Our car tabs are due this month on two vehicles - $1124 is the total bill (less cost of emissions testing on one). If I pay $60 for them, are there any I-695 opponents out there willing to buy our votes by paying the remainder of this excessive tax for us?

-- Anne Ball (anneball@msn.com), August 11, 1999

Answers

Why? I'm not the one that bought the really expensive cars in the first place. I could own FOUR of my three year old cars and pay the same MVET as you pay on your TWO vehicles.

You knew about the MVET before you bought your vehicles didn't you? Is it somehow my fault that you apparently didn't take this into account? It's like complaining about the rate Visa charges you after you went out on a spending spree. Learn some personal responsibility.

-- Patrick (Patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 12, 1999.

Patrick, you speak of 'personal' responsibilty. I don't understand why. You don't seem to have any desire for the government to behave in a responsible manner. You seem to want them to continue squeezing blood out ot the people so they can fund useless and wasteful projects. Now where is the responsibility in that? Not wanting to have your hard earned money STOLEN through an excessive tax imposed by an irresponsible government is the epitome of 'personal responsibilty' I-695 just explains to Olympia in simple enough terms that even a politician should be able to understand it without a translation from one of his interns... "We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore.'

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

Maddjak, you seem to be implying that if the government isn't taking responsibility for its own actions, then nobody else should either?

If the government that we elected is either incompetent or is out to squeeze every last cent out of us, then is it not A) our own fault for electing such people in the first place, and B) our personal responsibility to elect people who won't do this kind of thing in the future? So isn't 695 just an admission that we as a collective are unwilling or unable to take on our part of the responsibility of living in a representative democracy by electing the proper people?

There is nothing wrong with the system that more personal responsibility from the voters couldn't fix permanently, but instead we are looking at "fixing" the system to better fit our reduced desire for responsibility. Sure, supporters can claim that 695 will produce greater responsibility by forcing people to vote on every tax measure. But come on now, if the voters aren't willing to take the responsibility to elect the proper people, what makes you think they will take this added responsibility any more seriously?

-- Patrick (Patrick1143@yahoo.com), August 12, 1999.

"But come on now, if the voters aren't willing to take the responsibility to elect the proper people, what makes you think they will take this added responsibility any more seriously?"

Gee Patrick-

Aren't you in favor of majority rule?

Do you think the initiative process ought to be stripped from the state constitution?

Do you want the sales tax back on groceries and prescription drugs? It was removed by an initiative, over the howls of protest from the politicia

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 13, 1999.

Gee Gary, where did you pull those assumptions out of? Did I say anything about not approving of majority rule? Did I say anything about wanting to remove the power of initiative? Did you just make those assumptions up because you can't actually argue with what I said?

Question for you: If current polling is accurate, which shows support of 695 slipping faster than the Mariner's chances at winning the AL West this year, and it gets defeated in November, are YOU going to complain about the majority's ability to take personal responsibility for their actions, or are you going to accept that the majority took the time to think this thing over and still voted ag

-- Patrick (Patrick1143@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

I think Patrick raises a serious and legitimate question. Here is one way that I have thought about it. When people vote for their representatives they realize that there are literally hundreds and thousands of votes that these people are going to make. They cover big and little things. Since I seldom agree with my wonderful wife on every subject all of the time, it is unlikely that I will find a representative that I can agree with on every issue she/he will be called to vote on. Thus, I am always having to compromise to some extent. I like X's position on guns, or abortions or environment, but I don't like some other positions. So there is some sort of complex weighing process and then I vote for someone. There may be some issues, however, that are important to a large part of the electorate, but it simply does not show up in the myriad of issues in the diffused atmosphere of Olympia. This is where an initiative like I-695 can be helpful because it allows one to focus on a particular issue. In this case: do we the voters want to give specific instructions to our representatives that this particular form of tax is no longer acceptable to us? I agree that it is possible that the majority believe this is the best and most fair tax that can be devised and those that disagree can either vote with their feet or otherwise accept it -- or work to persuade others that this is not right. But asking people to focus on the issue is not necessarily rejection of representative government. Just a thought.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), August 13, 1999.

No Patrick. While I do not concede that I-695 is not going to pass (that's why we have elections), even if it were to fail, I believe that just raising the issue would have been worthwhile, to get people thinking and talking about the proper role of government. The questions I asked you were only in part rhetorical. I do want an intense and lively debate. I do want average taxpayers scrutinizing the work of our elected politicians, because I believe that bureaucracies just inherently want to grow. At every level, if the number of FTEs and budget baseline can be increased, the individual in charge can justify higher civil service ratings (and salaries) for themselves, and their senior subordinates. This is NOT an organization that promotes efficiency or looks readily at options such as contracting-out that may be a better deal for the public. Not saying these people are bad or evil or anything, it's just human nature. I believe that the priority ought to be the taxpayer and the interests of the taxpayer need to be protected against the cottage industry of government bureaucracy. Two ways we can do that is to force the bureaucracy to think out of the box by constraining their resources (which most states have now done with Prop 601 like measures) and force them to stop depending on automatic tax rate increases in lieu of prioritizing and waste trimming. The initiative process does that, and I-695 does that. If it fails (and I don't think it will, although King County might be iffy) there will be lots of opportunities for other initiatives.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 13, 1999.

Attention Vancouver car owner and Patrick. First I'll address 'VCO' Yes there are many issues in Olympia but the one issue that isn't raised in Olympia is the government being responsible with the money they extort from us. They continue to form useless committees to 'study' problems. They never do anything to 'fix' problems but they study them to the tune of many millions of dollars a year. When's the last time you realized that you might need to make some major changes in how you run your home and that it might cost a lot of money to do it? Did you hire a consulting firm to figure the problem out for you and waste massive amounts of money instead of making a decision? Or after a couple of years of study (like the study for the traffic problem) come to the conclusion that more lanes must be built to handle the traffic?

I don't take the position that our 'elected' officials aqre some kind of super-intellectual giants who are much wiser than I am. And there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

And Patrick.... well Patrick it's obvious that you are just throwing out as much as you possibly can to try to confuse the whole issue.

Let's bring it back to it's simple form and quit playing. The MVET is an oppressive tax and it's legality is even in a gray area. People don't want to pay it and they don't want the government to be able to just stick their grubby little hands into a different pocket and steal it back. Simple, plain, clear. It's not about some convoluted academic hypothesis. It's just, "No you can't have it anymore."

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 13, 1999.

Patrick, We may elect them but once they get into office they bend over backwards to the people that have the most money or to benefit their own pet project. Most politicians don't listen to "the people". With that in mind, "we the people" have to set limits for these children in Olympia. Yes, children, because that is how they act. Spend, spend, spend, why not spend, when there is no reprecussions. And at election time, just lie and spend more money than the other person to get elected. The majority might not speak loud all the time but, when we do the government in the state should listen, but they don't. And that is why we have initiatives.

I own two older mid size cars and still pay unreasonable tabs. I bought them so I wouldn't have to worry about breakdowns, emission repairs and to have better mileage than old cars. Yet, it seems to me that I get penalized for buying a more efficient, cleaner car. It wouldn't be so bad if the taxes went to the roads but no, it goes into the bottom pit General Fund.

-- Hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 13, 1999.

Clearly Patrick (like most libs) has no sense of humor. Besides, it's none of his business what kind of cars I buy, how many, or what I use them for.

-- Anne Ball (anneball@msn.com), August 13, 1999.

Note to Hammer: The MVET doesn't go into the General Fund. About 60% of it goes to road and transit related items, about 13% to ferries, and the rest to the counties and cities for criminal justice and public health programs. Common mistake, but one you should probably clear up before you decided if you want to eliminate the MVET.

Note to Anne: I'd hardly consider myself very liberal, but with that most libs don't have a sense of humor comment, it sounds as if you're painting with a fairly broad brush there anyway. And, uh, you're right, it's not my business what kind of cars you buy, how many, and what you use them for. That's why I didn't ask! But of course you're the one who posted how many cars you own, and by providing how much your tabs are, how much they are worth. Now that, in an ironic way,

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

Well Pat, if it goes to all you say it does, then you in fact know, it goes to the General Fund. If it doesn't go to road maintence and/or new roads then it's going to the bottomless pit. And make no mistake, I will very YES for I-695. I live on a budget and so should the government.

I also look forward to voting on any and all taxes or fees.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 16, 1999.

Well Hammer, it's your call if you want to vote for this thing, but if you continue to believe that if it doesn't go to roads, then it goes to the General Fund AKA the bottomless pit, then you are going to be voting for it on a false premise. Here's the exact rundown on projected MVET distributions in the 99-01 biennium:

$295 million for highway construction and preservation. $160 million to pay for debt services on R-49 (which is building new roads) $26 million for licensing administration. $18 million for public transportation systems. $16 million for high capacity transportation account which also builds roads and rail programs. $455 million for local transit districts $278 million to cities and counties to pay for police, fire, and public health. $200 million for ferry operations and construction. $84 million to cities and counties for local criminal justice.

You may consider some of these distributions to be wasteful, but saying that it goes to the General Fund is simply not true. The General Fund is a specific account in which not one cent of the MVET goes into. But here's something else you may or may not care about. The excise tax on rental cars will still stay in place. It currently goes towards transportation related accounts, but 695 removes that distribution. So as a result, the rental car excise tax will get dumped into the General Fund. I don't expect this to change your opinion at all, but it is a little ironic that you seem to think that the MVET goes to the General Fund (which apparently would be a bad thing) but by voting for 695, you'll be voting to actually INCREASE funding to the General Fund!

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

Patrick.. I-695 does NOT eliminate the revenue distribution system. PROJECTED revenues are not actual money. MVET money has ALWAYS gone to the general fund until 49 passed. That means that the money that has been extorted from the public for decades has been thrown away and not used to improve 'transportation' Your version (the state's version) of transportation is not the 'peoples' version. Tearing up roads to install railroad tracks and loading the highways down with buses and building more 'restricted' traffic lanes does NOT help traffic. It puts a burden on people who drive cars, got to work and PAY for all the goodies that government thinks we need. Your reasoning is faulty. I-695 is NOT a vote to increase the general fund. Why can't you people address the reality instead of coming up with these fantasies to scare us poor dummies?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 16, 1999.

And part of the reality is, the people will benefit from 695, the politicians will not be able steal the money out of our wallets on a whim and the people will get to vote on what important.

And yes Pat we will vote to increase taxes when necessary.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 16, 1999.

What useless and wastefull projects should be cut? Appears to me that a number of useful projects are going unfunded because of 601 and also the 50-50 leg. split.

-- Russell Miller (rmiller@insidechess.com), August 18, 1999.

Mr. Miller

I do not believe that useful programs are going unfunded because of 601. I believe that the state and local governments have adequate money, if they used it wisely. Unfortunately they often will under fund high priority programs (Medic 1 comes to mind) to preserve their 601 capped funds for THEIR pet programs, extorting additional money by levy to pay for essentials. We ought to be privatizing all services that can be done better, cheaper, by the private sector. We ought to be getting rid of PLAs and other organized labor political pay-offs that decrease competition and drive up the cost of public works projects. None of these things are going to happen until the taxpayers stand up and say they won't take it anymore. They've done this in Colorado and it's working. The cost of government is coming down, without loss of necessary services. When the taxes that I currently pay are being spent wisely, I'll be glad to campaign for increased taxes, the same as I did for my kid's last school levy. But until they start using reasonable business practices, I don't think I owe the bureaucrats another nickle, and I intend to work hard to pass I-695 to get back MY money which they now are wasting.

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 18, 1999.

Ann, I am sure you and your husband work very hard and you deserve to drive cars that bring you pleasure. What you and I do not deserve is to be socked with the extravagant, excessive, unfair tax every year when we go to renew our license tabs. My tabs are $900/year. I will be penalized every year until my car depreciates enough to where my taxes will be lower. My crime: driving a new car - My punishment: $900 tab fee every year. Sorry, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), August 30, 1999.