Lawmaker: State tax lawsuit is about schools
SEATTLE (AP) - State Rep. Jaime Pedersen has a message for the Washington state Supreme Court: You've told the Legislature to put more money into education, now give lawmakers the tools they need to make that happen.
The court is holding a hearing Tuesday on a case Pederson says holds the key to whether the Legislature can properly respond to the court's earlier ruling on the inadequacy of Washington state's education spending.
In the tax lawsuit before the court this week, a coalition of lawmakers and education groups contend the two-thirds majority vote required in the Legislature for raising taxes or closing tax loopholes is unconstitutional.
A lower court agreed with their assertion against the supermajority and the state Supreme Court has expedited its consideration of the two-thirds requirement, which came about because of a series of citizen initiatives. Voters most recently approved the supermajority rule two years ago and initiative promoter Tim Eyman is asking the public to renew the measure in November.
The Washington Constitution requires a simple majority vote of the Legislature to approve most laws, but the supermajority or two-thirds vote has been the law for tax increases thanks mostly to Eyman's measures.
The state constitution cannot be changed through the initiative process; a vote of the Legislature is required.
That is at the heart of some of the arguments before the Supreme Court in this week's tax lawsuit. Briefs have been filed by several organizations, ranging from the League of Women Voters to the Association of Washington Business and the Freedom Foundation.
A somewhat unique aspect to this case is the inclusion of Gov. Chris Gregoire as a third party to the lawsuit, in which the attorney general's office, as the state's official lawyer, is charged with defending the two-thirds majority law.
The attorney general has argued this case is a premature challenge of the two-thirds rule because it hasn't stopped the Legislature from doing its work.
In her brief to the Supreme Court, Gregoire and her attorneys emphasize the necessity of a decisive statement by the court, to rescue her office and the Legislature from the budget limbo the initiatives have stuck them in. She speaks of the trouble she has had in creating state budget proposals without the freedom to close tax loopholes or raise business fees.
Pedersen says life in state government has just gotten a whole lot harder, thanks to the Supreme Court's January decision on education funding, known as the McCleary case. The court's very specific ruling in the school spending lawsuit states that the Legislature has done a good job making plans to change the way the state pays for education, but it goes on to order lawmakers to find the money now to pay for it.
Most people agree the state needs between $3 billion and $4 billion to fulfill its constitutional promise to fully pay for basic education. One possible solution is to raise taxes, create a new dedicated tax, increase fees, or do some combination of these options.
The other possible solution, Pedersen says, is to "cut the heck out of everything else" the state spends money on: health care for the needy, disability payments, the state Ecology Department, state parks, state colleges and universities, student scholarships and the arts.
"I can't imagine how you could get 50 votes to do those things," let alone two-thirds of both chambers of the Legislature, he said.
He predicted the eventual outcome, if the Supreme Court does not give the Legislature back the power to raise taxes and close loopholes, would be a failure to answer the McCleary challenge.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, has promised to propose a constitutional amendment to make the two-thirds vote permanent during this next legislative session. Many of her Republican colleagues appear to support the idea.
The court is holding a hearing Tuesday on a case Pederson says holds the key to whether the Legislature can properly respond to the court's earlier ruling on the inadequacy of Washington state's education spending.
In the tax lawsuit before the court this week, a coalition of lawmakers and education groups contend the two-thirds majority vote required in the Legislature for raising taxes or closing tax loopholes is unconstitutional.
A lower court agreed with their assertion against the supermajority and the state Supreme Court has expedited its consideration of the two-thirds requirement, which came about because of a series of citizen initiatives. Voters most recently approved the supermajority rule two years ago and initiative promoter Tim Eyman is asking the public to renew the measure in November.
The Washington Constitution requires a simple majority vote of the Legislature to approve most laws, but the supermajority or two-thirds vote has been the law for tax increases thanks mostly to Eyman's measures.
The state constitution cannot be changed through the initiative process; a vote of the Legislature is required.
That is at the heart of some of the arguments before the Supreme Court in this week's tax lawsuit. Briefs have been filed by several organizations, ranging from the League of Women Voters to the Association of Washington Business and the Freedom Foundation.
A somewhat unique aspect to this case is the inclusion of Gov. Chris Gregoire as a third party to the lawsuit, in which the attorney general's office, as the state's official lawyer, is charged with defending the two-thirds majority law.
The attorney general has argued this case is a premature challenge of the two-thirds rule because it hasn't stopped the Legislature from doing its work.
In her brief to the Supreme Court, Gregoire and her attorneys emphasize the necessity of a decisive statement by the court, to rescue her office and the Legislature from the budget limbo the initiatives have stuck them in. She speaks of the trouble she has had in creating state budget proposals without the freedom to close tax loopholes or raise business fees.
Pedersen says life in state government has just gotten a whole lot harder, thanks to the Supreme Court's January decision on education funding, known as the McCleary case. The court's very specific ruling in the school spending lawsuit states that the Legislature has done a good job making plans to change the way the state pays for education, but it goes on to order lawmakers to find the money now to pay for it.
Most people agree the state needs between $3 billion and $4 billion to fulfill its constitutional promise to fully pay for basic education. One possible solution is to raise taxes, create a new dedicated tax, increase fees, or do some combination of these options.
The other possible solution, Pedersen says, is to "cut the heck out of everything else" the state spends money on: health care for the needy, disability payments, the state Ecology Department, state parks, state colleges and universities, student scholarships and the arts.
"I can't imagine how you could get 50 votes to do those things," let alone two-thirds of both chambers of the Legislature, he said.
He predicted the eventual outcome, if the Supreme Court does not give the Legislature back the power to raise taxes and close loopholes, would be a failure to answer the McCleary challenge.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, has promised to propose a constitutional amendment to make the two-thirds vote permanent during this next legislative session. Many of her Republican colleagues appear to support the idea.
how about putting an end to the opportunity of school personal getting away, for years with stealing money from the children and the tax payers.(schools) the state should have a harsher punishment for those people, they r always in the news and that needs to stop. I'm sure some haven't been caught, and how do you cut a million jobs and then raise taxes? how do you call that a decision for the tax payers?(voters)
How about they just pass a law limiting the amount of school funding that can go to administrative costs. Consolidate some of the small districts and transfer the money saved into the classroom.
As Pooh Bear would say, this needs some serious thinkering.
Â
Justification for the lottery back when the jack wagons in Olympia wanted it, was to 'fund education".
However, the clever scurrying lying liberal grease balls channeled lottery revenues into the "general fund". Ooopsy. Nobody will notice. We can spend on union retirement funds.Â
Â
Now as always, we have a crisis to feed the obese diabetic WSEA PIGS, cloaked under the angelic cape of public education. Those liberal cowards sure love to hide behind children. Like witches stirring the cauldron of deceit, it never ends. They are jealous of the gilded turbo-leach level the Chicago teachers union has attained.
Â
More Gregoire stone soup and some Obama Kool-aid please. Education means nothing. It all about taking care of number one, by spreading lots of number two.
You sir, have a very elegant way with words.
Ya right. It's for the children, it's always for the children, plus any other money spending project those in Olympia can think of. How about selling some timber, that money goes to the schools and it doesn't have to banko the poor home owner who is seeing his property tax rise year after year til it almost reaches the amount of the house payment.. I have no problem funding schools, it's the rest of the junk we don't need.
I really wish the state would find a way to fund the schools fully. I don't think the property owners can take to many more levies to cover the difference. I don't mind paying my fair share, but I don't want to be taxed completely out of my home either.
What difference does it make whether the money is coming from property taxes or sales taxes or license tab fees or ...? It all comes from the same place - you and me. And I for one am tired of seeing it wasted like it is. I can't believe the number of people on this board who agree that we need to "fully fund" education, without first sitting down and getting a handle on where it's all going now. You wouldn't treat your household budget like that, would you?
Â
I think many of you would be shocked to see how much money does NOT make it to the classroom in K-12, and once you saw that, I bet you would be taking a different stance on this issue.
The biggest difference is if I can't pay my property tax I loose my home and everything else kind of pales in comparison as far as I'm concerned.
 @James127 Not fully fund education, but to fully fund "Basic Education"
per the state constitution"s mandate. Â The legislature, in the past cut funding
to achieve the Basic Education mandate of the state constitution, even after
the judicial had found to not comply with that mandate. This time the judicial
branch actually put some teeth into their mandate, and the legislature is now
finally forced to address the issue, and they are seriously upset.
Additional funding for non basic education needs is addressed by individual
school districts through the levy/bond elections that usually run concurrently
with normal elections. The portion of educational expenses that not part of
the basic educational requirement is paid through those bond issues by
the property owners in the district, not through sales taxes or other such sources.
Apparently what the additional taxes are for are different in their opinion than mine. If we pay for basic education then that's where our obligation should end. The property taxes are completely out of control and I for one am getting really tired of being taxed to death for all of those things they think they just can't live without.
 @Jatok The state was supposed to fully fund "Basic Education", but legislative
cuts in the educational funds at the state level made it a necessity to ask for funds at
the local to accomplish "basic education". School bond issues were originally to fund
educational needs and athletic programs that were not part of the 'Basic Education"
mandate of the states constitution.
Perhaps now that there is finally an enforceable mandate from the judicial branch
regarding full funding of "basic education, one might finally see relief for the home
owners and we might actually see a lessening from the pressure of school bond issues.
Time will be the judge of that actually happening
I'm constantly amazed at how little people understand our States Constitution.
Balance the budget, provide for education and first responders. These are the TOP priorities of our elected officials. Yet they are always on the chopping block first. Why?
Â
I'm still waiting...
Â
Anyone?
Â
 @bobalouie They cut those first as a scare tactic to getting us to pay more taxes.  It is as simple as that.  If they cut the crap no one cares about what excuse do they have to raise taxes?
Because your definition of "provide" and my definition of "provide" are drastically different. We don't need hundreds of employees in every school district, nor do we need fire stations on every other corner in town with a fully manned crew. Why? We can't afford it!
@James127 ya, you don't need fire stations - until its YOUR house on fire.
I am responsible enough to make sure I have homeowner's insurance, and that I take reasonable precautions every day to make sure everything is off when I leave the house. With that said, yes, I can do without multiple fire stations in my city.
Except that tying this to Education is the hook for full implementation of discharging the populace of their right and getting paid to do it. It increases the power of the governors office for secrecy because then anything not normally allowed is just blanketed with immunity by the Houses. It's already been pork pie for a while now, but some are willing to diversify holdings.
Washington voters tend to follow Tim I'm-an-idiot right over a cliff. This snakeoil salesman is just as slick as they come: absolutely slimy, really.
 @JLS1950 It's the voters that pass the initiative not Tim, he's just the catalyst, he can't do a thing without the voters backing him.
This comment has been deleted
 @n9078jk4 "wealthy teachers"! You should send that in to Leno! Could go right into the Guinness book as about the stupidest comment of the day! Right up there with "I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." (Yogi Berra)
Hardly a stupid comment. Drive past the parking lot someday of your local elementary school and note the average car parked in the lot. Then do the same thing at your local Safeway or WalMart and tell me you don't notice the difference.
@JLS1950 @lmdk2 Why does it matter how his wife bought a car? Maybe they live frugally and don't spend $200 a month on calbe tv, or maybe not $100 a month on a cell plan, or maybe she brings her lunch, saving another $100 a month. You can buy a nice car with that money....
@JLS1950 @lmdk2 One of my kid's elementary teacher makes $82,600 according to the on-line lookup of what a teacher makes. She works 10 months a year. That's $6892 a month if you spread it out over 12 months. I would say that is a salary that can afford a decent car and it is a very fair salary for the work they do. If she is married, which she is, to someone who makes about the same then that's a nice living, doesn't sound like a struggle to me. Yet, the music program was cut for 5th grade this year to be able to afford the expenses. There are four principals in our high school. Seriously? When I was growing up we had one principal in the high school and my school was bigger than the one that my kids go to. Is our money being spent wisely?
Â
Legislators, who serve at our pleasure, all ride around in towncars and fly first class back and forth to DC. They spend $$$ on refinishing conference room tables and mismanage funds for building projects. Suddenly the discussion of tolls starts on new roads when our taxes are already supposedly paying for them. There's a toll for 520 now when the existing bridge seems to be highly defective with constant repairs and safety checks. We want to pay to have them build another one? There is just so much waste. I just want the waste cleaned up first and then allocate the money the way that the people want it allocated.Â
 @James127 Cars are a measure of income or wealth in some sense, but not necessarily of personal salary.
 @lmdk2 ...which you BOUGHT for her? Or was it an inheritance? Or do you pay all the bills so that her salary is her "mad money"?
@lmdk2 Well I am glad that the two of you can afford that, but realize that you two are certainly not the norm.
 @EMDF9A My wife's a school teacher and she drives a new Beemer.
Ferrari is a little high end, even for a teacher. I do see a fair number of Lincolns and Mercedes in my local school district lots, though. Along with newer Suburbans and Expeditions of course.
Â
My point is, on average, the cars are nicer than the ones parked at most any grocery store. And, contrary to JLS1950, I DO think the car one drives speaks to their level of income, in MOST cases.
 @James127 Skip that. Teachers' salaries are available online for reference, and additionally my own sister actually retired after a career in the field.
For a job that requires at least 5 years of college plus ongoing continuing education just to maintain certification, teachers don't really earn very much. The average non-degree'd computer nerd from India on contract at Microsoft (not even direct-hired) probably makes more. Plumbers - real plumbers, not "Joe the not-even-a-plumber" - leave teachers far in the dust of compensation races.
Judging someone's personal wealth by the car they drive is also just about the stupidest of measures: check out the STUDENT parking lots at any eastside high school and I'll bet your wheels survey will be in for a surprise: don't forget to compare with the faculty lots, either! What? You think all those high school sophomores and Juniors are some kind of super-successful small business entrepreneurs? Selling what? Drugs? Leaching off daddy and mommy is much more likely!
Believe me, Tim I'm-an-idiot has a driveway parked chock full of such high-end vehicles; and what does he do besides write annoying petitions that can't pass muster with the courts and cost millions to straighten out?
You're worshiping the wrong idols.
I drive by an elementary school every day on my way to work. The cars that are parked there that appear to be faculty are normal every-day Subarus, Toyotas, Chevys.  I havent seen a Farrari or even a BMW in this lot.
Remember what side of the isle is making this chalange to the will of the people in November!!! They raly do not care what you want done. It is about doing what they want at the expence of you!! Athough the other side in not much better......
 @bustedupredneck lol, Yeah, Look at what side of the isle.  Both sides want this shot down so that it is easier for them to raise taxes.  BOTH.  It is insane to think that one party is better then the other.  Both are leading this state and this country into ruin.  All I want is leaders we can trust and that are not in it for the benefit of themselves and their rich benefactors.
 @bustedupredneck "Only us rednecks no how to run the gubment rite! We no that we don need no dam taxs to run gubment! Gubment just run by iself - don need no taxs! We wen to skool to, you no! We no stoopud!"
 @JLS1950  @bustedupredneck Such a mature response.  And you are bad talking rednecks.
 @EMDF9A @bustedupredneck Side of which isle? Mercer? Bainbridge? Whidbey? Vashon? Orcas? Anderson? Fox? McNeill?
'The other possible solution, Pedersen says, is to "cut the heck out of everything else" the state spends money on: health care for the needy, disability payments, the state Ecology Department, state parks, state colleges and universities, student scholarships and the arts'.
Â
Cut the HECK out of? Spoken like a true democrat. Yer pathetic Jamie! You and your ilk keep threatening and punishing the needy. It ain't the conservatives that are in charge. YOU are. YOU are making the cuts. You and yer cronies sit in yer chrystal palaces and keep pointing yer guns at the simple people and threatening them. You all SUCK!
Â
Why do you do that? Why do liberals ALWAYS hold needy people and children hostage? Do us all a favor and go stand in the corner and hold yer breath until ya turn blue. That's exactly what you sound like. Spoiled rotten little brats. You're ADULTS for crying outloud! ACT LIKE IT!
Put on yer man pants and make the cuts that are required. You can do that can't ya? Well? Can you???
Â
This is not the first time that the judicial branch has found that the legislature has not met
the constitutional mandate of fully funding basic education, but it is the first time the judicial
branch has put teeth into their findings. They must comply this time and they do not want to.
Â
In the past, almost immediately after such judicial findings, they CUT school funding.
Â
State spending increased by about 30%, but the states educational mandates were continually
ignored.  The party responsible for those cuts is the party that had controlled controlled both
the senate and the house in our legislature until two years ago.
Â
Representative Jamie Pedersen is a member of that same party.Â
Go figure.
LOL What does his shirt say? Let the voters decide. THEY ALREADY HAVE! Many times, but you just wonât listen. The voters did decide, you donât like what they had to say and are trying to have them silenced. Talk about hypocrisy.Â
@oldster70 UH... That person in the picture is TIM EYMAN not Jamie Pedersen. Its the Timmy initiatives that institute the 2/3 vote that have been consistantly ruled unconstitutional, and Timmy keeps WASTING tax payer dollars by contiunally putting these thingso n the ballot.
 @EMDF9A LMAO I sure blew it that time. Thanks for straightening me out on the picture.Â
My pleasure
@EMDF9A They 2/3 vote has not been ruled unconstitutional the Democrars just wipe it off the books every four years because it gets in the way of raising taxes. Rather than being fiscaly responsable they like the easy way out and just raise taxes to pay for thier pay raises and more pork....
Â
@pete1427 Then you understand wrong. The initiative process is definatly legal, but initiatives enacted under the process must be constitutional. The Washington Constitution states that it takes a simple majority to pass items in the legislature. An initiative cannot annul this, only a change to the Constitution can. So, as it stands, Timmy's initiatives to the contrary are unconstitutional. now.. If you want to enact a constitutional change.. go ahead and try.. but thats what Howard Jarvis did in CA with Prop 13 & you see what it has done for them. Dont cut you nose off despite your face. Use your Right of Franchise and VOTE for the legislators that espouse your ideals, btu do not hamstring those who are elected to do the people's business.
 @EMDF9A  @pete1427Â
So, as I understand your comment, the initiative process under
our state constitution is illegal. Think again.
Â
Â
@pete1427 I personally believe that the 2/3 wont stand. To me it is blatantly unconstitutional and unless we change that (And that isnt going to happen) All of Timmy's wasting of tax dollars wont matter.Â
 @EMDF9A It is now up to the state supreme court to determine
if her findings have merit. Personally, I think that the super majority
requirement will stand
Actually it HAS been ruled unconstitutional my a King County judge.Â
How is he wasting taxpayer dollars? Because he gets one page outta 50 on the voters pamphlet?
And a little circle on the ballot?
Â
Everyone else has a say but Tim? When are you gonna start burning books?
 @Antistatism Funny how many of the initiatives represent the effort of a vocal minority to convince the majority to let them get their fingers into the cookie jar of government for personal gain (or the personal gain of their sponsors) without really standing for election as state senators or representatives. Kind of like the Walmart greeters getting the shopping public to grant them the "right" to overrule management and set prices as they want. Usurpers by any name are still liars and cheats.
You think lobbyists in the OTHER Washington are bad: Tim I'm-an-idiot is a paid lobbyist who convinces you to turn over your vote to him without even giving you a cut of the action he is enjoying all the way to the bank. Forget the free cruises: Timmy wouldn't even off you a free ferry ride for your vote!
 @JLS1950  @bobalouie Funny how it's always found unconstitutional when it means less revenue for a corrupt government.
Â
 @bobalouie He wastes money by writing initiatives that are unconstitutional and require $ millions to sort out in court. He wastes money by puting himself forward as an "expert" on things he does not in fact understand at all.
 @EMDF9A So what is your answer to a corrupt, wasteful government that wast our tax money at ever increasing rate? Without accountability what incentive does government have to spend tax payer money wisely?
@EMDF9A 1 intelligent vote against a 100 idiot votes doesn't do any good. If hamstringing the idiots in Oly is all we can agree on then we will keep doing it, better than doing nothing. Wish people would stop selecting whom they want based on a D, R, or I, but like the old saying goes wish in one hand and ---- in the other and see which one fills up first.
My answer is use your vote. We elect our representatives to do our bidding. If they dont.. Dont vote for them,but dont hamstring them and keep them from doing their job and them compalin that they dont do their job.