WEA recently claimed their attack ads on EFF "resonated" with
the public. The union was right. Below are some excerpts from newspaper
editorials that show just how the attack resonated:
Yakima Herald-Republic WEA only hurts members with smear campaign (4/11)
"We feel badly for all the teachers who are embarrassed and who feel
embarrassed for their profession by this unprofessional conduct by their
state union officials."
The Columbian Teachers' union earns detention (4/11)
"Only in the completely distorted thinking of some union leaders is
a privately financed think-tank organization a greater threat to democracy
than forced unionism."
"The most important point is, EFF does all this by combining forces
with and accepting voluntary donations form like-minded individuals and
groups That is far more honorable and credible than forcing support
and dues for one's agenda, as the WEA and NEA do."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer PDC wrong to suggest state can't afford NEA case (4/15)
"The concept behind the state law (I-134) is a sound one. Public school
employees compelled to join or fund the union should have a say in how the
union spends their money to advance political agendas - agendas with which
they might not agree."
The Chronicle Personal attack ad by teachers union despicable (4/16)
"You don't have to be a supporter of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation
to conclude that a new attack on it and its leader by the Washington Education
Association is despicable."
"The union hacks who came up with this trash against Williams ought
to be ashamed for setting such a lousy example for students under the charge
of WEA members It's one more reason to withhold dues."
"The real issue is seeing to it that these militant state and national
unions comply with the law."
Bellingham Herald PDC decision is just plain wrong (4/22)
"Essentially forcing someone to pay dues to an organization accused
of not using the money the way it's supposed to is a serious charge and
deserves to be investigated as one - and not on the back of a small foundation."
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]?"