This column, stunning in the face of the oft stated bias of the Seattle Times, shows that finally, someone in the media gets it.

:Posted at 07:11 a.m. PDT; Wednesday, September 22, 1999 O. Casey Corr / Times Staff Columnist I-695's hardly the monster depicted by its opponents

THE campaign against Initiative 695 plays like a cheap horror movie. The naive victim - the voter - walks down a darkened hallway of public policy as media and government elites scream, "Don't open that door! Look out! Bad things inside!"

Chances are, voters will disregard the warning and open the door.

I-695 is the classic voter initiative: a blunt instrument born out of discontent with politicians who refused to ease an unfair burden. It would set a flat $30 annual fee for vehicle-license tabs and would require public votes on all state and local tax and fee increases.

Given the shrieking, foot-stomping rhetoric against I-695, approval would be another example of the gulf between the elites and the voting public.

Don't be surprised if opponents later try to limit the initiative process. They'll gussy up their ideas as a means of strengthening representative government, but the real goal will be choking dissent.

We can't have "confused" voters telling government what to do, can we?

The elites talk down to voters. They tell voters to eat their porridge and love taxes, but the public refuses to do what's best for them.

Opponents have squandered their credibility.

The same crowd that attacks I-695 also said Initiative 601's spending limits would devastate state government and Initiative 200's limit on racial preferences would end outreach programs.

They were wrong. Since I-601 took effect in 1994, state employment grew by nearly 3,000 employees while a reserve reached $1 billion. Looking past Initiative 200, the University of Washington adjusted and arguably improved programs to attract and retain disadvantaged students.

The world did not end.

Opponents of I-695 have tried to shift the debate to the desirable programs it funds and away from the tax itself, which they know is indefensible.

Washington's excise tax is one of the highest in the nation, pegged on an inflated vehicle assessment, not market value. It slams owners with a huge, pay-it-now bill. It's a slush fund for state and local programs that have nothing to do with roads or transportation or even education, the original reason for the MVET in 1937.

Washington does not need a world-class excise tax. Gov. Gary Locke and legislators knew a tax revolt was brewing, hoped it would die out, and never proposed a significant reform. (A GOP-sponsored Referendum 49 reduced the tax by a measly $30, but it, too, was attacked as door Number 2 in a fiscal house of horrors.)

Probably the most chilling tactic by opponents - so far - was the harassment of I-695 campaign organizer Tim Eyman. After his name appeared in the newspaper, a Mukilteo bureaucrat decided to look into his tax records. Word was leaked that he hadn't paid a business-license fee of $109.

Isn't it a little creepy that bureaucrats check on people who threaten their programs?

Opponents of I-695 have trotted out a variety of ridiculous arguments.

First, they argue that I-695 supporters - more than 500,000 who signed the petition - are ignorant. Supporters do not know about the provision requiring a public vote on new taxes and fees, critics say.

But I-695 gained support during a second try for the ballot by adding that language. A poll reported last week by KOMO-TV showed greater support for the vote on taxes (74 percent) than for lower license fees (69 percent).

Opponents also say if I-695 passes, horrible things "might" happen: The car tax would be replaced by a personal property tax on cars, Grandma will not get bus service to the doctor's office, and the public will have to vote on price increases for Jell-O at schools.

I-695, they say, is a serial killer that needs to be locked away.

"It's just going to really strangle the system," says Secretary of State Ralph Munro.

None of these scenarios, however, is grounded in verifiable facts.

Colorado voters passed a measure requiring voter approval of tax and fee increases in 1992, and doomsayers were proven wrong. Colorado cut taxes, and voters routinely support spending programs that make sense.

Larry Kallenberger, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc., fought that state's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, but says it's not as bad as he feared. Colorado voters have since routinely approved spending proposals when the purpose was clear.

There's no dispute that I-695 would make trouble. The state, which has a $1 billion reserve, would see a sudden drop of $550 million in annual revenue.

I-695 would force government to make cuts to lesser priorities or ask voters to approve new taxes. Voters will always support programs that make sense.

Getting government closer to the people is a good idea.

The world won't end if I-695 passes.

O. Casey Corr's column appears alternate Wednesdays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: ccorr@seattletimes.com

Copyright ) 1999 Seattle Times Company

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999

Answers

Weren't you the one who made a comment something along the lines that if the Seattle Times reported that the sun was to rise in the East, that you wouldn't believe it unless you checked another source?

My how good you are at talking out of both sides of your mouth. Ever held public office Westin?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

From what I can see Westin has too much integrity to run for public office, you on the other hand.........!!!!

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), September 22, 1999.

It is a great column. I think that if more people found out how successful a similar program affected CO then more may opt to vote Yes on 695.

We all need to research this thing as best as possible and decide for ourselves how to vote on it.

I suggest everyone out there print out the editorial above and keep it with them in their offices or close by and show it to anyone who starts saying how things might be if 695 passes. They can shown this person how it acutally did what it said and was not the death of the state like the naysayers said.

TAKE THE ONLINE WEBPOLL FOR I-695! Visit: Online Web Poll

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

My, Patrick, but aren't YOU a bitter little person?

Naturally, I stand by my word... and of course, I DID check everything Casey wrote out... and it's all right on the money!

Is he correct when he says the opposition portrays supporters as idiots?

Yup.

Does the opposition rely heavily on "end-of-the-world" scenarios?

Exactamundo!

Did the opposition on this issue oppose I-601 and I-200?

For the most part, no doubt!

Have opponents "squandered their credibility?"

Are you kidding me? The "no" side has so many faces they don't know WHICH one to wear at any given time, let alone being two-faced.

Does Colorado's version work?

Absolutely.

And so on, and so on.

So, I have met the condition, Little Buddy. Now, perhaps you can chase down the Professor and see if he has any of that Prozac he synthasized from coconut and palm froms, OK?

Westin

Only the finest in rechromed ASCII

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.

Nope, not bitter Westin. Just having a great time pointing out when you make hipocritical remarks and can only respond to my comments with personal attacks.

Suuuure you checked out all those comments that Corr made. As you made a point to paste the time in which his column was posted (7:11 AM) I note that you posted it on this board sometime around an hour later, or perhaps even sooner than that. My what a fast fact checker you are Mr. Westin!

Actually most of his comments are just that, his own personal comments with little basis in fact.

Portraying supporters as idiots and coming up with "end of the world" scenarios? Actually those words are always spin control comments by supporters when somebody identifies just what things would be cut. I always like that. Eyman proclaims that new priorities will have to be made, but when someone actually announces their new priorities, they're suddenly "scare tactics."

On 601 and 200, he states that opponents were wrong. No, on 601 opponents have warned that the state would be in bad shape if a recession hits. Have we had one yet? No. So the theory remains untested, but NOT proven wrong. On 200 opponents claimed that minority enrollment at higher education institutions would plummit. Corr tried to dodge that one, but why don't you check on UW minority enrollment this year compared to last and get back to me on that.

Have opponents squandered their credibility. Hmm, polls show that the yes vote has dropped about 25% in 3 months. Sure doesn't LOOK like the opponents have lost credibility.

Has the Colorado system worked? Well you know it has dropped voter turn out. And of course it doesn't cover fee increases, but only tax increases, and then again Colorado hasn't been hit by a recession since then either, of course you have to overlook the fact that the state is being sued by several school districts for shifting the funding burden over to them since the state can't afford to pay its share. I guess saying that it works is a judgement call that you have to make after you've studied the issue for a while. You did do that Westin, didn't you? You didn't just take Mr. Corr's word for it did you? Of course you did. In that 45 minutes it took between the article being posted and when you copied it to this board.

Suuuure you did.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

" Has the Colorado system worked?" Well, the Colorado governor thinks so. From the Colorado State Governor's page:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/ospb/cep698/2exsum.htm#page4

TABOR surplus. The state's TABOR refund has surged to $528.8 million, compared to only $139 million in FY 1997. However, if voters approve a referred item on the ballot this fall (HB 98-1256), the state will be allowed to spend $200 million per year or $1 billion for five years for highway construction and repair, K-12 construction and safety needs, and higher education building. The spending package would reduce the rebate to $328.8 million in FY 1998, still more than twice the size of last year's rebate.

Colorado holds its own in the face of a U.S. correction. Its 1998 employment has been revised up substantially, but the recession- induced slowdown is still factored into the year 2001. Colorado led the country in 1997 job growth. With a 4.0% increase, Colorado, Washington and Florida tied for fifth place behind Texas (see map, p. 15) . In 1998, employment growth holds up at a 3.9% pace, but very low unemployment rates, especially among the college-educated, take a toll on 1999 growth.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.

"However, if voters approve a referred item on the ballot this fall (HB 98-1256), the state will be allowed to spend $200 million per year or $1 billion for five years for highway construction and repair, K-12 construction and safety needs, and higher education building. The spending package would reduce the rebate to $328.8 million in FY 1998, still more than twice the size of last year's rebate."

The ballot measure failed. So much for his rosy picture.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

BB-

"The ballot measure failed. So much for his rosy picture."

The will of the majority of the people. What would you do, take the money from them by force of arms? Not every request by the government for more funds is sufficiently meritorious to support. So what?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.

Craig writes:

"The will of the majority of the people. What would you do, take the money from them by force of arms? Not every request by the government for more funds is sufficiently meritorious to support. So what?"

No, not every request is sufficiently meritorious to support. But your post was in support of the idea that things are doing great in Colorado and that the governor thinks so as well. Part of his opinion was based on this measure passing. It didn't pass. Because of that, things aren't as great as you, or the governor, thought they would be. That's all.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

BB writes: "Because of that, things aren't as great as you, or the governor, thought they would be. That's all. " This refers to the majority of the people of Colorado turning down a proposal for increased government spending.

Why do you think it would have been "great" if a measure that less than a majority of people supported had passed? Is it, in your opinion, "great" for a minority to be able to increase taxes on the majority? Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.

Craig writes:

"Why do you think it would have been "great" if a measure that less than a majority of people supported had passed? Is it, in your opinion, "great" for a minority to be able to increase taxes on the majority? Doesn't sound very democratic to me."

I never said that it would be great if a measure was passed with minority support. You said the Colorado system is working. When it's not funding essential services like schools and roads even when the public votes in favor of them, I say it's not.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

"When it's not funding essential services like schools and roads even when the public votes in favor of them, I say it's not."

BB-

If a majority had voted in favor of it, it would have PASSED.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 22, 1999.

Gee... I guess the Professor was out of Prozac, Eh?

Play-time is over Patrick... time for a reality check.

First, I don't make "hypocritical remarks." There is NOTHING in Corr's column that is not 100% bang on true. That YOU disapprove is meaningless.

Now, you can be an asshole, and make unsubstantiated claims if you like... that's up to you. And, as I typically do, I can spank you as a result.

Second: Even someone of dull-normal intelligence can understand that I posted Corr's column as a result of yet another delusional anti- type's prattlings a few "questions" below.

While I appreciate the idea that you obsess on unimportant issues such as when I post things, I will note that you remain silent in the face of the variety of false presentations made by the various "no" sites... so if you're on the prowl for hypocrisy, I suggest that you take a walk to the nearest mirror.

Now, we all know that your position on this issue is futile, and, I suppose as good a reason as any for your multiple tantrums. But we're supposed to be adults here... so get with the program.

Three: the issues of the portrayals remain unassailed. You know damned well that many of those who share your position on this issue have approached this issue as if the People of this state lack the common sense of a board fence.

Whether or not you "like" it is of no consequence. As Corr stated, it's true.

Four: Yeah, Corr stated opponents of I-601 and I-200 were wrong. They also lied, mislead, distorted and acted without regard to reality or ethics... kinda like they are in acting against 695.

Out of ALL of the various "world-ending" scenarios opponents presented as reasons to vote against these two initiatives, you pick out a grand total of two of them, and indicate that somehow Corr was wrong in his assessment because, as you put it, we haven't had a recession and minority enrollment is, allegedly, down at the UW.

In the first place, we could have a DEPRESSION and 601 wouldn't be wrong. No society has EVER taxed itself into prosperity, and an economic downturn would be made WORSE if the 601 caps weren't in place. Obviously, Corr was right on that one, government spending is down by billions and the rate of government growth has dropped dramatically. Now, you, as a diehard, delusional liberal, will never agree that reduced taxes or the rate of government growth could be characterized as successful... but that's the nature of your archaic political philosophies.

As for I-200, Locke lied thru his teeth to us all about what the effects would be; and the alleged fact that minority enrollment is down is NOT a reason to vote against I-200.

Corr's assessment that opponents were wrong is factual. That you refuse to accept that is meaningless.

Your reliance on polls that YOU claim show a drop of 25% in 3 months (while, in your typical, liberal, anti-delusional manner, ignoring other polls that show the numbers have not dropped at all) is meaningless as well. The only thing that EVERY poll that I've seen has in common is the solid 30% or so that say they'll oppose this. On that, these polls agree. As a result, your side has ZERO chance. And if you had ANY political experience, education or knowledge, you'd KNOW that. Obviously, you don't.

Five: While you believe that such is some sort of indicator concerning YOUR perspective on credibility, Corr's observations are again on the money, particularly in the face of your rabid refusal to understand the FACT that these same whiney individuals pitched the same inaccurate, button-pushing bullshit for the last three hot button issues (601, 200, 49) and were flatly wrong across the board in every case.

Six: Has the Colorado version worked? Gee... that's a toughie. Is it still in place? Has it resulted in giving money back? Has it reduced the growth of government? Is there any kind of statewide initiative to replace or modify it?

It must be working well enough for the most important people that consider it: those who actually live there. The answer then, by ANY measure, is yes.

You and BB rely on lawsuits as if they have any meaning or impact. The only time a lawsuit makes ANY difference is when one side or the other wins. This law has been in place for 7 years... how many suits based on it have won?

I KNOW its a stretch for you Patrick... but that word you're searching for is ZERO.

So, what I overlook is extraneous, irrelevant BS that your side is so desperate to trot out because you are so bereft of anything of substance as an actual reason to vote no on this thing.

In short, in all of your bluster you completely failed to disprove anything either Corr or myself wrote.

But there is no doubt that your side continues to be delusional, as you have more then amply illustrated by your total brain fart in the realm of reality.

Westin

Class dismissed.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.

Whoo-wee, I sure riled up Westin on that one didn't I! Spank me? Brain farts? What are you 12? The fact that you can't carry on a debate without resorting to 6th grade recess name calling tactics makes me pity the people that actually have to live and work around you.

First: again Corr wrote an editorial based on his opinions. Most of which are based upon some pretty shaky claims. Again, SHOW ME how the oppostion has "squandered" its credibility. Not your standard "well I agree with the statement, so it MUST be true." Give me some evidence that the people (again, not JUST you) don't believe a word the opposition is saying. You know, donations drying up, erroding poll numbers. SOMETHING? I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims. YOU'RE the one saying "here's what I think, it must be true."

Second: Ah yes, such a completely unrelated subject to the "prattling" about the No rally. But you seem to have missed my point. You claimed to have checked Corr's statements. I find this hard to believe since it took a pretty short time for you to post it. You can whine about my nit picking all you want, but all you are doing is trying to dodge answering an aligation that you were lying through your teeth when you said you checked his statements.

Third: Alright, give me some examples then. I've heard people say that the voters need to be more educated on the subject, but NOT that the voters lack common sense. In fact, one of the main goals of the No campaign is to inform the voters on what the MVET pays for, since studies have shown once they know, they are less likely to vote yes. On the flip side, the Yes campaign is praying that people just focus on the $30 fee, and NOT think about the consequences. Now which side is hoping the people stay uninformed?

Four: We've been over the I-200 thing before Westin. First you complain that the opponents claimed that it would end affirmative action before the election (something you claim is a lie), and then you complain because these opponents are now making sure that affirmative action doesn't end. So, apparently it WOULD end affirmative action if it were implemented properly. Was what they said really a lie then? And I know you have an aversion to checking facts that tend to disprove your own theories, so I'll let you in on a not so little secret. Minority enrollment at the UW this year is WAY down.

"government spending is down by billions" Really? I was led to believe that government spending is up 11% this biennium. At least that's what I-695 supporters keep saying. Is this a lie then?

Yes, I only did mention 2 items. Here's more: The 601 limit doesn't take into account growth in student population. The baby boom echo is starting to reach college age. There is NO way under the current spending lid that the public colleges in this state will be able to expand enough to handle that demand. Same thing is going on right now with public schools. We've now got one of the highest class sizes in the country, and no way to solve that under the current lid.

"No society has EVER taxed itself into prosperity" Boy do I hear that a lot. But doesn't this seem to fly in the face of your own comments? We're in the longest stretch of economic growth since WWII. So if no society has ever taxed itself into prosperity, and since we're prospering, we must not be taxing ourselves that much. But of course we have taxed ourselves into prosperity before. It was called WWII and the continued growth in the 50's (you know, when the top income bracket was being taxed at 88%).

Four and a half?: I rely on polls conducted by people who have been doing them for years (because they're accurate). Besides, it isn't my claim that support has dropped 25%, it's Stuart Elway's claim. He uses the same poll about every month, which gives reliable tracking data. I'm not ignoring the (as in ONE) other poll that shows no drop in support, but hey, it was done by a liberal media outlet. I thought I was supposed to discount it. Oh that's right. I'm only supposed to do that IF it contradicts your point of view. And Skipper, out of the people most likely to vote, the no's lead the yes's 47% to 40%. I'd call that a pretty good chance.

Five: Actually, you ignore the fact that there are a TON of groups on this no campaign who were either neutral or supportive of 601, 200, and 49. All those construction companies certainly supported 49, and most on 200. The AWB was on board for 601 and 49. In fact, some of the unions even supported 49. I know you'd care to think of this as some sort of whiney liberal group that keeps coming back, but it just isn't the case. 601, 200, and 49 were VASTLY different issues with VASTLY different people on either side of each. You'd know that if you poked your head out of your own universe sized ego once in a while.

"Six: Has the Colorado version worked? Gee... that's a toughie. Is it still in place?" Well yes, but so is the public school system, social security, and a whole bunch of social programs that a lot of people think don't work. "Has it resulted in giving money back?" Yeah, and WA has given tax money back too without their system. "Has it reduced the growth of government?" No, it capped it at a steady rate. "Is there any kind of statewide initiative to replace or modify it?" No, is their any statewide initiative to replace or modify public schools? But of course there have been MANY local modifications of it.

It's so funny to watch you in action Westin. All you ever do is make some comment and then defend it by saying "Hey, I wrote it so it must be true." You bring no evidence or facts to the debate, but instead try to delude the issue with name calling and misrepresentations of what the other person has to say. And then when someone calls you on it, you either never address the point or try to make some more personal attacks. But here's something I'd like for you to answer since you once said your life is an open book. Can you back up your claim of political experience and knowledge? You seem to be a self proclaimed expert on the subject. Why should we trust your judgements over anyone else's? Have you held political office? Run a campaign? Earned a degree in Political Science? Watched C-Span? Of cou

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.

Hey Westin,

As far as "lies" involved in the I-200 campaign go:

I-200 succeeded because its sponsors and supporters LIED to the public by continually implying that Affirmative Action and "quotas" are the same thing. The FACT is, "quotas" have always been illegal under Affirmative Action law. What John Carlson, Ward Connerly, and...let's see, who else...oh yeah! TIM EYMAN, et. al., cleverly avoided telling people was that Affirmative Action only required that employers make INFORMATION regarding employment opportunities available to women and minorities (instead of circulating that info strictly through old boys networks, which was standard practice before Affirmative Action).

The Connerly crowd knowingly spread the absolute MYTH that Affirmative Action is in essence about giving "preferential treatment" to women and minorities -- "quotas" in other words.

And let's not forget that many people polled who had voted for I-200 were under the impression, due to deception by signature gatherers and campaign rhetoric, that I-200 was an initiative in SUPPORT of Affirmative Action.

Tim Eyman helped spread these misconceptions in the I-200 campaign.

One can only wonder what he's holding back from us this time around!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 23, 1999.