Dear I-695 proponants,

I applaud the fact that your final goal is to send a message to Olympipa telling them to properly find the taxes for projects in the companies and people we give big tax breaks to. But stop to think about the real ramifications of this bill.

Should I-695 pass, it will probably help people to afford newer vehicles, but that is not nessisarily a good thing. That will make for more traffic, more congestion, more pollution, less people sharing rides, the utter desruction of our roads which are in horrible shape as they are.

This bill will take away from public programs no matter how you look at it. Shouldn't we take our surpluses and use it for the programs that are being ignored, or the people in our community who need the help of the general public. For humanities sake we have Mexican imigrans living in the bushes so they can be near work when they should have the basics of a roof over their heads, something you and I take for granted every night.

I also feel that if you have the money to buy yourself a new vehicle then you can caugh up the money for tabs. I am not saying that the rich should have to pay more because they are richer, that is a matter of natural inequalities, but higher costs help people to conserve and that sounds like what the aim of your bill is designed to do, to get government to conserve what they get and not take it from the pockets of the people.

Yes, your goals are admirable and you have made great strides in making this a heated and important discusion. Make sure you are doing it for the right reasons and you look past your own pocket book before you go to the poles. Your efforts and energy could be used in many more worth while programs.

Sincerley in opposition of I-695 Aaron M. Calvo

-- aaron marco calvo (calavo@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999

Answers

"look past your own pocket book before you go to the poles" I agree. Poles shouldn't have to pay the MVET either.

-- Peter "Ski" Falkowski (falkows@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

Can us Brits get an exemption, too?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 14, 1999.

Wow! What a typically LIBERAL point of view! We're reducing auto polution by limiting new car purchases to only THE RICH! We can keep the environment clean by making the average fellow drive a RUSTED OUT PIECE OF GARBAGE! Now, it seems to me that opponents to I-695 are really the ones who not only punish, but CONTROL the little guy. Only the rich should be allowed to pollute the environment is the core of their arguement in this regard!

Curtis

-- Curtis (benhamcy@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Mister Avocado, You say there are Mexicans living in the bushes. They should have houses like we do. So YOU buy them houses. I lived in Mexico. I didn't live in bushes. Most Mexicans didn't live in bushes. I lived in a little sick hut that had cardboard boxes nailed to the sticks to keep the wind and rain out. I'm sure the 'bush' people you speak of do the same. It's no big deal. It's a roof.

The initiative will put more cars on the roads??? So?? What's the big deal.

Why don't you snivelling communists go somplace where the communist ethic has been practiced for years??

Maybe Cuba. People like you don't deserve the freedom that you have becasue all you want to do is see how much you can TAKE from everybody else.

Oh and another thing. The roof over my head? I dont' take it for granted. I PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!

I pay for tabs. I pay gas tax. I pay all kinds of stuff that goes to OLYMPIA to pay for stuff for people who are too lazy and too greedy To get up off their butts and earn for themselves..

Try to remember something. This effort that you disparage is an attempt to keep more of our own money and to try to keep sleazes from being able to dip into OUR pockets and steal some more whenever something possesses them to do it.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Maddjak, "Sniveling Communists"? Well, I for one resent that. Is everyone who does not share your point of view a communist? What about those damn unions? You know the ones that gave you all the things that you DO take for granted. Like the 40 hour work week, the weekend, retirement plans, medical benefits, vacations and paid holidays. And let's not forget well paying jobs so you can afford a better house "that you pay for" and nicer cars. I believe that we need to take care of some people as a society. Of course there are people who use the system, but most who receive assistance, need it. Maybe one day, you will need it also. And even though I think you are an idiot, I hope that it is there for you when you do. By the way, do you know what labor is? Labor is working familys, that support better conditions for all, even you. Mike

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 15, 1999.

Addressing the communists (who don't realize they are communists) again.

The following pretty much sums up all of your arguments:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor, from a mere means of life, has itself become the prime necessity of life; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly, only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS."

So further arguments are unnecessary because the fathers of the movement have stated it so eloquently.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Mr Calvo, In response to your commentaries below. You say

"First of all Sir, we don't need to use lame names to prove your inteligence.

Second, ever been out to see the people who pick friut in the apple orchards, yes some do live in the bushes, they are not bush people, they are human with needs and wants like you.

Third, don't call me a communist, I am 100% pure american and damn proud of it and have stood in the face of adversatie to protect the ideals of American life.

And fourth, don't lable me, you do not know me. I am just as sick and tired of taxes for everything we look at, they always go up, they always get added to things like food so we can pay for a stadium we didn't want in the first place.But in the world as a whole, Americans pay some of the cheapest taxes of any country. But there is a better way to get you meassage accross than sabotage of the federal tax system. You benefit from the way it is set up now in more ways than you are willing to admit.

And fifth, CUBA forever"

And here is my response:Obviously you don't have any idea what I-695 is about. It has nothing to do with the federal tax system.

I've been a fruit picker. I've lived the so-called life of poverty in Mexico and I loved it.

At least Mexicans have enough pride to fend for themselves until they get here into the United States and they are taught by the freaks in this country that responsibility and self-sufficiency are things to be ashamed of and they should start begging for hand-outs.

When's the last time you were a fruit picker?

Who bought your house for you? Who pays your rent?

And as far as Americans paying less taxes than the rest of the world???? What difference does that make?

When I lived in Mexico I didn't know ANYBODY who paid taxes. But I sure knew a lot of people who enjoyed their lives even if they lived in a palapa.

But what you need to do is find out what you are talking about before you start talking..

MVET has nothing to do with the federal government.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

maddjak writes:

"The initiative will put more cars on the roads??? So?? What's the big deal."

(maddjak's omission of final quotation mark, not mine!)

Boy do we ever need the late great Portland Laugher here with us today!

Okay, fess up maddjak: what part of the state do you live in? Puget Sound? Yakima County? Western State Hospital, perhaps?

In any case, for such an egregious transgression of common sense, may I-5 at 5:30 PM on a Friday be your personal version of eternal damnation!

("What's the big deal."!!! Hel-lOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOO!)

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 15, 1999.

Jeff-

"The initiative will put more cars on the roads??? So?? What's the big deal."

Why should we get all upset about this? It's the plan. Read the SmartGrowth plan on metrokc.gov, or the urban growth management plan. If the plan is to densify the area inside the UGMA, and the rest of the plan is to limit general purpose lanes and even HOV lanes with less than three people, more congestion is inevitable. If King County doesn't care about more congestion, why on earth should the rest of us?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 15, 1999.

Jeff-

Reference the above. Metrokc.gov has just put up their 1999 growth plan metrics. Here are some excerpts. Source is: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf (and I'd encourage everyone to read these metrics as a simple matter of citizenship. Since you will soon be voting on every property tax and fee increase to support these policies ;) )

Indicator #41 Percent of residents who commute one-way within 30 minutes.  About 79% of Puget Sound commuters travel less than thirty minutes to or from work.  Because commute times have not yet reached extremes, residential location will not be greatly affected by transportation conditions. Indicator #42 Transit trips per person.  This indicator has fluctuated over the last ten years, with per capita ridership reaching a high in 1989, and a low in 1994. It increased again from 1994 to 1997, but leveled off in 1998.  Transit ridership for 1998 was 48.2 trips per person.Transit Ridership Transit ridership dipped from 1990 - 1994, but has risen steadily from 1994 - 1997. It is generally keeping pace with population growth in the county.

Commute Times Available information indicates that the percent of residents who commute one way within thirty minutes is around 80%, and has changed little since 1989.

Commute Times Available information indicates that the percent of residents who commute one way within thirty minutes is around 80%, and has changed little since 1989.

Definitions:  Ridership for 1986-1998 is based on annual operating statistics of revenue-linked passengers trips. Ride Free Area ridership figures were updated in 1988 and after. These add about 5.5 million non-revenue trips to the annual revenue-linked ridership figures. Observations:  This indicator has fluctuated over the last ten years, with per capita ridership reaching a high in 1989, and a low in 1994. It increased again from 1994 to 1997, but leveled off in 1998. The 1998 figure is calculated from an annual ridership of 80,269,178, and a population of 1,665,800.  Because of the overall stability, the transit system may be serving the same riders over the last ten years, with the same market response.

Since these figures show that the number of transit trips per capita are essentially unchanged (averaging about 48 trips per capita pretty much over the whole 10 year period) unchanged, despite population growth, we have simply proceeded to pack more congestion in a smaller space. And since that is the plan (which for some strange reason, has been labelled "SmartGrowth") it is obvious that this is the way the King County leadership desires. I say again, if they don't care about

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 16, 1999.

Aaron:

You yourself claim that it will probably help people buy newer vehicles. Now, to me, this does not mean MORE vehicles. If I buy a newer vehicle, it doesn't mean i will now be driving two vehicles. It just means i will drive a car that has had more emissions restrictions placed on it (less polution). If i was going to take my $360 car tabs, and divide it by 12, it gives me $30 dollars a month. I will not buy another car with this, but it may allow me to get a nice option. I do not see the more congestion coming from this.

As far as public programs... i believe the tax should pay for the service. A vehicle tax should not be intended for DSHS, just roads, state patrol, etc.

Why do you think that Mexicans come to the US? Because they have it better here than in Mexico.

Why are there people here that can't find a job, and must therefore get government subsidies to live, while Mexicans come in and easily get employment. Yes, i do understand the fact that they get paid relatively low, and it is not easy work. But the mentality of, i'd rather live off the system that work hard for low pay is wrong.

I have worked in the fields. I have done construction. I have done many jobs. I worked my way through college at night and got my Bachelors in Engineering. It was very tough. But i did it. When i suggest to others to go to school while working... they say "no way, thats too much work". Do you believe that we should support them so they do not have to work hard?

In army basic training, i saw many people do things they didnt think they could do. They did it because they had to. It was amazing.

There are people who need government subsidies. The elderly, severly handicap, etc, but most of the people that i have seen receiving benefits, do not need it. Before they got food stamps, they could only afford their cigarettes, and not feed their children. What a shame.

But in any case, a car tab fee was never intended for giving immigrants housing.

My intention is not to leave people on the street, but to give them a chance to do something for themselves. I'm not saying YOU cannot help someone out. Just that from my experience, handouts create dependence.

Thank you,

- Allan

-- Allan (ae_me@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Allan, you have to understand that when someon is employed by the city of Seattle, they naturally have an aversion to anything which might threaten their 'make-work' job.

Mister Calvo, who doesn't realize that his e-mail name (Calavo) is the name of one of the largest avocado growers in the country, is one of those people.

They pay that the Mexicans get here in the United States is extremely HIGH to them. I know I lived and worked in Mexico and made $100 to $150 a month. But that was okay. The beer and cigarettes were cheap even if you rarely ate meat because it was too expensive. And the work here isn't any harder than what it is in Mexico..

At least living in Mexico you don't have to deal with all the restrictions on freedom that they do here. NO TAXES!! NO BUILDING PERMITS!!!

And the one thing that immigrants learn when they get to America is that having pride and a work ethic is stupid and shameful because you can get everything for free

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

Mr. Mad JackAss- Now you have turned this simple debate into a shouting match and you will hear me loud and clear.

Nobody cares that you lived in Mexico and loved living like a pesant, so you claim. You got your beer and cigaretts, so you were not that poor. You made it to the states in one piece, so you could not have been that poor. You had a visa to get back into the country, so you could not have been that poor. You had the luxury of coming home when your vacation ran out, so shut your mouth and do not compair yourself to the poor immigrant workers of Mexico because you sat on the beach in Cabo and drank Coronas.

Second, I do well know that my name is of the Avocado Company in California, would you please explain what that has to do with anything. Did you know your name is the same one as the serial killer sitting on Death row in Walla Walla.

Get it straight, this initiative is wrong. Yes we desrve to keep our money. Yes, americans and all the people of this country work real hard to provide for their families, themselves, and for the people in thier community, and that should never stop. But to be a true and responcible citizen, a respected individual amongst your peers and friends you have to give. This country was not founded on taking, but it has become a place where we have everything we want and it still is not enough. Stop complaining and start giving.

Another thing. I do not want to have to vote every time our legislature thinks they need to raise a little money. That's why we vote for representatives, it is thier job to represent the people. And if you do not like the job they are doing, then vote them out or run for office yourself. It is like attatching a logging rider to a budget bill, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand and it should be dropped from this initiative.

Again, I applaude all the hard work people have done to make this a succesful campain, but there is a way better way to send a message, and I-695 is not it.

-- aaron calvo (calavo@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

"Another thing. I do not want to have to vote every time our legislature thinks they need to raise a little money. " I don't want you voting either Aaron. My guess is that your vote would usually just cancel mine. Why don't you stay at home?

"But to be a true and responcible (sic) citizen, a respected individual amongst your peers and friends you have to give. " As previously noted, resources wrested away from you by the police power of the state is a different situation than giving.

"Mr. Mad JackAss- Now you have turned this simple debate into a shouting match and you will hear me loud and clear. " Loud, clear, AND stupid.

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

Hello Aaron,

There's a GREAT DEAL wrong with liberal ideology... First of all, it's not a matter of "your money" making it "easier" for the rich to drive... it's a matter of letting people KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY.

Secondly, this whole idea of "the Rich" is nothing more than a class warfare tactic - a tactic of hate and prejudice, and a method of arraying appetites against appetites. It is quit simply a politic of hate that liberals so verbosely eschew - and then practice. Another term for it is hypocrisy.

Thirdly, "the Rich" is a poorly defined "enemy". When it comes right down to it, I believe it means anyone who has or makes more money than the speaker. This argument of class envy is particularly problematic because few really know who "the rich" are. Most think people who drive expensive cars or an "eeeevil SUV", and or live in an expensive house are "rich". In other words, people seem to judge rich or poor by the "appearance of wealth". Liberals in particular play on this falsehood to fan the flames of class envy and proffer the lie that "the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer" when nothing could be further from the truth.

The "rich"... are those who are truly rich because they are financially independent. They are those who "could maintain their current lifestyle for years and years without earning even one month's pay. The large majority of these millionaires are not the descendants of the Rockefellers or Vanderbilts. MORE THAN 80 PERCENT are ordinary people who have accumulated their wealth in ONE GENERATION." (quoted from "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D. and William D. Danko, Ph.D. pg 3)

In truth, most millionaires or 1st generation rich - thus the end of the "rich are getting richer" lie, the DON'T drive expensive cars, and they DON'T live in expensive houses. They even wear - in large majority, suits costing less than $200.00 (they clothier is someone like the famous J. C. Penny!)

Yes, those folks who drive expensive cars and live in the big houses make a lot of money - BUT THEY SPEND IT ALL! That means, they are big consumers, and as such, they pay a great deal of tax. This is why LIBERAL policies always whack the little guy. They try and go after those who have the appearance of wealth - those who consume most of their income - and invariably hit the little guy who consumes most of his or her income of the basics of survival. Thus, the tax policies of the State of Washington condemn the little guy / gal to a painful lifestyle.

Another interesting fact about "the rich" is that they tend to be of immigrant families who come to America destitute of everything but the "American Dream" and an irresistible drive to achieve. The longer a family has lived in the states, the less likely they are to become rich - because they are doped up with liberal victimization dogma. How is it that foreigners come to America knowing more about what America is all about than those that already live here? I believe it's because they haven't had their dreams and initiative quashed by the liberal dogma of the public school system. They come from societies where coddling is anathema and hard work is held as a virtue.

No, the "rich" didn't get their income by stepping on others - as liberals would have us believe - they got it by hard work and frugality.

Finally, to those who incessantly view their neighbors money with greed and envy, I offer four words that thundered from Sinai over 4 thousand years ago: THOU SHALT NOT COVET

Regards,

Curtis

-- Curtis (benhamcy@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Dear avocado, Nobody cares that you think you might lose your cushy do-nothing job because of I-695.

It won't happen because you are protected.

You know nothing about where or how I lived but I have immense respect for my friends south of the border who are proud enough to WORK for a living and don't want to come to America and take their place with the other beggars. By the way Corona sucks.. cervesa Superior is the good kind.

Oh another thing I-695 STILL has nothing to do with the federal government.

You vote for representatives because you don't want to make any decisions for yourself. That's not responsible citizenship, it is laziness.

But just think. When I-695 passes you won't need to go out and try to make decisions on raising any taxes. you can stay home and grumble about us selfish people who didn't want you or Olympia to TAKE ANY MORE FROM US.

Isn't that what you said? "This country was not founded on taking"

But that's all you want to do.

Being big enough to GIVE to help others is a lot different than having your hard earned money STOLEN from you by the government so they can pay people like you..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 18, 1999.

Hello Aaron,

Well, at least you've stipulated that expensive cars are not driven by "the rich" which costs you your entire argument for who drives what. In which case, you should have no objection to letting the average person drive a decent vehicle.

On the other hand, you have a very strange idea of "sharing". To my experience, the only thing liberals share - or should I say spread, is misery. If they are in power, they horde privilege like nobody's business - and to liberals, the only worthy charity is government. In truth, "conservatives" share much more than liberals. They share their time, effort, and even their money in generous proportions where liberals couldn't be bothered. I've yet to see liberals donating their time money and effort to organizations dedicated to moral character and virtue - like the Girl and Boy Scouts of America. But if it comes to demonstrating for government aid, just watch 'em line up at the trough! In my experience, Liberals just want to pay the government to take on their own responsibilities, or better yet, to help sweep them under the rug. Your commander-in-chief is a prime example of liberalism carried to it's logical ends. All there is is insatiable appetite.

Your views on how wealth is generated are marxist in the extreme. Apparently you've never seen someone provide a product or service with dedicated professionalism and care for their customer. Truly, the combination of ingenuity, creativity, and industry, honesty integrity, and hard work is foreign concept to liberals!

Liberals deplore the use of natural resources - but they own and drive cars made of steel, they own and use computers made with complicated integrated circuits that require noxious chemicals to produce. They use electricity - generated with fossil fuels or nuclear materials to heat and cool their houses, store and cook their food, power T.V.s and other appliances... Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! - I'll bet you even use Microsoft software (beyond the Hotmail service)!

I-695 is all about government of, for, and by the people. Our legislators have raised a grossly inefficient bureaucracy that burdens the tax payer year after year with higher taxes. It is the responsibility, no, the DUTY of the people to "alter or abolish" this problem before it becomes so out of hand that bloody revolution is the only way to fix it. Our legislators are abusing their representational powers, so now some of those powers need to be rescinded and placed back in the hands of the people from whom that power is derived. The only way to cure a spend-thrift is to cut off his / her money supply. The only way to reduce a bureaucracy is to starve it. Truly dedicated and industrious civil servants will find a way to accomplish important tasks without the extra money (I know, I'm doing it!) However, in the case of I-695, it's only a two percent reduction - hardly starvation - particularly when the government budget grew by 11 percent last year.

An absolutely CLASSIC example of bureaucratic waste is the amount of money per student public education costs vs. private! Private schools often spend as little as $2,000.00 per student per year - compared to the public's $7,000.00 per year - and private schools do it with less than a quarter of the support staff - AND THEY DO A BETTER JOB!

Aaron, conservatives like me want personal control of their finances and lives. We're quite generous, but we believe - like Thomas Jefferson - that "That government governs best which governs least!" We're individualists in that we treasure our Liberty from external controls. We're caring because we give frequently and consistently of our time effort, and finances to organizations we cherish and which share our values - and we don't work to create a cycle of dependency. I know where to turn if hard times come - and it's not to state sponsored welfare. Because of the lack of thrift and integrity in government, I feel rather sure that Social Security will not be there when I need it, so, I'm making other plans. You see, government can not be trusted to "take care of us". If we, in the end, surrender ourselves to a care-taker state, then we surrender or lives and our liberty as well. Communism was tried and failed some 300 years ago among the early "pilgrims" to America. The Russians only figured that one out less than 10 years ago- and the Chinese - well, they still haven't got a clue. The secret to America's greatness is her people - and the concept of unification and equality under the law - not some misguided concept of social justice or fairness.

Regards,

Curtis

>From: "aaron calvo" >To: benhamcy@hotmail.com >Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:02:45 PDT > >Since this debate started I have been bombarded with letters, and at >this moment I can not read your whole entire letter, but let me >state simply, where is wealth generated from. In most instances my >friend, wealth does not come out of thin air, and it most definatley >is not leaving the hands of "the rich." in fact weath is created by >taking advantage of natural resources or using poor labor in order >to generte a product that the wealthier half of the country can >afford. In it's simplist form I am sick of people talking about >keeping their money. Keep it, I do not care,m but when it comes the >other way I hope there is someone to help you. Lable it liberal, >conservative, what ever, the liberals share, the conservatives >horde. Stop the greed in its tracks. This is not the legislation to >stop our governments from taking advantage of the people of >washington state. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-- Curtis (benhamcy@hotmail.com), September 18, 1999.

Deqr Curtis- you are definatley abreast on your conservative literature, and I agree with many of your points, but do not sway from the subject.

How come it took a lame initiative like this one to get you up and running on such an important topic? If the government has been ripping us off why have you waited till now to do something?

Second my thinking is not labled as liberal, or conservative, it is just the way I feel about this issue. Share Curtis, share with the people around you who unlike yourself, do not know where to go for help, who did not get the education they deserved, or got washed away in a system that called them out by number and not by name. Who do not know that there is a stock market out there that they can harbor their money in for a future.

YEs, get government out of my pocket, but we pay for what we have. Liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to walk down the street naked and express yourself to the public, the freedom to critisize your leaders all without ramifications or jail time. We have good roads, good schools, and honest people in government, give them the benefit of the dought.

Again, I agree on many of your terms, but there is better legislation to pass before our governors that limit their ability, but don't make it so that I have to vote every time they want to raise the price of milk in our public schools. I-695 is not the answer you seek.

Aaron

-- aaron (calavo@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

calvo-

"there is better legislation to pass before our governors that limit their ability" (?) I'll bite. What is the number of the bill. "don't make it so that I have to vote every time they want to raise the price of milk in our public schools" So don't vote. Chances are you'd vote the wrong way anyhow.

"I-695 is not the answer you seek." Yes it is. It may not be the answer YOU seek, but it's definitely the answer I seek.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Aaron

You state "Second my thinking is not labeled as liberal, or conservative" after reading the next paragraph "but we pay for what we have. Liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to walk down the street naked and express yourself to the public, the freedom to criticize your leaders all without ramifications or jail time. We have good roads, good schools," "and honest people in government" I thought about it for a few seconds then realized your thinking like this because your on crack. That can be the only explanation for this type of thinking.

BTW aaron, freedom of speech and liberty are not bought with money (well you'll probably point out taxes are used by the military industrial complex to protect them) but with the blood of our brothers and fathers and their fathers.. Next time you fill an urge to start rambling like this please call please go to the nearest detox (before its shut down by I-695).

Ed "dad was awarded silver star for landing the marines in Korea"

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.

How is it that a $30.00 tab is going to help anyone buy a new car??? The price of the car is still the same...the high monthly payments are still the same...the insurance bill is still the same..it seems like we are all fired up about this $30.00 tab thing but we forget...those of us who drive older cars usually do so because we cannot (or will not) shell out $300-800 a month (and mind you, this is not something that you only pay once a year!) for a car/truck/rv. Sure lowere the tabs...it will still not change the fact that the car is EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!

-- wold (chickeemama@hotmail.com), September 25, 1999.