Governor Gregoire called a special session of the Legislature in November, 2007 and she and the Democrats adopted the 1% limit after the court's rejection of I-747.
So Governor, please explain yourself: you signed the 1% cap into law, what's wrong with a much higher inflation-and-population growth limit under I-1033?
Governor, in every state of the state address given by you, you've said that Olympia needs to get off the fiscal roller coaster. But your top legislative priority in 2005, your first year as Governor, was Senate Bill 6078 which got rid of I-601's inflation-plus-population-growth limit which led directly to the worst fiscal roller coaster in Washington state history. Your decision to push for and sign that law directly contradicted your pledge and perpetuated and super-sized Olympia's fiscal roller coaster ending in a $9 billion deficit.
Governor, when you were a candidate in 2004, you said "I'm not talking about taxes" but in 2005, you reversed yourself and imposed taxes anyway. After the voters in 2007 approved Initiative 960 requiring two-thirds legislative approval for tax increases, you, as a candidate in 2008, said "Now is not the time to raise taxes" and stuck with that position for the two years following I-960's passage. But two weeks after David Rolfe of the SEIU instructed Democrats to push for higher taxes because I-960's two years expire at the end of 2009, you reversed yourself again and said you were now in favor of whatever taxes "lawmakers and interest groups" wanted. I-1033 stops your new tax-hiking agenda before it even starts because under I-1033, the only way state, county, and city politicians can take more of the people's money -- with higher taxes, increased fees, or jacked up property valuations or assessments -- is to ask their permission at the ballot box.
So with I-1033, you will be able to stick with your 2009 promise to not raise taxes because, as you said repeatedly, raising taxes in the middle of the recession will only make the recession last longer.
So let's get this straight, you were against the 1% limit until you signed it into law. You favor a 1% cap but oppose a much higher limit of inflation-and-population growth. You are against fiscal roller coasters yet you repeal laws that prevent them. You were against tax hikes, then favored tax hikes, then were against tax hikes, and now you're in favor of tax hikes again.
Given your history of flip-flopping, we're confident that should voters approve Initiative 1033 in November, you will become I-1033's fiercest advocate after the election.
Governor, your decision to follow SEIU David Rolfe's orders and to push a tax hiking agenda has provided ample motivation to our opponents -- $2.6 million and counting from Washington DC's most powerful government unions -- they clearly realize that I-1033 prohibits state, county, and city politicians from taking more of the people's money unless voters approve. That's why they're going bonkers -- opponents know that it's easier to buy a politician than it is to persuade a taxpayer.
It's pure fiscal irresponsibility -- you're advocating for getting off the "fiscal roller coaster" by throwing everyone in the state off at the top. If I wanted to live in Craphole, Mississippi, Mr. Eyman, I would have friggin' moved there.
Posted by: demo kid on October 13, 2009 08:43 AMBetween the Legislative body and Governor Chris Gregoire, the end of the day conclusion is one of significant failure.
No doubt the job of 'State Governor' is one of the toughest in the country. Perhaps it would be best left in the hands of someone with the gumption to actually follow through on ones campaign promises.
Posted by: Boxxerace on October 13, 2009 09:25 AMQuestion: And what then, is your solution? Continue to amount record debt and pile more loans upon loans? There is no perfect solution and the consequences will fall where they may, just like the rest of us in the real world.
The Governor isn't taking orders from the SEIU.
The Governor hasn't proposed a tax increase for this session.
The Governor is going just as bonkers as the guy who insists on typing his headlines in all caps.
Your short-sighted, resentment-driven initiative will take the restoration sales and b&o tax revenue from their depths during the recession, and use it to subsidize the reduction of property taxes. It is not a cap on property taxes, it's a permanent crippling of vital government services such as education, health care, police, fire protection, and transportation. I-1033 puts the government into a permanent recession budget.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 10:29 AMThe state has no debt nor no loans related to the general fund. None at all.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 10:35 AMI am not a piggy bank for the Liberals, SEIU, AFCSME and WEA to raid.
How about asking the public to approve specific line funding?
IOW, why not break down the funding requests so that the people can vote on what exactly they wish to fund? For instance, we could be asked to specifically authorize funding to police, fire and emergency services. We could also be asked seperately whether or not we want to fund in-state tuition for illegal aliens, or sex change operations for convicted felons, etc.
I think it is self-evident why liberals will never allow critical services to be unlinked from their crap social engineering programs.
Vote for I-1033.
Posted by: Attila on October 13, 2009 11:33 AMGee. I heard this bullshit when 601 passed. I heard this bullshit when 695 passed. I heard this bullshit when 747 passed.
Yet somehow, miraculously, the state managed to increase spending by eight freaking billion dollars over just the past four years.
And I'll be darned if I don't see municipalities and junior taxing districts purchasing new vehicles, negotiating pay increases and doing just fine with all those insidious initiatives that were forced upon them.
In other words, Mr. Jensen, you're full of it. Your scare tactics didn't work before, and they won't work this time.
Besides, since you're so generous with other people's money, why don't you open up your wallet and pay more? Oh, that's right. You'd rather have government do your dirty work and confiscate it from me.
Well, I've had about enough of collectivists like you. The good news is eventually you're going to run out of other people's money to spend. And then you know what? I won't be here to bail your ass out.
Posted by: jimg on October 13, 2009 12:26 PMNot a single one of those bills capped government revenues. And none of them came with a provision that uses a deep recession budget as the baseline. I-1033 puts the government into a permanent recession budget.
Well, I've had about enough of collectivists like you. The good news is eventually you're going to run out of other people's money to spend. And then you know what? I won't be here to bail your ass out.
Collectivism? You mean like using my sales taxes and my work's b&o taxes to pay for your property taxes? Why don't you pay for your own damn taxes instead of stealing my revenue from the government? Oh, right. Must be because when idiotic government policies benefit you, it's capitalism. When the government policies benefits society, it's marxism.
And what happens when the state depends solely on sales taxes and b&o taxes that are far more volatile than property taxes? Well, recession budgets will be even worse than this one and there will be deeper and deeper budget cuts just when people depend on the safety nets more than ever.
But what's responsible analysis when you can just conclude that taxes are evil?
doing just fine with all those insidious initiatives that were forced upon them
Metro transit has a $100 million deficit. It is impossible to separate that from Eyman's initiatives. There are numerous examples, jimg -- but an effective government doesn't try to teach the citizens a lesson for their votes, it tries to move on and deal with constraints. Sooner or later those constraints catch up though. Colorado and California are great examples.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 01:36 PM(You asked, "And what then, is your solution? Continue to amount record debt and pile more loans upon loans?") Debt and loans for general funds are prohibited. So, no, that isn't the solution. And asking those questions I think shows a misunderstanding of I-1033.
I-1033 does not constrains government revenues, not budget growth. The "solution" is to not force sales and b&o taxpayers to subsidize the cutting of property taxes, and let the new revenues that will come from ending the recession fund a restoration of many basic services that were cut during the recession.
I-1033 makes the problems you hint at with the term "debt" and "loans" much worse. Every single budget, the government will be a precipice of deciding whether to cut vital services or have a [annual] public vote to keep taxes at current levels. I-1033 doesn't cut taxes responsibly, it does it irresponsibly and indiscriminately. It makes sales and b&o taxpayers subsidize your property taxes.
I-1033 locks government into a recession budget permanently. It is irresponsible.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 01:50 PMHmmm, any unfunded liabilities that are growing by leaps and bounds by chance?
Quite the disingeneous argument. Shame on you.
Posted by: Marmstro on October 13, 2009 01:51 PMAgain. The state has no debt nor loans related to the general fund. Your weird implication otherwise is completely wrong.
Do you even care about making a cogent point? Is your solution to unfunded liabilities to... unfund them with I-1033? Give me a break.
I-1033 locks government into a recession budget permanently. And those rainy day funds at local, county, and state governments are going away. Those one-time fixes happened. I-1033 is fiscally irresponsible.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 02:00 PMJensen, do you HAVE to be such a lying scumbag?
It "locks" NOTHING into ANYTHING.
Is there ANYTHING in I-1033 that says, once enacted, it can't be trashed? Is there anything in it that says it can't be amended? It can't be gotten rid of? It can't be tossed out in the legislature by a what, supermajority in the legislature and a simple majority in 2 years... or by the same people who voted it in, in the first place?
The problem here is that I know you're lying with every post. And the fact is this: We DID hear the same kind of bullshit from your lying ilk over 601, 695, and 747. That those initiatives didn't contain 1033 language isn't the issue. The issue is you lying scum promised the same kinds of disaster then that you promise now.
You were lying then, and you're lying now.
Neither you nor any of the other scum you're shilling for have offered any alternative, as if one doesn't exist. You don't like this one? Swell, then put something else out there that's better.
Except you and your kind don't WANT anything better. You WANT the current system of indebting future generations to continue. You WANT cradle to grave socialism.
Screw that, and screw you.
Posted by: Hinton on October 13, 2009 02:41 PMBright idea, genius: Don't pass I-1033 in the first place, and the legislature won't need to save us from disaster in two years.
I-1033 locks government into a recession budget permanently. That's what the law says. Yes, future events can change that fact. In fact, they will, because I-1033 is unsustainable and irresponsible. It's so unsustainable and irresponsible that we shouldn't even vote it into law. We shouldn't wait for the legislature to fix it later. We should reject it now.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 03:04 PMReally?
Well, I guess to do mean literally. You will be screwing me out of my sales tax dollars to subsidize your property taxes. Why are you such a Marxist, Hinton?
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 03:13 PM''you signed the 1% cap into law, what's wrong with a much higher inflation-and-population growth limit under I-1033?''
One obvious answer:
SEIU, WEA, State employees, and etcetera ''D'' constituents who perceive themselves as benefitting from public largess don't like it.
Even more fundamentally, both within WA and nationally the ''D'' party has an overwhelming socialist predispostion towards ''spreading the wealth''; i.e.: ''Income redistribution''. Of course they don't directly use those words, but that's what it amounts to.
Given halloween is almost upon us:
Got a great cartoon from a friend of mine the other day:
It shows 3 kids out trick-or-treating. They've been at it for quite a while; have lots of candy in their sacks.
Then they come to a house where the guy comes out and sez:
''I see you kids have lots of candy. I'm going to take half of your candy and give it to kids who have been too lazy to put in the time and effort to go trick-or-treating themselves.''
Out of the corner of his mouth one of the kids mumbles:
''Oh, crap: A Democrat''.
Sums it all up pretty well.
Posted by: Methow Ken on October 13, 2009 04:08 PMFirst, it's not permanent, if the voters can approve an increase in revenue--as they could under this initiative.
What bothers me is that revenue could only bounce back up with the coming economic growth part of the business cycle if the voters approve.
I don't see why we need to approve the natural increase in tax revenues that occurs when the economy recovers from this recession.
Posted by: Micajah on October 13, 2009 04:20 PMWithout further voter or state legislative action, this initiative locks our state, our cities, and our counties into deep recession budgets. While it's true that further action could change this result, let's cut out the middle-man and reject this bad initiative out of hand.
I don't see why we need to approve the natural increase in tax revenues that occurs when the economy recovers from this recession.
Me neither. You make a good point.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 13, 2009 04:49 PMWe hear things like that all the time, and while we bitch and complain about it and mumble that the boss doesn't understand, we end up doing it. Year after year.
When - if ever - has the government been through a similar challenge? Ever?
The very best reason to cap the taxes in this state is to push politicians towards making tough choices. As long as they live in a fairy tale world where everytime money gets tight they can up the tax rate, they won't make any attempt to become more efficient and say no to dump expenditures.
I hear how tight money is this year, but I was at a local event a few weeks ago, and there was a government agency giving away energy efficient lightbulbs by the hundreds. This was in Issaquah - not exactly a low-income neighborhood. I go to a country fair and there are multiple 10x10 booths staffed with state and local government employees giving away coloring books, plastic hates, and other chatchkas? (One was even giving away free carwash coupons for the local Brown Bear, which probably cost a few bucks apiece.)
And the worst part isn't the chatchkas themselves, it's the fact that those booths cost hundreds of dollars to rent and the the employees working the booths are probably earning 5 or 10x as much as just about everyone else working a booth.
Now, how come our tax dollars pay for crap like that if money is so tight?
This is the small stuff. How about multi-million dollar new ferries that don't get big out? Those electronic "emergency" signs that went up all over the place that never manage to say anything productive?
Just this small list of issues probably results in eating up all the taxes of people in a decent size neighborhood for an entire year. There are tons of instances of crap like this that need to stop.
I guess I don't understand the problem with forcing a revolution. Others seem to think it's ok on some issues, but a bloated, overspend happy government doesn't need a financial revolution....
What crap.
I am tired of people thinking that what we are spending right now is ok. That our current spending levels are the constant of the equation. They are not.
It is clearly the time to decide what is important. If mandated belt-tightening does the trick, so be it.
Posted by: Chris on October 13, 2009 07:01 PMUncontrolled spending by the Democrat state legislature in California coupled with excessive taxation are two of the prime causes of California's budget crisis. Now Democrats are hard at work on replicating their California success in Washington. Let's throw a monkey wrench into their schemes and pass I-1033.
Again, my income and property are not a piggy bank for you and your kind to raid.
Posted by: attila on October 13, 2009 07:25 PMIf it does pass....will Queen Christine finally go and tax the Tribes profits? Cash a plenty to be had.
Posted by: Dengle on October 13, 2009 08:21 PMThe millions they are spending for these disengenous commercials is sign of sallow people that don't earn their money.
Posted by: HW on October 13, 2009 10:35 PMThe millions they are spending for these disengenous commercials is sign of sallow people that don't earn their money.
Posted by: HW on October 13, 2009 10:35 PMAnd what does Gregoire have to do with your initiatve hosing local governments closest to the people that never signed up to your little delusion of an initiative and Daddy Warbucks patron?
Come clean Tim! You've BECOME the establishment and profiting off crap that you spew.
Folks, Tim tries selling this as democracy, but he's striving for anarchy and wants to fill the void the he creates with more of his ulterior initiatives and profit along the way.
At least when banks screw you they put it in fine print. He puts on a monkey suit, plays a tune....all the while trying to sneak a digit in your backside.
He's become corrupt and a liar.
Posted by: Mikey on October 13, 2009 10:57 PMBut my sales taxes and b&o taxes are something for you to raid, you subsidize your property taxes. I'm glad you agree with redistribution of wealth -- as long as it hurts poor people the hardest.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 14, 2009 09:46 AMI don't think it would affect the state's response to that situation, since the initiative limits the increase in the state's general fund revenue, not its revenue for highway purposes.
Posted by: Micajah on October 14, 2009 11:18 AMrizzo has to have an opinion even when he hasn't a clue...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on October 14, 2009 12:37 PM"Excess" B&O and sale tax revenue will be used to pay for the reduction in property taxes. In other words, instead of our money going toward actual services, it's going to be paying for some other person's tax break. Yet another reason that I-1033 is idiotic.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 14, 2009 01:17 PMAs for a reply to yours vs my taxes....I think you are stating that I'd be taking money from you because property taxes kept at a marginal rate. Your thinking is false unless you think your sales and B&O taxes would be raised to get the money our gov thinks it needs to provide for us by not raising property taxes at say 8%.
Another question....Do you believe we need to have all the services provided currently? Where can we really reduce government and spending? There are some...services to illegal citizens is a start.
Posted by: Dengle on October 14, 2009 04:38 PMThat's not correct. Property taxes would be cut by funding from sales and b&o tax revenue. And yes, property taxes would eventually fall to zero. So I'd be paying for your tax cut. You're welcome.
Since b&o and sales tax revenue is more volatile than property tax revenue, relying solely on these two sources is fiscally irresponsible. And the next time there's a recession, the budget will be even more dismal.
There is wasteful spending in government, but I-1033 goes too far.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 14, 2009 05:08 PMWhy? Because it isn't their money, I guess.
What we kinda need to do is stop feeding them.
Where's Hillary's reset button? We need to reset the entire bunch.
Posted by: Gary on October 14, 2009 07:24 PMI'm reading, but I don't see how that money gets returned to me specifically. I'l take it though....I can use it to upgrade my home....which means buying more plants, fertilzers, patio stones, slip n slides or other stuff. Which will increase tax revenues and create jobs. That's a good thing.
Posted by: dengle on October 14, 2009 08:49 PMI mean, look, from Bloomberg:
The U.S. is "working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry," Chu said. "I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level."
-
Really? Then why did your boss pull the plug on Yucca after *we* (me and everyone on this board) spent a few billion dollars developing it?
Just pissed away with no regard for the people who gave their labor to make Yucca a reality.
Same with the $250 welfare checks being printed up for seniors. Our "leaders" are out of control.
One current Senate bill cuts Medicare, while a simultaneous one puts it all back.
Out of control.
Posted by: Gary on October 15, 2009 07:46 AMExatcly! The Washington Post is reporting that Congress has taken a few billion from the defense budget (training, supplies, etc) to go into pet projects, including some Kennedy center.
Out of control.
I don't own property. I would be subsidizing your tax cut. Generally, those who own property are better off than those who don't. You are taking money from the worse off to pay those who are better off. I the redistribution of "wealth" fine as long as it benefits you? No, of course it isn't.
I'm reading, but I don't see how that money gets returned to me specifically. I'l take it though....
Of course you will. You don't need/want to understand the details of I-1033 ("don't see how...") to understand that a tax cut just for you sounds tasty. What about the rest of the state? Well, maybe they should just buy property!
But what about those other taxes being more volatile? We'll have a less stable budget every year. What happened to be being responsible?
attila, Once I-1033 passes I would support an initiative to reduce sales tax and the B & O tax.
Why not eliminate them, just like you want to eliminate the property tax? Let's get rid of all taxes in this state. That sounds like a really great plan to me. You've have to be a Marxist to dislike it.
(You'd also have to be Marxist to support taking money from families and businesses and pouring it into the bank accounts of property owners, but let's ignore that because Tim Eyman is sooo dreamy.)
Posted by: John Jensen on October 15, 2009 10:27 AMNo, you aren't. You're talking about stealing my revenue to the government to selfishly pay for your property taxes. You are redistributing wealth -- and happy to do so.
Should 40% of Americans pay for nearly all of the cost of government. No, I don't think so.
The state already depends heavily on regressive taxes that affect consumption, like b&o and sales taxes. Your argument is obviously more about the Federal government than anything else. So how is an initiative that affects state and local revenue the appropriate fix? Resentment should not drive an irrational vote.
Btw, your sales tax contribution to society is dwarfed by the amount of property taxes the rest of us have to pay.
Wrong. In 2005, the department of revenue raised $15,413 million from sales and b&o taxes and $6,911 million from property taxes.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 15, 2009 12:58 PM