Savage Love FTMFW!!!

Yes, exactly. And that is why we shouldn't be squabbling about and/or rationally discussing signature issues on R-71. We should be hauling it into court on the basis that such a law would breach the 14th Amendment. Kill it once and for all so there won't be another initiative next election cycle (you know there will be otherwise).

Proud papa.

It's clear that Eyman is in it for the money, solely, although he may have constructed some framework of rationale that keeps his conscience at bay. I wonder if some part of him can see the harm.

I'm not up on the news as of late, so I would expect at least a short clause between two commas from either Dan or Goldy on what Eyman's initiative is about. I still don't know what it is about and so my next step is a search. But I would have hoped
not to do that and to have my initial curiosity satisfied so I could evaluate their punditry with a tad less frustration. Is such a journalistic nicety too much to ask these days?

Oh yes, the property tax intiative, see what a delightful short clause that is and only four words! Anyhow, forgive me.

@5 - Timmy is way too busy whining and crying and raging about having to pay taxes (ESPECIALLY property tax, holy god those motherfuckers how dare they tax him on something he ALREADY OWNS it's enough to make a man crazy!) to think about anything other than "Waaaaaah!!!!!"

@6 - Basically it would cap the state spending budget (and start calculating from the 2009 heavily slashed recession budget, natch) at the previous year, plus an increase based solely on population growth and inflation. Any additional revenues the state brings in above what they are "allowed" to spend must be used to lower property taxes the following year. This is flawed for many, many reasons, a few of which are 1) hamstringing the state government, 2) the government provides services, not goods, which don't correlate well with the growth/inflation metric, 3) the "refunds" in the form of property tax reductions benefit the rich far more than the middle class and lower income folks.

This could turn Washington into another California, basically. It's a giant, stinky turd of an initiative.

grats on having the mentality of a 12 year old

™

What if it's a cotton condom?

@9 -- And anyone who's been following the California news knows that capping is about the most socially destructive, counterproductive way to run a state. What Governor Reagan started is being continued by Prop. 13, the property tax cap. Reagan closed the mental hospitals and put the patients out on the streets, and we know how well eliminating most basic mental health services has served the state -- estimates on the proportion of the homeless who need mental health services vary from approximately one-third to three-quarters, but it's safe to say that the urban landscape would be very, very different if the regressives had not elected Reagan; now Schwarzenegger proposes putting huge numbers of prisoners on the streets because we can't afford to run the prisons any longer. We can guess how well that's going to serve the state. And still there is massive organized resistance to repeal of Prop. 13, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers still collect plenty of money every year to run their campaigns against any change. And they will be the first to raise their voices when the crime rate goes up -- they'll want more officers of the law and want them to prosecute crime more diligently, want more courts and want them to prosecute more cases and put more criminals behind bars, but they'll want to do it for no money, the basic fallacy of libertarian tax theory.

Dan,
Santorum CAN stain a condom but that would be TMI.

from: Tim Eyman, I-1033 co-sponsor

written and posted at #6 by "raindrop": I still don't know what it is about and so my next step is a search. But I would have hoped not to do that and to have my initial curiosity satisfied so I could evaluate their punditry with a tad less frustration.

response: Here’s what we’re debating with I-1033: how fast should the government grow and who should decide? I-1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector -- unless voters OK a bigger increase -- and it should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who decide.

I-1033 brings back successful policies passed by the voters previously. In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government’s fiscal policies. I-601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval.

Despite a multi-million-dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed 601.

And I-601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with the Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed I-601’s reasonable fiscal discipline and policies.

The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and $9 billion in 2009.

Those loopholes allowed them to take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — which led to slashing during bad times. I-1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing I-601’s same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval.

I-601 worked, it can work again with the passage of I-1033.

So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above I-1033’s limit? After a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn’t be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I-1033 provides needed, long-overdue property tax relief.

Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on government’s growth and against ANY restriction on government’s power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers.

I-1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter-approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter-approved revenues for counties & cities.

Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like I-601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say ‘no’ to the special interest groups and encourages them to finally start prioritizing and reforming government.

Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against I-1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.

Both Forbes magazine and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the 8th highest taxed state in the nation. I-1033 keeps us from hitting #1.

Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I-1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I-1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace taxpayers’ ability to afford it.

I-1033 is needed now more than ever.

We’re very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving Initiative 1033 in November. Thank you.

Today at a restaurant, I saw a menu item called "Shrimp Santorini". Ew.

I-1033 is a freeze on public services. The only way it controls the growth of government is by saying it should not grow. Eyman is selling voodoo economics.

I-1033 says that this year's recession spending by cities, counties and the state should be our permanent baseline spending. It can be adjusted slightly by a national not regional consumer inflation index and by a factor for new residents in the state.

Any money collected above this baseline each year must be used to reduce property taxes for property owners. The problem is that 40% of property owners are businesses and corporations. And only 65% of households in the state are owner occupied. So the beneficiaries of this wealth transfer are large property owners like shopping malls and real estate developers and corporate land owners. The more property you own the more you will benefit from Eyman's special property tax break under I-1033.

The losers of course are renters and senior citizens and working class families who don't own property or very little. But they will pay no less on sales taxes for example which last year comprised 57% of state revenue. Renters will still pay taxes but lose twice by not getting any refunds and also not getting any more public services.

I-1033 basically says that it's more important to use sales tax dollars paid for by everyone
to help corporations and wealthy property owners pay their property taxes than it is to use tax dollars for educating our kids, paying teachers, providing health care, helping senior citizens stay in their homes, fixing roads and bridges, expanding transit, having adequate police and fire protection, cleaning up Puget Sound, keeping our parks and libraries open and all the rest of the services our state and local tax dollars have funded.

I-1033 turns over the process of dealing with state and local budgets to the referendum process because that's the only way you could restore any public services lost during this recession or provide revenue for new infrastructure.

So I-1033 freezes state and local public services, provides for public tax dollars to assist busineses and corporations paying their property taxes, and sets up a referendum process to approve all increases to support new public services by cities, counties and the state.

Eyman is proposing a radical change in our tax structure and representative government. Vote No on I-1033. Urge your family and friends and neighbors and co-workers to vote no. As usual Eyman's measure is more complicated than just a simple reading of the ballot title suggests.

Eyman continues to use false information. He cuts and pastes the same gibberish over and over on comment threads hoping people don't spend the time to sort out all the lies. One example is the Forbes article he quotes.

The Washington State Department of Revenue has looked at the misleading Forbes article and says “The only accurate way to compare tax burdens is by comparing both state and local taxes among states. By that measure, Washington ranks 19th-highest per capita and 35th-highest in taxes as a percentage of personal income, http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163…. Economists generally prefer measuring as a percentage of personal income because it takes into account economic activity and demand for services. Rankings have become a popular staple among certain national publications, but they can be misleading. The most recent Forbes ranking is one of those. After being contacted by the Department, Forbes subsequently published a tax ranking based on the Tax Foundation’s analysis.”

You can read their full comments here:
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPubl…

voodoo gibberish by Eyman "I-1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector ..."

What nonsense is this? I don't see any businesses that can only invest in their business each year the same amount as last year plus a slight adjustment for inflation and population. What business do you know Tim that put a permanent freeze on their spending?

more voodoo gibberish by Eyman "Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden"

So how does I-1033 help struggling working families and fixed-income seniors? It says that they can continue to pay sales taxes and other taxes but if they are renters and don't own property they get screwed twice. They get no "refund" and they will also not see any increased spending by the government to assist them with more public services.

Instead of the "excess" revenue going to help seniors stay in their homes or increased state assistance for the unemployed, Eyman says it's more important to help corporations pay their property taxes. So now you see how Eyman would allocate state tax dollars if he were a legislator - for corporate welfare over the welfare of our state's citizens.

If he was so concerned about seniors he would be advocating for increasing the senior property tax exemption the state has that also covers the disabled. Or he would be advocating for a Homestead Exemption on one's principal residence like almost 40 other states have.

But Eyman has opposed Homestead Exemptions which would help low income working families keep their homes. They are legal because the Washington State Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to provide exemptions to property taxes like the senior citizen property tax exemption which is a form of a Homestead Exemption for seniors.

Initiative 1033 is a freeze on public spending.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management says that Initiative 1033 would severely impact state and local government.

In their words "The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education, social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015"

This is the impact Tim doesn't want you to see. Read it yourself.

see http://ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/i-1033_fis…