With $3.4 million from Washington DC's most powerful government unions (NEA, AFSCME, and ACORN, er, I mean SEIU), opponents of I-1033 are basing their entire campaign on 2 claims:

1) I-1033 is just like a measure from Colorado
2) Voters there got rid of it

Both claims are untrue.

Here's the facts:

In 1992, Colorado voters approved a measure called TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) 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 it, 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 it, 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" its tax limits.

But just to be clear, I-1033 is much more flexible and focused than Colorado's, so it will function much more like Washington's own 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, the account that state, counties, and cities have the most trouble showing fiscal discipline with. 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.

Colorado's measure was very, very broad and inflexible - I-1033, like Washington's own 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.

I-601's fiscal discipline worked, it will work again with the passage of I-1033.

Vote YES on I-1033.