A week ago, Stefan emailed me and said I could post at Sound Politics from now until election day. Whaddya think - good idea?
Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat's Sunday column looks like a great place to start "AN EYMAN KIND OF YEAR AT THE POLLS"
His column's finale: Everyone's against Eyman, as usual. But it sure seems like his spirit is dominating the debate.
On Wednesday, Gregoire rang the dinner bell for tax hikes saying she's open to anything that 'lawmakers and interest groups' ask for.
What do you think -- if Gregoire is so opposed to Initiative 1033, why would she say something that so obviously illustrates why the measure is necessary?
Posted by Tim Eyman at October 04, 2009 07:46 AM | Email ThisIt's funny that the link provided is disabled by the publisher and I was redirected to the homepage.
Governor Gregoire's announcement with State Senator Lisa Brown drew more unfavorable comments in every paper that I read on the subject of the state wanting to raise taxes. How about more cutting of the fat in government and the entitlements in education. How about reducing fraud in government and waste?
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/2009/functional.asp#tech
If I were Governor, I would pin Washington State's Medal of Freedom on Mr. Eyeman for keeping State Government in check with the people's wallets. The people agree with Mr. Eyeman and want accountability and fiscal responsibility in government by passing these initiatives and referendums on these things he introduces each election, since our government representatives will not.
Posted by: John W. Aiken, Jr. on October 4, 2009 11:47 AMBtw, welcome to SP, Tim.
Posted by: Michele on October 4, 2009 04:06 PMBurqa Shave.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on October 4, 2009 05:23 PMWhere is the pork? Where the cuts?
Posted by: 2cents on October 4, 2009 07:41 PMVast conspiracy, with Bush stil at the controls, I'm telling you. As Goldy says, Eyman's move to level off spending after an spending spree under Gregoire is his most "vindictive, dangerous and mean-spirited initiative yet."
Posted by: I. Mahn-Breikh on October 5, 2009 02:21 AMBINGO.
One only needs to look at Calif. They are headed for "broke"
Tax, spend. Tax, spend, spend,spend!
Where the cuts? How about everywhere? People and business' have to cut budgets when they have less money coming in, right? So, government must also do the same, be it with layoffs, salary/pension reductions, not spending money trying to control the earth's climate, not giving college tax breaks to criminals, etc.
I know it's hard, but when you raise taxes enough, you start to receive less revenue than if you had not raised them at all. Conversely, cutting taxes can expand the economic pie, and while being less of a burden on individual tax payers, can increase revenue.
Your successes to date only illustrate how broken and unresponsive our government is and how sick we are of throwing good money after bad to people who put self-interest above representation.
Please don't beat your chest and regard support of any of your initiatives as validation of you personally, because you aren't so very different from Ms. Gregoire or Mr. Westneat.
That said I will always consider the merit of any initiative on the ballot and vote for or against It - not for or against Gregoire, you, or anyone else.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on October 5, 2009 06:52 AMEyman's response: far from it (see today's update):
RE: Polling the "Eyman factor" -- Is Tim Eyman good for Washington or bad for Washington?
For over 10 years, opponents of our measures have deluded themselves into believing that if they attacked Tim Eyman aggressively enough, then support for our initiatives would dry up. We've always believed and responded that voters base their ballot box decisions on the merits of our proposals, not on their opinion of one of its sponsors. Nonetheless, the drumbeat by opponents has persisted.
We were curious about its effectiveness, so we decided to test the "Eyman factor." After polling the ballot title for Initiative 1033 (which stands at a whopping 61% yes, 31% no, 8% not sure), here's what 500 likely voters were asked:
Tim Eyman has sponsored several tax initiatives over the years. Eyman�s critics say that he is abusing the initiative process. Eyman�s supporters say that he is simply giving the voters additional options. Which of the following two statements best reflects your opinion:
Tim Eyman is good for Washington because he�s fighting for taxpayers ====== 48%
Tim Eyman is bad for Washington because he�s hurting government services == 11%
Not sure == 41%
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/ 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
We didn't know what to expect when we asked this question. But frankly, we, like many of you, were curious if the "Eyman factor" was a net plus, a net minus, or a total non-issue. The poll's results are very clear and confirm what we've been saying all along -- the largest number of citizens like our efforts to give voters greater control over taxes, a small number don't like it, and another large chunk of people don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Regardless of their views on me personally, the citizens' votes on our initiatives are not tied to their like or dislike of me. Voters are making their ballot box decisions based on their own values and experiences related to the issue before them, nothing more.
For over 10 years, voters have considered our proposals and voted on our initiatives. They've voted � la carte, approving some and rejecting others. Voters have listened to us argue the merits of our proposals and voters have rolled their eyes while opponents have spent their time attacking me.
It clearly hasn't worked.
I-1033 has the support of 61% of likely voters, not because they think "Tim Eyman is good for Washington" but because they support I-1033's fiscal discipline and its' property tax relief policies. I-1033 has opposition from 31% of likely voters, not because they think "Tim Eyman is bad for Washington" but because they trust the politicians to decide what's best for us.
The fact that I-1033 is doing extraordinarily well in the polls shows that opponents' threats, lies and scare tactics are not working. If anything, their all-attack, no-alternative approach is backfiring. Everyone knows that opponents are getting desperate and will say anything from now until election day, fueled by millions of dirty dollars from Washington DC's most powerful government unions.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
And yeah, Gregoire is breaking her promise about tax cuts. It's weird she said that NOW ... it will only help I-1033 pass.
Tax cuts are not permanent. Tax cuts can be targeted to services that are "fat" or can take cuts without destroying our educational system, social services, health care, environment, etc. Like 1033 would.
Then when the economy turns around, as it inevitably will, the state can responsibly raise taxes where it makes sense--NOT lock them into to some draconian system whereby they are not allowed to raise taxes. Tying their hands. That's just not smart.
As you may know, Colorado tried a similar plan to your initiative a while back (TABOR). As you also probably know (or, given your promotion of 1033, maybe not), it was a complete disaster for their state--they didn't even have the funding to give their kids needed immunizations. It was so bad that Colorado voters, finally realizing the horrible mistake they had made, voted to rescind the law in 2005.
How is 1033 any different? I'm anxious to hear a reasonable, factual response--not some overblown rhetoric about "tax and spend liberals" or irreponsible government spending, or other conservative arguments that cutting taxes stimulates the economy (supply-side economics, or a George H. W. Bush once called it, "voodoo economics). That theory was soundly disproved after Reagan tried it--look it up and learn from history.
So, let's hear a response without the tired bromides. I've heard them all before, and they are specious.
Thanks.
BTW, I currently blog for Fuse Washington. If you want to respond over there, please go to fusewashington.org. I welcome your comments.
Posted by: DavidinGreenwood on October 5, 2009 09:55 AMThe fact of the matter is that continuing to do what we're doing is insanity. I appreciate that many, such as those sharing DIG's world view, don't give a damn how high our taxes get; those who don't actually have to pay them rarely do.
But the fact is this: Christine "born with a silver foot in her mouth" drove us to a $10 BILLION deficit. Her only real solution, particularly in the short and medium term, seems to be to raise our taxes in the midst of a horrific recession.
Brilliant.
Neither Christine nor you, Dave, offer ANY alternative, good or bad. When common sense prevails, and we come to understand that what we're continuing to do amounts to a recipe for disaster, and no one on the left offers up any alternative, then Tim wins by default.
In short, unless those of you so eager to take my hard-earned money away from me and spend it on yourselves come up with an alternative, an alternative that doesn't make Lisa Brown's leg tingle like a state income tax in addition to all of the other taxes we're paying, then Tim wins by default.
You and your ilk don't like 1033? Swell.
Come up with something better.
Otherwise.... you lose.
And BTW? I could care less what they did in Colorado. Whatever that was, if it didn't work, could be and apparently was, fixed.... just like the impacts of 1033 if they, in fact, turn out negative.
Meanwhile, we can cut pay and personnel to eliminate the deficit. The idea that only those of us PAYING the bills should feel the pain of this empty suited economy is bizarre.
And if the state employee unions don't like it... well, they can always quit, right? I mean, dozens not so choosy; dozens who would be thrilled to get ANY job would be more than happy to apply for ANY open state job, regardless of a reduced pay scale.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2009 10:14 AMEyman's response: we recently sent out an update that addresses this point. Here it is:
RE: 3 whoppers told by I-1033's opponents on KING 5's UPFRONT w/ Allen Schauffler
WHOPPER #1: "Well, Initiative 601 is still the law in this state and it's worked -- it's kept taxes down."
TRUTH: I-601's growth limit on government (inflation plus population growth) was in effect from 1993 through 2005. During that 12 year period, government continued to grow but at much more sustainable rate (growth averaged 8.9% after I-601, growth averaged 17.3% per biennium before I-601). But in 2005, Gregoire and the Democrats got rid of I-601's fiscal discipline, repealing the inflation-plus-population-growth limit and switching instead to a ten-year average of personal income growth -- this was effectively no limit at all (as the Washington Policy Center wrote: "Tying increases in public spending to the growth in the average of personal incomes artificially exaggerates the impact of wealthy people's incomes on state spending. Under this budget rule, state spending and taxation go up for everyone, even though not everyone's income has increased to keep pace."). That's why during Gregoire's first term, government growth exploded 33% over four years, which was completely unsustainable, inevitably leading to a massive $9 billion deficit.
12 years with I-601's fiscal discipline, 4 years without it. Voters have seen what happens without I-601's fiscal discipline and they want to bring it back.
I-1033 reestablishes I-601's reasonable growth limit of inflation and population growth, maintaining the 'safety valve' of voter approval for bigger increases, and providing 'first bite' to the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund for excess tax revenues with the remainder of excess tax revenues being refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes.
WHOPPER #2: Concerning Colorado's voters and the TABOR amendment: "They put it in place. They experimented with it for 10 years and they recently repealed it, they suspended it, and they expect to repeal it."
TRUTH: In 1992, Colorado voters approved TABOR and it remained in effect for 13 years. In 2005, opponents in the Legislature put Referendum C on the ballot and it suspended until 2010 the refund of excess tax revenue by state government (not all governments, just the state). The "suspend TABOR" forces raised and spent $12 million, the other side $2 million. It narrowly passed 52-48% in a low-turnout election. After three years without TABOR, in 2008, opponents put Amendment 59 on the ballot and it proposed to forever stop the refund of excess tax revenue by state government, dedicating it instead to education. The "permanent repeal" forces spent $6 million, the other side $200,000. Despite a huge turnout of liberal voters in a very "pro Obama" presidential year, the voters crushed the permanent repeal 58-42%.
So Colorado's voters had 13 years of experience with TABOR, put it on hold for a while, didn't like being without it, and so they voted to bring it back next year in 2010. This is hardly Colorado's voters 'repudiating' TABOR.
But just to be clear, I-1033 is much more flexible and focused than TABOR, so it will function much more like I-601 because of its 'safety valve' of voter approval and because it's subject to legislative change.
WHOPPER #3: "This is not Initiative 601. This a remake of the initiative in Colorado called the TABOR initiative."
TRUTH: KING 5's Allen Schauffler couldn't stomach that falsehood, replying: "There are very important differences between this and Colorado. Colorado's is a constitutional amendment ... this one (I-1033) seems to have more pressure valves that people can vote for tax increases on a local level if they want to. Not every government is affected, etc. Tim, what are some of the differences?"
As Allen pointed out, TABOR is a constitutional amendment -- it couldn't be amended by the Legislature; I-1033, like I-601, is a law, providing the Legislature with flexibility to change it. TABOR encompassed every government - school districts, library districts, fire districts, ports, public utility districts, etc. I-1033 focuses only on the state, counties and cities. TABOR put a limit on every governmental account and every tax dollar received, including transportation funds, pension funds, capital budgets, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance funds, federal funds, etc. I-1033, like I-601, only addresses the general fund. TABOR didn't allow rainy day funds. I-1033, like I-601, gives 'first bite' of excess tax revenues to the rainy day fund. TABOR didn't exclude federal funds; I-1033 explicitly does. TABOR prohibited governments from borrowing money except with voter approval; I-1033, like I-601, has nothing like that. TABOR required voter approval for any tax and fee increase by any government; I-1033, like I-601, doesn't. TABOR was very, very broad and inflexible - I-1033, like I-601, is very focused with plenty of flexibility.
Initiative 1033 contains proven policy which is eminently reasonable -- it allows government an automatic increase every year equal to the growth of the economy. It has a built-in safety valve, the same as I-601: if government thinks the automatic increase isn't a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more. I-1033, just like I-601, allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast government grows and how big a tax burden we can afford.
What's wrong with bringing back I-601's fiscal discipline?
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Posted by: Tim Eyman on October 5, 2009 10:15 AM
This is not a correct statement for two reasons. One, you choose an assumption that all spending is equal, which is not true. For example, spending on infrastructure (roads etc.), has a greater return on investment than say spending on office supplies. Private individuals are not allowed to build highways (last time I checked). Another example is education spending.
The second reason your statement is incorrect relates to the state of the economy. For businesses to provide goods and services, they need customers. Customers need cash flow in order to purchase those goods and services. The problem with the recent economic retraction is that no matter the cash on hand to consumers (let's say all taxes returned), they and businesses could not leverage this spending due to the banking situation. In order for money to flow, there needs to be lines of credit. With the credit market frozen, businesses could not borrow money to replenish/stock inventory and consumers were tapped out with their own credit lines and could not get more. This set up a situation of declining demand for goods and services (a downward economic spiral). In this case, the market does not have the mechanisms built in to correct the downward spiral. This is the classic Keynesian situation (i.e., situation where Keynes economic philosophy does address). Without government intervention to the banks and spending, the economy would continue and increase the velocity of the free fall (a second great depression). Read Bernake's input on the subject matter. He studied the great depression and the factors going into it. Monterist (Friedman) based philosophies could not address the financial situation. The Fed can not cut interest rates below zero. Supply-Side economics (Laffner) assumes a demand for goods and services and therefore only addresses the supply side of the equation.
The bottom line lesson is economics is a complex beast. No one economic policy is the golden rule that can be used in all situations. The lesson to be learned is what each economic philosophy addresses and when and where to apply them. It isn't a simple cut taxes all the time, everytime situation.
Posted by: tc on October 5, 2009 03:40 PMFor example, let's take education funding, which is a major portion of state funding. On the one hand, the people have voted via initiatives that they want smaller classrooms and the state to meet its obligation regarding basic education funding. The legislature in turn continues to shift money away from education to fund other activities and assumes local districts will make up the funding through local levies. Well enough is enough, in my mind. It is time the state defines what basic education entails and covers the expense, instead of depending on local school levies to make up funding shortfalls.
This is just one area I would like to see you get more specific on with your initiatives, instead of the general "clamps" on the overall revenue and allowing the legislature to play the shell game with the funds. All the clamps/restrictions on tax increases does is allow the legislature to continue to fund everything at a reduced amount. Well some agencies (Social and Health Services, for example), have grown way beyond their mission. Yet, what gets whacked? Not DSHS. Education is the main one that gets wacked because the legislators believe local school districts can make it up through levies.
Posted by: tc on October 5, 2009 03:50 PMDon't let them bog you down with "get into specfics with us." The fact is that it's their job to make the best use of a LIMITED amount of money not find ever increasing reasons to take more of ours. You're only reminding them of what their job is.
Be glad the idiots demonize you Tim. I know that every time I watch the collective liberal whining grow loudest its time to pop another donation check in to you. I know I'm not alone on that.
Posted by: johnny on October 5, 2009 04:26 PMPosted by Rick D. at October 4, 2009 09:04 AM "
Rick--
Danny wears a button-up sweater tied around his neck, irons his jeans and wears these shoes that look like elf-shoes. His mom dresses him every day.
It's a simple question. What government services are you going to tell your Legislators, city and county councils to cut?
You propose $9 billion dollars in cuts are you going to call your elected officials or continue to smugly insult them?
Posted by: sillious on October 5, 2009 06:33 PMWhen the state doesn't get as much money as it used to, it must do what everyone else does who get less money. I know it's not good. I know it sucks, but it is possible to actually reduce spending.
No matter what the department heads say, there is probably 15-20% that could be cut from every budget without hurting primary mission. They need to learn to make do with less, rethink their goals, and come up with new procedures to do the same job with less funds.
It might seem painful at the start, but it's amazing what can be done if forced to do so.
My family is adamant that they will not pay any higher taxes to this state and we will move to a lower-tax state before we'll pay any more than we currently do. It's depraved to work until mid-August just to pay taxes and should not be necessary if the state had the interests of its taxpayers in mind when setting its budget.
Posted by: Clean House on October 6, 2009 10:07 AM"Probably." But what if not?
Posted by: John Jensen on October 6, 2009 04:17 PMThe state budget for 2009-2011 cut $3.3 billion dollars.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 6, 2009 04:26 PMWill wonders never cease.
Posted by: hinton on October 6, 2009 05:03 PMWill wonders never cease.
Posted by: hinton on October 6, 2009 05:04 PM