I was talking to a woman recently who said that she and her family do all of their charitible giving to a specific government run charitible distribution plan. She gave as their reason. "Because they have a much better idea of what to do with our money."

I was amazed. But it explained perfectly why people are are opposed to I-695. There really are a lot of people out there who believe that the government knows best and will do anything to stay 'protected'.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 09, 1999

Answers

People oppose this initiative because they recognize that it creates more problems than it solves. Yes, we all want lower taxes. But we also want safe communities, well maintained roads, and highways that are not so clogged with cars that you can't use them. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't have it both ways - lower taxes AND essential public services. It has nothing to do with "big government", and everything to do with common sense. This initiative is BAD for Washington, and particularly BAD for our kids, who, if this passes, will pay for our shortsightedness for years to come. (I am not a politician, but I am a concerned citizen and father).

-- DJ Johnson (greenthumbs@olywa.net), August 10, 1999.

The sky will not fall if I-695 is approved. The government will still be in place. The roads will still be maintained. Every time you purchase 10 gal of gas you pay $4.14 for the roads!

Those that truly love kids will vote for I-695 because it will allow parents to spend more money on their children. Parents know better what is right for children and NOT the government. Those children that understand this will be asking all the adults they know to vote for I-695.

Washington is the 6th highest taxed state in the nation and the excise tax only represents 2% of all the taxes we pay to state and local government. About 40% of our income goes to taxes. Assuming you are in the 15% tax bracket, every time $1.00 changes hands 3 times, $1.14 in taxes are created from the worker.

To the opponents of I-695. What part of we can't afford higher taxes don't you understand?

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

Mr. Johnson

You bring up a number of salient points, among them the concept of "essential government services." I would suggest that there are many things that government is trying to do today that don't meet the criteria of "essential." If you will go to the website for King County www.metrokc.gov today (8/10/99) you will find that there is a horse manure crisis in King County, and we must somehow assist those individuals who have the luxury of having a pet horse with the disposal of 8 tons per year of horse feces. If you look at previous city council news releases you will find any number of similarly non- essential issues that get the attention of the politicians and for which we are taxed. Now I believe we CAN have lower tax and still pay for ESSENTIAL services, if the lower taxes cone at the expense of these non-essential and low value for the money expended items. It is time to realize that a bureaucracy is a living breathing multi- celled animal, that wants to survive and grow, just like any other creature. And that's great, when it is growing for ESSENTIAL purposes. But growth for the sake of growth is merely a cancer on the population that supports it. We need to constrain the growth of government, and you do that by denying it resources that are in excess of the ESSENTIAL needs. I-695 will constrain by 2% the projected growth of government. Can you honestly say that you believe that 98% of the services currently being provided are ESSENTIAL services?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 10, 1999.

Mr. Johnson:

The mayor of Indianapolis Indiana has cut taxes while at the same time improving government services to the people. The methods used are simple, and can save billions in Washington State, while at the same time improving services, not cutting them.

Why has the legislature opposed performance audits? In other states, this method of improving state services has saved far more than the piddling percent that eliminating the MVET will cut.

Our state has not had to improve efficiency because it has instead just taken more money from those who have worked to earn it. If I-695 is defeated, they will have a green light to continue the plunder.

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 16, 1999.