Mr. Small, Good news. It appears that Hunting Guy solved the mystery as to the article you read. It appeared in the ADI, and was co-authored by Jonathan DuHamel and a Mr. Briggs. Hope youre not too disappointed.
I would like to clarify something. I do not object to the initiative process generally. My concern is that it is being used to replace the legislative process. It is a good check on the legislature, a way to stop some wildly crazy act that is either corrupt or self serving in some way. The ESA legislation that was forced on to a ballot prop was neither of these. It was a modest expansion of existing law that was working well. An example of another inappropriate use of the ballot prop is one that increases income tax to fund education. Increasing education can be a good thing, but this particular ballot prop is so poorly worded that it has already drawn a number of legal challenges, and ballot props are very poor ways to enact taxing or spending bills. They are virtual constitutional amendments that are virtually impossible to modify in any significant way. Hanky Panky is correct in that income taxes are not taxes on wealth, they are taxes on earned income; earned income is not the same are interest income or capital gains which are taxed separately. In other words, income taxes are taxes on productivity.
When the Democrats (both Harry Reid and chuck Shumer specifically) announced that they would not consider any Bush appointment to the court, Bush still had 18 months left in his presidency. Harry Reid even went to great lengths explaining how according to the constitution the senate was under no obligation to hold hearings. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Reid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbjiVSwmj…
The House originates spending bills. It's in Article V, I believe, of the U.S. constitution. They offered the president a bill that funded the entire government except for the ACA. The president said no. They sent up other bills. The president said no. He would not even talk to the House. Therefore, THE PRESIDENT SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. I'm not suggesting that you apply your vulgar epithet to the president, but I think it may be appropriate to call him "El Presidente" from now on.