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 ThisYES on I-1033.
Posted by: Methow Ken on October 9, 2009 06:34 AMReally, Tim? When was the state's bond rating downgraded?
Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 06:45 AMThen 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 AMI-1033 would hurt the schools--this is fact, and not open to debate.
Posted by: Ryan on October 9, 2009 08:10 AMI-1033 would hurt the schools--this is fact, and not open to debate.
Posted by: Ryan on October 9, 2009 08:11 AMI'm sure Tim wouldn't lie to us.
Posted by: scottd on October 9, 2009 08:50 AMin 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 AMBTW... what ever happened to that moron?
Posted by: Hinton on October 9, 2009 06:04 PMMark, 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 AMHowever, 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 AMI 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 AMAnd 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