Spokane7
62°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
Non-profit agencies that work on housing and children’s issues are putting out a call for volunteers to work against a state initiative to limit government spending.
Recent polls that show Initiative 1033 with a comfortable lead has groups concerned about a loss of grant funding for programs, said Mary Ann Murphy, executive director of Partners with Families and Children: Spokane, who forwarded the request for help with a phone bank:. “I did get alarmed that perhaps people didn’t know all the implications of how this will play out.”
The sponsor of the initiative questioned whether the agencies should be campaigning for or against any ballot measure, but doubted they’d have much impact.
“If we thought it was going to be really effective, we’d be more upset,” Tim Eyman said.
The initiative proposes limits on the amount of revenue the state, cities and counties can spend from their general funds, and would require property tax reductions if they collected more than an amount tied to inflation and population growth.
Michael Kelly of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, which put out the call for volunteers, said restrictions on the general fund spending could lead to reductions in programs that tackle homelessness, hunger and housing shortages. The state may have already cut mandated services like schools and corrections as much as possible, so health and social services may bear a larger share of any cuts from 1033, Murphy said.
“I don’t feel shy or reticent about thinking those are good things the state does. I feel good about services for health and children,” she said.
Eyman argues, however, that the best way to fight homelessness or expand low-income housing is to make homes more affordable, and one way to do that is to lower property taxes, which I-1033 would do if revenue grows faster than the limit it sets up.
“How do we help the poor? Stop taxing them into poverty might be a good start,” Eyman said.
Rachel Myers, executive director of the housing coalition, agreed the state needs to examine its high property taxes, as well as its high sales tax rate, but not in an initiative campaign. “I don’t think this is the way to address the disproportionate impact of taxes on the poor.”
A recent poll commissioned by the pro-initiative campaign showed the proposal had a significant majority among voters surveyed in late September; about twice as many said they’d vote yes as vote no. That was one reason opponents said they needed volunteers “to tell people the truth about this initiative.”
But efforts by government officials to counter the initiative are probably a reason it’s doing well in the polls, and work by the non-profits could have the same effect, Eyman said.
Jim Camden is a veteran political reporter for The Spokesman-Review.
Jonathan Brunt covers Spokane City Hall for The Spokesman-Review.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
TimEyman on October 06 at 2:11 p.m.
Here’s the polling results Jim refers to:
RE: Poll by Rasmussen Reports on I-1033: 61% yes, 31% no, 8% undecided (remember, those undecided’s gotta go somewhere)
It’s clear that voters are rejecting the multi-million-dollar, Washington-DC-funded “con” campaign by opponents of I-1033 — the initiative leads by 30 points with just a few weeks left to go. The poll by Rasmussen Reports, taken on September 22nd, shows support at 61% yes, 31% no, 8% undecided. Here’s what 500 likely voters were asked:
A statewide initiative will be on the ballot this November. We’d like to ask if you support it or not:
The initiative concerns state, county and city revenue. Here is the ballot title: This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Do you definitely favor, probably favor, probably oppose, or definitely oppose this initiative?
21% Definitely favor
40% Probably favor
17% Probably oppose
14% Definitely oppose
8% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/ 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Just to show how accurate Rasmussen is with their polling, their results on Initiative 960 two years ago perfectly predicted the measure’s election outcome (51%-49%). Here’s the results of their September 26, 2007 poll among 500 likely voters: 51% yes, 39% no, 9% not sure (18% definitely favor, 33% probably favor, 22% probably oppose, 17% definitely oppose). Despite opponents spending $1.3 million over the subsequent weeks saying I-960 was ‘just like Colorado’s TABOR’, the numbers didn’t move an inch. With I-1033 starting 10 points higher (61% versus 51%), we’re feeling really good about I-1033’s prospects with voters in November.
It’s clear that voters are savvy enough to see through opponents’ threats, lies, and scare tactics on I-1033. Voters are clearly rejecting their “con” campaign and strongly supporting I-1033’s policies of fiscal discipline and property tax relief. Voters understand that the private sector, not the public sector, creates the jobs that will drive Washington’s economic recovery. Voters know that anything but an overwhelming ‘yes’ vote for I-1033 will be seen by politicians as the people’s endorsement of higher taxes. Voters realize that I-1033 is their only opportunity for a break on their crushing property tax burden. Opponents certainly have the best “con” campaign money can buy but apparently, voters aren’t buyin’ it.
We have faith in the common sense of the average taxpayer to see through opponents’ threats, lies and scare tactics.
I-1033 is, by far, our most needed and most popular initiative to date. I-1033 brings back I-601’s fiscal discipline, gets government off the fiscal roller coaster by allowing sustainable growth, maintains I-601’s safety valve allowing faster government growth with voter approval, and provides a long-overdue reduction in our state’s crushing property tax burden.
Most persuasive of all: our opponents have no alternative. No alternative way to lower property taxes, no alternative way to get government off the fiscal roller coaster, no alternative way to stop politicians from unilaterally increasing taxes and fees which would only hurt our economy and extend the recession. All of the opponents of I-1033 want higher taxes. They all want a state income tax. I-1033’s opponents think that Washington’s citizens are UNDERTAXED?!!? Opponents are against I-1033 because it lets the people, and not the politicians, decide how fast government will grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
eagleproducer on October 06 at 7:46 p.m.
The same people who support the eyeache initiatives are the same ones lined up to later complain about closed libraries, increased class sizes, curriculum reductions, park fees, et. al.
Not one person I know who supports a state income tax believes the citizens of Washington are under taxed. We believe the corporations that operate here and extract enormous untaxed profits are.
Initiative style governance is not governing, it’s mobocracy controlled by a select few puppeteers. Look closely at who funds Eyeache’s efforts to cripple state government and you’ll paint him as the inveterate shill he is. That goes for you too, Jack Fagan!
eagleproducer on October 06 at 7:57 p.m.
Here is a great one by Mr. Eyeache: “How do you help the poor? Stop taxing them into poverty might be a good start.”
That is rich. I haven’t seen one Eyeache initiative that sought to reduce the taxes that most effect poor people: Sales tax. Instead it’s about property taxes that favor the wealthy, excise taxes on luxury items, that again favor the wealthy and reducing government revenue raising capacity that effects programs directed at the reduction of poverty.
Eyeache couldn’t give one damn about the poor. How is lowering property taxes going to help the homeless? Are they lining up to get non-existent credit so they can join the free market party in their new McMansion? I’ll bet Timmy will argue that slum lords will somehow magically gain a conscience and lower their rents once the onerous burden of the state is off their backs.
eagleproducer on October 06 at 8:00 p.m.
Oh, sorry, Timmy, I meant to say “inveterate corporate shill.”
eagleproducer on October 06 at 8:12 p.m.
I wouldn’t have problems if Eyeache’s efforts to bankrupt state coffers were organic and grassroots, but they aren’t.
Hence the paid signature collectors.
Gary D Rhodes on October 07 at 9:07 a.m.
I like how many progressives argue their point by saying the opposition are stupid dupes being mind controlled by evil puppeteers.
eagleproducer on October 07 at 7:25 p.m.
Rhodes: I didn’t say the opposition are stupid dupes. They are actually well organized and funded. It’s the people who they manipulate into voting for measures clearly against their self interests who are the stupid dupes.
If Eyeache had his way he’d shrink Washington’s government until it could be drowned in a bath tub. Linking government spending to inflation and balanced budget nonsense being played out in states around the country are going to prolong the recession. What we’ve got are fifty mini-Hoovers right now, cutting spending and slashing jobs, all but negating any impact the federal stimulus might provide.
gmorton on October 08 at 9:53 a.m.
Spoketucky wrote,
“I’ll bet Timmy will argue that slum lords will somehow magically gain a conscience and lower their rents once the onerous burden of the state is off their backs.”
Er, no, Spoke. Conscience will have nothing to do with it. As their costs decline, rents will decline because competition will force it. Landlords will prefer to reduce rents $20/month, which will leave their profits unchanged, rather than have their tenants move because someone else with a vacant unit undercut them.
Er, BTW, which gummint programs have managed to reduce poverty? The poverty rate in the US in 1968, when the “War on Poverty” was just getting underway, was 12.6%. It had declined continuously throughout the country’s history, falling below 50% by 1900 (the first time in history a majority of any country’s people were not poor). It had fallen to 25% by 1950, and 12.6% by 1968.
Since 1968 the US has spent about $2 trillion on the “War on Poverty.” And last year (2008) the poverty rate was – 12.6%. Exactly the same as it was when the “War” began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
eagleproducer on October 08 at 7:34 p.m.
gmorton: I won’t dispute any of your claims. What I’d like to include, to provide perspective, is the growth in wages of the bottom 95% earners since 1968 and the top 5%. Since 1974, the bottom 95% have experienced wage stagnation or deflation as adjusted by the C.P.I. Additionally, more households have two earners working now than in 1968 to keep the family out of poverty.
You tout two trillion dollars as a figure that government intervention in poverty hasn’t worked. I’ll agree. Two trillion dollars, over forty years, amounts to less than one tenth of one percent of total G.D.P. It’s a bloody miracle the poverty rate has held steady with such a paltry investment towards aiding upward mobility. The only thing that has prevented a retrograde movement is the addition of another full time worker in most households.
Who are the largest land holders in the state of Washington who will benefit from this initiative? Farmers? So more low paying, non benefit accruing farm labor jobs are going to lead Washington towards prosperity? It simply sounds like greasing the skids to the bottom if you ask me.
gmorton on October 09 at 9:12 p.m.
Spoketucky,
The “wage stagnation” dogma is misleading, for several reasons. First, the statistic is based on the category “non-supervisory and production workers,” which is poorly defined (and is being phased out by the BLS).
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5044
Also, it does not include benefits, which have risen much faster than money wages since 1980. With benefits added, total compensation has continued to exceed inflation. And finally, the stat does not reflect the constantly improving quality of life which a given income can purchase – e.g., virtually all of the “poor” own refrigerators, 84% have air conditioning, 98% own color TVs, 70% own automobiles.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed091109b.cfm
BTW, the $2 trillion represents about 0.7% of GDP over that period. But the point was that poverty rates declined steadily over the entire course of US history – until the government got involved in the ‘60s. Then the downward trend was arrested. Why is that?
eagleproducer on October 10 at 9:44 a.m.
Okay, forget wage stagflation if you think it should be discarded as a legitimate factor in the rising poverty rate. That is ignoring reality, but I”m used to that when debating with tax slasher conservatives. What is the relationship between wages and the monstrous gains in worker productivity since 1970?
I disagree that the government only became interested in poverty since the 1960’s. What is Social Security and other New Deal programs if not to prevent abject poverty?
gmorton on October 10 at 12:53 p.m.
Spoketucky wrote,
“What is the relationship between wages and the monstrous gains in worker productivity since 1970?”
That is a good question, and one that has received a lot of attention from economists. There are many theories, including:
* Changes in the composition of the labor force. Productivity gains have been greatest in manufacturing, lowest in services. But workers in manufacturing are becoming a smaller portion of the workforce, so the average tends to be dominated by wages in services, where productivity gains have been smaller. Also, increases in productivity usually imply fewer workers to produce the same output. Workers are laid off, creating an oversupply of workers. When there is an oversupply, wages do not rise, regardless of productivity.
http://www.economica.ca/ew09_1p1.htm (this one discusses Canada, but applies just as well to the US)
* Decline of collective bargaining. Without organization workers cannot bring effective pressure on employers for a greater share of the productivity gains. Yet workers do not seem to be interested in unionizing. An interesting theory for why this is the case is that workers are, in general, content with the lifestyles their incomes can provide. They have what they need. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like more money, but that they’re not motivated to do much to obtain it.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa640.pdf
“Worker productivity,” BTW, is a rather misleading term. It implies that workers have become more productive, and that is not usually the case. If a manufacturer installs a machine which one worker can operate, and lays off 3 workers needed to operate the old machinery, we say the productivity of the remaining worker has increased 300%. But of course it hasn’t; the worker’s skills have not improved and his contribution to production has not increased. The increase in production is due to an addition of *capital*, not any increase in worker productivity.
The basic laws of economics always apply. The price of labor, like the prices of everything else, is a function of supply and demand. The greater the supply v. demand, the lower the price. The greater the skills of the worker, the smaller the supply of workers with those skills will be, and hence the higher the price. The main reason wages overall have not kept pace with productivity in recent decades, IMHO, is because overall worker skills have not been improving, partly due to the shift from manufacturing to service work. Productivity increases have been due to increases in capital investment, not improvements in labor skills.
gmorton on October 10 at 1:07 p.m.
Spoketucky wrote,
“I disagree that the government only became interested in poverty since the 1960’s. What is Social Security and other New Deal programs if not to prevent abject poverty?”
Social Security did substantially reduce poverty among the elderly. But poverty also declined over the same period for all other demographic groups.
SS is a form of forced savings; it is not a welfare program. The beneficiaries have paid for it. So is unemployment insurance – it is financed with a tax on employers, and thus a part of the employers’ total labor costs. It is a type of fringe benefit.
eagleproducer on October 11 at 1:48 p.m.
gmorton: I still haven’t heard why incomes for the top 1% earners rose 400% since the early 70’s while for the remainder they’ve remained stagnant. Your inclusion of increased benefit packages does not conform with reality either. A smaller percentage of the work force today receives full health care benefits than did in 1970. As for your argument about supply and demand being the prime motivator wages, where then does any incentive exist for industry to expand and create more jobs if it means they will incur greater costs for labor?
I don’t link wage disparity to anything other than what it is: 1% of the earners in an economy taking home more than the bottom 95%. That is unsustainable and reeks of social injustice.
gmorton on October 11 at 6:09 p.m.
Spoketucky wrote,
“I still haven’t heard why incomes for the top 1% earners rose 400% since the early 70’s while for the remainder they’ve remained stagnant.”
That Canadian piece dealt with the gist of that. The supply of labor began to increase during the 70s, due to the entry of the “baby boomers” into the labor market (and also the entry of many women, which the piece did not mention). Hence an oversupply of labor, compared to the previous 2 decades. You’ll also note that they are predicting a *shortage* of labor in the next two decades as the “boomers” leave the labor market. That will force a rise in wages.
As for the top 1%, those tend to be the persons with the rarest skills in high demand – everyone from brain surgeons to best-selling authors to NBA stars. It also includes the managers of the various capital funds which have contributed most to the increased productivity – those much-maligned Wall Street “shysters.” They are the guys who decide where money should be invested. When they are right, a lot of people make a lot of money (such as the 92,000 employees of Microsoft). When they are wrong, a lot of money is lost. Hence the skills of those who usually get it right are very valuable.