Enclosed is a copy of information put out by the Washington State Labor
Council regarding the change in weekly benefits to twenty-six weeks. While
they may now say that they thought the reduction to twenty-six weeks was
a floating target based on the unemployment rate, this clearly indicates
that they understood the reduction to be permanent.
This information, the
bill reports, and
the fact that the Legislature never discussed a floating benefit week based
on the unemployment rate, provides clear and concise evidence that it was
the Legislature's
intent that the reduction to twenty-six weeks be permanent.
cc: Juanita Myers, UI Rules Coordinator
Anthony Anton
Kathleen Collins
Tom Dooley
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"