Is there a broad desire for limits on government right now? You bet. The KING 5 SURVEYUSA poll confirms that. They didn't poll I-1033's official title, the one that will appear on voters' ballots in November, instead the people were read a 'slice' of I-1033: "Initiative 1033 would limit spending for state, county, and local governments." So without being told that I-1033 allows governments to grow at inflation and population growth, that I-1033 allows bigger increases with voter approval, that I-1033 lowers property taxes -- all information that's in I-1033's official title -- even so, I-1033's way ahead with 45% yes, 32% no, and 22% undecided (always remember, those 'undecideds' gotta go somewhere).
The Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters who were read I-1033's official 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") showed it at 61% yes, 31% no, 8% undecided.
What's interesting is that on August 26th, we sent the following email to SURVEYUSA:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Eyman [mailto:tim_eyman@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:54 PM
To: 'editor@surveyusa.com'
Subject: Question from WA state
We have a ballot measure on the November 2009 ballot in Washington state -- it's Initiative 1033. Based on past experience, your company will eventually do polling on it for KING 5 TV.
If/when you do the polling, please strongly consider polling the exact wording of the ballot title, rather than paraphrasing it.
Here is the actual ballot title that will appear on the November ballot:
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.
Let me know if you have any questions about it. Thanks.
Regards, Tim Eyman, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Leve, Jay [mailto:jleve@surveyusa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Tim Eyman
Subject: RE: Question from WA state
Message received, Tim.
We will take your concern under advisement.
Jay H Leve
SurveyUSA
Apparently, KING 5 demanded that their recent polling question only provide limited information about I-1033.
And that, frankly, is the entire campaign strategy by opponents of I-1033. Talk about Colorado, talk about Tim Eyman, talk about anything other than what I-1033 does. Fortunately, voters are savvy enough to see through it. They've heard it all before. Remember, Washington state had these same limits on the growth of government for 12 years, from 1993 through 2005, and it worked very well -- government grew, but at much more sustainable rate. Once Gregoire and the Democrats took control of Olympia in 2005, their first action was getting rid of I-601's inflation-plus-population growth limit (Senate Bill 6078 --http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6078&year=2005) And what followed was Gregoire's first term which involved a fiscal roller coaster resulting in a $9 billion deficit. If they'd continued with I-601's fiscal discipline from 2005 through 2009 -- if they hadn't removed I-601's growth limit -- there wouldn't have been a wrenching $9 billion deficit. Their lack of self-discipline is the reason I-1033 is necessary. Gregoire's recent clarion call for tax hikes -- answered enthusiastically by pro-state-income-tax Lisa Brown and let's-tax-candy-and-gum Jeanne Kohl-Welles -- illustrates the necessity of I-1033 (http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/taxes-taxes-taxes-should-candy-be-taxed-income-an-update/)
315,000 citizens signed I-1033 petitions because they know government keeps getting bigger and bigger and property tax bills keep going higher and higher. The people are demanding greater control. The reason there's such broad support for I-1033 is because it's a totally reasonable policy -- it allows the government to grow but at a sustainable rate that doesn't outpace the taxpayers' ability to afford it. It includes a safety valve allowing even faster government growth with voter approval. And it provides meaningful property tax relief not by slashing government tax revenues, but by simply controlling their growth.
In their own twisted minds Liberals like to think of themselves as standing on the side of "the children" and society's downtrodden. Read the BS tag line at the bottom of the sunday Seattle Times Editorial page. Its part of their core belief system to define themselves as caring, compassionate advocates and to need others to acknowledge them as such.
The problem is that they (the Libs) are systematically destroying the economic engine of this state and this nation via punitive and targetted taxation (targetted at the 40-50% of the population who get to pay for everyone-else). Libs are *not* caring, compassionate people. Passing along trillions of dollars of debt onto future generations while *also* destroying the economic engine of this country is not "helping the children". Engineering society so that a minority of citizens pay the overwhelming majority of taxes does not make a fair or healthy society. Throwing money at dysfunctional, rotten organizations (Seattle public schools for example) does not cause test scores or graduation rates to rise. What is the Liberal solution? Demand more money from the public "for the children", spend huge amounts of public treasure and lower the grade average required for High School graducation from a C to D. Look at any government run by Libs (Detroit, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, ad nauseum) and you will find a dysfunctional cesspool of excessive taxation, corruption and decline. That is what they are going to attempt to do to Washington State and to the nation at large over the next three years.
Posted by: attila on October 8, 2009 08:34 AMI wish that I could go to the people that write my paychecks and say "Give me more money because I can't control my spending". Wonder how well that would work?
Posted by: Vince on October 8, 2009 08:49 AMWhat is the truth about this story in Colorado?
As you know, the three-pronged approach of the 'NO' campaigners has been:
(1) 1033 wants to fire all teachers and benevolent public servants, whose occupations are so noble they may as well all be demigods.
(2) 1033 wants to bring our children back to Dark Age literacy rates by closing down all schools.
(3) It destroyed the state of Colorado.
The first two are obviously dishonest, but what is the story with Colorado?
Why is 1033 different?
Posted by: gulliver on October 8, 2009 10:56 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 10:58 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 10:59 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:00 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:01 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:02 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:03 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:04 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:05 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:06 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:07 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:09 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:10 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:11 AMTim:
A good follow up to this initiative after it passes is to make the votes to increase budgets be done near April 15th.
Or alternatively make all property taxes due November 1st.
Some how we need to tie taxes to elections in voters mind. Once we do this we will start seeing less tax and spend politicians elected to office.
Posted by: Lysander on October 8, 2009 11:12 AM
http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2009/09/colorado-economics-professor-defends-i1033.html
Yah, that's a hoot---when they are in favor of abortion, yet. How is favoring tearing children apart to pieces being pro-child??
Posted by: Michele on October 8, 2009 11:23 AMJust remember: if they had been right about 601, 695, or even 200 for that matter, the Earth's axis would have tilted and we would have all been dead by now.
When unions oppose it, we're best served by being for it.
When the lying scum in the WEA come out in opposition, then I know I'm for it. When democrats want it, it's best to be opposed.
And as the "no" campaign has pr oven, there is no lie these scum won't claim, over and over and over again in ways that would have made both Goebbels AND Baghdad Bob envious.
Posted by: hinton on October 8, 2009 01:43 PMWashington state 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.
Colorado's 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.
What do you mean by "artificially"? The numbers are real, wealthy people pay more taxes, and they will pay a larger share of tax increases as well.
"Under this budget rule, state spending and taxation go up for everyone, even though not everyone's income has increased to keep pace."
It's true that some people's income goes up by less than average, and some by more. So?
"Initiative 1033 contains proven policy which is eminently reasonable -- it allows government an automatic increase every year equal to the growth of the economy."
If only you were telling the truth. "Growth of the economy" is measured by personal income, or production, or the like. I-1033 relies on population growth plus inflation, which is totally different from "growth of the economy". This is such a big difference that I am having trouble believing you made an honest mistake here.
Posted by: Bruce on October 8, 2009 03:14 PMLooking at demographics, one should be able to fairly accurately predict the number of children of school age, and thus the number of class rooms and teachers required to provide for their education. This number will not, in aggregate fluctuate significantly based on economic activity (though the breakdown between public and private classroom seats would be affected by a prolonged recession).
Similarly, the number of police officers required to patrol the streets probably won't change much based on economic fluctuations. The same logic applies to many other areas of public life.
The idea that government should cost more merely because some of the citizenry have more money today than they had yesterday, or less because they have less (average income), is specious.
Posted by: mark on October 8, 2009 03:39 PMOn the other hand, I believe that, as society grows richer in real terms, we should increase our standard of living in all ways. Government represents civilization's way of collectively taking action, and government spending represents civilization's way of collectively spending. Of course we won't increase spending evenly in all categories; we will tend to increase spending on basics less, and on "luxuries" (or what were previously considered luxuries) more. Government funds some of both (at least in reality; I know some conservatives believe it should only fund basics).
For the above reasons, I think the best way to determine spending levels is to have the citizenry elect leaders who make those decisions based on evolving needs and resources. But if we have to impose numerical limits, tracking income makes more sense to me than population+inflation.
Posted by: Bruce on October 8, 2009 04:40 PMHowever, services need to be paid for, and I-1033 will make this very difficult. So I would just ask you supporters:
What, EXACTLY are you going to cut from the state budget that will "save billions". Will you cut number of schools? teachers? services for the homeless? the King County Health department? Road construction?
Limit state taxation power, and we'll become like Colorado, or California. Or, worse, like Texas.
Posted by: Proteus on October 15, 2009 06:54 AM