When I heard about I-695, I thought that it might be a pretty smart new idea. I was angry about my high taxes, and I welcomed the chance to hold some politicians accountable for how they spend my money, and force them to spend it more efficiently.

However, I was curious about the arguments that Tim Eyman, the sponsor of the initiative, used to promote it. "We're on the side of the little guy, to save him from the ugly big businesses and tyrranical politicians!" "Don't be fooled!" In my experience, such language is often used by people who are trying to fool you themselves, for some hidden purpose. I also noticed that both he and his co-sponsor, Marty Rood, are professional salesmen. Many salesmen know just how to use people's feelings to manipulate them.

Maybe they had some hidden motives, and were trying to fool me themselves; maybe they didn't. How could I tell whether?

So I asked a few very simple questions, just to make sure that I would be voting for something that was well thought-out. Since Tim Eyman is trying to rescue us from politicians who've been pulling the wool over our eyes, and get us straight talk about our taxes, I thought I would get straight answers.

Instead, the responses I got were disturbing, even alarming. They seem to suggest that Tim Eyman himself is trying to take advantage of our feelings about our high taxes, and use them to manipulate us into doing something that may be foolish, but that he wants, for some reason.

I'd like to draw everyone's attention back to the discussion on this forum titled, "Why $30 and not $0 or $3?" Please continue the discussion there, or tell me what conclusions I should draw from the answers there. Here's a direct link to it: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001JAZ

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999

Answers

Hi Joe,

Check out this article for some more info on Tim Eyman.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9934/quick-scigliano.shtml

I've posted this in another forum here before, but here's the important part of the article.

>>It was last January when I first talked to the engaging Tim Eyman, the cocreator (with car dealer Martin Rood) of Initiative 695, which would largely eliminate both this state's motor-vehicle excise tax and the taxing authority of its representative government. Eyman said he had scant personal interest in rolling back vehicle taxes to just $30 a year: "I've only got a dented Nissan. I pay $150 a year for tax." Now The Seattle Times reveals (in an August 15 profile) that his wife "drives a 1998 Saab that cost the couple $900 to license this year." When I asked Eyman about this contradiction, he said, "The 1990 Nissan is what I drive." But not all that he pays tax on.

The Times also quotes Eyman as saying he "can't wait" till officials lay into his initiative, which they see as a fiscal suicide pact: "The people that are going to be attacking us aren't exactly dripping with credibility. They're going to have to convince people that their car taxes aren't too high and that they're not overtaxed." Credibility? Hmm. . . .<<

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

I-695 is many things to many people. If you believe government is unresponsive, unaccountable, and arrogant, then I-695 will make a difference by requiring voter approval of increases in fees and taxes. If you're happy with the way the government manages congestion and spends your money, then vote against I-695.

As far as being against high taxes on vehicles, it is not clear how much the "little guy" will save, since neither side is being honest or accurate with regards to property taxes on vehicles. It is very likely that people will continue to pay some type of tax on their vehicles, but the tax may be fairer, taking into account the mileage and condition of the vehicle.

Finally, I-695 undoes the evil of Referendum 49, which rewards the DOT after years of incompetence.

I can give you fifty million reasons to vote for I-695. This is the first wave of money (i.e., $50 million) the DOT wants to spend in order to shove a toll bridge down the throats of the residents of the Kitsap Peninsula. The people who will be forced to pay the toll don't want the bridge, and, in fact, voted against it. This known as taxation without representation. It is akin to the people of Oregon voting for a property tax on the people of Washington.

I-695 will humble the DOT.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 30, 1999.

It amazes me the number of people who believe that because someone is a car salesman (and therefore might make more sales if people bought more cars) or has a Saab that costs $900 to license ( that'd be a a $41000 car @ 2.2%? Why would anyone pay that for a SAAB when you could get a Suburban for less and a Hummer for not much more;) )they somehow less credible after they have mounted a campaign, gathered a half million signatures, and donated Lord knows how much time. Somehow this individual (who pays his own way and MIGHT benefit to the tune of $900+$150-$60) has a conflict of interest and shouldn't be believed, while elected officials and government bureaucrats WHO DERIVE THEIR ENTIRE REVENUE FROM SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT, are paragons of virtue and objectivity. As long as you guys are going to be this paranoid, what I really wonder is whether Joe exists at all, or whether BB is just playing straight man to himself. The charitable assumption is the latter. I'd hate to think that the human race produced two individuals so completely lacking in the capability for clear thought. And at that, you're lucky that I got to you before Westin did.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Joe--

I just finished reading the thread you referenced.

In general, it appeared to me your question was answered quite directly by a post from Greg Holmes. Your response indicates that you understood his post.

The conclusion that the responses "suggest that Time Eyman himself is trying to take advantage of our feelings about our high taxes, and use them to manipulate us into doing something that may be foolish, but that he wants, for some reason." isn't supported by any of the posts in the thread.

If you wish to discuss whether license tabs in Washington should be on par with surrounding states, I find that a worthy topic of discussion. On the other hand, if you only wish to expound on "the evils of the Tim Eyman conspiracy", I don't see that creating a productive discussion.

Lastly, there are many (on both sides of the issue) who believe the license tab reduction issue meaningless. Perhaps you do as well, if so, would you prefer to discuss whether or not people should be allowed to vote on requests for tax increases?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Craig, there is no need to insult me; did I say anything out of line?

Thanks to everyone for the responses so far. Brad, I especially want to respond to your post because even though you disagree with my line of questioning, you understood it, and expressed your disagreement very clearly.

Re. "if you only wish to expound on "the evils of the Tim Eyman conspiracy", I don't see that creating a productive discussion":

I didn't say "evil" or "conspiracy" anywhere. I also talked about things other than Tim's credibility, including my view on "whether license tabs in WA should be on par". However, I do think it's crucial for us to check out his credibility - - especially because of the nature of the arguments he has used.

On one side, many well-informed people are urgently trying to tell me that it's one thing to talk about lowering taxes, but a different thing to talk about I-695; I-695 will hurt my state; a drastic cut to one portion of my state's budget will have a drastic impact to one set of state services. Sounds quite logical to me.

On the other side, a sharp-talking salesman wants me to ignore them, and entrust my state's financial future to HIS idea instead. A major part of his argument is the repeated assertion that the OTHERS, no matter what they say, are trying to fool me, while HE'S on my side. Why should I buy this part of his argument? Is he on my side just because he says so? Before I believe that he's on my side, it's rather important for me to check out his credibility. Don't you think so? Can you suggest a better way of testing his credibility than to ask him how he came up with his proposal?

BB, thank you for the link and the other information above. It speaks directly to my question and tells me a lot about Tim's credibility.

Re. "There are many (on both sides of the issue) who believe the license tab reduction issue meaningless. Perhaps you do as well, ..."

My original question was about the license tab reduction, so I'm not sure why you think I may think it's meaningless. I think it's very important.

Re. "... isn't supported by any of the posts in the thread":

I should have made it clear why I said, "the responses... seem to suggest that Tim Eyman himself is trying to take advantage...". Here's why I said that:

(1) The best explanation I got out of that thread for the $30 figure was, "It's something that we thought it would be easy to sell the public on." (There were other explanations, but no responses to my objections to those explanations. If anyone wants to offer a further explanation, please do so in that original thread, to avoid duplication.)

(2) In my last post in that thread, dated September 22, I pointed out some specific ways in which it seemed to me that the I-695 campaign was trying to deceive me. There was no response to that. And finally,

(3) Really, if his intentions really are sincere, I wonder why his campaign doesn't just answer my question, instead of coming up with excuses to not answer it. Since the whole campaign is titled, "The Thirty Dollar Tax Initiative," I thought it was a pretty basic question.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

"Craig, there is no need to insult me; did I say anything out of line? " As a matter of fact, yes you did. I-695 is an initiative that has been signed on to by a half million of your fellow citizens. Few if any of them have ever seen or spoken to Tim Eyman. Whether he is a good guy, bad guy, or somewhere in between is irrelevant to the worth of I-695. Whether he drives a Datsun or a Saab or a ferrari for that matter, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I've never met the man, and the initiative qualified for the ballot before I'd ever even heard him speak. You trying to make this into an ad hominem argument is an insult to the half-million people that signed the petition. Alleging that they were manipulated by salesman who "know just how to use people's feelings to manipulate them. " is both ludicrous and demeaning to your fellow citizens. What is more, as Brad mentions above, the issues you raised were very well answered on a previous thread. Your continuing focus on "Why $30" and not some other number ($29.95, $30.02) and constant lamenting that no one would answer your question was reminiscent of Ahab's quest for Moby Dick. The issue was a tax reduction, not a specific number to twelve decimal places. So yes, I either have to assume that what you are doing is just manipulative or I have to assume that you are just incredibly dense. I was being charitable, and assuming that you were being manipu

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

So you think that someone who questions the "Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative" must be rude or foolish? That's very interesting.

By the way, it was you who asked the question to 12 decimal places, not I.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

Joe--

I agree the "evil conspiracy" thing was uncessary.

"I also talked about thing other than Tim' credibility, including my view of "whether license tabs in WA should be on par.""

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any discussion by you (or anyone else for that matter) on either thread as to whether WA licensing should be similar to surrounding states.

"However, I do think it's crucial for us to check out his credibility."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I would also invite you to think about the credibility of I-695's opponents. I reasonably current list of donors to the no campaign can be found here.

Even the most rabid anti-695 observer would agree (if they're honese) that Tim Eyman has far less financial interest vested in I-695's passage than the organizations working towards its defeat.

"On one side, many well-informed people are urgently trying to tell me that it's one thing to talk about lowering taxes, but a different thing to talk about I-695."

If you're suspicious of Tim Eyman's credibility (which is laudable IMO), you must be extremely suspicious of organizations opposing this initiative. The people who are complaining most about I-695 are the people that have the most to lose from reductions in government spending.

It's my opionion the reduction in spending (the glass is still 98% full) isn't the no camp's primary concern. I believe that what many opponents of I-695 *really* hate is the requirement referring tax increases to the voters. From my observation, this part of the initiative (BTW this drives my support for the initiative) is seldom talked about by either side.

"Can you suggest a better way of testing his credibility that to ask him how he came up with his proposal?"

I think the best way to test his credibility is to ask him what he thinks he gains if I-695 passes. Along the same lines, I think the best way to test its opponents' credibility is by asking them what they think they'll lose if I-695 passes.

"The best explanation I got out of that thread for the $30 figure was, "It's something that we thought it would be easy to sell the public on.""

From reading the thread, the *only* person who said anything like this was you. It seems misleading to ascribe that sentiment to anyone else (for *or* against) in that thread.

"Really, if his intentions really are sincere, I wonder why his campaign doesn't just answer my question, instead of coming up with excuses not to answer it."

Again, in reading the thread you referenced, you appeared to get an answer. It appears you didn't think the answer provides a good justification for the number (FWIW: I agree with this, but I find it irrelevant).

From reading your posts (assuming you're not simply manipulative or an extremely sophisticated version of Eliza), it occurs to me you might think these forums provide a method of official communication with the pro-695 camp. I don't know definitively, but I think I'm pretty safe saying they're not. However, if you previously believed this, I'd understand why you feel like you've been "given the run around."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 01, 1999.

I can tell you a few things about Licensing, first the actual fee for Tabs are $20, everything above $20 is a tax. The $30 would include $20 for the tabs actual licensing fee that the $10 would go to the state of Washington.

As far as the creator and the supporter of this 695, who cares who he is. Read the Initiative, don't be spoon fed by the pro and con advocates. I have read the initiative, it's very clear to me that this is what THIS state needs. We are NOT the first state to do this, and there is a state that runs this current system, they still exist and they have been just fine.

I wish you luck Joe, and if you have any questions on the initiative please ask, I would be happy to explain to you how you can read it and understand it on your own.

Tony Schroeder

-- Tony Schroeder (Baddog@nwlink.com), October 02, 1999.

Whew - lots of responses. Let me start by trying to narrow down the scope of what I'm asking. I'll probably get back to Brad's points later.

Regarding what's *actually in the initiative* -- I personally *am* mostly concerned about the $30 part of the initiative, after which the initiative is named. As Tony pointed out, the $30 proposal amounts to repealing a number of specific taxes.

Government agencies, which are legally bound to be neither pro nor con I-695, have given me the facts about the impact of those tax cuts on my state -- 25-30% cuts in bus service, delays to transportation projects that are already under way, etc. These are *facts* -- unless the people who work in those agencies are lying, for which they could be legally penalized.

As for the benefits of the $30 part of the initiative, they are simple to understand: a large amount of cash annually to owners of expensive cars, a small amount to owners of less expensive cars, and nothing to people who own no cars. These are also *facts*.

Some people (e.g. Matthew above) also believe that there will be a further benefit from the $30 part of the initiative -- namely, real or perceived punishment of people who took actions in the past that they are angry about.

In my *opinion*, the impact is huge and devastating, and I'm not yet convinced that the benefits justify the tremendous impact. This is my *opinion* of the impact, not a fact.

If you're in support of the initiative, despite the impact, then I think you must be in one of the following 3 categories re. your opinion of the impact:

(a) You think that the tax cuts WON'T REALLY HAVE NEARLY AS MUCH IMPACT as the agencies say they will; or

(b) You think that the tax cuts REALLY WILL make about as much difference as the agencies say they will, but you think THAT'S OK, because the benefits are more important to you; or

(c) You don't know or care whether the funding cuts will have an impact; all you care about are the benefits.

Craig, I have the impression that you're in category (c) or (a). Brad, Tony and Matthew, I don't know which you are in. To anyone reading this thread: if you're in category (b) or (c), then we probably have different values, and I won't try to argue with your position.

But if you're in category (a), as I suspect most pro-695 people are, please let me know specifically why you think that the funding cuts won't have as much impact as the agencies say they will. Maybe I'm wrong in believing them.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

No Joe, I'm in category d. We are in a state whose political leadership has become more and more disconnected from the common people, and it is necessary to do something to correct that. Currently the Republicans and the Democrats are tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, both in the hands of their respective special interest groups. I really don't care that much about saving money on my MVET. The most important thing about I-695, IMHO, is that it allows direct voter control of a taxation process that has become the property of special interest groups that benefit directly and disproportionately (compared to the average citizen) from a continuing increase in the size of government. We are developing at the local level the same kind of "inside the beltway" mentality seen at the federal level. I believe the voter approval aspects of I-695 can offset the special interest lobbies that wield disproportionate influence over our elected leadership. Frankly, I want to force them to BRIBE 50% of the people plus one, rather than a relatively handful of legislators. I believe that this will make successful bribes less likely, but at a minimum it will AT LEAST more widely and equitably distribute the bribes that are given. I also hope (and this may be more idealism than reality) that the ability to actually be directly involved in these decisions will energize the average voter and lead to MORE voter involvement. Democracy will ultimately fail if too few people participate. The "anarchy" which the professional politicians and bureaucrats dread is something that I see as democracy in action. I believe that we need to have faith in the average citizen, and that if the average citizen can't be trusted to be directly involved in government, then the alternatives (republic, meritocracy, aristocracy, etc.) ultimately will fail for lack of popular support, as the leadership becomes progressively more remote from the average person. This is less about bucks than it is about values.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 05, 1999.

To Joe Campbell: I'm in category a'. I think government agencies are "lying" for several reasons: 1) They're not taking into account revenues from property taxes on vehicles; 2) They're not taking into account revenues from the state surplus. This will buy us time, allowing the voters to vote in new taxes which will now be tied to specific projects. In other words, the government will be more responsive, and, possibly, more accountable; 3) They're not taking into account the potentially huge increase in sales tax revenue. When somebody writes a check for several hundred dollars in taxes, it is psychologically demoralizing. Therefore, the household doesn't make thousands of dollars in purchases, which it may easily afford. 4) They're not accounting for the fact that governmental agencies can raise taxes and/or fees prior to Jan 1, 2000. I've just given you 4 reasons why I think governmental agencies are "lying".

I do not mind paying taxes when I know what I'm going to get. I would gladly pay an increased property tax on my home and/or car to effectively promote ridesharing. I believe a network of transit centers coupled with a network of non-stop express buses would do wonders to reduce congestion on our highways. Imagine if folks in the South Puget Sound could take a non-stop express bus from their neighborhood to a central transit center in Tacoma, and, from there, they could take a non-stop express bus to Bellevue. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Give I-695 a chance. We can always repeal it or amend it in a couple of years. Where is your optimism?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 05, 1999.

Joe--I'll try to address your questions in order.

"Government agencies, which are legally bound to be neither pro nor con I-695, have given me the facts about the impact of those tax cuts on my state -- 25-30% cuts in bus service, delays to transportation projects that are already under way, etc. These are *facts* -- unless the people who work in those agencies are lying, for which they could be legally penalized."

You might want to think about the following questions:

What constitutes a 25-30% cut in bus service? What is the downside to a 25-30% cut in bus service? BTW: metrokc says another 70000 car trips/day. I've brought this up in another thread, but I invite you to visit their website and look at their "analysis" to justify this number. If you do this, I think you'll understand two things:

o why the number of 70000/day makes me wanna puke o why I've quoted the word analysis

Personally, I don't believe the metro people are lying. Being charitable, I'll say they were just hurried and chose a naive estimation method. The non-charitable among us, would say they chose a methodology guaranteed to provide the results they wanted.

Will there be delays in road projects? I presume so. That being said, I personally believe the delays will be relatively short.

"As for the benefits of the $30 part of the initiative, they are simple to understand: a large amount of cash annually to owners of expensive cars, a small amount to owners of less expensive cars, and nothing to people who own no cars. These are also *facts*."

I guess I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not one support I-695.

I can only see a couple of reasons why you might think this matters.

You think progressive taxation is a "good thing" and that I-695 reduces (???) it. In reality, I don't see this as necessarily true. I don't know about your experience, but it has been my experience that a significant percentage of younger people buy "nicer" cars (especially SUVs) than they should. I could go on but you probably now understand why I don't think I-695 is the posterchild for regressive taxation.

You think that expensive cars are "bad" in some way and their purchase should be discouraged. AFAICT, the only logical reasons someone might think this might have to do with pollution or road wear. My experience as an owner of a (previously) 1981 fullsize Chevy pickup and a 1998 Honda Civic completely nukes this argument.

"(a) You think that the tax cuts WON'T REALLY HAVE NEARLY AS MUCH IMPACT as the agencies say they will"

Although where I stand isn't really pertinent, I fall partially into this camp. I also fall partially into the (b) camp. To see how can do this, think about the following story problem:

Bill owns a 24 hour service station and has 5 FTEs. Bill looks at his receipts and realizes the night shift's revenue doesn't cover expenses. Bill decides to not have a night shift any longer. Bill lays off Candy (the nightshift worker). Bill's station serves 100 customers/hour during the day shift, 70 customers/hour during the evening shift, and 15 customers/hour during the night shift.

What percentage of service is reduced?

There are 3 (obvious) and many absurd answers. One potentially correct answer (33%) is extremely obvious and also quite obviously naive. Another obvious answer (20%) is a reasonable number as well. Unfortunately, this doesn't really seem to paint a good picture either. The last answer (8%) is less obvious and (IMO) accurately depicts the impact of Bill's service reduction.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 05, 1999.

Brad-

It is difficult to conclude what the actual effect of a reduction in revenue for transit would be. As indicated in previous posts, Metro King County transit share of the market has at best held level over the preceding 10 years, at about 48 trips per capita per person. Even to do this "well". it was necessary to count non-revenue trips in the downtown area and build incredibly expensive park n ride facilities to maintain market share. Here (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/0719992.htm) is an example of King County leasing space for park n ride parking at $2000/yr per stall, in order to tempt commuters to ride transit at fares that only cover 21% of expenses. Despite this massive subsidization, it has difficulty competing with the auto among individuals who have the option of driving. It would be real interesting to find out what the marginal cost per transit rider really is, much of the expense is hidden in other budgets (roads, for example). It is clear that there are truly transit dependent people because of physical limitations, economic situation, and legal reasons, who will use transit because they have to. But except for these, it is rarely the transport mode of choice. It is being kept at the current level only through massive subsidization. If/when it loses that subsidization, all bets are off. I agree with you that it is likely to be a non-linear response, ie., not a 20% reduction for a 20% loss of funding. But if the total costs were adequately measured, I think everyone would be shocked and amazed at just how non-linear that response would be.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 05, 1999.

Brad, you're again reading more into my words than what's actually there. I didn't say *anything* about whether it's "good" or "bad" that the cash benefit is greatest to owners of expensive cars. (I recognize that many people are of the opinion that this is bad (it's unfair) and many others are of the opinion that it's good (it makes an unfair situation more fair). These are *opinions* and they have been discussed elsewhere.) That was not my main point.

I just want to understand all of your views on the *impact of the tax cuts*. Let's concentrate on just that topic for the moment.

Craig: Based on what you said above, it looks like you're most interested in the "referendum" part of the initiative, and the benefits that you feel it would bring. For you, these benefits outweigh the probable impacts of the funding cuts. So, as far as your position on the *impacts of the funding cuts* goes, I think you're in my category (c). (I realize though that my wording of (c) above sounds unnecessarily critical -- better wording would be, "You don't think that getting an accurate assessment of the impact of the funding cuts is important; the benefits are sufficient justification.")

Brad: I understand your points that a 30% funding cut doesn't necessarily equate to a 30% service cut, and that a "service cut" is difficult to quantify (as Craig re-iterated), and subjective. It could correspond to a much smaller service cut, if the least cost- effective services are cut -- 8%, by your preferred measure, in your story problem.

But by the same token, a 30% funding cut could turn into a much *greater* than 30% service cut. In your story problem, if Bill lays off Debbie, the day shift worker, that would correspond to a service cut of 54% by your measure. You seem to be quite confident that government agencies will cut what YOU feel are the least cost- effective services, if I-695 passes. Why do you think that? What gives you that faith in them?

Matthew: Thanks for listing the 4 sources of revenue that you think government agencies should take into account to get a more accurate assessment. So if these 4 factors were taken into account, the funding loss for the affected programs would be something less than 30%. About how much do you think it would be?

Also, I think you said that you *are* in favor of funding public transit, if you have more of a voice in how that funding is spent. You said you don't mind paying taxes when you know what you're going to get, which is a very reasonable position, IMO. How about the converse: do you mind cutting taxes when you don't know what you're going to lose?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

"You said you don't mind paying taxes when you know what you're going to get, which is a very reasonable position, IMO. How about the converse: do you mind cutting taxes when you don't know what you're going to lose? " And here, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is the CRUX of the issue. Taxes ARE going up and things don't seem to be getting better in proportion to the increase. Is that because the job is just too hard to do? Is that because it is being done poorly? Is that because too many resources are diverted to pay off special interest groups? Is that because the theories and models being used by the politicians and bureaucrats involved are fundamentally flawed (has happened before, urban renewal, welfare or welfare reform (one of the two has gotta be wrong),etc.), even if well intentioned. The point is, I-695 is the vanguard of a populist uprising of people WILLING TO TAKE A CHANCE that they can make things better. Politicians are notoriously risk averse. It's probably a good thing that someone pushes them. Voters have been too apathetic. Probably a good thing that more want direct involvement. Is I-695 perfect? Hardly. But it is probably better than both the "no change" option and the "I-695 failed so both sides are now going to get more dogmatic" option.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

To Joe Campbell: Because of the huge surplus, there should be no loss of funding, initially. After the first year, the voters will have to approve increases in fees and/or taxes, or there will be a loss of funding. Since the governmental agencies want to keep their fiefdoms, they will put measures on the ballot which they know will have a higher chance of succeeding. In other words, government will be more responsive. In order to ensure success down the road with future referenda, the government will be more accountable. So, overall, I expect no significant decrease in funding, if a meaningful part of the huge surplus is made available. If very little of the surplus is made available, then, yes, there will have to be major budget cuts.

Your other question is will I support tax cuts if I don't know what services will be cut. As a rule, my answer would be no. But, because of my involvement in opposing the proposed new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, I have learned that the government is corrupt, arrogant, unresponsive, and unaccountable. We who commute every day across the bridge can only hope and pray that the first thing to be cut will be funding for the new Tacoma Narrows bridge. So, yes, I'm taking a risk in that I'm not certain of what will be cut. But, if the government defers the bridge project, then the risks were worth it.

Again, with the huge surplus, we are in a position to gamble on I-695. People will vote in new taxes. People voted for a 0.3% MVET tax to fund Sound Transit. By the way, the 0.3% MVET tax will remain in place, and there's no reason why the DOL (Dept. of Lic.) can't continue to collect the money on behalf of Sound Transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 06, 1999.

Joe--"But by the same token, a 30% funding cut could turn into a much *greater* than 30% service cut. In your story problem, if Bill lays off Debbie, the day shift worker, that would correspond to a service cut of 54% by your measure. You seem to be quite confident that government agencies will cut what YOU feel are the least cost-effective services, if I-695 passes. Why do you think that? What gives you that faith in them?"

Referring specifically to transit (although the principle is widely applicable), I believe they'll do this because it's in *their* best interest to do so. In general, one should assume (safely IMO) heavily used routes generate two things dear to transit authority management--higher ridership numbers and correspondingly, higher revenues from fares. Given even a touch of rationality, self-interest leads to transit management choosing appropriate areas for service reductions.

FWIW, this model breaks down if you believe transit authority management is generally irrational, spiteful, or manipulative.

In response to the obvious question, why don't they do this already? In public, they'd probably say they do. In reality, it would be politically impossible/disastrous for the head of Metro to announce service and staff cuts. It's much more comfortable to keep doing the same old thing (organizational inertia).

IMO, one of the "unsung" benefits of I-695 is the political cover it gives people trying to effect changes politically unpopular with ___insert special interest relying on public funds here__.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 06, 1999.

Brad-

If you read the thread "I-695 will increase traffic congestion," you will find a short discussion on the marginal cost of one transit rider. It turns out to be quite high. You need to buy them a $25,000 parking place (or rent them at $2000 a year), then subsidize their fares by 80%, then buy them new buses periodically, etc. If Sound Transit ever gets going, the marginal cost will be truly huge. If the cuts are made in these high marginal cost areas, a lot of money may be made up with very modest numbers of decreased transit riders.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 06, 1999.

Matthew & Brad: Thanks, those are clear answers. I think I understand your reasoning. I'll have a few more questions later.

Matthew, you didn't answer my question, "About how much do you think the cuts would be if those 4 factors were taken into account?" If you don't give even a ballpark figure, the contention that govt agencies are "lying" doesn't mean much.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.