On 11/15/2010 10:23 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, SA wrote:
>
>> Let me offer a couple of data points on this subject and tell me what
>> you think.
>
> I like the general shape of your escalation argument. But the failure
> of Washington state income tax is probably a weak data point. As
> Steve Hecker pointed out last time this came up, the national party
> issues here are swamped by the provincial state identity ones, to wit
> that Washington has never had a state income tax, is very attached to
> not having one, and when proposed it's always been clobbered at the
> polls by 3 to 1 or so. In that context, if there's anything
> interesting about this result, it's not that it failed but that it
> came so much closer than usual.
I take your point about tax referendums always losing, but I don't buy the "state identity" argument. From what little I've read, the main clinching argument that motivated voters against the initiative was that once the income tax is approved in a referendum, the legislature then has the authority to vote to extend it to the middle class. In other words, the important thing isn't that it's a violation of the grand traditions of Washington State, but rather that it gives tax-hungry politicians the authorization they need to make this the camel's nose under the tent. I suspect that's just the same type of reasoning voters use (and are encouraged by the GOP to use) when thinking about federal taxes.
SA