From Seattle PI.com:
In a brief, fiery Thursday speech to a crowd of 800 conservationists, Gov. Chris Gregoire declared that the state “won’t come out of this recession” if voters pass Initiative 1033 in November.
Full story, over here.
Meanwhile, Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike has proposed a resolution opposing I-1033, and City Council members will consider it during a special council meeting Monday, Oct. 12. See meeting materials, over here. That same night the council will consider another resolution seeking to ‘approve’ Referendum 71. If R-71 is approved, the “everything but marriage” bill that provides nearly every right married couples receive in the state, will go into effect. The law was approved by the state Legislature during the last session but has not taken effect due to the referendum.
I have a call in to Ryan asking why the City Council should take up such a resolution, and to inquire how it impacts city government from her perspective.
Meanwhile, I spoke with Mayor Pike this morning about his opposition to I-1033.
“It would be really damaging to funding government appropriately in this state at every level,” he said.
Pike said, and I confirmed with city Finance Director John Carter, that, depending on the state’s growth and inflation formulas each year, the city is facing a loss of between $5 million to $15 million in tax revenues from Eyman’s initiative.
I-1033 limits 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 go to an account used to provide property tax decreases.
Pike also believes the calcualtion is fundamentally unfair, because sales taxes and B&O taxes that go above the limit, which are paid by “even the poorest of the poor” in the state, would go to paying only people who own property.
I have a call in to Eyman to chat about the mayor’s opposition to the initiative.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:44 PM
If only the Mayor were so aggressive at lowering taxes.
Raising taxes cannot fix the economy. Quite the opposite.
Taxes are a drag on the economy.
If a tax is “unfair” then lower it.
Sponsor and initiative to lower the “unfair” taxes.
Eyeman never saw a tax he did not want to lower, but I have seldom seen an elected official that wanted to do anything but raise taxes.
Maybe they balance each other out.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Pike advocated for not taking the 1 percent property increase the city was legally allowed to take last year and the council agreed.
This year, the mayor’s administration is seeking the 1 percent hike as general fund revenues are down about 10 percent year over year.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Then why is he not supporting the Eyeman Initiative?
It appears that the City is able to live with it.
Are they against rational restraints on spending, on principle.
Most people have spending restraints, which is what Eyemen is proposing.
Eyeman is not gutting revenues for government, but is a rational restraint on government.
He could have made the cuts severe, …
… and these severe restraints might have passed the voters.
Government employees, which constitute 60-70% of all government spending, are doing relatively well, when compared to their counter-parts in the private sector, which have to pay the taxes to support government.
They should be thankful. Asking them to tighten their belts seems fair, but I guess we could ask the voters, what they think.
Most polling indicates that over 70% of Americans are angry with their government. Either they are irrational, or they have good reason to be upset.
Which is it?
Be careful how you answer that one.
We now have 15% combined unemployment, or under employment, and still climbing.
It will be interesting to see how our government decides to entice employers to hire more people, especially considering that scant few in government have ever been in the private job creation business.
Get ready for some creative investments of tax dollars to create jobs, by those that do not have any experience.
Maybe it is time that the government consulted with an economist.
Some one who actually …
… has training.
~
October 8th, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Doug - I’m not going to get into a back and forth with you. I was simply responding to this misperception of the local political environment:
“Eyeman never saw a tax he did not want to lower, but I have seldom seen an elected official that wanted to do anything but raise taxes.”
The Whatcom County Council and Executive Pete Kremen have also kept the county’s general fund levy neutral for more than a decade now. If they ever increased one tax levy, the reduced another to balance it out.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Blaming taxes for economic constipation is like blaming french fries for anorexia.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Sam,
The SPENDING of Whatcom County government increased 8% and 10% respectively for the years 2005 and 2006.
I am, and have been speaking of spending. You are speaking of the milage rate for only a single revenue source for Whatcom County (ie property taxes).
This is the trick that the Port is trying to pull. When we talk about government spending and control therof, I am not speaking of milage rates.
If you checking account is negative at the end of the month, you cannot point to the milage rate.
Dollars spent is the only concrete data worth measuring. Milage rates are what politicians point to, in order to confuse voters into thinking that spending is not going up.
When governments over-spend when the times are good, rather than saving when times are good, this is exactly the difficulties they find themselves in.
When times are good, governments do have a choice to save. They “chose” not to, and now they are not only paying a price locally, but also at the ballot box via initiatives and voter anger.
It is only fair that governments are assigned some of the responsibility for their actions, Sam.
Government decisions are driving the Eyeman’s initiatives and the voters have been largely very supportive.
This is democracy, …
and accountability in action.
~
October 8th, 2009 at 7:33 PM
“Dollars spent is the only concrete data worth measuring.”
Interestingly, concrete data is the point here. Roads.
There’s some milage data worth remembering.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Indeed, Doug, spending has increased often due to new construction - meaning growth. Of course that’s where the debate comes in. Does the government need to spend more as the area grows to accommodate those newcomers or should the government simply stick with what it has and make due? They’re currently doing that due to the recession, with local governments slashing millions from budgets (so far the city has slashed more than $7 million due to reduce revenue, the county I believe is comparable).
But it’s up to you commenters to determine your own philosophy on spending.
I’m glad you’re here chatting about this, Doug!
October 8th, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Also Doug, you continually continue to argue that the port is basically taking more from taxpayers when in fact they’ve reduced their millage rate by more than 10 cents per thousand over the last decade. And what that means is each taxpayer is paying less. It’s because of new construction and more revenue for the port. Are they spending more? Yes. Because their taxpayer base is bigger. Not because they’re taxing any more. They’re not, and that seems to be your argument. It’s incorrect.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Here’s our update in its entirety:
RE: Gregoire, McIntire, other politicians blow a gasket today on I-1033 — Halloween comes early to Washington
After Gregoire recently announced that she’s changed her position and now wants higher taxes - whatever increases ‘lawmakers and interest groups’ tell her to enact - the need for Initiative 1033 became even more evident. During a recession, raising taxes and increasing the burden on struggling working families, fixed-income senior citizens, and a hurting business community will only make the recession last longer. Gregoire’s tax hiking plans will only make a bad situation worse.
Under I-1033, state, county, and city politicians CANNOT raise taxes or fees without voter approval.
Let us say that again: UNDER I-1033, STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY POLITICIANS CANNOT RAISE ANY TAX OR ANY FEE WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
Gregoire thinks she can tax us into prosperity and I-1033 stands in her way.
So Gregoire blew a gasket today on I-1033 saying it will ‘devastate’ the state of Washington. She and the Democrats have done that all by themselves by adopting unsustainable budgets resulting in a $9 billion deficit. As soon as Gregoire became Governor in 2005, it was her top priority to get rid of I-601’s inflation-plus-population-growth limit — the same one resurrected with I-1033 — that had worked very well for the preceding 12 years, from 1993 through 2005. When they got rid of that growth limit in 2005 and raised taxes too, they put Washington state on a fiscal roller coaster, overextending themselves in the good times — creating totally unsustainable budgets — which led directly to making the bad times worse, ending in a $9 billion deficit.
Gregoire needs to look in the mirror and realize that it was her lack of fiscal restraint in her first term that resulted in that fiscal roller coaster and that massive deficit.
But rather than learning from that egregious mistake, she’s hell-bent to repeat it.
She’s now re-reversed her position on raising taxes — she’s now in favor of whatever ‘lawmakers and interest groups’ tell her to increase. Higher sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, business taxes, and a state income tax — Gregoire’s open to all of them. I-1033 is necessary exactly because without the citizens restraining them, Gregoire and the Democrats have showed themselves incapable of restraining themselves.
I-601 worked very well for 12 years, Gregoire and the Democrats nearly destroyed Olympia without it in four years.
Voters support bringing back I-601’s fiscal discipline by resurrecting the same growth limit with I-1033. And voters support the ’safety valve’ that I-601 has and I-1033 has which says if government thinks the automatic increase provided by I-1033 isn’t a big enough increase, they can go to the voters and ask for more.
Democrat Jim McIntire, longtime advocate for a state income tax and now the state treasurer, warns us today that I-1033 “could” lower our state’s bond rating. Again, Gregoire and the Democrats fiscal irresponsibility over the past five years did that already. Frankly, voters approving I-1033 will send a clear message that the state, counties, and cities must have fiscal discipline, stability, and sustainability that will be very well received by anyone doing business with Washington.
McIntire knows that I-1033’s passage will diminish his long-time dream of a state income tax. It’s not any more complicated than that.
There is a state law that prohibits tax dollars from being spent by governments to oppose a ballot measure. Nonetheless, city councils and county councils in recent weeks are clearly violating that law with formal ‘resolutions’ coming out against I-1033. We’d be more upset about it if we thought they were working — but frankly, their efforts are clearly backfiring. Besides, the No campaign has millions of Washington DC’s dirty dollars from the country’s most powerful government unions (NEA, SEIU, AFSCME, etc) — the taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize their opposition campaign.
Both the Tax Foundation and Forbes magazine rank Washington state has the 8th highest taxed state in the nation. I-1033 keeps us from hitting #1.
315,000 citizens signed I-1033 petitions because they know government keeps getting bigger and bigger and property tax bills keep going higher and higher. The people are demanding greater control. The reason there’s such broad support for I-1033 is because it’s a totally reasonable policy — it allows the government to grow but at a sustainable rate that doesn’t outpace the taxpayers’ ability to afford it. It includes a safety valve allowing even faster government growth with voter approval. And it provides meaningful property tax relief not by slashing government tax revenues, but by simply controlling their growth.
We’re very proud of the 315,000 citizens who signed I-1033’s petitions. We believe they spoke for the majority of Washington’s voters and support I-1033’s renewal of I-601, I-1033’s reduction in property taxes, and I-1033’s empowerment of the citizens to decide how fast the government should grow and how big a tax burden we can afford.
FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Best Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Fighting for Taxpayers for Twelve Years, co-sponsors of the Lower Property Taxes Initiative I-1033, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
October 8th, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Sam, here is where you are out to lunch.
The Port is taking more property taxes this year, then last year because they are spending more.
It has nothing to do with milage. You have it backwards.
The Port figures out what it needs from the taxpayer and adjusts the milage rate to generate the funds that it needs, only constrained by the maximum legal rate, which if they do not figure out how to spend it, then “bank” it so that they can come back and get it later.
If the Port lowered spending, they could lower the milage rate even lower. Right?
Spending controls the milage rate, not the other way around. Right?
City and County budgets have had to make due with less revenue than last year, The Port doe not have to. Correct?
Maybe this is why the Port has a negative 23% operating margin and worse financial performance then Seattle, Tacoma, Anacortes, Everett, or Skagit, and the Herald has not noticed.
The Herald is still stuck on the “milage rate” story. Compare the financials of Bellingham to any of these ports, and tell me what you see that is different Sam.
Here let me give you a challenge Sam. Hypothetically, If the Port of Bellingham’s spending was out of control, where would you look to find an indication of this in the Port’s financials Sam?
It is a fair question Sam, at least I did not call them on the phone and took them at their word.
I actually dug into their financials. Which is more than you have done as a journalist.
Call the Port on the phone and ask them how they are doing. What do you really expect them to say, Sam?
It’s dollars that are important.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
That is ridiculous that sales taxes would go to reimbursing property owners, especially in a town relying more and more on apartments. Tenets pay taxes that go toward their landlord?
Further, the idea of limiting government revenue according to population growth and inflation is very flawed, because economic output and property values don’t necessarily correspond to population or inflation. One good recession would put the city or state out a ton of money and then every subsequent year would be restricted to that year of recession income, even if the economy recovers and is booming. This was the effect Colorado didn’t forsee when they passed their law, and subsequently amended/partially abolished it because of these effects.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Bob,
Colorado did not foresee a number of defects when it passed this law. Consequently the voters have gone back and amended the law to represent their collective democratic values.
For example, the voters did vote to increase education funding.
Voters are not stupid.
The bigger question is can governments restrain their spending on their own. I fear that the record of governments retraining their own spending is spotty at best, and the voters felt that some discipline was in order.
Are the voters idiots, or were they making a rational judgement about governments inability to naturally exhibit spending restraint?
I would argue that lawmakers and governments officials have brought some of this on themselves, and we would all be better off if the freely admitted that , and showed us they could exercise good judgement and fiscal restraint.
Blaming this on knee jerk voters and Eyeman, really is a disservice, as government officials played a clear role in how the voters have reacted.
If we remove voters who are in some way have a conflict of interest, in that they make a portion of their living off the governments spending (ie government employment or contractors), what we are left with is a very large consensus of voters. Seldom do we see such clear majorities in a democracy.
This is democracy in action and we need to have some respect for that.
California’s legislature figured out how to get around the spending restraints, and their economy has suffered ever since. We do not want to do what California has done. They are losing 100,000 annually, and have been for over a decade. The state government has effectively bankrupted the state.
Say what you will about the choices and priorities that are being made, if California had Colorado’s laws, their state would not be bankrupt.
Colorado’s economic growth has been startling, and fiscal restraint played a role.
Think about it. If you were an employer, looking for a state to locate in, would you pick a state with a history of fiscal restraint, or one with a history of fiscal ineptitude?
The states that will prosper out of this recession, are those states which understand how to create an environment for the job creators to do their magic.
I understand that there is a balance to be had, but if we are looking at 10% unemployment for the next 3 years, we will have failed. Jobs are important, to virtually every aspect of our economy and our society.
With unemployment at 10%, and under-employment running another 5%, this is a serious issue that deserves our attention.
Careful study, rather than a knee jerk reaction, will treat us better.
Nice debate.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I contend that voters actually are stupid. Anyone who votes for this thing thinking that taxes collected correlate 100% to only population growth and inflation and not any other economic factors are extremely dimwitted economically. They are pulling on a string and unraveling their sweater.
Perhaps it is worth noting that Colorado has over $6.1 billion in bonds and other debt issued even with their version of I-1033.
October 9th, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Here’s a reality check to a couple of Mr. Eyeman’s comments:
Eyeman asserts ‘There is a state law that prohibits tax dollars from being spent by governments to oppose a ballot measure. Nonetheless, city councils and county councils in recent weeks are clearly violating that law with formal ‘resolutions’ coming out against I-1033…’ RCW 42.17.130 is the section of Washington State law dealing with the use of public offices or facilities in campaigns, generally forbidding such use or action EXCEPT A FEW EXEMPTIONS. Specifically, after explaining the prohibitions, the exemption language reads:
“…PROVIDED, That the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry…”
All actions taken by the Council and myself are fully legal, ethical and appropriate. Mr. Eyeman is using allegations to the contrary in the grand tradition of smears without basis, knowing that truth is often a casualty in politics, and no ethics are required to make a political statement.
More substantively, I am opposed to I-1033 because it is both badly written and bad policy.
When people suggest we should run government more like we run our households, I think they are saying we should work within our resources, and spend our money wisely. Regardless of political positition, I think the mayors and councils in Whatcom County are doing just that. We have cut budgets drastically, in response to an unprecedented drop in revenues. Like the family that puts off buying a new roof, hoping the old one lasts another year or two until times are better, we have cut programs and deferred some maintenance to preserve our resources in these challenging times. When times are better, most families would increase spending and buy the needed roof, but if I-1033 is law, we cannot do so in government. We will have to cut programs and services that are needed to keep our communities as great places to live work and play.
I-1033 is poorly written, and will require considerable public expenditure just to find out if it’s legal, and then to figure out how to implement it. If Mr. Eyeman were truly concerned about the waste of public dollars, he could start with the real waste that comes from poorly written initiatives, and craft his to pass legal muster and have clarity for implementation. Given his clear lack of personal legal expertise, spending a few dollars on legal review could save the taxpayers millions in legal, implementation and election costs.
There are many other reasons to oppose I-1033, and I hope to enumerate more in the weeks ahead as I have time.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Mr. Mayor, thanks for clearing up the illegality thing.
I am not a legal expert, so I will not comment on the drafting of the language. Personally, I would like the State to assist Initiative drafters with their language, so that we don’t have to rewrite the law so often, but lawmakers don’t seem to have an open mind on assisting Initiative writers.
One thing that would interest me though, is the Initiative being proposed will effect State government and spending. Do you feel the State has constrained its spending, or is the perception of over-spending just a figment of the voters imagination, that can be cured by a public outreach campaign?
Or do you think that the Tim Eyemans of the world should shoulder the whole blame for the perception of fiscal irresponsibility, or does government need to shoulder some of the blame?
Do you think the voters should be able to have a say on spending restraint through the Initiative process, or is this process on which should be the legislature’s alone?
Sometimes lawmakers seem so dismissive of the Initiative process, and the voters who vote for these Initiatives. Your comments above don’t seem to give much respect to the citizen’s initiative process. Would be good to hear your views.
Nice to see you here, sharing your views.
Watch out for the anonymous posters.
They are vicious.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:48 AM
“Watch out for the anonymous posters.
They are vicious.”
Doug, would you stop it with the ‘I’m holier than thou because I use my real name’? There are reasons why it is advisable to NEVER USE YOUR REAL NAME on the internet, and it has nothing to do with standing behind what one says by using their real name.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Bob, you might be right, but I have noticed that the viciousness of posts on the Herald’s site which allows anonymous posters, is decidedly different that the NW Citizen site.
Face it Bob, it is possible to run a site without anonymous posters, and still have a valid conversation.
Anonymous posting allows for particularly nasty postings without being held accountable. Check out the posting on NW Citizen versus the Herald. The comments on the NW Citizen site are more thoughtful, and the topics well written, and by citizen volunteers to boot.
What do you really have to hide from??
October 10th, 2009 at 12:39 PM
My real name isn’t Bob. This isn’t about accountability, it’s about identity protection and insuring whatever happens online doesn’t carry over into real life. Anything publicly posted online is exposed to far more people than you meet in daily real life, and as such there are far more crazy people you come in contact with online as opposed to real life that you need to protect yourself from.
So in response to your question, my generation hides their identities from crazy people who do crazy things in real life as much as online, not from personal accountability of their statements.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Bob,
I have not hidden my name, and I have had no problems whatsoever.
There are not as many crazy people out there, as you think, Bob.
There are more here, especially in the anonymous postings.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
That’s such an old tune, don’t you have some other that’s more contemporary?
Warning the Mayor that anonymity affords some type of viciousness and brutality that doesn’t exist with a real-named poster is simply paranoid.
The crazy posters are the ones that present their own twisted versions of reality - not those that push Sam’s Golden Rule envelope.
Maybe you’re a little sensitive after your public drubbing at the hands of the electorate?
That’s understandable.
But don’t go excusing ideas you can’t refute for some type of personal brutality.
October 10th, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Bob,
When I said that anonymous posters were “vicious”, I had my tongue in my cheek.
Getting attacked with a keyboard, is not something to live in fear of.
October 10th, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Confucius say: Man who complain all day about anonymity, need fatter tongue.