Hi,

I'm grateful to Tim Eyman and Marty Rood for working on this initiative to save the public from the misinformation spread by politicians and big businesses. It's a really good idea to make sure that any proposed tax on users come with a justification, so it can be scrutinized in the full light of day. There are too many tyrranical politicians and big businesses who have been trying to extort money from us and pull the wool over our eyes for years. We need more straight talk about our taxes.

However, I notice that the same initiative also proposes a fee of $30 per year for everyone who owns a car. I couldn't find a justification for this fee in the initiative. I'd like to understand why you think I should be charged this $30 fee, and how the figure of $30 was arrived at.

Thanks,

Joe Campbell

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999

Answers

The initiative sets the fee at $30 for "license tab fees", which are defined to include the general fees paid annually for licensing "motor vehicles, including cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and motor homes."

The initiative does not set the fee for trucks of any size or description, or trailers (including camping trailers), or campers on trucks (which are licensed and titled in Washington). What about ATV licenses, for dirt bikes etc? Trucks are motor vehicles, but are exclused from the definition in the initiative. Trailers and campers are not "motor" vehicles, and are also excluded. I have not looked at all the laws repealed to see what is left on which to base a license fee for trucks, ATV's, trailers and campers. Does anyone know? (no guesses please)

Has everyone read the actual text of the initiative? I cut out all the citations of law, and found it totals about 475 words:

INITIATIVE 695 (modified by deleting code citations only)

AN ACT Relating to limiting taxation by: limiting excessive License tab fees; limiting tax increases by requiring voter approval; repealing existing licensing fees (long list) adding a new section to chapter 46.16 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.135 RCW; creating a new section; and providing an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: A new section is added to chapter 46.16 RCW to read as follows: (1) License tab fees shall be $30 per year for motor vehicles, regardless of year, value, make, or model, beginning January 1, 2000. (2) For the purposes of this section, "license tab fees" are defined as the general fees paid annually for licensing motor vehicles, including cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and motor homes. A new section is added to chapter 43.135 RCW to read as follows: (1) Any tax increase imposed by the state shall require voter approval. (2) For the purposes of this section, "tax" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, sales and use taxes, property taxes, business and occupation taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, impact fees, license fees, permit fees, and any monetary charge by government. (3) For the purposes of this section, "tax" does not include: (a) Higher education tuition, and (b) Civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract. (4) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax. (5) For the purposes of this section, "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself and all its departments and agencies, any city, county, special district, and other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state. (6) This section does not apply to any specific emergency measure authorized by vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of each house of the legislature and expiring not later than twelve (12) months from the effective date of the emergency act. (7) This section is intended to add to, and not replace, the requirements for tax increases set forth in Initiative 601, the Taxpayer Protection Act, RCW 43.135.035. The following acts or parts of acts that impose taxes and fees on vehicles are each repealed: (long list) The provisions of this act are to be Liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act. If any provision of this act or its Application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the Remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other Persons or circumstances is not affected. This act takes effect January 1, 2000. --- END ---

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 26, 1999.

Thanks. What I really wanted to see, though, was a *justification* for the proposed $30 fee. Why is a fee for a vehicle license something that you think a vehicle owner should pay to the state, and why do you think it needs to be $30.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

A person ought not to have to pay rent on their own car every year. The fee should be $0.00. Guess that would have looked too extreme to voters; they're all brainwashed into believing they owe the government something for every endeavor they engage in.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 27, 1999.

That's an interesting explanation... $0 might be too extreme for voters to take seriously. But it doesn't look like Tim Eyman and Marty Rood are afraid of advocating extreme positions. :-) If they thought the fee should be eliminated altogether, I'm sure they would have been fighting for that. They've obviously put a lot of work into this, so they must have a more carefully considered reason for the $30 figure, and they must have some reason why they think we should pay anything at all. I'd hope the reason for the $30 fee is not really that "it was something that we thought it would be easy to sell the public on" ?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Joe, I like your train of thought.

I think that the $30 tabs portion of the initiative is a smokescreen to convince voters that I-695 is a good thing, when the meat of the initiative is the mandatory vote on all tax and fee increases. This move is representative of a way of thought that refuses to plan for the future and insists on personal gain.

Any time a man who drives a Saab and buys $400,000 homes complains about taxes, I want to tell him, "Think about the little guy."

-- Dave (everett244@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

How about this? Anyone who does not want to pay anything for license tabs, buy a little pickup truck under 4000 gvw, so you get no tonnage charge. You can even put one of those little campers on it. Trucks and campers are not listed as requiring the $30 license tab fee. Unless, with a camper, it becomes a "motorhome". Can anyone explain how this works? Another question was asked about this, with no answer yet.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 27, 1999.

Thinking about the 'little guy is Bill Clinton's job. He thinks about his 'Little guy' constantly..

Maybe Tim can buy a $1,000,000 house and a Ferrari next time. Hey he earns his own money, he can spend it as he sees fit. And everybody has the right...no the NEED to complain about taxes unless they survive on other peoples sweat..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

Now I'm getting confused. I didn't object to Tim Eyman spending his own money. I only asked why he wants me to spend $30 of MY money.

He wants all taxes to be justified, and it sounds like a good idea to me. I'm doing what he said we should do, which is to question any proposed tax. I'm sure he can give us a good example of what sort of justification to look for, by giving us the justification for the tax that he proposes.

The only reasons I've seen so far for the $30 fee suggest that he's trying to fool me.

Tim and Marty, there is some other reason for the $30 fee, isn't there?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

Joe, I think I understand you concern but not quite. Vehichles in this state and all other are licensed and registered to keep track of who rightfully owns them and is responsible for them. This does cost money. As one who does not like being over taxed, I do not mind paying a fee for a justified service.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Joe, sorry hit the tab and sent that last with out finishing. I as a former police officer liked the fact that I could run a license and find out who was driving the car before I pulled them over (most of the time) also it is easier to track down a car if you have some way of keeping track of them. So I think a small fee in this case is warranted for this type of service. just my thoughts

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Not to get off track, but of course it would be nice for law enforcement if everyone submitted a sample of DNA and fingerprints as well as installing an radio monitor under their skin. We needn't do these things if we're interested in a free society (and no, I'm not looking to find a happy "medium" between freedom and a police state) As for the other "service", if people want to make their stolen cars easier to track, they would come up with some private system--no need for government in this regard. I would ask the policeman if his impression is the same as mine--that most of the thugs are just the same people over and over and over again, and if we just start using the prisons to protect society by removing these thugs off the street, instead of filling them up with pot smokers and crack dealers, then we wouldn't have to worry so much about giving up chunks of our freedom for security?

I have to say, I'm also curious about the $30 figure.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 29, 1999.

Greg- Your right most of the crimes are committed by the same people over and over again. I went into law enforcement because I don't like bullies and thats what criminals are. I also don't want a police state thats one of the reasons I don't want gun control, people need to protect themselves as cops can't be everywhere at once. On the $30 fee, don't know why they picked it, maybe they will answer this.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

Ed, thanks for your answer, "Vehicles in this state ... are licensed and registered to keep track of who rightfully owns them and is responsible for them. This does cost money." That does sound to me like a good reason for the state to charge SOME fee to the owner of a vehicle. It still doesn't say, however, why the sponsors of I-695 want this fee to be $30 per year, and not, say, $23 or $3 or $300. Tim and Marty, is this a difficult question to answer?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

I recently heard a debate on Spokane radio between Tim Eyeman and Mike Lowry (poor Lowry didn't stand a chance--he's not exactly a dynamo) where Eyeman explained that $30 put us in line with surrounding states.

The government shouldn't be keeping track of cars anymore than it should keep track of banking records or email. Until we become a criminal, which most of us never do, we should have the freedom to go about our business without being cataloged or labeled. That's the kind of country I want to live in. I can't see a bit of harm in this approach, but I do fear government that doesn't respect the sovereignty of its citizens.

-- greg holmes (kholmes@ior.com), September 03, 1999.

greg holms wrote: "The government shouldn't be keeping track of cars anymore than it should keep track of banking records or email"

Is this a joke? Do you want to return to the old west, when sometimes "possession is 9/10 of the law" and "brand it and its yours" ruled? I kind of like rules and records, and some help from government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 04, 1999.

So the reason for picking $30 is, "That's about what OTHER states charge" ?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 05, 1999.

That's what Tim Eyeman said on radio.

Brand it and it's yours? Perhaps you think the current scheme is really stopping car theft? For some reason, I think that even if my neighbor's car wasn't registered with the State, he would still find some way to object to my taking it without permission. Don't you think. In time, people might even come up with a system that works instead of relying on a government one that costs a bunch of forced money. My home entertainment system is worth more than my car, and it's not "registered" with government. As with any number of valuable things people own. One of the great problems in the old west was the ineffective way in which the government handled property ownership with ranches and homesteads--resulted in much disagreement and violence. Government is generally a pretty poor means of doing most things, and it should be avoided as a solution as much as possible.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), September 06, 1999.

(Sounds like Greg wants the fee to be $0. But I'll leave that aside for the moment..)

So I still don't think my question has been answered. In fact, I'm starting to have some doubts about I-695, given the answers above.

Tim Eyman claimed that he was trying to make sure that every tax imposed by the state is justified and scrutinized in the full light of day. But the ONLY justification he can come up with for his OWN proposed fee is, "$30 puts us in line with surrounding states."

Is that the sort of justification he wants me to look for in any proposed tax -- that somebody else has a corresponding tax? Should I next vote for a 6% state income tax simply because many other states have it? Should I vote for a 300% gas tax because some European countries have one? It doesn't sound like a very good justification to me.

A theme repeated throughout this campaign is, "Don't be fooled." If Tim sincerely intends to help us to "not be fooled," he should be showing us a good example of the sort of justification to look for. Right?

Why is he having a hard time doing so? Was the $30 figure actually picked without much thought?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

Joe-

To me it showed a LOT of thought. It's $140 less than I'm paying now. Why not $29.99? How about $30.01? Why a tax rat of 2.2%, rather than 2.201 or 2.199%. At the margins, everything is arbitrary. But the difference between $170 and $30, while perhaps arbitrary, is worth my vote.

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

It showed a LOT of thought because it's a lot less than what you're paying today?

Really? That shows that a lot of thought must have gone into it?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

Damn right Joe-

My tax burden was excessive. Now it's going to be somewhat less excessive. A definite step in the right direction.

Given that the politicians routinely RAISE my taxes without asking my for my vote, I find the chance to vote to lower them VERY well thought out. I find the requirement that politicians will then require consent of the governed to raise future taxes the BEST part. THAT is well thought out. If it had required a two-thirds majority, it would have been EXCEEDINGLY well thought out. Any MORE questions??

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 13, 1999.

Sounds like you're angry about your taxes because you feel they're too high, and you would welcome any move of any sort to reduce them; the further it goes, the better.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Joe-

Too high because they are being spent both inefficiently and on things of marginal priority, subsidizing public stadiums (stadia?) for instance.

You, on the other hand, indulge in sophistries of attempting to make someone defend picking a discrete number out of a near continuous function. Why is the speed limit 55mph? Why not 52.387mph? Why not 57.085mph? Why not 59.0253483275068362940438? What a crock!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 17, 1999.

Don't get me wrong. I think my taxes are too high too. We people of Scottish descent are known for being penny-pinching. :-)

However, that same carefulness with my money tells me to be wary of people who use arguments like, "Don't be fooled!" to get me to make decisions about my money, especially when they are professional salesmen. In my experience, they are often trying to fool you themselves, for some hidden purpose. It's worth checking them out somewhat carefully.

So you feel your taxes are too high because a lot of government spending is *inefficient* and *inappropriate* -- and you want to cut *that* spending. I definitely agree with that goal. But how do we know that I-695 will accomplish it? It doesn't bother to suggest ANY specific spending to cut. It leaves the actual decisions about what spending to cut, up to the same politicians who made the inefficient and inappropriate spending decisions in the past. For something that claims to be saving me from those politicians, that doesn't sound very promising. To me, it even sounds a bit fishy.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

Joe -

I agree that putting the decision on what to cut into the hands of the politicians is a bit risky. However, if you think about the fact that the public will (okay, SHOULD) hold them accountable for inappropriately spending what they do have, then maybe some of these politicians might just think twice before cutting budgets for education or transportation in order to boost their own salaries. Okay, maybe I'm just dreaming there, but it doesn't take too much common sense to determine how to spend a finite amount of money when you know that you can't just create some new tax to cover your overspending.

As for the previous discussions regarding whether or not the state should track our vehicles, when I need to change my drivers license I pay a small fee for the change, when I renew it every FOUR years I pay a small fee. If the state can track all of the drivers for a small fee every FOUR years, then why can't they track my car the same way? Personally I like the idea that they can track my car, and I definitely DO NOT want some private company tracking information about me and what I drive (and selling that information to every marketing firm in the country). To the individual that compared tracking a car to a home stereo, I would like to know how often you take your stereo and park it at the mall/work/doctors office/etc? Unless you would like to publish your complete address so that all the crooks know where you live, there is no comparison to the risk of your car being stolen.

-- Mike Smith (smithm@pos-data.com), September 20, 1999.

Wait a sec. I-695 doesn't touch the portion of the state budget that affects politicians' salaries (at least, not in the short term). The big hit is to just one portion of the state budget - the portion that's meant for transportation-related spending.

I bet most of the people who signed the I-695 ballot initiative thought that it was going to make politicians more careful about how they spend our money. That's what I thought, too, when I started this discussion. But the closer I look at it, the more doubts I'm having that it's going to do that. I notice that you're starting to have doubts too, Mike: "... maybe some of these politicians might just think twice before ... boost[ing] their own salaries. Okay, maybe I'm just dreaming there..."

On this web site, I-695 supporters keep saying, "Don't be fooled [by the opposition's scare tactics about cuts to state services]! We're wiping out only 2% of the state budget." Sure sounds like they are trying to give me the false impression that if any services are cut, they will be cut by only 2%.

Now I'm saying to myself, "Don't be fooled, Joe! They're only wiping out the 2% that's earmarked for transportation spending. They're leaving 98% of the budget, including the salaries of the so- called 'fat politicians,' alone. They've offered no explanation of why they think that THIS 2% constitutes wasteful spending. They're trying to make me think that transportation programs will be cut by only 2%, when in fact they really WILL be cut by something like 30%. They're trying to make me think that they're putting the state transportation budget in line with other states', but they're hiding the fact that other states have transportation budgets that come from state income taxes, not license tab fees. What on earth are they really up to??"

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Just wondering if any body can or is going to answer this simple question?

-- Ken LeMay (klemay@amouse.net), September 26, 1999.

When I pay my license fee, I'm not paying for "rent" for my own vehicle, or anything similar--I'm paying, in theory, for someone to keep the roads smooth, maintain intersections, etc., for me to drive my car on.

Yes, we may pay too much, but it seems like reducing the fund isn't the answer so much as changing how that money is spent.

And saying "it's what other states pay" isn't even remotely relevant. I lived in Indiana for five years and had to pay a state income tax, county income tax, and city income tax. You think the federal tax forms are frustrating and complicated . . .

-- paul fankhauser (paulfankhauser@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

So, here's my take on the answers I've got to this simple, basic question about the Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative.

(1) If we said $0 [or a negative number], people wouldn't believe us. It might make the initiative look completely phony. $30 is not so obviously phony. People are more likely to believe it. [-- what I got from Greg Holmes' first answer]

(2) Somebody else in another state, that uses the license tab fees for something other than what we do, and has an income tax, calculated about $30 for them; therefore $30 is right for us. [-- what I got from Greg Holmes' quote of Tim Eyman]

(3) Don't ask stupid questions! It's not important why it's $30! Isn't it obvious that a lot of thought went into picking the $30 figure? OF COURSE it DOESN'T MATTER to the state how much money we contribute via license tab fees! All that matters is that it's less than what I'm paying now! [-- what I got from Craig Carson's answer]

Personally, reason (1) looks like the most plausible one to me. How reassuring to know that I'm being saved from the tyrants who don't know how to make a budget, and delivered into the hands of people who make budget decisions based on reasons such as the above, which stand up to scrutiny in the full light of day.

Really, if the 695 camp's intentions are sincere, I wonder why they don't just answer the question, instead of making excuses for not answering it.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

Chaff and flares, Joe, chaff and flares. Only it's too late, because it's an AIM-9M, and the MVET is in the heart of the envelope. I can hear the tone warbling sweetly. Fox- 2!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

I agree with your characterization of your answers as "chaff and flares." Of course, those who feel that the answers above are adequate are free to vote Yes.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

"Of course, those who feel that the answers above are adequate are free to vote Yes. " Thank you Joe, for giving me the right to vote. I exercised it with my absentee ballot this weekend. I am one of what I'm reasonably certain will be a substantial majority voting yes.

If the why $30 and not $29.95 argument is the best that the pro-MVET crowd can come up with, I-695 will carry by a landslide.

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

Craig-

Quit trying to hide under the "Chaff and Flares"/"Dont be Fooled" bush.

JUST ANSWER THE FRIGGEN QUESTION.

Joe has provided you with 3 sample answers:

1) Believability ($0 or refund is just silly, right?)

2) Good for other States...Good for WA!

3) Dont ask such stupid (albiet hard for Craig to answer) questions

Feel free to use one or come up with something better. I suggest not trying #3 again.

I've had several people, both pro- and anti-695, ask me about "Why $30?". I did not have an answer, so I just told them what Eyeman said (answer #3)... but for some reason, this answer never seemed to work for them.

Please give me a well thought-out (I know I'm asking alot) response for this simple question so that I might enlighten others to the obvious logic of 695.

But if this is just to much to ask, then go ahead and correct my spelling grammer.

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

More like "spelling AND grammer."

Okay craig, so I gave you a free-bee

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Deranged William-

"More like "spelling AND grammer."" Actually, more like spelling and grammar.

Chaff and flares, but it's too late. Even the Times and PI are starting to see that the missile is tracking and the target is about to become a fireball. EJECT, EJECT, EJECT!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Jeez Craig your starting to sound like Tokoyo Rose with all this chaff and flare talk, give up now while the getting is good, it is useless to fight. yata yata... Nice try though.

-- Ken (klemay@amouse.net), October 18, 1999.

Craig-

I asked for an answer, NOT your predictions of the future, Nostro-dumb-dumb!

Give us an answer, or admit that you are deficient in that capacity (among countless others)

I'd check out that missile, chances are that its a SCUD.

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Nope-

AIM-9 Mike. And the closer to 2 November, the closer it's getting.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Ken-

RE:Jeez Craig your starting to sound like Tokoyo Rose with all this chaff and flare talk, give up now while the getting is good, it is useless to fight. yata yata... Nice try though.

What did Tokoyo (sic) Rose have to do with chaff and flares? They didn't have heat seeking missiles in WWII, or radar guided ones either, for that matter.

Once upon a time, I was in the stan-eval shop at a fighter base. There on the wall was a brass plaque that said, "Arguing with a stan- eval flight examiner is like rolling around in the mud with a pig. You're both getting dirty, and the pig's loving it." The OINKSTER

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Still waiting, Craig...

(insert "Jeopardy" theme)

-- Just one answer (colt45@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

I'm rather disturbed that the proponent of the Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative, who says that he wants all taxes and fees to be scrutinized and justified in the full light of day, so that regular working class folks won't be fooled any more by the tyrranical politicians, can't come up with an explanation for his own figure of Thirty Dollars -- the only budget figure in his initiative -- and then says that the people on the OTHER side "aren't exactly dripping with credibility".

Of course, if there really WAS no answer, he wouldn't come out and say, "OK, I was just fooling -- there really isn't an answer!" Would he? After all this campaigning, if he came out and said that, man, that would make a whole lot of people really mad. He would try to fudge around it somehow.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 19, 1999.

Chaff and flares!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Yes, exactly -- just like that! :-) "Chaff and flares! Scare tactics!" I wonder if such remarks are just attempts to divert attention from the fact that he HAS no answer.

Craig, thank you for illustrating my point so well.

I'd like to point out another thing in Craig's responses above. He said to me, "You... indulge in sophistries of attempting to make someone defend picking a discrete number out of a near continuous function. Why is the speed limit 55mph? Why not 52.387mph? Why not 57.085mph? Why not 59.0253483275068362940438? What a crock!"

Am I the one indulging in sophistries? All I did was ask a simple, basic question. The man said, "Pay $30," so I said, "OK, why $30?" What could be simpler?

Even in the figures I used to illustrate my question, I don't think I was being nitpicky. Take a closer look at the conversation above. My words were, "It still doesn't say... why the sponsors of I-695 want this fee to be $30 per year, and not, say, $23 or $3 or $300." $30 is 30% more than $23.

It was CRAIG who, repeatedly, asked the question to multiple decimal places: "Why not $29.99? How about $30.01? Why a tax rat of 2.2%, rather than 2.201 or 2.199%." "Why is the speed limit 55mph? Why not 52.387mph? Why not 57.085mph? Why not 59.0253483275068362940438?" "If the why $30 and not $29.95 argument is the best...", and then poked fun at ME for asking those questions - - as though I was the one who asked them.

And he accuses ME of indulging in "sophistries!" When all I said was, "OK, why $30?"

I saw the same interesting pattern used in Tim Eyman's sales talk for I-695. First, invent some imaginary, hateful enemies -- the "tyrranical politicians" who don't have "one ounce of compassion for the average taxpayer". Of course, since no such people really exist, they can't defend themselves; so they make easy targets. Then, harp on how incompetent, uncaring, despicable these fictitious enemies are -- "We know this comes as a shock to most politicians, but there are other options besides raising taxes... such as prioritization..." (as though the people in government don't know that already). Repeat it enough times that we come to believe that these fictitious enemies actually exist, and are the source of all government bureaucracy, inefficiency and incompetence. Then, plant the suggestion that the proposal of he, Eyman, the good guy, is so much better, since he names "working class folks," "families," "senior citizens," and "the little guy," while the fictitious enemies show no signs of caring about these people. So everyone who's not listening too carefully starts thinking that this initiative is about "Tim Eyman and the people vs. the tyrranical politicians."

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

Joe--"I'm rather disturbed that the proponent of the Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative, who says that he wants all taxes and fees to be scrutinized and justified in the full light of day, so that regular working class folks won't be fooled any more by the tyrranical politicians, can't come up with an explanation for his own figure of Thirty Dollars -- the only budget figure in his initiative -- and then says that the people on the OTHER side "aren't exactly dripping with credibility"."

Sheesh, are you still yammering on about this topic? This question has been asked and answered many times. If you don't like the answer, for chrissake, say so and explain *why*.

I must presume you're trying to point out $30 is an arbitrary number. If you think it is (I've no reason to doubt the rationale of putting us in line with other states), explain to us *why* we should care. Similarly, if your motivation is to show that part I of the initiative doesn't reflect the initiative author's true motivation, we'd all be better off if you come out and say this directly. You could then explain why *you* believe it's true.

Otherwise, I gotta agree you're just spreading "chaff and flares."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

Question: "What could be simpler? " Answer: You, Joe.

Chaff and flares, Joe, chaff and flares.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.

A question for the people who think that the figure of $30 DOESN'T matter. Why do you think that it doesn't matter? It's our state's fourth largest revenue source, and you think that wiping it out doesn't matter? How on earth did you come to think that?? On the No side, there are hundreds of people urgently trying to tell me how much it DOES matter. I'm sure you've heard them too.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

Chaff and flares, Joe.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.

Joe--"A question for the people who think that the figure of $30 DOESN'T matter. Why do you think that it doesn't matter? It's our state's fourth largest revenue source, and you think that wiping it out doesn't matter? How on earth did you come to think that?? On the No side, there are hundreds of people urgently trying to tell me how much it DOES matter. I'm sure you've heard them too."

Again, a discussion about the origin of the $30 fee is meaningless. That being said, it *is* meaningful to discuss the effects of the revenue reductions caused by the choice of $30. This is how I'll frame the answer to your question.

If you believe (as I do) that we're "over-served" with government services then it's quite reasonable to be generally unconcerned about the service reductions associated with I-695. Conversely, if you believe we're "under-served" (FWIW, I haven't decided which category fits the "just right" people) with government services, it's quite reasonable to worry about the service reductions associated with I-695.

Put another way, if your goal is to have a government do *less*, it's not clear that any method except reducted revenue streams will be an effective method to reach this goal.

WRT the (para.) "hundreds of people URGENTLY saying it does matter," I would fully expect *most* of them to do so. Quite obviously, they're worried about their own nest. They're simply framing the discussion as advantageously as possible.

In my opinion, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle--I-695's passage would lead to some pain, but *nowhere* near the extent predicted by the ever nebulous "powers that be."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

After stumbling on this site and topic question(for which there are many)... my 2 cents... For the folks that are responding to Joe's question, what is "your" definition of a "motor vehicle"? As the root of the problem dwells within this meaning, ask yourself, first, do I "drive" and more importantly, do I "drive a motor vehicle"? You may be suprised at what you do NOT know.

-- (nondyoak@gte.net), October 22, 1999.

nondyoak--"After stumbling on this site and topic question(for which there are many)... my 2 cents... For the folks that are responding to Joe's question, what is "your" definition of a "motor vehicle"? As the root of the problem dwells within this meaning, ask yourself, first, do I "drive" and more importantly, do I "drive a motor vehicle"? You may be suprised at what you do NOT know."

Do I drive?

Hmmm. . .I'm pretty certain I do. Along the same lines, I think most reasonable people would also think I do.

Do I drive a motor vehicle?

I'm pretty certain a '91 Sentra is considered a motor vehicle. Again, I think most reasonable people would agree.

In pondering your post, I asked myself "what's your point?" I can only presume you'd attempting to point out a perceived problem with the following provision of I-695:

"1) License tab fees shall be $30 per year for motor vehicles, regardless of year, value, make, or model, beginning January 1, 2000. (2) For the purposes of this section, "license tab fees" are defined as the general fees paid annually for licensing motor vehicles, including cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and motor homes."

If I've correctly identified your area of concern, I'd like to understand your point. Off-handedly, a quick reading of the section makes me wonder if Ford F-100s or Dodge Dakotas would qualify, but I doubt that's your *or* Joe's primary concern.

Personally, I'd suggest you be a bit less coy in the future. IOW, if you've a point, make it.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 22, 1999.