It seems that the more civil and constructive arguments in favor of I-695 in this forum have all focused on the degree of wasteful spending and bureaucracy in government. More power to these people, if this is indeed their main concern. A nagging little question remains, however: why isn't I-695 first and foremost aimed at reducing waste in government? Why is this business about charging only $30 for car tabs not only tacked on to this patriotic little initiative, but indeed the very focus of the initiative? It seems to me that high above all the intricate facts and figures stands the undeniable mathematical fact that the only people who are guaranteed to benefit from I-695 as it has been written is those people who own significantly expensive cars, i.e., the rich. Of course some of the "savings" will trickle down (remember that phrase, voodoo economics majors?) to "the little guy". But please, don't try to jive us into thinking that this initiative was designed first and foremost to benefit the poor folk. Again, it really is simple math: the only people who are absolutely certain to benefit from 695 are (1) people who have purchased expensive cars, and (2) auto dealers (cf. 695 co-sponsor Martin Rood). And there's nothing in I-695 that will guarantee the undoing of the mechanisms by which our tax money is wasted instead of used wisely. I-695 will (apparently) allow that in the future, maybe, we can vote against increases for programs already in place. That's not the same thing as David slaying Goliath. To Maddjak, Westin, the Webmaster (como te llamas en verdad, amigo?!?) and all you groovy 695 cats: would you please be so kind as to CONSTRUCTIVELY address ALL of these issues for our lovely audience? (this oughta be good...!)

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 03, 1999

Answers

Like I said, Jeff... one day you'll grow up and understand...

This IS an "attack on government waste."

Christ on a bicycle, have you bothered to attend any classes there, or are you just ripping off someone else's account?

This is the first of MANY such "attacks." Government MUST get the message that the people have a limitted capacity for 1/4 million dollar parties, and 1/2 million dollar wastes for redundant Chief Clerks.

This is a race, actually. Its a race between the people's revolt against absurd taxes, and a legislature desperately in such of credibility to the people they have ignored so very long.

The ONLY way to forestall this is for the Governor to call a special session NOW, to introduce reform of our tax structure ACROSS THE BOARD.

He won't do that, of course... and we all know why.

And so it goes. The people demand action... and our government sits on its thumbs, hoping against hope that the hammer, now falling with ever-increasing speed... will not hit.

Class dismissed. And Jimmy? Please do not return until you've done your homework.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 04, 1999.

This initiative will benefit everybody who owns a car and everybody who is subjected to any kind of tax or fee. You claim it will only benefit the rich and the little guys will get nothing. Well let's look at it from this perspective:

Victim A makes $400,000 a year. His tabs run $2000 a year. That is 1/2 of 1% of his income.

Victim B makes $20,000 a year. His tabs run $300. This is 1.5% of his income.

Which one gets the better deal?

And having a vote against increases in any specific program is a wonderful idea. Everybody will get to keep a bigger percentage of the money they work for. The only people who won't benefit from programs such as these are the people who don't work and don't own cars.

Everybody who is forced to pay a tax or a fee will have a change to voice their opposition to having those fees raised

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

Actually, it's somewhat worse than just the fact that people of modest means pay a higher percent of their total income for transportation costs (although that IS true. Consider this scenario: Fred Yuppie buys a new SUV - pays $1000 in MVET. Because he is in the 35% bracket, Uncle Sam gives him back $350 at income tax time due to the $1000 deduction. Net cost - $650. Joe Sixpack buys his new Ford 350 Dually. Rolls the $1000 MVET fee into the finance package (@9% over 4 years). If he takes the standard deduction (most likely), he gets nothing in terms of a tax rebate. If he can itemize, he gets 15% or $150. Net cost - anything from $900 to $1100. Except that at tax time Joe pays his subsequent MVETs by credit card (while still paying off financing on the first), taking 6 months to pay off the balance (@18%). And you are seriously saying that this is a tax that only hurts the rich??

Get real.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 04, 1999.

Westin,

You haven't answered any of my questions directly, you've only resorted to the usual condescending tactics. (For the record, I can only suspect that if I showed you the 3.9 GPA for 120 credits on my transcript, you'd probably say it just goes to show that higher education is a bunch of socialist b.s.!) So let me repeat my central question: why didn't Tim Eyman just write an initiative specifically aimed at reducing wasteful spending in Olympia? Why are we starting out by letting people with expensive cars get cheap tabs? Why not cut right to the chase, then make the MVET fairer as part of the fine print? Please Westin, don't answer me with a personal cheap shot and then go on about how 695 opponenents are the ones who never get down to brass tacks by talking about the issues! Give us a straight answer! (uh, okay Jimmy, I admit it, I just want cheap tabs for my SUV and made up all that patriotic B.S. to make it sound refined and noble...!)

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 04, 1999.

So what's your intent - reduce governemnt spending and wasteful programs, yet retain our excessively high tax rates?

I believe what we should really do in this state is pass an initiative that allows those of us who believe our taxes are too high to pay less, while the poor deceived ones can continue to turn over their wallets at the existing high rate.

In other words: just because you think the government isn't getting enough taxes doesn't mean you should force the rest of us to go along with that idea.

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 04, 1999.

Aaargh! Dean, Westin, etc.: NOWHERE in any of my posts have I said that I think the government isn't getting enough money, deserves all our money, etc. Please don't put words in my mouth or those of other 695 opponents. My main position regarding 695 is this: Why didn't Eyman write an initiative SPECIFICALLY designed to dismantle wasteful spending? There is NOTHING in the text of 695 which is guaranteed to do this. Please address this issue directly and stop begging the question! I am in fact against excessive taxation, but I personally fail to see the connection between making life easier for SUV owners and making the bureaucrats work for the money by getting the potholes fixed, getting Metro buses to run on time, etc. Please explain it to me -- and I do mean EXPLAIN it to me, don't beg the question with some maddjak-type jewel along the lines of "if you don't understand our genius then you're an imbecile"! SHOW ME how point A is supposed to lead to point B. If you can do this, I'll change my mind about 695. If you just call me a "Liberal Idiot" and walk away, I can only conclude, having not heard a single straight answer from any 695 supporter regarding the question at the top of this page, that 695 is a half-baked idea which will never work in reality!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 04, 1999.

31 years ago, when I was a Junior at the UW with a 3.9 gpa, I knew everything too. Now, three degrees later (and with 20+ years government service), I recognize a number of things that weren't apparent to me when I too was an inexperienced UW undergraduate. First, let me say that I was probably more liberal than you, it was the sixties after all. I believed that the government was the solution, and only after first hand experience did I realize that while it has a needed place, it can also be a problem. It is necessary to control it, where and when you can. If you wish to control waste, you must force government to prioritize, to make meaningful decisions that one program is more valuable than another. This is something a bureaucrat is remarkably reluctant to do. There is an entitlement mentality (not holier than thou, when I was a program manager, I had it too). My expectation for the next fiscal year was this years baseline plus cola plus my historic ramp-up over the preceding fiscal years, plus anything I could get at year-end that some other program manager had not been able to execute. Anything less constituted a cutback. Holding me to last year's actual budget (as opposed to constant year dollars) was "an unconscionable cutback that would inevitably result in slashing of vital services." Government may be a vehicle of social change for you, but I assure you for the bureaucrat, it is a cottage industry that keeps them employed. My wages, power, and prospects were directly related to my baseline program dollars, and my FTEs (full time equivalent manpower authorizations). Now for the real secret, the politicians had to interface with me every day, but with the voters only every two or six years. They would not push the bureaucrat program manager very hard, unless they had no choice. To the bureaucracy, ALL growth is good, because there is a bigger pie to go around. That is why very ineffective programs persist, long after they've lost their raison d'etre. Look at the track record of total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Initiative 695 is good because it will decrease the resources available by 2%, and force some choices to be made. Will that GUARANTEE the result will be less wasteful government, of couse not. It does, however, give an opportunity for less wasteful government that would not otherwise exist, AND returns to the people 2% of their money, both worthwhile in their own right. And it is an issue that is clearcut enough that it is really hard to demagogue enough to stop the popular support (look at the trouble you're having). But the main advantage of I-695 is that it forces a popular vote of the individuals involved when government wishes to raise taxes and fees, rather than just allowing the politicians to raise rates ad lib. This provides an opportunity to continue to force prioritization which, if our representatives are competent, will force efficiency as the programs of less value are progressively squeezed out. So quit with the rich guy versus poor guy class bashing, it's not intellectually honest. This tax was shoved together with no particular logic, it is merely a revenue device. To the person in Eastern Washington who doesn't understand why his car tax goes to pay for ferries and mass transit he never rides on, this is a monstrously unfair tax, and if you will note, many of the signatures on the initiative came from outside the Puget Sound area. So Jeff, get ready to lose this one. You can wiggle and squirm, and you can probably even find a majority at the UW to support your views, but the MVET doesn't sell off campus. The politicians made a big mistake when they didn't fix this when they had the chance. They made a bigger mistake when they defeated the initiative gathering last year by saying that the taxes would just have to be raised somewhere else if the initiative were approved without a restriction on raising additional taxes. I am afraid it's time for them to pay the piper, and for thre program managers to start their "rack and stacks" for prioritizing their program cuts. Wonder if King County

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 04, 1999.

Jeff, Maybe if you would ask a straight question someone could provide you with a straight answer. Try this one. In order to write an initiative to "SPECIFICALLY designed to dismantle wasteful spending" every detail of government spending would have to be addressed. The whole concept would be a waste of time and money. I-695 has absolutely NOTHING to do with making life easier for SUV owners, filling potholes or making the city buses run on time. It is designed to remove an oppressive tax from the shoulders of the people, make it difficult to shift the burden to another place and force the government to re-evaluate it's priorities and spend money more wisely. You cloud the issue by bringing in things have have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the issue. Your point A and point B aren't points that reside in the matter.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

Thank you to Gary Henriksen, and I mean it sincerely, for an intelligent and issue-focused answer to my question. Even if the actual foundation of that question wasn't directly addressed. Gary, please understand that I do not SUPPORT the MVET. My gripe, as I stated before, was that I-695 seems to have as its first priority making it easier to own an expensive car, NOT streamlining our government. There ARE more specific ways we, the voting public, can do this. Why not start by fighting the trend whereby our tax money goes to benefit private corporations who make MILLIONS in profits -- such as Nordstroms and the Mariners Organization. If Eyman is concerned about our tax money being wasted, why isn't he fighting on this front? MUCH more of the average taxpayer's money would be spared by outlawing corporate welfare than I-695 would make possible. Also, if the multinationals would pay their fair share of revenue for the infrastructure, us common folk would not have to be robbed blind by Uncle Sam to the extent that we currently are. Can we agree on this much, aside from our disagreement on 695? Again, Gary, thank you for the substance and the intelligence. I'll have to (and will!) address other points in your post at another time--the library closes in fifteen minutes! As for you, Westinjakk: I myself AM sick of wasted tax money, especially in the form of corporate welfare, so please stop insinuating that I WANT to see more taxes! Cause it just ain't so! As for your statement that I have not offered a straight question, how short is your memory anyway? Yikes!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 05, 1999.

Jeff: Here is your answer to why Eyman didn't write I-695 to address wastefull spending. The answer is: He did! It requires voter approval for any tax increase or new tax. This means that every program right down to the local level must rejustify itself or loose funds.

I'm waiting for your promised reply that you will now support I-695 because it does address wasteful spending.

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

Okay, Monte, I'm almost ready to support the initiative that I-695 almost is. Just a few minor details needs to be changed before I dive in: 1) Remove Section 1. 2) Keep Section 2, but rename it Section 1. 3) Since I don't know every single nook and cranny of the RCW, I can't really pass a judgement on Section 3, although I can only suspect whose interests are being served in the fine print. There you go, a great plan for the future of Washington State: less oppressive taxes, less smog-creating, traffic-congesting cars on the road. I'm all for it! Sign me up!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 05, 1999.

Jeff,

Responding to you is much like fishing with hand grenades: Just pull the pin, drop it over the side, and you gently float to the surface, already gutted.

You engage in rhetoric and demonizing typical of an amateur liberal hack. Examples: (just in this thread)

1. The class warfare/envy argument: (TCWEA #1)

It seems to me that high above all the intricate facts and figures stands the undeniable mathematical fact that the only people who are guaranteed to benefit from I-695 as it has been written is those people who own significantly expensive cars, i.e., the rich.

That such a statement merely confirms your ignorance about the tab system cannot be denied: one hardly need be rich to purchase, say, a Ford Taurus and its $500 or so tab fee.

2. The Glittering Generality, outright falsehood and TCWEA #2

Of course some of the "savings" will trickle down (remember that phrase, voodoo economics majors?) to "the little guy". But please, don't try to jive us into thinking that this initiative was designed first and foremost to benefit the poor folk.

Here, of course (like most of those opposed to 695) Jeff engages in absolutely unsubstantiated class warfare. You see, if I were forced to pay, say, $500 or so for my Taurus tabs last year, and then pay $30 for them this year, that, of course, could hardly be called trickle down anything. His attempt to label this initiative falsely just serves to reduce his credibility to a level even lower then that of most liberals a blunder typical of the amateur. If you cant effectively counter the oppositions positions, then falsely demonize them right, Jeff?

3. Outright falsehood and TCWEA #3

Again, it really is simple math: the only people who are absolutely certain to benefit from 695 are (1) people who have purchased expensive cars, and (2) auto dealers (cf. 695 co-sponsor Martin Rood).

While it is, in fact, simple math, it must be far too complicated for Jeff to understand. Jeff fails to show where those in the middle class that purchase a car, say, 5 years of age or newer, will not also be absolutely certain to benefit from 695, instead suggesting (again, typically without basis in fact) that only the rich will see any money back from the passage of this initiative. Then, because a car dealer backs this, that, therefore, automatically makes 695 a Bad Thing. Wow. THAT kind of reasoning closely follows the idea that, since the unions were behind the minimum wage initiative last year, then that, to, was a Bad Thing. Brilliant.

4. Glittering Generality and statement of the obvious.

And there's nothing in I-695 that will guarantee the undoing of the mechanisms by which our tax money is wasted instead of used wisely

The primary purpose of the voting provisions of 695 is to force all levels of government to directly justify expenditures to the people. While that of course, does not constitute a guarantee in Jeffs World, it is certainly better then what we have now, where the people are taken for granted, and absurd expenditures are the norm. Obviously, the mechanisms will not be undone, but they WILL be modified to include direct input from the people certainly another Bad Thing for those who view government as the be-all to end-all.

5. The quasi-falsehood:

I-695 will (apparently) allow that in the future, maybe, we can vote against increases for programs already in place.

Apparently? Maybe Programs already in place? My Disingenuous Meter is pegged.

Clearly, this initiative WILL allow in the future (anything that happens from this initiative will be in the future) that we WILL (not maybe) be able to vote against increases for programs already in place AND ANY FUTURE PROGRAMS AS WELL.

6. Glittering generality.

That's not the same thing as David slaying Goliath.

Its not the same thing as yogurt. Its not the same thing as a Metallica concert. Its not the same thing as Clinton telling the truth or maybe, given his bizarre record, it is.

7. Require the impossible.

To Maddjak, Westin, the Webmaster (como te llamas en verdad, amigo?!?) and all you groovy 695 cats: would you please be so kind as to CONSTRUCTIVELY address ALL of these issues for our lovely audience? (this oughta be good...!)

Given the obvious bias, backed by the complete ignorance, there is no explanation; no series of thoughts; no proof; no argument; no words of any kind that can convince someone of such limited ability.

You ask questions as to why Tim did what he did, or didn't do something else... let me give you the really hot idea of the week.

Ask him.

As for me, youre out, Jeff. You want to troll, get someone else to respond. Put something up there of substance; something that actually reflects reality, and we'll set about to blow even more holes in your position. But if you expect me to respond, stop lying about the initiative, and stop lying about its effects. Otherwise...

Westin

(Who thinks it may not be too late for you to look into getting a refund from the Dub. Clearly, youve paid for something that they failed to deliver.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 05, 1999.

Unkind Mr. Westin. Mr. Stevens inhabits a world where the role models and arbiters of success have been in academia since they were 18. They have operated in their own bureaucracy and if they are the leaders and roll models they were, by definition, successful in that limited environment. Mr. Stevens has not gotten a broad based education, he has gotten (primarily) what passes for orthodoxy at the UW. He is making an attempt to communicate outside of that relatively closed sphere, and that can only be good for him, us, and the UW community (cheer up, it could have been Evergreen State). The problem with academia is that they have a rather unique and totally dependent subculture. If almost every dime of resources I was ever going to see was from appropriations or grants, paid for with tax dollars, I'd be (Hell, I was!) biased towards keeping the fuding line going. What came out of my pocket personally was certainly much less than what came into it (my pro rata share of taxes for a 10% increase in pay for government workers was much less than the 10% more I'd be getting). The main problem with academia is that they don't even perceive their own biases, because they have been eternally surrounded by similar opinions. Given that he is inhabiting an inherently biased world, he's not doing all that bad. Let him learn, help him learn, or you've got no reason not to expect him to parrot his professors and instructors, however biased or naive their opinions might be.

Jeff- When I have more time I'd like to talk to you about WHO pays, not just multinationals, but American firms like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM, your super market for the world), who regualarly buys off both parties AND PBS. We've been paying them subsidies for ethanol since the 70s. Recently three of their executives got jail time and a $300 million fine for the company for restraint of trade with the marketing of Lysine. They can laugh all the way to the bank. The monopoly is estimated to have cost all people tens of billions worldwide. I'd be content if we just stopped subsidizing them, let alone taxing them. But everyone in both parties (and KUOW) gives them a free ride because they take their money. glh

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 05, 1999.

We know how to attack waste. Our State Auditor has long advocated Performance Audits, which identify waste and duplication and allow government services to be imporved while lowering costs. Performance Audits have been used in other states to lower costs by much more than the 3.3% cut that I-695 will impose. Performance Audits have been used in private industry and businesses to cut costs and improve cusotmer services. But the legislature has blocked Performance Audits in Washington State. Perhaps I-695 will force them to listen to our Auditor.

The Mayor of Indianapolis, Stephen Goldsmith, has cut taxes and greatly improved services in his city. See http://www.indygov.org/mayor/comp/index.html These same principles can be applied in Washington state to reduce taxes while improving services to the people. But the old party establishment will not do this. Our State Auditor, Brian Sonntag, is the only one I know who can listen and lead us to reinvent government. But the legislature is clueless. Time to wake them up! Art

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 06, 1999.

Funny you should mention performance audits. I live in Pierce County. Our (alleged) Republican county executive has been leading the local opposition to Initiative-695, stating that it will cause a devastating loss of $6.2 million to the economy. While singing the bureaucrat's lament, he has posted on the Pierce County website http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/abtus/plans/perf%2Daudit/reports.htm a performance audit telling how they can save between $6.1 million (low estimate to $10.4 million (high estimate) by better management such as flattening the organization to decrease numbers of supervisors, better money management, etc. Thes changes would involve bruising bureaucrats egos, so he'd much rather keep the MVET and avoid the reorganiz

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 07, 1999.

For those who STILL don't really understand why I-695 is so important, please look at this site on the King County Homepage:

Councilmembers recommend lowest tax increase in more than a decade November 21, 1998 CONTACTS: Jane Hague, (206) 296-1011 Louise Miller, (206) 296-1003 Brian Derdowski, (800) 501-4654 (pager) Councilmembers recommend lowest tax increase in more ... http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/news/9811/lowtax.htm - size 5.9K

Thes politicians are GUSHING over what a great jo they are doing by recommending the lowest INCREASE in the tax rate for over a decade. Understand what this means. The increase in population is taken care of by the increase in tax base. Inflation is taken care of by increase in the assessed valuations. At a time of good economics, when they had over a $2 million surplus and were looking for ratholes to dump money in to, they STILL raised tax rates, and believe we should be grateful they didn't raise them as much as usual.

This is the attitude that must be changed, and without taxpayer direct approval of tax and fee increases, they will take more and more and more. They are addicted to tax increases, and to spending other people's money. Stop them, before they have to raise

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 07, 1999.

Jeff,

There is no budget item labeled "waste" that can be axed.

There are often times "little" inefficiencies that are too "unimportant" to bother with when budgeting is done on a "last year's +" basis. A small tax cut (a la I-695) will force most agencies to take a look at these.

There are a large number of commissions, committees, etc. with several members on them. A small tax cut will bring up the questions: Do we need all of these? Could we get by with one less member on committee X?

The methods of cutting waste vary with the agency. A one-size fits all solution doesn't work well. Neither does specifying particular procedures to eliminate waste which may be outdated in a few years (though embedded in law, the agency can't change them). It would be (rightfully) labeled micro-management. Most organizations will do better at reaching a goal, if you give them some latitude in how to do it. They won't like it of course.

Performance audits would be a great way of determining waste, but the legislature won't authorized them. If they don't authorize some next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see an initiative requiring them.

Mark Jungck

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

maddjak wrote:

"Victim A makes $400,000 a year. His tabs run $2000 a year. That is 1/2 of 1% of his income.

Victim B makes $20,000 a year. His tabs run $300. This is 1.5% of his income."

If I-695 passes, that means that Victim A will be paying 1/13,333 of his income on his tabs and Victim B will be paying 1/666 of his income on his tabs. So by your math, it's an even worse deal for that poor guy who makes $20,000 a year. He'll be paying a massively higher percentage of his income than the person that makes $400,000 a year.

That doesn't mean I-695 is not a good deal for those with lesser income right now, but it's a *better* deal for those with more income. That's an important distinction. So while you I-695 supporters are right when you say that it'll help working people, you're wrong if you're saying that it won't help the wealthy more.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.

To me,the chicken little attacks on 695 are like deja vu all over again,and by the usual suspects. I was an admin asst. in a small Ca. city when the prop13 battle was being fought. The battle there at that time was basicly between the unholy alliance of special interests (gov't bureaucrats,marxist union leaders,millionaire CEO's,and the media) and the people. The people won--the sky didn't fall and Ca is still there. VOTE YES ON 695

-- Rich Ward (ricardoxxx@home.com), August 08, 1999.

BB. You liberals squawk about VOODOO ecomnomics and then base all of your facetious arguments on the most VOODOO of them all. Simple percentages become massive conspiricies against the poor and down-trodden.

The poor guy with the $20,000 income will have $270 more of HIS OWN MONEY to spend as he sees fit. That is called a substantial boost to his economic situation. The other guy will get to spend $1970 more of HIS OWN MONEY. Now I know it won't be as big a boon to the guy with the larger income but the whole argument you put forth doesn't mean a damm thing.

You refuse to apply to the equation the fact that it is THEIR MONEY and they DON'T have to give it to a bunch of wasteful idiots.

Your statistics are designed around the wonderful'research groups' reasoning. And those groups exist solely so that academics with no marketable skills can derive an unearned income from deluded people.

I-695 is cash in the pockets of the people that would continue to be STOLEN by the government.

Ask anybody with a $20,000 income if they would like to spend LESS of THEIR money and they would say 'right on dude'. And would they care if everybody else doesn't have to spend as much of THEIR money? Not a chance.. It is NOT OLYMPIA'S money being returned to us. It is OUR money being left in our pockets.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.

Well, Jeff, I suppose I-695 could have been written to eliminate the Washington State Dry Pea and Lentil Commission, which is not even located in Washington State; and to eliminate the Paris, Shanghi, Taipei, Tokyo, Vladivostok, etc. Foreign offices of the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. But why eliminate corporate welfare? Why eliminate all those cushy jobs and travel expense? Sigh!

-- Art Rathjen (rathjena@techline.com), August 08, 1999.

maddjak wrote:

"BB. You liberals squawk about VOODOO ecomnomics and then base all of your facetious arguments on the most VOODOO of them all. Simple percentages become massive conspiricies against the poor and down- trodden."

Why do you assume I'm a liberal? I happen to be conservative. I also happen to be honest. I-695 is a better deal for those that pay more. Let's call a spade a spade, okay? Like I said, it's a good deal for those that make $20,000 a year. It's an even better deal for those that pay $400,000 a year. Them's the facts.

Quite frankly, I think our government is pretty damn wasteful a lot of the time. So I can relate to the frustration that everybody feels.

But I also think that the more local you get in government, the more efficient it becomes. Which is why 695 annoys me. I don't think we need to restrict the ability of local governments to raise their tax rates, because I think that they're all pretty connected to the people as it is.

If, for example, the Town of Skykomish (population: zilch) decides to raise its taxes for some reason or another, you can be sure everybody would know about it. So what's the point of making them vote on it too? They can already make their feelings known on the issue to their politicians, who likely live right down the street. I have a much higher degree of faith in those people who are involved in local government than I do in anything else.

As a conservative, I love local control. The more local control there is, the better I feel. I think 695 restricts local control. Sure, it gives the people the right to vote on everything. But isn't our system set up as a representative democracy, not a direct one? When I vote, I *really* think about the choices I make. I *want* to feel accountable for the politicans that are put into office.

I think that making every tax increase go before a vote is gonna develop a whole new generation of irresponsible politicians. Why should they feel accountable for anything? All they'll have to do is pass everything off to the voters. Which in my opinion, is not what democracy is all about. I think that the legislature should have had the guts to vote on R-49 last year, but they're a bunch of wimps who didn't do their jobs so they passed it off to us. I will be *very* annoyed if this becomes an accepted policy.

But here's the bottom line: expect every special district in the state (fire, water, hospital, etc.) to immediately raise their tax rates to the highest possible under law if 695 passes. That way they can take all the tax money they need, without ever having to have it go to a vote. So will we all come out ahead in this deal? I don't know.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.

Now that's a nihilistic approach. "If I vote for this, the politicians are just going to do what they want anyway." Coupled with, "I don't want to be bothered by having anyone ask my opinion when they think taxes ought to be raised."

Buddy, have I got a country for you! It's called Canada, and it's not very far away. Go there and you can be socially engineered to death by people who (are sure they) know much more than you about what's good for you.

Nobody said liberty would be easy, that's why so few countries have it. The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance, and if you are not willing to PARTICIPATE in democracy, I guess you just don't care about participative democracy. If that's the case, Canada calls!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 09, 1999.