Washington DC's most powerful government unions are seeking to buy this year's election on I-1033 -- $2.6 million+ reported so far and much more expected. Clearly, Gregoire's promise to raise taxes has provided our opponents with ample motivation -- without I-1033, there will be plenty of tax increases. But raising taxes right now will only make the recession last longer. I-1033 prohibits state, county, and city politicians from raising taxes unless voters approve. I-1033 provides an automatic increase each year and if government thinks it's not a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more. Opponents know that it's easier to buy a politician than it is to persuade a taxpayer.
* Washington DC's AFSCME -- $329,519 and counting
* Washington DC's NEA -- $334,775.62 and counting
* Washington DC's AFL-CIO -- $25,000 and counting
* Washington DC's IBEW -- $50,000 and counting
* Washington DC's Int'l Union of Firefighters -- $25,000 and counting
* SEIU -- $290,000 and counting
* WA Council of County & City Employees -- $122,500 and counting
* WA Federation of State -- $75,000 and counting
* AFL-CIO WA St Labor Council -- $28,632.22 and counting
* Washington DC's Int'l Union -- $75,000 and counting
We rely on the common sense of the average voter to see through opponents' threats, lies, and scare tactics. In sharp contrast to this big money, with us the money we raised was used to qualify the initiative for the ballot. For us, a 2nd mortgage on my home provided a $250,000 loan to the campaign, a generous donation of $300,000 from super supporter Mike Dunmire and the rest came from our thousands of supporters throughout the state. 2146 donations and the average amount given (not counting me and Mike) was $55. We have thousands of supporters who volunteered tens of thousands of personal hours to help get I-1033 before the voters.
The Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters who were read I-1033's official title ("This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies") showed it at 61% yes, 31% no, 8% undecided.
KING 5 SURVEYUSA didn't poll I-1033's official title, the one that will appear on voters' ballots in November, instead the people were read a 'slice' of I-1033: "Initiative 1033 would limit spending for state, county, and local governments." So without being told that I-1033 allows governments to grow at inflation and population growth, that I-1033 allows bigger increases with voter approval, that I-1033 lowers property taxes -- all information that's in I-1033's official title -- even so, I-1033's way ahead with 45% yes, 32% no, and 22% undecided (always remember, those 'undecideds' gotta go somewhere).
Washington DC's government unions got a lot of money but they're clearly in a hole. Voters clearly support I-1033's fiscal discipline and policies.
315,000 citizens signed I-1033 petitions because they know government keeps getting bigger and bigger and property tax bills keep going higher and higher. The people are demanding greater control. The reason there's such broad support for I-1033 is because it's a totally reasonable policy -- it allows the government to grow but at a sustainable rate that doesn't outpace the taxpayers' ability to afford it. It includes a safety valve allowing even faster government growth with voter approval. And it provides meaningful property tax relief not by slashing government tax revenues, but by simply controlling their growth.
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.
Hint: About half of it came from just two guys who stand to save a bundle if it passes.
Posted by: scottd on October 11, 2009 06:12 PMIt's kind of funny. All these interest groups also want that money. So the question is, who should get the money?
One of the things I have come to understand as I get older, the bigger government gets, the bigger the fights get as people work to vote for themselves money. Should the people vote to keep their money or vote to allow the government to give it to groups that people in government want to have it. And if you are naive enough to think that the current government is only interested in making sure the money we give them only goes to those who most need it, you are in sad shape. Money goes to those who will kick back enough to give those in power the ability to stay in power. Our only check on that influence buying is with our votes.
My belief is that if you want those groups to have the money give it to them yourself and stop voting for others to give theirs. Generally speaking of course. Don't start tossing out the military or the police argument. Government has specific responsibilities that we should pay for. Everything else is debatable, in some cases highly debatable.
Posted by: Eyago on October 11, 2009 06:48 PMIf, in fact, your allegation is true (and there seems to be a dirth of evidence provided to support it) then that is troublesome.
That your fellow leftist scum have dropped a fortune to pay for the lies, exaggerations and propaganda that you and your sort support doesn't trouble you in the least is just typical of the hypocritical double standard of the fringe leftist.
I support 1033 because scum like you in government or the scumbag unions listed don't give a damn how high taxes get as long as people like YOU don't feel the pain of this recession.
You don't mind awfully if you and your sort suffer just like the rerst of us?
There's a good chap.
Posted by: Hinton on October 11, 2009 09:17 PMYou don't get what government is about, do you?
Posted by: Greg on October 11, 2009 09:22 PMI look forward to the election next month.
Governor Fraudoire, please keep talking about raising taxes during the Obama Depression. Please tell us how we should have an income tax.
For that matter, I hope our incompetent president barry reaps more undeserved honors and awards. Lets give him an Oscar. Hell, lets give him a Pulitzer and a Heisman trophy. It will further underscore to our nation how the newport sucking clown has spent his useless, unproductive life enjoying praise and rewards for no other reasons than the color of his skin and his marxist politics.
Liberals, please keep talking.
Posted by: attila on October 12, 2009 08:39 AMI fully expect to pay for services that are of value, but when the government keeps asking for more than the growth of inflation, I should have some say in whether they deserve to have more. There is noting wrong with limiting their growth to match population and inflation. Tell me why that is a bad thing.
Posted by: Eyago on October 12, 2009 08:58 AMYou're like Andy Rooney, except angry and completely irrational... and no sane middle-of-the-road sort would ever think of siding with you.
Posted by: demo kid on October 12, 2009 12:54 PMLet's see what I-1033 would do:
Budget 2001: $100
Budget 2002: $103
Budget 2003: $106
Budget 2004: $90
Budget 2005: $93
I-1033 puts the government into a permanent recession. That's why even Susan Hutchison is voting against it. It's irresponsible to have a spending cap based on the prior year without a revenue floor.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 12:56 PMAnd proponents know that it's easier to lie about the effect of this bill to the public.
Posted by: demo kid on October 12, 2009 12:57 PM2004 represents a huge revenue shortfall due to a recession, in my scenario. 2005 represents a continuation of those substantial budget cuts until infinity.
Note that between 2001 and 2005, in my scenario, there was both population growth and inflation. But the revenue is still much, much less. That's because tax revenues don't grow with population growth and inflation during recessions -- they shrink substantially.
Eyman chose to index by the previous year regardless of how much that year differed from earlier budgets. His plan does not grow revenues at inflation and population growth. It simply forces recessions to last forever on the government's ledgers.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 01:00 PMMaybe popular backlashes to government spending would be less likely if the government would not continually use smoke and mirrors to redistribute money to non-essential government programs and then come to the trough with the sob story of how the essential programs are short of funds. Maybe if there was some accountability people could believe in on the spending the government does do, them people would be less suspicious about government tax increases.. Maybe if the government stopped taking temporary taxes and making them permanent, people would not be so willing to find ways to control the growth of taxation.
As for the claim that John makes regarding the initiative's use of prior year revenue rather than a baseline, I would like an answer to that since it would be problematic to the state's ability to meet obligations.
My problem is not with paying for things, it is with slight-of hand shenanigans of the politicians which makes me want to force more accountability on them. They have made their bed, and I am not particularly sad to see them get handcuffed a bit.
Posted by: Eyago on October 12, 2009 01:21 PMWell when revenues fall, spending falls too. I'm not saying that taxes should go up, I'm just saying that when the economy rebounds we should let our schools and our police forces rebound from their budget shortfalls too. (And that's not a tax increase.)
I-1033 locks those lower revenues into place. It is not grow spending with inflation and population growth -- because there is no floor that prevents recessions from lasting forever on the government accounting books.
As for the claim that John makes regarding the initiative's use of prior year revenue rather than a baseline, I would like an answer to that since it would be problematic to the state's ability to meet obligations.
Yes, it would be very problematic, you're right. That's why I'm rejecting I-1033.
I agree with you that we shouldn't be raising taxes in the middle of a recession, but I-1033 doesn't prevent the state from raising taxes -- it prevents the state from collecting taxes that are already levied especially after a deep recession. (Like over the next few years.)
I understand the deep resentments toward government efficiencies, but this is too serious of a topic to screw up on. We can get a message to Olympia without sacrificing the basic fiscal security of our school, fire departments, police departments, and public health programs.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 01:41 PMIs this an okay activity for government to spend time/tax money on?
Somehow it doesn't seem fair/right that they can do this, but don't know the law on this issue.
Appreciate any insight.
Posted by: Curious on October 12, 2009 02:33 PMSo I went to http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/. And then found the 1033 fact sheet you were talking about, right here.
You quoted "Reasons small children will die if 1033 passes" from that fact sheet. In fact, the only words from your phrase found in that document are "will," "if", "1033" and "passes." Seems like quite the leap you've made. I'm guessing you were joking.
I assume the government is within its legal rights to describe the affects that a citizen's initiative would have on its revenue. Looking at the fact sheet, I think more citizens could use a look at these numbers. A 23% sales tax revenue drop last year. Inflation will be at 2% for the next few years. Population growth, probably 0.5%. This isn't keeping government spending in check. This isn't keeping growth down. It's forcing governments to feel the effects of a recession in perpetuity.
And doesn't anyone think it's ridiculous that my sales tax revenues will go to reducing property taxes instead of funding the government services I want to have? The resentments about Olympia are real. But I-1033 has too many problems. It doesn't just constrain the state, it constrains counties and cities, forces the rest of us to give rebates to property owners, and keeps recessions in government budgets forever. It's a stupid initiative, and Tim Eyman needs to learn -- once again -- that Washington voters are too smart for this nonsense.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 02:52 PMAlso, Eyago's post at #2 was excellent. Agree with everything.
Posted by: Palouse on October 12, 2009 02:59 PMI-1033 locks the recession into the budget, there's nothing more to it. "Excess" revenue will go to property owners and not all us equally. Are property owners the only ones who deal with taxes? Certainly not. And this isn't just about Olympia -- every county and every city, no matter how responsible they've been, will have this recession locked into their budgets forever.
(Eyago, I was wrong about the details. It does lock the budget to a 2010 baseline. Of course, that's the worst recession in 60 years and will still lead to this current recession being on government books forever, rather than the budget recovering like normal.)
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 03:13 PMWhat "previous levels"? When exactly have taxes gone DOWN in the last 8 years? Tax RATES have done nothing but go up under Gregoire, Sims, et al. That's what this initiative limits, except with a vote. Fine by me.
Posted by: Palouse on October 12, 2009 03:22 PMSince property taxes will eventually reach zero -- and we all know that we can't have something for nothing -- we will be completely dependent on sales and B&O taxes which are much more volatile. So recessions will be even worse on local and state budgets in the future.
If you want voter approval of tax hikes, then let's get an initiative to do that. But I-1033 does much more than that, and it is much more damaging.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 12, 2009 03:36 PMI-1033 California Dreaming on such a winter's day.
However, the "fact sheet" is largely opinion, not facts. (and certainly has the tenor of "the world will end if this passes"). I wonder why I should be paying gov't employees to spend their time lobbying against this? Why shouldn't they have to do it on their own time?
Posted by: Curious on October 12, 2009 08:47 PMI didn't really find that. Do you have examples?
It says, 'the general funds these services. I-1033 would cut the general fund.' Those aren't really opinions but the express purpose of the Initiative.
Should the government not lobby to keep its sources of revenues? It's a valid question. But when non-government sources do so, Eyman attacks them in his OP. So should no one at all defend I-1033? I do think it's appropriate for government to defend itself from citizen's initiatives, but to do so in a non-political and non-editorial way.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 11:31 AM