Initiative 1033 provides many benefits -- it helps taxpayers, helps our economy, and yes, it helps government by instilling desperately needed fiscal discipline.
But if forced to name just one: the biggest benefit of I-1033 is voter control over taxes.
Under I-1033, no state, county, or city government can take more of the people's money -- raise taxes, increase fees, inflate property valuations -- unless voters approve. With I-1033, instead of constantly trying to "maximize revenue", government will have to maximize the effectiveness of existing revenue. And "more revenue" will only be as a last resort and only with voter approval.
The worst thing government can do right now is raise taxes -- it would only make these bad times last longer. I-1033 stops stops state, county, and city politicians from extending the recession.
Under I-1033, state, counties, and cities will get an automatic increase every year -- I-601's successful inflation-and-population-growth-limit -- and if government thinks I-1033's automatic increase isn't big enough, they can go to the voters and ask for more.
Citizens in each city, each county, and the state will decide how fast they want their government to grow, how big a tax burden they can afford, and how big a government they want. I-1033 offers the ultimate local control, giving the people the power to decide.
Vote YES on I-1033
Posted by Tim Eyman at October 21, 2009 07:58 AM | Email ThisVoters don’t ‘control’ taxes. They would limit tax rates adjustments. The state would still control taxes (apportionment, etc)
Voters would limit tax adjustments.
Also, your own website declares levies being out of control… but the bill would exclude voter-approved levies – meaning they could still be passed (and probably would have to be to make up for the deficiencies in your asinine bill)
Also, citizens already are seeing taxes decline, due to the recession and drop in property values.
Also, taxes have NOT been growing ‘exponentially’ (unless your failed the maths)
VOTE NO on 1033.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 08:59 AMI know conservatives don't like it when we refer to "revenue" because we all know that "taxes" are what we're talking about. But we've learned that politicians sometimes take more of our money and call it all sorts of things: "we're not raising your taxes, these are just fee increases." "we're not raising your taxes, this is just a property assessment adjustment." we're not raising your taxes, this is simply a revenue enhancement."
That's why I-1033 puts a limit on 'revenue' growth, to ensure that voters get the final say on any effort by government to take more from the taxpayers. Under I-1033, they have to ask the voters' permission.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on October 21, 2009 09:12 AMInstead of burdening the poor and middle classes with your ridiculous giveaway-to-the-rich intiatives, why don’t you push for a 3.5-4% flat rate on income?
you’d be really popular among the whole state then…
Because nobody wants that.
HELL YES on I-1033
Posted by: mike336 on October 21, 2009 09:23 AMpeople ARE paying less sales tax – by not spending more (savings rates are positive) – washingtonians are paying less in sales taxes and as a result, there is a shortfall in expected state revenue.
If businesses are folding, then they aren’t paying taxes. Hence, state revenue from businesses would be declining.
And a lot of your buddies on this site had issues finding 1033 on their ballot as well.
And gary – you’d be surpised…
response: I-1033 doesn't take the money from people who buy things, the government already took it. What I-1033 does do is it prohibits state, county, and city politicians from taking any more from the people -- higher taxes, increased fees, jacked up property assessments -- unless voters give their OK at the ballot box.
Besides, for decades, taxpayers have needed relief from Washington's crushing property tax burden but politicians did nothing about it.
And with I-1033, it lowers property taxes not by making government smaller, but just by controlling its growth so that it's more stable and sustainable.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on October 21, 2009 09:46 AMI have already cast mine. My perception of 1033's placement is that the location is fishy. Seems a bit hidden.
Posted by: fRed on October 21, 2009 09:51 AMFine. Start an initiative. I'm not stopping you.
and i didn't call anyone a moron. i mererly asked if you were one for being so obtuse.
i prefer not to capitalize because it annoys wingers like yourself. and because this isn't a peer-reviewed publication.
The vote is here:
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2009/10/20/chs-endorsement-polls#comment-5
By all means let's continue to allow the government to recklessly throw our money around.
Why exactly do they have to replace the green street signs in Seattle with brown ones?
Posted by: Gary on October 21, 2009 10:05 AMTim you state that I-1033 will give voters control over Taxes. Is this necessarily a "good" thing?
I am asking because it has built in assumtions. One it assumes that the legislators are not doing their job in controlling taxes, which begs the question then why don't voters throw out those not doing their job and elect ones who will do their job. If there is a problem getting right people elected, then the initiative doesn't even touch this root cause of the problem.
A second assumption is that you have an educated voting population that will know enough and be able to understand the legalese to vote on taxes properly. The problem with this assumption is it gets away from representative form of government, which is a foundation of our government structure. Will voters take the time to educate themselves enough to know how to vote on each and every tax, or will they basically just vote no for almost everything? Will this mean that only certain popular functions get funded and the less popular, but necessary improvements don't.
I will give you an example for comparison. I used to live in a development that had an active Homeowners association (as apposed to many who have one in name only). The association was faced with a couple of costly legal issues and had to carry out several special assessments ($1K or more) in order to cover the costs of fighting the city to own up to its responsibility. No one liked voting to pay out this money and several rejected the special assessment. Yet, the down-stream cost was even greater and to those who wanted to make the development their long term community, they bit the bullet.
Well it is the same with voters and taxes. Most will vote for the Fire Levies or Police levies, but probably would reject taxes paying a City Attorney, since we all dislike attorneys. However, there comes a time when one needs those services and without funds, everyone, in the end pays more.
To me the issue is two-fold: (1) The people are not voting out the legislators who perform poorly (thus demonstrating an uneducated voting population), and (2) we as a state are not zero-budgeting services (i.e., going back to ground-zero each budget cycle or at least every X years) and asking is the service necessary and needed. I don't see where your initiative addresses these root causes.
Posted by: tc on October 21, 2009 10:18 AM45% of the money allocated for tarp hasn't been distributed.
of the money that was used, 17% has been repaid.
your assertion that the tarp money is 'gone' is a little overboard.
336, you seemed to have answered the question incorrectly, then.
gary, i didn't say we wouldn't get it back, i also didn't say i was o.k. with not getting the money back. i was just trying to bring a dose of reality to your claim of the TARP money 'being gone'
and i do care how high taxes are.
i'm just of the belief that a lot of people in the lower rungs of society are paying a disproportionate share - and i say this as a person who has done rather well, despite the economy - and has no issues w/ paying taxes because i realize the benefit of most of them are good for our society.
Anybody here believe that last year? Raise your hands.
Anybody here believe it now? Raise your hands.
mike, they have way too much money. The have so much money they can't keep track of it.
Mary Kay Voss understands, respects and observes our �council-manager� form of government. She believes that issues facing our city council should be discussed and debated in council chambers in full view of the public. It is for this very reason that she gave up her own council seat to run against the incumbent, Terry Ryan.
Mary Kay can be counted on to vote and is willing be held accountable on key issues. She neither abstains nor absents herself from meetings involving controversial votes.
Mary Kay appreciates that she is serving in a representative capacity. Her actions are not measured against the effect they might have on her political future.
Mary Kay routinely recognizes the contributions of others to the process and the end result, and does not claim credit for herself. When she offers criticism, it is of the message, and not the messenger.
Further, she has the educational background and professional experience that bring added value to the council.
In summary, Mary Kay Voss is the public servant, and not the politician in this contest. She is also the more fiscally conservative of the two candidates.
As such, I would ask you to please join me in supporting and voting for Mary Kay Voss for Mill Creek City Council Position No. 1.
Nobody in the Government is wasting money on frivolous projects like replacing green signs with brown ones or paying for a bridge over the freeway from one Microsoft Campus to another.
Just because the tax base decreases because of job losses and businesses closing there is no reasons to trim back on Government and require them to spend more responsibly. Who are they that would presume question the Government?
Taxes should just increase on the rest of the people paying them to make up for the losses cause by those losers that have lost their jobs and lost their businesses. Seriously, How can the Government work with less money?
Why should Government officials get paid less or not get a increase in pay just because the economy is in the dumpster? They are doing the job they were hired to do aren't they? So why should they suffer?
The tax payers are there just provide resources for the Government to use how ever they see fit.
The Government should do exactly what they want to because they know what is best for the people who are just ignorant peons with no clue about anything but their tiny little lives.
Can't they see that if the Government does it then it isn't against the law!
I can see justification for the Government to spend tax money running commercials and spend working hours posting on blogs like this to get the people to do what is needed. How stupid are tax payers? Seriously? It is no big surprise that there is potentially no fear of anyone from the tax base reading this blog. So, why not just say it like it is.
If we let the tax payers vote on tax increases and they don't vote for increases well, then they can be held hostage and they will be the first to suffer.
They can be frightened them, by threatening them, by reducing the police departments and fire and safety programs.
They can be manipulated by using their childrens future against them like getting rid of teachers by increasing class sizes or reducing their pay and forcing the great teachers to leave to other places.
The rest can be arm twisted by reducing benefits for the elderly, state parks or even basic services.
Strike at them where they care most and they will regret ever considering taking control of their own lives.
They will wish they never got in the way and they should have let the Government do as they wished to begin with.
What else can be done, after all the Government has to be healthy and growing in order to protect those that care and believe in it.
The Government can be their God now, knowing all, doing all and all of it for them.
I say vote no on I-1033 - Because we don't need no stinking ingorant voters controlling our taxes!
-George
Posted by: George on October 21, 2009 04:16 PM
Unrelated, perhaps, but I am voting FOR I-1033. If the governor and the legislators were more responsible when they had the chance then I'd vote differently.
Here's a big fat message to Olympia.
Posted by: Boxxerace on October 21, 2009 04:47 PMi know facts don't matter to wingers..
but here's a bone for ya...
the '2009 general elections thread'
Had to flutter around the damn thing two or three times before finally finding 1033 where I least expected it. It's there, sort of, but it's almost invisible.
Posted by: Where's Timmy? on October 19, 2009 02:37 PM
gary, the tarp money that has been given back was returned w/ interest. you should read a little before spouting nonsense.
boxxer - appraisals went down significantly THIS year (at least in king county). also i doubt you'd vote for 1033, given your past adolation of teh timmeh
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 05:33 PMBy shifting some decisions to voters and away from their representatives in gov't, the majority party is given a pass to hide behind minority-driven Initiatives as excuses for policy failures.
Without Eyman-style initiatives, the majority has no excuses when it fails, and voters recognize that the majority was in total control during the failure (just look at how the W.H. has stopped blaming Bush for the economy).
This is why Eyman, while well-intentioned, has assured Democratic control of our state government as far as the eye can see.
Posted by: JKR on October 21, 2009 06:01 PMMike, if you can't drink and still hold a decent conversation you should stay away from the bottle.
Who the heck is "teh timmeh"? You are embarrasingly childish.
Thanks for confirming what I believe about the people that end up on the left. You're a bunch of immature whiners. Any leftist blog will show it. And evidently you haven't learned how to drink.
What is the matter with you?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 21, 2009 06:16 PMnothing wrong here. but it's incredibly ironic (and childish, moronic, etc) of you to think that:
a. all liberals are whiners
b. i haven't learned to drink (boy, that may be the one thing i learned while active duty)
i'm not even drinkin, maybe you can't read cos you're intellectual challenged. or maybe you need glasses. or more than likely, you're just a dweeb.
reading your banal whining, i could say thanks for confirming that the right is full of selfish, racist, intellectually challenged CT wackos.
only it's not, but there are a few - including yourself. and teh timmeh (tim eyman)
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 06:34 PMInterest is not profit. And we aren't getting back hundreds of billions. You think we're gonna get back what we pissed away on GM and Chrysler? Not a chance. And now the CEO's there are getting their pay cut by the President.
You can all read it.
The left is just filled with these truly unpleasant people.
It simply confirms my thesis. Work backwards from these people and you can understand why they propose leftist legislation that fails time and time again.
The nasty comments of the "mikes" would not be nearly so remarkable if they weren't so predictable.
For reasonable people one simply has to ponder why these folks are so routinely mean. The answer is easy. They are mean people. They were probably bullies in first grade. They become lawyers and professors and school teachers so they can tell the rest of us how to live our lives. Mao, Che, Castro, and every other leftist are fundamentally mean people. "Mike" seems to be a most unpleasant individual. The sort of person that convinced my 9-year old niece that "Sarah Palin shoots wolves".
Look at "mike's" posts. Anyone can see the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Educating people about what kind of people populate the left? My pleasure.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 21, 2009 07:07 PM
so much for being honest or consistent, billy bob.
and who knew you had so much contempt for teachers and professors, billy? you know... jesus was a teacher. and a liberal.
if you want, i can have one of my professors peer review your 'thesis' - and i doubt it's a thesis, it's a mistaken belief - and one that you've hardly proven (and no, my actions don't confirm your 'thesis')
and what 'leftist' legislation failed 'time and time again? social security? medicare? welfare? the national parks system? minimum wage? schip? unemployment benefits?
sure these struggle time to time, but only because of hacks on the right defunding them to break them.
i'm actually a fairly easy going and pleasant person. i just don't take kindly to selfish pricks.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 07:34 PMCalling me a "selfish prick" Entirely expected.
Try calling me that to my face sometime you coward.
My rule. Don't say anything about another poster that you would not say to them at the next bar stool.
Calling someone a "selfish prick" would likely get nearly anyone a bloody nose.
I don't talk that way to my political opponents.
Leftists do constantly.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 21, 2009 08:12 PMi'm not aware of what 'names' demo kid has called you in the past.
i didn't call you a selfish prick - i said i don't take kindly to them. but it iobviously hit a nerve, so you might be one. i don't know you from the crap my dog just left (i picked it up, no worries)
oooh, yeah! step up! you have incredible street cred and toughness here in the blogosphere. good one.
you avoided the question about teachers and profs - did you fail out of middle school? what's your beef with learned individuals?
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 08:33 PMThe name calling: "billy bob crouton".
Comments such as at #42, "i didn't call you a selfish prick - i said i don't take kindly to them. but it iobviously hit a nerve, so you might be one. i don't know you from the crap my dog just left (i picked it up, no worries)"
They are exactly the people I have described over and over again.
The people such as Obama and Hillary who have lived their entire lives with a single goal, bringing socialism to this country.
Are they nice, decent, reasonable people? If they were they wouldn't be socialists.
Readers here can review the comments and make their own judgements.
Seems to me to be more than obvious who the good guys are.
The huge tax impositions that the public voted FOR as it relates to transportation?
I'd like the NO's to explain to me why the public will vote for many many billions in taxes in the past but will, as forecast here, vote down perceived "necessary" taxes to support services later?
We can't have that argument both ways. Voters have, with some consistency, approved increased taxes. What they require is to see the compelling case for need.
I see no evidence whatsoever that the public will refuse increasing taxes. I only see that they'll refuse them if they aren't well grounded. Government wants no oversight so that it can spend money without qualifying need, inserting preference over discretion.
Posted by: Cecil on October 22, 2009 05:50 AMAll in favor?
Anytime we get an opportunity to force them to live within a reasonable budget, we should take it, because they're abusing our treasure.
Posted by: Gary on October 22, 2009 07:14 AM"And a lot of your buddies on this site had issues finding 1033 on their ballot as well."
Counting skills like yours are why we need I-1033
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569134,00.html?test=latestnews
Posted by: Mike336 on October 22, 2009 08:53 AMdid you know that fox news isn't a news source at all? or do you believe everything rush, hannity, et al, tell you to think?
336, i only pointed out the one as you said that i was lying. i had seen it in other places, but in any case - you're still a dolt.
Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 11:54 AMwho's living in lalaland now, bigots?
-
Yes, I know. The government told me so.
Yes on 1033.
Posted by: Hinton on October 22, 2009 01:03 PMCalling anyone he disagrees with bigots is par for the course with these charming folks.
The more they expose who they are the quicker they will be gone. They think everyone agrees with them. They actually are a mere 20% of the population.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 01:45 PMThanks.
You don't get a single complaint from them about ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, and cripes I could go on all day.
Nah, they are doing what leftists always do. They want to stomp their boots on anyone who they think doesn't march to their agenda. It's always the way leftists behave. No reason to believe the American left is any different than Stalin, or Castro, or Mao. Watch how they act. It tells you everything about these intolerant people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 02:14 PMMany on the left felt that the media was not asking hard questions during that time and the administration was openly manipulating them. In retrospect, they were certainly right.
(This is established, not speculation: Dick Cheney leaked something to the New York Times to be published on a Sunday. That Sunday morning, he went on "Meet the Press" and cited "The New York Times" for his own leak. The information in that leak turned out not to be true, of course.)
Posted by: John Jensen on October 22, 2009 02:31 PMI wonder what Fox he's watching.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 22, 2009 02:38 PMIt does fascinate me G Jiggy how leftists that have never seen Fox constantly rant about it. Open minded people,aren't they?
It wouldn't possibly be because they are actually nasty thought police? No that couldn't be possible. Indeed it's exactly who these people are. A review of the comments here from leftists show it and if you have the stomach for it a peek at HA, or the Huffington Post will confirm it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 02:59 PMObama refused to allow FOX News access to the White House Pool who were going to be given access to Kenneth Feinberg. The pool consisted of five news organizations. When the other four learned of it, they refused to show up.
Enemies List is real.
Will liberals immediately challenge it in front of liberals judges? You bet they will.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 04:39 PMiraq is a the culmination of how everything that the neocons touched went to absolute crap.
what are liberals judges?
j giggy, are you sure he doesn't have cable/dish/etc? or did you snoop around and come to your own conclusion? and in case you were too intellectually challenged to realize it, you can catch fox news clips online. i don't have cable, but i can still follow the rants, lies and hypocrisies pimped by the GOP propaganda machine. surely you're at least that smart...
Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 08:31 PMiraq is a the culmination of how everything that the neocons touched went to absolute crap.
what are liberals judges?
j giggy, are you sure he doesn't have cable/dish/etc? or did you snoop around and come to your own conclusion? and in case you were too intellectually challenged to realize it, you can catch fox news clips online. i don't have cable, but i can still follow the rants, lies and hypocrisies pimped by the GOP propaganda machine. surely you're at least that smart...
Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 08:37 PMWhat kind of reasonable people would make those kinds of posts?
Liberals, that's who.
Unpleasant people? I will leave it to the readers to make a judgement.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 10:16 PMAnd yet you state as fact that FOX News is not a real news organization. What clips are you referring to to proclaim that FOX News isn't legit?
Must be nice to just do what you're told.
Posted by: Gary on October 23, 2009 06:51 AMSo why would you think they are not?
The entire FOX News bias is something the left trots out constantly.
It's backfiring on them now.
Is America finally discovering who the left actually is?
Yes they are thanks to the amazingly inept Obama Administration that plainly still believes everyone in the country is a far leftist.
Let them think that.
I am entirely enjoying one of the most massive political faceplants in history.
It couldn't possibly happen to a more arrogant bunch of controlling fascists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 07:21 PM