This editorial appears in the Oct. 11, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Tim Eyman's latest appeal to voters, Initiative 1033, plays again on a populist-themed outrage over excessive spending by state lawmakers. He hits the bull's-eye here.

Two years ago, it appeared the state had won the Lotto jackpot. Revenue was pouring in at a record clip and lawmakers couldn't resist spending it as quickly as possible. Though Gov. Chris Gregoire insisted that some of those funds be stashed away in a rainy day fund, which serves as an emergency savings account for the state, that proved hardly enough.

With last fall's twin collapse of the nation's financial and housing markets, the good times came abruptly to an end, and this past legislative session found lawmakers facing a reversal of fortune -- this time a record shortfall in revenue.

So in stepped Eyman with his Initiative 1033 that the veteran ballot barker says will return fiscal restraint to state spending. If approved by voters Nov. 3, the measure would place a cap on the flow of revenue from taxes and fees that state, county and municipal governments take into their general funds. This revenue cap would be fixed at 2010 levels and would rise only to reflect inflation and population growth. Revenue that exceeds the cap would be used to reduce property taxes. In terms of state and local taxes, Washington ranks 28th in the nation in taxes per $1,000 of personal income.

Eyman argues the initiative would not eliminate increased spending, but would restrain its rise to a more prudent rate tied to inflation plus population growth.

Critics say the initiative wouldn't allow the state to meet unexpected emergencies like natural disasters. But Eyman correctly argues that under I-1033 voters still retain the authority to increase spending, and lawmakers can also amend the initiative two years after its passage.

Eyman argues I-1033 would restore limits on state spending that his previous initiative, I-601, had forced upon lawmakers. Ever since I-601 went into effect in 1993, lawmakers have watered down those limits, Eyman says. That, in turn, opened the doors to the spending spree several years ago.

Eyman delivers a strong argument. The roller-coaster ride that this state has suffered through over the years through undisciplined spending by lawmakers is maddening, and makes for lousy public policy when the economy cools and cutbacks are required.

However, Eyman carries his passion too far in I-1033. The initiative would effectively anchor state revenues to the spending limits of this current recession and would prevent the state from digging itself out of this budgetary hole. The state Office of Financial Management predicts the initiative would reduce the state budget by $5.9 billion by 2015.

In particular, health care would be severely burdened. Critics of I-1033 argue the measure could result in further erosion of support for hospital care to Medicaid enrollees -- low-income families, elderly and disabled children. Projections place this shortfall in the next five years at $480 million. In the Yakima Valley, where nearly a half of the population is on some form of public assistance, primarily Medicaid, this shortfall would be particularly painful.

What concerns us also are the cutbacks that will befall our cities and counties under Eyman's initiative. His main beef has always been with what he calls free-spending state lawmakers. So why drop a sledge-hammer on cash-strapped towns and counties?

Due to plunging sales and property taxes, Central Washington municipalities and counties are facing extreme budget shortfalls despite being, as a group, fiscally prudent. But under Eyman's initiative, that doesn't matter.

Look at Yakima County. It faces a $3 million shortfall next year. If the initiative had been in place since 2002, the county would have faced an additional $15 million in curtailed revenue, a prospect that would surely have led to severe cuts in law enforcement and courts, which comprise nearly 80 percent of the county's budget.

Furthermore, the initiative does not exempt rainy day funds for cities and counties from the revenue cap. How fiscally prudent is that, Mr. Eyman?

We find Eyman's passion for spending restraint laudable but not his initiative. It overreaches and puts an unfair shackle on cities and counties, as well as on public services, that is unacceptable.

That is why we recommend a no vote on Initiative 1033.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.