October 09, 2009
GREGOIRE BLOWS A GASKET OVER INITIATIVE 1033

After Gregoire recently announced that she's changed her position and now wants higher taxes - whatever increases "lawmakers and interest groups" tell her to enact - the need for Initiative 1033 became even more evident. During a recession, raising taxes and increasing the burden on struggling working families, fixed-income senior citizens, and a hurting business community will only make the recession last longer. Gregoire's tax hiking plans will only make a bad situation worse.

Under I-1033, state, county, and city politicians CANNOT raise taxes or fees without voter approval.

Let us say that again: UNDER I-1033, STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY POLITICIANS CANNOT RAISE ANY TAX OR ANY FEE WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.

Gregoire thinks she can tax us into prosperity and I-1033 stands in her way.

So Gregoire blew a gasket yesterday on I-1033 saying it will 'devastate' the state of Washington. She and the Democrats have done that all by themselves by adopting unsustainable budgets resulting in a $9 billion deficit. As soon as Gregoire became Governor in 2005, it was her top priority to get rid of I-601's inflation-plus-population-growth limit -- the same one resurrected with I-1033 -- that had worked very well for the preceding 12 years, from 1993 through 2005. When they got rid of that growth limit in 2005 and raised taxes too, they put Washington state on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in the good times -- creating totally unsustainable budgets -- which led directly to making the bad times worse, ending in a $9 billion deficit.

Gregoire needs to look in the mirror and realize that it was her lack of fiscal restraint in her first term that resulted in that fiscal roller coaster and that massive deficit.

But rather than learning from that egregious mistake, she's hell-bent to repeat it.

She's now re-reversed her position on raising taxes -- she's now in favor of whatever "lawmakers and interest groups" tell her to increase. Higher sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, business taxes, and a state income tax -- Gregoire's open to all of them. I-1033 is necessary exactly because without the citizens restraining them, Gregoire and the Democrats have shown themselves incapable of restraining themselves.

I-601 worked very well for 12 years, Gregoire and the Democrats nearly destroyed Olympia without it in four years.

Voters support bringing back I-601's fiscal discipline by resurrecting the same growth limit with I-1033. And voters support the 'safety valve' that I-601 has and I-1033 has which says if government thinks the automatic increase provided by I-1033 isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more.

Democrat Jim McIntire, longtime advocate for a state income tax and now the state treasurer, warns us yesterday that I-1033 "could" lower our state's bond rating. Again, Gregoire and the Democrats fiscal irresponsibility over the past five years did that already. Frankly, voters approving I-1033 will send a clear message that the state, counties, and cities must have fiscal discipline, stability, and sustainability that will be very well received by anyone doing business with Washington.

McIntire knows that I-1033's passage will diminish his long-time dream of a state income tax. It's not any more complicated than that.

There is a state law that prohibits tax dollars from being spent by governments to oppose a ballot measure. Nonetheless, city councils and county councils in recent weeks are clearly violating that law with formal 'resolutions' coming out against I-1033. We'd be more upset about it if we thought they were working -- but frankly, their efforts are clearly backfiring. Besides, the No campaign has millions of Washington DC's dirty dollars from the country's most powerful government unions (NEA, SEIU, AFSCME, etc) -- the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize their opposition campaign.

Posted by Tim Eyman at October 09, 2009 05:51 AM | Email This
Comments
1. The (D)s running Olympia have demonstrated that they are fundamentally incapable of exercising appropriate and necessary fiscal restraint. We the taxpayers need to provide some serious fiscal handcuffs, and I-1033 is the best vehicle we have available to do that.

YES on I-1033.

Posted by: Methow Ken on October 9, 2009 06:34 AM
2. the state treasurer, warns us yesterday that I-1033 "could" lower our state's bond rating. Again, Gregoire and the Democrats fiscal irresponsibility over the past five years did that already.

Really, Tim? When was the state's bond rating downgraded?

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 06:45 AM
3. During a recession, raising taxes and increasing the burden on struggling working families, fixed-income senior citizens, and a hurting business community will only make the recession last longer.

Then you would support a progressive, graduated income tax over a regressive sales tax, then? I mean, if we're REALLY thinking about what's really best for "struggling working families", shouldn't we be concerned about lowering THEIR tax burden, and not Michael Dunmire's?

Posted by: demo kid on October 9, 2009 07:36 AM
4. An income tax. Why didn't I think if that? We can be just as well-off as California which has no budget problems.

Posted by: Gary on October 9, 2009 07:47 AM
5. Well, Well...We got the two Blind Liberal Trolls of #2/#3 mouthing off. The two anti-Capitalist, anti-American Socialists who support bigger and bigger Government until we're all in poverty. Till, we all reach Liberal heaven...walking and living in Mud Huts.

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 07:56 AM
6. Tim's also not explained how school districts that are already running up against the levy lid of 24% would be able to even have that vote, nor how our property-poor school districts would cope.

I-1033 would hurt the schools--this is fact, and not open to debate.

Posted by: Ryan on October 9, 2009 08:10 AM
7. Tim's also not explained how school districts that are already running up against the levy lid of 24% would be able to even have that vote, nor how our property-poor school districts would cope.

I-1033 would hurt the schools--this is fact, and not open to debate.

Posted by: Ryan on October 9, 2009 08:11 AM
8. daniel: Who's mouthing off? I just asked a simple question. Tim said the state bond rating has already been downgraded. I must have missed that announcement, so I asked for some clarification.

I'm sure Tim wouldn't lie to us.

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 08:50 AM
9. scottd...Tim was stating metaphorically, that the numbers for a bond rating review has already been lowered by Gregoire and the Democrats fiscal irresponsibility over the past five years. Surely, you don't disagree?

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 09:39 AM
10. daniel: It occurs to me that you don't know what a metaphor is...

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 09:59 AM
11. From: Tim Eyman, I-1033 co-sponsor

in response to previous posts:

I-1033 puts a limit on the growth of general fund revenue for the state, counties, and cities.

other governments and taxing districts are exempt from I-1033, including school districts.

if the state, counties, and cities think I-1033's automatic increase isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more.

The idea is to bring back I-601's fiscal discipline to the state and extend that same fiscal discipline to the counties and cities WHO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM OF OVEREXTENDING THEMSELVES IN THE GOOD TIMES WHICH INEVITABLY LEADS TO MAKING THE BAD TIMES WORSE.

As for Jim McIntire's scare tactic, here's Jason Mercier at the WA Policy Center's take on it:

http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2009/10/treasurer-worries-about-states-credit-rating-.html

Posted by: Tim Eyman on October 9, 2009 10:05 AM
12. Uh, Tim -- what about the state's bond rating? When was that downgraded?

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 10:08 AM
13. scottd...I do know the meaning of metaphor. You are confused by missing the intent of his statement dealing with the "idea" ergo the metaphor of his comment.

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 10:11 AM
14. daniel: So, a metaphor is when you say something that's not true. I thought that was just called a lie.

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 10:17 AM
15. scottd...If the use of metaphor is confusing to you...Yes, you could incorrectly conclude that one is lying. Being, you are a confused Liberal, this is no surprise.

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 10:23 AM
16. daniel: Now I understand -- Tim meant "already" as a metaphor for "hasn't happened". Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 12:49 PM
17. scottd...Like I said before...You're a confused Liberal. Nuff said.

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 02:05 PM
18. Daniel: If that's all you have...

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 02:44 PM
19. It is the best anybody can do within the realm of your understanding.

Posted by: Daniel on October 9, 2009 03:05 PM
20. I dunno, scottd... you taking someone else to task for lying looks an awful lot like the rank hypocrisy of a "none of my facts support my position" poster,

BTW... what ever happened to that moron?

Posted by: Hinton on October 9, 2009 06:04 PM
21. Not to worry, Hinton. Daniel's already set me straight. Eyman's false statement wasn't a lie -- it was a metaphor...or an allegory... or maybe it was a palindrome! Something like that...

Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 07:53 PM
22. WHY DON'T WE PASS A BILL THAT SAYS THAT ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS CAN VOTE ON PROPERTY TAXES. THAT WAY IF IT PASSES THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO PAY IT PASSED IT.IF IT DOESN'T PASS MAYBE OLYMPIA WILL CHANGE TO A SALES TAX TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOLS AND STOP RIPPING OFF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

Posted by: DAVID on October 9, 2009 10:26 PM
23. 22 I do believe our Constitution used to be like that. Those who own property and paid the taxes were the ones who said where the money was spent. If this were true today, the democrat party would not exist and America would not be on the edge of disaster as it is today with Obama. For that matter, our founding fathers understood that women and all their emotions should not be allowed to vote either. So, we have strayed from the original Constitution, and look where we have landed. JUST LIKE THE FOUNDERS WARNED!

Posted by: Mark on October 10, 2009 09:38 AM
24. And let's have only retail stores vote on the sales tax. And only smoke shops vote on cigarette taxes. Let's have only transit users vote on transit fares, and only car owners vote on tolls and gas taxes. I hope the reasons are obvious.

Mark, are you actually arguing that only property owners -- and only males one at that -- should have the right to vote? Are you serious?

The Constitution did not say that only white, male property owners could vote. Nor did it deny women or blacks the right to vote. States did those wrongs. A restriction like that now would certainly be Unconstitutional because it would violate the Fourteenth Amendment by removing liberty without due process.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 10, 2009 10:28 AM
25. I'm definately voting on this one and am encouraging my son and fiance to do the same!!
I don't know if anyone knows this but our governoris getting another small dog.Any guesses
as to who she may want to pay for security for it? sounds like another good reason for I-1033!!

Posted by: Laurie on October 11, 2009 03:42 PM
26. @24 - I agree that the 'only white male property owners should vote' is extreme and wrong.

However, it can be logically argued that when there are recipients of public assistance and donors to public assistance, the recipients will generally vote to continue said assistance. If instead of paying income tax, I am actually receiving money from the government (not simply 0-tax, but actual tax credits above taxes paid), then it behooves me to keep that system in place.

So, while I don't think property-ownership should be a prerequisite for voting, I think it is reasonable to consider that those who PAY INTO the tax system should be the ones to decide what how much and on what it is spent. Obama talks a lot about having 'skin in the game,' so should those with skin in the game have a stronger voice regarding the use of that skin?

Posted by: Erich on October 12, 2009 06:49 AM
27. Hey, Erich @24...Let's make it simple...Only the True Taxpayers of the Private Sector have the Right to Vote...PERIOD! All other so-called Taxpayers who get their earnings from the Public Sector are not, True Taxpayers because, they reap their earnings from the Taxes paid from the Private Sector to begin with. Those who pay the Bills, the Private Sector, should be the Only ones to Vote.

Posted by: Daniel on October 12, 2009 08:27 AM
28. John,

I know you are not that stupid. Don't confuse the message. You knew exactly what he meant about having property owners vote on taxes on property values.

Posted by: Chris on October 12, 2009 11:53 AM
29. Liberal heaven? Nah..France and Norway are "liberal heavens", along with most of Western Europe. They have far better public health, education, mass transit, solid infrastruture...the list goes on.

And yes, before you ask, I have lived there, and I would again if EU work laws allowed. Over there, they heavily restrict foreign high tech workers, and don't have an "H1B" process where large corporations shift high tech jobs and skills overseas.

But thats what you get when you have countries run FOR the benefit of the people, not the Fortune 500.

America is in decline, and the majority of us are too ignorant to realize it. Go to Shanghai, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, or Oslo. Look at the sparkling new infrastructure, high speed transit, brand new buildings, etc. But then, most Americans never leave the country...many can't even place those cities on a map.

Posted by: Proteus on October 15, 2009 07:44 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?