Latest from The Spokesman-Review
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?
Initiative promoter Tim Eyman said today that his property tax measure, Initiative 1033, is close to having enough signatures to ensure that it’s on the November ballot.
“We’ve hit 270,000 signatures for I-1033,” Eyman emailed to supporters this morning. I-1033 would cap the growth of state, city and county general-fund taxes, with any dollars over the cap devoted to reducing property taxes.
To get a measure on the ballot, organizers need signatures from 241,153 registered voters. Since some people sign twice, or make up names, or aren’t registered to vote, etc., state election officials recommend a cushion of about 25 percent extra names.
Eyman says that his group’s validity rate is higher than average, at about 83 percent, meaning that 83 out of 100 signatures are deemed valid when the state runs a spot-check of the signatures to protect against fraud. So Eyman’s aiming for 292,000 signatures this year.
“We had an absolutely killer week last week,” he wrote. “Signatures really poured into our P.O. box in Spokane.” That’s where his colleagues, Jack and Mike Fagan, help administer the effort. Mike Fagan is also one of a crowded field of people running for Spokane City Council this year.
There hasn’t been much public opposition to the initiative yet, but opponents typically hold their fire until after a measure actually qualifies for the ballot, because most don’t.
NOTE: The description of I-1033 above was rewritten to more accurately describe it. RR