Writings and observations

2 Comments

  1. Tim Eyman said:

    From: Tim Eyman, I-1033 co-sponsor

    Click here to read a ‘one page’ on the policies and rationale for I-1033:

    http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

    Here’s an excerpt:

    In January, we started a debate over lowering property taxes and over the past 6 months, we’ve discussed 1033’s policies and principles with the people. And thanks to the 314,227 citizens who voluntarily signed a petition, that debate will continue until election day when a decision will be made by the people. We’re grateful to our supporters for providing us with the opportunity to make the case for 1033.

    The Lower Property Taxes Initiative substantially reduces property taxes by controlling the growth of government. 1033 says that the growth rate of state, county, and city general fund revenue cannot exceed the inflation rate plus population growth. Revenues collected above the limit will reduce property taxes. Not only does 1033 provide meaningful property tax relief, but it stops politicians from shifting the tax burden by raising taxes someplace else. 1033 provides ‘net’ property tax relief.

    Property taxes are a huge problem, especially for struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens. Too many are being taxed out of their homes. We don’t want Washington to be a state where only rich people can afford to buy and own a home. Citizens desperately need and deserve property tax relief, especially now, during these tough economic times.

    No state, county, or city politician can say they didn’t see this coming. For decades, citizens have told politicians about their own personal property tax horror stories — and politicians consistently ignored them. For decades, during both good times and bad, governments allowed taxpayers’ property tax problems to fester, arrogantly dismissing the people’s repeated, urgent call for relief. Why is Initiative 1033 necessary? Politicians need to look in the mirror — it is their decades of inaction and greed, as well as their complete lack of empathy and compassion for the taxpayers’ struggles, that necessitated 1033.

    again, read the whole thing here:

    http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

    July 3, 2009
  2. Tim Eyman said:

    From: Tim Eyman, I-1033 co-sponsor

    In 1993, the voters of Washington approved I-601, a spending limit that said government can grow at the rate of inflation plus population growth, the same formula as that used in I-1033. So it’s not necessary to look to Colorado or other states who have constitutional amendments that aren’t repealable or amendable — Washington has years and years of personal experience with this same kind of thing with I-601.

    And I-601 worked very well. At least, that is, until the Legislature did what it tends to do with initiatives in Washington … and that is to put loopholes in them to get around them. That started with the Republicans in 1998 and later by the D’s in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Had they not done so, if they had abided by its limits on growth, there would not have been a $3.2 billion deficit in 2003 for Locke and Rossi to address. Further, there would not have been a $9 billion deficit in 2007 for Gregoire and the Democrats to address. If they had allowed the public sector to grow at the same rate as the private sector, then there wouldn’t have been such high peaks and deep valleys.

    For decades, they’ve taken their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — and then slashing during bad times. I-1033 gets us off that roller coaster, allowing sustainable, predictable growth, inspiring them to reform and prioritize using existing revenues (and always with the safety valve that I-1033 has which says that if they need more money, they can go to the people and ask for more — voter approved revenue is exempt from the limit)

    that’s reasonable, that’s sustainable, that’s what these 314,000 citizens believe is a better way to go.

    We can’t keep pouring tax revenues into a bucket that has a big hole in the bottom — it’ll never be enough. The state, counties, and cities need to learn that taxpayers don’t have bottomless wallets.

    http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
    More…

    July 3, 2009

Comments are closed.