Tim Eyman e-mailed to report that every one of the anti-initiative bills introduced in the legislature this session died with yesterday's cut-off deadline. Good.
And now that Eyman is free (at least for now) from having to protect the state Constitution, he can refocus his efforts on helping you protect the fruits of your labor.
His latest initiative, I-960, The Taxpayer Protection Initiative will accomplish the following:
* Require either 2/3 legislative approval or voter approval for tax increasesSounds good to me.* Require an advisory vote of the people for tax increases the legislatiure blocks from citizen referendum
* Require publication of cost projections, information on public hearings and legislators' sponsorship and voting records on bills increasing taxes and fees
Visit the website for more information, to obtain petitions and to make a donation.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 15, 2007 10:44 AM | Email ThisDoes the 2/3 initiative cover that?
Posted by: Andy on March 15, 2007 10:48 AMNo, that's what #2 attempts to address.
However, in my opinion, it's quite inadequate. The repeated, unconscionable abuse of the emergency provision needs a sterner response than just an advisory vote. Just off the top of my head, either or both of the following would be very helpful:
1. A provision that an emergency clause cannot be applied to any measure that effects a tax increase, or the extension of an existing tax that would otherwise cease. In other words, an emergency measure could rely only on existing sources of state revenue.
2. A provision that any bill passed with an emergency clause will automatically sunset, in its entirety, 18 months after it takes effect. If that's not enough time for the legislature to come up with a non-emergency measure to deal with the issue...
Posted by: Kirk Parker on March 15, 2007 11:08 AMThanks a lot, Hans and the rest of the Democrats.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 11:12 AMThat's what Sound Transit did, and that's what SMP did. The self-interested deep pockets backing those measures easily bought enough votes. What did we get? Totally abused. A completely Democrat controlled legislature and governor would not have tried to pass such massive and regressive taxes on people for so long.
The "voter approval" part of this initiative invites propositions from local governments that are deceptive. Who thinks a local government that wants to issue unlimited amounts of bonds for indefinite periods is going to be straight up with what voters are told? Both ST and SMP had fuzzy-sounding ballot measures that mentioned in passing that there would be an ordinance approved if they passed. Oh yeah, the ordinances just happen to be where all the taxpayer-humping provisions are.
Far from a taxpayer "protection" initiative, this initiative Eyman is pimping would engender trojan horse ballot measures (sponsored by unions and municipal debt financiers) that are designed to mislead voters about the true tax impacts. We have a history of that kind of ballot measure around here. For someone who says he is an enemy of Sound Transit-type governments, Eyman recently has been acting a whole lot like a supporter of local governments that try to get voters to buy off on neverending tax schemes for projects of dubious worth.
Posted by: all the "protection" of a leaky condom on March 15, 2007 11:29 AMAny other fantasies to share about how stupid we are?
Posted by: Hinton on March 15, 2007 11:34 AMNow tell us how much more tax ST plans on collecting to complete Phase I (the ballot estimated the total cost of Phase I would be $3.9 billion, and that would include grants and farebox revenue).
If you can't come up with those two numbers, and show us where you got them, then it is a fact you are stupid for supporting future tax measures voted on by the public like this initiative would engender.
Public votes on propositions from local governments for tax increases are a proven method for local governments to avoid accountability.
Posted by: all the "protection" of a leaky condom on March 15, 2007 11:48 AMBoy, that will get you a lot of supporters.
I am interested on the documents you finally got retrieved and the info you have. I generally believe that ST is out to bankrupt us, so I am on your side. I am not so interested in your Eyman angle, but if you want, can you give some specifics?
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 12:00 PMWhy don't you give it a shot? See if you can ascertain:
- How much tax ST has collected since April, 1997, and
- How much more tax ST intends to collect during the implementation period of Phase I.
ST's a public agency, right? Shouldn't be too tough for someone with a little time and a computer (you'd think!).
If you make a good faith effort, and engage in a little friendly banter on this issue, it would be my pleasure to share information.
Do you understand the basics of how ST is structured? For example, do you have a copy of Sound Move, and if so, where did you get it?
If you don't know the basics about this situation then I'm pretty sure we couldn't have a meaningful discussion about ST's financing issues. And who wants to waste time?
Posted by: all the "protection" of a leaky condom on March 15, 2007 12:09 PMThe voters approved light rail to the airport, and that is what they are getting. The agency was allowed the discretion by the voters to make the minor adjustments that it did. None of the budgets have been exceeded, and the annual audits have been coming back clean.
Since "NW Denizen" has such delicate sensibilities, I won't call her stupid. Just really, really misinformed.
Posted by: evergreen_rails on March 15, 2007 12:50 PMMore like Eyman is now free to dress up in even more ridiculous costumes at press conferences and prove what a special interest money whore he really is. =)
Eyman's 15min of fame were up a long time ago.
see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aardsma if you are unfamiliar with the term
Minor? Minor?!!! - and sung to the tune of the Jim Mora beer ad. A bid that is twice estimate is "on budget?" I know of only one person that can say that with a straight, but drunken, face. And that person is on the ST Board.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 01:31 PMBut don't let facts get in the way of your vitriol. If you and NW Denizen want to believe the agency spent twice (or four times) what it promised voters, well knock yourselves out.
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. SHOW ME. Bwahahahaha!
How can you even say what you are saying with a straight face? Why did you go to bids if you didn't already have the most cost-effective design out to bid? Isn't that your job? Why did you let the designers get paid for a 'boondoggle' project and then turn around and let them get paid for a redesign on a design they should have done the first time?
So, Mr. Railfan and employee, my vitriol is well-placed.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 02:39 PMTheir failure on the Seattle Viaduct will haunt them until Rossi is elected.
Posted by: GS on March 15, 2007 03:13 PMThat announcement you thought you heard - it was only the voices in your head. Nobody from the agency ever made any statement like that. But keep believing it . . . .
Posted by: evergreen_rails on March 15, 2007 04:47 PMIf you are paying for your child to go to private school or have no children you are exempt from any taxes going to public schools.
Of course this would never happen, but if it did I bet you would see a huge change in the public school system in a hurry.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 15, 2007 08:23 PMI'd vote for that initiative in a heartbeat!
Don't hold your breath though. The teachers unions and dems would NEVER let that happen!
Posted by: David on March 15, 2007 08:37 PMrailfan, simply stated: your boys and girls went to the voters and said with "x" amount of money we will do light rail from SeaTac to Northgate and even said there was money budgetted for overruns. That "x" amount of money is not going to even do 1/2 of what they promised.
And please don't quote figures from a sterilized report going to the Board members who don't have any experience reading these blasted things. Prove to me my second paragraph and I'll be on board.
I think I voted for light rail the second time it went to the voters, but I really can't remember it, except I do remember the second vote was a lot more promising than the first.
Oh yeah, one last thing you want to ignore- why wasn't the first bid on budget and how, if you folks are indeed doing what is the best for us (and which I think you are just gilding the lily), you can even go back and remove about 1/2 the project and still make it valid. This is totally absurd and ....
Posted by: swatter on March 16, 2007 07:19 AMIf this initiative had been drafted to offer real protections for taxpayers, it would have terms like the following: any tax-backed bonds that could be issued pursuant to voter approval could not exceed 15 years in term; measures put on a ballot that would allow local government general obligation debt would need to have a fixed cap on the face value of bonds issued (that would prevent refinancings of the kind the bond "limit" SMP used allowed); there would need to be a date specified after which no further bond sales would be allowed; etc.
But Sound Transit's beneficiaries would not like taxpayer protection provisions like those. So they are not in Eyman's new initiative.
"That announcement you thought you heard - it was only the voices in your head. Nobody from the agency ever made any statement like that. But keep believing it . . . ."
Put up or shut up. I asked you to show me and all you can do is hurl insults. You need a better defense that just a smart mouth, but if that's all you can come up with, I not wasting any more time.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 16, 2007 12:30 PMLeaky in posts 4, 7, 9, 10, and 27 is either ignorant or apparently can't read -- the Taxpayer Protection Initiative only affects state government -- so he looks incredibly stupid when he/she writes:
"The 'voter approval' part of this initiative invites propositions from local governments that are deceptive."
State government is the big enchilada -- if voters can restrain it when it comes to taking more of the people's money, taxpayers and our economy will benefit.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on March 16, 2007 03:58 PMResponding to Andy at post #1:
If the Legislature blocks a public vote on a tax increase (with an emergency clause, for example), then there WILL BE an advisory vote. With this provision, voters are assured of ALWAYS getting a vote on tax increases.
Responding to Kirk Parker at post #2:
Your alternative proposals to reign in the Legislature's emergency powers are not constitutional -- they'd never get past the courts. The Constitution gives the Legislature their emergency powers and no initiative or law can change that.
The Taxpayer Protection Initiative offers taxpayers/voters a real, practical, effective, legal and constitutional way to fight back against the Legislature's reckless overuse and abuse of the emergency clause.
I-960 provides two pages in the November general election voters pamphlet and in addition to the advisory vote on the tax increase, most of the space in those two pages is used to list the legislators who voted 'yes' and who voted 'no' on blocking the public vote with the emergency clause. It'll list their office (Representative or Senator), first name, last name, party affiliation (Republican or Democrat), city they're from, phone number, email address and how they voted. Every legislator who blocks a public vote with an emergency clause will be very publicly exposed by this provision.
Remember, this will appear in the general election voters pamphlet, the same pamphlet that voters are reading when deciding who to elect/reelect. Voters will have the information available to them when they're voting as to who are the pro-taxpayer legislators and who are the anti-taxpayer legislators.
Compared to the status quo, this is a revolutionary reform and will strongly discourage legislators from willy-nilly overuse and abuse of the emergency clause.
As to the 2/3's requirement for tax increases, that's current law. It passed in 1993 with Initiative 601, and survived all court challenges and it's been on the books for 13 years. Also, in 2005, the Legislature passed a law requiring that threshold for tax increases. All that our initiative does is give the voters the opportunity to endorse and validate and support what the Legislature passed in 2005.
As to the single subject rule, our recent initiatives have been upheld because we've learned what the court allows and what it doesn't.
If we target a particular tax (car tabs, property taxes, etc.), then we can do an initiative that has several provisions relating to that tax -- and we're OK under the single subject rule.
If we propose procedural taxpayer protections, then we can do an initiative that has several provisions relating to these protections -- and we're also OK under the single subject rule. The early initiatives we did (in 1999 and 2000) combined targeting a particular tax AND procedural taxpayer protections -- and in those cases, the court decided that our initiatives ran afoul of the single subject rule. After 10 years of various court rulings, some relating to our initiatives and some relating to other people's initiatives, we've learned how to survive the judiciary's gauntlet.
Bottom line, we're confident we've drafted an initiative that passes legal and constitutional muster. So the question is: do the voters support its provisions? If enough voters choose to sign our petitions to qualify our measure for the ballot, we'll have a multi-month debate about it.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on March 16, 2007 04:34 PMWhat would happen is the legislature would just give the 4,000 local governments in WA more taxing powers. Plus it would create more local governments to tax for perceived "needs." A bad, bad result. Local yokels ABUSE taxing powers. Plus, the legislature would create more appointee governments, where party loyalists gets to appoint who lays down the new taxes.
I'm telling you, make it tough for fees to get raised by state-level representatives, and there will be local yokels who are given huge new tax powers who'll take undue advantage.
Thought through that bad impact on people and families, initiative-guy?
Response to "just a lawyer" post #35:
We drafted and redrafted the initiative over the past year. We filed it a total of 14 times, improving it each time thanks to the feedback and input by many. Each time we had assistance and help from a broad range of people and organizations, including the Secretary of State's office, AG, Code Revisor's office, and lawmakers. The main attorney for the drafting of I-960 was Dick Stephens. His law firm in Bellevue, Groen, Stephens, and Klinge, have litigated most of the "emergency clause" abuses by the Legislature and they're handling the recent lawsuit against the Legislature's disregard for Initiative 601. There's no one that knows better the sneaky, underhanded ways the Legislature has found to raise taxes and fees -- in response to those, I-960 is an effective, legal, and constitutional initiative with provisions that will substantially protect taxpayers.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on March 17, 2007 08:23 AMResponse to "Awake" post #34:
I guess it's alot to ask for you to actually take the time to READ the initiative.
the 2/3's threshold is for tax increases only, not fee increases.
it simply makes no sense that when the voters approve an initiative that makes it tougher to raise taxes that that will result in more tax increases. quite the contrary, the passage of I-960 will send a clear message from the taxpayers that they don't support higher taxes. by your logic, we should do nothing and that will result in fewer tax increases. that's absurd.
the passage of I-960 will help taxpayers; it's defeat will hurt taxpayers.
who's side are you on?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative on March 17, 2007 04:47 PM