Would the sky fall if your personal income went down 2%? I think not, in fact I dare say that in Okanogan County, where I live, most if not all family incomes have endured considerably more that a 2% decrease in each of the past several years.

When these decreases come I have not seen all (or any) of the residents of this area climbing to the top of the nearest cliff to line up and jump. Nor have I heard of large numbers of them of choosing to discontinue electrical service to their homes or choose to quit buying food to feed their families. But instead they looked over their income, cut back where they had to, made adjustments and went on with life.

Now my question, could the state not take some advice from tax payers who have been through the drill over the past several years? or must they cut off the electricity or quit eating?

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 11, 1999

Answers

rons:

I agree the sky will not fall if I-695 is approved, but that was never the point of those who question the wisdom and fairness of the initiative. You and Benham and others make repeated references to the 11% increase in the state biannium budget, and the 2% reduction in the state revenue represented by the MVET, as if that is all that is necessary to explain the effects and justification for the initiative. Its not.

The MVET is a diversion, and the initiative title a deception. The big issue in the initiative is section 2, that will require voter approval for any tax increase, by any governmental entity of or within the state. I asked before if that is expected to include the tribal governments, and got no answer. Tax increase is defined so broadly that nearly any charge by government is included. This change in the mechanics of government operation is far more important than the MVET.

I will comment on MVET revenue, because I think you misstate the case in that area also. MVET is revenue of the state, but it will translate to program cuts at the state, county, and city level unless the state adjusts priorities and restores those funds from other sources. That is certainly possible, and we should lobby the state to do that, but that still leaves the basic economics of a reduced revenue, to fund the same and increasing program mandate at the state and local level. The mandate is not addressed by the initiative. We get back to your question, why does a 2% funding cut become a problem for government, when the state has a surplus and revenue increased 11% over 2 years?

I believe the 2% figure is of ALL government revenue, not just the state. In your analogy, if you and your neighbors together had a 2% income reduction, it could be easire to deal with if it didn't come from one family income. You could say it is up to the state to allocate the cut among local governments that benefit from the MVET, but that still does not help. Many of the local governments that are counted in the "government revenue" that the 2% is calculated from, get no MVET at all; so the state may have nothing to cut from them. Do you know what percent of just the state revenue, comes from the MVET? That information would be more useful than the bogus 2% figure.

The 11% increase in state revenue switches back to just the state budget, so the 2% and 11% bear no relation to eachother in terms of dollar revenue. It is also an 11% increase in a 2 year budget, so when you factor in inflation in the cost of doing business the actual growth in state services is about half that. Take out the money that created the current state surplus (which I believe should be saved and not spent), then the growth in state services is reduced further. Factor in the new people, homes, and businesses that were added to the state in two years and need services, and you end up with virtually no growth in the level of services provided by the state. The funding is spread over a wider base, and provides more services, but the level of service changed very little because it is attempting to keep up with the growth. And why did it change at all? The legislature met to address requests of the people for services needed in the state, and our representatives made reasoned judgements about funding priorities, and determined what to take on as new programs. Thats the way it has been done for decades, and it works.

Back to your family analogy, and the ability to deal with a cut in income; you need to add in inflation to calculate the real loss in buying power, and add a new baby to factor in the additional expenses of "growth". So now we are getting into some serious hard choices about where to cut back on the family budget. That happens, and families struggle to make it. Your comment seems to suggest that the state will not need to struggle to make it, and somehow it will all work out just fine. It will all work out, but through some difficult choices that will produce real program cuts that affect real people.

As I noted at the top, that is just the MVET issue, and that is the minor concern about I-695. The sky is not falling, but the initiative does create some problems. As the proponent of change, you have the burden of proof that the change is at least as good as the current situation. In my judgement, I-695 has not met that burden.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 12, 1999.

Oh my god!!!!!! The elected people might have to do some real budgeting, instead of just adding a new tax!!!!!

For shame people of this state!!!

After all, its not your money you work for, its the politicians!!

And God forbid, voters should have a say in any increases concerned with money in this state.

Get real D, and stop writing books, when a paragraph will do.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

dbvz...........

WOW, if you are not an attorney or politician you missed your calling! (btw, I read somewhere that more lawyers live off of politics than flies do a dead camel)

Back to the issue at hand, we both agree that the sky will not fall when I-695 passes. If the state was a good steward of OUR money they would have they would have wisdom and fairness for ALL built into the system and we would not be playing this silly game of trying to slow state spending and taxing. Also thank you for bringing up the 11% increase, because I did not and have not mentioned it.

I too agree that the MVET is not the most important part of I-695. I have brought this point up in prior postings, but I believe that we part company on this issue. I suspect that I-695 will pass because voters are looking to save money on their lic tabs when it should pass because the voters will then have some input on how much money the state can take from the residents.

Tribal governments??? They do not now respect state law, so what says they will change for I-695? Remember this is the "we expect state".(also tribal memebers do not pay MVET)

Again I thank you for making my point on program cuts. You say "unless the state adjusts priorities". I think that is exactly what I said in the original text of this matter. The state need not and should not be vindictive in its application of I-695, but should like a family would do, adjust its priorities and go on with life. Or as you elude to funding programs, it might be wise of the state to look at some of the programs they are funding or mandating and ADJUST PRIORITIES.

I did not say that my neighbors and I took a 2% decrease in income as a group, but I did say that most if not all households in the county have suffered more than 2% losses each year for the past several years, and that each family has had to deal with it. Surprise!!! most have done it and are still alive, as the state could be.

Again you run with the 11% increase in the state budget, thats your thing, not mine, but since you mention it lets consider it. I dont have a real problem with the state keeping some of the suplus, but need they keep collecting at the same or a higher rate so as to have a larger surplus? No growth in state services would be great, maybe then we could look at something other than "the we expect" state for a motto.

You talk about inflation, a new baby to support and loss of buying power. Those are the things that in real life people have to consider and make adjustments for. They do not have to option of just saying give me more money like the state does.I agree that a family would have to struggle to make it, we do, and so should the state. It will make them better stewards of our money if the know it is hard to come by.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 13, 1999.

rons:

i reread what I wrote, and may have been unclear about the 2% cut for the neighborhood. I mean, the state is taking the hit at 2% of the income of ALL governments in the state. Thats more than 2% of the state revenue, but I don't know what the number is so I can't quote a figure. Benham often responds to these points, but he doesn't respond to me since I don't use my full name.

I suspect the Initiative will pass also, but I am expecting some consequences (intended and unintended) that will cause us to regret it by about March, 2000. In any event, I appreciate the civil exchange of opinion. As for hammer; I have nothing more to say to hammer.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 13, 1999.