March 05, 2010
Democrats' state income tax talk is meant to manipulate you -- don't fall for it

Total manipulation. Democrats in Olympia have done it for years.

Here's their scheme: propose lots of tax and fee increases, tons of them, then float a state income tax bill, get everyone fired up, then pull back, drop the income tax proposal, and then pass the other tax and fee increase bills. Afterwards, all of us breathe a sigh of relief because we 'beat back' the income tax but the tax and fee increases hit us just as hard.

Do the Democrats want a state income tax? Of course. Is this a serious effort to get it? Of course not -- it's being pushed with only 7 days left in their regular session. Do they think they'll ever get a state income tax? Probably not. But they continually use the threat of an income tax in two ways:

* It fires up their liberal base and gets them all excited (you can just hear the crazies saying to each other "The Democrats are finally listening to us")

* It whips us up into a such a frenzy that we takes our eyes off what they're really pushing -- which is billions of dollars in higher taxes and fees from conventional sources (sales taxes, car tab taxes, property taxes, business taxes, excise taxes, and fees on most everything).

They also want a huge discussion in newspapers, on talk radio, and on blogs about a not-gonna-happen income tax so they can push their tax and fee-hiking agenda with little or no scrutiny or public attention.

We're not saying don't fight back against a state income tax, we're simply pointing out that beating back an income tax isn't a great accomplishment if we're all taxed into oblivion by a laundry list of other taxes and fees. Any tax-and-fee-increase-package is totally unacceptable.

For the past two years, I-960 saved us from this type of manipulation. That's why we need to bring I-960 back by getting this year's Initiative 1053 qualified for the ballot. We need 300,000 signatures by July 2nd -- that works out to be over 2000 signatures PER DAY, a huge challenge.

Please go to our website and donate and/or send us an email and ask for petitions: tim_eyman@comcast.net

Posted by Tim Eyman at March 05, 2010 10:44 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Tim, what programs do YOU want cut to balance the budget? Could you name the #1 you would cut?

Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on March 5, 2010 12:36 PM
2. Joe,

How about rolling the budget back to 2007 - it seems we didn't all die in some horrible catastrophe of no Government support in 2007. And there's your $2.3 billion deficit gone. Didn't have to cut a single program, just roll them back to a reasonable level.

Take a look the way our budget has grown over the last few budgetary cycles and you'll see that Government has been growing at an unsustainable rate. So rather than cutting entire programs, how about just slowing down the rate? Heck, maybe roll it back a few years and suddenly the need for extra taxes - which are widely acknowledged as harmful to economic growth - is gone.

I know, too logical, too obvious, so it'll be ignored...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2010 12:58 PM
3. Cut more of the hundreds of commissions.

Cut 1% for arts.

Cut all state liquor stores, and let grocery stores sell it.

Cut in-state tuition for non-citizens.

Cut the number of employees in every state government department by 10%.

THEN, tax all casino revenues, and let non-tribal card rooms and tracks have some slot machines and tax those too.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2010 01:16 PM
4. Cut and eliminate all new state departments and programs that did not exist prior to 1970. How's that for cutting? I really don't believe that anything the state government created after 1970 has ever been a benefit for our citizens and often has been a nuisance to businesses, who actually pay for government. Our state thinks that government pays the bills and keep creating new forms of government with new management and employees. The argument against this would be that we are "evolving" into the future and we need to provide for this. This is bunk. How did our state managed before the 1970s with such primitive forms of government? Government has grown too big and it is fiscally unmanageable, especially during Governor Gregoire's term.

Instead of preparing for a collapse in the economy bubble fueled by the housing boom by being a frugile penny pitcher, Gregoire and her democrat minions put forth huge revenue consuming special interest departments and programs that would never be economically sustainable in depressed times. They knew this all along, because their million dollar advisors told them it would. Did they listen? Just whatever happened to the tobacco settlement money and the raining day fund? Where is the surplus that the Governor said we had during her campaign?

So instead of cutting these wasteful projects, she and the democrats want to cut enforcement, corrections, mental institutions, raise tuition more, and put a tax/fee on everything under the sun. These tax/fee are regressive and businesses and people will seek other means to obtain goods or just plain quit buying. This will further snowball revenue.

They know that by increasing taxes that the people will be thinking about having an income tax under the pretense that only the rich would pay. We heard this argument before haven't we. Now we all are paying and the other taxes didn't go away. Government spending kept getting bigger as well the state employees population.

Start eliminating any state job over $100,000 annually and get rid of the huge numbers of managers and mid managers. It is the labor force that actually do the work not them. They just go to staff meetings and do disciplinary work. A foreman can do all that for a lot less. They also are a burden on the retirement system with their excessive wages. If they are so good, they should have no problem finding work somewhere else that can recognize their talent and worth. We cannot afford them anymore. I would get rid of all college presidents and deans, what do they really do? It is the professors that teach. Just what do we get by paying the UW or WSU president millions annually or these coaches? I think the college would manage just find without them.

Get rid of college sports that contribute only to a handful of lucky coaches and atheletes in tax payer funded and subsidized multi-million dollar stadiums that should be spent on real education for students to give them better opportunities in employment. Let the major professional sport francises pay for their scouting camps in universities and colleges. They are the ones benefiting not the common citizen. Remember, it is only a kid's game and entertainment and will not cure cancer or find a new drug or innovation.

I also believe that these state representatives wanting a income tax should all be removed from office immediately for violating their oath of office. The Washington State Constitution is very clear in numerous areas that there will be no income tax in this state. Maybe, they should read the Washington State Constitution, if they never had before. Calling it something else is not going to disguise what it is. When the Attorney General or the State Supreme Court over rules this new tax as unconstitutional, an impeachment hearing should commence to rid of these state representatives that felt it was okay for them to freely violate the State Constitution just as they feel they can over ride the will of the people in numerous initiatives and referendums that were previously pass by being a banana republic dictator. There needs to be a mechanism to remove bad politicians that believe that the US Constitution and State Constitution is not the sole regulator of government; such as, nanny state laws, sin tax, and rights ti bear arms. It should not be up to the people in that politician's district to petition for impeachment or removal when liberty and freedoms are attacked for the entire state. It is one thing to have laws that effect a local district, but this effects the entire state. It is also one thing to be purposely misleading and negligent to the supreme law of the land, where there is no ignorance when you are the law maker. This is a serious breach of public trust and why their removal is necessary.

Posted by: John W, Aiken, Jr. on March 5, 2010 02:13 PM
5. What about rolling back the tax break given to the Seattle Times?

Posted by: Dave R on March 5, 2010 06:12 PM
6. Lisa Brown a direct threat to Civilization yet she is not arrested under the guise of using the system. Who do I call?
When is someone going to take these threats seriously in Spokane?
Perverted brain they all have.
Yet we are the ones constantly attacked. I have had enough of the police state.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on March 5, 2010 06:15 PM
7. And my favorite. A tax on hybrids. After all their drivers dont pay their fair share of gas tax. HA! Now that would be fun.

Posted by: Dave R on March 5, 2010 06:16 PM
8. Let's see. We're what... $3 billion in the hole?

Whack the state payroll enough to make up for it.

What are they going to do.... quit?

And do what? And go where?

Strange, isn't it? The concept of "shared sacrifice" as espoused by Barry Soetoro doesn't seem to impact government workers nearly to the extent of the private sector.

Posted by: Hinton on March 6, 2010 02:35 AM
9. With Olympia looking for new ways to increase revenue... I have 1 idea that I would support. Force Registration of Bicycles that use public roads and block traffic on the CRITICAL ASS group

Posted by: Payfor the Road on March 6, 2010 06:08 PM
10. repeat

Posted by: Payfor the Road on March 6, 2010 06:08 PM
11. repeat

Posted by: Payfor the Road on March 6, 2010 06:09 PM
12. Excellent idea, Payfor. Driving through Seattle, it is infuriating to have them using our roads, obstructing our traffic, and cherrypicking from the laws they do and don't want to observe. Everybody else pays for it--why not cyclists?

Posted by: gulliver on March 7, 2010 03:19 PM
13. Good idea #9 and #12 I went to my parents house Saturday and on the way there was a cyclists were having timing trials of some kind there were cops blocking the road. Dis they bother to direct traffic of course not. They might as well not be there as usefull as they were.The cyclists were all in parts of the road Ithough theyn were supposed to be ticketed when they don't obey the law of the road!! Apparently those don't apply to them!

Posted by: Laurie on March 8, 2010 08:12 AM
14. I was sympathetic toward cyclists until I started spending more time in Seattle, where many of them have a defiant and belligerent attitude toward drivers, which is different from where I used to live. Inhibiting the flow of dozens of people in cars seems for individual cyclists to be an act of supreme morality.

I am tired of the grave warnings about observing cyclists' rights on the road. First off, why are the rights of non-paying, inefficient, obstructionist travelers SUPERIOR to my own, particularly when I'm paying for both of us? Second, cyclists NEVER observe the rules of the road. Sure, they're furious when you forget YOUR etiquette, but I NEVER see them yield, stop at stop signs or lights, or wait their turn if they think they can get away with it. In other words, I have to subsidize free-riding delinquents, and believe they are noble.

Posted by: gulliver on March 8, 2010 11:09 AM
15. off topic

Posted by: cheap arava on March 12, 2010 06:30 AM
16. off topic

Posted by: generic actonel on March 12, 2010 11:40 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?