David Horsey by David Horsey
- October 20, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Walt Handelsman by Walt Handelsman
Clay Jones by Clay Jones
About David Horsey
David Horsey has won two Pulitzer Prizes (in 2003 and 1999) for his editorial cartoons, along with numerous other accolades and awards. His work is syndicated to more than 250 newspapers across America.
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (23) Jump to Comments Form
fennec said, about 1 month ago
Free lunch, everybody! Just grab your share before it’s all gone. (Cue to Neo here).
NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago
Got my piece of the pie years ago. You peasants are free to pick over the carcass of America.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago
Great choice of picture, NeoconMan!
believecommonsense
said,
about 1 month ago
Look, there’s scottf, church, InAnity, striper, who else? … all racing to the past. Neocon is above it all, of course.
cdward said, about 1 month ago
Neo, I want to be just like you. Can I have your autograph?
billdog
said,
about 1 month ago
FYI, here in Washington state we are defending ourselves from Little Timmy Eyman (a right wing whore) and his wrecking ball, AKA Initiative I-1033. Horsey, as usual, tells the whole story in one excellent picture!
av8tor
said,
about 1 month ago
Ah, the first thing the libs do is threaten the public with the loss of vital services while never touching the bloated bureaucracies’..
charliekane said, about 1 month ago
Atilla the Teabagger.
charlie555 said, about 1 month ago
“Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and foremen in charge of the people: ‘You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are complaining … Make the work harder for the men so that they keep working and pay no attention to lies.’”
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Washington Initiative 1033 will be on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Washington, after its sponsors submitted 314,000 signatures.[1] As required by the State Constitution sponsors needed to collect a minimum of 241,153 signatures of registered voters by 5:00 p.m. on July 3, 2009.[2]
I-1033 is an Initiative to the People sponsored by Tim Eyman. Eyman refers to it as the “Lower Property Taxes” Initiative. [3] Opponents call it the “Jobs Killing” Initiative because they allege it will cause thousands of public servants to be laid off from their jobs. [4]
The official ballot title for I-1033 reads: “This measure would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies.”
Ballot summary
According to the description prepared by the Washington Secretary of State:[5]
This measure would limit growth in state revenues deposited in funds subject to the state expenditure limit, and limit growth in county and city revenues deposited into the county and city current expense funds. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population. The limit also would apply to revenues transferred out of these funds. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies. Should this measure be enacted into law?
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]
Implementation costs
The overall state cost to implement I-1033, if approved, is less than $50,000 in 2009 and 2010. The cost includes set up, testing and verifying computer systems and establishing policies to implement the revenue limit, according to the state.[5]
Supporters
Logo of “Voters Want More Choices”
I-1033 was filed by three main sponsors coordinating a group called Voters Want More Choices: Tim Eyman, Leo Fagan and M.J. Fagan. Eyman argues that I-1033 will bring back “fiscal responsibility” to the state of Washington.[6]
National Federation of Independent Business
In October 2009 the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)/Washington announced their endorsement of I-1033. A recent vote revealed that more than 93% of NFIB members support I-1033, while 4% were opposed. “Small businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open. Higher taxes jeopardize their ability to stay in business, let alone add the jobs this state needs to pull itself out of recession,” said NFIB/Washington State Director Patrick Connor.[7]
Arguments in favor
The “Voters Want More Choices” website argues in favor of I-1033 with these arguments:
In the state of Washington, “property taxes are completely out-of-control” wiht “huge levy increases, skyrocketing valuation increases, massive rate hikes. It’s obscene and unsustainable. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens are being taxed out of their homes.”
“We don’t want Washington to be a state where only rich people can afford to buy and own a home.”
“Citizens desperately need property tax relief, especially during these tough economic times.”
“The overall tax burden imposed by state government, counties, and cities is growing exponentially.”
Currently, “there is no cap, no ceiling, no lid, no maximum, no limit on how much they can take from us. There’s simply no way that citizens can afford to have government continue to grow at an uncontrolled rate.”
“The Lower Property Taxes Initiative I-1033 puts a reasonable cap on our overall tax burden, requiring excess tax revenues collected about the cap used to substantially reduce property tax bills.”
FAQ by supporters
I-1033’s supporters give this information in response to questions they anticipate about I-1033:
“How much will I-1033 lower a property tax bill?”
According to supporters, “The amount of reduction will be different every year. The greater the excess revenue collected by the government, the larger the property tax reduction that year. When government revenues are surging during strong economic growth, it’ll knock 40% off your property tax bill. When government revenues are growing at a steady pace during regular economic times, it’ll cut it by 1/3. Other years, it’ll lower it by 25%. Some years, 10% less.”
“How does I-1033 control the growth of government?”
“State government, all 39 county governments, and all 281 city governments each have a main account called the General Fund.”
“Each government’s general fund receives revenue from a combination of various taxes and fees that grows each year.”
“I-1033 requires that each government receive the same total amount of tax money they collected the previous year – plus inflation and population growth.”
“Tax revenue collected above I-1033’s tax cap will be used to reduce property taxes.”
That means that any extra revenue collected over and above that won’t “make government bigger, it’ll go toward making property taxes smaller.”
fbrewer said, about 1 month ago
Anyone ever notice that when the school referendum doesn’t pass, the budget cuts are prioritized thusly:
1- eliminate all extracurricular activities (except sports)
2- layoff teachers (except coaches)
3- eliminate field trips and participation in science fairs (but never sending the team to away games)
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Those in opposition to Initiative 1033 including:
AARP Washington
American Federation of Teachers Washington (AFL-CIO)
King County Democrats
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Microsoft
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington
The Nature Conservancy of Washington
SEIU Locals 775, 925 and 1199
WEA Washington Education Association
WPEA/UFCW Local 365 Washington Public Employees Association
WFSE/AFSCME Council 28 Washington Federation of State Employees
dtroutma said, about 1 month ago
It might be worth noting that Washington is one of the states with NO income tax. I hate to be a spoil sport, but money for infrastructure of the state, and defense of the people has to come from somewhere.
av8tor
said,
about 1 month ago
If you are talking roads, bridges, highways as infastructure..have you ever heard of gas taxes?
measure what is collected against what is spent and how it is spent..
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
It appears to me that some of the people in Washington are getting tired of the government wasting tax dollars that they are forcing out of the citizens.
Since the schools and colleges are nothing more than liberal, socialism, humanism and terrorist training centers. Why not attempt to stop the bleeding.
LLeRay
said,
about 1 month ago
stripper77 of course doesn’t have a clue about what is really happening in my neck of the woods: Tim Eyman is a professional ballot-initiative hack that gets paid to annoy everyone else, so he created this mess to get money.
No one that studies this initiative thinks it a good idea.
NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago
Well stated, charlie555; that’s always been MY business philosophy.
charlie555 said, 29 days ago
^With a mug like that, it would have to be. :-)
twieliczka
said,
28 days ago
How many of these complainers across the country actually do some hard thing like get off their asses and VOTE?
Staying home and playing X-BOX won’t get the people you sent to represent you out of there!
scottfreitas
said,
28 days ago
I really don’t get this cartoon at all. I mean, for satire to work, there has to be at least a tiny, miniscule connection to reality hidden somewhere…
So the HIGHEST taxed states in the Union, all run by Demoncrats, which spend the MOST money on indoctr–excuse me, “education” and all the rest of the usual “social infrastructure”–are running gigantic, unsustainable deficits because of ANTI-TAX SENTIMENTS???
For the love of God, how could even the Devil himself possibly twist things around more than this cartoon tries to????
toasteroven, feel free to tag this one “sargassum–weed of deceit”. I think you finaly found the match you were so desperately looking for….
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 26 days ago
Well, let me say first off that I was one who voted for Prop 13 back in ‘78 in California.
I didn’t know, I was a kid, I was renting in La Jolla and everything in the world looked sunny and golden.
I was in San Diego last week. I took the boat tour around the bay and I was struck by this idea: When California had the money, they spent a whole lot on public improvements. They put in jetties to protect the beaches, they built shelters for marinas, there are public parks, wide roads, trolleys, tourist walkways… all sorts of things. And these things are still there now that Ca has no money! It’s still a beautiful place to be (at least visit, if not live there).
Contrast it to a place with no money like Rhode Island and you’ll see what I mean.
The thing about growth in the real estate market is this. IT COSTS THE MUNICIPALITY! When a developer comes into your town and wants to put up 1,500 homes it sounds really great to you because that means that your town is going to get the reputation as a growing place and that means that the value of your home is going to go up! Woo Hoo!
But the reality is that those 1,500 homes are going to need water, sewer, electric, phone, cable, libraries, schools, police, trash, road repair, red lights, drainage and a whole host of other expenses that are going to fall on the shoulders of the town’s residents. Those 1,500 families can’t pay for all the services them selves.
Once you know this then you need to multiply this issue by the factor of Ca’s growth. Not 1,500, not 150,000 but 15s of millions since I left in ‘78!
A 1% cap is not enough to cover the costs of a new resident in Ca. If you buy a 1,000,000 home and your taxes on that home are 10,000 you are not paying for the services you are using in your town.
churchillwasright said, 26 days ago
REASONS: Don’t you own a home? Take water, sewer, electric, phone and cable off your list. They’re utilities, and they send you a seperate bill to cover their expenses.
(And we’ll forget for a moment that cable companies actually pay a fee to the municiple govt for the right to their monopoly).
We’ll also forget for a moment that developers usually have to kick in to build adjoining infrastructure before a municipality will approve their development (or shopping center)
That $10K in property taxes are primarily used for schools.
All those people have to work, and the state taxes their income. They also have to buy things, and there’s a sales tax. And the places they buy these things from employ more people, who also pay taxes, and the companies pay taxes on their profits. And they dirve on roads that are paid for by gas taxes. And MV fees. And tolls. And they also tax your utility bills on TOP of the utility bills.
And they also float bonds.
WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THESE TAX MONEYS GO?
In other words, I think you’re being a little simplistic.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 25 days ago
Churchill,
Yes I own two.
I also know that the cable company stretched cable to my beach house and it will take them years to recoup the cost of the cable, not to mention the data I run through it (when I do). Who do you think makes up for that loss? Yes, the rest of the people in the service area.
Same with the phone line, that is frequently needing replacement due to the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean’s salty breezes.
When your development hooks into the sewer system and the sewer system has to expand to carry the capacity, do you think that the sewer system gives the 15,000,000 bill to the new residents? No, they, may add a surcharge to the development residents but they spread the costs over the municipal population and over generations.
So yes, I can see why you think I’m being simplistic, because I just touched on the surface, but it’s like a good fond veau, it looks as though it is simply a brown stock, but there is a lot that went into it’s preparation.
As to people working… Most suburbs are bedroom communities. I don’t know if you’ve noticed in CA that the Freeways are Jammed with people working someplace other than where they live. It’s even bigger in the NYC metro region where people train in from 70 and 80 miles away to work in Manhattan (for example). Many of these communities get little to no benefit of the shopper in that the commuter spends their time and money in the city.
Not that there is no growth, but the growth doesn’t cover the additional costs to the community, especially when they need to build new schools to educate the children that come into the community. And then they need to build again because the community wouldn’t approve spending on a building that would service a community that grows even more. And if they do, well that just makes that community look that much better to prospective builders and buyers such that the population grows faster than even the planners planned for.