Since having a chance to drive the roads of a state that has a $30 motor vehilce base tax along with sales tax/state income tax personal property tax .. I am very impressed with the idea of all the new repair shops that will be creating jobs for those that might be jobless when tax dollars dry up. I don't just mean state jobs.. remeber the trickle down effect??? well things that cause cut backs can effect other jobs also.. service jobs.. the little guy..

It was a wonderfully smooth ride, provided you don't try and drink coffee, even from a spill proof cup while driving thought Missouri. Okay, I'm not in the upper middle income group, but I don't whine about paying taxes. I enjoy the services that taxes pay for. (fire, police, AAOA) What I don't want is for the good roads and highways to fall into disrepair... for the thief to know when the last cop is on lunch break, for the elderly to be able to stay in their home rather than ending up in the nursing home.

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999

Answers

Fortunately nothing you has has any validity. It is the ramblings of someone who seeks to delude people to the point where you have been deluded yourself.

695 will not remove all of your precious services and the Missouri you speak about has a much better freeway system that Seattle will ever have. And it has it because the state wanted it to be efficient NOT because it costs more money than the shoddily designed and built system we have here. There are 44 states who pay less taxes than we do and have MUCH better road systems. Why what do they do so much better than the government here? Maybe EVERYTHING???

We don't have good roads. We have crap. And we have crap because the government wants it to be crap.

Third world countries have better roads and virtually NO taxes.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Exactly who is delusional? When was the last time you drove Missouri highways? Washington roads are far better than anything I found anywhere in Missouri. At least the roads here are okay for now, if 659 passes that all bets are off.

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999.

Yes, that's a very good question. Does Maddjak assume that BECAUSE 44 other states pay less taxes that their roads are better than ours, or does he have some sort of evidence that shows how our roads are really bad compared to those states? I've done my fair share of road trips around the country, and I can't say that our roads are any worse than the states I've been through. I've noticed that Maddjak has quite a grudge against the DOT, but with the exception of a few grumblings about specific projects where they screwed up on a pothole or didn't engineer the road to HIS specifications, I've yet to see him show us how we have it any worse than the majority of other states.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999.

Maddjak: "Third world countries have better roads and virtually NO taxes."

Where did this come from? How do you think roads are built? Do you call dirt trails that wash out every rain storm "better roads"? The only third world countries that can build roads without taxes, are those that use slave labor, or the King owns all the oil. No thanks.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 31, 1999.

Whhooowee, that ol' maddjak sure knows how to stir you folks up, don't he?

It's all a matter of priorities, and where folks think that government should fit into their lives.

Some here would have us all believe that the government anmd infrastructure of this state will vaporize when this initiative passes. Some are foolish enough to compare the outcome of this initiative to Missouri, which has a system of taxation that most likely bears little to no resemblence to either that of Colorado, where a 695-like Act has been in place for 7 years; nor any resemblence to the way our government in this state will work once this thing gets passed.

That's irresponsible, of course, but then many who oppose 695 are not taking the high road when it comes to honesty and full disclosure.

That said, I wouldn't give a damn if we NEVER voted another tax increase, EVER. The PEOPLE of this state control it's government, not the other way around. And the fact is, that even in Missouri, when the people have had enough of the conditions we are regaled with by Moonhunter, then they, to, will be motivated to do something about it.

Does that make me a wild-eyed anti-tax extremist? Hardly. But I recognize that government is there to do what we tell it to do, and clearly, they have failed when it comes to the issue of the MVET and property taxes. Frankly, they have no bitch coming, IMO.

Westin

(Let loose the dogs of ignorance, you'uns)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 31, 1999.

Well, I for one oppose this initiative for many reasons....One being that there will be vital programs cut as a result of the 30 dollar tab....Vital programs for the elderly, transportation, respite care, programs for teenagers, law enforcement and the like.....I lived in Missouri for 20 years and yes the tabs for cars was very cheap...but I paid Missouri state tax (very expensive), paid personal property tax on my vehicle (another high expense) and a sales tax (equal to or higher than Washington state)...The public transportation in Missouri was horrible to say the least..I have been very impressed with the transit system in Washington...and there was an alignment shop on every other corner in Missouri ...the potholes were HORRIBLE...and that is no joke.....trying to get roads repaired took forever....but that isn't my main gripe with this initiative.....I am very concerned about the effect that the loss of revenue will create....there are already programs where they have written 2 budgets (one if 695 passes and one if it doesn't)...maybe those of you who are for 695 don't care about these critical programs....but I do....and they will be cut and they aren't senseless programs...yes, the government has some research projects that could be cutback and nobody would feel the pain of those being cut....but to tell an elderly person that they can't have services in their home and they will have to go to the nursing home is very sad.....as you think about how you are going to vote....think about the vital programs that WILL have cuts made....and how many of you will really save that much money...because with the loss of revenue that 695 will create....there will have to be a way to make up that money...whether it's through a personal property tax or state tax or something.....and yes, we will have the opportunity to vote on it....but in the meantime, there will be more loss than gain...IMHO

-- Mysticwoman (mysticwoman2@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999.

Westin writes:

"Some here would have us all believe that the government anmd infrastructure of this state will vaporize when this initiative passes. Some are foolish enough to compare the outcome of this initiative to Missouri, which has a system of taxation that most likely bears little to no resemblence to either that of Colorado, where a 695-like Act has been in place for 7 years; nor any resemblence to the way our government in this state will work once this thing gets passed."

Except of course for the fact that 695 isn't really all that similar to the Colorado initiative. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric, eh?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

BB,

Could you, uh, be a little more specific before you bury your foot in your mouth up to your knee?

You foolishly stated:

"Except of course for the fact that 695 isn't really all that similar to the Colorado initiative. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric, eh?"

There is a basic hypocrisy to statements like this... an application of a standard to someone else that is not applied to himself.

It IS similar, even if, in your ignorance, you can't understand that.

Quoting David Postman of the Seattle Times:

Similar measures in other states

Voters in Colorado, Missouri and Montana already have approved measures that require a public vote to raise many taxes.

In 1998, though, the Montana measure was thrown out by the state Supreme Court. Missouri requires a public vote for state tax increases of more than $50 million or 1 percent of state revenues, whichever is less. It has yet to be invoked.

Colorado is the best place to see the long-term effects of requiring voter approval for tax and fee increases.

In 1992, after three failed attempts, Colorado voters approved the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. It required voter approval of all state and local tax and fee increases, and set spending limits based on increases in inflation and population growth.

Opponents included Colorado businesses, teachers and school officials and a bipartisan group of politicians, including then-Gov. Roy Romer. There were claims that schools would be overcrowded, and that prisoners would be released from jail early because there wouldn't be the money to keep them behind bars.

Romer, a Democrat, compared the measure to a bomb and called its sponsor a terrorist.

Since the measure took effect, 698 proposals have been referred to voters by local governments throughout the state, according to the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. Of those, 76 percent have been approved.

The Colorado General Assembly this year also cut taxes by $490 million because of restrictions imposed by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

`Not as bad as people said'

Even former critics say the dire warnings of 1992 have not come to pass. "It is not as bad as people said it was going to be," said Larry Kallenberger, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc. Kallenberger was one of the naysayers. As director of state Department of Local Affairs under Romer, Kallenberger was a prominent opponent of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

But he said predictions that voters would reject most tax-related ballot measures haven't come true, in part because elected officials have been selective in what they put on the ballot.

Cities, however, have been more successful than the counties Kallenberger represents. "People will vote yes on tax or rate increases provided they know exactly what it is going for," he said, "and with cities, voters can almost look out their window or drive down the street and see the improvement."

Government leaders, he said, must respect the will of the voters, not patronize them or make excuses.

"I don't share the belief that the citizens just didn't understand what they were doing," Kallenberger said.

"I think they have a general sense of what they are doing.

"And what they are doing if they vote yes is, they are saying no to government and saying no to what they see as the endless capacity of some governments to just keep building itself bigger and bigger."

Government officials are being tested under the strict regime of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Kallenberger said.

"The day will come - I think sometime in the next decade - where America will face a crisis," he said. "When that crisis comes, if we have done a good enough job that we can be trusted, people will say, `We need government to help us out of this.'

"But if we keep acting like citizens are our enemies and we have to fight with them all the time, I don't think we will be in that position."

************************************** Nah... there's NOTHING similar to the Colorado law here, right? Well, maybe on your planet, anyway. But like so many on your side of the issue who engage in painting the voters as the enemy, you're all hat, and no cattle.

For Christ's sake, BB... can't you at least do SOME research before you portray yourself as a blithering idiot?

Westin.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Westin,

One HUGE difference between 695 and the Colorado initiative: there was no tax cut in Colorado. Sure, there was a limit on taxes based on growth and inflation, but that's a very different beast. With 695 there's a big cut attached to the voter approval component.

The similar component was the voter approval on taxation. But even with that similarity the two initiatives are very different. The Colorado initiative offers very specific information on how municipalities should schedule elections in order to save money.

695 is a very simple, in some ways vague initiative. The Colorado one is much, much more complex and full of information. That's the difference, Westin. The Colorado initiative offers all sorts of information about how to implement its provisions in a reasonable way. 695 just says, "here, do this!"

There is a fundamental similarity between the two: voter approval of all tax increases. Other than that, they're very, very different.

But I'm assuming you know all this, right? And chose to attack me anyway, right?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

I-695 DOES NOT CUT THE BUDGETit.

Read it. Look at the figures. Do the math.

According to the state itself, the budget just passed by the legislature increases spending by approximately 11%.

Also according to the state itself,I-695 cuts that INCREASE by 3%, leaving an INCREASE IN SPENDING OVER THE LAST BUDGET OF 8%.

Dayam, people, how many times does it have to be repeated?

D. Baird Vancouver, WA

-- D. Baird (newstar@pacifier.com), September 01, 1999.

BB, I was responding to the following, that YOU wrote:

"Except of course for the fact that 695 isn't really all that similar to the Colorado initiative. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric, eh?"

I believe it is. David Postman believes it is. Several others believe it is. That you believe it isn't, isn't supported by the facts.

Your rejoinder:

"One HUGE difference between 695 and the Colorado initiative: there was no tax cut in Colorado."

Of course not. But is the entirety of 695 the tax cut? Is it impossible for the tax cut to be replaced?

The tax cut is the LEAST important and far-reaching aspect of this initiative. How many times has Eyman told us that he couldn't get this to qualify for the ballot without the tax/fee VOTE provision?

The people of this state ARE capable, when suitably informed and motivated, to increase our taxes... IF necessary. As has been documented in several other threads, spending takes place on issues that have nothing to do with public necessity, nor is there any accountability.

The people are SICK of the waste; the demand for more money for the program de jour. They are sick of an MVET that doesn't reflect reality, and that the leg won't reform. They are sick of skyrocketing property taxes. And with this initiative... they won't have to worry about it.

You go on to tell us that the differences include "specificity."

"The Colorado initiative offers very specific information on how municipalities should schedule elections in order to save money."

Well, bully for them. I read all that nonsense on seattle.politics, and its the usual smoke and mirrors that people who oppose this try to rely on.

We are fully capable of doing the same thing WITHOUT specific laws to enforce it. But if specific laws ARE required, don't you think we can implement them separately?

You go on:

"The Colorado one is much, much more complex and full of information. That's the difference, Westin."

BB, did I EVER say they were the "same?"

MY concern is outcomes. BOTH sets of laws would do substantially the same thing, and the cherry on the top for us is to get a major tax reduction; a reduction LONG overdue when this state has $1 BILLION in reserve. $200 for every man, woman and child in this state.

I freely admit that the Colorado bill micromanages. That is their approach, and we have a different one. *I* prefer ours, because it allows flexibility at the local level that Colorado governments do not have in the matter of elections.

That does not mean that in the most important area of both laws, they are not only similar, but precisely the same: That the people assume DIRECT CONTROL over the issue of tax/fee increases at every level. The rest is unimportant eyewash.

The "fundamental similarity" that even YOU point out, is the main platform for both laws. I see that as a wonderful thing... that THE PEOPLE regain control over part of their tax destiny.

I have taken a quote from the article, a quote from a former opponent of the Colorado initiative, who has seen it implemented, and has arrived at the following truisms:

"The day will come - I think sometime in the next decade - where America will face a crisis," he said. "When that crisis comes, if we have done a good enough job that we can be trusted, people will say, `We need government to help us out of this.'

"But if we keep acting like citizens are our enemies and we have to fight with them all the time, I don't think we will be in that position."

Read and heed, BB. You see us as the enemy... even though you're one of us. And what is that going to get you? Government is no longer trusted in this state... and trust MUST be earned. If it isn't... well, there are plenty more initiatives where 695 came from.

The tax cut can be overcome if government justifies it to THE PEOPLE... and while the thought of that apparently terrifies you, it exhilarates me.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

The ever-entertaining Westin writes:

"I believe it is. David Postman believes it is. Several others believe it is. That you believe it isn't, isn't supported by the facts."

Facts? You mean like the fact that it doesn't cut taxes? That it doesn't cause a public vote when the total amount of money collected in taxes goes up (as Monte Benham says 695 will)?

Let me give you an example. Let's say Oregon has an initiative on the ballot that would require a public vote for all future tax increases. That is similar to 695 and the Colorado thing. But attached to that initiative is an income tax increase of 10%. Would you call this similar to 695? There is a big portion of it that is the same, but another piece of the initiative is glaringly different than 695.

It's the same thing with the Colorado initiative. It didn't cut revenues while forcing public votes on everything, as 695 does. It held revenues at the same level.

That's different than 695, Westin. I know you really hate to admit it, but all you have to do is read the text. It's different.

"The tax cut is the LEAST important and far-reaching aspect of this initiative. How many times has Eyman told us that he couldn't get this to qualify for the ballot without the tax/fee VOTE provision?"

Why the heck doesn't this website say "The Public Vote on Every Tax Increase Initiative" then Westin? Or when your loyal minions were out gathering signatures, why didn't they ask "how would you like to vote on every single tax increase?" When they asked me to sign, the question was "How would you like to pay $30 on your tabs next year?" You know, the same question that this website asks on the front page.

At best the pro-695 people are misleading the public; at worst they're being totally dishonest about their goals. If the most important aspect of this initiative is the vote on future tax increases, then quit advertising this initiative as just a cut in car taxes!

This very webpage says something about the "$30 tabs initiative" five times on the front page. It never once mentions the provision calling for a public vote on the front page.

Look, we all know that the public vote provision exists. If it's the true goal of the people behind this initiative, why aren't they making it the focus of their publicity?

Could it be because they know people are more interested in cutting their tabs then they are in voting for every tax increase?

"The people are SICK of the waste; the demand for more money for the program de jour. They are sick of an MVET that doesn't reflect reality, and that the leg won't reform. They are sick of skyrocketing property taxes. And with this initiative... they won't have to worry about it."

Westin, I vote Republican in just about every election. I do my best to send people down there who aren't wasteful with money. I truly care. But I'm also pragmatic about the world, and you know what? Most people in this state don't care.

If people really cared about waste, they certainly wouldn't have overwhelmingly voted in Locke, and they wouldn't have allowed the Democrats to pick up so many seats in the House and Senate in the last election. So when you act like there's some sort of gigantic groundswell against our elected officials in this state, you're wasting everybody's time. It just isn't true.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.