I-695 is going to win. It will take a lot of work. But I-695 takes out the easiest target: the hated MVET! The MVET is not the biggest tax. The sales tax, B&O tax, gasoline tax, even the state portion of property taxes are larger. But all of these bigger bites are done incrementally. Property tax is hidden in rent or mortgage payments. Gasoline tax is just part of the price of tanking up. Sales and B&O taxes are just a fraction of the cost of a purchase that we want, and we pay these a little at a time. But the MVET has to be paid in full all at once. It isn't, hidden or incremental. What if your tabs expire when your kids need new clothes for school?

If you had to write one check each year for the entire sales tax you paid, it would hurt.

The people hate the MVET and they are going to vote it out of existence, assuming we all work to fight the establishment message that the sky will fall.

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 17, 1999

Answers

The number of signatures on the I-695 petition is very impressive, and passage seems likely. But there is the danger of complacency and the "Let-George-Do-It" attitude. It's important to work for this measure's passage and thereby send the loudest possible message to government. Try some of the marketing techniques that Tim Eyman suggests. If you have your own business premises, set up a prominent display. Keep working at it -- any time is a good time for a tax cut.

By the way, I have not seen any current poll figures in eastern Washington papers showing how 695 is faring with the public. Notwithstanding the limited utility of polling figures, have any been reported in western Washington papers? If so, please post.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), August 18, 1999.

Govenor Locke was in the Tri-Cities in mid July with his "running the state government from different cities". He spoke out against I- 695. The same day the Tri-City Herald conducted a "call in pole" on I-695. The results were 399 would vote for I-695 and 99 were opposed.

Jack Fagan tells me a TV station in Spokane reciently conducted a pole and the results were over 70% favorable.

There were two recient articles that you should look at:

They are: Beyond car tabs: I-695's impact on taxing power. This articel was published on Monday 16 Aug in the Seattle Times.

The second article was published in vancouver's Columbian on Fruday Aug 13. It is entitled "Frustrated Motorists Like I-695.

The easiest way to get to these articles (and the I-695 web site is to go through (www.lowertaxes.nu) then select in Washington or links. I have asked the webmaster of that site to put links to these articles. He is working on it.

There is a lot of very good information on lowertaxes.nu

The bottom line is that we cannot be overconfident. Please engage in operation "Paper Blizzard". It is also time for everyone to step up to the plate and send money to Tim. If we fail in November it will be for one reason and one reason only which is not enough people gave MONEY to the campaign. Sunday's article in the Seattle Times about Tim indicated that the campaign has just $37,000 in the bank. We need $125,000 to do the mailing to all 511,000 to ask for money to combat the media attack that will surely come before the November election.

If you have already donated, we want to thank you. Please keep giving and encourage everyone you know to donate. Remember Tim and a lot of other people are giving all of their time to this campaign. We cannot win in November without YOUR FININCIAL SUPPORT. Write a check today

Monte Benham

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 18, 1999.

The only fully scientific and unbias poll that has been conducted (random sample of statewide registered voters) was conducted by the independent polling firm of Evans/McDonough. The results showed a 56% approval a 31% disapproval rate and 13% undecided or refused to answer. When information was provided about the distribution of MVET funds, approval dropped below 50%.

You should dismiss poll results conducted by either supporters or opponents, since they will most likely conduct "push" polls in which the questions they ask are developed to produce a biased response. Local television polls may also be suspect unless their polling was done at random, only includes registered voters, AND is a random sample from across the state. Call in polls are easily the most useless, as there is nothing random about them, and can often be subject to ballot stuffing. That is why a disclaimer is always posted telling people that it is an "unscientific" poll which cannot be said to be representative of the true public opinion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 18, 1999.

Patrick:

Your are wrong again. Rasmussen Research did a pole on June 20 that showed 72.5 % appproval and 83% approval for the initiative process. The legislature conducted a pole in late February and found the same result but ignored it feeling that we would not be able to obtain the necessary signatures.

The sky is not falling Patrick. The MVET only represents about 2% of the revenue collected by the state and local governments. The state and local governments will adjust. Even you will have more money in your pockets to spend.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 18, 1999.

Patrick, Don't you see any good in I-695? Don't you want to save money? Wouldn't like to be able to vote for or against tax/fee increases? Why or why not? Are you part of the government or business/labor gang? Or are you just scared that the world will end?

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 18, 1999.

Alright Monte, I'll conceed the Rasmussen Research poll. However there are several key elements to it. On June 20th, Initiative 695 was not even very well known. It did not receive much media attention until the beginning of July. As Maddjak has pointed out, there are a lot of people who STILL don't know about it. The only way most people were making their decision to say yes or no was on the basis of the 2 sentence description. This theory is highlighted by the fact that in the same poll 73% of the people agreed to the idea of basing teachers' salaries on performance and 58% of the same people supported giving those same teachers an across the board pay increase.

Another BIG thing is that this survey was (again) conducted on June 20th. The Evans/McDonough poll was conducted at the end of July. Both used a random sample of 500 Washington residents with the same margin of error. Although it is quite possible that 73% of the people agreed to the ideas in 695 at the end of June, it is also quite possible that only 56% of the people agree with it now (or at least three weeks ago). People's opinions change Monte. Using a 2 month old poll, especially when a more current one is available, is a lot like using an opinion poll of President Bush at the conclusion of the Gulf War to predict that he would be reelected in a landslide.

I've actually never heard of the legislature taking a public opinion poll, especially on an initiative. I'd ask for more information regarding this supposed poll, but again, apparently it was conducted in February, which makes it about as timely as a poll on whether or not Clinton should be impeached.

And Hammer, I was addressing someone's request for information on polling results. My personal views on the initiative do not change the fact that polling data seems to be showing a rapid drop off in public support for this thing.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 18, 1999.

You are all correct in your polling data that you are referring to. And yes, I did see the result of the "last" poll where only 56% supported I-695. Keep in mind, the opponents are using these polling data to find out what people will respond to in an unfavorable fashion to the Initiative...they will then use this as their basis for scaring the hell out of everyone with a huge blitz of advertisements. If their polling data suggests that support slips dramatically regarding MVET, then trust me, they will use that as heavy ammunition in their campaign in a couple of months. I've been through enough of these state campaigns from the inside...trust me, this will be a bloody knuckle fight. But in the end, I think I-695 will will in a squeaker!

-- Dee Jay (angus@eburg.com), August 18, 1999.

All you I-695 supporters, send your signature to Tim on your check to help us defend I-695 when the scare campaign begins. We can win but we need YOUR MONEY NOW!!!

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Why not answer my questions Patrick? You are so opposed to 695 and that is a personnel choice, unless you are being paid to be on here to oppose it.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Well hammer, I'm not here because I'm being paid to do it (although that would be nice). And I don't think that the world will come to an end if 695 passes.

I'll "save" about $200 if this thing passes. Of course I know that if it does pass, most of the transportation projects set to begin under R-49 will not be built, several of which would reduce congestion along my way to work, and one would offer me alternative route when my primary route is clogged up. I figure that the money I "save" under 695 will end up costing me way more money in gas and lost time than if it were invested in the transportation projects that may never be built if 695 passes.

The MVET, if you take the time to look at it, is actually an extremely good investment. It pays for items like roads, police, and fire protection that have long lasting benefits. I fully agree that there is quite a bit of waste in state government, but if you look at what is funding that waste, it is taxes like property, B&O, and the sales tax. I would be very likely to support proposals to reduce these taxes, since they are the ones funding the waste. What I find amazingly stupid is the argument that by eliminating the MVET, the politicians will reprioritize spending, eliminate a lot of the waste, and keep the more important items fully funded. This all assumes that the politicians will somehow gain a better understanding on how to manage our money than they have in the past. An assumption I find hard to believe. I've also heard that there are plans to reduce property taxes in the near future should 695 be successful. Well why didn't we start with that? It seems as if the priorities on which tax to attack first are all screwed up.

I have no problem voting on taxing issues. I already vote on school levies, fire district bonds, and if the legislature wants to, almost any increase on state taxes. What I have a problem with is voting on every single fee increase. It isn't a matter of me not being able to understand the issues behind each of these proposals, it is a matter of me having to take the time to study each and every proposal. I have a life and a job that take up a great deal of time. And although not only do I feel it is my duty, but I'm also happy to spend a few minutes researching whether a school needs more funding, or if the fire district can do without a continued bond. I don't see why I should have to take the time out of my life to research whether or not the price of whiskey should go up, or if the library really does need to charge an extra nickle for copies. It has been pointed out that Colorado has a similar law on the books and life as we know it has not ceased to exist there. What has not been discussed is that since enactment, voter turnout has dropped about 10% to a 30 year low (it was holding steady in the 80's and early 90's at around 60-65%). Quite simply, there are a lot of people who's decision to vote is based on a whim. And there will be a SIZABLE number of people who get their voters' guide, see several trivial items of almost no impact to them, and simply decide not to vote. There will also be a large number of people who will take one look at the guide, still decide to vote, but will take no time to actually research their decisions. So basically, this thing makes the process more democratic, but hurts it even more by encouraging fewer people to turn out, and encouraging the others to be less informed.

So to sum up my answer hammer, yes, I do see the gross benefits of I- 695. I also see the disadvantages to it. I've put the two together, and although I've concluded that the world will most certainly not come to an end, the costs outweigh the benefits.

-- Patrick (patrick1143@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

percent) Patrick-

The federal election figures for the last ten years. The US only averaged about 50% of eligibles. Colorado isn't any different than anyone else in that regard.

1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 49.1% 1994 193,650,000 130,292,822 75,105,860 38.8 1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 55.1 1990 185,812,000 121,105,630 67,859,189 36.5 1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1 1986 178,566,000 118,399,984 64,991,128 36.4 1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 53.1

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.

Gary, take a look at the figures. When comparing Presidential election years, the US average has hovered around 50% over that 10 year period. In Colorado, the average had been hovering in the mid to low 60's until it started dropping in 1992. The figures you have shown prove that Colorado is not following a national trend in voter turn out, but instead is being influenced by an internal issue.

Should we be striving to reduce voter turnout in Washington to better fit with the national average like Colorado is doing?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Patrick-

You're just being silly. You have a state that is not significantly different statistically from the country as a whole. You are attempting to tell me that there IS a statistically significant difference when there is not, then to tell me that it is due to the factor of your choice. Start at the beginning. Show me a statistical test (T-test, chi square, ANOVA, heck, your choice) that demonstrates a statistically significant difference at P=.05 between Colorado and the nation as a whole, and then we'll debate what may have caused it. You're looking at Brownian motion and attempting to find a trend.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.

Gary wrote:

"The federal election figures for the last ten years. The US only averaged about 50% of eligibles. Colorado isn't any different than anyone else in that regard.

1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 49.1% 1994 193,650,000 130,292,822 75,105,860 38.8 1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 55.1 1990 185,812,000 121,105,630 67,859,189 36.5 1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1 1986 178,566,000 118,399,984 64,991,128 36.4 1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 53.1"

Isn't listing federal turnout comparing apples to oranges?! Patrick said that voter turnout has decreased for the local issues that have to be voted on by this new Colorado law. What would be more effective to your argument is to show that turnout in local elections has held steady.

Voter turnout in federal elections is irrelevant to what Patrick was talking about.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Addendum to that last post:

Of course what I just realized I brain farted (and what Gary will probably point out) is that I'm not sure if these are just federal statistics of local elections, or specifically federal *election* statistics.

Either way, this would provide some answers. You mind clearing this up for those of us who are slightly confused (and nobody had better step up and hit this one outta the park, 'cause I'm leaving myself wide open)? Thanks Gary.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Voter turnout in federal elections is NOT irrelevant to the issue at hand. If Colorado stats are consistent with the total US variability, then there is no evidence that the changes seen in Colorado are any more than a random event. If you can demonstrate that the changes seen in the variability in Colorado voting figures are NOT a random event, then we can start a discussion on whether the alleged changes are due to the variable, "passed the referendum requiring popular vote of tax measures," the variable "Clinton vs Dole? Now isn't that a p***-poor choice," or some other variable. Thus far, however, you haven't established that there was a statistically significant change in voter turnout.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.

Well Gary, I'm glad you requested some statistics. I did originally just eyeball the figures, but upon your request I decided to put all those statistics classes I took back in college to work. I'm a little rusty, but I'm sure you'll tell me if I make any errors.

First off I did a paired t-test to see if Colorado has been significantly different in voter turnout over the past 36 years (1960- 96 Presidential elections) than the US average. t=4.27. And with a level of significance of .005 (99.5% sure), I can assume that Colorado has been significantly different than the US.

But when I looked at the figures, Colorado did not seem to be randomly different than the rest of the US. So I performed a correlation test. Turns out that there is a positive correlation of .697. For those that don't know, correlation is a number between 0 and 1. Generally anything over a .4 is considered to be highly correlated.

So with these two stats I assume that the citizens of Colorado have consistantly voted at significantly higher rates than the average American citizen since 1960.

Now what happened in 1996? Colorado had it's lowest turnout in the 36 year range by almost 3 percentage points. To be fair, the US as a whole also experienced its lowest turnout. But it only beat the record (1988, which happened to be Colorado's 3rd highest turnout) by about a point. When the turnout in all 50 states are added together, the average turnout by state (not by the country as a whole) was 51.5%, just 1.3% lower than Colorado's turnout. With a standard deviation of 6.8, that places the z score at .189. Very, very average.

For people not versed in statistics, Colorado averages a 5.9% higher voter turnout in Presidential election years, which makes their 1.3% stat two years ago very troubling.

Now if that is sufficient statistical information to make my argument no longer "silly" Gary, perhaps you would like to discuss what has made Colorado residents shy away from the polls? Like I said, 1988 was a 24 year high turn out at 67.6%. 1992 still beat every other election since 1968. Then 1996 saw an eight point drop when the average state dropped off only 4 percent from 92 (again, average by state, not country). I've offered my suggestion that the oversized ballot has caused this larger than normal drop off. I'd like to hear any alterna

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

1. Show your figures. 2. I requested a comparison of variances. Was the decrease significant or not. What is the P value. 3. < So you have two unusually high values in your baseline. Regression to the mean will drive an artifactual decrease in succeeding years. 4. What's the P value of that? What is the probability that one state would have a mean difference twice the average? This is hardly a statistically unlikely event. 5. You don't mention 94 or 98. Both are after the 92 initiative. What are their numbers compared to Colorado norm, and their P values. 6. Basically, all you've showed is that, as a whole, the people of Colorado vote at a higher rate than most, which is laudable. They also had the good sense to vote FOR an initiative that restored taxpayer control over taxes, which is also laudable. 7. Why don't you put all the numbers in an ANOVA table and assess if you get a post 92 effect. Also, make your baseline long enough that you dilute out the effect of 1992 and 1998 being outliers, otherwise you have to correct for the regression to the mean issues, and that's ugly. The last time I had to do that I had a PHD biostatistician collaborating with me (the issue was serum half-life of dioxin in humans) and, while I followed the concept, he and a couple other PHD stat guys filled three chalkboards w

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

Correction-

Should have been: Also, make your baseline long enough that you dilute out the effect of 1992 and 198

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

"Show me a statistical test (T-test, chi square, ANOVA, heck, your choice) that demonstrates a statistically significant difference at P=.05 between Colorado and the nation as a whole, and then we'll debate what may have caused it."

I performed several tests of my choosing using the data collected by the Federal Elections Commission www.fec.gov. I only used Presidential election year statistics since A) off year elections turnout is always significantly lower and would corrupt the results, and B) state by state results were unavailable for off year elections.

Don't believe my results? I provided the methods and the location of the data, perform the tests yourself. Posting an entire listing would be a waste of bandwidth since about 98% of the people reading it wouldn't have the slightest idea what they were reading (my guestimate). I'm also not going to jump through your hoops. You asked for a statistical test of my choice. I provided three that seem to bolster my hypothesis. If you want to try to disprove my hypothesis, then YOU do the work.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Now Patrick- Look up a few postings and you will see this phrase: "If you can demonstrate that the changes seen in the variability in Colorado voting figures are NOT a random event, "

What you have stated is that Colorado voters, on the whole, vote at a greater rate than the population as a whole. You have NOT demonstrated that the VARIABILITY that you see in your figures is an unlikely event. If you apply your statistical analysis against the variability of Colorado voters relative to the US population as a whole, rather than to the mean difference between the US population and the Colorado population you will remove the "Colorado versus US effect" and then you can attempt to get at the "Colorado pre and post the 1992 initiative effect" which is what the issue you raised was all about.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

Why will I-695 pass in November? Because people are fed up with this outrageous, unfair tax. My husband and I work hard for a living, why can we not drive new cars without having to worry about how much we are going to have to shell out every year, year after year. I am not a registered voter but I will be now. I am going as far as picking up my friends (some of whom are non-registered voters) and we are all going to the polls together. I-695 will pass and it about time! And for Tim, my check is in the mail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Caroline writes:

"I am not a registered voter but I will be now. I am going as far as picking up my friends (some of whom are non-registered voters) and we are all going to the polls together. I-695 will pass and it about time! And for Tim, my check is in the mail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Caroline, if you're not a registered voter now you won't be able to vote in the election for 695. If I remember correctly, you have to have registered at least six months before an election to vote in it.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

BB:

To vote your Mail-in-Voter registration must be postmarked at least 30 days before the next election. You may go to city hall, or your county auditor to obtain a voter registration form.

To qualify to vote you must be 18 years old, a US citizen, and a legal resident of the state of Washington.

So Non voters get registered and do it NOW! If you need a voter registration form, send a self addressed business envelope to me.

5312 W Tucannon Kennewick, WA 99336

Monte Benham

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 30, 1999.