Let’s learn from Colorado’s mistake

I must take issue with Seattle Times staff reporter Andrew Garber’s recent article “Similarities don’t add up in Colorado comparison” [NWSunday, Oct. 25].

At the heart of both Colorado’s TABOR law and Tim Eyman’s I-1033 is a restrictive formula to limit revenues based on population and inflation. This formula caused Colorado’s economy to slow, relative to other mountain states, and led to huge spending cuts to investments such as public education, public health, universities and community colleges and infrastructure improvements.

The formula would spell the same trouble here.

We are currently in the worst recession since the Great Depression. My daughter just recently lost her job at UW because of budget cuts. I-1033 would lock in these budget cuts and make further cuts inevitable down the road.

Colorado tried this formula and it didn’t work. Let’s not make the same mistake here.

— Linda Secord, Seattle

TABOR had very real, negative effects

I was quite taken aback when reading I-1033 and Colorado’s TABOR law have no major similarities, as well as the claim that there isn’t enough concrete information to safely label TABOR a failure. Both of these positions are false.

By denying TABOR’s very real and negative effects it had upon Colorado, the article also failed to acknowledge the devastating effects I-1033 would have upon our state’s health care, education, local control, public safety and environment.

While TABOR and I-1033 differ in terms of type of law, the results would be the same: less funding for the things we in Washington value, such as health care for working families, quality education for our children and parks for public enjoyment, all of which suffered greatly under TABOR.

In addition, jobs in these areas would be lost, creating another obstacle toward recession recovery. Significant layoffs also occurred in Colorado under TABOR, as their employment rate was barely above stagnant growth.

Washington’s already dire budget situation is no model for the future.

— Whitney Stovall, Seattle

From a health-care standpoint

Andrew Garber’s article asserted the similarities didn’t add up when comparing Eyman’s I-1033 to a disastrous initiative passed in Colorado in 1992.

But from a health-care standpoint, the only similarity that matters is the flawed formula that restricts state revenue based on population and inflation. The parts of the population most in need of health care, such as seniors, are growing faster than the general population. And, health-care costs are rising much faster than inflation.

This formula would be inadequate to address our needs, and would create intense pressure to reduce funding for health services, which already suffered tremendous cuts in the 2009 legislative session. Washington state could expect to lose the Basic Health Plan, leaving 465,000 eligible uninsured people with no insurance options.

And here is a similarity we should all hope never gets a chance to materialize: Colorado fell to last in the nation in the number of low-income children without health insurance. If we don’t want Washington to hold that position, we must defeat I-1033.

— Rebecca Kavoussi, Seattle

I want my money to benefit me

According to the Washington State Department of Revenue, the majority of general fund revenue comes from the sales tax. While everyone pays sales taxes, only property owners would get a tax cut if Tim Eyman’s latest gouge at government, Initiative 1033, passes.

Why would I want to pay taxes only to have the state transfer it to the pockets of people who could afford to pay far more than me?

I’d rather have the taxes I pay continue to benefit me and my family through the school my child attends, the fire department, the police and the public health department.

— Margaret L. Masar, Shoreline

Praying for a landslide victory

There is not a politician alive who will protect our families from losing their homes due to runaway property taxes. But there is one private citizen who is fighting for that very reason.

Like me, a father with a young family, Tim Eyman knows firsthand what a burden on the family budget paying high property taxes is.

If you don’t believe me, does anyone in their right mind think high property taxes are helping our housing market recover? Can anyone imagine, if property taxes were lower, how more first-time buyers might be able to afford a house? Not to mention seniors getting run out of their homes because they can’t afford the property tax.

I pray for all of us I-1033 will pass in a landslide.

— Tim Lederle, Bellevue

Now is the time to approve I-1033

Property taxes increase both in terms of home value, which usually advances over time, and a percentage increase allowed by law. These taxes do not consider a family’s income, but instead, are based on ever-increasing evaluations of our property.

Thus, we are penalized for the way we choose to spend or invest our financial resources rather than our ability to pay. Since the Legislature has consistently refused to consider tax reform in any meaningful way, the only method available to slow local spending, which is the largest portion of the tax not controlled by voters, is through the initiative process.

Initiatives are not easy to get on the ballot. Despite the downturn in the economy, which many claim is not the right time to limit governmental spending, there are not likely going to be many chances to gain tax relief when the economy improves.

Therefore, for those who are concerned about taxation, regardless of ability to pay, now is the time to vote for I-1033. Retirees and those on fixed incomes are the most vulnerable but certainly aren’t the only ones effected by ever-increasing taxes.

— Gene Harvey, Puyallup