I am a bit concerned about the loophole in the initiative that would allow the state legislature, with a 2/3 vote, to impose "emergency," one-year taxes.

What are we really accomplishing if we vote for this initiative? We'll have low license tabs, and the right to vote on any tax and fee increases, but what is to say the legislature won't declare an emergency and hit us with an income tax (or other taxes or raised taxes, for that matter)? And the provision in the intiative states that they CAN do this, for a year at a time!

Because the initiative doesn't limit the TYPE of taxes the legislature can implement in an "emergency" I am worried that "YES" vote on I-695 really means a vote for MORE taxes, not l

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999

Answers

really mean a vote for MORE taxes, not less, as promised by the initiative sponsors.

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

This is hogwash, pure and simple.

Raising taxes is nothing they can't do NOW with a simple majority (It's not like professional politician Locke would veto a raise), and it wouldn't necessarily be restricted to one year. While "concerned citizen" has already shown in other postings that he/she is against this initiative because he/she likes big government, he/she is now claiming that I-695 somehow facilitates the legislature implementing taxes. What a crock!

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 27, 1999.

All I am saying is that the legislature would be more inclined to implement new taxes or raise old taxes if I-695 passes and their constitutents start whining because their commute times are tripled and their neighborhoods are no longer safe because of cuts in the police force.

The legislature would never implement new taxes now - they're politicians! They want to be reelected! But, if services dwindle (and they will) and it will placate the voters, you can bet your bottom dollar that an income tax is right around the corner.

So, in a sense, you are right: the legislature could implement new taxes now, but they WON'T. They WILL if I-695 comes crashing down on their constituen

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Gee CC

I'l take that chance!

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 27, 1999.

Dear concerned. I feel your pain. I also feel your disengenousness. The spectre you attempt to raise is very weak indeed. But I'm sure it will be efffective with many of the citizens who have forgotten how to think.

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

C.C. I remain a confused little person, knowing not which direction to turn. It seems to me that if ones income was lessened by 2% you would adjust all of your cost of living expenses, pay all the bills and go on with life. When this happened to me over the last few years,(and much more than 2%) I didnt choose not to pay the power bill and go without electricity, but adjusted other things and paid all the necessities. I did go from three vehicles to one, I have not gone anyplace on vacation for three years. But even with less income, I did not look for the nearest tall building to jump from. I would be tempted to suggest that even the state might be able to try the same method of survival.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 28, 1999.

I noticed that you begged the question there, CC.

Who says traffic congestion will triple, and police will be cut?

There are three reasons why your scenario is false:

1. I-695 does not cut the budget. It cuts the INCREASE in the budget. And it still allows a 4.6% increase over the last one. Traffic wasn't at gridlock before we forced R49 on the legislature, and police services weren't in danger of being cut when they voted themselves another 7.6% to play with. Where's the problem here?

2. The legislature's two-thirds vote is a safety valve, and in fact enhances the allure of the initiative. If a true emergency occurs (Mt Ranier erupts?), the mechanism is there for the state to respond quickly. Getting that many legislators in both houses to agree on ANYTHING is difficult. They know they will be accountable for their voting record come the next election, and they'd better be sure they can defend it in the debates that will come, if they want to keep their seats.

3. We, The People (you know...the pockets the money comes from?) will be able to vote any increase we feel is needed. If an essential service can't be funded, and there's no way to transfer funds from elsewhere (remember the miraculous apprarance of additional monies when the stadium fund went dry?, then they come to their bosses (us, remember?) and ask for more money, and tell us why what we already gave them isn't enough.

I don't think you're a "concerned citizen" as much as a politician launching trial balloons in a desperate effort to find SOMETHING to combat 695 with.

So far, you've failed.

D. Baird Vancouver, WA

-- D. Baird (newstar@pacifier.com), August 28, 1999.