In case people missed it, the PI ran a fact sheet today on I-695. It appears that the Colorado law isn't as similar as we were led to believe.

"Doesn't Colorado have a law that requires voter approval of tax increases, and isn't that working?

Colorado voters passed an initiative in 1992 requiring voter approval to raise state and local taxes as part of broader law imposing tax and spending caps. Local governments have held about 3,000 referendums since then, with about 90 percent success. The state tried once to raise the sales tax, once to exceed the revenue cap, and failed both times.

Colorado officials say the law has proved workable, but note a big difference with Washington's I-695: the Colorado law does not require voter approval of fee increases. Taxes tend to be broad-based levies, such as property and income taxes, to support general government. Fees are charged to the specific user of service to cover the costs of services like water, sewer, trash pickup, and park maintenance.

Colorado voters, in fact, rejected two earlier versions of the 1992 initiative because they required voter approval of fee increases, said Larry Kallenberger, executive director of Colorado Counties.

Only when initiative sponsors dropped the fee provision -- attacked as too onerous -- did the measure pass, Kallenberger said."

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999

Answers

Patrick,

I don't expect you to get much of a response. I've pointed out for weeks that the two measures are not all that similar.

Colorado didn't have a tax cut in TABOR either. And it allows government spending to grow with inflation and population growth.

As I've already said, it's more like the 106% levy cap than 695. But don't expect pro-695 people to admit that. After all, they're still standing behind that $3 billion local surplus number, right?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

I'm not certain what sort of discussion you wished to have. . .

It has been obvious all along that the laws aren't the same. That being said, they are still *more* similar than different. Likewise, the difference don't invalidate the proposition that Colorodo's experience with TABOR still generally indicates what will occur here in Washington if I-695 passes.

FWIW: I agree there will be some amount of pain associated with the initial revenue loss, but overall I expect it to be like the initial shock associated with jumping into a cold swimming pool. . .pretty cold at first, but you're fine after a bit.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 04, 1999.

Can anyone give me an example of a needed fee increase that couldn't wait until the next scheduled election? Can anyone give me an example of a needed fee increase that would be a substantial amount of money, one way or another? So far, I-695 opponents have tossed out things like library fines, I suppose to demonstrate what trivial things we'll have to vote on. If it's all THAT trivial, it surely wouldn't hurt to bundle it in with other proposed fee increases for a single package to be voted on at the next scheduled election. I am legitimately asking for examples here. I just can't think of any situations that would either be enough bucks or time-urgent enough for the fee approval requirement to be that onerous.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

Craig:

Though I do support 695, there seems to be a problem with the logic of bundling fee increases into one proposition to vote on.

This is what already happens in government. Pork as it is called, is added to packages that will be normally approved (raises, emergency relief, highway, etc) There may be some needed fee increases in the package, but then one or two are blatant increases. The only problem is that if you like three out of five, you are voting on all five. There is no "Line Item Veto" at our level of government.

It's a good cost saving idea, but then it allows the sneaky increases to try to worm their way in.

TAKE THE FREE WEB POLL!! Visit: http://www.alxpoll.com/cgi-bin/poll.cgi?user=145917

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999.

"This is what already happens in government. Pork as it is called, is added to packages that will be normally approved (raises, emergency relief, highway, etc) There may be some needed fee increases in the package, but then one or two are blatant increases. The only problem is that if you like three out of five, you are voting on all five. There is no "Line Item Veto" at our level of government. " But that record plays on the flip side too (my apologies to those of you not old enough to remember records, I realize that CDs DON'T play on the flip side). If bogus stuff is put in the bill, it will draw opponents and that WILL jeapordize the whole package. What has happened in Colorado is that the proposals have been kept reasonable, to ensure passage of the things that are justifiable. I am not sure that you will EVER come up with a system to eliminate pork, only decrease it. Even the line-item veto only eliminates that pork that the wielder of the veto doesn't care for. The other pork is "an investment in our nation's future." ;)

-- Garig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

In Aug. David Postman wrote an article for the Seattle Times about I- 695,and discussed Colorado's experience. The same unholy alliance worked to defeat it he reports. The Gov. called the measure a "bomb" and the sponsor a terrorist,saying the schools would be overcrowded,prisoners would be released fromjail,etc. etc. (sound familiar?)A Colorado official who opposed the iniative now says that the dire warnings have not come to pass.He also stated "I don't share the belief that the citizens didn't understand what they were doing." and "what they(citizens) are doing if they vote yes is,they are saying no to to what they see as the endless capacity of some governments to keep building itself bigger and bigger."NUFF SAID!

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 04, 1999.

The issue here is that when you are only dealing with taxes you're talking about maybe 6 taxes that a city or county can actually have, and therefor even consider raising. The City of Bellevue has almost 1,900 fees that it collects. If it decides to ask the voters to raise just 5% of those fees, that is still 95 items to consider. Spreading them out over the year, and holding an election on all six of the possible dates means that people would still be asked to consider 16 fees every other month. Yes, the city could roll them up into as many ballot items as they want, but the informed voter is still going to want to research each one individually.

I don't doubt that a city or other government agency would be able to fund a specific program for the maximum of 60 days between elections. What I have issues with is the differences between taxes and fees. As the article pointed out, taxes tend to be broad based and support government as a whole, where fees are charged to the user and cover a very specific service. Most of the smaller fees would probably not be even considered to be raised simply because the extra revenue would be eaten up by election costs. So while the costs of keeping a particular service available would go up, the extra funding to pay for the continuation of that service would have to be found elsewhere. I've noticed that several people on this forum are strong advocates of an only pay for what you use type system. Well I think that there is a strong possibility that 695 would serve as an inhibitor to that idea, as services that used to be paid for only by the people who use them are subsidized by funding sources that are easier to raise.

Brad, the reason why I brought this up is because supporters like Tim Eyman and John Carlson tend to bring up Colorado as a direct comparison to 695. In reality, TABOR is more of a cross between 601 and R-47 with their spending and tax caps. It should be repeated that Colorado did vote on something exactly similar to Section 2 of I- 695, and they defeated it twice.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999.

"exactly similar " This is called an oxymoron (as opposed to ac, who is a regular one).

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

Patrick,

As an example of the prototypical liberal, it was obviously beyond you to ask the REAL question concerning tax and fee increases for the city of Bellevue:

"Why the hell does Bellevue NEED 1900 taxes and fees?"

Your only concern, which is to be expected, is how it may become a little difficult for the city to raise these hundreds of taxes/fees. My concern is that any city would need so many taxes/fees... and with so many of them, if it becomes difficult to impossible for them to raise them, well, that's too damned bad.

Westin

Who sees Bellevue as a FINE example of "death by a thousand taxes."

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 05, 1999.

And the typical Westin response seems always to attack something I said before even thinking about what it was that I did say.

As I've mentioned before, fees are paid by the specific user and go towards the specific service being provided. I was under the impression that most people on this board consider this concept to be a good thing. Don't play golf? Well don't worry, none of your tax dollars is going to pay for the municipal golf course. Don't like pets? Well you aren't subsiziding the humane society either.

Yeah, 1,900 sounds like a big number. Average number of fees a citizen of Bellevue probably pays in a year: less than 10. The chance that any one person will ever come close to having to pay anywhere near to all 1,900 fees sometime in his lifetime: zero.

So what that there are 1,900 fees in place in Bellevue? In most cases this means that the city decided that there was a desire in the community for a particular service. But instead of making the entire community pay for that service, they decided to make only the people who use the service pay for it. Is this a bad thing?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

"But instead of making the entire community pay for that service, they decided to make only the people who use the service pay for it. Is this a bad thing? " Yes. And there are a number of reasons why. Most of these programs are truly not stand-alone. Even if they only use the budget office to do their top-level accounting, they wind up being subsidized to that extent. Most are substantially subsidized. This increases the overall burden of government. Additionally, it takes property off the tax rolls, which increases the burden on the rest of the taxpayers. Why should the government do something that clearly can be done just as well by the private sector? I notice no real shortage of golf courses in the Northwest. Why should Seattle have City Light, when they can buy the power from Puget Sound Energy or Washington Water Power without a $1.2 billion capital investment that is NOT paying taxes. The government is best which governs least.

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

WHAT ABOUT COLORADO? http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/gss/edo/priv/privtext.htm#letter Over the past several years numerous public opinion polls and surveys have consistently revealed that Americans' confidence in government is at an all-time low. Government functioning has also been the topic of considerable scrutiny and growing public debate. A growing body of data suggests that government is facing tremendous pressure from the public to improve service delivery outcomes and accountability. This data, coupled with taxpayer complaints about government's high costs, difficulty with introducing new management methods and/or technologies, duplication of services and diffusion of responsibilities has fueled the public's demands for alternative techniques to provide government goods and services. While state governments have been slower to consider privatization options, local and federal entities responded to the fiscal pressures of the 1980s by cutting spending, reducing services and privatizing many services. On the other hand, state governments that are considered national leaders in privatization efforts have all adhered to a set of common principles when introducing privatization options. States have acted cautiously in identifying services that private business can do better than government before considering privatization. For instance, the private sector tends to be better at performing economic tasks, innovation, replicating successful experiments, adapting to rapid change, and abandoning unsuccessful or obsolete activities. By contrast, the public sector tends to be better at policy management, regulation, ensuring equity, preventing discrimination, and fostering social cohesion.1 Many states have responded to the need to improve service delivery with "reinventing government" plans and reorganizations. The results have led all levels of government to begin a process of reinvention. In reaction to both fiscal concerns and taxpayer revolts, state governments have started to explore and increase their use of various types of "privatization" as an option of public management decision- making. The 1993 Council of State Government's survey indicated a trend toward more state agencies using privatization for social services, transportation, mental health care, corrections and education.2 Colorado, like many other states, already contracts out for many services. With increased pressures to deliver services more efficiently, it is prudent for government to analyze whether new and presently performed functions might be better contracted to private sector vendors, should be internally competed with public employees or left entirely to the private marketplace.

At present, the state is neither faced with having to increase taxes nor cut certain services because of budget shortfalls or revenue deficits. The opportunity now is for state government to improve employee productivity and provide citizens with more for their tax money. Prudent privatization creates competition; this is the new key toward unlocking the productivity potential of both the public and private sectors in Colorado. The Commission on Privatization considered the broad privatization questions, but focused much of its discussion about the findings on specific application to Colorado state government. The overall investigation, therefore, produced rather unique outcomes representative of individual states and local governments. However, the Commission did hear and learn several lessons or best practices from the broad investigation. The following are eight significant lessons learned which all or in some portion thereof , have contributed to the formation and subsequent proposed public policy recommendations made by the Commission in this report.

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

Patrick,

It's interesting you should mention golf courses, because they're an example of the silly consquences that occur when you have a poorly written initiative, like 695. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of different fees at golf courses. For example:

- Greens fees - Electric Cart Rental - Pull Cart Rental - Buckets of balls for the driving range - Club rentals

That's five different fees, off the top of my head, for just one golf course. Bellevue has a couple golf courses. And they have a pool, and a few community centers, and hundreds of other operations that have a few fees for their various services. It all adds up pretty quickly.

Of course if you want to grossly oversimpify the way the world works, you could say that having 1900 fees is bad just because that's a lot of fees. But that shows no thoughtful analysis of how these fees were implemented and what they do.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

PATRICK THIS IS FOR YOU.... and incase you can't read that; I will write it on a level that may be easily comprehended.

PATRICK DIS FIR U

Normally I don't insult others, however reading your posts I actually feel that I have lost some part of my mind.

First lets talk about this 'Fee' thing you seem to be stuck on. WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS GOLF COURSES? THE CITY? Pretty much all courses are privately owned, HOW WOULD 695 AFFECT A PRIVATELY OWNED COST?

Patrick you also are trying to state that we are going to be overwhelmed with over 1900 different issue's to vote on increases... first I think you pulled out a high number out of your head to attempt to validate your point, fine attempt to validate it but don't do it with fantasy.

One thing I sure don't understand, is how people like you Patrick are stuck on the so many things to vote on issue that you can't comprehend that YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL OTHERS that want to decide how their money is given to the government and how much is WRONG and should not be allowed. If voting is such a difficult task for you then don't vote! You make voting sound like your mommy is sending you to clean your room on a warm summer day, when its a RIGHT that you have as an American that YOU SHOULD NEVER GIVE UP!

-Tony

-- Tony Schroeder (Baddog@nwlink.com), October 05, 1999.

BB-"Of course if you want to grossly oversimpify the way the world works, you could say that having 1900 fees is bad just because that's a lot of fees. But that shows no thoughtful analysis of how these fees were implemented and what they do."

In reading your remark, I came to a different conclusion (surprise). Given organizational inertia, it seems more likely to me that the 1900 fees came about *without* thoughtful (big picture) analysis.

As an aside, it probably is "bad" for a small city to have 1900 fees. This is due to the organizational and administrative issues associated with each fee. For a simple example, someone must design and implement a collections process for each fee. On the bright side, if you've already got 1900 of them, the "City of Bellevue Fee Adder's Manual" should be quite complete by now.

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

Tony, to answer your question about golf courses, yes, a lot of cities and counties own golf courses. Bellevue has 9 park facilities including their municipal golf course that offer some sort of golfing experience. I'm not exactly sure why these governments decided to have their own golf courses (probably because most private courses are REALLY expensive and have a long waiting list), but regardless, they do, and I haven't heard of a groundswell of support to privatize them. As they are government owned, any fee they charge WOULD be subject to voter approval under 695. You'll note that I did not say anything about private golf courses. The term "municipal" in front of golf course means city (or urban government) owned.

I also just didn't pull the 1,900 number out of my head. I got it out of a news article explaining how many fees the City of Bellevue has. It's probably a good idea to inform people about just how many taxes and fees there are out there before they vote on whether or not they want to be the ones making the final call on approving an increase in any of them.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to give people more of a say in the way their money is used in government. What I'm concerned about is giving so much responsibility to the voters that they either no longer want to exercise their right or they no longer can dedicate enough of their time to make adequate decisions. The idea of a true democracy is a noble idea, but in practice it may be self defeating. You may give people more say in government, but is it really worth it if it creates a system in which it makes a lot of people refuse to excercise their right or make less informed decisions?

A lot of supporters try to turn this into a "the opponents think voters are too stupid or ignorant" argument. This is not the case. It is simply a matter of resource management. I, like pretty much everyone else, have a life, a job, and a family that takes up most of my time. I also consider voting to be a very important right and responsibility (haven't missed an election since I turned 18). But I am very willing to admit that there have been times when the ballot was pretty long and I neglected to study up on who was running for something like hospital commissioner. Does that mean that I was too stupid or couldn't grasp the concepts involved? No. I just simply had other priorities in life, including focusing on ballot items that I considered more important. So when the election came around I had a choice of not voting on that item or making an uninformed decision.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't something that is exclusive to me. Most people probably have a finite and set amount of time available to dedicate towards studying the issues on a ballot. The same amount of time that can be dedicated to making an in depth review of one or two items would have to be split amongst a variety of items. Again, this is the entire reason behind representative government. To grant a small number of people the right to make most (but NOT all) decisions about governing. NOT because the public is incapable, but because the people have better things to do with their lives.

I would also like to note that at the state level and at many local level governments, there ALREADY exists the right to have a public vote on almost any issue that has been passed by the government, including tax and fee increases. This was the case when the legislature gave itself a pay raise several years back. An initiative was filed, signatures were gathered (more than on 695), and the people repealed the raise.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

BB You state:

"It's interesting you should mention golf courses, because they're an example of the silly consquences that occur when you have a poorly written initiative, like 695. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of different fees at golf courses. For example:

- Greens fees - Electric Cart Rental - Pull Cart Rental - Buckets of balls for the driving range - Club rentals

That's five different fees, off the top of my head, for just one golf course. Bellevue has a couple golf courses. And they have a pool, and a few community centers, and hundreds of other operations that have a few fees for their various services. It all adds up pretty quickly."

Okay now we have one of the GREATEST arguments for privatization of praqctically everything the government does...

especially golf

I like to shoot pool. Why are there no government subsidized pool halls for me. Or Discos??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

Dang- When even the liberal Democrat is recommending that the PEOPLE have the right to vote on tax increases OR EXTENSIONS, its time that we got a similar initiative passed. From the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com./news/election/gov1029b.htm

The candidates on the issue Oct. 29 - The Denver Post: What is your tax policy? (Should the 1992 TABOR amendment be modified? How should the state dispose of excess tax revenue? Should Colorado's tax structure be revised? Do you favor public expenditure for economic development, including tourism?) Bill Owens, Republican candidate for governor: I believe that when local, state _ and federal taxes have reached almost 40 percent of the average Colorado families' income that taxes are high enough. Colorado families typically pay more in taxes than they do for their own food, clothing, shelter and transportation. ... I support the TABOR amendment and feel that while parts of it may be inconvenient to government, it has served its purpose of keeping the growth of the public sector roughly equivalent to that of the private. (On the excess tax revenue), the state should proportionately lower the sales and income tax rates to reduce the surplus. (As to revising the state's tax structure), _ yes, particularly in regard to the Gallagher Amendment. (On public expenditure for economic development), yes, I think the state should play a positive role in terms of economic development, and that economic development and tourism represent appropriate expenditures for economic development. Gail Schoettler, Democratic candidate for governor: Colorado needs to review its tax policy comprehensively, rather than to continue to change pieces here and there. Tax policy reform should be guided by the following principles: tax policy should be fair; it should be broad-based and it should provide adequate revenues for state and local governments to provide the services that our citizens want. The TABOR amendment should retain the right of voters to vote on tax increases or extensions. It should give flexibility to governments to use surpluses for refunds or for specific investments without going to the voters each time there is a surplus. (On disposal of surplus revenue), first, we should return a substantial portion of the surplus to the citizens of Colorado. Second, we should use our current prosperity to invest in the future so Colorado is fully prepared for the challenges of the new century.

Other good articles:

http://www.denverpost.com./opinion/ciruli0531.htm

http://www.denverpost.com./opinion/jacobs0110.htm

http://www.denverpost.com./news/leg/leg0113d.htm

http://www.denverpost.com/news/leg/leg0318.htm

http://www.denverpost.com./news/election/elex0623d.htm

http://www.denverpost.com./news/election/pol0729a.htm

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.

Craig writes:

"When even the liberal Democrat is recommending that the PEOPLE have the right to vote on tax increases OR EXTENSIONS, its time that we got a similar initiative passed."

Craig, you are so hilarious. Yes, this democrat did recommend this, but do you have any idea what she also recommended? Obviously not.

"It should give flexibility to governments to use surpluses for refunds or for specific investments without going to the voters each time there is a surplus."

This is what is known as "de-Bruceing," meaning allowing governments to permanently keep and spend excess revenue that is now forced to be refunded under TABOR. 90% of cities in Colorado that have asked their voters to de-Bruce have been allowed to. Governments still have to ask their voters if they wish to increase taxes beyond a formula largely based on inflation and population growth.

This would analogous to a city in Washington opting out of the voter approval section of 695. The formula in Colorado used to cap spending growth is similar to our 106% levy lid. So basically what this Democrat is advocating is the system that we in Washington have right now.

Of course 695 has no provision allowing local governments to permanently get around its limits. Yet another difference between it and Colorado, and yet another example of why it is poorly written. Even if citizens of a particular area want to opt out of 695's limits, it appears that they can't. In Colorado citizens can opt out of some of the limits of TABOR if they choose to, and 90% of the time they have. 695 is a restriction on local control, unlike the Colorado initiative.

Oh yeah, all those article URL's that Craig posted? Here's an excerpt from the very first article that comes up if you search for TABOR at the Denver Post's website. Interesting that he didn't post this URL. http://www.denverpost.com./opinion/per0329a.htm

"State and local governments have not become smaller as a result of TABOR. Government lawyers have become busier. (Isn't that always the case?) Voters have been consulted more - at the local level. But after five years, the jury is still out as to the impact of TABOR. Until Colorado goes through a full economic cycle (growth/recession), the full implications of TABOR will be incomplete."

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

BB-

" "When even the liberal Democrat is recommending that the PEOPLE have the right to vote on tax increases OR EXTENSIONS, its time that we got a similar initiative passed." Craig, you are so hilarious. Yes, this democrat did recommend this, but do you have any idea what she also recommended? Obviously not. "

Actually I do. So did the voters. Notice that she LOST the election.

;)

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

A fairly reasonable article in a most unlikely place:

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/colo_19991011.html

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.