More Taxes = Deluxe Poverty

The big government, anti tax-control I-1033 forces have an advertisement airing which says more taxation will lead to prosperity. They want you to vote no on I-1033, so they can stick their hand down in your pockets again. Multiply government subordinates! This means you, bub!

They say this in a round about way. They assert that if taxes do not grow at the 4.8% rate, Washington State will experience a longer depression than the one we were already in. (Washington State has been in depression for about 5 years now, ever since the Left wing Democrats got control of both the legislature and the Governors Mansion.)

But, really, who will believe that more taxation lead to prosperity? Maybe the government employees think that, but by my own straw poll, even they don't buy it.

To be completely clear, some taxes will provide genuine improvement society; for example, city streets. There are some things which people have trouble organizing if it is not done in the public sphere. Economic studies show the rate of that sort of public capital formation is most productive when it is about 14%.

That means, in order to make the prosperity through taxation argument work, the total tax take of all levels of government should not exceed 14% of the total production of society.

The current level of government takings from society exceeds 50%. In short, we have at least one third of society's output being overused (or screwed up) by government.

What galls me is the anti-I-1033 people have an economist talking as if more taxes meas more prosperity. This clown must have been asleep when his macro-economics professor explained there was a maximizing rate of taxation. Beyond that rate (a mere 14%) and society's economic engine begins to crumble.

At this point, more taxation means more poverty.

Domestic Partnership

Referendum 71 on the ballot.

Referendum 71 will extend to "domestic partners" the same rights as married partners, except the word "married" will not be used.

The referendum is simultaneously an attempt by the legislature to dodge the question of formalizing homosexual marriage and what to do when two opposite sex senior people remain unmarried despite living together. The legislature felt compelled to hand out benefits to state workers who choose homosexual lifestyle options.

To mask this display of phony largess with taxpayer money, the legislature added the image of granny and and some new man will receive the same treatment despite not marrying (for social security reasons I guess). The legislature also added private firms will also be required to conform.

Further confusing the voters is the fact that we don't get many referenda 'round here. The legislature knew they risked getting creamed unless they say, "they people said...." So they staged a vote.

Take a look at the ballot measure. The ballot is confusing in its tentative wording. I anticipate an undervote on this one.

A "yes" vote on this measure means you want to see homosexuals and senior living-togethers to have the same rights as married.

A "no" vote will mean you do not want the homosexuals accorded the privileges of marriage. Oh, yeah and granny will have to go on living with her boyfriend.

Initiative to Limit the Growth of State Government

I-1033 will work to limit the growth of state government revenues, and there fore will limit the increase of state spending. The limit for increasing taxation is 1% real increase per person per year.

This is contrary to what the government has awarded itself: A 4.8% per person per year real increase. A quick calculation shows that under the government plan, real state spending per capita will double in 14 years.

Under the proposed 1033 plan, real spending per capita doubles every 69 years.

Despite plenty of lying from the anti-1033, pro-big government crowd, 1033 will not make 'them' throw grandma out of retirement care, nor leave the kids ignorant in schools. The existing system is doing that already.

1033 should make you ask the question: If government is doing such a crummy job already, why shouldn't we put them on a diet? Maybe we can privately fix the screw ups these politicians in the public sector have made.