|
By Tim Eyman
On Wednesday, Olympia's Democrats introduced their long-anticipated, yet still maddening repeal-of-Initiative-960's-policies bill. The public hearing on it was held less than 24 hours later, illustrating perfectly their lack of desire to hear from the people. Everyone who testified against it did a phenomenal job. Frankly, the best testimony was from Senator Don Benton who was 'first up' -- when a transcript of his remarks is available, I will share them with everyone.
Here's what I had to say (in a suit and tie and without raising my voice at any point):
"Madam Chair, thank you, my name is Tim Eyman and I'm opposed to the bill.
"Citizens are watching arrogant Democrats decide that the rules don't apply to them."
Sen. Prentice (D-Seattle) gavels me down, saying "stick to the bill ... stick only to the bill."
"Yes, Madam Chair.
"The taxpayers have to follow the law, but this bill exempts you from it. The people must abide by the Constitution, but this bill means you are above it.
"Voters have approved I-960's policies 3 times, in 1993, 1998, and 2007. Yet without hesitation, Olympia's Democrats are getting rid of them. Voters have made clear that if state government is going to raise taxes, it must be a last resort requiring either 2/3's of politicians or a majority vote of the people. But I-960 also required more public transparency and more public notice to deter you from sidestepping the rules -- but you're sidestepping them anyway.
"Democrats in Olympia are violating the law, sidestepping the Constitution, and eliminating the public's right to know what they're doing.
At this point, I then looked up at them and provided the rest of my comments off the top of my head:
"What's particularly galling is to watch you take a hatchet to the sunshine provisions of this initiative. To make an argument that the voters don't have a right to know what you're doing, don't have a right to know what your voting records are, especially when you slap emergency clauses on bills to make them exempt from the citizens' right to referendum, is a belief that you are somehow above the law and that the people don't have a right to know what you're doing.
"When the voters elect you, they don't elect you to rule over them, only to represent them.
"And they asked you, told you, 3 times in a row that it oughta be tougher to raise taxes. Now for those who say 'we can't possibly live under these rules' well, you just have for the past two years. The system is working exactly the way the voters wanted it to be done. The voters are being told when you are introducing bills, finding out how much they cost, they're having an opportunity to interact with their elected officials. You don't like the reaction you're getting because all your bills are raising taxes and fees on 'em, but that's the kind of interaction the voters had in mind when they voted for it.
"But they also said if you can't get 2/3's of your colleagues to sign on to a tax-raising bill, put it before the voters. You're not even trying tha, you're not even giving the facade that you're evn trying to abide by the provisions of it. You're just chucking 'em because the 2 years is up, so now we don't have to the listen to the people anymore.
"I'll close with this Madam Chair because there are other people who want to testify:
"No citizen can do what the Legislature is doing now. Imagine an average citizen saying, well, you know what, I'm not going to pay my taxes, I'm going to wait 2 years and exempt myself from those rules. Or a trucker who says, you know what, I don't want to pay my rent, I'm going to wait 2 years and exempt myself from the requirement. You're abiding by rules that no citizen would ever be able to get away with. And everybody is wondering why are we doing an initiative that's restating a law (the 2/3's) that's already on the books.
"And it's because you guys are saying that 3 times from the voters isn't enough. And that apparently you need to hear 4 times from the voters before you actually start listening to them. I really encourage you to drop going after this stuff about the transparency provisions, getting rid of the 2/3's is bad enough.
"And for you to stick your finger in the eye of the voters and tell them they have no right to know what's going on, I think is the height of arrogance."
Senator Adam Kline (D-Seattle): "I have a question for you ... we have expenses on one hand of the equation, revenues, or lack of them, on the other. ... You've talked about one side of that, as you usually do, I'd like you to talk about the other side, about the expenditures. Let me ask you ... You never, never, ever show it in the budget ..."
I respond: "Let me go ahead and answer the question you just asked. We passed an initiative in the state of Washington that requires our state auditor, from your own party, to identify ways to spend money more effectively. He's identified $3.5 billion in potential savings. And what thanks did he get? You cut his funding in half. You're commitment to doing anything to reform government is non-existent." Kline tries to interrupt, I continue "You don't care about anyone's opinion but your own. Prentice tries to interrupt, I continue: "And the voters of this state have said time and time again that if you're gonna raise taxes, you should follow the rules. And you're exempting yourselves from the very rules that everybody else has to abide by."
Prentice bangs her gavel "OK, that's it, we're done."
From a reporter who covered it: Gavels were rapped, hyperbolic rants were delivered, and anti-tax crusader Tim Eyman declared Democratic legislators to be arrogant sidesteppers of the law in what I would argue was the most entertaining public hearing of the state legislative session so far.
|
