It seems to me that there are two "oppossing" public interests involved in this issue: Those who want to pay less taxes (supporters of I-695), and those who are worried about the lack of funding for essential road repairs (opposition). The main problem with I-695 is in its short-sitedness; it only addresses one of these public interests: lower taxes. In doing this I-695 does not encourage basic personal responsibility. An alternative to I-695: an initiative that attacks the problem at its root that will address both of the public interests. How can this be done? MAKE VEHIHICLE WEIGHT AND MILEAGE THE BASIS FOR LICENSE COST -- not vehicle price or age. Why is Weight and mileage important? Vehicles that are heavy and driven often are the primary contributors to road ware. (Heavier vehicles are also usually less efficient) Conversely, Vehicles that are light weight and not driven often do not contribute to road ware. Those who contribute the most to road ware should be held responsible for it. I-695 does not address this fundamental problem. Personal Responsibility, the center-piece of the Republican ethos, is not taken into account here. I am a supporter of lower license fees. But not a FLAT fee. I drive a 1982 Vespa scooter. It weighs around 200 lbs., gets 100 miles per gallon, and I ride it every other day. Its absolutely insane that (with I-695) I should have to pay the same license fee as someone who owns a 2+ ton SUV and drives it every day! or rather, that someone with such a vehicle would be allowed to pay the same fee - $30 I agree, bureaucracies or too large and intrusive these days. But I-695 is not the cure. The best cure for deflating these bureaucracies is for each individual to exercise personal responsibility on a daily basis. We must pass initiatives that reflect and reward personal responsibility; then we will all share the benefits: smaller bureacracy, lower taxes, better roads. Vote No on I-695 and Yes on personal responsibility!

-- Nathan Gerards (ilduche@u.washington.edu), August 10, 1999

Answers

Nathan, trucks and busses will continue to be licensed by weight according to RCW 46.16.070. An 18 wheeler that is licensed for the maximum of 105,000 pounds will pay about $2800. A pickup that is licensed for 4000 pounds will pay $37.

Those of us that have families cannot afford the excessive licensing fees for cars that are required to provide us with the transportation to make a living. You may someday have the responsibility of a family and be able to relate to the hardship of supporting a wife and children.

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

Sorry to dissapoint you Nathan. John Carlson has announced that he NOW is in favor of I-695.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 11, 1999.

Nathan, listen to John Carlson's radio program on KVI and find out yourself why he switched. Dale Foreman predicts his party will endorse I-695 at their September meeting.

There are 73% of the people for I-695. Sorry Nathan that you are in the minority. But I'm sure you will enjoy the I-695 tax cut as much as anyone else.

Loosen up Nathan it's only 2% of the revenue collected by state and local government. The government will adjust because they have a growing $1 billion surplus. In addition they increased state revenue this year by 11% and doubled budget for the "Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials"

-- RD (Monte) Benham (fastfile@aol.com), August 11, 1999.

Dear Nathan,

Heavy vehicles "wear" out roads they don't "ware" out roads. Anything that takes money away from governments that are currently taking 40% to 50% of many peoples income is a good thing. In 1992 for the first time in our country's history government employees made up more than 50% of the workforce and it's growing still. Government has no problem telling people that they can get along with less because they need more of your money. It is time they took a pay cut. You can send in more that $30.00 if you want but don't stick you hand into my pocket and give it to government. You also need to understand that welfare is when you get something for doing nothing. It is not welfare when you get to keep more of your own money, it's called a tax cut. When I spend the money from my tax cut I will provide others with a job and government will take in more tax revenues than the tax cut we will force them to make. The big boom we currently enjoy comes from a tax cut in the 80's. That Reagan thing people don't like to admit. The only problem was that even with the highest tax revenues in the history of that time, Democrats were able to outspend what was coming in. It doesn't matter how much money government has they will spend it all. If we gave them every cent we had they would ask for our children and eat our pets.

-- James Coats (deovin@whidbey.net), August 11, 1999.

Nathan-

If you truly want vehicles to pay their own way, let's stop subsidizing transit. Transit collects anywhere from 22 to 55% (depending on city and type of transit) of OPERATING costs from the farebox. That's not counting the initial capitalization costs, like $435,000 for a new bus http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/bus14.shtml . The rest comes from property taxes, gas taxes, and MVET. The Sound transit budget http://www.soundtransit.org/investor/Budget1998/Budgetdoc.html states that "Assumed farebox recovery ratios by mode are: 53 percent for Link light rail, 23 to 32 percent for Sounder commuter rail, and 32 percent for Regional Express. Annual fare revenue is projected to be $38 to $40 million (expressed in 1995 dollars) following the complete implementation of the regional transit system for all modes of transit. " This means that AFTER the $4 billion has been spent, IF all ridership projections come true, a farebox cashflow of $40 million annually will be realized. This is a return on investment of 1% BEFORE you subtract operating costs or amortize the original investment. This won't BEGIN to cover operating costs (heck, King County Transit costs a third of a billion annually right now to operate http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/02pe.pdf.)

So if we take the attitude that vehicles ought to pay their own way (and I'm really comfortable with that) we STILL ought to get rid of the MVET and let transit and the ferries go straight fee for service. Better yet, transit vehicles (which are large and heavy) ought to pay a greater pro rata share than even an SUV for the wear and tear the

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 12, 1999.

Alright, lets start with "welfare". As you mentioned, welfare is getting something for nothing. With 695, people who drive heavy vehicles often are going to get their road repair for free: something for nothing. I dont think any of you understand, I do not support the current criteria for assessing license fees: age and price of vehicle. This current criteria does not address who should be responsible for road repair; but neither does I-695. I agree, most of the money that is spent on license fees does not go toward repair. But this is because the tax is completely arbitrary. A minimal tax ($30 for those who own responsible vehicles), would address this issue properly: in a direct cause/affect relationship. Getting a tax break (money in your pocket) with no garantee that it will cause you to act more responsible, is just like getting a welfare check for sitting on your bum. Another thing: I have visited cities like LA and Mexico City and have witnessed the problems that excessive vehicle use will cause: smog and parking lot traffic jams. If want Seattle look like this, than go ahead, vote for 695. You'll get your stupid tax break, and probably end up having to spending it on a resperator.

-- nate (ilduche@u.wa.edu), August 12, 1999.

Dear Ilduche (an interesting nom de plume, old Mussolini fan perhaps?)

What has I-695 to do with air pollution. It relates an economic disincentive (high taxes) not to increased wear and tear or increased emissions, but rather to value. Let me tell you, a 57 Chevy, even in great condition, makes much more pollution than any of the newer vehicles, even the SUVs. Heck, a lawn mower or chain saw makes more pollution than the newer vehicles. If you want a tax to discourage air pollution, newer vehicles ought to be cheaper than older vehicles. Don't take my word for it, go ask the technician at your local emissions testing station. If you are anti-congestion, fight the new urbanism movement to increase population density in cities as a means of saving the urban areas.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 12, 1999.