Death by 1033 cuts
If it passes this fall, Initiative 1033 will inflict cuts inducing massive bleeding in Washington State’s schools, hospitals, health services, conservation efforts, firefighting capabilities, law enforcement resources, job recovery … the gory you-name-its would delight a bloodthirsty imagination.
And right now the “No on I-1033” campaign seems the unkindest cut of all.
I’ve been phone-banking and doorbelling on behalf of other fall campaigns for three weeks now. Nothing’s on the calendar yet for No on 1033 partisans. Other fall campaigns have cooked up edible sound bites to help frazzled voters digest their main points, but the No on 1033 website, like a tired academic, admonishes us to “Learn the Basic Facts” and “Learn More” from files of hypertext. Some voters will never even peek into the thick forest of facts. Many who venture in won't be able to see the trees.
“No on I-1033” is wise to avoid direct references to initiative sponsor Tim Eyman and his seductive pitch for putting quick dollars in property owners’ pockets. And the four “No” fact sheets I’ve seen sharply counterpunch the measure by enumerating the long-term costs that the initiative, if passed, would impose on the state.
But with no crisply worded flyers or handouts yet available, coalition partners have to scramble to create simple materials they can use when presenting to groups that might be galvanized into action on the issue. At a monthly U District Conversation on Homelessness meeting last week a speaker invited from the Poverty Action Network to talk about the anti-1033 effort distributed a handout detailing opposition arguments. “Detailing” is the word. In margin-to-margin 9-point type, unbroken by images to catch the eye or mind, the page was a block of thick paragraphs and bullet points that could have counted as essay answers on some of today’s high school tests.
Yes, I-1033 is complex. It’s Byzantine in its provisions and obfuscatory in its language — an avatar of the chaos it would cause. The opposition is trying to be clear and rational by contrast, but opposition materials that include fact sheets, a bibliography of linked articles, and a nearly 10-minute video about Colorado (where a similar initiative ruined the state) need to be boiled down to a message that voters can hold onto.
A slogan the campaign recently decided on is, “Times are tough enough. Let’s not make them worse.” It sounds exhausted, overwhelmed, and pleading, the way a voter feels when trying to bushwhack through Eyman’s prose, but it’s something. Still, where are the pithy talking points that should follow the slogan and charge up the troops?
And where’s the memorable, arresting logo? How about I-1033’s revenue cap as a “wrecking cap” — enormous iron headgear crashed into a crumbling outline of Washington State? Or a monstrous I-1033 weight sinking a Washington State ferry or collapsing a bridge? Or a concrete I-1033 lid, the kind they put on top of coffins?
No on I-1033 Campaign Manager Aisling Kerins reminded me over the phone last week, “We do have fact sheets.” I reminded her back that the fact sheets are pretty dense discourses. Kerins assured me, “We’re redoing all our materials. ... We’re gearing up our field program next week to start volunteer phone banks. We’re building coalitions and lining up commitments from those folks.”
Why don’t I feel reassured?
Because “next week,” now this week, is the fourth week in September. Because mail-in ballots get distributed in just three more weeks. Because the issue does indeed possess a certain intricacy, and voters need a brief litany of simple talking points, repeated over a goodly period of time, in order to hold some of the convolutions in mind.
Because it seems awfully late in the day for a fall campaign, especially one so crucial to making sure our state doesn’t bleed to death, to be just now getting up to speed.









Comments:
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 12:16 p.m. inappropriate
From: Tim Eyman, I-1033 co-sponsor
This is the latest update on I-1033 and was emailed to our supporters and the media an hour ago (11:10 am on Tuesday)
RE: I-1033 renews Washington's I-601 - I-1033 is very different than other state's limits - here's why
Passed by voters in 1993 during tough economic times, Initiative 601 put a limit on the growth of government (inflation plus populatution growth and required 2/3's legislative approval for tax increases). I-601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. Their removal of its fiscal discipline policies led directly to the fiscal roller coaster of Gregoire's first 4-year term, resulting in a $9 billion deficit.
In 2007, we sponsored and voters approved I-960 which reestablished the two-thirds requirement for tax hikes, closing the loopholes they'd put in it. In 2007, the voters approved a constitutionally-protection rainy day fund, reenacting a I-601 policy that earlier Legislatures had undermined with loopholes in I-601.
I-1033 completes the renewal of I-601 by bringing by the growth limit (inflation and population growth) with the same safety valve: higher increases are OK only with voter approval.
Rather than acknowledge and respond to our state's 16 years of personal, real-world experience with and without I-601, I-1033's opponents have tried to divert attention to other states with other limits. None of these comparisons are appropriate because, first off, Washington's initiative process allows the people to pass laws which are subject to legislative change -- other states (California, Colorado, Oregon, etc) allow their state's voters to approve changes to their state Constitutions which cannot be changed by the Legislature.
Other state's limits are immovable, unchangeable policies -- Washington's initiatives are the people pointing the politicians in a particular direction with politicians empowered to change that direction if they want to.
When opponents refer to initiatives in Washington as 'straitjackets', as they're doing now with I-1033, I'm reminded of a recent column by the Washington Research Council's Dick Davis who wrote: "there's no such thing as a statutory straitjacket."
Secondly, other state's limits are different than I-601/I-1033. One of the commonly heard claims is: “I-1033 is just like Colorado’s TABOR amendment.” Not true. Colorado voters approved the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in 1992 – Washington voters approved I-601 in 1993. They’re very different. TABOR was a constitutional amendment -- it couldn’t be amended by the Legislature; I-1033, like I-601, is a law, providing the Legislature with flexibility to change it. TABOR encompassed every government – school districts, library districts, fire districts, etc. I-1033 focuses only on the state, counties and cities. TABOR put a limit on every governmental account and every tax dollar received, including transportation funds, pension funds, capital budgets, workman’s compensation, unemployment insurance funds, federal funds, etc. I-1033, like I-601, only addresses the general fund. TABOR didn’t allow rainy day funds. I-1033, like I-601, gives ‘first bite’ of excess tax revenues to the rainy day fund. TABOR didn’t exclude federal funds; I-1033 explicitly does. TABOR prohibited governments from borrowing money except with voter approval; I-1033 has nothing like that. TABOR required voter approval for any tax and fee increase by any government; I-1033 doesn't. TABOR was very, very broad and inflexible – I-1033 is very focused with plenty of flexibility.
Governor Gregoire has said "don't vote for I-1033 or else we'll turn into California." Please. The insanity that is California is a perfect storm of rip-tide pressures tearing that state apart at the seams. But once again, even if you buy the argument that all of California's dysfunction is a result of initiatives (which we don't agree is their biggest problem), their initiatives are part of their state Constitution and thus cannot be amended by the Legislature. That is not the case in Washington. We accept that it is part of the checks and balances of our state's initiative process that voter-approved initiatives are subject to legislative change.
But with I-1033, the policy is eminently reasonable -- allow government an automatic increase every year with a built-in safety valve, the same one that was in I-601: if government thinks the automatic increase isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more. I-1033, just like I-601, allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast government grows and how big a tax burden we can afford.
Remember, I-1033's opponents can't/won't answer this simple question: what's wrong with going to the voters?
Here's another question opponents can't/won't answer: what's wrong with bringing back I-601's fiscal discipline?
Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes (they actually think taxpayers are UNDERTAXED!??!!). Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to stop politicians from unilaterally raising taxes and fees. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes.
Congratulations again on getting I-1033 on the ballot.
Thanks.
Best Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Fighting for Taxpayers for Twelve Years, co-sponsors of the Lower Property Taxes Initiative I-1033, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 12:54 p.m. inappropriate
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.
The Washington Research Council created a very straightforward graph, using the state's own numbers, illustrating I-1033's policies. Here it is:
http://www.permanent-offense.org/pdf/Brief.pdf
This graph makes several things abundantly clear:
1) This graph shows that I-1033 will substantially REDUCE our state's crushing property tax burden. I-1033 will, for the first time, actually LOWER property taxes for everyone in the state by refunding excess revenues back to taxpayers via lower property taxes.
2) This graph shows that I-1033 allows the government to grow, but at a more affordable, sustainable rate. Without I-1033, government will get back on the fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times -- creating unsustainable budgets -- which inevitably leads to slashing during bad times (Gregoire's first term shows what happens when politicians have no limits on how fast they can grow government -- the result? A $9 billion deficit).
3) This graph shows that I-1033's opponents are laughably inaccurate when they talk about 'cuts in government' or 'slashed budgets' under I-1033. That's clearly absurd. Their Chicken Little, sky-is-falling statements about I-1033 are ridiculous in light of this graph which tracks the growth of government under I-1033.
4) This graph shows the automatic increase in government under I-1033 ASSUMING VOTERS NEVER GIVE THEM MORE AT THE BALLOT BOX. Remember, I-1033 has a safety valve that gives the citizens control over how fast government will grow and how big a tax burden we can afford. Under I-1033, if government decides that the automatic increase provided by I-1033 isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more.
Take another look: http://www.permanent-offense.org/pdf/Brief.pdf
How can opponents of I-1033 look at this graph and say with a straight-face that I-1033 will 'destroy' government?
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 5:05 p.m. inappropriate
Believe Tim Eyman at your peril! Listen, you want to know what's wrong with Initiative 1033? Here are three big negatives.
1. IT FREEZES STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING AT THE CURRENT LEVEL. We are in a recession and have made many cuts to services. None of these services will be able to be restored without a public vote which takes time, costs money and allows politics and special interest money to decide the outcome.
2. INITIATIVE 1033 IS A RADICAL SHIFT AWAY FROM REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. It would take away the right of our elected representatives to make budget decisions and turn the process over to budgeting by referendum. It is a blatant attempt to undercut efficient and deliberate government by Tim Eyman whose goal is to shrink the powers of represntative elected democracy.
3. INITIATIVE 1033 IS A COMPLEX WEALTH TRANSFER SCHEME. It would transfer sales tax dollars collected from everyone and use them only to pay property taxes for property owners. The problem is not everyone owns property and this scheme increases the unfairness of our tax system. Renters will pay the same taxes as before under I-1033 but they will both get no tax rebate and see no increased public services.
I-1033 is special interest legislation designed to hamstring government from operating efficiently. It is a wealth transfer scheme that benefits rich property owners. And it is not needed.
We are already ranked 35th lowest (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local tax burden according to the conservative Tax Foundation. We rank 25th in terms of property taxes per capita.
Face it; we all know the history of Tim Eyman. He is allied with the anti-government anti-tax fringe that can find no good in government or taxes. His arguments above are misrepresentations of what will actually happen under I-1033. Support I-1033 at your own peril.
Colorado voters found out that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Tim wants you to believe there is. VOTE NO ON INITIATIVE 1033 and keep Tim Eyman's hands out of our pockets and wallets.
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 8:20 p.m. inappropriate
Opponents have millions of Washington DC dirty dollars to spread their threats, lies and scare tactics about I-1033. TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, consultants, polling, focus groups -- they've got the best 'con' campaign money can buy, most of it coming from Washington DC's most powerful labor unions.
We do the best we can with limited resources.
Fortunately, voters don't care which side has more money, they care who has the better argument. We think we've got 'em beat hands down because they have no alternative and they can't answer the question: what's wrong with going to the voters?
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 9:34 p.m. inappropriate
That is laughable.
The opposition to I-1033 includes nurses, Microsoft, carpenters, Lutherans, the Sierra Club, business people, engineers, retired people, fire fighters all donating to fight this wretched initiative.
Meanwhile the supporters of I-1033 have ONE donor supporting 80% of this recycled initiative.
Both sides currently have the SAME amount of donations.
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 9:38 p.m. inappropriate
This DOESN'T help the average taxpayer. I-1033 is a BIG giveaway to the wealthy and big business.
I-1033 is NO SOLUTION.
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 9:48 p.m. inappropriate
No wonder Eyman didn't include the Washington Policy Center's report. Even they consider a confusing mess.
"It is unclear whether the exemption would apply only to the revenue raised in the year the vote occurred, or to all revenue raised as a result of that vote.
It is also unclear whether voter-approved revenue would only apply to increases in fees or tax rates, or to any dollar amount collected in excess of the Initiative 1033 limit."
Posted Tue, Sep 22, 11:52 p.m. inappropriate
Initiative 1033 is a renter's nightmare. Renters will continue to pay the same taxes, including sales taxes, after I-1033 passes but they will lose twice. They both will get no tax rebate as well as see no new or restored public services. What a deal Tim has for them.
Renters make up some 35% of households in Washington State according to the US Census Bureau. These include fixed income seniors and struggling working families.
In addition Tim does not tell you that some 40% of the so called tax rebate actually goes to pay taxes on commercial property. Sales taxes last year comprised some 57% of the revenue collected by the state. Businesses already have a sales tax exemption for goods they resell. It is the consumer who ultimately pays the sales taxes.
Even for property owners the rebate is not proportional to the amount of sales taxes they pay, it is proportional to the amount of property they own. So I-1033 is a giant wealth redistribution scheme. It takes sales taxes paid by renters and working families and senior citizens and uses it to pay property taxes for wealthy property owners and corporate land owners and shopping malls and real estate developers.
This is Eyman's dream scheme, to redistribute taxes in a reverse Robin Hood scheme, taking tax dollars paid by those less well off and giving it to those better off who own property.
It just doesn't make sense and is not needed. It destroys public services, representative government and creates an unfair tax system that benefits those that own property at the expense of those that don't.
I-1033, by freezing public services, will prolong the recession in Washington State and harm people who most need help. Vote No and keep Eyman's hands out of your pockets and billfolds and purses.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 12:22 a.m. inappropriate
The real question is not Eyman's what's wrong with voting but what's wrong with Initiative 1033. Plenty. It a complex measure that proposes radical changes in our form of representative government and in our state's tax policies.
We are in a recession and Tim Eyman is proposing that state and local government should permanently freeze state and local spending at this year's level. Eyman is in some imaginary world where all that seems to matter is keeping his initiative business going.
Times are tough for many people and businesses and we don't need to make things worse. Thousands of jobs have been lost in our state and we have cut billions is spending for local services and statewide for things like health care and education.
As the economy starts to improve Eyman says we should not reinvest in public services and restore those we have lost but instead should help property owners pay their property taxes. This is a radical restructuring of priorities for state and local government. Eyman says this is more important than educating our children, providing help for seniors to stay in their homes, repairing roads, keeping parks and libraries open, having adequate police and fire protection, cleaning up Puget Sound and all the rest of the things government has worked on.
You see this is where Tim and I differ. It seems he has never met a government he liked and loathes taxes. I don't like to pay taxes any more than anyone else but I realize there is no free lunch. I view taxes as a necessity to maintain the liveableness of our communities and keep our economy going.
The national conservative Tax Foundation says that Washington State ranks 35th (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local property tax burden. They rank us 25th in terms of property tax burden per capita. We rank 8th in terms of income per capita. We are one of only 7 states without a state income tax. We rank number 1 in terms of sales taxes but Eyman's I-1033 doesn't reduce sales taxes. You can check out these figures yourself at http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf.
I-1033 proposes to end the form of representative government we have and replace it with "budgeting by referendum." Eyman asks what's wrong with that. It's been answered before but he isn't listening. Budgeting by referendum is what California has been doing for years. It's why they are in a much worse mess than Washington State.
Budgeting by referendum means holding numerous elections. Elections cost money and impose significant time delays in planning. Based on the low turnout in our recent primary, voters already seem to be fatigued just trying to figure out candidate’s positions, let alone many possible budget issues that I-1033 could add.
As as example, how many people have read the text of I-1033? That's just one issue with huge budget implications, yet most people will vote for or against it with reading it. I suggest you try reading it and explain to someone else what it does. Here is a link to the initiative http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1033.pdf
How many other issues do you think the average voter has time to read and understand? That's why we have representative government, so we can elect people to devote the necessary time to understand the issues and budget needs and make decisions to benefit the entire community, not just property owners.
I-1033 is not needed and will create many more new propblems. It is unfair to seniors and working families and eveyone who doesn't own property. Vote NO on I-1033.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 7:47 a.m. inappropriate
Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against any limit on how fast government grows and against any limit on the power of government to take as much as they want from the taxpayers.
Opponents actually think Washington's citizens are UNDERTAXED?!!?
I-1033 allows government to grow but at a sustainable rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford.
That's reasonable and that's what 315,000 citizens think is a better way to go (and we certainly believe that the 315,000 citizens who signed petitions represent the majority of voters).
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 9:02 a.m. inappropriate
" .... edible sound bites to help frazzled voters digest their main points,..."
I think you have a future in politics. Yes, we frazzled voters thankfully absorb those sound bites. If they are short enough they go directly into our memory without disturbing our conscious mind. Keep them coming.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
Time for all levels of government 'workers', teachers, and bureaucrats at Sound Transit, Metro, etc. to pay for their own health care premiums and benefits. Property taxes should not be a source of luxury tax free benefits for anyone. Vote yes on I-1033; make the little piggies carry their own bloated weight.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 11:06 a.m. inappropriate
@kieth: I don't think it's about distorting meaning or bypassing the consciousness of voters. The point is about helping people "digest" something complicated. A myriad of ideas and details is hard to take in all at once. Skillful speakers and teachers know that when a topic is complex, it helps to sum it up in a simplified structure that can in turn (as the article says) keep the details retained and organized n the mind, and thus usable in thinking about and acting on:
"Because the issue does indeed possess a certain intricacy, and voters need a brief litany of simple talking points, repeated over a goodly period of time, in order to hold some of the convolutions in mind."
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 12:21 p.m. inappropriate
Brouhaha, she said "sound bites". I guess that means something different
to you than it does to me.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 12:45 p.m. inappropriate
"sound bite": a brief, striking remark or statement excerpted from an audiotape or videotape for insertion in a broadcast news story." (Random House Unabridged, 2d ed.). A phrase meaning spoken not written words may have been ill-chosen for the article's context, but there's no negative connotation of trying to oversimplify or deceive.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 3:09 p.m. inappropriate
Here's today's update to our supporters and the media:
RE: Groups don't vote, people do
Just finished an UPFRONT KING 5 debate on I-1033 that will air on Saturday and Sunday. I-1033's opponent touted the 'impressive' list of groups opposing I-1033. Look at all our groups, he said.
Groups don't vote, people do.
Voters decide how to vote on initiatives based on their own experiences and values -- they don't look to 'groups' to tell them how to think -- they think for themselves.
During the campaigns for I-695, I-722, I-747, I-776, I-900, and I-960, we were always asked: "there's a long list of groups opposed to your initiative, how can you possibly win?" Because none of those groups truly speaks for all their members, let alone the broad electorate -- if they did, none of those initiatives would have passed.
When filling out their ballots in the privacy of their homes, absent fear of harassment or retaliation, there will be large numbers of Democrats, teachers, librarians, firefighters, PTA members, police officers, AARP members, realtors, and state, county, & city workers -- members of groups supposedly opposed to I-1033 -- who will mark their ballots for I-1033.
And why shouldn't they? They're taxpayers just like everyone else. They own homes and are getting killed by our state's crushing property tax burden. They get hurt by governments' fiscal roller coaster where politicians overextend themselves during good times -- creating unsustainable budgets -- which makes the bad times even worse. We all lived through Gregoire's first term when at its outset they repealed I-601's growth limit, and we saw the result: a $9 billion deficit. Like everyone else, they're frustrated by politicians' lack of action on the very real concerns addressed by I-1033 (a complete lack of fiscal discipline, unsustainable budgets which consistently outpace taxpayers' ability to afford them, and out-of-control property taxes).
Taxpayers will benefit from I-1033, our economy will benefit from I-1033, and, yes, government will benefit from I-1033 the same way they benefited from I-601 (prior to Gregoire's repeal of it in 2005). I-1033 will prod them to NOT reflexively increase taxes, instead focusing on using existing revenues more effectively by prioritizing and reforming government. And if the automatic increase under I-1033 isn't a big enough increase, they can always go to the voters and ask for more.
We're very proud of the 315,000 citizens who signed I-1033's petitions. We believe they spoke for the majority of Washington's voters and support I-1033's renewal of I-601, I-1033's reduction in property taxes, and I-1033's empowerment of the citizens to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 5:02 p.m. inappropriate
Mr Eyman, if you were really interested in what Washington voters want, instead of just in having your way, you wouldn't bombard every single conversation about the topic with long monologues making the same point over and over again. You make so much noise it's hard to hear oneself think! I suppose that's your purpose, though of course you're not about to say so.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 5:31 p.m. inappropriate
in response to previous post by Brouhaha:
Activist: one who actively engages in public dialogue.
we are actively in favor of I-1033.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 7:50 p.m. inappropriate
The average taxpayer sees NOTHING from I-1033. The tax cuts ALL go to the wealthy and big business.
Everyone pays sales tax, but I-1033 doesn't affect an equitable tax. Eyman clearly got his marching orders from Michael Dunmire. It must be nice to pay half a million dollars to buy your own legislation.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 7:55 p.m. inappropriate
A message from a conservative group involved in environmental issues - opposing I-1033:
Passage of Initiative 1033 will lock in place drastically low levels of funding for natural resource agencies. Because of the poor economic condition in Washington, spending for natural resource agencies was slashed by about 25% in the last biennial budget, the largest actual reduction taken by any area of government. This will result in staff reductions, reduced enforcement of basic environmental laws, loss of scientific information collection and less stewardship and maintenance on public lands. Given the anticipated drop in revenues for FY 2010-11, passage of Initiative 1033 would ensure permanent funding of these and other natural agencies at recession-level amounts.
Passage of Initiative 1033 will seriously compromise the viability of legislative conservation funding programs such as the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, Trust Land Transfer and Funding for Puget Sound- Spending on all important conservation programs ranging from WWRP to TLT to Puget Sound will be jeopardized. This will be the case regardless of whether funds are appropriated from the operating or capital budget, since the state’s ability to issue bonds under the debt limit to finance the capital budget is directly linked to the growth of state revenue. Given that funding for existing programs will be severely compromised, the prospect of passing new funding measures for conservation in the legislature is virtually non-existent.
Initiative 1033 will also affect county and local conservation efforts- Initiative 1033 applies not only to state revenues, but also to county and city revenues as well. Many important conservation efforts, such as enforcement of important regulations and preservation of farmland, take place at the county level, and would be severely affected by the reduction in revenues this measure would entail.
Posted Wed, Sep 23, 11:36 p.m. inappropriate
Voters will vote for what seems credible and unfortunately for Tim his dream scheme of freezing public spending so that sales tax dollars everyone pays can help property owners pay their property taxes is a wealth transfer system designed to mostly help the wealthy.
Eyman does not rebate any taxes back to people in proportion to what they paid but in proportion to what they own as property. Renters will still pay the same taxes but will see no rebate of taxes back under I-1033. They will also see no new services their sales tax dollars might have paid for if I-1033 wasn't there.
Tim won't tell you that some 40% of his rebates will go to pay commercial property taxes even though businesses have a sales tax exemption and don't pay sales taxes on goods they resell. The consumer pays them.
Last year some 57% of state revenue came from sales taxes. Senior citizens and working families that don't own property will still pay the same amount of taxes under I-1033. In a reverse Robin Hood wealth transfer scheme these taxes will help wealthy individuals and businesses pay their property taxes.
Eyman says this is more important than restoring any services lost during the recession and more important than more funding for education or home health care for seniors or more police or fire protection or more road or bridge repair or new schools or anything else.
Yes Tim knows what's best for all of us, so much so that he wants to abolish local control of not just state spending but also for all 39 counties and 281 cities. He doesn't think we're smart enough to elect people to represent us to make decisions for the public good. When he puts down, as he repeatedly does, "greedy politicians" as he calls them, he is saying the public isn't smart enough to elect its own leaders. That's pretty cynical.
Initiative 1033 isn't needed. We have state and local government that works and we don't need to abolish local control of our county and city budgets, freeze public spending, and implement a wealth transfer scheme that mostly benefits wealthy property owners at the expense of the public good.
Just vote NO on I-1033 and let's get back to focusing on ways to move forward and recover from this recession. Initiative 1033 would only keep us locked in a recession economy.
Posted Thu, Sep 24, 1:57 a.m. inappropriate
Judith, thanks for a great posting. Eyeman has made himself tons of money and very powerful with a very simple technique -- have people vote on whether to reduce taxes. And, it's very likely people will vote to reduce taxes, no matter what the long term consequences. I think you're entirely right that opponents need to respond sharply and effectively to Eyeman's taking advantage of people's short sighted but understandable desire to, well, pay less taxes.
But, let's see. Washington, 45th among the states in education spending. Cutbacks in the state's fall-back health insurance program that's supposed to protect people who can't get insurance otherwise. Draconian cuts in social services of all kinds, at the same time so many people have lost jobs. Seattle doesn't have the money to hire more police to fight street crime. Streets in disrepair and parks can't be kept up. But hey, fifty or hundred bucks lower taxes a year for property owners -- Eyeman says, it's all worth it, and yes, people are tempted. Doesn't help that our media barrages us with stupid propaganda about how government is so much less efficient than big business, you know, like the insurance companies who handle your claims with such efficiency and fairness, and so forth.
Posted Sun, Sep 27, 11:52 p.m. inappropriate
Here is a YouTube video which has a very different perspective on I-1033 than Eyman has. They say Colorado's version of Eyman’s I-1033 has been a dismal failure. And they represent Republicans and businesses and teachers and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbF3_CiOtoM
Posted Sun, Sep 27, 11:56 p.m. inappropriate
Initiative 1033 would freeze not just the budget of Washington State but also all 39 Washington Counties and 281 Washington Cities. Tim Eyman does not trust that you will elect people who support his anti-tax, anti-government proposals, so he is trying to sneak in a radical change and end our long history of representative government that dates back to when Washington became a state.
He wants to strip our State Legislature and all of our county and city governments of their ability to set budgets. Instead he purposes that people vote for all budget increases in the future. He wants to end our local control of our cities and counties and replace our representative budget process with budgeting by referendum.
He claims it is because taxes are out of control. Yet the truth is the opposite. The conservative Tax Foundation says Washington State ranks in the bottom third of states, at 35th (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local tax burden.
see report here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Posted Fri, Oct 2, 8:23 p.m. inappropriate
Lord help us all if I-1033 passes.