Say WA? Evergreen State ping Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 10/24/2009 4:33:53 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[V]oters in two liberal states on opposite ends of the country will also take up measures to limit spending. The outcomes will give us a clear sense of the public mood toward runaway spending.
...
The voter-initiated measures on next month's ballot are modeled after Colorado's 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights (Tabor). They prohibit state spending from increasing faster than the growth of state population plus inflation in any given year. Extra revenue would be rebated back to the taxpayers, and if officials wanted to raise taxes beyond the limit they would have to seek a public referendum.
Tabor worked well in Colorado, keeping budgets down as the state saw economic growth well above the national average for more than a decade. However, an economic downturn in 2005 prompted 52% of Colorado voters to support a referendum that suspended Tabor for five years and allowed the state to retain an estimated $3.7 billion in additional revenue. But by turning down a companion measure to add $2.1 billion to the state's debt burden, Colorado voters indicated their distrust of the political class.
There are still a lot of undecided voters, but right now it looks like Tabor will pass in both Maine and Washington. A poll from the marketing research firm Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland, Maine, earlier this month found that 52.8% of voters support passing Tabor while just 38.7% are opposed. In Washington state, a Rasmussen poll in September found that voters favor Tabor 61% to 31%.
Nonetheless, Washington's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire said recently that Tabor would be "devastating" to her state because it has a $9 billion operating deficit this year. Of course, if Tabor were already in place, the state likely wouldn't have been able to dig itself into such a deep hole.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
They’ll limit spending (Snow) so long as it’s covered by Federal Tax Payers.
Bull
ping
Some “Circus” judge will probably just declare it unconstitutional or discriminatory or some such. But it’s a good thought and might make an impression on spendthrift politicians.
The Washington parasites are in full howl against this. Commercials, yard signs, everywhere “against”. I plan to vote for it.
Even some blue states - due to the sheer weight of Federal tyranny - are going to start invoking the 10th Amendment and sayinf “no” to Washington at some point. Unless they find a way to force the Red States and repsonsible citizens to foot all the bills for them (which USUALLY happens now anyway)
Utterly useless. Over the decades, I’ve seen many such spending limit gimmicks, most recently by Arnold here in CA. Governments at all levels blithely ignore them and continue to happily bankrupt the nation.
This won’t stop until we have our own Bastille Day complete with guillotine.
Say WA? Evergreen State ping And yet she won the last election claiming a huge surplus (thanks to her).
Ditto - the vote is in the mail already.
Mine isn't yet, but will be very shortly. Probably will fill out the ballot today and mail tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.