Or ignorance? Or a failure to understand Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution? Or a love for "Big Brother?" Or a belief that paying outrageously high taxes is what we're here for?

I plan to vote on 695... and anyone who's read my stuff knows why.

This IS going to pass. The question is now: is the legislature going to be intelligent enough to implement it the way The People intend it?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999

Answers

No. Its about responsibility, personal and civic; and the need for public services and investment to preserve a quality of life we expect and enjoy. As for implementing I-695 the way the people intend it, what is that? I have been trying to get a straight answer on that for weeks, and as far as I can tell no one knows what is intended by the ambiguity in I-695

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 09, 1999.

Actually, opposition to I-695 is about a lot of things, Westin, but I doubt many would say it's because they want a "Big Brother" style government, or because they want to be gouged by the state. But you were just being sarcastic.

My opposition to I-695 is about quality of life.

If we as a community/citizenry/society/state decide that we should pool our resources for the common good (in this case for road repair, public transportation, and safety measures), then taxes are a necessary way to do that.

Drivers are not yet taxed heavily enough to compensate for all the harm that they (we) do: destroy open space; cause noise, air, and water pollution; kill or injure hundreds of thousands of people and wild animals every year; exacerbate global warming, etc.

Gas prices are much higher in other countries, like Germany, England, France, and Japan. So is the cost of registering and using an automobile. In these countries there is less traffic, less air pollution, and more public transportation. All good things. While taxing works as a funding mechanism to solve shared problems and provide shared services, it also acts as a disincentive for harmful behavior.

-- Joshua Drake (jmd@speakeasy.org), September 09, 1999.

dvvz..........

CONGRATULATIONS, you have spoken the WORD of the oppsoition to I-695.

"QUALITY OF LIFE WE EXPECT"

If more people would get off their dead behinds, work and produce something this state would not be the "WE EXPECT" state and I-695 would not be an issue. Until such time as people will resign themselves to the fact that they must do something for themselves, we will be taxed at a rate that most can not and will not afford.

Thank you for explaining to more people why their taxes are near the top in the country.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 09, 1999.

Thank you Joshua!

All the things you've mentioned as harm done consistently by auto drivers are things which we all very much need freedom FROM! And if this I-695 debate is about FREEDOM, well, let's talk about which freedoms are more important: the Freedom To Drive which seems to be the only freedom which the Westin Army holds paramount, or such freedoms as freedom from environmental degradation, freedom from road rage, freedom from dangerously reckless drivers, etc.

As for that laughable old "Big Brother" warhorse which The Cra and his Cra-talites keep trying to link to I-695 opponents (we WANT to be taxed into the poorhouse and we WANT The Man to install video cameras in our homes, o ya! ya sure ya betcha!), I have to wonder: has it ever occured to these characters that people who use public transportation exclusively are actually LESS susceptible to government surveillance than people who are registered AS INDIVIDUALS by the DMV? Just a little thought, I hope it don't confuse your rhetoric, or your pride (boo hoo sniff sniff), too much, Westin...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 09, 1999.

ron writes:

"If more people would get off their dead behinds, work and produce something this state would not be the "WE EXPECT" state and I-695 would not be an issue. Until such time as people will resign themselves to the fact that they must do something for themselves, we will be taxed at a rate that most can not and will not afford."

Seems to me that if you can't afford the taxes, you need to get off your dead behind and resign yourself to the fact that you can do more for yourself. After all, it's your logic. You shouldn't expect the government to help you out.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

"Drivers are not yet taxed heavily enough to compensate for all the harm that they (we) do: destroy open space; cause noise, air, and water pollution; kill or injure hundreds of thousands of people and wild animals every year; exacerbate global warming, etc. " Although I personally think this is extremely bogus reasoning, I strongly recommend that all people with an interest in alleged costs of automobile transportation look at a review of the various ways that these "hidden costs" have been calculated. An assessment of the varying ways that these have been calculated and the differing costs associated with these assumptions is available on the USDOT website at: http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf

The probblem I have with most of these analyses is they confuse public costs with private choices paid for by the individuals, and treat different options as alternative choices when in fact they are not. But read it yourself, it's a fascinating look into the extreme lengths people will go to try to justify their philosophical beliefs.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 09, 1999.

rons: CONGRATULATIONS, you have spoken the WORD of the oppsoition to I-695. "QUALITY OF LIFE WE EXPECT"

What "we expect" is a government that provides the services required of it by the citizens. It's not a hard concept to understand. We pay taxes, and get services and puplic works projects and programs established through a political process. I-695 proposes to cut the taxes, but the expectations stated here, are not adjusting. Government is to continue to provide what "we expect". That is unlikely, if not impossible.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 09, 1999.

Man, it takes nothing to get the opposition stirred up, does it?

Joshua,

Like many who are well meaning but know so very little, you base your positions on emotions rather then facts.

You write:

>"Actually, opposition to I-695 is about a lot of things, Westin, but I doubt many would say it's because they want a "Big Brother" style government, or because they want to be gouged by the state. But you were just being sarcastic."

Clearly, you have failed to read the posts or the web sites of the opposition. Time after time we're told that this issue is "too complicated," that we can't understand, that we won't participate, that vital services will disappear, that it's the end of the world as we know it. Time after time we're told, in effect, that we have surrendered our political power to the government, and we have no right to take it back.

I will cheerfully admit that the title for this thread was a toss up. I WAS going to go with "Isn't I695 all about greed and irresponsibility for putters?" So, what you see as sarcasm (not surprising, given your environmentalist bent) had some substance to it as well. >"My opposition to I-695 is about quality of life."

Good an excuse as any. That it will make no particular difference in your "quality of life," unless, of course, you're a state or local government worker who might get laid off; or work for some business that won't be able to partake in government boondoggles; never occured to you.

It IS nice to know that your "quality of life" is more important to you then the right of the people to approve tax and fee increases. It is also nice to know that you've fully bought into the "government knows best" routine of our more liberal establishments.

>"If we as a community/citizenry/society/state decide that we should pool our resources for the common good (in this case for road repair, public transportation, and safety measures), then taxes are a necessary way to do that."

You know... I've read this initiative very closely. I know that this state bumped its budget up 11% over the last biennium. I know that the cut of 695 equates to around 2 or 3% of the total budget. So, instead of being able to spend the 45 BILLION dollars that are going out the door over the next two years, We'll only be able to spend 44 BILLION dollars.

To wit, no one that I'm aware of here is saying that taxes AREN'T necessary. Try to remain focused, OK?

"Drivers are not yet taxed heavily enough to compensate for all the harm that they (we) do: destroy open space; cause noise, air, and water pollution; kill or injure hundreds of thousands of people and wild animals every year; exacerbate global warming, etc."

So... tell me: does this wholly unsupported vision of yours extend to yourself? I mean, when you put tabs on your car, or pay a toll for a toll road somewhere, do you automatically pay for the damage YOU are causing?

I didn't think so. How altruistic you are. >"Gas prices are much higher in other countries, like Germany, England, France, and Japan."

So what? The're also lower in other countries... and they're higher there because those people allowed their gas to be taxed to even greater absurd heights then our own. The fact is that none of the countries you've mentioned are particularly great examples for anything. Including gas prices. If they want to negatively impact their respective economies with the highest taxes on Earth, that is certainly their business.

"So is the cost of registering and using an automobile."

Yeah? And? Beer is cheaper in Germany... should we legislate a lower price here?

>"In these countries there is less traffic,"

You know, in my experience, countries with fewer people will, as a side effect, have, well, less traffic. I think that countries with more people have, well, more traffic. Frankly, I don't think they've ever had much of a traffic jam in say, Royal City.

"less air pollution,"

Excuse me? WHEN did they start to put catalytic converters on cars in Europe? And the air, for example, in East Germany is always spring fresh, right? Give me a break.

"and more public transportation."

More then who? More then what? Says who?

Care to back any of this up with more then your "feelings?"

>"All good things."

They would be, I suppose, if most of them were true.

>"While taxing works as a funding mechanism to solve shared problems and provide shared services, it also acts as a disincentive for harmful behavior."

It also cripples economic growth, and requires each of us to work one half year for the government.

And, of course, your remark about "harmful behavoir" fits in very well with the "Big Brother" motif of this thread... don't you think?

I tell you what, Joshua... when 695 wins, you can feel free to apy the same rate for your tabs that you would have paid if it lost. Perhaps that will sooth your conscience.

Westin

Who will repeat that oft stated truism, "No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity."

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.

db,

I find it truly bizarre that you see 695 as ending "public services and investment to preserve a quality of life we expect and enjoy." You ALWAYS forget that The People can vote in tax increases for every penny that 695 will allow us to keep. In short, government's role in your life will, to a large extent, be determined by how much more money we WANT to give them.

Colorado has not fallen off the face of the Earth. There has been no mass exodus. This state will be no different.

By voting FOR 695, *I* DO take responsibility for personal and civic needs and responsibilities: those who oppose this initiative are more interested in letting goverment do it.

As for implementation, the facts on the matter are quite clear; that you refuse to accept the multiple explanations provided to you is, of course, your problem.

The intent of this initiative is clear; the implementation is clear; the effect is clear. While you don't accept these things, that doesn't mean they're not true, as our old buddy Patrick used to say.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.

Man, Jeff: take a chill-pill! I mean, I KNOW I've embarrassed you to tears; suggested that you could check over in Schmitz, and perhaps get a refund; but did you have to take it so personally?

The hypocrisy of your position and Joshua's is clear: You both claim damage to the environment, and yet, you both drive cars... and you both will continue to do so. Yup! Nothing like an old fashioned hypocritical position to support you!

Then, bizarre and disjointed as always, you spew forth:

"And if this I-695 debate is about FREEDOM, well, let's talk about which freedoms are more important: the Freedom To Drive which seems to be the only freedom which the Westin Army holds paramount, or such freedoms as freedom from environmental degradation, freedom from road rage, freedom from dangerously reckless drivers, etc."

Jeff, don't take this personally, but are you brain-damaged? Now, if we vote for 695, we'll not only destroy the environment, but cause road rage and reckless drivers?

Man, you need some HELP! And soon! Go on over to the student clinic. I bet you they have someone there who can help you.

"As for that laughable old "Big Brother" warhorse"

Considering the utter, laughable absurdity of your BS above (I will note that you at least failed to blame 695 supporters for the East Timor situation, but I'm sure you'll get around to it) you're hardly in a position to call anyone else's observations "laughable."

"which The Cra and his Cra-talites keep trying to link to I-695 opponents (we WANT to be taxed into the poorhouse and we WANT The Man to install video cameras in our homes, o ya! ya sure ya betcha!),"

You do an excellent job of confirming my observations. Well done!

"I have to wonder:"

Sorry... that's not true. "Wondering" requires brain function that is entirely beyond you.

"has it ever occured to these characters that people who use public transportation exclusively are actually LESS susceptible to government surveillance than people who are registered AS INDIVIDUALS by the DMV?"

Uh... Jeff... I'm sorry you've confused us with those who give a popcorn fart. There is only one person in this thread that I know of who has refered to "harmful behavoir," as if government's job was to regulate it... and as I recall, he was in the opposition.

So... stop continuing to fail at what you obviously believe to be "wit," pull your hotel out of your alpha, and get with the program.

Yeah... that guy that forced the bus to take a swan drive off the Aurora Bridge... a sterling dependent of public transportation indeed!

"Just a little thought,"

The only variety you're capable of, I'm sure.

"I hope it don't confuse your rhetoric,"

"Confuse" my rhetoric? My 14 year old son could (and, much to your embarassment, HAS) already caved your ass in here. (He's pretty good with a keyboard, don't you think?)

"or your pride (boo hoo sniff sniff), too much, Westin..."

Jeffy, get on over to UWMC, and schedule the surgery, lad. That large, brown, shoelaced boot coming out your ass is attached to my foot.

Westin

Who, as always, enjoys the destruction of yet another unarmed man.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.

Westin wrote: "Good an excuse as any. That it will make no particular difference in your "quality of life," unless, of course, you're a state or local government worker who might get laid off; or work for some business that won't be able to partake in government boondoggles; never occured to you."

And then you tell us nothing important will be cut, and we can fix it by some other tax proposal, or trust me it will be ok.

I don't expect to convince you of this, but I believe that cuts of state and local programs and staff will actually have some negative consequences.

As for the multiple explanations of the initiative, the reason they are unclear is that they don't agree with each other at all. Benham thinks it is a Prop 13 freeze on property value. Others disagree. Some think it does not limit increases in the property tax collections if the rate does not change. Others disagree. Some think it is effective 1/1/2000, and others think it is effective 12/2/1999 because of the state constitution. Some think the state will fund the MVET losses out of the state surplus and restore the local program funds, and others expect and want MVET cuts to result in massive cuts to the ferry system, transit, and local government. And on it goes.

Your opinion of the initiative may be clear to you, but that does not mean much. Your opinion I mean.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 09, 1999.

Well db,

My opinion has at least 2 things going for it.

1. This initiative is going to win. That's always helpful. 2. It is at least equal in merit to that of your own.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 11, 1999.

Westin:

You may be right. People will not read beyond the deceptive title, or think beyond the renewal of their next license tab, and pass the thing. What will they have done? My response was, no one really knows. I agree that my opinion is no more valid than yours. The initiative should have been clearer than that.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei,net), September 11, 1999.

"What will they have done?" Taken a good first step in the right direction.

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

Westin, Westin, Westin...

I believe we have a problem here with your credibility. Just as with Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and other obvious role models of yours, it seems your vociferousness and vulgarity is in directly inverse proportion to your ability and willingness to CHECK THE FACTS before you bellow like yonder petting zoo elephant (don't worry billy, it wont harm you, it just makes a lot of aimless noise that's all!).

You, in your latest version of War & Peace (or is the Turner Diaries?) made this statement in the midst of your fevered rambling:

"...and yet, you both drive cars..."

referring to me and another I-695 opponent in this thread. I don't know that other guy personally, so maybe he does drive, maybe not, I can't say. But you, my dear Westin, have a major credibility problem here all of a sudden.

Westin: I DO NOT, HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER OWN OR DRIVE A CAR!

This may seem like a little insignificant fact until one considers that if you got that fact so utterly wrong, everything else you've ever said in support of I-695 must also be called into question.

Where DO you get your "facts", Westin?

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 13, 1999.

Jeff has stated before that he owns a scooter and not a car. I don't know what the tabs cost for a scooter but it must not be much.

Of course he has no credibilty whatsoever because the only thing we can verify is that he posts from the UW..

By the way. Do you know why the proposed light rail sytem will be elevated in the U district? Because they know the students would get hit by the train..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

Joshua, I agree that we (drivers) are not taxed heavily enough to compensate for the damage we do. (as drivers) But where is the logic in assessing one's share to the value of their car rather than the amount that they use it? Would this not be insentive to use public transportation?

-- Bobbie Harper (bharper@telcomplus.net), September 14, 1999.

"...$3 billion local surplus..."

"...you both drive cars..."

"...people will spend the money they save on tabs on newer, less-polluting cars..."

"...$3 billion local surplus..."

On September 13, Jeff wrote: "Where DO you get your "facts" from, Westin?"

Still waiting for that answer, Westin!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 14, 1999.

Still waiting for that answer, Westin.

-- Subcomandante Jefe (chez@u.washington.edu), October 19, 1999.

d

I have to disagree with you (been agreeing with you for so long almost voted no) but paying taxes is not an investment. Never was, never will be. This use of the word was started by Clinton to make people feel good about being taxed. Like it was volantary.

I loved Clintons tax sceme in '93 that tased SSDI. I was $1500 over the threshold so had to pay the IRS an extra $3000 then the year before. This because I apparently was one of the well off disabled people.

Thats the problem with using the word "investment" its not, what it is is a tax.

P.S. I don't listen to Rush either. Usually have oldies or sports playing in the back ground just to drown out some of the office noise.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

Ed:

I had to go back to find what you commented on. That was about 7 weeks ago. The issue was how the taxes are used, not how they are collected. When I used the word "investment", it was in the sense of a public investment as explained further in the subsequent post:

"What "we expect" is a government that provides the services required of it by the citizens. It's not a hard concept to understand. We pay taxes, and get services and public works projects and programs established through a political process. I-695 proposes to cut the taxes, but the expectations stated here, are not adjusting. Government is to continue to provide what "we expect". That is unlikely, if not impossible."

Taxes that are established by the existing political process may not be voluntary on the part of the individual, but they are voluntary on the part of the community. (taxation WITH representation) What I-695 seeks to change is the manner in which that consent is obtained. People will still be required to pay taxes they did not vote for. The existing tax structure is not illegal, or invalid.

Once the funds are collected, they can be spent as an investment in the social and economic health of the community. In that sense, we (the collective, the society) are investing in our own future. That is why we have a public school system, road and bridge construction projects, conservation programs, etc. We may not benefit individually from every one of the programs, but we benefit collectively as a society.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 20, 1999.