This whole thing makes me sick. i-695 is simply a tax cut. Who in the heck would be against this? I asked people at my work if they were for or against it. A lot said they were against it which surprised me. Each had a different reason though (I won't have my bus route, we won't have ambulance service, we won't have fire or police). Does a small (tiny) overall budget cut really take away all of our services?

This is propaganda, and I think we are paying for it. Are my taxes paying for the advertising against I-695.

This is a sick,screwed up government we have these days.

-- Patrick Dengler (patrickdengler@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

Government money can't campaign for or against a ballot proposition, but governments can provide factual information about what the effect of the proposition will be. Anything that is not factual, can be reported to the Public Disclosure Commission, and the PDC will investigate and can impose fines, etc. for violations.

It sounds like you need to read many more of these threads, because the "tiny" tax cut is not so tiny, and for some agencies it could be huge unless the state reallocates funds. Since the initiative is not specific about what should be cut, those that depend heavily on MVET are concerned about whether they will get any repalacement money from other sources, and if they don't what that would mean for the programs. (this is the "campaign of fear, lies, and terror" that supporters talk about. Well, it is not lies. It is fear that the problems that will be caused by the initiative will not be fixed in time to prevent some major program cuts in some agencies and some local governments. That is just the section 1 problem with the initiative. Section 2 (voter approval of taxes and fees) has another whole set of issues that will end up in court.

I am pleased to hear that many of your co-workers are opposed. Perhaps the voters will not be fooled into approving this poorly drafted initiative, after all. I know. Someone will call that wishful thinking. I believe the initiative is a mistake, and that most people would agree if they were not being sold false information about the "tiny" budget cut, and the deceptive ballot title. The initiative is not about car tabs as much as it is about a change to direct democracy on all taxes and fees. That will create all kinds of problems.

Keep reading. Cutting taxes may sound good, but taxes buy services you may need or value highly.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

The initiative is not about car tabs as much as it is about a change to direct democracy on all taxes and fees. That will create all kinds of improvements

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

In the early 90's, we had a property tax initiative on the ballot. The same propaganda and lies that we see now along with the use of our tax dollars to support the opponents helped defeat it. The talking heads that we send to Olympia have done nothing about it. As a consequence, people on fixed incomes are often forced to move from their home of forty years, because they are unable to pay the taxes.

My elderly parents wanted one last nice car, so they bought one. Now they are unable to pay vehicle taxes. To keep them in their modest car, I pay the tabs. They are thinking about relocating to Oregon, even though the state of Washington is their long time home.

I'm voting yes on I-695!!! I'm looking forward to the property tax issue to be on the ballot also. No one in Olympia represents the tax payer.

-- Jim King (nomad01@seanet.com), October 10, 1999.

To the first respondant.

You have to look at the big picture. You cannot keep giving money to the government. Even if the tax cut was in the 30% range, this would force the government to be more efficient and less stupid with all of the free money.

-- patrick dengler (patrickdengler@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Patrick Dengler:

Obviously, we disagree. I don't expect to fully support everything the different levels of government decide to do for their constituents. What I expect is the opportunity to vote for candidates of my choice, and influence the decisions delegated to them. If they are less "stupid" about their spending, as you phrase it, it means they cut programs that were important enough to get through a difficult legislative process, and benefit real people in this state. You or I may not see the benefits, but I believe we should support the process by which such decisions are made. I-695 changes the rules, and I can't agree such untargeted cuts would be good for the state. Not at 2% and certainly not at 30% of the current government spending.

Jim King:

Senior citizens have several property tax relief programs available to them, and perhaps something similar should be done regarding MVET taxes if the initiative is defeated. The fact that those on fixed incomes have problems paying taxes, is a reason for targeted tax relief for that group. It does not justify tax releif for everyone. A fixed tax amount, if that is what you want, is actually a loss of buying power as inflation reduces the value of the money. Reduced buying power of the tax revenue, means reduced service levels for everyone. For most people, their income goes up with inflation. If their tax obligation also goes up with inflation, the taxes remain constant in value, and constant if expressed as a percentage of income.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 10, 1999.

Jim,

There is another side to this too. Run our current revenue numbers through any economic model and you will find that decreasing tax % will increase tax revenue.

The government is innefficient, while the free market is efficient.

Look at all of the groups supporting this: road pavement societies and builders. They're not stupid. They know that if they would have to be more competitive with their prices.

-- Patrick Dengler (patrickdengler@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.