creating a budget is the job of legislators, and that his job is to cut taxes.



The purpose behind amending I-960 is to give the legislature more flexibility in addressing the current economic crisis. Last year's state budget cut K-12 and higher education, social services, and healthcare, making it more difficult for struggling families to educate their children, stay healthy, and survive the current recession. The magnitude of cuts that will be required this year if revenues are not increased will seriously threaten the wellbeing of the children, elderly and other vulnerable populations in our state



Faced with a $2.67 billion shortfall, we are pursuing a comprehensive solution to re-balance the state budget and fund vital services. Already this year, the House and Senate have approved new cuts that, when agreed upon, will save close to $100 million through June 30, 2011. These include cuts to the state payroll, an extended salary freeze for many state workers and the curtailing of equipment purchases, out-of-state travel and the filling of open positions. Further actions will most likely include a mix of steep budget cuts and a series of elements that under I-960 would require a two-thirds vote of both chambers — new taxes, clarifications of legislative intent following a court ruling, certain fund shifts and the closure of corporate tax loopholes. These include tax breaks for banks making foreclosure sales, some out-of-state businesses doing business in Washington and transportation companies shipping goods across our borders.



None of those solutions could be implemented without suspending I-960, because it would be subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.



No new taxes have been voted on yet. Instead, the Legislature has focused on enacting cuts as legislative leaders promised to do. But temporarily suspending I-960 allows us to address our revenue deficit with an array of sustainable solutions. This will help ensure classrooms aren’t overcrowded, the gates aren’t closed to a college education, the needy and disabled won’t go without care, and the working poor won’t lose their health insurance.


Thanks again for your e-mail.


Yours truly,


Adam

----------------------------------------------------
Anyone else get the same response?

I find it really hard to believe he has 90% support on his decision to support this.


.....and the beat rolls on. No Introspection evident by any legislator on how their spending habits continue to add to the problem.