Man, the Olympian published a forceful editorial today , ostensibly (and actually) coming out against I-1053.

But my word. It is also reads like a pent-up screed about the Catch-22 anti-government rhetoric of the right—a sort of Paul Krugman column for the masses (instead of for New York Times readers.)

First, their reasoning against Eyman's initiative:

The Olympian’s editorial board recommends a vote against this Eyman initiative.

Why? We elect lawmakers to balance the budget. If we don’t like the way they do it, we can send them packing. But it’s unfair to take away one of their tools — tax increases. This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters.

That’s not right nor is it democratic. ...

Initiative 1053, ... in essence says we expect lawmakers to balance the budget, but to do it without raising taxes. That hamstrings lawmakers.

We elect our president and governor and all other officials on a simple majority. That’s democracy. Why should it be different for raising taxes?

How easy would it be in this nation of sharp divisions — red versus blue, Democrats versus Republicans — to get two-thirds of the people to agree on ANYTHING? Yet that’s what we expect of lawmakers?

They also hit on something we've been repeating for months now—that tax increases have made up just 8.5 percent of the solution to the state's budget woes (the biggest fix has been program cuts). And they say it well:

Contrary to popular opinion tax increases are not the first solution for budget writers. In the past three years, lawmakers have dealt with a $12 billion shortfall. They’ve made $5.1 billion in program and service cuts; taken $3.6 billion in stimulus funds, transferred $1.7 billion from other funds; drawn down the ending fund balance and used money from the rainy day fund.

They’ve raised taxes by $800 million.



That’s a measured approach — certainly not “raise taxes as a first option.”

It's after dispensing with I-1053, though, that the editorial truly finds its voice as a fiery backlash against everything about 2010, but mainly, it seems against the bratty Tea Party.

Yes, voters are angry. Distrust and outrage consume this nation and state right now. A big part of it is the merging of the horrible economy, high unemployment, a pattern of overspending by Democrats, intransigence by the Republicans, unimaginable debt at the national level, the absence of political compromise, partisan backstabbing and the lack of civility in public conversation. The electorate is frightened and angry, and is demonstrating the depth of their anger at the ballot box and by jumping on political movements such as the tea party bandwagon.

Politicians have only themselves to blame for the disconnect with their constituents and the general public’s near total lack of trust in the political system and its players.

We get it, that voters are mad and aren’t going to take it anymore. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that members of the public have unrealistic expectations, too. They want every single government service, yet are reluctant to pay for it.