Maybe some day, when I’m old and curmudgeonly and stuck in the past enough to get a job writing a column for a major daily newspaper, I can be just like the P-I’s Ted Van Dyk…
One of the most difficult things to do, in any part of life, is to make judgments on the basis of facts and principles rather than on our feelings about personalities.
Yeah, and when you’re talking about facts and stuff, it might be a good idea to actually research them, rather than just kinda-sorta drawing from your personal recollection. Take for example Van Dyk’s defense of Tim Eyman, whose initiatives he both criticizes as “arbitrary” and “disruptive”, and lauds as resonating with an angry electorate.
But wait a minute. Why do Eyman’s proposals gain broad public support, even when losing?
Um… in a democracy, isn’t “losing” an election kinda the opposite of “broad public support”…?
It is because they resonate in an electorate just plain fed up with undisciplined and even mischievous state and local spending and taxing decisions. Eyman’s ballot measures become send-a-message blunt instruments for ordinary citizens.
Eyman’s initiatives resonate with voters? Really? Let’s take a look at Eyman’s electoral performance over the past few years and see how Van Dyk’s assumptions hold up:
| 2006: | I-917 — YATDCTB ("Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative") Eyman spent nearly $738,000 — most of it Michael Dunmire’s money — yet failed to collect enough signatures to qualify this dog for the ballot. |
|
| 2005: | I-900 — Performance Audits Passed with 56% of the vote. By comparison, the other two winning initiatives that year, the "Indoor Clean Air Act" and the totally unsexy "Commission on Judicial Conduct," pulled in 63 and 68 percent of the vote respectively. |
|
| 2004: | I-892 — "Slots for Tots" Failed with only 38% of the vote, the worst of that year’s five statewide measures. Eyman’s I-864, which would have cut local property tax levies by 25% across the board, failed to qualify for the ballot after five months of canvassing. |
|
| 2003: | I-807 — "Super Majority for Tax & Fee Increases" Sounds familiar? Well without Michael Dunmire’s money, this first incarnation of I-960 failed to qualify for the ballot. |
So… um… how exactly do you “gain broad public support, even when losing,” initiatives that never even get far enough to lose? Van Dyk imagines he has his finger on the pulse of Washington voters, but if he did, you’d think he might have noticed that Eyman politically flat-lined years ago. Eyman didn’t even manage to qualify a single anti-tax initiative over the previous four years, let alone pass one, and since 2002 has relied almost exclusively on sugar daddy Michael Dunmire and the gambling industry to finance his paid signature drives. In the interim, voters have overwhelmingly rejected both gas tax and estate tax repeal, while local levies routinely passed throughout the state. Yeah… voters are clearly “just plain fed up.”
Van Dyk goes on to berate the rail portion of the coming Roads & Transit measure, warning it will “snarl traffic and harm the economy,” and yet polls consistently show that light rail is exactly the portion of the measure most popular with voters. What exactly is Van Dyk’s definition of an “ordinary citizen”…? Kemper Freeman Jr.?
With logic like that Van Dyke almost makes Eyman seem sensible. Almost.
UPDATE:
Andrew’s got a more comprehensive Eyman Failure Chart up at Permanent Defense.
I guess it never struck to you that possibly the people thought the $30.00 tab thing went a bit far although they voted for the original one to wake up the legislature to the fact that license fees were out of control? License fees are about right NOW, if you dems start the jacking again (OK there was a “republican” governor that helped tabs go up as well, but he was a one term guy, like read my lips Bush, but if the get out of line again watch us act!
I have to admit that I don’t even read 90% of Tim Eyeman’s initiatives when I vote for them. If they are “anti tax” that is good enough for me. I also vote all school levies down with pride. The less money you keep out of the hands of the democrats the better. Just doing my patriotic duty. Peace.
@2
Jane’s Asshole says:
“I have to admit that I don’t even read 90% of Tim Eyeman’s initiatives when I vote for them.”
Of course not! They exceed your leevel of literacy.
Leevel, level, to Dan it makes no difference, but for more discerning minds, the correction
So will that wonderful “light rail” get me from spokane to seattle????
Not all the voters reside in King County.
Rantin’ Dan @2
The less money you keep out of the hands of the democrats the better.
Couldn’t agree more. More money for democrats is fine by me. Christ, you’re a dolt. Next time you might actually read what you spew before you hit the ‘post’ button.
Wow @5,
Um… it’s a local tax intended to build local transit. If Spokane voters want to tax themselves to build local rail, more power to them.
As for a Spokane to Seattle rail line, I’m all for it. But that would take state and federal dollars.
@5: If you have a point, please try to make it.
Try waking up before you hit the ‘spew’ button.
My favorite Van Dick column was the one where he blamed all of today’s ills on the boomers. It was a column so detatched from reality, so supercillious, so pompous..I see red every time I think about it.
And they actually pay this guy to write such lunacy?
Van Dyke can’t find his way back to the barn anymore.
@7
Spokane voters voted down a light rail system in ’06.
http://www.spokanelightrail.co.....px?id=1512
Goldy:
Don’t even try to explain this stuff to guys like #7 & 5.
This is the very definition of “lost cause.”
Poor bastard. Must be tough trying to go through life with this handicap.
Don’t forget the fuel tax repeal of ’05 lost too. Guess people don’t feel so over taxed all the time.
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/R.....794615271e
It’s pretty easy to figure out that from the perspective of opponents, we’ve committed 9.1 billion sins — that’s how many extra dollars the taxpayers have in their pockets, and not in the pockets of the politicians, because of the voters’ approval of our various taxpayer protection initiatives over the years. $9.1 billion in savings so far.
Of the 9 measures we’ve qualified for the ballot, voters have approved 7 (I-960 will be the 8th). That’s 7 additional sins.
The reality is that our initiatives are the only thing that gives the average taxpayer an equal voice in the process. The only people upset about our initiatives are some of the people who vote ‘no’ on them (most ‘no’ voters are mature enough to accept the judgement of the voters, a miniscule minority can’t accept being on the losing end of elections and believe the voters are stupid or the election was rigged because the initiative passes).
Gregoire and Democrats have promised that their massive increase in spending won’t require tax increases. If true, then I-960 won’t be needed. However, if they break their promise, I-960 will be there to protect taxpayers by pushing the Legislature to follow the law, follow the Constitution, and follow the principles of representative democracy if they’re going to take more of the people’s money.
State and local governments already collect over $50 billion every year. $50 billion. If prioritized, that oughta be more than enough. But if it’s not, are the voters, by approving I-960, really asking that much for the Legislature to stop circumventing the Constitution when they take away our right to referendum by declaring a tax increase an “emergency”? Are voters asking too much for the Legislature to follow the two-thirds legislative majority for tax increases requirement THAT THEY IMPOSED ON THEMSELVES IN 1998 AND 2005? Are voters asking too much for the Legislature to be more transparent by publicly disclosing the short-term and long-term costs of tax increase bills and who’s sponsoring these bills and publishing hearing dates/times/locations and the legislative voting records of our elected representatives? Are voters asking too much for our elected representatives to take a recorded vote and to approve fee increases, both large or small, with a simple majority in the house and senate? In other words, for elected representatives to make these decisions and not unelected bureaucrats.
But at a minimum, at least with I-960, voters have the opportunity to provide their elected representatives with a clear message. The hysteria by I-960’s opponents shows they believe the voters will approve it in November.
for more info on I-960 or read the text of I-960, go to our website: http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
“It’s pretty easy to figure out that from the perspective of opponents, we’ve committed 9.1 billion sins — that’s how many extra dollars the taxpayers have in their pockets, and not in the pockets of the politicians, because of the voters’ approval of our various taxpayer protection initiatives over the years. $9.1 billion in savings so far.”
Can you prove you’ve saved $9.1B? Maybe you just shifted tax dollars away from the state and now local governments and school districts are collecting it?
Tim Eyman, the great tax shifter!
@15
Actually, I think it’s established that he’s pretty shiftLESS.
LOL @16!
All Eyman’s ever done tax wise is shift the burden from the state to local governments, many of which can’t make up for the lost state revenue.
Good job Tim, the kids in Washtucna don’t need to attend good schools. And those old folks in Harrington, fuck’em they don’t need a local clinic.
# 9: I blame all of today’s troubles on the WW II generation that put Ronald Reagan in office.
Wow @ 9
“So will that wonderful “light rail” get me from spokane to seattle????”
Strictly speaking, a connection between Spokane and Seattle falls outside the design envelop of a light rail system. For traversing mountain passes and covering great distances, one would build a conventional rail system.
And that system is already in place between Seattle and Spokane. Try http://tickets.amtrak.com/
Tim “Lyin'” Eyman stretches credulity when he states “Of the 9 measures we’ve qualified for the ballot, voters have approved 7,” somehow trying to suggest that he has been successful.
Here are the facts:
Initiatives that failed to qualify: I267, Ref65, I807, I864, I917.
Initiatives that qualified but defeated at the polls: I745, I892.
Initiatives that passed but were thrown out by the courts: I695, I722, I747.
Initiatives that passed and were not thrown out: I776, I900.
Wow…two successes out of 12 attempts. That is a pretty damn pathetic track record.
(Of course I776 really didn’t accomplish what Eyman wanted it to accomplish—shut down Sound Transit light rail project—so maybe it is ONE success out of 12 attempts.)
Yeh Local governments are going broke…Right!
I have seen a doubling of my property tax in just two years. and
All the Local governments are driving 1970 pintos right….
Try Ford F 550’s Brand New! Or Hummers! Or Limo’s like in King County
Yeh Local governments are going broke…Right!
I’d like to go that kinda broke….
(#14)
Dear Mr. Eyman
I can do as well as you at this perma-initiative game. Therefore, you could go back to your old “job” doing whatever you used to do and I could run the initiative campaign(s) for say–$400k per year, more or less.
Simply have your main donors give ME their money instead of you and everybody will be happy. Not the folks donating $100 or whatever. I want the 6-figure donors.
I submit the following ideas for initiatives:
1. It rains too much. Let’s fix this one.
2. We could save energy and be more productive by having the sun rise the same time all year ’round.
3. Gasoline should never cost >$1.00 per gallon.
4. Time spent in traffic jams would count as work time.
I patiently await your approval. I have plenty of other ideas as good as these.
# 21: Reference each of your assertions or shut up.
@21
You can thank Tim and GW for the increase in property taxes. There’s far less revenue sharing from the state and federal government these days.
Which was the point I was making @17.
Eyman has saved The Producers over 9 BILLION DOLLARS.
go to his website and read it.
What have any of you fucking losers done?
# 5:
King County is already paying for Spokane’s roads, thank you very much…
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projec.....eCorridor/ Estimated Project Cost – $2.1 billion in 2006 dollars. Over a 20-year build out plan with risk and inflation the cost is $3.3 billion.
If nothing we do is successful, then why do all of you spend so much time whining about our efforts? :)
as post #24 points out, you can go to our website (http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com) and check out the tax savings from our various taxpayer protection initiatives (totals come from the state Department of Revenue) and our ‘Resume’ of accomplishments. And by all means, I invite all the morons posting on websites to list their political accomplishments as a post below so we can have a side-by-side comparison.
Voters overwhelmingly support I-960’s policies because it closes loopholes the Legislature has put in I-601 over the years and provides greater transparency and more public disclosure whenever Olympia tries to take more of the people’s money. State and local governments already impose and collect over $50 billion every year. If prioritized, that should be more than enough. But if it’s not, then it’s not too much to ask for Olympia to follow their own laws, abide by our state Constitution, and notify the press and the public whenever a revenue-raising bill ‘moves’ during each legislative session.
Opponents don’t want voters to know the facts about I-960’s provisions because they know its policies have strong, broad public support. That’s why they attack the messenger. If that’s the best you’ve got, an incredibly pathetic, intellectually bankrupt fatally flawed strategy, then we’re going to have a pretty easy fall campaign.
Independent pollster Stuart Elway released his latest report. It appears below:
The August, 2007 edition of The Elway Poll, hinted at by the Seattle PI earlier last month, provides fascinating tidbits about the public’s support for I-960. Interestingly, our past initiatives have consistently earned more support at the ballot box than pre-election Elway polls have indicated — so you bet we’re feeling pretty darn good about this:
I-960 OUT OF THE BLOCKS WITH 63% SUPPORT
Initiative 960 sounds good to most Washington voters. If passed, the measure would, among other things, require a 2/3 majority of the legislature or a vote of the people to raise any state taxes. Seven in 10 Elway Poll respondents approved of that idea. In fact, when read the major provisions of the initiative, 6 to 8 in 10 Elway Poll respondents approved of each one.
Asked how they were inclined to vote “as things stand today,” those inclined to “yes” outnumbered the “no” votes by 4:1.
Proponents say the initiative would restore key provisions of I-601 passed by voters in 1993 and, proponents say, eroded over the years by legislative action. Chief among those is the requirement of a 2/3 majority of the legislature to pass any tax increase. In this survey, 70% favored that requirement.
The most popular I-960 provision would require the state to publish “cost information” on bills introduced in the legislature that would establish or increase taxes or fees: 78% favored that idea.
I-960 was popular across the board in this survey: 50% of Democrats were inclined to vote for it, as were 76% of Rebublicans and 67% of Independents.
The sizable majorities favoring the specific provisions indicates that the public demand for accountability has not abated despite a loss of momentum in the tax roll-back movement in recent years. Voters continue to distinguish between taxes per se and government accountability.
MAJORITIES FAVOR EACH PROVISION
A. Cost info published 78% favor, 12% oppose, 10% not sure
B. Either 2/3 or Popular vote 70% favor, 20% oppose, 10% not sure
C. Fees Require Legis Approval 65% favor, 21% oppose, 14% not sure
D. Advisory Vote 59% favor, 29% oppose, 12% not sure
Provisions as read:
A. The state would be required to publish cost information on bills that would establish or increase taxes or fees
B. All state tax increases would require either a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature or voter approval
C. In addition to taxes, all new or increased fees would require legislative approval before the fees were pu into place.
D. Any new or increased taxes enacted by the legislature, even with a two-thirds vote, would require an advisory vote of the people.
Telephone interviews were conducted with 405 registered voters in Washington state between August 1-4, 2007. The margin of sampling error is +- 5% at the 95% level of confidence.
— END —
Message from Stuart Elway:
HERE WE GO AGAIN
After a couple of years without a tax limitation measure on the ballot, I-960 gives us another chance to debate the taxes of government and citizens with regard to tax policy. We can be sure that this will be philosophical and high-minded as previous campaigns on this topic have been.
Proponents say that the fundamental purpose of I-960 is to return to the original message voters were trying to send 14 years ago when they passed Initiative 601. This new measure is needed, they say, to roll back legislative encroachments on the provisions of I-601, chiefly the requirement that all new taxes be approved with 2/3 legislative majority.
Opponents say that the passage of I-960 will grind the state budget making process to a halt by making the process itself prohibitively cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. Even the innocuous sounding provision to “publish cost information on bills that would establish or increase taxes or fees” would require huge staff and budget, and is practically impossible, opponents say.
Both sides have their points. I-960 proponents, however, are winning the early rounds. Their framing of the issue places it on the popular side of the 15-year-old debate about government accountability.
Each of the major provisions of I-960 were supported by at least 6 in 10 voters surveyed, indicating just how reasonable they sound to voters.
Opponents are in the classic box of requiring 30 minutes to refute proponents’ 7-second sound bite. They have about 90 days.
— END —
Tim Eyman is a fucking hypocrite. He wants the infrastructure that was paid for by past taxes but doesn’t want to pay to keep it up. Meanwhile, he uses that infrastructure to operate his watch business. He uses the roads and the mail system to stump for his initiatives but he doesn’t want to pay.
He famously dumped his trash in the US Postal Service’s dumpsters because he’s a freeloader who wants your kids to pay for his lifestyle.
Tim Eyman: what you do is bad for Washington State. Just. Fucking. Stop.
-OM
Tim @27,
If you weren’t so irrelevant, why have you been reduced to fighting for space in the comment thread of blog named after an initiative proclaiming you a horse’s ass? Do you see the irony here?
re 26: Requiring a 2/3 majority means that a 1/3 minority rules everyone else, Tim.
How is this fair and democratic. It seems obstructionist and elitist.
Do you needs a 2/3 majority to make this rule? You should.
#26 — Bitching about taxes is a cheap and easy sell. How well do you think the Republicans will be welcomed in Minneapolis in ’08.
Well, I guessa they still have some time to build bridges to the voters. heh…
@25
The North Spokane Corridor will build a 4 lane 60 MPH freeway right though the heart of Spokane. It wont save much time and will worsen sprawl and air pollution and make it more difficult to walk and bike though Spokane.
It would be better cheaper and faster to stop building sprawl developments in the north in of Spokane and make a few interchange improvements.
The people of Seattle would be doing the people of Spokane a favor if they stopped paying for this one.
@26, I’m pretty sure your not supposed to reproduce those newsletters Tim. They are copyrighted and for subscribers only after all.
to: #29 s-quire
Current law is 2/3’s legislative majority for tax increases. the 1998 legislature and the 2005 legislature imposed that vote threshold on themselves. I-960 simply says they should have to follow their own law.
L e t m e t y p e a l i t t l e s l o w e r s o y o u c a n u n d e r s t a n d — 2/3’s is the vote threshold because of the 2005 Legislature (controlled by Democrats) and Gregoire decided that that’s what they wanted the law to be. Shouldn’t the Legislature follow the law?
And yes, we go to wherever there’s a debate over I-960 to ensure as many people as possible learn about what it does and doesn’t do.
@33, So you think they might overturn a law and your solution is to pass another law. One they could simply overturn as well, albeit after a short period of time. Seems like a waste of your sugar daddies money if you ask me.
#33 — You really need to TALK FASTER so that people realize that the supposed increases are simply adjustments for inflation. Without these adjustments we are getting tax reductions whifh HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED UPON.
You are a dunce.
#35 — Correction: You are an OBSTRUCTIONIST RETROGRADE WINGNUT dunce.
336 — i.e., a HORSESARSE!!
bad news for ya schoir…
there’s more of us than there are of you.
Tough shit pal… there’s not a fucking thing you can do about it either…
to: s-choir (previous posts)
Gregoire and the Democrats in charge of Olympia reenacted and reimposed the 2/3’s legislative vote threshold for tax increases on themselves in 2005. It’s current law. So I-960 reinforces current law to stop them from circumventing their own law. I-960 also requires much more public disclosure and public awareness to ensure they can’t put new loopholes in the law and the Constitution without notifying the press and the public. It’s obvious you feel these are impossible provisions to argue against and that’s why you’re acting like a spoiled little child throwing a hysterical temper tantrum. But you’re not alone – we haven’t found any intellectual heavyweights in the anti-960 camp – they’re all a bunch of name-calling ignorant brutes who can’t put two words together without help.
Come on, you’re making it way too easy to promote this smart, balanced, reasonable measure. Isn’t there anyone who can make a compelling argument against I-960’s common sense accountability and transparency provisions?
for more info on I-960, go to our website:
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Tim Eyman has been very successful
– at milking this intitiative cash cow for every cent he can.
@40, it sure beats hawking shitty watches.
Tim: They are not tax increases. They are inflation adjustments. Since you understand this and continue to call them tax increases, my only conclusion can be that you are a liar and a trickster.
Tim: Argue your case on its merits. Are the inflation adjustments really tax ‘increases’?
If a person gets adjustments to their wages tied to inflation, do you consider that a pay raise? If so, why?
Should I be able to go into a store and buy $10 worth of goods based on what $10 was worth in 1911? Obviously not.
So, adjustments tied to inflation are commonplace. It makes things simpler and actually saves taxpayers money by cutting red tape.
Tim: I can’t debate with a liar. You have to stick to the facts.
We are not debating. I’m merely correcting your deliberate misrepresentations.
Tim: Here’s an example of your disassociative reltionship with truth: You say: ” … you’re acting like a spoiled little child throwing a hysterical temper tantrum.”
Then, after calling me a “spoiled little child”, you call all of your opponents: “… name-calling ignorant brutes who can’t put two words together without help.”
What is going wrong in your head?
to: previous posts
you’re correct, we’re not debating: debating implies that you raise an substantive point and I respond to it. So far, you’ve provided no substance.
Gregoire and the Democrats increased spending over 33% in the past 4 years. Isn’t that just a teeny tiny bit faster than inflation? Even without tax increases, revenue to government increases faster than the rate of inflation. To raise it even more than that, on top of the 50+ billion dollars they already take from taxpayers every year, the voters are simply insisting that the Legislature and the Governor follow the laws they imposed on themselves (2/3’s legislative approval for tax increases) and to abide by the Constitution (by blocking the citizens’ constitutionally-guaranteed right to referendum) and to tell the voters what they’re doing with more public disclosure.
What’s the counterargument? That the Legislature should continue to violate their own laws and circumvent the Constitution and negate our constitutional rights without letting the voters know about it?
Your initiative seeks to stop the legislature from raising taxes. But, automatically raising the dollar amount collected (tied to the value of inflation) is — by definition — not a tax increase.
So, even if your measure passes, nothing is accomplished. You are seeking to stop inflation adjustment by calling it a tax raise.
You are just making an easy living by exploiting peoples’ resentment about having to pay taxes. I’m a thoughtful and reflective person, so I can’t go along with your half-baked BS.
Tim: If you supported unions and wage increases, you wouldn’t have to raise taxes. Put on your thinking cap, Tim: More income means more taxes.
re 47: Don’t you think that my pointing out that you are being devious and that you are incorrectly labeling an inflation adjustment as a tax increase, is raising a substantive point.
Or, do you consider pointing out that you are lying to be a point with little substance?
Are you out of your mind?
That’s why there is no debating with you. A prerequisite to debate is that you stop lying.
to: s-choir
Under I-960, just as under I-601 for the past 13 years, the Legislature must take an action for it to be considering raising taxes. those are recorded votes. when government collects higher sales taxes or business taxes or tobacco taxes, then those don’t involve actions. as stated earlier, $50 billion per year is already imposed and collected by government and all I-960 does is makes sure the Legislature follows the law and the Constitution if they’re going to take an action to makes it $60 billion or $80 billion or $120 billion.
@39 MTR
We’ll see about that…
One thing is certain. You’re not gonna like it when Clinton is inaugurated.
But, who cares. There’s more of us than there are of you.
Stock up on Vaseline.
To soothe your irritated skin, of course.
You never address the issue I’ve raised. You don’t even refer to it.
The issue is the value of a dollar after inflation is taken into account — not the fact that it is still called a dollar.
If you even refer to what I’m talking about, your argument for your initiative evaporates, so you keep saying the same thing over and over.
The only thing that makes sense is that you are trying to lower your taxes through inflation. Your initiative carries the moral weight of sleight of hand card tricks — which is to say, none.
@39
Um… If there’s more of you than there are of us how come only 22% of our congressmen have R’s after their names, both state houses are in the hands on Democrats and we haven’t had a Republican governor in over 20 years?
Don’t give me some shit about the, “stolen” ’04 election either, we’ve had the governor’s office and most of the congressional seats for the last 30 years. We had the 5th CD for 20 years. Norm Dicks has the safest seat in the house. Patty Murray is one of the more liberal Senators and she wins her races by big margins.
Explain all that away chief.
got the 20 and 30 above mixed up.
s-choir – That’s a good one.. TSWITW being POTUS.
The nomination is hers. But she is 100% unelectable. Bubba was just a “stick his finger in the wind” politician. She’s a dangerous ideologue.
Keep at it. Surrender and Socialism is a winning combination. Go for it…
[A]ll I-960 does is makes sure the Legislature follows the law and the Constitution…
I’m not sure which is funnier, the statement above or the fact that a Welching Redneck would defend it as a reasonable statement of fact.
Just so the slower (i.e. wingnuttia) folks among us catch what’s going on here, Timmy’s brilliant idea for getting the Legislature to follow the law and the Constitution is to, well, pass another law!
Two of the biggest reasons for tax increases at the State level are revenue-sharing cuts at the Federal level and the continuing neglect of the needs of the society by the current Administration.
What you are seeing is mainly a shifting of sources from Federal to State.
Of course, the difference will be made up in those big tax cuts that the Republicans rammed through over the last six years.
What, you mean you didn’t see those cuts? I guess you must not be in the top 1% then. Too bad. Just keep voting for those bastards – I’m sure it will trickle down to you soon.
Property taxes are % taxes. I hear wingnuts complain about ‘liberals’ causing their property taxes to go up — but I never hear the wingnuts giving liberals the credit for their increased property values.
Cause and effect. They are to stupid to see it.
Awe heck! Whenever I see some new Tim Eyman initiative coming down the pike, I figure he probably got some ‘shut-off’ notice on his electric or water bill. Dude’s gotta generate some revenue SOMEHOW to stay afloat. Watch selling business probably ain’t as lucrative as the initiative selling business. Selling used cars takes more initiative too.
to: FricknFrack, Seattle
I-960 has four major components:
* Requires legislative (simple majority) approval for any fee increase, large or small
* Reinforces current law which the 1998 and 2005 legislature’s imposed on themselves which is 2/3’s approval in the house and senate for any tax increase
* Requires the state budget office to alert (by email) the press and people (who sign for it) whenever a revenue-raising bill “moves” during a legislative session (gets introduced, has a hearing, gets a vote in committee, gets voted on in either chamber), including the bill’s short-term and long-term costs, and legislators’ voting record and contact information
* Encourages the Legislature to not overuse the “emergency clause” and to not take away the citizens’ constitutionally-guaranteed right to referendum.
What do you think of each of these components? Everyone else can feel free to critique each one also.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com