This Woman Came All the Way From Colorado to Tell Us Not to Vote for Tim Eyman's Initiative
While Tim Eyman was losing a lawsuit against the state (whose budget office he thought was misinterpreting his latest initiative), Colorado resident Carol Hedges was visiting the state to tell us not to vote for his latest initiative. 
That initiative, I-1033, would basically freeze our government spending at recession levels (allowing for small growth for population and inflation) and then lower it again every time another recession hits. Eyman likes to say that it'll get rid of the roller coaster effect, but really it just gets rid of the parts where the car goes up. Thus, we'd never be able to recover all the programs we cut, and those old folks would never again get their dialysis unless we took away from someone else.
Colorado is the only state to have passed such a measure, though it ended up un-passing large parts of it after it saw the consequences (such as huge reductions in school funding). Since then, Hedges, who works for the Colorado Policy Institute (a sister organization of Washington State Budget & Policy Center) has traveled the country to fight similar proposals whenever they pop up. (She popped up on these pages in July.)
"It's a proven failure," she says. "And the timing for Washington is terrible," as it would freeze spending at this year's levels. "In Colorado, we went from lean to anorexic; you're starting at the anorexic level." She backs up her claims in a paper (pdf) co-written with the WSBPC, showing the effects on the state, from slowed economic growth to crumbling infrastructure to dwindling funds for health care.
Better these than Eyman's latest.
"In Colorado, we have a lot of things we think are eminently exportable," she said, "but [this initative] isn't one of them." What is, then? "I recommend Crocs," says Hedges, of the hugely popular, bright-colored clogs that originate in the Centennial State. "And Enstrom's Toffee as well."
8 comment(s)
Bob says:
And where does the WSBPC get its money? From the special interest groups that benefit from more government spending. Gee, imagine what their "studies" find?
Sounds like government employee union propaganda. They're scared the voters here might actually want to restrain lawmakers from things like, I dunno, 34% spending hikes maybe.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 15 2009 @ 12:46PM
Gary says:
Bob, you have no clue what you are talking about. Show me the data that proves we're investing too much in public services and it's bad for our economy. there is no such data.
initiative 1033 is an extremely harmful measure that will freeze public services and lock in horrific budget cuts. I-1033 is a tim eyman wealth redistribution scheme that gives big payouts to a wealthy few who own lots of land. Most homeowners would only get a pittance from I-1033 and renters would get absolutely NOTHING.
In other words, I-1033 is a scheme to rob the common wealth and give it to the rich. It's a terrible idea. Vote no. Go to Vote NO 1033 to learn more.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 15 2009 @ 12:59PM
Ann says:
Please Vote No on I-1033. I lived in Colorado for 28 years, voting in the Tabor Amendment (the Colorado version of I-1033) was a huge mistake by the citizens of Colorado. Absolutely staggering negative effect!
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 15 2009 @ 1:11PM
Steve Zemke says:
Eyman's Initiative 1033 will dig us deeper into recession economics over the coming years. In a newly released policy brief by the Washington Research Council on Initiative 1033, details are provided on the serious negative impacts of I-1033 over the next several budget cycles.
As the Washington Research Council notes, current projections show the state budget for 2009-2011 having a negative balance of $195 million. I-1033 would increase the budget shortfall to $871 million. This is for a maintenance budget- no new programs.
The impact on the 2011-2013 state budget is even worse. Here's what the Washington Policy Center says the Impact on the 2011 -2013 State Budget would be:
"Even without passage of I-1033, the budget outlook for 2011–13 is grim. While the 2009 legislature did make substantial real cuts in spending, it also relied heavily on onetime money to balance the 2009–11 budget. Incorporating the June forecast, general fund spending for the biennium exceeds revenues by $1.4 billion. In addition, $2.5 billion in federal stimulus funds are being used to sustain programs that would normally be funded through the general fund. For 2011–13 these programs will shift back to the general fund.
Using OFM’s revenue growth assumptions, general fund revenues are expected to grow by $3.5 billion from 2009–11 to 2011–13.
We have yet to see projections of “maintenance-level” cost increases for 2011–13. Looking backwards, the maintenance level increase for the 2007-09 biennium was $1.4 billion, while the maintenance level increase for 2009-11 was $2.1 billion.
With a $1.4 billion maintenance level increase, the budget gap for 2011–13 would be $1.8 billion; with a $2.1 billion maintenance level increase the gap would be $2.5 billion. I-1033 would expand these gaps to $3.8 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively."
check out the brief here:
http://www.researchcouncil.org/publications_container/I-1033%20Final.pdf
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 15 2009 @ 2:28PM
Steve Zemke says:
The reference in the third paragraph should be to the Washington Research Council, not Washington Policy Center, in my comment above. Sorry.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 15 2009 @ 4:02PM
Steve Zemke MajorityRulesBlog says:
There are many reasons to oppose I-1033. It is a complex measure and will have a significant negative impact on Washington's future if it passes. Here are three reasons why to oppose it.
INITIATIVE 1033 FREEZES STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING AT THE CURRENT LEVEL. It says that none of the cuts made in public services as a result of the current recession can be restored without a public vote. Public votes take time, cost money and allow politics and special interest money to influence the outcome.
INITIATIVE 1033 IS A RADICAL SHIFT AWAY FROM REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. It would take away the current power of our elected public representatives to make budget decisions and turns the process over to budgeting by referendum. It does this not just at the state level but also for all 39 counties and all 281 cities in our state. It is a blatant attempt to undercut efficient and deliberative government by Tim Eyman whose goal is to shrink the powers of representative government.
INITIATIVE 1033 IS A COMPLEX WEALTH TRANSFER SCHEME. It would transfer sales tax dollars collected from everyone and use them to only pay property taxes for property owners. The problem is that not everyone owns property. This scheme increases the unfairness of our tax system. Renters will pay the same taxes as before under I-1033 but will both get no tax rebate and see no increased public services for their tax dollars.
I-1033 is special interest legislation designed to hamstring government from operating efficiently. It is a complex wealth transfer scheme that benefits rich property owners. And it is not needed.
There is no fiscal crisis demanding radical change of this nature. Initiative 1033 is a dream scheme by anti-government, anti-tax fanatic Tim Eyman and deserves a resounding NO vote this November. We don't need to make our current recession permanent.
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 28 2009 @ 1:20PM
Steve Zemke MajorityRules.Blog says:
Here is a YouTube video which has a very different perspective on I-1033 than Eyman has. Colorado's version of Eyman’s I-1033 has been a dismal failure. The speakers on this video are from Colorado and represent Republicans and businesses and teachers and others who have first hand experiences with the problems with a measure like I-1033.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbF3_CiOtoM
Posted On: Monday, Sep. 28 2009 @ 1:26PM
Tim Eyman says:
For over 10 years, opponents of our measures have deluded themselves into believing that if they attacked Tim Eyman aggressively enough, then support for our initiatives would dry up. We've always believed and responded that voters base their ballot box decisions on the merits of our proposals, not on their opinion of one of its sponsors. Nonetheless, the drumbeat by opponents has persisted.
We were curious about its effectiveness, so we decided to test the "Eyman factor." After polling the ballot title for Initiative 1033 (which stands at a whopping 61% yes, 31% no, 8% not sure), here's what 500 likely voters were asked:
Tim Eyman has sponsored several tax initiatives over the years. Eyman’s critics say that he is abusing the initiative process. Eyman’s supporters say that he is simply giving the voters additional options. Which of the following two statements best reflects your opinion:
Tim Eyman is good for Washington because he’s fighting for taxpayers ====== 48%
Tim Eyman is bad for Washington because he’s hurting government services == 11%
Not sure == 41%
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/ 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
We didn't know what to expect when we asked this question. But frankly, we, like many of you, were curious if the "Eyman factor" was a net plus, a net minus, or a total non-issue. The poll's results are very clear and confirm what we've been saying all along -- the largest number of citizens like our efforts to give voters greater control over taxes, a small number don't like it, and another large chunk of people don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Regardless of their views on me personally, the citizens' votes on our initiatives are not tied to their like or dislike of me. Voters are making their ballot box decisions based on their own values and experiences related to the issue before them, nothing more.
For over 10 years, voters have considered our proposals and voted on our initiatives. They've voted à la carte, approving some and rejecting others. Voters have listened to us argue the merits of our proposals and voters have rolled their eyes while opponents have spent their time attacking me.
It clearly hasn't worked.
I-1033 has the support of 61% of likely voters, not because they think "Tim Eyman is good for Washington" but because they support I-1033's fiscal discipline and its' property tax relief policies. I-1033 has opposition from 31% of likely voters, not because they think "Tim Eyman is bad for Washington" but because they trust the politicians to decide what's best for us.
The fact that I-1033 is doing extraordinarily well in the polls shows that opponents' threats, lies and scare tactics are not working. If anything, their all-attack, no-alternative approach is backfiring. Everyone knows that opponents are getting desperate and will say anything from now until election day, fueled by millions of dirty dollars from Washington DC's most powerful government unions.
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!
Posted On: Monday, Oct. 5 2009 @ 10:12AM