The Washington Poll is a project conducted in the University of Washington’s Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER). In 2009, in polling regarding the races for King County Executive and Seattle Mayor, The Washington Poll accurately determined an eleventh-hour swing to Dow Constantine in race for county chief but incorrectly projected that Joe Mallahan would take over from Greg Nickels in Seattle City Hall, not current mayor Mike McGinn.

The responses for the group’s recently released survey on health care-related issues were gathered by telephone during the period of October 14-16, 2009. The reported margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percent. The full report can be viewed here.

Three recent national polls conducted regarding the Democratic health care plan have indicated a six to eight-point margin of opposition to the current package. Specifically, the most recent Rasmussen poll, taken after the much-ballyhooed health care summit between GOP and Democratic leadership, registered 52 percent against and only 44 percent in favor. That survey also contained the revelation that 63 percent of respondents felt that passing smaller reforms was a smarter path to improving the health care system, and to that end The Washington Poll may be useful to politicians in identifying what those smaller issues might be.

Skepticism is, however, prudent in considering the weight that should be given to a four-month-old poll reporting strong support for key elements of the President’s health care package. In terms of gauging public opinion on heatedly debated policy issues, a four months aging of the data can be like the difference between sipping Chianti and spitting vinegar. Cynicism may even be warranted considering that its release comes just as Democrats in Washington, D.C. are caucusing to cross the Rubicon and pass a health care bill using the nuclear option of reconciliation.

But capriciously dismissing polls one does not like is a surefire technique for giving Murphy’s Law jurisdiction to sideswipe one’s own cause. An outlier poll can have a strong effect on the minds of voters if the media chooses not to scrutinize carefully or place in proper context the results. GOP strategists will need to be aware of reports like that of The Washington Poll as the full-court press goes into action this week.

If Democrats do opt to send the bill to the president by way of reconciliation, their public relations strategy may be to prominently cite selected surveys to show that their actions were, in fact, popular.

Would a Jedi mind trick strategy like that work to pass healthcare amid low public support by simultaneously informing the public that they were in favor of the measure? In politics, literally anything can happen.

When Nate Burleson was signed away from the Minnesota Vikings by the Seattle Seahawks and former General Manager Tim Ruskell, it was an obvious “stick-in-the-eye” type move after the disastrous “poison pill” fiasco with pro-bowl lineman Steve Hutchison. The Hawks gave Burleson a 7-year, $49 million back loaded contract to come to Seattle. At that time, he only had one 1,000-yard season on his resume (and that was playing opposite all-world receiver, Randy Moss). Four years later, Burleson’s 1,000-yard resume is the same. He never reached his full potential here – or so the argument goes. Some may lament his exit from Seattle but for me, it’s indicative of what new head coach Pete Carroll and GM John Schneider what to bring back to Seattle: excellence.

It really doesn’t matter how good he was in the locker room – he didn’t produce consistently on the field. The “threat of the big play” is only a real threat when you make a big play more than twice a year. And please spare me the local boy stuff because nobody cares; this is the NFL, not Pop Warner.

After the Hawks were shredded by Frank Gore and the San Francisco 49ers in September last year, I wrote this. And, unfortunately, nothing changed the rest of the season. When a big play happened, Burleson, most likely, wasn’t even on the field. I say good riddance he’s gone and, clearly, Carroll and Schneider had no intention of keeping him around – I’m sure it’s a HUGE relief to get out from under that contract; let someone else pay for mediocrity (does anyone else find it ironic that the Lions signed him?). He should play second or third fiddle to a legitimate Number One receiver. Somehow, the Hawks – under Ruskell – got so screwed up that they believed Burleson could be the Number One receiver they so desperately needed (and still need).

Deion Branch came here and signed a giant contract; he isn’t a Number One-type guy. TJ Houshmandzadeh isn’t a Number One guy, either. Deon Butler – no matter how much of a “feel good story” he is – will never be a Number One. Name any receiver the Hawks have put on the field over the past five years; not one Number One guy in the bunch. We don’t need another non-Number One guy making Number One money: goodbye Burleson.

Allowing Burleson to walk unimpeded out the door to Detroit is a good sign for the Seahawks. Hopefully, it’s a sign of things to come: Coach Carroll and Schneider will not cling to mediocre. Now, let’s sign Brandon Marshall or draft Dez Bryant and get our passing game out of the doldrums.

Now…

Imagine the sounds of a number 10 envelope being opened, blown into, and an index card being pulled from within. The Magnificent Carnac reads aloud:

Walt Disney’s cryogenically-frozen body, Lindsey Lohan’s acting career, and Washington state’s Initiative 960 tax restraint law.

What are three things currently on ice that have the same chance of being revived as Tiger Woods if he fainted at a conference of the National Organization of Women.

Tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., Washington governor Christine Gregoire will sign Senate Bill 6130 that put on ice the voter-approved I-960 that would have forced a two-thirds vote in the Legislature on all tax increase measures. SB 6130 postpones full enactment of I-960 until July of 2011, just enough time to do a little free-wheeling tax raisin’ and for Democrats to figure out how to legally kill off the spending restraint law while it sleeps, like a vampire story in reverse.

According to sources in Olympia, the signing will take place in the governor’s private conference room.

Gov. Gregoire still has the power to veto sections of the bill and Sens. Mike Hewitt and Joe Zarelli delivered a letter to her on Monday requesting that she strike the repeal of non-binding public advisory votes on tax increases. Cross your fingers but the reality is that the request hasn’t a meatball’s chance in Michael Moore’s lunchbox.

For those who have the stomach, read the full text of the legislation Gregoire will sign into law. If that doesn’t floor you, the Washington Policy Center plans to publish the I-960 public disclosure that would have been printed in the voters’ pamphlet for this year’s general election.

Remember SB 6130 on Election Day 2010.

By passing Senate Bill 6130 to suspend the requirement for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes — a measure approved by a majority of voters in a 2007 statewide election following an initiative campaign that was opposed by a barrage of well-funded arguments against — Democratic lawmakers in Olympia threw a withering haymaker at the notion that people, not government, ultimately hold the reins of power.

The Democratic phalanx in support of SB 6130 was not executing a partisan attack against Republicans. Even the voters were really only caught in the line of fire. Democrats were, in fact, performing a full frontal ideological assault on the notion that power in our system is ours first.

On the morning after, Northwest-area mega-blog Publicola kicked off the public relations campaign for Democrats in tight races. The headline of the Morning Fizz post read “The Democrats on the House Side Bucked Their Senate Cohorts,” implying to readers that a stalwart group of moderates opposed the suspending I-960.

Publicola cites as evidence that freethinkers exist in Olympia’s majority party the one-vote margin of passage despite the maximum 61-vote horsepower they’re capable of. A more likely explanation (and one that the experienced political writers at Publicola are well aware of) is that the ten “mavericks” were let go by their caucus because their votes were not needed. Pure politics and nothing more. Need proof? Play the home version of “Where’s Democratic Dissent?” and review the video of the debates (TVW is an invaluable resource for this) to find any evidence that any of the Democrats voting no offered words on the floor that could have harmed them with the liberal base.

It should be noted, for all would-be secessionists and radicals out there, that what the State Legislature has done to set aside Initiative 960 is not, on its face, unlawful or unconstitutional. Although the initiative process allows citizens to propose laws without the consent of the government, state law does not hold initiatives above laws made by the legislative body in terms of their being subject to amendment and/or repeal. This is a common sense safeguard against mob rule. The safeguard against governmental suppression of the people’s will is ultimately found in our elections, but also in extreme cases in the ability to recall certain elected officials.

And yet, although the Legislature acted lawfully, lawfulness and morality do not ride on the same ticket. The degree to which voters feel that their elected officials acted without regard for the higher standard of morality in their vote on I-960 will ultimately be felt at the polls. A decisive vote to eject Democrats from office could be the only way to remind lawmakers that it is our power first, not theirs.

For those who can’t wait until November 7^th to register their opinions, Democrats will be making a victory tour this weekend. Town halls are being organized and details are available through your legislator’s office. The “Find Your Legislator” tool on the Washington State Legislature website will let you know who to call.

Last night’s vote in the State House was 51-47, with several politically endangered Democrats switching over to join their Republican colleagues.  But as the Associated Press reports, it wasn’t without some feisty and spirited opposition from the Republican caucuses.

If SB 6130 becomes law in its current form it would postpone enactment of I-960’s two-thirds requirement for tax increases until July 2011.

For those Washington conservatives who have griped that Republicans in Olympia are indistinguishable from their tax-and-spend neighbors across the aisle, the tone and spirit of Tuesday’s flurry of impromptu speeches offered a sneak peek at something different.

“We are not California. We are Washington, and we are Washingtonians. We’re strong and we’re proud people… we’re not going to bow down to recession by putting burdensome taxes on our people,” Rep. Brad Klippert said. (Click here to listen to Rep. Klippert’s remarks.)

Rep. Glenn Anderson later picked up the ball and succinctly encapsulated what is different about Republicans and the majority Democratic Party.

“Economic growth is essential,” Anderson said, going on to characterize Democratic tax-and-spend solutions as “chasing a Band-Aid to avoid the pain” of difficult choices.

Their voices were only two among a unified chorus of Republicans calling for a bipartisan step back from the precipice both to assess the ethicality of reversing the will of the voters as well as to visit the total budget – expenditures and revenues – before gutting the tax restraint provisions in I-960 and further eroding the faith of the people in their government.

A small ray of light did pierce the House’s dark decision in the form of its adoption of the Finance Committee amendment that allows the transparency provisions of I-960 to remain in effect. Careful observers will recall that the original Senate vote last week had left these requirements intact and that body actually took a second vote to correct the oversight of preserving public notification when Olympia begins to move to raise taxes. That silver lining tarnishes in light of the Legislature’s practice of floating “ghost” legislation – also known as “title-only” bills – that defy transparency rules by offering nothing for the public to review.

The evolution of modern political systems has come to recognize that in free societies in order for the social contract to be consummated individuals will naturally require built-in defenses to guard against an oppressive government. In the United States Constitution the Bill of Rights embody those protections, and in Washington state we have codified our necessary stalemate between the government and the governed in our initiative process.

In order to register your strong opposition to SB 6130, the resulting avalanche of new taxes that will undoubtedly spring forth, and the requisite loss of liberty, please call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 to let your elected representatives in Olympia hear your voice.

If you have any interesting conversations with our legislators feel free to post details in the comments section to this post.

Claims of fiscal chaos were not reserved for after the election, however. The public debate during the Initiative 960 campaign was vigorous. Opponents of the measure threatened that if it were made into law the state would be handcuffed to react to a crisis. Knowing that was a possibility, a majority of voters weighed that possibility against the reality that runaway government spending at the state level was, in itself, a crisis in the making.

Now, the Democrat majority have moved a bill through the Senate – SB 6130 – that would “shelve” I-960 until July 2011, just enough time to get some really gluttonous spending accomplished before November elections could rearrange their partisan dominance. The bill must first get past the House before its certain signing by Gov. Gregoire.

The Republicans in Olympia are summoning the voters to attend the public hearing for SB 6130 before the House Finance Committee so that Democrat legislators can again hear the message loud and clear that was already sent in 2007. The hearing is currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m., Saturday February 13, in the John L. O’Brien Building, Hearing Room A. As luck would have it, concerned taxpayers will get the benefit of a double feature of tax horror legislation because another tax increase bill – HB 3176 – is on the agenda.

Here is the communication we received from House Republican leader Rep. Richard DeBolt (R-20):

Dear Friends,

While you are hard at work trying to make ends meet, the Democratic majority is working hard to increase your taxes. This weekend you have the opportunity to tell them exactly what you think about their plans to take more of your hard-earned money.

Saturday, Feb. 13 at 9:00 am, in the John L. O’Brien Building, Hearing Room A, the House Finance Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 6130, which repeals the taxpayer protection law (Initiative 960). Also on the agenda is House Bill 3176, which is one of the many tax increase bills introduced by the Democrats as a way to dig out of the mess they created by years of reckless overspending.

We want you to have your say! Here’s how:

Come to Olympia, attend the public hearing at 9:00 am and voice your opinion.

After the hearing is over, come to the Capitol building and watch from the galleries as the House of Representative debates SB 6130.  Although we don’t know exactly what time the bill will be brought to the House floor for action, we believe it will be sometime after 1:00 pm on Saturday.  Your presence will send a strong signal to the Democratic majority that overturning the will of the people will not go unnoticed!

My colleagues and I look forward to seeing you this weekend.

Sincerely,

Rep. Richard DeBolt
20th Legislative District

Consider your day in Olympia an early Valentine’s Day gift to your neighbors.

SB 6853 was introduced Tuesday as a title-only bill pertaining to the investigation of tax preferences, placed on the Ways and Means agenda for the afternoon, and by early evening had cleared committee without so much as a verb, noun, or other defining language added to indicate what its sponsors intended to do to the state’s tax system.

Anyone coming in after the initial 45 seconds of the Senate Ways and Means’ hearing on SB 6853 would also miss the committee’s vote waiving the rule requiring that bills be made public for at least five days prior to any executive action. After a single witness – Association of Washington Business representative Amber Carter – gave a cover-all-the-bases statement for the record, the bill of potentially limitless effect was passed out of committee during the executive session.

The Politburo did not work so efficiently as did Sen. Rockefeller’s committee. Jason Mercier, the Washington Policy Center’s government reforms director, assembled a real-time video album of the young life of SB 6853. Even if you’re on a tight schedule, the entire process of how a Washington state bill reaches the Senate floor can be viewed in less than a few minutes. In the implication that the public is again being kicked out of the room when their representatives craft laws that will affect them, Mercier’s clips should be sent for consideration to SyFy’s Ghost Hunters.

Perhaps SB 6853 will become to this legislative session what the Flying Dutchman is to nautical myth, a ghostly vessel doomed to sail forever and never come home. Methinks we shan’t be so lucky. Shutting down public comment on a bill is a pittance compared to the cavalier manner in which the state Senate cast aside the will of the people by voting to “suspend” Initiative 960’s requirement for a two-thirds vote by the legisalture to increase taxes. In fact, Senate lawmakers were so excited to trample on the voters that in their haste they voted to pass the wrong version of their amending legislation.

There’s no cause for panic, however. Their error was noted and will almost certainly be corrected forthwith.

As reported Tuesday morning by the Washington Policy Center blog, SB 6853 was introduced with only a header naming the bill’s sponsors (an all-Democrat squad), the required statement of purpose – “creating the legislative review of tax preferences act of 2010” – and no enacting language.

“This bill may make major changes in the tax code, and could result in a significant increase in the tax burden state lawmakers place on citizens, so it would be nice to know what the bill actually says,” WPC vice president Paul Guppy writes. “[I]t is hard … to make a fair assessment of a major bill when the public has no idea what it says, or how it may affect our lives.”

The bill was also scheduled onto the Senate Ways and Means committee calendar for Tuesday’s 1:30 p.m. meeting at which time it could be moved quickly to a Senate vote bypassing the body’s own five-day sunshine rule. It also lacks a fiscal note containing dollars and cents associated with enactment.

TVW is scheduled to webcast the Ways and Means Committee meeting LIVE.

The bill encourages people to sue crisis pregnancy centers under the Consumer Protection Act if, for example, a center commits such atrocities as not immediately disclosing that they don’t provide or refer abortion services.  It allows an “aggrieved party” to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an “aggrieved party”.  Someone can make a claim against a center and be awarded damages without even proving any damages.   The kicker–the bill only applies to pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortion.  Basically, Washington law would require a person to prove damages if they sue an abortion clinic but not if they sue a crisis pregnancy center.

Like many Democrats in the legislature, Tom is in a pickle.  His largest funders (i.e., public employee unions) are mad at the Ds because even with large majorities in both the House and Senate they’ve been unable to muster the gumption to raise taxes rather than cut spending (those pesky voters just keep getting in the way of labor’s agenda).  The largest unions have been threatening to run hard-left candidates against the more “moderate” Democrat legislators, and have even re-routed their usual campaign contributions to a new PAC rather than the caucus campaign funds.  The Democrats need to energize part of their base heading into the 2010 elections.

Voters aren’t in the mood for the sort of tax increases labor is advocating (funny how recessions and a 10% unemployment rate can do that).  Tom needs something to appeal to his liberal base, and this is the magic bullet.  When all else fails, bowing to the Sacrament of Abortion is a sure-fire winner (after all, it’s just a safe, routine medical procedure).

Tom is one of those eastside Democrats who claims the “socially liberal (or moderate), fiscally conservative” mantle.  Yet while the Democrats are grappling with how to fill a $2.6 billion deficit, Tom’s bill actually increases state spending.  Moreover, his voting record on spending only reaffirms what columnist Mark Steyn astutely observed about such folk:

“The reality is that almost every ’socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ politician turns out to be fiscally liberal — in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, it’s not hard to figure which taste will predominate.”

At best, Tom is short-sighted.  He’s emblematic of the left’s penchant for creating lavish government programs while giving people the “right” to kill off the very generations the county will need to pay for all of it.   The declining birthrates in the West (tempered only by the influx of immigrants) are building a fiscal tsunami on the horizon as the baby boomers begin retiring.

It’s a sad irony for the left–they would be wise to actually encourage breeding so tomorrow there are enough workers/taxpayers to pay for the welfare state they’re building today.  Alas, political expediency triumphs.

Ultimately, Tom’s bill is an effort by the abortion industry and liberal Democrats to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of operation.  How’s that for choice?