This is but one example of the doomsday rhetoric spouted by opponents of Initiative 200. This came out shortly before the election, when they realized that their fledgling campaign, funded almost exclusively through illegal campaign "contributions" extorted from members of public employee unions (not unlike the anti-695 campaign) was in dire straits. Two weeks later, the initiative won by almost 20 percentage points.

PEOPLE INVOLVED IN BAR FIGHTS WILL GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE!!!!!

Here's some more apocalyptic rhetoric. This time, straight from the mouth of none other than then-King County Premier (oops, Executive) Gary Locke, a former King County prosecutor who knew perfectly well he was lying. This was right before another initiative, Initiative 593, passed by about 40 percentage points.

IF THIS INITIATIVE DOESN'T PASS, CHILDREN WILL ******DIE*****!!!!

Another example, this one from the proponents of gun-grabber Initiative 676, before it lost with no less than 71% of the vote.

Now, what Doomsday rhetoric have we been hearing from the anti-695 disinformation machine?

PULLMAN MAY MAKE DEEP CUTS IN BUS SERVICE IF I-695 PASSES

FIRE STATIONS WILL BE CLOSED!!!

(Both of these are direct quotes from the WSU student newspaper, The Daily Evergreen. The implication, of course, being that if We, The People, give ourselves a tax break we'll be complicit to murder.)

POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE LAID OFF!!!

ROADS WON'T BE FIXED!!!!

Hmmm . . . do I get the impression that the antis, the tax takers, sense impending doom at the hands of the taxpayers? Do you antis know something I don't?

Yes, the tax PAYERS. That means those of us who actually work for a living, and that doesn't include Avocado Man, who spends the day surfing the web while earning his grossly-above-market public employee salary.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a college student. __________________________ Joseph A. Hylkema

josephhy@wsu.edu

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783 Support a Husky-Free Northwest! PGP key upon request

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), September 24, 1999

Answers

Did you here about the WSU student who went in to THE drugstore in Pullman and asked the clerk for a condom? When he was shown the display he picked one up and said,"How much is it?" The clerk replied $2.00 plus tax. The student said, "Oh, I wondered how you held it on!"

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 24, 1999.

Joe:

You have to remember that if they can find one instance, or set of circumstances, where the statement is true; it is a legitimate reference to that instance and those circumstances. On the gun proposal, for instance; if a child ever dies "because" the gun control proposal was not approved, it is true. If any city will lose enought to result in closure of a fire station, that is true. If any city will lay off police officers, that is true. Etc. Both sides use these tactics.

I am not as upset about the exagerated but true statements, as I am those that are just false. One being Benhams' comment on an earlier thread, that I-695 would result in a Prop 13 type freeze of individual property assessed valuations. We have enough false statements to deal with, without picking apart those that are exagerated, but true.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.

Yeah, Mark, real original there. Which joke book did you read that out of? And are you the guy who works for the city government and surfs the Web all day at work? Probably.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), September 25, 1999.

"I am not as upset about the exagerated but true statements, as I am those that are just false."

Am I to assume, then, that you're upset about Gary Locke's contention that bar fights would be "strikes" for the purposes of "Three Strikes, You're Out"?

This is a guy who is a former King County deputy prosecutor who knows full well that fourth-degree assault (bar fights) do NOT count as strikes. Yet he took Josef Goebbels' advice and told The Big Lie loudly and often enough that it soon was taken as gospel. And, of course, the liberal media never called him on it.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), September 25, 1999.

Because of R-49, Which voters approved last year, all major road projects are on hold until I-695 either passes or fails. New jails are not being built, Transit agencies all across the state are already preparing the pink slips for drivers and mechanics, about 3,000 in all. It's not the end of the world, but it is a huge step backwards for our soceity. In my friends neigborhood, they have already been told, by the fireman, that that station will be closed if this thing passes. When they built it his insurance rates dropped like a rock. When they close it, his rates will go back up, and his savings on his car tabs will be gone.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 25, 1999.

Joe:

There are bar fights and there are bar fights. If someone breaks a bottle to have a weapon, or pulls out a knife, I think you can get past 4th degree assault fairly easily for a repeat offender.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 25, 1999.

Mike Powell wrote: "In my friends neigborhood, they have already been told, by the fireman, that that station will be closed if this thing passes. When they built it his insurance rates dropped like a rock. When they close it, his rates will go back up, and his savings on his car tabs will be gone."

This is something that never ceases to amaze me. In fact, I'm constantly stunned by this kind of thinking: 'Heavy taxation saves us money.' First of all, you'll historically find, that whenever a tax cut... ANY TAX CUT is proposed out of this states MASSIVE budget, somehow, police, fire and lifesaving programs for children are always at a direct threat. So, what one MUST conclude is that 100% of every dollar paid to the budged goes directly to Police, Fire and life saving childrens programs. Anyone who believes this has simply bought the rhetoric. Secondly, the point that is being MISSED COMPLETELY is that this state needs to restructe its entire spending system and prioritization process from TOP TO BOTTOM! When tiny tax cuts are proposed they're always waved off as being ineffective or 'not meaningful' to the average taxpayer, so "we shouldn't pass this bill". When LARGE taxcuts are proposed which are inarguably meaningful to the average taxpayer, the 'back of the hand hits the forehead', government officials fall back onto the fainting couch and cry "why, it'll just be devastatin' to our economy". This initiative will force a restructuring of spending priorities by the state. This can be NOTHING BUT GOOD, and will serve as the opening shot to reforming this states oppressive, antiquated tax policy.

"I sit on a mans back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible meansexcept by getting off his back." (Leo Tolstoy)

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

Paul writes:

"In fact, I'm constantly stunned by this kind of thinking: 'Heavy taxation saves us money.'"

Your amazement shows your lack of understanding of the system. In this case (a fire station being closed), which you fail to address, the more you spend on a fire department, the lower your insurance rates are. In fact, the savings in insurance rates is more than the money you spend in taxes.

Pick your poison. You can save tax money, have higher insurance rates, and have poor quality service. Or you can spend more in taxes, save money in insurance, and have higher quality service. I think the latter makes more sense.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.

BB wrote:

"Your amazement shows your lack of understanding of the system. In this case (a fire station being closed), which you fail to address, the more you spend on a fire department, the lower your insurance rates are. In fact, the savings in insurance rates is more than the money you spend in taxes."

I addressed it quite clearly. Apparently you weren't able to make the connection between my statements about the need for complete restructuring and prioritization of the state budget and the possible, and I'll bet all the way up to 50cents, unlikely closure of a fire station. So, for the spirit of communication, I'll spell it out more clearly. For your dining and dancing pleausre:

This state takes in too much money. Period. It takes in MORE than enough money to pay for police and fire, and, if it doesn't take in enough money to pay for police and fire, then the state budget needs a complete overhaul and reprioritization. Stated even more clearly: If the state won't have enough money to pay for a fire station: It needs to cut wasteful programs (of which everyone seems to agree exist) and redivert those savings to essential programs. Now:

Savings on insurance offsetting savings on taxes with which we are forced to pay? Let's talk about that for a moment. People the neighborhood in which they live. That is a direct choice. If you choose to live in say, a rural area where a firestation doesn't exist, then your insurance rates will probably be higher. If you choose to live next to the river which floods once a year, you're probably going to be in a flood once a year. However, I choose to live near a firestation, therefore, I get a savings on my insurance. But I get no choice in my taxes, except through the referendum process. I'm making a choice to pass i-695. Even if police and fire are being funded directly from the MVET revenues, 695, once passed, will not cut enough money from the ENTIRE budget to reduce fire and police protection- if a restructure of the budget is passed. In fact, they were somehow able to open up that firestation of which you speak, even though the fire department claims it doesn't get enough funding NOW! But somehow I don't think this will help any 695 opposer understand the larger and more philosphical point that this is tax revolt, plain and simple. I don't care what services it cuts. Even if it's a service from which I directly benefit. Reason: Real and meaningful tax reform is needed, nay, required, and this is the opening shot.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

Paul,

You still didn't address the issue.

You said: ""In fact, I'm constantly stunned by this kind of thinking: 'Heavy taxation saves us money."

As I have already stated, there are instances where taxing more saves each citizen a great deal more money than they pay in taxes, particularly the fire service.

In any case, 695 will throw this system into paralysis. The effect on local taxation districts and cities will be much, much worse than the impact on the state.

The Eastside Journal-American reported today that Bellevue has 1871 various fees. Among other things their citizens will have to vote on in the future is the fee charged for topless dancing permits and greens fees at the city's golf courses.

Here's one example of the problems 695 will cause, as related by Kirkland's City Manager:

>>As an example, Ramsay noted that Seattle passes yearly drinking water rate increases for Eastside cities. He asks what happens if a majority of Kirkland's voters don't approve higher water bills.

`` That is only one example of the potential chaos that lies ahead,'' he said.<<

So what happens if people vote no? Does Kirkland get its water cut off? Does Seattle give it to them at lower rates than everybody else on its system? Do they operate at a loss, causing a deficit that makes other services be cut? Do they shut off the tap for part of the city? No one knows.

"But I get no choice in my taxes, except through the referendum process."

You are absolutely dead wrong. You just stated the example of living in a rural area vs. an urban area. Additionally, if we had an income tax, you would have no way to avoid any of the tax burden. Since we have taxes that are not based on income, most every state tax burden on the individual can be lessened by smart planning. You have the choice to do anything you want to either avoid state taxes or pay more of them.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.

Let's think about the capability of the Washington Government. Do you REALLY think they have it together enough to restructure the ENTIRE system. No. And most liberal sh*thead politicians care more about welfare subsidies to lazy minorities than they do about fire stations anyway. If restructuring were really possible, I would be pro-695. But it is not. The section about requiring voter approval on taxes only makes sense if it applies to the state, but it is ridiculous to try and apply to every city, county, and other local government. I do not belive anyone would really create litigation over a 5-10 dollar increase in the cost of topless dancing permits in Bellevue or (as a local newspaper in pierce county put it) and increase in photocp[ies at the library or pop machine prices at Sprinker (an ice skating rink). However, something such as an increase in water rates in Kirkland COULD be litigated, and if the judges were fair, they would overrule it. This doesn't make sense. If the state was allowed the continued freedom of passing whatever taxes they want, they would likely pass some kind of income tax to make up for the lost MVET revenues. Then us washington residents would see how dumb we are - Everyone cries out "Oh, OREGON has no sales tax and OREGON has 35 dollar car tabs and OREGON this and OREGON that". The truth is that OREGON has an income tax that is such as most residents would SAVE money if the tax were repealed and they instead payed sales tax and car tab fees similiar to Washington's. The police protection won't suffer under 695. If fire does it will be much more minor than what everyone is predicting. The reason for this simply being that the State government WILL find a way to continue fire and police and heatlth subsidies. The big losers here are Transit Agencies and WSDOT. They are the people who will get jipped. And while I won't deny that many 695 opponenets have used "scare tactics" already, there WILL be a reduction in local bus service and there WILL be a large reduction in WSDOT expenditures. This will likely come from new projects so that existing road maintenence programs can be continued. This means that the I-90 East Snoqualmie pass project will probably be canceled*, and many freeways and roads which need widening due to congestion or substandard lane widths and clearances will not get it. The big losers here are the transit agencies, and they WILL be the losers. By the way, the idea of "Tax revolt, plain and simple" shows how much the "Dukes of Hazzard" mentality still prevails here. A real good initiative would be more welfare reform. But 695, for all of its good points, is a bad idea and I hope people will realize that in the coming voting season.

*Nothing of what will and won't be canceled has been officially told to me. Everything I have listed is heresay or has come from employees of Washington agencies that I correspond with as friends.

-- Abe "AbeyBaby" VanElswyk (talgo79@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.

Ok, I'm gonna try once more.. Real hard. Then I'm givin up. BB wrote: As I have already stated, there are instances where taxing more saves each citizen a great deal more money than they pay in taxes, particularly the fire service.

You relate the fire service to the savings in insurance premiums. Higher taxes (MVET TAXES TO BE ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAAAALL CLEAR) resulted in a fire station being built which wouldn't normally be built, thus lowering your friend's insurance premiums. His personal MVET taxes were LOWER than his insurance premiums MINUS the firestation. Therefore, firestation gets built, premiums go down, savings GREATER than a reduce or ELIMINATED mvet tax. I'll requote your ORIGINAL message if it makes EVERYONE happy.

"In my friends neigborhood, they have already been told, by the fireman, that that station will be closed if this thing passes. When they built it his insurance rates dropped like a rock. When they close it, his rates will go back up, and his savings on his car tabs will be gone."

Now, I'll address this with smaller words, more easy to read, and shorter sentences.

FIRE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T NEED TO CLOSE. STATE OVERFUNDED ALREADY. STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND FUNDING FOR BIG RED FIRESTATION WITHOUT MVET BECAUSE-----> STATE OVERFUNDED ALREADY. STATE CUTS BIG BAD WASTEFUL PROGRAMS, STATE SAVES MONEY, DIVERTS SAVINGS TO FIRESTATION YOU CLAIM WOULD CLOSE, THUS AVOIDING RE-INCREASING YOUR FRIEND'S INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

I'll requote another section which you claimed I failed to address to prove that I have twice addressed this point DIRECTLY:

"In this case (a fire station being closed), which you fail to address, the more you spend on a fire department, the lower your insurance rates are."

With the restructuring that I keep saying needs to happen, no, HAS GOT to happen, the firestation keeps its funding due to the 'reprioritization' I keep hammering the table about, your friend's insurance rates stay low, AAAANNND DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!! He saves a ton of $ on his MVET. It's just happiness all around.

Oh, and I have no idea what Abe is talking about with the 'lazy minorities' comment.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

I would really like to know what Fire Department you are talking about. If it is a city department then this all could be true ( MVET being the culprit) however, if this is a county department it most likely isn't directly related to the MVET. Instead, Fire Departments will be hurt by the other issue in the initiative, which i really must say does more harm than good. Freezing the budgets of these departments while growth is increasing by leaps and bounds, while most departments are under manned as it is. I hope that this senerio was overlooked by the writers of this initiative, and not just a gamble with the life safety of many people. Sorry I got carried away, I really would like to know if this Fire Department you talk of is city or county, Thanks

-- Ken LeMay (Klemay@amouse.net), September 27, 1999.

Paul writes:

"firestation keeps its funding due to the 'reprioritization' I keep hammering the table about, your friend's insurance rates stay low, AAAANNND DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!! He saves a ton of $ on his MVET. It's just happiness all around."

This is a nice fantasy, but when cities get 30% of their budget cut, you simply cannot fund everything on "reprioritization." Essential services *will* take a hit. There's isn't enough fat to trim in most cities' budgets to keep this from occuring. Assuming that the state will reprioritize is nice, but it won't necessarily happen.

Ken,

The problem with county districts is that there is a great deal of uncertainty whether they will allowed to collect tax money every year on their own, or whether every year they will have to put a monetary increase in the total amount of tax money collected before a public vote. It appears that 695 requires a public vote each and every year. Having a vote every year prevents these districts from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their citizens will vote no in one particular year. It's hard to buy things that have to be paid off over a number of years when you have to ask the voters again and again each year to fund the purchase.

Note that this isn't an increase in the rate of taxes collected, it's an increase in the total amount of taxes collected. So every year we'll be asking special districts if it's okay to collect the same amount of taxes that we've already said it's okay to collect. Seems a little silly, doesn't it? Especially when there has been minimal citizen involvement in this process as it is, indicating that people really aren't that upset about their local districts.

But that's what this initiative does. It gets people all riled up about the tax that the state implements, without telling them that local governments will be the hardest hit if it passes.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 27, 1999.

One comment about the fireman who allegedly said that a station would be closed. Where did he get his information? As a former King County 9-1-1 operator, I was forced to be a member of a labor union (although police officers, firefighters, 9-1-1 operators, etc. are forbidden to go on strike). That union was constantly bombarding my mail box with liberal propoganda, and stated quite clearly it contributed to the campaigns of politicians who supported liberal - er, I mean, union - causes (ie. Democrats). I'm almost willing to be money that firefighter was handed some kind of doomsday flyer by his union, or even by liberal politicians in his local government (what's the difference).

I have an acquaintance who lives on lower Queen Anne. He is "legally blind" due to a somewhat rare condition that causes his eyes to vibrate or twitch continually. "Legally blind" although he can see bus numbers, he can read signs at night, he can read books (he shelves books for a library), but he simply cannot see well enough to drive a vehicle, and yes he does have some occasional difficulty seeing distant objects. He worked for a fast food restaurant many years ago, but since he is entitled to Social Security checks and to live in public housing (which costs a flat 30% of his total income, no matter how low), he literally does not feel he "has to" work. He is above working a job he does not like. He survived on SSA benefits (which he actually calls his "paycheck") for over two years before getting his current, part time library job. Oh yes, and he uses the transit system for a cost of less than $5 per month.

Why am I bringing up this story? This acquaintance of mine, multiplied by the thousands of similar stories, is the reason we get raped by the government with each and every paycheck. If we audit such cases, we can then say, "You are not so blind as to be 'disabled' enough to be a burden on the taxpayer. You are able to work. No more free money for you. And your a** is out of public housing!" Then maybe we can divert the appropriate dollars to law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance, and the other bare necessities we have a goverment to provide.

Is it just me, or does it seem like there is an attitude that our dollars actually belong to the Goverment already, and that a tax break is supposed to be received as if it were the table scrappings being dropped by a beloved and generous king bestowing an undeserved gift to its humble servant? The Government needs to forced to remember its money belongs to us.

-- James W. Roberts (tekhelet@excite.com), September 27, 1999.

"Having a vote every year prevents these districts from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their citizens will vote no in one particular year" Having a job prevents these people from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their company will lay them off in any particular payroll period. Having to pay taxes every year prevents these people from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their taxes will vote go up in one particular year Having a vote every year prevents these subjects from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their rulers will change in one particular year

Having a physical exam every year prevents these patients from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their health will vote deteriorate in one particular year Having weather every year prevents these farmers from being able to plan for the long term at all. They will never know if their crops will get adequate water in one particular year

You know, I can't honestly say that any one of these statements is more illogical than any of the others.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 27, 1999.

Having a politician tell you they just need to spend more money to make this a better world. Send peace keepers around the world, to keep the peace (oh and they will be back in 6 months). Take away the guns from the lawabiding citizens, which will reduce crime.

All logical, but will never ever happen.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.