A question to all supporters, opponents, and voters seeking information. Do you understand and really desire to go to the polls every time a unit of local government needs to increase the user fees it charges for its products and services? The initiative requires this. Please read the vast majority of the initiatives text. This major text has nothing to do with the price of your tabs, just with the heart of our centuries old form of representative self-government.

-- K Attebery (katteber@krl.org), August 03, 1999

Answers

By all means, please prove the following statement:

"Do you understand and really desire to go to the polls every time a unit of local government needs to increase the user fees it charges for its products and services? The initiative requires this."

Do YOU understand that these elections will be regularly scheduled, and most likely with the OTHER regularly scheduled elections, as opposed to the "every time a unit of local government needs to increase the user fees it charges for its products and services?"

I appreciate your opposition. But please avoid relying on falsehood generated, unsubstantiated ideas about how this initiative will be implemented.

BTW, I happen to believe that most of the voters will have a level of knowledge concerning the impacts of 695 at least equal to, or greater then that of the one you've displayed with your post.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

In response to this: "the heart of our centuries old form of representative self-government" Our centuries old form of government wasn't dedicated to wringing every possible penny out of our hides to squander on things we didn't want or didn't need.

On the other portion of your question. Just the necessity of having to prepare each and every tax/fee/etc for a place on the polls or even ALLOWING the citizens to see for themselves what the politicians are trying to take our money for will cut taxes. They don't want to expend that much effort and they REALLY don't want us to know everything they are doing.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

Do I really want to go to the polls every time to vote against a tax or fee increase?

YES!

The alternative is that they'll just increase them without asking.

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 03, 1999.

K Attebery is right: people across the state DO NOT understand the impact of I-695. I ask proponents of the initiative to reply regarding the following points:

* What of Referendum 49? Are I-695 supporters completely disregarding this decision made by the voters last year?

* What of Initiative 601? A tax cut the size I-695 proposes will surely cause 601 to be abolished, thus causing state spending to actually increase!

* Transit funding will be cut by 25% if I-695 passes, forcing thousands more cars and trucks on the roads, increasing congestion.

* Local programs like Medic One, police and fire departments will lose more than $360 million each year in funding if I-695 passes.

* $1.7 billion in revenue that supports transportation, criminal justice and public health programs will be cut if I-695

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian77@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

Yes we understand that:

(1)Washington is the 6th highest taxed state in the nation.

(2) Loss of the MVET results in less than 2% of the revenue (tax dollars) received by the state and local governments.

(3) Washington has a huge surplus approaching $1 billion and that the cities, counties, and taxing districts also have large savings accounts that come from our tax dollars.

(4) We want every program audited and economy brought back to government. Those programs that are necessary will do just fine.

(5) Families cannot afford the high cost of licensing. It takes away money parents can spend on their children.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

Monte - my only concern with your response is that it seems to be filled with rhetoric and lacking some definite answers. You cite that parents want to spend more money on their kids - admirable, at best, but not a real reason to vote for an initiative that will devastate social programs and transportation funding for Washington!

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that using the saved tax dollars will stimulate the economy, as will spending the surplus. You also claim the state should prioritize, or clean-up, spending.

While tax reductions may stiumlate the economy, I doubt that I-695 will have a positive effect. Yes, some money saved from lowered car tab fees may be spent in state, but those funds will just as likely be spent out of state, on exempt purchases, or saved. There is no concrete evidence that money saved and spent in state from car tabs will supplement the losses. At best, your argument is touching social commentary - I am sure no one would argue that spending time with our kids is a bad idea.

And regarding the "surplus": the funds are a reserve, not a surplus. R-49 left a balance in the reserve that will amount to about $525 million - only one-third of the lost MVET revenue! The "surplus" isn't ours - it is an emergency reserve fund for the citizens of Washington state.

One more question for you: how many states in the nation have L-O-W tab fees (i.e. $30/year or lower) AND don't have a

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian77@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

state income tax?

(The end of my previous entry was cut off...)

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian77@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

Wa77 please read this. It seems that you feel that it is important that the state of Washington lead the way or at least stay in the top group of high taxed states. Im not impressed to hear that we are in the top 25% of states in taxes, with or without income tax. When I-695 passes I hope the state will not have to spend its reserves, and they won't if they will cut the waste. Please do not waste the space to say there is not waste in the govt. Lastly, the surplus is not OURS?? if not, then who does it belong to? the govt, because they took it from us? If thats the case, Im in the wrong line of work,, I should be out taking lunch money from kids, once I have it, its no longer theirs?

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 04, 1999.

Oregon, which has an income tax has license tab fees of about $20 and is the 24th highest taxed state in the nation. Washington is the 6th highest taxed state. (www.lowertaxes.nu and then click on May 17 to see the Tax Foundation's listing of the states)

There are many people who live in Washington and will not license their vehichle. Make the tabs affordable and they will license and we will also get the sales tax. By the way the Department of Revenue data shows that new car registrations in Washington are 25% lower than the national average. Just think what it will do for our economy it we came up to the national average.

Tax cuts always stimulate the economy. This principle goes all the way back to JF Kennedy's 1960's tax cut. Certainly we are still seeing the effect of the tax cuts in the 1980's. Just look at the revenue increase this has brought.

I gathered a lot of signatures for I-695 and was able to talk to a lot of people who have children. While the parents were signing the children would usually be impatient. They would ask what this was for and my reply was that your parents will have more money to spend on you. The children would say "Can I sign it too." I would reply no but you can encourage every adult you know to sign and vote for I- 695. Everyone left with a big smile on their face.

Less face it. Families cannot affort the high cost of licensing. My question to those opposed to I-695 is "just what part of we can't afford it don't you understand?"

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

Dear Concerned Citizen, I thought I recognized your concerns to be the exact commentary made by Richard Davis of the Washington Research Council is his newspaper article rebutting Tim Eyman.

In regards to the comment "With respect to the General Fund Surplus, there is none. Passage of R-49 handled the surplus and left a prudent balance." What is that supposed to mean? I have a question not directly related to I-695 but in the same general area. If the removal of this money is going to DECIMATE so many NECESSARY programs then why don't they just divert the money from some UNNECESSARY program and take care of the alleged shortfall? When they discovered that their funding for the new STADIUM had fallen short they didn't even blink an eye before transferring money from someplace else into the fund to take care of it. How was such an amazing feat possible? And why won't it be possible if they actually find themselves in a real bind at some future date?

And to K Attebery, They really aren't going to shut down the copy machine at your library while we vote on whether the copies should be ten cents or fifteen cents.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 05, 1999.

maddjak-

You are right - I did use the Washington Research Council as a resource for my information about the impact of I-695. I apologize if it appeared I was duplicating their commentary.

I have been able to find many sources that state that I-695 will devastate social programs and city and county governments in Washington state. I have not found many - beyond this site - that back up claims that I-695 is a good thing. Do you know where I could find sources as reputable as the Washington State Research Council or the Office of Financial Management that agree with the "Yes on I-695" side? I always like to check with outside validators before I make important political decisi

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian77@hotmail.com), August 05, 1999.

The Washington Research Council is a non profit organization that is not supposed to take sides as to vote yes or no. The data they present is flawed in favor of a no vote on I-695.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation cannot take sides either but they have shown that Washington State is increasing it's budget by 11% this year and that a 2% loss in revenue from I-695 is not a big thing.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 05, 1999.

K Attebery is right: people across the state DO NOT understand the impact of I-695. I ask proponents of the initiative to reply regarding the following points:

* What of Referendum 49? Are I-695 supporters completely disregarding this decision made by the voters last year?

This is probably the stupidest argument I've heard, ever! Aren't voters allowed to decide that one measure is better than another? If both of these measures had been on the ballot last Nov, how do you know which one would have passed?

* What of Initiative 601? A tax cut the size I-695 proposes will surely cause 601 to be abolished, thus causing state spending to actually increase!

Why? I-601 prescribes how to get around its limits. I would say I-601 is a political third rail that politicians touch at their own peril. This is probably the second stupidest argument, as it seems to come from those who already want to kill I-601.

* Transit funding will be cut by 25% if I-695 passes, forcing thousands more cars and trucks on the roads, increasing congestion.

Only if the legislature decides that transit funding is what should be cut. Seems like you should be at the head of a recall effort if your legislator allowed this.

* Local programs like Medic One, police and fire departments will lose more than $360 million each year in funding if I-695 passes.

Again, only if you let the legislature get away with it.

* $1.7 billion in revenue that supports transportation, criminal justice and public health programs will be cut if I-695 passes.

Ditto. I-695 doesn't tie the hands of the legislature as far as how they spend funds. I-601 does, but with escape hatches that could cover most of the problems you've laid out.

-- Mark Jungck (mjungck@cmc.net), August 08, 1999.

Didn't we just pass funding specifically for Medic One recently? I just read the Office of Financial Managements report on the impact of I695 and it certainly wasn't mentioned in their report.

-- K. Loucks (kaljhsjr@sttl.uswest.net), August 21, 1999.

I believe this may be a reference to funding for Medic One and fire departments, and to a lesser extent the police, being from property taxes; with revenue increases anticipated from inflation in individual and total AV and new construction. Revenue must increase to maintain service levels, because the cost of providing service increases with inflation and the CPI; and the service need increases with new development. The impact on these local government programs was specificly excluded from the OFM analysis in their opening statements. See the exchange of opinions on this in the section on "How does the "voter approval" requirement work?" question. If individual tax bills can increase, and the revenue to local governments can increase without a vote of the people (as long as the tax rate does not increase), this may not be a problem for most fire departments or Medic One. I am still looking for confirmation that this understanding of the meaning of Section 4 of the initiative is shared by the authors and major proponents, and the electorat. If the initiative means that a vote is needed before either the revenue of a local government, or the amount of an individual tax bill, can increase; then Medic One and other local emergency services will need to propose frequent ballot propositions in order to maintain the present service levels.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 22, 1999.