House Democrats shouldn't legitimize Tim Eyman's free lunch philosophy
It's the stuff of Ripley's "Believe It or Not." Too bizarre to credit, yet too often repeated to ignore: the House Democrats were actually considering the idea of moving Tim Eyman's agenda for him. With two weeks to go in the legislative session, it's possible - although thanks to a grassroots mobilization no longer likely - that they may still take action.
It's hard to fathom. But a sizable number of House Democrats, including an oversampling of those in swing districts, sponsored a bill to codify Tim Eyman's Initiative 747 into law. And the scoop in the halls in Olympia is that even Speaker Frank Chopp was weighing the merits of passing the bill.
I-747 generally capped the annual growth of the regular state and local property levies at 1%. It seems like pretty dry stuff, until you consider that it takes roughly 2% just to keep pace with inflation.
Which means that Eyman's initiative is slowly starving the vital services that property taxes fund: police, fire, and emergency medical protection, public schools, libraries, parks and recreation, hospitals and more.
Aren't Democrats known for supporting infrastructure needed for the common good?
According to a recent analysis done by the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, the poorest fifth of Washington households pay 6% of their earnings in property taxes, the middle fifth pays 4.7% and the wealthiest fifth pay 2.8%.
Aren't Democrats supposed to care about working and middle class families and increasing equity? So what gives?
There is no doubt that a lot of the Democrats who now comprise a majority in the House got an earful while doorbelling during election season about property taxes, including some legislators who may face a challenger for their seat next time around.
It makes sense to go on record as "doing something" about property taxes. But the question foremost in our minds is, how does voting to maintain the status quo address those concerns? Eyman's I-747 has been in place for five years, and remains in effect pending a State Supreme Court ruling later this year.
Clearly it hasn't addressed voters' concerns.
Any change to the tax system should be judged by whether it makes the system fairer, more stable, more adequate (in terms of revenue to invest) and more transparent as well as accountable.
I-747 flunks across the board.
As the legislative session draws to a close, let's hope whatever misguided analysis led some Democrats to even consider - however briefly - carrying Tim Eyman's water for him will be put to rest.
There are creative alternatives that would make the property tax system more equitable and still generate enough revenue for vital locally-funded services. You'll be hearing more about those over the next few weeks and months.
It's hard to fathom. But a sizable number of House Democrats, including an oversampling of those in swing districts, sponsored a bill to codify Tim Eyman's Initiative 747 into law. And the scoop in the halls in Olympia is that even Speaker Frank Chopp was weighing the merits of passing the bill.
I-747 generally capped the annual growth of the regular state and local property levies at 1%. It seems like pretty dry stuff, until you consider that it takes roughly 2% just to keep pace with inflation.
Which means that Eyman's initiative is slowly starving the vital services that property taxes fund: police, fire, and emergency medical protection, public schools, libraries, parks and recreation, hospitals and more.
Aren't Democrats known for supporting infrastructure needed for the common good?
According to a recent analysis done by the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, the poorest fifth of Washington households pay 6% of their earnings in property taxes, the middle fifth pays 4.7% and the wealthiest fifth pay 2.8%.
Aren't Democrats supposed to care about working and middle class families and increasing equity? So what gives?
There is no doubt that a lot of the Democrats who now comprise a majority in the House got an earful while doorbelling during election season about property taxes, including some legislators who may face a challenger for their seat next time around.
It makes sense to go on record as "doing something" about property taxes. But the question foremost in our minds is, how does voting to maintain the status quo address those concerns? Eyman's I-747 has been in place for five years, and remains in effect pending a State Supreme Court ruling later this year.
Clearly it hasn't addressed voters' concerns.
Any change to the tax system should be judged by whether it makes the system fairer, more stable, more adequate (in terms of revenue to invest) and more transparent as well as accountable.
I-747 flunks across the board.
As the legislative session draws to a close, let's hope whatever misguided analysis led some Democrats to even consider - however briefly - carrying Tim Eyman's water for him will be put to rest.
There are creative alternatives that would make the property tax system more equitable and still generate enough revenue for vital locally-funded services. You'll be hearing more about those over the next few weeks and months.
