Posts tagged: I-1033
Good evening, Netizens…
David Horsey has taken on Tim Eyman, and frankly, I am uncertain if Eyman is quite the glinty-eyed ogre that David Horsey would make him out to be.
On the other hand, I am no fuzzy and warm fan of Tim Eyman, although I have a certain degree of sympathy for many of the Initiatives he has either successfully put or attempted to put on the ballot. I admit freely and openly a great deal of misgivings about one of his most-current efforts, I-1033.
However, in case you haven’t read the entire document, I recommend you read http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1033.pdf the complete initiative. On second thought, at least speaking for myself, read it through twice. There is a lot of bureaucratic double-talk present, which is nearly always true of our beloved State Government, and by association, Tim Eyman.
If I were to summarize I-1033 in a simple sentence, I would probably say that, at the expense of various state government programs that are dependent upon property tax levies for their source(s) of funding, what this initiative does is put a spending cap or limitation on the amount of additional property taxes that can be added each year. It is true that, if I-1033 passes, there are a lot of state programs that will need to find additional source(s) of funding, and pretty quickly at that.
This does not prohibit any additional new property taxes. What it states plainly is that if additional property taxes are needed or wanted above the reasonable limits it sets forth, the voters can approve the additional funding as it becomes necessary. I may not have the precise terminology down pat, but at least from what I understand of I-1033, at least now I can see why schools and other tax-dependent organizations have been flooding the airwaves in opposition to I-1033.
Good morning, Netizens…
Washington State Initiative 1033: (short description, full text available) http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2009
This terse description of I-1033 states in part that it will limit state taxes in Washington State. Written and submitted by Tim Eyman, it has acquired enough signatures to make it to the state ballot.
After reading the full text of this initiative, I am wondering whether people will vote thus:
It cuts our taxes and thus vote for it.
Ambivalently ignore anything Tim Eyman supports or not care about cutting taxes.
I admit the full text of the initiative and after nervously watching our property taxes steadily increasing each year, and despite a certain resistance to Tim Eyman’s predictable bent against taxation, I think I’ll support this initiative. However, I worry about those voters who, because they do not own real property, and thus are not impacted by property taxes, might not vote in favor of it.
What about you?