Opinion
McKenna Goes Off (GOP) Script
I criticized Attorney General Rob McKenna yesterday for talking out of both sides of his mouth: 1) He tacks to scary-sounding GOP factoids about government expansion, but 2) uses the very same data as the basis for his game plan to fund critical government services like higher education.
So, today, let me throw a little praise at the likely GOP gubernatorial candidate for breaking with traditional Tea Party-era GOP thinking.
First, I was able to confirm what I thought I heard him say during his appearance in front of the College Republicans and Young Democrats on Wednesday night (I didn't quite believe it at first, and so didn't trust my own notes). But it's true: As opposed to all the Republicans I've ever talked to about I-1107, the 2010 initiative that repealed the two-cent soda tax, McKenna said he didn't vote to repeal it. He added, sounding a little like Ralph Nader (or Michelle Obama), "soda is not good for you."
Second surprise, and I quote: "I'm really glad our state constitution cannot be amended by popular vote."
That may sound like a stodgy 1960s Republican position, but it certainly doesn't seem to jibe with the modern Michelle Bachmann crowd.
McKenna was responding to a question from a Young Democrat in the audience who wanted to know if he supported Tim Eyman's 1053, last year's initiative reinstating the requirement that had been overturned by the legislature saying they need a two-thirds majority to pass tax increases. The student suggested that California's infamous budget problems stemmed from its two-thirds requirement, and wondered if McKenna—given Washington State's $5.3 billion budget crisis—was in favor of repealing the Eyman rule.
[pullquote]"I'm really glad our state constitution cannot be amended by popular vote."—Rob McKenna[/pullquote]
McKenna disputed the assumption that California's two-thirds rule was to blame for the state's budget crisis, arguing that California's budget was in trouble because of its large commitments, its employee costs, its sky-high taxes, and its contradictory voter-approved constitutional amendments that both limit and demand spending. McKenna blamed the contradictory amendments on the mercurial nature of voters, noting that one amendment that passed in the 1970s and another that passed in the 2000s aren't likely to square. And this is what led him to his off-script statement, namely, that he's glad Washington State doesn't allow direct democracy when it comes to our own constitution.
McKenna said he preferred Washington State guidelines that require a two-thirds vote of the legislature to send a constitutional amendment out to a simple majority vote of the people. McKenna said he appreciated the checks and balances approach of that system, adding that he liked Washington State's initiative system for the same reason: The people can pass initiatives, but the legislature can decide [two years on] that the public made a mistake and fix it.
So, why, the student wanted to know, didn't McKenna think the legislature was right to repeal I-960, the precursor to 1053? McKenna said that, in this instance, the temporal nature of the the public vote was consistent. "Voters have said again and again that they support the two-thirds rule," McKenna said.
So, today, let me throw a little praise at the likely GOP gubernatorial candidate for breaking with traditional Tea Party-era GOP thinking.
First, I was able to confirm what I thought I heard him say during his appearance in front of the College Republicans and Young Democrats on Wednesday night (I didn't quite believe it at first, and so didn't trust my own notes). But it's true: As opposed to all the Republicans I've ever talked to about I-1107, the 2010 initiative that repealed the two-cent soda tax, McKenna said he didn't vote to repeal it. He added, sounding a little like Ralph Nader (or Michelle Obama), "soda is not good for you."
Second surprise, and I quote: "I'm really glad our state constitution cannot be amended by popular vote."
That may sound like a stodgy 1960s Republican position, but it certainly doesn't seem to jibe with the modern Michelle Bachmann crowd.
McKenna was responding to a question from a Young Democrat in the audience who wanted to know if he supported Tim Eyman's 1053, last year's initiative reinstating the requirement that had been overturned by the legislature saying they need a two-thirds majority to pass tax increases. The student suggested that California's infamous budget problems stemmed from its two-thirds requirement, and wondered if McKenna—given Washington State's $5.3 billion budget crisis—was in favor of repealing the Eyman rule.
[pullquote]"I'm really glad our state constitution cannot be amended by popular vote."—Rob McKenna[/pullquote]
McKenna disputed the assumption that California's two-thirds rule was to blame for the state's budget crisis, arguing that California's budget was in trouble because of its large commitments, its employee costs, its sky-high taxes, and its contradictory voter-approved constitutional amendments that both limit and demand spending. McKenna blamed the contradictory amendments on the mercurial nature of voters, noting that one amendment that passed in the 1970s and another that passed in the 2000s aren't likely to square. And this is what led him to his off-script statement, namely, that he's glad Washington State doesn't allow direct democracy when it comes to our own constitution.
McKenna said he preferred Washington State guidelines that require a two-thirds vote of the legislature to send a constitutional amendment out to a simple majority vote of the people. McKenna said he appreciated the checks and balances approach of that system, adding that he liked Washington State's initiative system for the same reason: The people can pass initiatives, but the legislature can decide [two years on] that the public made a mistake and fix it.
So, why, the student wanted to know, didn't McKenna think the legislature was right to repeal I-960, the precursor to 1053? McKenna said that, in this instance, the temporal nature of the the public vote was consistent. "Voters have said again and again that they support the two-thirds rule," McKenna said.
