Why do leftist politicians HAVE to lie about issues they oppose? Brokaw on 1033.

.
Chicken Little ain't got nothin' on a leftist.

Here's Pam Brokaw's LTE on 1033:

I-1033 reduces economic recovery

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community, we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033. Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy. Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment. Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts. Keep Clark County a quality place to live and do business. Vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Pam Brokaw

Vancouver

Now here, locally, Ms. Brokaw is known best for two things: Getting around $100,000 in tribal money as a result of David Barnett's efforts to buy her in two elections (state representative back in 04 and county commissioner here last fall, where she ran such a terrible campaign that even though Clark County voted for Obama, they then turned around and voted for conservative Tom Mielke in a close one (requiring a recount)) and secondly, having the "tinnest" ear in politics (did you REALLY thing partial birth abortion and gay marriage were planks to win on in the 18th?)

And now... we get a different version of that moron's statement that people will DIE when this thing passes.

Everything she wrote in her letter, in one way or another, has been used as an attempt to stop every fiscal control we've ever been given the option to vote for.

Remember I-601? I-695? I-747? These measures in one form or another reduced revenue to state and local governments.

Remember the responses from the leftists and their paper, here?

Well, let's take a look at this one.

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community,

Who? I never heard of you. By the way, do you get any government funding that might be at risk when this passes?

we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Because GOD knows you can't think for yourself.

Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy.

"We're all going to DIE!"

What a crock.

The idea that our "great Pacific Northwest way of life" is a product of the unfettered ability to tax and spend our money without our say-so is lunacy... but to a leftist, the will of the people is anathema, so they have to respond with moronic rhetoric like this.

Like most leftists, Brokaw is incapable of viewing this situation from the front end, in this case, from the perspective of those of us actually paying the bills. Her concern will NEVER be the one's paying... only the one's receiving.

Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

"We're all going to die!"

This, of course, is an outright lie on it's face. Why leftist opponents HAVE to lie... pathologically have to lie, to oppose a measure that reduces the orgy of government spending is beyond my comprehension.

Of the pap in the paragraph above, it would be entertaining for Brokaw to note precisely HOW we would no longer be able to raise families or enjoy our amazing natural resources once this passes.

Again, she seems to believe that the ONLY reason people want to live here or "do business" here is so that we can pay... more.... taxes!

So, she spills this crap, but provides absolutely NOTHING to indicate how any of her conclusions are true.

Because they're not.

I can see it now: 1033 passes next Tuesday, and starting Wednesday, Clark County becomes a ghost town because of the mass exodus of people to that utopia to the south... Oregon... which doesn't have a 1033 in place, yet is an economic train wreck.

When people in politics start spewing this garbage, unsupported by either the initiative's language or any other fact (see the Time's analysis, below) then you know it's all about keeping any controls off government... a government so OUT of control that spending increased an ASTOUNDING 33% over the past four years at the state level.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment.

Well, the fact is that I don't need, or want, YOU doing ANYTHING about MY environment. And my guess is that like most sniveling leftists, what you're REALLY committed to is making sure YOUR stream of money from the taxpayers remains uninterrupted or reduced.

After all, to read YOU, "we're all going to die" when this thing passes.

We have elected officials to do the very thing you claim your little group does.

So..... GO.... AWAY.

Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts.

Well, when this passes, you can always move away. Then you won't have to worry about it.

Second, I would venture to say that what we've been doing ain't been working out all that well, either, and

Third... you note how NONE of the whiny little leftists have offered ANY alternative?

Of course not. To them, it's all about the Benjamins.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if those in opposition stuck to the facts and left the hyperbole out.

1033 will do NONE of the things this whinny, snvivelly, "don't cut us off from the trough" letter claims.

The FACTS are below. Unlike a leftist, I'm not going to tell you WHAT to think... I would just ask you TO think.

Read the information below, and form your own opinion.

*I* am voting for 1033 and urging everyone I know to do the same. Because *I* know that ANY time we get the opportunity to rein in spending, the left will ALWAYS give us lies (like the one's in Brokaw's letter) and that IF this doesn't work, our courageous legislature can get rid of it on the first day of the next legislative session, in mid-January.
.

Seattle Times nails "No on 1033" ; "No" campaign has been lying scum all along.

.
Speaks for itself.

Originally published October 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM Page modified October 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Comments (85) E-mail article Print view Share
Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison
Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what would happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Related
Eyman's I-1033: Complex measure's impact is unclear
I-1033 could hit higher ed especially hard
Hospital execs: I-1033 hurts health plan

Initiative 1033 and TABORColorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is far more extensive than Washington's proposed I-1033. Here are major provisions in both:
TABOR

• Limits increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Requires excess revenue to be sent back to taxpayers.

• Applies to the state and all local governments, including school and fire-protection districts.

• Initially created a "ratchet" effect where every time tax collections dropped during a recession, it permanently lowered the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future. Voters eliminated this provision in 2005.

• Requires voter approval of all tax increases.

• Prevents changing any other limits on revenue, spending and debt without voter approval.

• Is in the state constitution and can only be changed with voter approval.

Initiative 1033
• Would limit increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Would require excess revenue to be used to lower property taxes.

• Would apply only to state, city and county governments.

• Would create a "ratchet" effect, where every time tax collections drop during a recession, it would permanently lower the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future.

• Could be changed by the Legislature with a two-thirds vote within the first two years, and by a simple majority vote after that.

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights to see what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.
In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR, and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

Steve Johnson, a former Republican lawmaker who spent 12 years in the Colorado General Assembly, said "TABOR has been a nightmare for the state. Fixing it is even more of a nightmare."

On the other hand, Barry Poulson, a University of Colorado economics professor affiliated with the conservative Independence Institute, said the law "has created one of the best business-tax climates in the country."

Even voters seemed mixed on TABOR.

A poll done in September by a Republican firm, and paid for by a conservative-policy group, shows two-thirds of voters support a provision in TABOR requiring voter approval of all tax increases.

However, a majority of the people polled also supported repealing the entire law.

Sean Tonner, executive director of the Colorado Policy Institute, which paid for the survey, thinks it shows people want to keep some parts of the law and dump others. "We'll be the first to admit TABOR can be tweaked," he said.

Impact on education

That seems to fit a pattern in Colorado. They tweak on a grand scale there, making fundamental changes to the state's constitution through initiative — something that can't be done in Washington state.

It's led to a budgeting process in Colorado that bears little resemblance to what happens in

Olympia, and complicates comparisons between TABOR and I-1033.

For example, Eyman's opponents argue that funding for K-12 education in Colorado has plummeted since TABOR was passed. But they don't note that Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2000 that essentially exempts state funding for public schools from the revenue limit and mandates annual increases in spending.

Colorado state funding for education has steadily increased for several years. Several national rankings put per-pupil spending in both Colorado and Washington below the national average. However, Colorado is generally shown as close to or higher than Washington in those rankings.
Deborah Fallin, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 40,000 educators, argued that TABOR has hit schools hard.

But when pressed for details, Fallin said it's not a case of schools doing poorly — they need additional money to improve. Simply doing "OK is not good enough for the 21st century," she said.

The most recent eighth-grade math and reading scores were similar for Washington and Colorado in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and both were slightly above the national average.

That's not to say TABOR has had no effect in Colorado.

The amendment was approved during an economic boom. The revenue limit led to big tax rebates because a lot more money was coming in than the state was allowed to spend.
So much money was being sent back to taxpayers, in fact, that the General Assembly permanently lowered both the state sales tax and income tax to reduce the amount of revenue being collected.

Then the dot-com bust hit early this decade and sent revenues plunging. Lawmakers had to cut state spending.

Because much of the budget, including K-12 and Medicaid spending, was protected, the General Assembly had to cut other parts of the budget, such as higher education.

Tuition was increased to help make up the difference. Between 1997 and 2007, resident undergraduate tuition increased about 98 percent at four-year institutions in Colorado, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. However, undergraduate tuition in Washington increased nearly 103 percent in the same period.

TABOR did force Colorado to apply the growth limit using the new lower, recessionary level of tax revenue during the dot-com bust. This is often called a "ratchet" effect, because every time tax collections drop during a recession, it permanently lowers the base used to calculate how much revenue can increase in the future. I-1033 shares this provision.

As a result, concern mounted in Colorado that TABOR would prevent state spending from recovering with the economy.

In 2005 voters approved Referendum C, which suspended TABOR for five years. It also removed the ratchet effect. Once the suspension expires, state revenue will be allowed to grow based on the highest amount of revenue collected in a fiscal year during the timeout, adjusted by inflation plus population growth for each subsequent year.

Effects of economic downturns

Charlie Brown, director of the Center for Colorado's Economic Future at the University of Denver, said it's difficult to separate the effects of TABOR from economic downturns. It could be argued that most of the budget cuts happened because of recessions, not because of the constitutional limit, he said.

Lawmakers probably would have been forced to make budget cuts because of TABOR in recent years, Brown said, but Referendum C helped alleviate the problem by allowing the state to keep any increase in revenue while the timeout is in effect.

Perhaps the biggest effect was when lawmakers reduced tax rates because of TABOR. That lost income would be worth about $500 million annually now, Brown said. Colorado cannot restore the taxes to their previous levels without voter approval.

Brown said TABOR could become a problem in the future, once the timeout expires, because it's expected that mandated state expenses such as K-12 education and Medicaid will increase more rapidly than the TABOR limit can handle.

There's already talk in Colorado about making more changes to the constitutional limit.
And therein lies one of the biggest differences between Eyman's proposal and what's happened in Colorado.

Voters in Colorado put TABOR in their constitution, making it very difficult to change or remove.
I-1033, if approved, would become a state law that can be changed by a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature within the first two years. After that, it would take only a simple majority vote of lawmakers.

There could certainly be pressure on the Legislature to not mess with the initiative. After all, in another two years we'll be in the middle of another big election cycle with a governor's race.
But the restraints here are nothing compared to Colorado.

Andrew Garber: 360-236-8266 or agarber@seattletimes.com