Polls, polls, so many polls. On September 22nd, a Rasmussen poll of I-1033's ballot title (This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies) among 500 likely voters showed it at 61% yes, 31% no, 8% undecided. That's a 30 point lead with just a few weeks to go. YIPPEE!!!
Here's the breakdown of that poll by demographic group (some darn interesting numbers here):
Today, KING 5's SURVEYUSA had these results among likely voters: 45% yes, 32% no, 22% no certain. But they didn't read voters I-1033's ballot title, instead they asked "Initiative 1033 would limit spending for state, county, and local governments." So without being told that I-1033 lowers property taxes, that I-1033 allows governments to grow at inflation and population growth, that I-1033 allows bigger increases with voter approval -- all information that's in I-1033's ballot title -- even so, I-1033's way ahead.
Stuart Elway's poll, which consistently understates the level of support our initiatives receive on election day, has I-1033's ballot title results at 46% yes, 22% no, 32% undecided (don't forget, those undecided's gotta go somewhere).
So while opponents spend millions of Washington DC's dirty dollars spreading their threats, lies, and scare tactics, they're clearly in a hole.
In 12 years, I've never seen an initiative that fits the times as well as Initiative 1033 does. Voters seem especially eager to send a message of fiscal discipline to the politicians.
What do you think?
http://publicola.net/?attachment_id=15028
Posted by Tim Eyman at October 06, 2009 06:01 PM | Email ThisMy next door neighbor has been out of work for a year. He needs a property tax increase like he needs a hole in the head..
Posted by: Michele on October 6, 2009 07:08 PMThere are also some major groups coming out against it, like the realtors and Washington Roundtable. I even heard that Susan Hutchison is against it.
Don't get complacent. This could easily go down.
Posted by: janet s on October 6, 2009 09:00 PMThese liberal clowns persist in profligate spending and tax raising in the midst of the Obama Depression. We, the taxpayers (as opposed to the non-taxpaying groups - aka, democrat constituencies), need some sand thrown in the red's gears because the governement spending and debt being racked up by liberals borders on the criminal. It is generational theft in that liberals are saddling my children and grandchildren with a debt burden and ruined economy from which we, as a nation, may not emerge. In the past, cyclical upturns in the private sector economy led the way in recession recoveries. Thanks to president hopey-changey and his democrats, the private sector will be very hard pressed to emerge from this depression with the means to expand employment. The citizens of Washington must force their incompetent "leaders" to prioritize government spending just like all of our families must prioritize spending. Police, fire and EMS should be exempted. All state union contracts need to be re-negotiated with the state acting as an agent on behalf of the taxpayers (instead of colluding with the SEIU and AFCSME).
Posted by: attila on October 7, 2009 06:46 AMGo figure.
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on October 7, 2009 11:46 AMresponse: 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.
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.
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?
Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes (they actually think taxpayers are UNDERTAXED!??!!). Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to stop politicians from unilaterally raising taxes and fees. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes.
We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
With that said, if (when) this passes, our various legislative bodies will immediately find the most punitive ways to "punish" us for our votes. I like to call this the "band and football" approach to budget shortfalls; a reference to how schools punish voters who vote no on levies. They won't cut middle management, they won't cut needless waste, they will cut the very things that government should be providing.
Who cares if a State Legislator has to cut his full time administrative staff? Nobody! But we sure care of firefighters and police officers (those on the front lines, not support staff) are cut. And that is exactly what they will do. This is going to be punitive, and it is going to be painful. Not because it needs to be, rather to "punish" us for our vote.
I'm with you Tim; now we just need to do the follow up and make sure the right areas are trimmed.