Category Archives: Tax Exemptions

Madison and Hamilton Would Have Voted NO on I-1053

Posted on September 5th, 2010 | 1 comment

Two of the founders of our country, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, would have voted No on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 if they were alive today.  They spelled out their reasoning in The Federalist Papers in which they discussed the wisdom and necessity of majority rules for voting, instead of requiring a supermajority vote. Their arguments, which helped to frame the majority voting provisions in the US Constitution, are still as relevant today as when they were first written.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt to rewrite the rules by which Washington State Legislators make their decisions and vote. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Washington State Legislature shall make decisions by a majority vote. Eyman wants to change this to require that a 2/3 vote is needed by both Houses of the Legislature to pass revenue measures to fund state services or to repeal special interest tax exemptions that only benefit large corporations.

James Madison in The Federalist Papers No 58 had this to say about requiring supermajority votes:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No 22 likewise stated:

what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. …

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. …

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, … Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

These arguments for majority votes still ring true today. Washington State voters should vote NO on Initiative 1053 and uphold our State Constitution.

1 Comment

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off on Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

The Washington Conservation Voters are among the many organizations across Washington State opposing Initiative 1053, which is on the November 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman’s attempt to errorously amend the Washington State Constitution by initiative. Unfortunately for Eyman, in Washington State you can not amend the constitution by initiative. To do that requires a separate process of passing a constiutional amendment.

Eyman is trying to change Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution that says the Washington State Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote.  Eyman and his corporate backers like BP are trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills.

The Washington Conservation Voters describe their opposition to I-1053 as follows:

Vote No on Initiative 1053

Tim Eyman is back. His latest initiative, I-1053, recycles the failed concept behind Initiative 960 – forcing a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue for our state, such as taxing polluters. If this initiative passes, next legislative session’s expected $3 billion budget deficit will have to be closed with another brutal all-cuts budget. Critical protections that keep our air safe to breathe, our water healthy to drink, and toxic contaminations cleaned up would once again be at risk.

The Washington Conservation Voters also has an article written by Joel Connelly of the SeattlePI.com posted on their website entitled “Eyman’s I-1053 – A slick initiative” which explains some of the reasons corporations like BP, Tesoro, ConocoPhillips and Equilon  are pushing I-1053. For them it’s profits over public good and corporate responsibility.

You can add your voice  opposing 1053 on Facebook by going here.

You can view the Vote No on 1053 website here.

You can check out all the Washington Conservation Voters 2010 endorsements by clicking here.

Comments Off on Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted on September 1st, 2010 | Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has come out against Initiative 1053.  This is Tim Eyman’s 2010 initiative trying to impose a 2/3 vote requirement for Washington State Legislators to pass revenue measures and close special interest tax exemptions.

The measure is unconstitutional. An initiative can not amend the Washington State Constitution. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

Here is the Sierra Club’s rationale for opposing I-1053.

Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman’s latest bad idea that will cripple state government by allowing minority rule. The measure would require a supermajority on all revenue measures, such as increases in levies on toxic run-off from oil and other hazardous substances. In fact BP and their Big Oil friends have ponied up big to Tim Eyman to ensure that they can continue to pollute without paying to cleanup their mess. To add insult to injury, this measures also allows a minority to block closing tax loopholes to polluters.

In order for our government to function, the legislature needs to be able to ensure that polluters pay, and that we are able to invest in cleaning up our air and water. Just Say No to Initiative 1053.

You can go to the Sierra Club’s website to see their endorsements for candidates for the November election. They also are supporting Referendum 52.

Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

Posted in Economy, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , ,

Supermajority Vote Requirement for Washington State Legislators as Proposed by I-1053 is Unconstitutional

Posted on August 25th, 2010 | 2 comments

This issue should have been decided long ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. Any attempt to limit the Washington State Legislature from enacting revenue bills or repealing non-performing tax exemptions by requiring a supermajority vote is unconstitutional. Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by voters this November.

The Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue.

Article II, Section 22 states:

“PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

It does not state that more than a majority vote can be required. Initiative 1053 tries to change that by requiring Legislators to act by a 2/3 supermajority vote in both Houses to enact revenue measures or repeal tax exemptions. It happens to be revenue in this case but it could just as easy be environmental protections or labor issues or race issues or women’s issues or any other issue.

The fact of the matter is that anything more than 50% to pass a bill would give Legislators on one side of the issue more power than the other side in determining the outcome of a vote.  Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a measure means that the vote of 1/3 of the Legislators can prevail over the vote of 2/3 of the Legislators.

A majority vote gives both sides on a issue equal voting power  to pass or reject legislation. Everyone’s vote has equal weight. It’s the basic concept of one person/one vote. But a 2/3 vote requirement for Legislators to pass something means that 1/3 of the Legislators can prevent passage;  in essence giving the vote of those opposed to a measure  twice the weight of someone voting for the measure.

This sets up a two tiered system of weighted votes, something that is not in the State Constitution for passing legislation.  It distorts the process of representational government. Initiative 1053 tries to change the Washington State Constitution by saying that in some cases your elected Senator or Representative will represent you with one full vote to decide an issue but in cases involving raising revenue or repealing non-performing tax exemptions, they will essentially only have the equivalent of half a vote to decide the issue if they vote yes. If they vote no their vote will represent a full vote.

This is the flaw in supermajority votes. Under a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass some issues, it sets up a system that essentially assigns Legislators the equivalent of half a vote if they vote yes or a full vote if they vote no on certain issues.

While I-1053 would require supermajority votes for deciding to raise revenue or repeal non-performing tax exemptions, it only requires a simple majority to pass itself. It does not require a 2/3 vote.

Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.

In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title.  It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.

Eyman mentions this measure passing 3 times which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It’s subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women Voters.

These attempts to negate the concept of 1 person/1 vote for Legislators voting are unconstitutional. They are attempts to assign different voting powers to different Legislators depending on whether they vote for or against a particular measure. The Washington State Constitution does not allow the ability to weight votes for bills depending on the subject.

Article I, Section 29 states:

CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

The State Constitution does not set up the power to weight votes depending on a Legislator’s position on a bill.

The issue of revenue/taxes is specifically addressed in another part of the Washington State Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 states:

TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.

Initiative 1053 is obviously an attempt to take away the Legislator’s authority to raise revenue or taxes to support public services. The only way this can be altered is by a constitutional amendment.

An initiative or legislative bill can not amend the state constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional amendments affect the basic framework of how our government works, it is a specific instance where the state constitution spells out a requirement for a 2/3 vote by the Legislature and a majority vote of the people to pass. Two other instances spelled out for 2/3 votes by the Legislature are to expel a member of the house and a 2/3 vote in the first 2 years to amend an initiative.

No where does the Washington State Constitution say that voters can by a simple majority vote on an initiative, limit the power of Legislators to pass revenue legislation or repeal under-performing tax exemptions  by requiring supermajority votes. Under Article I, Section 29 to do so would require express words and no such words exist in the Constitution.

Initiative 1053 should be rejected by voters this November. It is unconstitutional. Uphold our Constitution by voting No on 1053 this November 2nd!

2 Comments

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Need to raise $1.7 billion in revenues

Posted on January 7th, 2010 | Comments Off on Need to raise $1.7 billion in revenues

Advocates should be loud and assertive about the need to raise revenues. Governor Gregoire has said she would raise only $700 million of the deficit, about one-third in revenues, and balance the rest with cuts to essential services.

The King County Democrats take the position that we should raise two-thirds in revenues and cut one-third in services. The amount of the revenue goal will determine what kind of revenues are considered. It will be less painful to vote for a few large taxes than many small ones.The Governor has said she wants to address tax breaks. I suggest the legislature start with the largest non-performing tax break. That would be Boeing’s 2003 $3.2 billion (over 20 years) for promising 1,200 additional jobs. Instead, last year alone they laid off over 10,000.

The Seattle Times on Sunday Jan. 4th ran an article about other states rescinding their nonperforming tax breaks and demanding refunds, or “clawbacks.” We want to see that here, too. We don’t appreciate being played for fools.

Extending the sales tax to all services, not just professional services, would do the most to fill the deficit gap. It would also be, in effect, progressive tax, since low-income people tend to hire few lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I’ll bet most moderate-income people would prefer to pay sales tax on haircuts, rather than see 65,000 people lose Basic Health plans. According to the Rebuilding our Economic Future Coalition, a recent poll showed that–after hearing how deep the cuts in services would be–65% of Washingtonians supported increasing revenues.

Legislators should also use this crisis as an opportunity to take needed steps toward an income tax for high-earners, couples making over $500,000. This 1% tax would be constitutional if Washington law defined income as different from property. Sens. Adam Kline and Rosa Franklin’s SJB 8205  addresses this and should be given an early hearing.

Most of all, Democrats should take courage, and note that Seattle passed the Seattle Housing Levy in a time of economic downturn by its biggest margin ever, 68%. Trust the voters to know that you’re doing the right thing.
(This post first appeared as a comment on the Northwest Progressive Institute blog.)

Comments Off on Need to raise $1.7 billion in revenues

Posted in Elections, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Initiative 1033 – Eyman’s Latest Wealth Transfer Scheme for the Rich

Posted on July 2nd, 2009 | 1 comment

Old dog Eyman just ain’t learning any new tricks. Initiative 1033, which he filed today with the Washington State Secretary of State is just another old trick to transfer money from the poor to those better off, namely property owners.

Eyman latest scheme puts a limit on state, county and city revenue growth by limiting year to year growth to the previous year plus local population growth and a national inflation index. Because it’s indexed to the previous years growth, every time you have a bad year or two, revenues the government will be able to spend will decrease from its previous high

When you have bad times economically that’s usually when more people need help from government. But Eyman does not propose decreasing the sales tax, which is regressive. Last year 57% of state tax revenues came from the sales tax.

Eyman proposes that instead money over his national inflation and population increase will go to help reduce taxes on those that own property. For homeowners the US Census Bureau last year said that some 65% of Washington State households were owner occupied. That means that 35% of households in the state will see excess money collected from sales taxes, for example, go as a tax break to those able to afford homes.

This is very much a reverse Robin Hood economic model Tim Eyman style. Tax the poor and transfer the money to help the wealthy pay lower property taxes. We’ve already been classified as the most regressive state in the country on taxation. This will only make things worse.

If you truly want to help the people who need help on property taxes the most, low and middle income people trying to make a go of things, help them on the property taxes. Things like a Homestead Exemption on one’s principal residence or circuit breaker legislation would be the right way to go.

Initiative 1033 is not an answer to property taxes problems. If it qualifies for the ballot, voters would be wise to reject Eyman’ latest wealth transfer scheme for the rich.

1 Comment

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , ,

Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Posted on April 8th, 2009 | Comments Off on Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Maybe Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are angling for the endorsement of the Seattle Times next time they’re up for election. They are certainly not working for most of the citizens in Washington State when they voted last week to raise the Federal estate tax exemption for the very wealthy.

Senators Murray and Cantwell joined forces with all 41 Republicans and 8 other Democrats in a Senate vote that would remove $91 billion over ten years from the Federal budget. As the blog Working Life said, “Ten Senate Democrats Lose Their Minds, Vote for Estate Tax Cut”

“Now, c’mon, this is entirely absurd. We already have the widest gap between rich and poor in many generations. Republicans (and some Democrats) are trying to cut the Administration’s proper and wise investments in infrastructure and wise energy efficiency programs. And, in the midst of all that, the Senate does what? Votes to cut the estate tax (which effects only the richest Americans) thanks to the votes of ten Senate Democrats. This is the definition of insanity.”

As the New York Times notes today in an editorial entitled “Guarding the Family Fortune” :

“…as the unemployment rate hit a 25-year high and nearly one in 10 Americans was receiving food stamps, 10 Democrats in the Senate joined all 41 Republican senators to cut estate taxes for the wealthiest families….With economic pain and suffering on the rise, how do the senators justify a big tax cut for multimillionaires?”

Who are the other Senators joining this Reagan/ Bush era philosophy of trickle down economics – that you can’t do enough to help the wealthy because they keep the county growing? They are Senators Lincoln Blanche (Arkansas), Max Baucus (Montana), John Tester (Montana), Evan Bayh (Indiana), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Bill Nelson (Florida), and Mark Pryor (Arkansas).

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites states:

“This proposal is both fiscally irresponsible — it would pave the way for a significant increase in long-term deficits and debt — and unnecessary to protect small businesses and farms, nearly all of which are already exempt from the tax under the 2009 estate tax rules, which President Obama has proposed to extend. The amendment also would lead to significant reductions in charitable contributions, while benefiting only the wealthiest 0.28 percent of estates.”

As the NY Times editorial cited above states:

“Under today’s estate tax, which is retained in both the House version of the budget and in President Obama’s version, 99.8 percent of estates will never owe any estate tax. That’s because the tax applies only to estates that exceed $7 million per couple or $3.5 million for individuals, and a vast majority of American families are not and never will be that wealthy. “

It seems to me that Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell are missing the larger picture. Washington State voters recently voted to retain the state estate tax to help fund schools. With the increased concentration of wealth in a very small percentage of the population, it’s time for the wealthy to give back some of the money they made thanks to benefits of the US economic system that made it possible. After all, they can’t spend it after they’re dead. But they can do whatever they want with it while they’re living.

Comments Off on Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Posted in Congress, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Frank Chopp Speaks to King County Democrats LAC

Posted on December 15th, 2008 | Comments Off on Frank Chopp Speaks to King County Democrats LAC

Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp, was the guest speaker this afternoon at the King County Democrats Legislative Action Committee, meeting in South Seattle. Chopp emphasized that much of the 2009 Legislative session will be spent dealing with the upcoming budget that is constrained by a projected $5 billion dollar shortfall.

As noted by the Progressive States Network, “The Washington State Legislature passed strong laws protecting the environment, consumers and people affected by the mortgage crisis, making the state one of the leaders in progressive victories.” Speaker Chopp noted that under his leadership the legislature will be focusing on 10 key areas, continuing to move the state forward on addressing problems.

Apple Health is one of these areas – combining kids’ health care with getting a good education. “In order to succeed in school , kids need to be healthy,” said Chopp. By 2010 every kid in Washington State should be covered by a health care program – putting Washington State in the lead NATIONALLY in this area.

Another area is the Opportunity Grant Program – providing financial aid for training programs and colleges and universities. This program is expected to cover 1 million people over 7 years.

In discussing some of the areas the LAC was concerned with, Speaker Chopp reiterated his support for adequate funding for the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing.

Under the banner of a Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, Chopp saw 3 areas being worked on:
1. raising licensing requirements and worker certification
2. an ombudsman’s office for consumer protection
3. providing remedies when things go wrong

On the issue of income source nondiscrimination, Chopp noted the House previously passed such legislation but the Senate didn’t.

On the budget, Chopp said we needed to put education first but support human services like Apple Health care and foster kids. He said that kids needed to come first in health care issues.

He praised the environmental community for their continued efforts to prioritize bills. He expressed some reservations about a cap and trade program to control carbon emissions noting the new terminology of cap and invest better explained what was happening to the money. He noted that the biggest carbon emitter in the state was the Centralia Coal plant and emphasized the need for alternatives as a way to change things.

On the issue of transit oriented communities he discussed the option of hotel and motel taxes going to help fund transit nodes, not just public art. On clean water he said the biggest problem was the need for a funding source and suggested that because of I-960 requiring a vote of 2/3 of the Legislature for a tax increase that submitting selected revenue proposals to the voters to raise new revenue made the most sense.

On the issue of public campaign financing, Chopp noted that the Legislature in its last session supported the local option for public campaign financing. Proponents for public financing are urging that the Legislature this year put in place a public finance scheme for State Supreme Court races. The problem remains one of finding a funding source this year. Chopp noted that several other proposals passed by the Legislature in the past face a similar funding dilemma – namely no money for the working family tax credit and the family leave program.

Chopp noted that several Legislators will be looking at voter registration issues. The LAC noted that nationally efforts are moving to promote automatic permanent voter registration or universal registration. Minnesota passed such legislation last year. Rather than opting in, voters would have to opt out of voter registration. Address changes to the Post Office and DMV and other government agencies would automatically transfer one’s voter registration to the new address, rather than forcing voters to re-register. The backup safety for voters is same day registration in case errors occur. Iowa is among the dozen states that already do this.

The LAC discussed the need for reform or repeal of the Three Strikes Law noting that inequities exist where a low priority 3rd strike can commit the state to paying for someone being in jail for the rest of their life. This was discussed as a possible source of funds that could be freed up if selective reforms took place.

Chopp avoided a detailed discussion of repealing non-performing tax breaks and other tax breaks that are not needed saying the Legislative Audit Committee was looking at this. He noted that repeal of a tax break required a 2/3 vote because of I-960, basically making reform difficult. The LAC noted that this more or less epitomized the problem, that once tax breaks were granted they became permanent, even when not fulfilling their original purpose and that tax breaks needed to be enacted for a set period of time, like 10 years and require a new vote to continue. Automatic sunsetting would help prevent the tax breaks for life problem.

The LAC voted to approve its draft Legislative Agenda and add 2 more areas in its coverage, “Education” and “Jobs and Labor”.

Under Education would be an education reform bill covering a number of areas, including closing the achievement gap and legislation to implement the recommendations of the basic education finance task force.

Under Labor and Jobs would be legislation for contractor compliance to help the state secure revenue lost by nondisclosure. This is sometimes referred to as the problem of the underground economy – where tax revenue is lost because financial transactions are not reported

Under Environment two additional bills will be watched. One is for a secure medicine return bill and the other is a bill to help foster recycling of compact fluorescent lights which contain mercury.

Comments Off on Frank Chopp Speaks to King County Democrats LAC

Posted in Democrats, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged ,

Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

Posted on December 14th, 2007 | Comments Off on Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

If you need one more reason to vote Republicans out of Congress, just look at the huge $13 billion dollar Christmas present they gave the oil industry. The Senate yesterday passed landmark energy legislation to increase fuel efficiency of cars and trucks by 40% but on a 59 to 40 vote to end debate, were forced to strip from the bill key tax reform provisions to repeal special tax breaks for the oil industry. They also dropped a renewable energy mandate and renewable energy tax credits

One Democrat, Senator Mary Landieu supported the oil industry by voting no to end debate and one Republican, John McCain, was not present to vote. Considering the significance of this bill one has to wonder what he thought was more important than being there for the vote.

The 2008 election continues to shape up as a major turning point for America. It is an opportunity for Democrats to contrast their forward moving agenda to deal with issues like energy independence and global warming with the Republican sell out to corporate America at the expense of the common good for America’s citizens and their pocketbooks.

Face it, the Republicans continue to live in the past and remain beholden to special interests like the oil industry. And Democrats need to show some spine and be leaders in moving America forward. As the New York Times writes today,

“some environmentalists said they were unhappy that the bill would not provide large incentives for expansion of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biothermal.
Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action, accused Senate Democrats of “capitulating” to Senate Republicans and the White House.
“When the Republican leadership and the polluter lobby have blocked important legislation, Senate Democrats have been all too willing to move in their direction,” Mr. Blackwelder said in a statement. “The result is that the two most positive provisions of the energy bill — a clean energy mandate and a tax package reining in handouts for fossil fuels and promoting clean energy — are being removed, while detrimental provisions, such as a radical five-fold increase in unsustainable biofuel use, remain.”

Carl Hulse in On the Hill quotes what part of the strategy of the Republicans will be during the coming year. It will be to blame the Democrats for the problems Democrats inherited from the Republicans, all the while doing everything they can to be sure that Democrats get as little done as they can to solve these problems.

Here’s what Hulse quotes the Republican National Committee saying in its comments on their recent victories in the Special Elections to fill two Congressional vacancies.

“The underlying economic anxiety that Americans feel toward the tax-and-spend policies of the new, wildly unpopular do-nothing Democratic Congress have led to the emergence of issues such as combating illegal immigration and providing tax relief to working families and will ultimately play to Republicans’ advantage next year,”

Give me a break. “Wildly unpopular do nothing Congress“? The Republicans are the ones obstructing getting things done. And President Bush’s vetoes since the Democrats gained the majority are part of this strategy. The Republican strategy is to try to prevent the Democrats from passing significant legislation so that the Republicans can say it is the Democrats fault.

Look at what the Republicans do, not what they say. They are playing with right wing talk radio hype hoping Americans are easily deceived.

“Providing tax relief to working families” ? If you believe the Republicans are going to do this you sure didn’t understand what was happening when they controlled Congress. Tell me how the Republicans, by preventing the repeal of the oil industries special tax breaks, and as a result giving $13 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry, is going to help working families.

The Republicans fought fuel efficiency legislation for cars and trucks all the way. The Democratic sponsored and passed bill according to the Environment News Service “is expected to save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day and save consumers some $22 billion in 2020. Proponents say it will also make a significant dent in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, equivalent to taking some 60 million cars off the road. ”

Thank you Democrats!
The Environmental News Service  noted that the Democratic passed legislation also

“…tightens energy efficiency standards for government buildings as well as for consumer appliances and products.
“People underestimate efficiency, but today household appliances, lighting and electronics use up to two-thirds of energy in households,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. “By requiring these new standards for manufacture of these products, we will save over 40,000 megawatts of energy. That is the same amount of electricity used in 19 states today.”

Thank you Democrats!

Comments Off on Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy, Energy, Environment, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Washington State Sales Tax Deduction Dropped Again from U.S. Senate Bill

Posted on December 10th, 2007 | 2 comments

Dropped from the US Senate Bill passed last Thursday to reduce the alternative minimum tax that would have affected millions of taxpayers, was a provision that allows Washington State taxpayers to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax. Washington taxpayers will still be able to deduct 2007 sales taxes but not their 2008 sales taxes, because the current deduction will expire this year.

“As the senators wrangled over the AMT on Thursday, they dropped a provision that would allow residents of Washington and seven other states to continue deducting their sales taxes from their federal income tax.
Without that provision, residents will be able to deduct sales taxes when they file their 2007 federal income taxes in April. But then the tax deduction would expire.
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, had been pushing bills to make the sales-tax deduction permanent, or at least extend it two more years.
Lawmakers from Washington and the seven other states with sales-tax deductions will try to pass a quick fix later this month or in January, a spokeswoman for Cantwell said.”

We’re not talking peanuts here. An analysis released by Senator Cantwell’s and Representative Brian Baird’s office notes that:

“The Congressional Research Service estimates that Washington state taxpayers who itemize and who claim the sales tax deduction will realize tax savings of more than $557 million.[iv] In 2005, 37 percent of the nearly three million tax filers in Washington state chose to itemize, and 83 percent of those itemizers claimed the state sales tax deduction.[v] That year, the $2 billion that Washington state taxpayers claimed in tax deductions translated into $557 million in tax savings that went right into the pockets of Washington state residents. Congressional Research Service estimates indicate that each Washington state taxpayer who used the state sales tax deduction saved an average of $600 in 2005.”

The fact is that states which have a state income tax can deduct this on their Federal income tax. Washington state has no income tax. As Cantwell’s office notes:

“In most states, taxpayers who claim itemized deductions on their federal income tax returns can claim a deduction for state income taxes paid. The purpose of this deduction is to prevent the double taxation of funds that are used to finance state services. However, from 1986 until 2004, residents of eight states that have no income tax but which finance their state services using a sales tax, were denied a Federal deduction for these state taxes. In 2004, Congress passed legislation to temporarily restore the deduction for state and local sales tax, thus restoring parity in the federal Income tax code for residents in those states without an income tax. Unless legislation is passed to extend this deduction, it will expire at the end of 2007.” …
“Without the state sales tax deduction, non-income tax states would be able to deduct only 36.6 percent of the state and local taxes they pay, all of which comes from property taxes. States with an income tax, by comparison, would be able to deduct 56.1 percent.[vi] This means that taxpayers who file in states with an income tax can expect to save substantially more than those who reside in the states without state income taxes. In 2004, Deductions from state and local income tax claimed on federal income tax forms totaled $202.3 billion.[vii] “

If Cantwell, Murray, Baird and the rest of the Congressional delegation are not successful in re-enacting the state sales tax deduction on Federal income tax returns for next year, the overall tax burden on Washington taxpayers will go up.

Of course this would increase citizen pressure for tax reform in Washington state. A state income tax coupled with a reduction in sales taxes and property taxes would both produce a less regressive state tax system and also allow for the ability of Washington State taxpayers to deduct their state income tax from their Federal income tax.

A state income tax is a fairer tax than sales taxes and property taxes which you have to pay whether you are working or not, whether you are retired or not and whether you have any income or not. But you only pay an income tax if you have income.

see also: Washington State Income Tax Makes Sense

2 Comments

Posted in Congress, Economy, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , ,