There are a lot of reasons why I don’t particularly feel like covering this fall’s election season, not the least of which being the need to post on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033, a task I approach with a lack of enthusiasm that borders on dread.
For all my reputation as a foul-mouthed muckraker and agitator, I’m not sure that any political observer in Washington state has written more substantively on a broader number of issues than I have over the past few years, and on no issue have I focused more acutely than those concerning government revenue and spending. Yet if you think my lengthy and wonkishly obsessive essays on, say, Washington state’s regressive and inadequate tax structure, can be boring to read, just imagine how painful they can be to research and write. That is the type of relentless effort necessary to adequately explain and refute I-1033, but the problem is, it simply doesn’t deserve it.
You see, I-1033 is a joke, totally undeserving of serious scrutiny, not because it stands no chance of passing (it does), or because its impact on our state and its citizens wouldn’t be devastating (it would), but because as an act of policy it is a capricious, vindictive, ridiculous, cynical piece of legislative bamboozlement based totally on lies, falsehoods, fabrications, distortions and lies, and thus any effort to discuss its provisions on substance—even on a lowly blog named HorsesAss.org—would be an insult to the public debate.
Bluntly, Eyman is a whore and Michael Dunmire—the man who pays for his signatures—is his john, and that makes I-1033 their cum-filled, santorum-stained condom. There is nothing credible about this ballot-measure-buggery or the mercenary manner in which it qualified for the ballot, and yet when our state’s political reporters and editorialists discuss this issue in their typically objective and solemn manner, they will undoubtedly do so with a measure of undeserved respect that quite frankly makes me sick.
As for me, I guess I too will reluctantly play my role in deconstructing one last Eyman initiative because it’s kinda-sorta my job, but if there’s anything more demeaning than making it one’s business to pen and peddle his sort of political pornography, it’s making it one’s business to review and critique it. And after a half decade of having my business inextricably attached to his, I can’t tell you how dirty it makes me feel.
UPDATE:
Dan Savage corrects me:
Santorum can’t stain a condom, Goldy. A condom can be santorum-streaked, but not stained. Please make a note of it. But it’s hard to argue with your larger point…
Seeing as Dan coined the word, I defer to him and his superior knowledge of santorum.
The key question about I-1033 is: Why do Eyman and Dunmire want to turn Washington into Mississippi?
Dirty? Nothing will excite Stupes more.
Here he COMES!
(uh yes, as in coming here to babble.. The Catholics taught me to value proper spelling..)
Our argument in favor of I-1033:
We want to start by thanking the 315,000 citizens who voluntarily signed Initiative 1033’s petitions, as well as the thousands of volunteers throughout the state who made that possible.
Here’s what we’re debating with I-1033: how fast should the government grow and who should decide? I-1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector — unless voters OK a bigger increase — and it should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who decide.
I-1033 brings back successful policies passed by the voters previously. In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government’s fiscal policies. I-601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval.
Despite a multi-million-dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed 601.
And I-601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with the Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed I-601’s reasonable fiscal discipline and policies.
The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and $9 billion in 2009.
Those loopholes allowed them to take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — which led to slashing during bad times. I-1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing I-601’s same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval.
I-601 worked, it can work again with the passage of I-1033.
So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above I-1033’s limit? After a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn’t be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I-1033 provides needed, long-overdue property tax relief.
Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on government’s growth and against ANY restriction on government’s power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers.
I-1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter-approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter-approved revenues for counties & cities.
Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like I-601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say ‘no’ to the special interest groups and encourages them to finally start prioritizing and reforming government.
Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against I-1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
Both Forbes magazine and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the 8th highest taxed state in the nation. I-1033 keeps us from hitting #1.
Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I-1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I-1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace taxpayers’ ability to afford it.
I-1033 is needed now more than ever.
We’re very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving Initiative 1033 in November. Thank you.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Yes! I want to be like California! Thanks Tim. You douche.
This blog is so liberal it even lets Timmy post here.
Hey Timmy! Goldy has argued that I-1033 will tie future state spending to the current recession-level spending, not a normal level of spending. Would you like to say anything about that?
In response to post #5:
Opponents claim: “If I-1033 passes, governments will be forced to base their future budgets on 2009 revenues.” The state, counties, and cities will have to base their future budgets on 2009 revenues with or without I-1033. The question is should taxes be increased during these tough economic times? I-1033 deters tax increases by capping the growth of government to a reasonable, sustainable growth rate that ensures government doesn’t get back on the fiscal roller coaster. If government decides that I-1033’s automatic increase isn’t big enough, then they can use rainy day fund revenues and/or go to the voters and ask for an even bigger increase. It’s true that I-1033 discourages tax increases – but that’s exactly what Gregoire and the Democrats decided to do during this year’s session – all I-1033 does is reinforce their common sense decision.
What is really making Goldy feel “dirty” is his continuing extreme jealously of Tim Eyman, still being habitually unemployed, lack of a love life, and having way too much time on his hands. Obvious and simple to see. Get with it already Goldy, and I sincerely wish you luck with that flawed self-image of yours. Truly.
And Rodent: Talk to the hand, I do not converse with delusional old geezers with extreme O.C.D. that have a foot in the grave. You are simply totally irrelevant to the real world of 2009. Good luck to you too, you sure need it.
‘Night all.
Hey Tim! Remember when you promised voters your slot machine initiative would cut property taxes by $400 million a year?
Well, I did a little calculating, and here’s what I figured out. A typical payout ratio might be around 90%. Let’s assume a 25% state tax on the house take. So to get $400 million of revenue, you’d need $400 million divided by .025 or $16 billion in play. Divide this by 6.25 million people and you get $2,560 as the amount that every man, woman, and child in the state of Washington to would have insert into slot machines to produce that amount of revenue for the state. That means a family of 4 would spend over $10,000 a year playing the slots.
Why do you take us for damn fools, Tim? The voters didn’t believe you that time (with good reason), and I predict they won’t believe you this time either (also with good reason).
@6 Okay, so now that we’ve established — after wading through all your double-talk — that you admit I-1033 will base future state spending on 2009’s recession-level revenues, let’s deal with this statement:
“The state, counties, and cities will have to base their future budgets on 2009 revenues with or without I-1033.”
How do you figure that? When economic activity picks up, won’t tax revenues also increase in tandem? And if what you say is true, then what do we need I-1033 for? If this is true, doesn’t this make I-1033 superfluous?
@7 Don’t worry, I wasn’t talking to you. Where you got that delusion from I have no idea. As I stated in a previous thread, I don’t waste my time on uneducable trolls.
Great more blow jobs from the whore.
This initiative treats Walla Walla worse than Seattle. Asotin County gets a bigger hit than King County.
Boeing gets a major tax cut while average homeowners get a defacto tax increase paying more for schools and local services.
The only government that will get tax increases will be the bigger governments. As Dunmire and Eyman have proved time and time again you can buy your way onto the ballot.
Yes, but Goldy is not likely to ask Roger Rabbit to stop anytime soon…
@13
Funny.
I challenge Roger and Eyman to a blow off.
@3
First, the inflation number is not Washington state’s rate of inflation it is the national inflation rate. It has nothing to do with our local economy.
Second, this is not 601 in any way shape or form. If you had half a brain you would have restored 601. Instead you cribbed from Colorado and recycled their failed TABOR experiment.
Third, your Forbes and Tax Foundation ranking is laughable. They include Federal income taxes which 1033 does not address. If you use the Tax Foundation’s rankings for state and local taxes we stand at 32nd. Even the Evergreen Freedom Foundation disagrees with your phony ranking.
Fourth, the state already provides property tax relief to working families and seniors.
Finally, we have a way to control taxes. It’s called representative democracy. Our Founding Fathers defined it the U.S. Constitution perhaps you should read it some time.
May all of The Nameless One’s vowels fall out. May his linkspam lead to porn sites.
Timmy @ 3,
Hey, who is your ghostwriter? I know you can’t string two coherent sentences together, and you don’t know a budget from a barn door, so I’m wondering who wrote your post. You are a blight on this state, Timmy, and you really should leave. Dunmire and you should be able to find a place to live that is already a Mad Max kind of free-for-all. Go there, Timmy. Leave us alone. Your initiatives cost this state so much money–your personal contribution to the state’s revenue losses is probably more than any other resident’s. Does that give you a woody, Timmy?
#3: Screw you. I’m fucking sick of your shit. I’m sure 314,999 of the signatures are fake. Shithead sob. Frat rat asshole.
Don’t conflate voter signatures with YOUR elective surgery, laurag.
Mark @7,
That’s right, I’m jealous because I want to be like Tim, who is so much of whore, that he’s reduced to commenting in the thread of blog named after a joke initiative that ridiculed him.
You see right through me.
Tim @3,
Here’s my question for you Tim, which I believe I’ve asked you before, but I don’t think you’ve ever answered. Do you really hate America this much… do you really believe all this anti-government bullshit? Or are you just in this for the money?
Hey Tim Puddy here. It was great to meet you. Give these Libtardos hell dude.
Where did Pelletizer get his 90% payout value from?
…He pulled it right out of his polluting pellet maker, puddy.
Same place he gets most of his thoughts from, but only with Goldy’s permission…
there must be a balance between what government says they need and what taxpayers can afford.
I-1033 strikes a very reasonable balance. For every crazy who reads and posts here, there are thousands of regular folks who believe I-1033 isn’t bold enough and property taxes should be lowered even more. Citizens are really struggling under Washington state’s crushing property tax burden and politicians at the state, county, and city level have done absolutely nothing to address that very real problem.
A post in mid-July by IRONHORSE at the Kitsap Sun is worth a reprint and deserves a response from opponents of I-1033:
We all know you don’t want it to pass and you dislike Eyman and that’s okay. This is America and we can disagree. But the question is, what would be your plan for ensuring responsible spending instead of the full speed adrift way we do it now? I think we’re all open for a plan if you have one. The constant complaints about Eyman without a reasonable counter plan is just that, whining and complaining about a guy that’s trying to do something the left hates. Taking their money away from them and holding them accountable for the money they do spend.
Do you have such a plan or maybe even a suggestion?
Puddy @22, Roger @8,
Actually I addressed these numbers in one of my very first posts, way back in May of 2004.
The industry average payback on slot machines is 95%, and I-892 would have imposed a 35% tax on the “net winnings” (what people lose), 99% of which would be used to reduce property taxes. Thus to get to Timmy’s promised $400 million a year reduction would have required $1.2 billion in losses, and roughly $24 billion a year in gross wagering.
That’s what he was promising the state… $24 billion a year wagered at slot machines in card rooms, restaurants and bowling alleys, not counting the additional wagering at tribal casinos.
Tim @24,
Your very premise is a lie. Washington is not a high tax state. Even without an income tax, our property tax rates are not particularly high.
The problem is that we have by far the most regressive tax structure in the nation, and so the greatest burden falls on those who can least afford it. Essentially, if you earn under $20,000 a year, you live in the highest taxed state in the nation, if you earn over $200,000 a year you live in one of the lowest.
The problem with all your initiatives is that they have made our tax structure even more regressive, primarily benefiting the folks who earn the most, and percentage-wise pay the least. Thus the reason why low and middle income voters who have supported your initiatives in the past don’t feel like they have gotten any relief is because you haven’t delivered any.
You are an admitted liar and a thief, who stole from his own campaign and supporters, and why anybody would believe a word you say is beyond me. You are also a kept man who would be absolutely nothing today without Dunmire’s money.
Again… answer my question. Do you really believe this crap or are you just in it for the money?
Timmy @ 24
Your quote from Ironhorse is hard to follow–the guy seems unfamiliar with basic rules of grammar, punctuation, and syntax. You, nonetheless, find the post worth reprinting. That is telling. Timmy, our tax burden in this state is not “crushing.” (I say that while I’m guessing I pay more than you do in various state taxes.) Making your claim makes you a lot of money; somehow, I think there is some sort of cosmic justice that occurs when you have to pay taxes on the money you earn from decrying having to pay taxes.
…and what of Queen Christine’s quid pro quo with the tribes giving up $140 Million/yr just for her political opportunism? Afterall, we Washingtonians don’t need that money in the state coffers that the tribes AGREED to before the GovernHER rescinded the offer. Aided later by equating on line poker playing with Class C felons as the coup de grace…
Dumbass doesn’t begin to cover the Democrat party
leadershipretardedness in this state in the last 20-25 years.I’ve got a plan. It’s called representative government. You elect people and if they don’t do what you want, you elect someone else.
Tim pastes that boilerplate crap wherever a story appears with his name.
What Tim has yet to answer is this:
from Jean Godden at Crosscut.com, July 22, 2009
http://crosscut.com/2009/07/22.....ion/19130/
And Tim pasted in the same shit in the comments there. I asked a few times there, Tim, if your I-1033 has a time machine in it. You have an unworkable proposal.
Jackass!
29
I don’t get it. How would that work? If I understand what you’re suggesting, those who scream the loudest wouldn’t get their way whenever they want it unless they somehow prevailed in an election. Is that what you’re suggesting? Wow, what a paradigm shift that would cause in the O’Reilly world.
earlier post: if they don’t do what you want, you elect someone else.
response: that’s certainly one approach. but there’s also the right to initiative guaranteed by our state Constitution. both are available to the people. clearly 315,000 citizens who voluntarily signed I-1033’s petitions think that its policies are reasonable and appropriate. we’re hopeful that those 315,000 people are just the tip of the iceberg – we’ll see in November.
Once again, opponents of I-1033 should answer the previous post by IRONHORSE:
the question is, what would be your plan for ensuring responsible spending instead of the full speed adrift way we do it now? I think we’re all open for a plan if you have one. The constant complaints about Eyman without a reasonable counter plan is just that, whining and complaining about a guy that’s trying to do something the left hates. Taking their money away from them and holding them accountable for the money they do spend.
Do you have such a plan or maybe even a suggestion?
Tim, you know and we know (but unfortunately, the petition signers don’t know) that the paid signature gatherers are lying to the people they’re talking to. I’ve heard them do so regarding three separate initiatives in my neighborhood. That’s where you get most of your 315,000 signatures.
But I know, you don’t care.
As far as property tax relief for fixed-income seniors, most counties in Washington State offer opportunities for either reduced or postponed property tax under a certain income. I take advantage of it. Of course you don’t publicize that because you wouldn’t want anyone to know that’s available to them, because you want them to feel that they live in the most highly-taxed state in the nation.
Which makes you a double jerk. But I know, you don’t care.
Timmy @ 33
Once again, proponents of I-1033 should explain to us what the hell IRONHORSE is trying to say in his garbled English.
Timmy, relying on someone like IRONHORSE to be your intellectual force is kind of sad. Surely, with all of Michael Dunmire’s money and your connections, you can come up with something better than that? Can’t you? Really? You can’t do any better than that?
@33
You insist away at your moronic straw man.
We are doing it now. The government has a budget and they balance it. There is no other side of the story. The counter to IRONHORSE’s argument is representative democracy.
The counter to the anti-government I-1033 is government. Your contempt and hate for all things governmental is written on every initiative you file.
@33
“Taking their money away from them and holding them accountable for the money they do spend.”
We are the government. Cities, counties and the state do not make a profit.
Investor banker Michael Dunmire and his ilk are far more responsible for the economic crisis in this state and the country than the Legislature or the Governor.
It’s no secrete that Dan’s the man when it comes to santorum.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/.....taxes.html
Forbes Magazine disagrees. Washington state is in the top 10 making Goldy (like you didn’t already know) the liar. Of the top 10 most taxed states, We finish:
ESO@40, you can’t use Forbes here on this blog to prove a point even though the data is universally known from Census Department figures from from July 2007 to June 2008.
The really whack-job leftist libtardos will go apoplectic!!! Puddy used Forbes last week and the sewer dwellers went nuts. Puddy had one libtardo tell him the Census is only performed every ten years.
Oh, you can link to Forbes here. If you do, we’ll just point out how notoriously inaccurate Forbes is. In this case, Forbes is way off the mark:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf.
Washington state ranks 35th in state and local taxes as a percentage of income.
@40. The piece you quoted says that property taxes are low and that the major burden of taxes paid are sales taxes. If even Forbes says our property taxes are low, what do we need I-1033 for? Specifically, where in I-1033 does it say that it will remove the major burden for people who don’t pay those low property taxes?
“Puddy had one libtardo tell him the Census is only performed every ten years.”
have you read the Constitution?
Article I
sec 2,3
Puddybud @ 41
“Puddy had one libtardo tell him the Census is only performed every ten years.”
I don’t know who told you that, but that person is correct. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts many smaller sample surveys in between censuses (like the Current Population Survey), but those aren’t censuses.
As a new homeowner, I find I-1033 to be an excellent idea. Sure, it will screw over state and local governments, who will in turn screw over the poor, but in 2011 or so, when the economy rebounds and tax revenues go up, lots of sales tax revenue from renters will be funneled back to property tax relief for landowners!
It’s great.
Perhaps Mr. Eyman’s next initiative can be to allow landowners to beat renters with their canes!
That is, of course, false. According to the same link you provided, Washington state ranked 13 with regard to state and local taxes collected by residents PER CAPITA. Facts are stubborn things.
Timmy certainly makes it a point to remind us that the signatures were obtained “voluntarily”.
If that is the case there would be no reason to emphazie that point. So, how many signatures by employees were coerced by employers?
If a person is tricked into signing something that there is no chance they would take the time to read on the street, is that voluntary?
On that basis, people who are lied to and taken advantage of are done so on a voluntary basis–which extended to the logical conclusion, absolves the perpetrator of all responsibility. Timmy should have gotten into brokering sub-prime loans.
If one gets their moral guidence from PT Barnum, then it makes sense. At least Barnum was honest. Timmy? Not so much.
If nothing else in this thread, it can be proven beyond any doubt that Goldy is lying when @ 26 he states:
“Washington is not a high tax state”
Empty Suit @49,
You calling me a liar? Back it up. From The Tax Foundation report on Washington state, the same source from which Timmy cherry-picks his data:
Tell me… what exactly is the problem that Tim is trying to fix?
@47: That has to be the dumbest fucking thing that I’ve ever read. Taxes per capita don’t mean shit. If I were in Mississippi and earning $5 an hour, I’d be pissed if I had to pay the same actual dollar value of taxes that I pay here in the Seattle area. Likewise, if I had to pay the same actual dollar value of taxes and I made billions of dollars, I’d be more than happy to dodge taxes and stay here for a while.
Notice the difference? It’s the tax burden relative to income that’s important, moron.
Empty Suit @ 47
DK @ 51 pointed this out, but let’s put some numbers behind the question of “per capita” verses “percentage of income” as a measure of “burden”.
Let’s consider two communities: one is a community of 500 people who all make more than $250K a year (let’s call this the “HI” community); the other is a community of 5000 people who all make less than $75K a year (let’s call this the “LI” community). If the HI community pays only 15% of their income in taxes while the LI community pays 35% of their income in taxes, the per capita “burden” of the HI community would be more than 40% higher than the per capita burden of the LI community.
By your argument, however, you’d rather pay the 35% tax burden borne by folks in the LI community, because their “burden” is less than that of the HI community who only pays 15% of their income in taxes.
There isn’t much to be gained in this discussion by your attempt to make the words “burden” and “weight” be exact synonyms of one another. The concept of “burden” has to include some measure of the ability to lift the weight, or it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever.
@47 The issue is tax burden, not tax collection. As the Tax Foundation reports in the link you note: “The goal is to not focus on the tax collectors but on the taxpayers. That is, we answer the question: What percentage of their income are the residents of this state paying in state and local taxes? We are not trying to answer the question: How much money have state and local governments collected?”
We rank 35th in terms of state and local tax burden per capita. We rank 8th in terms of income per capita. We pay no state income tax. We rank number 1 in sales tax. We rank 25th in terms of property tax burden per capita. These are all figures from the Tax Foundation’s website.
The important figure to note remains the ranking of overall in our total state and local taxes we are 35th (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local tax buden per capita.
Which is why that category is included in the tax foundation report, right stupes?
My god you’re dumb.
Be aware Eyman is doing cutting and pasting of identical comments in a number of comment threads. He never changes them and doesn’t repond when errors are pointed out. For example there have been ample discussions of how the Forbes rankings are wrong. Tim continues to post them as facts.
It doesn’t matter to Eyman since his intent is not to engage in discussion or dialogue. It’s like George Bush not being able to think of any mistakes he had made. He is just posting over and over his rants about how terrible things are. That’s because he is against any taxes and for shrinking government.
I-1033 is a poison pill – freezing public services and sugar coating it so you think you’ll see property tax reductions. The problem is that renters and senior citizens and working families that own no property will still pay taxes and not see any benefit form I-1033.
What Eyman also doesn’t tell you is that 40% of the property tax break will go to pay commercial property taxes. That’s right your sales tax dollars instead of helping to fund education or repairing roads or keeping libraries and parks open will help to pay the property taxes of Kemper Freeman who owns Bellevue Square and gave Eyman $25,000 to help buy signatures for I-1033. It will go to real estate developers, large corprations that own property and companies like Boeing and Weyerhauser.
What a wonderful reverse Robin Hood scheme of transferring taxes from the less fortunate to those that own property. The more property one owns of course the more you will benefit from this special tax break. Tim says this is more imporant than health care for kids or K-12 education, or funding public colleges or transit or sidewalks or police and fire protection.
Just tell Tim no way and urge you family, frinds and neighbors to vote No on I-1033.
The Washington State Department of Revenue has looked at the misleading Forbes article and says “The only accurate way to compare tax burdens is by comparing both state and local taxes among states. By that measure, Washington ranks 19th-highest per capita and 35th-highest in taxes as a percentage of personal income, http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf. Economists generally prefer measuring as a percentage of personal income because it takes into account economic activity and demand for services. Rankings have become a popular staple among certain national publications, but they can be misleading. The most recent Forbes ranking is one of those. After being contacted by the Department, Forbes subsequently published a tax ranking based on the Tax Foundation’s analysis.”
You can read their full comments here:
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetA.....kings.aspx
Don’t expect Tim to change what he says however. This has been pointed out before to him and he not interested in correcting his misrepresentations.
He is not interested in an objective analysis of Washington’s tax system. He is only interested in cutting taxes and reducing government and if he has to lie to convince you to buy his initiatives he will do it. I say lie because repeating false statements over and over when they are shown to be false is lying to the public.
Would you buy a used car from this guy? Why would you believe what he says about his initiatives when he repeatedly lies and presents false information to the public about them? Just vote No on I-1033. Tell you family and friends and neighbors to do so also.
@14 Eyman can suck my dick anytime. It’ll cost him $100 a minute. All proceeds go to the Help Roger Rabbit Live Like A Republican Fund.
@17 Actually, I don’t think Eyman posts here. It looks like the work of a brainless troll whose intellectual skills are limited to copying and pasting boilerplate from Eyman’s website.
@22 “Where did Pelletizer get his 90% payout value from?”
By doing research, stupid. What I found out was Las Vegas casinos typically have high payout ratios on their slots, in the low-to-mid 90-percentile range, whereas tribal slots tend to be on the low side, in the mid to high 80-percentile range.
@24 “[W]hat would be your plan for ensuring responsible spending instead of the full speed adrift way we do it now?”
Elections.
Well, that would certainly give your own lips some well deserved time off then now, wouldn’t it Rog?
@24 (continued) Now I’ve got a question for you, Tim. If you think the state is spending too much money, what would you cut?
@25 “That’s what he was promising the state… $24 billion a year wagered at slot machines in card rooms, restaurants and bowling alleys, not counting the additional wagering at tribal casinos.”
As gross state product and personal income were both around $225 billion at the time, this meant that to meet Eyman’s promised property tax reduction targets, $1 of every $9 earned in this state would have to go into non-tribal slot machines.
As federal, state, and local taxes took about 35% of income, that means $1 of every $6 of after-tax income would have to go into non-tribal slot machines.
@28 Stop lying. The governor made a trade: She gave up revenue in exchange for the tribes agreeing not to expand tribal gambling — a deal that even Republican legislators supported. Why? Because (1) gambling is a social evil, and (2) tribal gaming is under federal jurisdiction, so the state can’t directly regulate it. This revenue compensated the tribes for foregone gaming revenues. You don’t expect them to agree to limit expansion of tribal gaming in return for nothing, do you?
The right is demagoging this issue. What the governor did was in the best interests of the people of our state. It wasn’t for a political purpose, and it certainly wasn’t a political payoff to the tribes for votes or campaign contributions. It was a tough and unpopular decision, but it was the right decision, and we’re lucky we have a governor who was tough enough to make it.
@32 I don’t have a problem with initiatives. Unlike Goldy, who is a transplanted easterner, I’m a big fan of the initiative and referendum — that’s how we do things out here in the Populist West. But just because I support the right to put something to a vote of the people doesn’t mean I’ll vote for every lameass initiative that comes along. I reject your no-government-is-the-best-government stupidity, Tim. And I’m going to vote against this initiative, just as I vote against almost all of your initiatives. The only thing you ever got right in your entire life is that the car excise tax was a bad tax — and you didn’t even repeal it, the legislature did, after the courts threw out your initiative because you don’t know how to comply with our state constitution.
@40 Well whoop-de-doo. You link us to a Forbes article decrying our high sales tax. I hate our high sales tax too, so welcome to the club! Our state’s reliance on the sales tax lets the rich, who don’t spend most of their income, off the hook. You won’t get any argument from me on replacing the sales tax with a state income tax that spreads the tax burden more fairly.
@48 “If that is the case there would be no reason to emphazie that point. So, how many signatures by employees were coerced by employers?”
I don’t know if this goes on, but if it does, the employee should say, “I’ve already signed it.”
Any employer who demands that his employees sign an initiative deserves to be lied to.
@61 I’m not a quadraplegic and don’t type with my teeth, dumbass.
Of course she did. She had a quid pro quo with the tribes that is well documented.
Says who? Roger Rabbit? Of course, you advocate the illegal use of pot, unfettered abortion and physician assisted suicide. Not sure if you’re exactly the poster boy for what constitutes a “social evil” there Rog.
They had already agreed to pay the 140M that when Gregoire backtracked and rescinded it. This wasn’t done out of some fucking altruism by Ms. Gregoire, she decided it was politically expedient to forgo the 140M the state could use in order to secure the contributions forthcoming from the tribes.
My Advice? Quit lying to protect the obvious, Roger.
I Never implied either. Just that you’re incredibly flexible.
…lockjaw must be affecting your cerebral functions at the moment.
@69 “Says who? Roger Rabbit?”
Yes.
“Of course, you advocate the illegal use of pot,”
No, I haven’t. As a former judge, I can’t go around advocating breaking the law, no matter what I might personally think of the law.
As far as that goes, I’m not all that sure that legalizing pot (except for medical use) is a good thing. I’m leaning that way, but I’m not totally sold.
“unfettered abortion”
You’re even more ignorant than I thought. I’ve posted on this blog many times that I believe abortion is a moral wrong, and that I’m personally opposed to people getting abortions. Get your head out of your ass and find out the facts before blowing snot out of your butt, boy.
“and physician assisted suicide.”
Once again, you’re assuming things instead of reading what I actually said. Know what happens to people who ASSUME things, nitwit?
What I’ve actually posted on this subject is, What the hell do we need an assisted suicide law for when all you have to do is put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?
“Not sure if you’re exactly the poster boy for what constitutes a “social evil” there Rog.”
You’re not sure of a lot of things, and you’re wrong about all the things you’re sure of — does that help clarify your mind?
@70 Yes you did, when you posted “that would certainly give your own lips some well deserved time off then now.”
You’re not only stupid, you can’t even remember what you posted 38 minutes ago.
Don’t speak about something you know nothing about silly rabbit…i.e. “Morals”
You’re the same fucktard rabbit that advocated “pissing on the grave” of a respected and since deceased preacher not too long ago? say 3-4 weeks ago?
I can find the quote if you’d like, Rog.
@73 “You’re the same fucktard rabbit that advocated “pissing on the grave” of a respected and since deceased preacher not too long ago? say 3-4 weeks ago?”
Robert Novak, the traitor who gave CIA secrets to our enemies, was a preacher? This is news to me. When did that bastard get religion? Before he died, I hope for the sake of his soul.
@73 (continued) So you’re criticizing my position on abortion?
@73 (continued) I think I’m beginning to understand the rightwing position on abortion now. They’re not against it because it’s immoral to kill defenseless unborn children. This realization solves a conundrum for me, because I never could reconcile that with Republicans’ willingness to kill defenseless kids in Iraqi villages. It appears morality has nothing to do with it. Finally I see — morality has nothing to do with it; they’re against abortion because they like to fuck with desperate women for the sheer sport of it.
@74 ~ hmm yes, it did happen to be a well respected newsman and not a preacher. (I only remember your hate directed at the recently deceased and not the person)
Novack had nothing to do with Valeri Plame. It was Dick Armitage and her dumbfuck husband and her going around to D.C. parties introducing her as working for the CIA. Nice Undercover work there, Val.
Still, your irrational vitriol towards novack shows you’re little more than an angry, ill tempered and probably slighly mentally imbalanced person Roger. I wouldn’t even suggest pissing on Ted Kennedy’s grave even though he showed extreme cowardice 40 years ago in letting his female companion drown. Kennedy directly killed a person and he’s a hero to you. Novack was indirectly involved in “outing” a CIA worker who wasn’t covert and worked in a clerical position within the agency and his grave should be pissed on because he didn’t agre with you politically. Pull your head out of your ass already.
Simply put, you’re a clown, Roger…and a liar to boot.
@Roger Rabbit
Empty Suit Obama is a sixteen year old kid who doesn’t understand the difference between property, Federal, business or sales tax. He can’t determine the difference between per capita and percentage of income. He would borrow his mother’s ID to vote for I-1033.
Don’t bother engaging him. Try to communicate with real voters on the folly of I-1033.
People can go to http://www.no1033.com to connect with the campaign against I-1033. You can volunteer there also.
Watch this video on You Tube to see what i-1033 will do to Washington State. Colorado already tried the I-1033 Eyman approach and its been a disaster. Even Rupublicans in Colorado agree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbF3_CiOtoM
We want to start by thanking the 315,000 citizens who voluntarily signed Initiative 1033’s petitions, as well as the thousands of volunteers throughout the state who made that possible.
Here’s what we’re debating with I-1033: how fast should the government grow and who should decide? I-1033 takes the position that the public sector should grow at the same rate as the private sector — unless voters OK a bigger increase — and it should be the citizens, and not the politicians, who decide.
I-1033 brings back successful policies passed by the voters previously. In 1993, during tough economic times, voters approved Initiative 601, which put reasonable limits on government’s fiscal policies. I-601 established a sustainable rate for government to grow, saying it could grow at the inflation rate plus population growth with faster growth requiring voter approval.
Despite a multi-million-dollar opposition campaign, the voters passed 601.
And I-601 worked very well for many years until the Legislature started putting loopholes in it. It started with the Republicans in 1998, and accelerated with the Democrats in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Those loopholes removed I-601’s reasonable fiscal discipline and policies.
The result? Two major deficits — $3.2 billion in 2003 and $9 billion in 2009.
Those loopholes allowed them to take their budgets on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in good times — creating unsustainable budgets — which led to slashing during bad times. I-1033 gets us off that fiscal roller coaster by reestablishing I-601’s same reasonable allowance for growth while permitting higher increases with voter approval.
I-601 worked, it can work again with the passage of I-1033.
So what happens to excess tax revenues that government collects above I-1033’s limit? After a fixed percentage of tax revenue is transferred into the constitutionally-protected rainy day fund, the remainder of excess tax revenues gets refunded back to taxpayers via lower property taxes. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens desperately need relief from our state’s crushing property tax burden. Washington shouldn’t be a state where only rich people can afford a home. I-1033 provides needed, long-overdue property tax relief.
Opponents want higher taxes and a state income tax. Opponents are against ANY limit on government’s growth and against ANY restriction on government’s power to take as much as they want from the taxpayers.
I-1033 provides fiscal discipline with flexibility: any revenue from any source deposited into general funds is limited except voter-approved revenues, rainy day funds, and federal funds for the state and except voter-approved revenues for counties & cities.
Putting a reasonable limit on the growth of government, like I-601 previously did, gives politicians the excuse to say ‘no’ to the special interest groups and encourages them to finally start prioritizing and reforming government.
Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to lower property taxes. Opponents have no alternative to I-1033 to get government off the fiscal roller coaster. Opponents want us to trust the politicians, despite their insatiable appetite for higher taxes. Opponents ignore the 16 years of positive history with Initiative 601 in Washington state, preferring instead to talk about different tax limits in California, Colorado, and other states. Opponents are against I-1033 because it allows the people, and not the politicians, to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
Both Forbes magazine and the Tax Foundation rank Washington as the 8th highest taxed state in the nation. I-1033 keeps us from hitting #1.
Property taxes keep going higher and higher and government keeps getting bigger and bigger. The people are losing control. I-1033 allows the state, counties, and cities to grow, but at a rate that citizens can control and taxpayers can afford. I-1033 gets government off the fiscal roller coaster, allowing it to grow at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace taxpayers’ ability to afford it.
I-1033 is needed now more than ever.
We’re very proud of our supporters and very hopeful that voters will support controlling the growth of government and lowering property taxes by approving Initiative 1033 in November. Thank you.
http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com