Rep. Moeller, “Constituents Make a Sham Out Of the Process”

by lewwaters

It’s no secret that Democrat Jim Moeller, Representative for the heavily Democrat 49th Legislative District in Washington State is pro taxes. We have even nicknamed him “Da Taxman” over this love of hanging more and more taxes on the backs of taxpayers, even though his district is in the 4th year in a row of double digit unemployment.

To combat this ‘tax happy’ attitude of Olympia Democrats, who have maintained a stranglehold on the state government for over a decade now, voters have repeatedly passed constitutional initiatives requiring the legislature to have a two thirds ‘Super Majority’ vote in order to stick more taxes on us.

Each has been discarded by the governor and legislature as soon as legally possible, giving the Democrat majority an easier time taxing us to death.

Enter Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 in 2010 once again requiring the legislature to achieve that two thirds majority to impose and raise taxes on us or put them to the voters for a majority vote. The initiative was passed by voters with a wide 64% margin statewide. Locally, including Moeller’s own district he says he represents, it passed by a 71.3 percent margin.

Completely ignoring that the “will of the people” is that the legislature require such a two thirds Super Majority vote for taxes, Special Interests and some Democrats, including Jim Moeller filed a lawsuit against the people’s voice claiming, “Changing the constitution and our right to vote by initiative, no matter what percentage it passed by, is unconstitutional.”

The right to Citizen Initiative is written into the Washington State Constitution, Article II Section 1.

The case was recently argued before King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller and is in his hands.

Chris Korsmo, CEO of the League of Education Voters representing “a consortium of plaintiffs that includes the Washington Education Association and a number of House Democrats including Rep. Jim Moeller” claimed, “This initiative prevents legislators from having all of their constitutionally protected powers at their disposal for making budget decisions. In fact, it turns democracy on its head by giving the minority all of the power. Why would you put barriers around what the Legislature can do and needs to do, especially in these economic times?”

Since when does such a majority of voters, who have repeatedly stated this is what we want “turn democracy on its head?” Isn’t the very definition of “democracy” majority rule?

Why would we “want to put barriers around what the legislature can do?” Could it be that a majority of voters around the state, both Democrats & Republicans have looked at how the legislature has acted and are dissatisfied with their actions? From where I sit, it is a clear message to stop raising and imposing new taxes and live within the means sent to Olympia.

Republican 17th Legislative District Senator Don Benton rightfully noted “a healthy change in the budgeting process by creating necessary limits on spending” saying, “I wholly support 1053 and the concept behind 1053. Because we have a Legislature that is very out of touch with what the people want, we have Tim Eyman. The initiative has forced lawmakers to say no when there is not enough money to spend on something. And I think that’s a good thing.”

Tim Eyman says, “It made tax increases a last resort. It did exactly what voters wanted.”

Ignoring the wide margin the initiative passed by, Jim Moeller cried, “It makes a sham out of what we currently have. We can expand tax incentives but not close them with a simple majority. That’s ridiculous,” adding “It’s not an issue of partisanship. It’s about hampering the majority’s ability to govern…”

Since when does the “ability to govern” mean hanging endless taxes on the backs of struggling middle class taxpayers, as did Moeller ill-fated “candy tax.”

I am especially taken aback by Moeller’s claims of the “will of the people” “making a sham out of what we currently have.” Moeller, a member of the majority in Olympia has been elected to office by a majority vote of the voters within the 49th Legislative District. Does he see that as “making a sham out of what we currently have?”

Moeller it needs noted, was a leader in the House in the effort to waste the first half of the last regular session to ram homosexual marriage through, ignoring a $1.5 Billion budget gap and requiring a special session and many long contentious hours spent working out a budget. All of which cost taxpayers more money in per diem for legislators as we saw the Democrat majority once again resort to some “felony gimmicks,” kicking the can down the road still.

We now see warnings of Next Year’s Budget Could be $1.7 Billion out of Whack, Research Council Says coming out already.

We hear claims of massive spending cuts, but Moeller doesn’t hang label of “sham” on all of the lawsuits filed by groups representing unions and illegal aliens blocking those cuts, as reported in the Seattle Times last November.

No, he only labels the will of the majority of voters in his own district and the state as a “sham” to his desire to hang more and more taxes on our backs.

It is unknown just how Judge Heller will rule on I-1053, but if he follows the precedent when the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a similar lawsuit in 2008 to overturn a similar two thirds requirement initiative, it will stand.

Will Jim Moeller label the court’s ruling a “sham” should he rule that way?

The real “sham” is that someone as disconnected with reality as Jim Moeller is returned to Olympia so many times.

14 Comments to “Rep. Moeller, “Constituents Make a Sham Out Of the Process””

  1. It’s just too bad we can’t do these initiatives at the federal level.

    Like

  2. Wouldn’t that be great, Tom?

    Can you imagine Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman Schultz reactions to such initiatives? 🙂

    Like

  3. Jim Moeller has repeatedly declared that his job is to spend. He stated that in direct response actually, when at a town hall for the 49th and Larry Patella was annouced for his turn at the mic, Jim said “Larry my long term friend. Let me just guess what you are going to say. How’s quit spending Jim do? Did I get it right? And so in response to what you are about to say let me just say that it is the legislatures job to spend your money, that’s what we do”. He was rude and condescending to Larry but more importantly he was wrong. We send these representatives to the house or senate to do that. Represent the voice of the people. He said at the town hall in January this year that the D’s were going to get it their way and that was because they were the majority thus if the R’s were the majority then we could do it our way. He doesn’t get it that the D’s and R’s are the people and most of us are centristic egalitarians. The far right and the far left need to be heard too but they are not usually in the 30 to 70% range that makes up the real majority. That real majority wants fiscal responsibility and an end to socialist agendas controlling our freedoms and lives. Jim Moeller is not in that majority.

    Like

  4. He obviously believes he is above everybody else an has the power to just do whatever pleases him, at our cost.

    He contributes more to our downfall than almost any of them up there.

    Like

  5. Moeller is probably the best example of an arrogant Leftist jackass that you’ll ever find. The guy is a total egomaniac.

    Like

  6. Nowhere does his arrogance and ego shore more than his speeches made at the Dems conventions.

    I just viewed 2008 and 2010 Clark County Conventions and he is a real piece of work.

    If you think he is arrogant at a Town Hall, you should see when he is sucking up to his fellow leftists.

    Like

  7. Lew,

    Very good article, which is the norm with you. Moeller’s comments are ignorant and ridiculous. His rhetorical question why would we “want to put barriers around what the legislature can do?”, defies reason. If the people wanted no barriers around what government could do then we would have no need of a Constitution because that is all the Constitution does.

    While you are right on almost every point, there is one point I would offer a correction. You said, “Isn’t the very definition of “democracy” majority rule? Well, actually it isn’t.

    Democracy means the power of government rests with the people. If the people chose to exercise that power by direct vote of the citizenry our system of government would be a democracy. But that is not how we chose to do it. Therefore, we are not a democracy.

    Ours is a system of representation and rule of law. Those two components are what makes ours a republican form of government. That most of our civic/political decisions are settled by simple-majority vote is because we have established a “rule of law” which provides that those decisions will settled by simple-majority vote. But there are numerous exceptions at every level of government. Supermajorities are required to propose an amendment to the Constitution and, ratification by the States requires another supermajority; veto overrides require supermajorities, and the list goes on. We also have a few cases where a matter is determined by less-than-majority vote. But whatever the percentage of vote count is required for approval of an issue—that percentage is established by a law.

    Thus– rule of law–under a process of republican government and having nothing to do with democracy or any so-called democratic process. Moeller’s ranting’s about democracy on-its-head notwithstanding.

    Like

  8. Opps!! Sorry ’bout the double post, Lew.

    Like

  9. Since we can’t seem to unseat Moeller, the next best thing is to beat his compatriots that keep him the majority. We need to replace Tim Probst’s D seat with an R. The way to torture Moeller is to make sure he is in the minority. Mike Appel, Julie Olson, I don’t much care which one, but an R needs to win that seat.

    Like

  10. How right you are. I like Mike and will meet Julie later this afternoon. I hear a lot of good things about her.

    Like wise in the 18th, Dale Smith and Liz Pike are both running for the open seat left by Ed Orcutt and I imagine one will easily win the seat. I haven’t heard who the Dems will float for that seat, but Paul Harris will be facing newcomer, Jim Gizzi.

    Word has it that the Dems will run Monica Stonier to try to keep Probst’s seat, but she hasn’t made an official announcement yet.

    I’m also hearing that Joe Tanner feels as if he has already defeated Tom Mielke for County Commission. We also need to show him how wrong he is too.

    Like

  11. You’re correct, Stephen. I didn’t intend to give the impression that we are a Democracy, though. I know we aren’t. My intent was to show the hypocrisy of Chris Korsmo’s claim of “turning Democracy on it’s head” with their continual denial of voters majority votes on what we keep saying we want.

    You’re also right that if we are to be governed as ‘they’ wish, we would have no need for our constitution.

    But, you know how the Democrats love to twist a constitution to their advantage instead of living within its confines.

    Like

  12. Lew, I figured you knew that but I wanterd to explain it for some of your readers who may not know the difference.

    Like

  13. Not a problem.

    Never hurts to have a little further explanation.

    Like

  14. Lew – isn’t what you would call a confinement and statement, a virtual cell through which government can be controlled by the people it serves over? And that Jim acts and thinks through the narrow majority power that they now in the senate and a shrinking majority in the house that he is actually his own worst enemy? The more he spouts off, the more people are going to vote against HIM and his parties interests?

    Kind of like a gay Earl Blumenaur? 🙂 Honestly, I think I would say do as you suggest ABOVE and let him learn the heavy lesson: The dumber you show yourself, the more you have to stick your foot in your mouth and chew….

    Like

%d bloggers like this: