Please vote NO on I-1033

[Gisteppo]

In another bold move to bankrupt your city, county, and state agencies, Tim Eyeman has constructed another poorly thought out and ill-advised tax initiative that doesn't make sense.

I-1033 sounds good when it talks about limiting growth in government to a number of people plus cost of living increases based on a standard. I like the sound of it too, but it DOES NOT make sense when real economics come into play.

Consider our current budget shortfall, impacting every agency in government. Fishing resources have been cut along with everything else. Here is what will happen according to the Secretary of State's office:

Fiscal impact
Due to the limitations on annual state growth, state officials report that I-1033 is expected to reduce general fund revenues by approximately $5.9 billion by 2015. The general fund supports education, social, health, environmental and general government services. Revenues that support public safety and infrastructure will also be reduced by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities.[5]

Here is an example of why I-1033 does not work:

Today an employee makes $35,000 a year income, with a $650 a month insurance package for the worker alone. Next year, the employee received a contractually negotiated pay increase that matches the cost of living. The health insurance company raises their rates on an annual basis, bringing the insurance premium to $702, a mere 8% increase (much lower than the national average).

If I-1033 passes, the city government increases the amount of revenue generated through the legal channels by cost of living. This pays for the employee pay increase, but not the health care premium increase. In order to pay for the health care premium the city has 3 options: reduce coverage, drop coverage, or reduce employees.

Fiscally its impossible to operate any agency, private or public, basing their income stream on cost of living. Without income above cost of living, how can the city pay for the following?:

increased electricity rates
increased health care premiums
increase in fuel costs
vehicle replacement
facility maintenance
increased natural gas rates

As well as:

replacement of road surfaces
new infrastructure
new street lights
new intersections
improved parks and recreation areas

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE...

If you were a private business, would you be able to take on the task of running a company, but could only increase your revenue by 1.5% a year (last year's CPU-I cost of living allowance)? Does it make sense to hamstring your local services like Police, Fire, Roads, Parks, Permitting, Snow removal, Sewer, Water, and all of the other vital services your area provides?

This caps GROWTH, the one thing our state needs the most.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON I-1033

Want more info?

Colorado has tried this, and fell to 49th in the nation in education spending, reversing the legislation in 5 years, after the damage had been done:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=753

Don't just take my word for it, here is a broad spectrum of articles, ranging from left to right, even including business journals, notoriously conservative groups that have money at heart.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/ ... rial5.html#

http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/408001_joel10.html

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ ... 90337.html

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/ ... ing-beast/#

http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/colum ... ve-i-1033/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/j ... ax-reform/


E

[flippinfool]

THE HELL WITH A VOTE DO WHAT ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE DOING ,MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE . THIS STATE IS A VERY VERY EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE. WHY IS THAT? ITS A BIG MONEY MAKING RACKET. THE CRISSY G CRIME FAMILY ,FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE GARY LOCKE CRIME FAMILY. AND SO ON. TIMMY IS A CROOK TOO HES JUST NOT OFFICAL.THERE ALL CROOKS !!!!! KEEP VOTIN FOR THE CROOKS THEY GET RICHER AND WE GET POORER WHAT A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE!

[Gisteppo]

Wow, interesting take. I think you make a compelling point and should listen to yourself. I hear Mississippi and Alabama have low tax rates and no "crime families."

E

[Bodofish]

It's like all of Eyeman's follies. Just say no to anything the nut comes up with. And more importantly do not make any contributions to his causes. Anybody who's main career is selling watches to fraturnities......... Can you say nitch marketing..... Wonder if he makes any money doing it????? Bet not. He's found people are suckers and want to support him via his referendums............ He's a rather highly paid polititcal consultant. Who hires him to consult? His non-profit referendum orgs. On his first go around he got his hands slapped for taking a salary, now he consults.

[flippinfool]

Wow, interesting take. I think you make a compelling point and should listen to yourself. I hear Mississippi and Alabama have low tax rates and no "crime families."

E

oh iam just kiddin around Gist.WHERE THE HECK HAVE YOU BEEN ?DID you finish the boat? PICS :compress:

[Gisteppo]

Been busy fishin man...

E

[Anglinarcher]

OK, is the bill ill-advised, perhaps. Do we need to do something to stop the growth of government, YES.

What do you propose? How much of your money do they deserve?

Consider that if your taxes were 5% and the government spends it all, they want more. They claim their cost have gone up - how and why? As cost go up, so do wages, so do property value, so do sales receipts. If we remain at the same level of Government, then the percentages of your income taxed should follow the increases of Government cost.

So, we are told that vital services will need to be cut! Why? If tax receipts follow the increase in cost as I have described, then we have sufficient for our Governmental needs. The problem is that it is not the needs, it is the wants. Special Interest groups inside and out want this service or that service, and Government is more then willing to provide these services if the powers that be feel they can buy a few more votes with them.

So, we don't want to loose our vital services, the ones they say will be cut, so we allow 10% tax. But remember, Government was not satisfied before, so they will not be now. In time, it will be 15%, then 20%, then ..............

I restate my question: What do you propose? How much of your money do they deserve?

I will vote for the bill, not because I think it is the best bill possible, but because it is an attempt at curbing the wanton waste of my money and the endless growth of Government. Perhaps if this bill is passed the Government will find it necessary to cut the wants for a change, not the needs.

[Anonymous]

AA the basic problem I see with the whole program is, the citizens want to have their cake and eat it too. It just doesn't work that way. You have people screaming that they're being taxed to death in one breath and the next complaining that basic services aren't being met. The fire department doesn't get here fast enough, the police don't jump when I call 911, how come the passes get closed during the winter? It all takes money to run the services. That then boils down to greed. I made this money and I want to keep it all. You can't have it both ways. There is a little thing called your social concience. During the Regan years, people began to forget what that is and it's been shut off in many of our brains for one reason or another because of the "rocket scientists" at fox news and "things" like Rush, pushing the Me, Me, Me, mentality. If you say something over and over enough times you will begin to belive it and others will too. It has no bearing on the truth what so ever. Perception is reality. Period.

I'm going to throw something out here that probably won't sit too well with a lot of people but tough.

Most people don't want to participate in government. Period. Our government is setup so Joe Average doesn't have to, with the exception of our electing our officials. That's what we elect them to do, run the govenment. Do most people want to vote on everything that goes through the house and senate? NO! They don't, they just want govenment to run and take care of use. That's why we elect our officials. I would say the overwhelming majority of our citizenry wants nothing more from govenment than to know the basic services are being taken care of, the roads will be maintained and the poor will be taken care of to the extent that they don't revolt and cause anarchy.

Do we agree that things need to change, yes.
Is Tim Eyeman going to effect any meaningful change, no.
We saw what happened with the license plate deal. All it did was cripple basic services for a short time. Then they had to get creative on the funding and they found money from other sources to make the services run and we pay for those too. I'll say it one more time and maybe it will sink in.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. We all have to pay for our society and it's upkeep.

Don't vote for any Eyeman trash.

[flippinfool]

LETS ALL JUST MOVE AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gisteppo]

I will vote for the bill, not because I think it is the best bill possible, but because it is an attempt at curbing the wanton waste of my money and the endless growth of Government. Perhaps if this bill is passed the Government will find it necessary to cut the wants for a change, not the needs.

This is probably the most frustrating thing Ive dealt with trying to explain 1033. If the bill destroys the way government covers its cost, what do you think will be the outcome?

Why would you choose to vote for a mathematically flawed idea when you know, first hand (and admit even), that it is not what you would do?

Wouldn't voting no for a bad idea illicit a fresh, new, and better idea for the next ballot initiative?

Eyeman and Fagan both think they have an idea that will save taxpayers money, but you have to understand this bill PAVES THE ROAD TO AN INCOME TAX.

Proof:

In my city, this bill will eliminate 15 firefighters. We receive our portion of the cut, city wide. This city doesn't have the wealth of social programs that you complain about, because it is a poor city. This may be a shocking revelation, but Seattle is the only moderately wealthy place in the state, having said programs. We have basic public safety, infrastructure, and parks spending in our budget. The non-essential spending of the city amounts to around 8% of the General Fund. These are programs designed to foster business and prevent disease in the city. If (and I hope this isn't the case) 1033 passes, we all take a bite of the sandwich. The mythical "trimming" of programs from government has happened since the Reagan era, driving us to the point that essential services get cut because we are out of dollars.

__________________________________

What do I propose?

Vote NO on I-1033. If they want to change how the state makes its income, they need to come up with a FEASIBLE plan. I completely agree with you that government needs to be kept in check, but it already can't grow more than 1% per year, which ALSO does not meet the approximate 3-4% increase in costs each year that our city suffers.

1033 only adds to an already deepening deficit, taking a bleeding wound and cutting it further open. What does that solve?

Please, instead of saying "special interest groups", specify what spending you don't like. Lets debate that as it is a real fact, not an abstract idea.

_______________________________

This bill is the WRONG bill, at the WRONG time, for the WRONG state.

VOTE NO

E

[Anglinarcher]

Interesting comments. Flippinfool is just talking foolishness, but then again we already knew that about him - LOL.

Bodofish, I agree that we have a problem with the citizens wanting their cake and eating it too. I believe it was Voltaire that said that a Democracy could not last more then 200 years because sooner or later the citizens would learn that they could vote anything they wanted from the Treasury and would eventually drive the country into bankruptcy. Looking at California, and the Feds, kind of looks like he was not too far off. I suspect that we have lasted as long as we have because we are a Republic, not a true Democracy - often referred to as a Democratic Republic.

Remember that when they did the license tags that the State Supreme Court overturned the law. BUT, because of the overwhelming support for the bill, our State Legislature altered the status quo - they got the message, at least for a short time. Perhaps, as I propose, it is time to send a message again. The initiative will be overturned again by the State Supreme Court, but voting for it sends the message again.

Gisteppo, I think I have explained why I will vote for the bill above. Sometimes desperate times require desperate actions. Will voting no illicit a fresh, new, and better idea for the next ballot initiative? It seems like nothing has been done so far, so if we vote no, the state legislature will assume that they are safe to do whatever they want.

As for the income tax, the political party in Washington that installs an income tax will cease to be a power in the state for many many years. They know this, so it is nothing more then a threat. I will not be threatened.

Your proof is not proof. At best it your observation. Who has determined that non-essential spending is only 8%? Is it the same people that want to increase your taxes? Kind of sounds like the fox in the hen house to me. When an independent audit is done, I will believe it. Additionally, as Bodofish has suggested, the definition of "essential" is not exactly as clear as glass. It seems that a luxury once enjoyed soon becomes a necessity! Perhaps it is time to re-define essential?

Your proposal seems thin at best, unclear for sure. Who will come up with the FEASIBLE plan if they are not forced to do it. Sometimes it is necessary to put your foot down and say enough is enough. I know that the 1% is law, but as you suggested, the tax and spend group always seem to find creative ways to get around this. For example, divert general funds money from essential services, like fire and police, to other services. Then, tells us the essential services will be cut if we do not pass a bond or levy. We don't want to loose our essential services, so we vote for them, then they divert more away, ask for more money........................ and it goes on and on.

Your desire to get me to specify "special interest groups" is an old trick. You want to divert the argument away from the initiative and into specific areas where we can get bogged down in moral, ethical, logical, or other points of contention. Sorry, won't do it. Let it be sufficient to say that Bodofish and I actually agree on something. As he said, "the citizens want to have their cake and eat it too". There are special interest groups for each and every group of citizens out there. I contend that it is time to eat a little less cake - re-define essential. Only then will our budget problems go away.

[Gisteppo]

This post will be a bit lengthy, but it will be filled with hard data to show just one Washington city and the effects of Eyeman initiatives.

Sometimes desperate times require desperate actions. Will voting no illicit a fresh, new, and better idea for the next ballot initiative? It seems like nothing has been done so far, so if we vote no, the state legislature will assume that they are safe to do whatever they want.

Did I-747 not follow I-695? Has there not been a string of ballot initiatives to change government taxation since 1990? I think the numbers of the initiatives speak for themselves.

----------------------------------

I don't think you have actually sat in as many budget briefings, council sessions, and finance admin meetings as I have, inside the city. This city is run by VERY conservative politicians, with not a real democrat in the bunch...

Alright, brass tacks. Keep in mind this is the budget we fought and fought to make work because of the continuing shortfalls of 695/747. This DOES NOT include the impacts of 1033. I will put Spokane in the forefront on this:

The 2009 City Budget

The City of Spokane currently is operating under the adopted 2009 budget. This overview will provide you with a better understanding of what the overall City budget looks like and what services it pays for. The 2009 Adopted Budget totals $618.2 million and includes the following key components:

* A $155.5 million General Fund. This portion of the budget supports general municipal services, including police, fire, criminal justice, streets, parks, libraries, planning, community and economic development, and a host of smaller specialized services aimed at neighborhoods, youth, the arts, historic preservation, and human services, among others. The majority of this fund is supported by general tax dollars, including sales, property, and utility taxes.
* A $282.5 million Enterprise Funds Budget. These funds are supported by fees charged for services and include water, water reclamation, stormwater collection, garbage pick-up and disposal, building services and code enforcement, and golf operations. This area of the budget continues to grow because of significant capital projects in both water and water reclamation. The budget includes money citizens pay for basic services as well as rate stabilization charges that pay for capital projects. Many projects are needed to meet environmental requirements at the water reclamation plant and to reduce overflows from combined sewers.
* The balance of the overall budget—or $180 million — is used primarily for Capital Projects ($105 million), Debt Service ($20 million), and other Special Dedicated Fund expenditures. These non-operating funds are reserved for capital projects such as major arterial street projects and public works upgrades, debt service on general government bonds, and special dedicated revenue and other funds, which include local law enforcement block grants and special quality of life projects.
* The City also has "internal services" funds. These internal programs include fleet services, management information services (MIS), and risk management that charge fees to other City departments to cover the cost of their services.

Here are two more detailed links that give you EXACTLY what our budget entails:

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/doc ... UP_ID=9897

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/doc ... UP_ID=9796

The lower one is the actual financial statement, with the fund-specific breakout.
__________________________________________

During the shortfalls of 2004 (again, Eyeman initiative caused issues), a process called Priorities Of Government (POG) was completed:

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/art ... cleID=1074

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/art ... cleID=1080

As you can see, we have already reorganized Spokane into as lean a city as there is in the western US. Only Idaho can compete with our lack of services to the citizens.

And if you think its only been in the city, here is the same process, as we have done it, for the state, with results:

http://www.effwa.org/budget_taxes/pog.php


POG reorganized the city to specify what was important. The fat was cut so deeply that even the libraries lost hours and personnel.
____________________________________________


Audits are completed under this Municipal code:

# In the selection of audit areas and audit objectives, the determination of audit scope and the timing of audit work, the auditor should consult with federal and state auditors and external auditors, if any, so that the desirable audit coverage is provided and audit effort is properly coordinated. The auditor may consult and coordinate with federal, state and external auditors in conducting all audits including, but not limited to, audits conducted pursuant to federal or state laws.

So yes, actually, we have internal, external, state, and federal auditors involved. I actually fish with one of the staff at the auditor's office (a Non-Partisan agency within the state), who can attest that it isn't filled with what you suggest as left leaning politicians. They are bean counters, who make sure there are beans or prove there are not beans.

_________________________________________________

Lastly, here is an example of workload at SFD:

Incidents 2006 2005 2004 2003
Fire Incident Dispatched Calls 4,435 4,161 4,243 4,303
EMS Incident Dispatched Calls 21,281 20,552 19,551 18,459
Total Incident Dispatched Calls 25,716 24,713 23,794 22,762

This number increases regardless of what any budget says. In fact, as medical services have declined, and more people have lost their health insurance, our medical runs have escalated faster than average past the 2006 figure (but unfortunately it isn't on the website).

________________________________________________

Now that you have the facts, top to bottom and tip to tail, please find me me some fat. Anything I can take to the mayor to eliminate might save one of the 15 guys scheduled for layoffs if I-1033 passes. I appreciate any effort you put into this.

E

[MikeFishes]

I will vote for the bill, not because I think it is the best bill possible, but because it is an attempt at curbing the wanton waste of my money and the endless growth of Government. Perhaps if this bill is passed the Government will find it necessary to cut the wants for a change, not the needs.

This is probably the most frustrating thing Ive dealt with trying to explain 1033. If the bill destroys the way government covers its cost, what do you think will be the outcome?

E, How do you propose that the message of "Stop creating new programs, Stop spending" get across to Governments? Or do you support Government creating program after program and rampant spending? Especially in times like these (i.e. good times followed by bad times).

That's the message that 1033 is trying to smack the politicians with.

The realization is, if politicians really prioritized their spending, this type of initiative wouldn't come up. (well, prioritized, removed waste, etc. There's more than prioritizing that needs to take place, but it's a start, and appears is happening, I think)

EDIT: Sorry, coming in late and trying to catch up. Bear with me while I continue to read up and make adjustments. o:)
I'm neither for or against this initative, so I'm reading up on it. Part of me thinks that it doesn't matter, that the state congressional body will just find away around the initative like it's done with other initatives.

One thing that I think might be worth calling out is the difference between local government budgets versus state government budgets. One huge downfall of this initative is that it targets local government budgets (right?). What I'm talking about above mainly is state.

Bod makes a good point about doing w/out services. The thing is, it's the "collective voice" that it seems he's talking about. Some people are asking for new/expanded services while others are asking for fewer taxes. Guess what, someone's not going to get what they want. Especially when talking about the State level.

[Bodofish]

Interesting comments. Flippinfool is just talking foolishness, but then again we already knew that about him - LOL.

Bodofish, I agree that we have a problem with the citizens wanting their cake and eating it too. I believe it was Voltaire that said that a Democracy could not last more then 200 years because sooner or later the citizens would learn that they could vote anything they wanted from the Treasury and would eventually drive the country into bankruptcy. Looking at California, and the Feds, kind of looks like he was not too far off. I suspect that we have lasted as long as we have because we are a Republic, not a true Democracy - often referred to as a Democratic Republic.

Remember that when they did the license tags that the State Supreme Court overturned the law. BUT, because of the overwhelming support for the bill, our State Legislature altered the status quo - they got the message, at least for a short time. Perhaps, as I propose, it is time to send a message again. The initiative will be overturned again by the State Supreme Court, but voting for it sends the message again.

Gisteppo, I think I have explained why I will vote for the bill above. Sometimes desperate times require desperate actions. Will voting no illicit a fresh, new, and better idea for the next ballot initiative? It seems like nothing has been done so far, so if we vote no, the state legislature will assume that they are safe to do whatever they want.

As for the income tax, the political party in Washington that installs an income tax will cease to be a power in the state for many many years. They know this, so it is nothing more then a threat. I will not be threatened.

Your proof is not proof. At best it your observation. Who has determined that non-essential spending is only 8%? Is it the same people that want to increase your taxes? Kind of sounds like the fox in the hen house to me. When an independent audit is done, I will believe it. Additionally, as Bodofish has suggested, the definition of "essential" is not exactly as clear as glass. It seems that a luxury once enjoyed soon becomes a necessity! Perhaps it is time to re-define essential?

Your proposal seems thin at best, unclear for sure. Who will come up with the FEASIBLE plan if they are not forced to do it. Sometimes it is necessary to put your foot down and say enough is enough. I know that the 1% is law, but as you suggested, the tax and spend group always seem to find creative ways to get around this. For example, divert general funds money from essential services, like fire and police, to other services. Then, tells us the essential services will be cut if we do not pass a bond or levy. We don't want to loose our essential services, so we vote for them, then they divert more away, ask for more money........................ and it goes on and on.

Your desire to get me to specify "special interest groups" is an old trick. You want to divert the argument away from the initiative and into specific areas where we can get bogged down in moral, ethical, logical, or other points of contention. Sorry, won't do it. Let it be sufficient to say that Bodofish and I actually agree on something. As he said, "the citizens want to have their cake and eat it too". There are special interest groups for each and every group of citizens out there. I contend that it is time to eat a little less cake - re-define essential. Only then will our budget problems go away.

Having been a victim of 695 I can assure you that even though it may have been over turned the short term effects hit many people hard. In the time it took to go through the supreme court many agencies were forced to slash their ranks to comply with even short term budget constraints. That was not a good thing for anyone, not the people directly effected or the general population through reduced services. It benefited no one except the guy that owns and licenses a fleet. Me, me, me, me.
So I might suggest that instead of sending a message via a rotten initiative that you send that same message by talking to your elected officials and if they don't comply with your wishes vote for someone that will.

[Gisteppo]

One thing that I think might be worth calling out is the difference between local government budgets versus state government budgets. One huge downfall of this initative is that it targets local government budgets (right?). What I'm talking about above mainly is state.

Mike, this is a very valid point, and I completely agree. I think you hit it out of the park noting that this law punishes local government for the failings of the state.

That very reason is why I say voting NO is important, because any person can bring that up in another initiative, cutting state revenue generation while leaving the already broke cities to deal with the budget crises they have at hand.

Remember this:
____

The best way to send a message to Olympia is to ELECT OFFICIALS that believe what you do.
____

Tampering with how the government is financed without knowing the intricacies of governmental budgeting is just a recipe for disaster, one which we are already fighting...

E

[flippinfool]

YOU GUYS ARE PUSHIN ROPE!

[Marc Martyn]

I have never understood the reasoning that people who want smaller classroom sizes, immediate 911 call responses and finely maintained streets feel that lowering tax revenues will achieve these. Totally bogus.....

From AARP Bulletin:

I-1033 is similar to efforts in other states, nicknamed TABOR, a smaller-government concept known as “taxpayer bill of rights.” Colorado voters approved a TABOR initiative in 1992, but the results were so disastrous it was put on hold three years ago. Studies found that TABOR set Colorado back on measures such as job growth, prenatal care and education, in some categories falling to last among the 50 states.

Opponents of I-1033 also point to California’s recent experience with its budget crisis. A series of voter-approved initiatives over the years has forced spending restrictions that have contributed to a $26 billion deficit.

Neal Thompson is an author and freelance writer living in Seattle.

[Anglinarcher]

Sorry I have been out of the loop for a few days, need to leave town for a family event.

Hmmmm, I am not convinced that voting no will get my message across, but you have all been making some good points.

First, Marc, you are pointing out the same thing that has been pointed out before, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is Bogus. IF we are going to cut back on taxes, then we will need to cut back on services. The question is WHAT services are to be cut back.

flippinfool, if we were pushing rope, you would not be reading this. Arguments or political discussions teach, enrage, and hopefully cause one to become more involved in our system. Perhaps nothing will change today, but change will come, one way or the other. As the old saying goes, lead, follow, or get out of the way. EDIT - as of this note, 337 people (views) have read this forum, while only 17 have posted. There is a silent majority out there that is being educated.

Gisteppo, your arguments are good, but I am still not convinced they are valid. Here is my issue, internal audits, external audits, and federal audits are being done and contracted by people that have the ability to choose their auditing authority. This is no different then the Federal CBO, non-partisan, but always one half of the actual cost in the end.

Still, Mike and Gisteppo, you have made a good point. I, and others, are indeed punishing local governments for the actions of the State. I suppose that when we feel our vote for state leaders is being wasted we desire to vote where we feel our votes count. I must reconsider my position on this one.

Sorry Bodofish, can't toss you a bone. I already mentioned that extreme measures may be necessary, so even though in the short term it can be extremely uncomfortable, ...................... OK, I am reconsidering per above, but again, not yet convinced.

I will leave with one parting shot. Too many of us talk a big talk on this site, but how many of us, myself included, were or are involved in actual political work. Have we worked to get the best person into the position that they can or will run for office, or do we just pick the lesser of whatever evils we have on voting day? I'm not sure how to do this, but I am sure I will start to find out.

[Gisteppo]

I personally have worked in campaigns for officials, ballot measures, initiatives, and once a state senatorial campaign and office of the elected official (When I was a conservative, and for a very conservative Christian senator).

AA, I am very impressed that you have accepted the information presented and actually applied it to your values and saw the concern. The most I can ask is a NO vote, but it must be a vote reconciled by your thoughts on how we do business as a state. I have to reiterate that I can see your point, and agree with you, that the state level finances need some restructuring. I just don't think controlling the revenue stream in a broad based tactic like this is the answer.

To protect the citizen, you control the spending first. Once the spending is controlled, the surpluses build themselves and we pay our way out of debt. Controlling the revenue stream doesn't just affect the state, it affects every governmental agency from the state budget office all the way down to your local community school district.

E

[flippinfool]

Sorry I have been out of the loop for a few days, need to leave town for a family event.

Hmmmm, I am not convinced that voting no will get my message across, but you have all been making some good points.

First, Marc, you are pointing out the same thing that has been pointed out before, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is Bogus. IF we are going to cut back on taxes, then we will need to cut back on services. The question is WHAT services are to be cut back.

flippinfool, if we were pushing rope, you would not be reading this. Arguments or political discussions teach, enrage, and hopefully cause one to become more involved in our system. Perhaps nothing will change today, but change will come, one way or the other. As the old saying goes, lead, follow, or get out of the way. EDIT - as of this note, 337 people (views) have read this forum, while only 17 have posted. There is a silent majority out there that is being educated.

Gisteppo, your arguments are good, but I am still not convinced they are valid. Here is my issue, internal audits, external audits, and federal audits are being done and contracted by people that have the ability to choose their auditing authority. This is no different then the Federal CBO, non-partisan, but always one half of the actual cost in the end.

Still, Mike and Gisteppo, you have made a good point. I, and others, are indeed punishing local governments for the actions of the State. I suppose that when we feel our vote for state leaders is being wasted we desire to vote where we feel our votes count. I must reconsider my position on this one.

Sorry Bodofish, can't toss you a bone. I already mentioned that extreme measures may be necessary, so even though in the short term it can be extremely uncomfortable, ...................... OK, I am reconsidering per above, but again, not yet convinced.

I will leave with one parting shot. Too many of us talk a big talk on this site, but how many of us, myself included, were or are involved in actual political work. Have we worked to get the best person into the position that they can or will run for office, or do we just pick the lesser of whatever evils we have on voting day? I'm not sure how to do this, but I am sure I will start to find out.

AA I REVOKE MY COMMENT AND yOUR EXACTLY RIGHT!I get really get fed up with all these people trying to fix a problem and they have no concern about. This guy wants to fill his pockets up with our money and he has been doing it for a long time and will continue. This is a bandaid that will fall off and the wound will get even more outta control. People just wanna quick fix.Angling your right we the people need to get educated.If we dont we will continue to get the short end of the stick.