http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/11/01/honey-ive-shrunk-the-government Comments On: Honey, I've Shrunk the Government by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Instead of shilling for your initiative, how about addressing the subject of this post? Or are the facts too inconvenient for you?
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:54:28 -0700 The Stranger
No. It is not.

I'm sure it's lovely to use bits and pieces of early American rhetoric, but those within the jurisdiction of the liquor board are represented, most clearly by the governor who appoints each member of the board and under whose branch they serve, and by the legislature who has statutory authority that supersedes them.

This is pretty basic stuff. Perhaps you should take a remedial civics course?


Posted by Also, we'd keep gas out of the hands of children!]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:08:38 -0700 The Stranger
The latter is equivalent to an extra liquor sales tax imposed outside the normal legislative process by the unelected liquor board. It's taxation without representation plain and simple. I-1100 chose to be neutral on the tax question, except to remove the taxing authority from the liquor board (which is unaccountable to the public) and granting the authority to tax liquor solely to the Legislature. We felt that the question of taxation should be completely separate from the question of whether the state should be in the liquor marketing business. There's nothing in I-1100 that limits the Legislature's ability to add some or all of the revenue that is currently the liquor board's extra sales tax into the official statutory sales tax. It's entirely the Legislature's decision whether they let the liquor board's sales tax disappear completely or add some of that current revenue into the statutory sales tax.

Whether or not the I-1053 "2/3 majority" passes, the Legislature will inevitably agree to tax "something". If I-1100 passes, I suspect the Legislature would find it politically easier to adjust the liquor tax to include at least some of what had been the liquor board's sales tax, than to raise taxes on something else.

Generations of Legislatures and Governors collectively created this situation by calling the liquor board's extra sales tax a "profit" and avoiding responsibility for it. If I-1100 doesn't pass, the incoming Legislature should do the fair thing and fold the liquor board's sales tax into the official sales tax and call it what it is.
Posted by Sharkansky]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:12:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Steve Zemke]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:43:14 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wilbur@work]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:38:33 -0700 The Stranger
Taxes are based on productive income earners, not kids or retired people.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:34:42 -0700 The Stranger
Did you actually read the post?

First of all, population plus inflation is not an accurate measure of growth in demand for government services, because many of the services government provides are commodities for which demand increases with wealth. Read the literature, and you'll find that economic growth is in fact the metric that most close tracks growth in demand for services.

Second... I actually graph per capita, and show that adjusted for inflation, government growth has been flat or falling, depending on which inflation index you use.

Read the post.
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:30:58 -0700 The Stranger
I may be wrong, but I believe per capita spending has steadily increased over the years, at least prior to the recession.
Posted by seandr]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:12:39 -0700 The Stranger
Yes. I believe I would.

Further, you're exaggerating the mark up and tax, gas would not be $8. Still, I don't see anything wrong with more expensive gas, it would lower the comparative cost of public transportation, such that we'd probably have high-speed commuter rail up and down the I-5 and probably I-90 corridors.

We would certainly see less gas-stations, but give the lack of blue laws and the needs of trucking, we'd still have 24 hour service. Stations would most likely be drab, but the bathrooms would be usable, the environmental impact would be lessened and the nearest station would always be your best choice. Also, there would be more participation in AAA and similar top off or emergency fuel operations, mimicking the "bar" option.

Also, given that Oregon and Idaho should also be monopoly states in your thought experiment, and the Pacific and Canada are not convenient fuel options, it's not like we'd loose huge amounts of revenue.

Yes, it'd be different, but had we operated under such a system for decades, it would hardly be the automatic point in your favor you assume it would be.
Posted by Also, we'd keep gas out of the hands of children!]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:44:29 -0700 The Stranger
The Democrats in Olympia, nor the government of King County nor of Seattle, have no plan to correct this. It's time to force the issue. Get the state off regressive sales taxes and sin tax gimmicks. Otherwise the Republicans win without having to lift a finger; all they have to do is let the selfs-defeating nature of a sale-tax based fiscal policy destroy itself.
Posted by Fox in Socks]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:04:28 -0700 The Stranger
That said, I think we can easily afford I-1100 if the income tax passes.
Posted by jvm]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:04:03 -0700 The Stranger
Are you paid to lie? Is it in your personal self-interest? Or do you just enjoy it?

Refute my post if you can. Otherwise, you just look like the foolish ideologue/paid-troll you are.
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:59:54 -0700 The Stranger
Vote NO on 1098 which taxes the poor and middle classes and gives asset holders a huge tax cut.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:56:20 -0700 The Stranger -------------------------------------
salmonella poisoning the eggs your family eats
E. coli poisoning your meat and veggies
PCBs poisoning the milk Baby sucks from Mommy's breasts
those "Aspirin" you're buying are actually Rat Poison
your kid's teacher is a convicted --and unsupervised-- sexual predator
low-income kids not having a hot lunch at school
neighbors losing their homes to foreclosure
being paid a decent wage, and receiving help when unemployed
elections that are 1st Tuesday Silent Auctions
-------------------------------------
Or if you think all government regulations are stupid, and that taxes are "a waste of MY money," then vote for one of those GOP/TP "Charlie McCarthy" ventriloquist props.
-------------------------------------
Otherwise, vote for a Democrat!
-------------------------------------
The choice is simple, and "a waste of taxpayer dollars" never enters into it.
The operative word isn't "waste," it's "investment."
Posted by CharlesYFarley]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:53:16 -0700 The Stranger
Or, perhaps I harp against I-1100 because that's the one my colleagues here at Slog drunkenly endorsed, so that's the one I feel is most in need of my side of the dialectic?
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:53:22 -0700 The Stranger beer interests.
Posted by Cornichon]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:53:07 -0700 The Stranger
Many formerly-government services have been privatized, which brings a one-time bonanza for those involved, as union jobs are killed off and services cut drastically. But it's a totally fake savings, you don't get something for nothing.

Which is the main mantra of the teabaggers; I've got mine, you get fucked. Funny how many of them subsist on government handouts & health care.
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:46:20 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Cow]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:37:40 -0700 The Stranger www.horsesass.org., you horse's ass. Vote yes to I-1100.
Posted by Ya Sure Ya Betcha]]> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:30:46 -0700 The Stranger