Currently viewing the tag: "Initiative 1053"
Changes are needed in the ability of the Washington State Legislature to fund basic services like education and healthcare. The current state budget problems are made more difficult by the lack of flexibility of the Legislature to make decisions by a majority vote as directed by the Washington State Constitution and by a tax expenditure/exemption process that is shielded from legislative oversight by virtue of not being part of the normal budget process.
Many people are frustrated by the current stalemate in the legislative process and want more choices than just throwing up their hands and suffering more cuts in state services and more costs to working families. More options are needed for the voters than just saying we have no real choices.
Accordingly draft legislation has been written that could be a bill in the Legislature with a referendum clause for the voters or that could be a citizens initiative for the Fall ballot if the Legislature doesn’t act.. The legislation is called the Washington State Taxpayers Fiscal Reform Act. You can see a draft copy for comment located here: http://www.majorityrules.org/?attachment_id=814
We are now circulating this draft for public comment and revision. I would appreciate your review of this draft and any suggested revisions you might have.
The Taxpayers Fiscal Reform Act would:
1. Allow the Legislature to repeal tax exemptions by a majority vote by repealing the current unconstitutional 2/3 voting requirement.
2. Add tax expenditures into the biennial budget process.
3. Require the Legislature to rank all spending, including tax expenditures as high, medium or low priority in meeting state needs.
4. Require that the Legislature must act to reaffirm all tax expenditures after they have been audited by the state or they will sunset.
5. Limit any authorization or reauthorization of a tax expenditure to 10 years.
Please return all comments on the draft to Steve Zemke at the e-mail address below.
Thanks,
Steve Zemke – Chair
King County Democrats
The 2/3 vote requirement rule for the Washington State Legislature to act on revenue measures imposed by Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 needs to be overturned. Everyone acts as if it is law, including most of the Washington State Legislators, but it is unconstitutional. The issue is before the Washington Court system and needs to be resolved.
I-1053 has created a crisis for our state. It has limited the options of our state government to address our current financial crisis. The result is that the state is being forced to continue to cut basic services like education and health care. It is driving the crisis into a downward spiral.
The state has already cut it’s budget by $10 billion and is facing another $2 billion in cuts just to balance its current budget.
The I-1053 campaign is just another example of misguided anti-government legislation that unfortunately has an opposite effect from what many voters thought they were voting on. They bought the rhetoric thinking it was good for the average citizen in this state.
However it was Big Business and Corporate interests in this state that saw the measure for what it was - another opening to consolidate their power over the State Legislature. Corporations like the Bank of America and BP saw that this so called rule gave them virtual immunity from the threat of seeing their special interest tax exemptions being repealed once Eyman’s definition of a tax increase included repeal of tax exemptions. Voters missed this.
The Legislature over the years has passed special interest tax exemptions with a simple majority vote of 50%. These tax exemptions now exceed revenue from collected taxes. These tax exemptions are really expenditures of state money that if not in place could be used for other purposes like educating our youth and creating jobs. I-1053 has essentially grandfathered existing tax exemptions in permanently. That is because a 2/3 vote in both houses is needed to repeal them. This is almost impossible to do, considering that special interests only need to secure the votes of 17 Legislators out of 147 to stop a revenue measure being passed.
I-1053 also makes it almost impossible to raise any taxes on business. So the State is left with essentially one option to pay its bills and balance the budget – cutting programs. Unfortunately for Washington residents, cutting means ending services and jobs that benefit the majority of Washington voters, especially the middle class and working families.
It’s time to take back the Legislature from the special interests and reject the 2/3 voting requirement. There is a basic constitutional issue here. What has happened is that on revenue issues, I-1053 is saying that if Legislators are for revenue increases or repealing tax exemptions, their vote only counts as half a vote, rather than a full vote, in trying to pass measures. Nothing in the Constitution says that this is the case or that this is allowed.
I-1053 was an initiative, not a constitutional amendment. You can not change the constitution with an initiative. The Washington State Constitution says that bills shall be passed by majority votes, not by 2/3 votes. I-1053 is unconstitutional and the courts need to reject it so the state can address it’s financial problems without special interests calling the shots.
The people also need to reject any further measures by Eyman trying to reaffirm I-1053. He will be running another one in 2012. The reason for this is that for the first two years after an initiative is passed, it takes a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to amend it. After that it is a majority vote. By passing another 1053 type initiative, it would extend for two more years the inability of the Legislature to amend the 2/3 vote requirement. Voters need to understand that I-1053 style initiatives requiring a 2/3 vote to pass revenue measures benefits special interests a lot more than the average voter.
It’s time to reject the 2/3 vote requirement and take back the Legislature from the special interests.
With the passage of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 last year requiring 2/3 votes of the Legislature to raise revenue, Wall Street interests and their friends were the big winners. Citizens in Washington State were the losers.
The reality is that with the citizen’s help, corporations guaranteed that their special interest loopholes and tax exemptions in Washington State would be continued on and on, without any accountability. Tax exemptions originally passed with only a majority vote now require a 2/3 vote by both houses of the Legislature to rescind or end. And this is almost impossible to do.
Wall Street and Big Business interests funding the campaign to protect their special interest tax exemptions included JP MORGAN CHASE, BP CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO, CONOCO PHILLIPS, US BANK, TESORO COMPANIES INC, AND CHEVERON to name a few.
Why do you think they wanted voters to approve I-1053? It’s an easy answer.
Corporations basically were able to grandfather in their tax exemptions by passage of Initiative 1053. They were able to do this under the camouflage of limiting taxes on average citizens. The net result is that corporations protected themselves from not just losing their special interest exemptions but it also made it impossible for the Legislature to consider any other revenue coming from these corporations regardless of how much profit they make.
Tax exemptions are expenditures of state money that would otherwise be available to fund basic services like education, health care, transportation or environmental protection. Tax exemptions need to be included in the state budget just the same as other state expenditures. And they need to have a sunset provision so that unless they are voted on to be renewed, they will automatically expire. Sunset provisions could vary from 4 to 8 years.
Tax exemptions should not be a permanent entitlement of special interests and corporations. Their continuation needed to be evaluated and voted on periodically. Their value to the state’s economy should be prioritized under the guidelines of a priorities of government evaluation.. Their continuation should be ranked as high, medium or low priority, the same as other expenditures in the state budget. When it comes time to create a state budget they should be considered the same as any other expenditure, not exempt as they now are.
This evaluation of tax expenditures is a function that the State Auditor could perform the same as is done with other programs. Tax exemptions that no longer perform a valid function for the State and its citizens should be eliminated.
It’s time now for citizens to take back their Legislature from the corporations. Giving corporations special rules to prevent their tax exemptions from being repealed by requiring higher voting requirements is contrary to the Washington State Constitution and subverts the citizen’s legislature.. Now is the time to repeal the special treatment the Wall Street interests – the Banks and other Big Corporations - gave themselves under I-1053 and return the Legislature to the people..
We need to go back to the voting system set up by the people for the Legislature by the Washington State Constitution. Passing legislation, including revenue and the state budget should be by a simple majority vote as set in the State Constitution. Requiring a higher number of votes on specific legislation winds up giving a smaller and smaller block of Legislators veto power. That gives Wall Street and Big Businesses and Big Oil power they don’t deserve and diminishes the power of the people to control their government.
It’s time to end Wall Street’s Special Protection.and return the Legislature to the citizens of this state. It’s time to repeal I-1053 and stop the unfair shift of taxation from the wealthy and special interests to the middle class.
Conservative anti-tax proponents pushing initiatives like I-1053 and I-1107 on this year’s Washington State ballot are pushing lies about our ever-expanding state government. The fact is that the percentage of our state’s resources (as measured by collective personal income) devoted to public services like education and health care for seniors and children continues to decline.
The following is taken from a post by the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and deserves wide distribution to help educate the public:
Despite the claims being made by Initiative 1107 and Initiative 1053’s proponents, Washington actually devotes a smaller share of its resources to public services like education and health care than a decade ago. And given the magnitude of the recession, the state will likely continue to devote a smaller share of its economy to public services than before.
Typically, economists measure changes in government spending over time by analyzing how much of a state’s total personal income – or the sum of its collective resources – goes for public services. But as the graph below shows:
•The share of our resources that are spent on education, health care, public safety, and other important services has actually dropped since the late-1990s;
•As of June 2010, state spending in the current 2009-11 biennium is projected to fall to about 5.4 percent of total personal income in Washington – lower than the 6 percent share that went for public priorities the late-1990s.
This percentage will decline even further due to the recently-announced, 6.3 percent across-the-board budget cuts.
In other words, a smaller share of our collective resources is going to public priorities like educating our kids or providing health care than before.
And it is declining.
The post adds a link to get more detailed information. See the full report by Andy Nichols entitled Budget Claims Lack Context, Belie Deep and Painful Cuts.
I urge Washington Voters to vote No on Tim Eyman and Oil Industry giant BP’s Initiative 1053 – which would give 17 out of 147 Washington State Legislators veto power over our state budget. Vote No on I-1107 which would repeal a short term tax on bottled water and soda. The American Beverage Industry is bankrolling this effort.
For more information on the initiatives on the November ballot go to http://www.protectwashington.org/ and http://www.stopgreed.org/.
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is opposing Tim Eyman and British Petroleum’s Initiative 1053 and the American Beverage Industry’s Initiative 1107. Both measures are based on greed, namely that large corporations are unwilling to help Washington citizens fund basic public services but are instead intent on increasing corporate profit. And they hope that the public is gullible enough to believe it is about reducing taxes for the average taxpayer. It’s not.
As AARP notes:
Out-of-state special interests are at it again. This November, Washington voters will be asked to vote on two initiatives that if passed, would lead to deep cuts to important services like health and long-term care for low income seniors and a quality education for our children and grandchildren.
Initiative 1107, funded by the American Beverage Association, and Initiative 1053, funded largely by out-of-state businesses like BP and big Wall Street banks, will threaten our state budget, cripple state government, and make it harder than ever to recover from the recession.
Times are tough enough already. In response to one of the worst economies in decades, we’ve already cut more than $4.4 billion from the state budget. As a result, 2,600 education jobs were eliminated, 44,000 people lost Basic Health Plan coverage, class sizes are soaring and college tuition has skyrocketed by nearly 30 percent.
Initiatives 1107 and 1053 would only make things worse. Further cuts will seriously harm the things that we value – more cuts in health care means more expensive emergency room use, and more cuts in education hurts our kids for generations to come.
Initiative 1053 is an attempt by large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They want to bank their profits and have the rest of us taxpayers pay for their cost of doing business in our state.
The Big Oil Companies like BP and Tesoro and Conoco Phillips paid for getting signatures to put I-1053 on the ballot. They did not do so to lower costs to average middle class taxpayers. They did so to try to make it impossible to allow Legislators to require them to help pay for cleaning up stormwater runoff polluted with the oil products they sell. They want you to believe I-1053 will lower your taxes, really all it will do is shift the tax burden and environmental health costs onto the citizens of Washington while Big Oil laughs all the way to the bank.
Vote NO on 1053 and make the Big Oil Companies pay the cost of cleaning up their waste before they bank their corporate profits taken out of our pocketbooks. Vote No on 1107.
Both measures are on the Nov 2, 2010 General Election Ballot in Washington State.
for additional information see:
The Olympian has come out with an editorial strongly opposing Initiative 1053. It’s title “Initiative would give undemocratic veto power over budget” sums up one of the main arguments against Initiative 1053. Initiative 1053 would give 1/3 of the members of either House of the Washington State Legislature veto power over the state budget. What Eyman and special interests like Big Oil and Out of State Banks haven’t been able to achieve by electing a majority of legislators that support their position, they are trying to achieve by changing the rules by which Legislators can operate.
The Olympian’s editorial board recommends a vote against this Eyman initiative.
Why? We elect lawmakers to balance the budget. If we don’t like the way they do it, we can send them packing. But it’s unfair to take away one of their tools — tax increases. This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters.
That’s not right nor is it democratic.
The Olympian continues with pointing out that the public expects the government to provide services yet doesn’t want to be taxed. People like Tim Eyman drone on endlessly and erroneously about the tax and spend Legislators. Yet as the Olympian notes:
Contrary to popular opinion tax increases are not the first solution for budget writers. In the past three years, lawmakers have dealt with a $12 billion shortfall. They’ve made $5.1 billion in program and service cuts; taken $3.6 billion in stimulus funds, transferred $1.7 billion from other funds; drawn down the ending fund balance and used money from the rainy day fund.
They’ve raised taxes by $800 million.
That’s a measured approach — certainly not “raise taxes as a first option.”
This nation and this state are on a financial precipice. We can tip in either direction. That economic uncertainty has consumers hunkered down and frightened.
This is no time to let a fraction of lawmakers dictate how this state’s budget is balanced.
Budget writing is a complex business with huge risks and people’s very lives at stake.
Tim Eyman’s “legislate by initiative” philosophy is an unwarranted intrusion into that complex decision-making process.
Vote “no” on Initiative 1053.
What the Olympian neglects to mention is that over a million dollars was spent to collect signatures using paid signature gatherers to put I-1053 on the ballot. The big spenders as noted by Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times were not average citizens but special interests.
Why is Big Oil helping bankroll I-1053? It’s because they oppose Legislative efforts to slightly increase toxic waste taxes to help cleanup storm water runoff. They would rather citizens bear the brunt of toxic waste problems including cleanup while they deposit bank record profits as they have in recent years.
“…Tim Eyman went more corporate than usual this year.
His Initiative 1053, to limit the Legislature’s tax-raising ability, has the type of stick-it-to-the-man appeal that you might think would get Joe Six-Pack to the ramparts.
Yet it’s on the ballot due to big cash from out-of-state oil companies such as BP, Tesoro and Conoco, which want to block any new oil taxes. Only about 12 percent of his more than $1 million came from individuals, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
I-1053 is an example of greed in action. Citizens need to vote NO on 1053 so polluters rather than citizens have to pay for cleanup or in it’s absence suffer continued polluting of Puget Sound and the environment.
For a list of other companies involved in greedy actions this years promoting special interest initiatives that pass the burden of taxes and/or lack of funding for public services onto Washington taxpayers see http://www.stopgreed.org/
Initiative 1053 is an initiative sponsored by Tim Eyman and backed by corporate funding from oil companies like BP and Conoco Phillips and banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and US Bank. It is special interest legislation trying to give a minority of 1/3 of the State Legislators supporting these corporate interests veto power over the majority of Legislators. It is undemocratic and unconstitutional. Yet that doesn’t stop these special interests from trying to pull a fast one on Washington voters.
Many statewide organizations are opposing Initiative 1053. Futurewise has joined the Coalition against Initiative 1053 as have other environmental groups like the Washington Conservation Voters and the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. Futurewise describes itself as “a statewide public interest group working to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland, forests and shorelines today and for future generations.” It recently celebrated its 20th anniversary of working.
Futurewise provides the following reason for their opposition to Initiative 1053:
Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 would institute minority rule in Washington state, empowering one-third (plus one) of the members of either the state House or Senate to prevent the majority from closing tax loopholes or raising new revenues. BP, Conoco Philips, and Tesoro are some of the top funders behind I-1053. For the past two years, the statewide Environmental Community of which Futurewise is a member, has prioritized the Clean Water Act of 2010 – a $100 million investment in clean water infrastructure through either a fee or tax on polluters. If I-1053 passes, it will be even more difficult to make polluters like petroleum companies pay to clean up their messes. Futurewise encourages you to Vote NO I-1053.
I think Futurewise is understating the impact of I-1053 on our ability to enact legislation requiring polluters to pay for cleaning up waste hazards caused by the use of their products. The Legislature earlier this year was unable to pass legislation by a simple majority to require polluters like the oil companies to pay for cleaning up stormwater runoff caused by oil and other toxic chemicals. Initiative 1053 would allow 1/3 of the members of either the House or the Senate to block such legislation. I think it would make it not just more difficult but almost impossible to pass such legislation under these circumstances.
Futurewise is also urging a No vote on Initiative 1107 pushed by the beverage industry to repeal taxes on pop and candy, They are urging a YES vote on Referendum 52 to fund rehabbing schools for energy efficiency and a YES vote on Initiative 1098 for raising revenues for education and health care by taxing the top 1.2% of taxpayers on their income.
BP Corporation North America, Conoco Phillips, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Alaska Airlines, Liberty Mutual, US Bank. What do all these corporations and banks and insurance companies have in common? They helped bankroll I-1053 along with Tim Eyman. They are doing a power grab trying to take away majority votes in our State Legislature and vest power in a minority of Legislators that would comprise only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House of the Legislature.
Why are they doing this? Because they can more easily convince 17 out of 49 Senators to support their corporate no tax agenda than convince 25 Senators to do so. It is a blatant power grab. Under I-1053, only 17 Senators (a 1/3 minority) out of 49 would be needed to oppose repealing special interest tax exemptions like some out of state banks now get or opposing legislation to make polluters like the oil industry pay for cleaning up toxic waste caused by use of the products they sell.
Corporations and banks and insurance companies put their profits as their bottom line, not the public good. Our elected State Legislature helps to provide a balance between corporate profits and the public good. Framers of our Washington State Constitution understood that making decisions by a majority vote was the fairest way to make decisions. They wrote it into the Washington State Constitution in Article II, Section 22, which states the Legislature shall act by majority votes.
Trying to require a 2/3 vote for some decisions like taxes, will specifically benefit corporations and their profits over the public health and welfare. Such a proposal is unconstitutional. One could just as easily argue that because tax exemptions for businesses and corporations remove revenue from the State budget, that a 2/3 vote should be required to continue existing tax exemptions and create any new tax exemptions. Exemptions should not be given lightly because they place more of a burden on other taxpayers to make up for the revenue lost.
Of course the same corporations supporting I-1053 would oppose this. Yet it is just as logical as their proposal. The unfairness here is also that the current tax exemptions in state law were passed by a simple majority but under I-1053 a 2/3 vote would be required to repeal any exemption because it is defined as increasing taxes. It doesn’t matter whether the exemption has outlived its usefulness or no longer provides any benefit to the state or the public.
I-1053 is the height or arrogance. The two previous times it was passed by voters (I-601 and I-960), it squeaked by with a scant 51% to 49% vote. It could nowhere near muster the vote numbers it is now trying to impose on the Legislature. Voters should reject I-1053 for what it is – a backdoor approach to gain more power and profits for corporate interests at the expense of the rest of the state.
Voters may think they are limiting their taxes but it is the corporations that are laughing all the way to the bank as they rake in more profits and pass the cost of their doing business in the state onto the public. I-1053 will decrease the power of the average voter in the Legislative process and increase power in the hands of the self selected corporate elite that can more easily control a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators to further their special interest agenda and pad their bottom line.
Check out the list of big corporate interests and banks and oil companies and think to yourself why they want the public to vote for I-1053. Do you think it is about the public welfare and health of our state and its voters or is it about their profits? Do you think it is about educating our children and caring for the needy and seniors or salaries for corporate executives and bankers ?
Here’s a list of the largest donors, many who are based out of state, that paid to put I-1053 on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot. All told some $1,023,115 was raised by corporate and business interests and Eyman.
BP Corporation North America, Warrenville, IL $65,000
Tesoro Industries Inc, San Antonio, TX $65,000
Washington Restaurant Association $59,000
Conoco Phillips, Huston, TX $50,000
Equilon, Huston, TX $50,000
Washington State Farm Bureau $50,000
Washington State Association of Realtors $25,000
Washington Bankers Association $25,000
Northwest Grocery Association Washington PAC, Wilsonville, OR $15,000
Kemper Holdings LLC $20,000
Community Bankers of Washington $10,000
Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding CA $10,000
Schnitzer Steel Ind, Portland, OR $10,000
Simpson, Tacoma, WA $10,000
Wells Fargo Bank, Minneapolis, MN $10,000
Port Blakeley Tree Farms, Tumwater, WA $8000
WA Aggregates and Concrete, Des Moines, WA $7,500
Martin Selig $5000
Alaska Airlines, $5000
Boise, Boise, ID $5000
Cowles Company, Spokane, WA $5000
Darigold, Seattle, WA $5000
Liberty Mutual, Dover, NH $5000
Plum Creek, Columbia Falls, MT $5000
Sherman Bakery, Shoreline, WA $5000
Simplot, Boise, ID $5000
US Bank, Robbinville, MN $5000
Washington Food Industry, $5000
Washington Food PAC, Portland, OR $5000
Washington Lodging Association PAC, $5000
Washington Oil Marketers Ass.,Port Orchard, WA $5000
Weyerhauser, Federal Way, WA $5000
Yakima Valley Growers-Shippers Association $5000
A broad coalition of Washington State organizations has come out against Initiative 1053 which is on the November 2, 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 was put on the ballot by Tim Eyman, BP, and other oil and banking interests in an attempt to give a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators in either house of the Legislature veto power over the state budget and raising revenue or repealing special interest tax breaks.
I-1053 is unconstitutional because it is trying to amend the Washington State Constitution. You can not amend the Constitution by an initiative in Washington State. That requires a constitutional amendment.I-1053 is trying to amend the language in Article II, Section 22 of the State Constitution which says the Legislature shall act by a majority vote in passing legislation. By I-1053 trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills it is basically saying that only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House can overrule the vote of the majority.That is why it is unconstitutional.
Major statewide groups opposing I-1053 include:
League of Women Voters of Washington
Washington Association of Churches
Washington State Labor Council
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Education Association
Washington State Democrats
Sierra Club – Cascade Chapter
Here is the complete list opposing I-1053 done alphabetically. More groups are joining every day.
•Adams County Democrats
•AFT Seattle Community Colleges, Local 1789
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1384
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1765
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 843
•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 883
•American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
•American Federation of Teachers – AFT Washington
•Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA)
•Asian Pacific Islander Coalition of King County
•Center for Social Justice
•Central WA Progress
•Childhaven
•Children’s Alliance
•Church Council of Greater Seattle
•Community Workers of America (CWA) State Council
•Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Labor Council
•Eastern Washington Voters
•Economic Opportunity Institute
•Entre Hermanos
•Equal Rights Washington
•Friends Committee on Washington State Public Policy (Quakers)
•Fuse Washington
•Futurewise
•Greater Seattle Business Association
•Health Point
•IBEW Local 46
•IBEW Local 77
•IFPTE Local 17
•Inland Empire Residential Resources
•Inter*Im Community Development Association
•International Community Health Services
•Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Seattle Chapter
•King County Democrats
•King County Labor Council
•Kitsap County Labor Council
•Laborers Local 1239
•League of Women Voters of Washington
•Lewiston-Clarkston County Labor Council
•Lincoln County Democrats
•Latino PAC of Washington
•Lutheran Community Services Northwest
•Lutheran Public Policy Office
•Minority Executive Directors Coalition
•NARAL Pro-Choice Washington
•National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) Seattle Chapter
•National Council of Jewish Women – Seattle Section
•New Futures
•North Central Washington CLC
•North Urban Human Services Alliance
•Northwest Progressive Institute
•Northwest Washington CLC
•Olympic Labor Council
•One America
•One America Votes
•Operators (IUOE) 302
•Organizing for Seattle
•Pacific County Democrats
•Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane
•Pierce County Democrats
•Pierce County Labor Council
•Planned Parenthood Pub Pol Network of WA
•Public School Employees of WA/SEIU Local 1948
•Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans
•Raising Our APA Representation
•Retired Public Employees of Washington
•Sahngnoksoo
•SEA MAR Community Health Clinic
•Seattle Human Services Coalition
•SEIU 925
•SEIU Healthcare 1199 NW
•SEIU Healthcare 775 NW
•SEIU WA State Council
•Sheet Metal Workers Local 66
•Sierra Club Cascade Chapter
•Sightline
•Snohomish County Democratic Central Committee
•Snohomish County Labor Council
•Snohomish County Young Democrats
•Southeast Washington CLC
•Southwest Washington Central Labor Council (Formerly Clark, Skamania, and West Klickitat CLC)
•Spokane Regional Labor Council
•Statewide Poverty Action Network
•Teamsters Joint Council 28
•Thurston, Lewis, Mason Counties Labor Council
•Twin Harbors Labor Council
•UA Local 32 Plumbers and Pipefitters
•UFCW 141
•UFCW 365/WPEA
•UFCW 21
•UNITE Here Local 8
•United Faculty of Washington State
•Washington Association of Churches
•Washington Association of Community and Migrant Health Centers
•Washington Bus Education Fund
•Washington Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics
•Washington Community Action Network
•Washington Conservation Voters
•Washington Education Association
•Washington Federation of State Employees
•Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
•Washington State Democrats
•Washington State Labor Council
•Whatcom County Democrats21
•Yakima South Central Counties Labor Council
•Yakima County Democrats
•2nd Legislative District Democrats
•5th legislative District Democrats
•28th Legislative District Democrat
•30th Legislative District Democrats
•32nd Legislative District Democrats
•33rd Legislative District Democrats
34th Legislative District Democrats
•36th Legislative District Democrats
•38th Legislative District Democrats
•41st Legislative District Democrats
•43rd Legislative District Democrats
•44th Legislative District Democrats
•45th Legislative District Democrats
•46th Legislative District Democrats
•47th Legislative District Democrats
•48th Legislative District Democrats
Initiative 1053 is a recycled Eyman initiative that wants to give a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators of either House veto power over revenue issues. Even if 60 or 65% of the Legislators supported a measure, 17 members of the 49 member Washington State Senate,e.g., could veto passage of the bill. This is a recipe for disaster in trying to fund critical state services like educating our children or providing basic health care.
Here is what the Children’s Alliance has posted on their website about I-1053:
NO on Initiative 1053
I-1053: 2/3-majority vote to raise revenue in the state Legislature (sponsored by Tim Eyman)
Status: On the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot
Opponents: Children’s Alliance and coalition partners who opposed I-960.
No on 1053 campaign: Sandeep Kaushik skaushik100@gmail.com
Details: This initiative is modeled after I-960 and would require an onerous 2/3-majority vote to pass a bill with any new revenue in the state Legislature. This supermajority requirement would effectively prevent our state from raising revenue in times of budget crisis – even when a majority of state lawmakers deem it necessary. It would give a handful of lawmakers veto power over important fiscal decisions.
Impact on children and families: I-1053 would severely restrict the government’s ability to raise new revenue needed to support vital services for children and families, such as Apple Health for Kids, early childhood education, and programs aimed at ending childhood hunger. I-1053 would limit our state’s ability to respond to the needs of kids and families and could force cuts to support systems the Children’s Alliance and our allies have fought hard to protect.
The Childrens Alliance has taken positions on other ballot measures. You can read about more about their positions by going to “Ballot Measures Affecting Kids and their Families“.
The Children’s Alliance urges you to support I-1098 which cuts taxes and raises money for education and healthcare and Referendum 52 to rehab schools for health and energy efficiency reasons. In addition to opposing I-1053, they urge you vote No on 1100 and 1105 to deregulate the liquor industry in our state and NO on 1107 sponsored by the Beverage Industry.
Recently posted on the NPI Advocate- President Obama arrives in Everett for first 2012 visit to the real Washington
- Save the Date: NPI’s 2012 Spring Fundraising Gala will be April 12th, 2012
- Permanent Defense celebrates ten years
- State House passes NPI-supported bill to make ballot advertising more transparent
- Washington State House sends marriage equality legislation to Governor Gregoire
