The Washington state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business overwhelmingly endorsed Initiative 1033 today -- 93% of their members supported its endorsement. NFIB is the nation's leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals.
NFIB Washington State Director Patrick Connor said: "With a looming $117 million tax hike in their workers' compensation rates and Gov. Chris Gregoire's recent announcement that she is open to additional tax increases, it's not surprising that small businesses are demanding some restraint. Small businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open. Higher taxes jeopardize their ability to stay in business, let alone add the jobs this state needs to pull itself out of recession."
"Every family and small business in this state makes tough choices to live within their means. It's not unreasonable to expect state and local governments to do the same. Initiative 1033 will restore some sanity to government budgeting, which has been lost as the Legislature whittled away the spending controls the people established through I-601."
Connor also took aim at the fear-mongering against I-1033, which he said got off to a remarkably fast start. "We heard the same hand-wringing and unfounded, Chicken Little, 'the sky is falling' rhetoric about Initiatives 601, 695, and 747. None of the bombast proved to be true. In fact, when the state Supreme Court struck down 695 and 747, the Legislature raced to re-enact the key provisions, over the loud objections of local government and public employee unions. Gov. Gregoire even called a special session so the Legislature could re-enact 747's 1 percent property tax increase lid to appease property owners incensed that the court had undone their will yet again."
#####
If you have a problem with line items in budgets, then DEAL WITH THOSE LINE ITEMS.
@1: Assessments are run on a three-year average. When the market was going up, you were essentially underpaying.
Posted by: demo kid on October 16, 2009 06:10 PMOr do you just complain about all the other people who DO (small business) while you don't?
Posted by: Michele on October 16, 2009 07:41 PMIf you have a problem with our efforts to control massive government waste, THEN POUR GASOLINE ON YOURSELF AND LIGHT IT.
Dumbo, your income redistribution plan ain't gonna cut it here. You and the rest of your ilk living off the government teat are just gonna have to figure out how to do more... with much, much, less.
Posted by: hinton on October 17, 2009 12:57 AM"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Read that a few times, maybe you'll learn a thing or two...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 17, 2009 08:50 AMAnd "underpaying" only so far as to support basic services. But hey... who needs schools, roads, police protection, economic development, etc.? I mean, you live in a completely self-sustaining bubble, right?
@7: Garbage. You're loudly whining about folks that "don't pay their own way", yet you favor exactly the same thing.
Watch. Once public services decline, you'll whine about that as well, and say that the (poorly-funded) government is incapable of doing it's job (that it doesn't have the funds to do).
For folks that try to portray themselves as "fiscally responsible", you all really don't have any fiscally responsible bones in your bodies, do you? I'm laughing at the arrogance.
Posted by: demo kid on October 17, 2009 10:26 AMApparently you cannot answer Judge Learned Hand, so you'll continue making up strawmen to attack and whine about loudly.
Read that statement a few times, especially this part:
There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
In fact, that statement implies that it IS patriotic to reduce one's taxes! So come on, be a patriot, and lower your taxes.
Or do you simply not take any deductions for your income tax, and pay the full rate on your gross wages?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 17, 2009 01:07 PMHOWEVER: I would suggest that while such a debate might be intellectually interesting, at this point it is essentially irrelevant:
As a practical matter I-1033 is the ONLY vehicle available this year to we the citizens, where we have a chance to make our voices heard in a way that will make a difference (at least for a couple years).
I say the above as someone who has not always agreed with all the initiatives that Mr. Eyman has managed to put on the ballot; however:
I commend him and the people working with him for providing a valuable public service over the years, in allowing we the citizens to have a least some direct effect on the direction of our State Government; without first being ''filtered'' by politicians.
And thank goodness the initiative and referendum process is hardwired in the State Constitution, and the (D)s currently running Olympia can't make that right just ''become disappeared'' by an act of the Legislature (you just know that many (D)s would LOVE to take that away (when hell freezes over, as far as I'm concerned) ).
Is it any wonder that I-1033 is on the ballot. How many times do the voters have to tell their non-responsive [non]Representatives to cool it on taxes and spending?
It is obvious that today's politician only claims to want to represent The People. In reality, they will represent the special interests that pump money into their reelection campaigns.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2009 08:26 PMObviously, you and the other guy had history so I am cutting you some slack.
During the debate, you talked about I-601 which would have capped increases at 1% if Gregoire and Company hadn't sunset the provisions which led to massive increases.
IMO, I agree with the antis to the effect this is not the way government should do business. We hire them to balance the budget and run the government.
With that disclaimer, the current crop of elected Democrats in Western Washington and the State legislature are a day late and a day short. If they had taken this crisis serious from Day One, some of the problems today could have been alleviated (not eliminated but alleviated). Instead, they continue spending money like a meth addict getting his fix. Now, we are in serious problem. If these electeds had even an iota of common sense I would be voting against I1033.
But, they haven't and it seems they haven't learned their lesson, so I am given no choice but to vote for this referendum.
BTW, the Catholic bishops of Washington have come out against I1033, in violation IMHO of the separation clause.
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2009 08:30 AMBTW, the Catholic bishops of Washington have come out against I1033, in violation IMHO of the separation clause.
Which clause would that be? The clause that states that no religious organizations can comment on anything with potential political overtones?
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I do not agree with the bishops position, but I believe that they feel that their beliefs and social obligations require them to speak out on this issue. Nothing in the First Amendment prohibits them from being able to do this - it protects their rights.
I don't see your interpretation in there, please point it out. The First Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 19, 2009 09:14 AMThey shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the state unless they want to lose their tax exempt status. This is whether or not the church's opinion is covered by first amendment.
Even tax exempt unions and other groups have to form PACS for official recommendations.
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2009 11:38 AMIn terms of tax exemption, the IRS looks at whether 501(c)(3)'s support a particular candidate not a particular issue. You can find more information on Wikipedia or do more in-depth research through primary sources. But your concerns are seemingly unmerited.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 20, 2009 07:26 PMSo, if a church voices an opinion about something the government considers "political", the church should be finacially punished by the government for having those opinions? And this doesn't violate the First Amendment?
Churches should be tax exempt so taht government can not use taxes as a sledgehammer of control over the activites of the church - allowing the free exercise of that religion - without government meddling.
Other groups may be tax exempt, but they are not covered in the same manner as churches according to the First Amendment.
Also, out of curiosity - because I don't know the answer - how do union PACs get their money? If the dues go to the union in a lump sum from the worker, how does a portion of that money leave the tax exempt union coffers and show up in the PAC accounts?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 21, 2009 03:36 PMIn terms of tax exemption, the IRS looks at whether 501(c)(3)'s support a particular candidate not a particular issue.
So you'd heartily welcome churches openly opposing R-71? No penalties on the churches at all, no retribution for their actions?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 22, 2009 06:12 PM