On the face of it, I-695 seems to be another new populist attempt at repeating the Boston Tea-Party's "No Taxation w/o Representation" refrain. The problem is that we have representation, in the form of an elected house, senate and governer. We pay these people to preform the full-time job of balancing the wants and needs of the people of this state, with the amount of money that is collected via taxes.

Cutting taxes is fine and dandy if you let people know what will end up getting cut as a result. Plain and simple, this is an un-targeted tax cut, who's impact has only been documented by those against the measure. Mr Eyman's whitewash and amaturish double-talk sounds like so much "don't worry - be happy" nonsense.

Don't be fooled. As tempting as saving a couple hundred dollars a year would be, I-695 will cause *significant and painful* cuts in vital services indiscriminantly, by simply yanking the funding carpet out from under them. This will *not* sensibly reduce spending by the $800 million (or whatever). It will just defund those services that currently get their funding from car tabs. And no, funding cannot simply be shifted around like pieces on a chess table.

Don't be a fool. Vote NO on I-695

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 10, 1999

Answers

Actually, I could ask the same question of you. Are you stupid, or just misguided?

It's a toughie... but I;ll settle for misguided.

AAAHHHHH!

Thanks for playing!

Westin

Many are cold, but few are frozen!

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 10, 1999.

Boy Westin,

I guess you really showed me, with that well thought out and reasoned rebuttle. You're a Mental Giant.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 10, 1999.

Yeah

You're brilliant when it comes to thinking up fake e-mail addresses yourself, Bozo

-- Unconcerned WA Parent (craigcar@crosswind.net), October 10, 1999.

Cutting taxes now is good. Take a look a the macro economic equation and multipliers. It will create more tax revenues to cut taxes right now. I don't care where things are cut. Every service has been threatened which is a total scare tactic.

The only people who would be against this is anyone taking my money through taxes, and it is clear from the list of supporters.

STOP TAKING MY MONEY.

I lose well over half of it to taxes now. Makes me sick.

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

I am sure this will not be news to anyone who reads these posts, but I agree with every word of the original post by Concerned WA Parent. The initiative is stupid. Those who support it are misguided. If it passes, we will regret it.

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

"If it passes, we will regret it. " No d, if it passes, YOU will regret it. Many of us will be ecstatic.

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

Gee John-

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Have you given up already?

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

If it turns out nothing will be cut significantly for the first year because of the huge surplus, will you then support I-695? Also, businesses still have to pay property taxes on vehicles they own. Why do you think they're opposed to I-695?

After the first year, it will be up to the voters to decide how much revenue they want to restore through increased taxes or fees. In other words, I won't have to know my representatives' names, they'll have to know mine!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 10, 1999.

John Q Pubic.....Why do you need no know the names of the people who are robbing you blind? If you knew their names would they stop??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 11, 1999.

John Q. Smith

You sign off with  75 @brains.com"my I.Q. > 75 @brains.com), That should say 75@brains.commy I.Q. > 75 @brains.com BUT < 76. From the wording of your post I would say your real name is Chez the Unadumber.

If your co-workers dont know who represents them so what, a lot of people dont know that Al Gore is vice president. And a lot of people thought that DI was our princess.

Ed or is it Sandy or Brad or Westin  I.Q of 165 but not bragging

-- Ed? (your I.Q is lower than mine@chez.com), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

Yes, I will regret it very much if 695 is approved. But I believe over time there will be enough regret to share with much of the state population. You should have a reunion in about two years, for Yes voters; and see how many still agree it is (was) a good idea. My regret will be rather limited. Supporters will have some responsibility to go along with their regret. Choose wisely.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

db--"Yes, I will regret it very much if 695 is approved. But I believe over time there will be enough regret to share with much of the state population. You should have a reunion in about two years, for Yes voters; and see how many still agree it is (was) a good idea. My regret will be rather limited. Supporters will have some responsibility to go along with their regret. Choose wisely."

This is a serious question. . .what's the worst that can happen?

So far I've seen the following:

1) 70000 more cars on the streets in puget sound during rush hour. . .FWIW, this statistic doesn't make sense if you think about it critically.

2) 2000 cops laid off. again, even if this occurs, other than it sucks to be one of those cops, will washington be significantly more unsafe? given the current trends in crime throughout the US, i find that unlikely.

3) 1200 fire fighters laid off. again, other than for the firemen, who really gets hosed (pun intended) by this? even more interesting, what percentage of people actually use their fire department's services in a 2,5 or 10 year period?

4) several new road projects delayed or cancelled. how many people does this hurt?

Again, it seems to me that part I of I-695 is meaningless over the medium and long term. The real question a potential voter should ask his or herself is whether or not they think they should vote on tax increases.

To connect this to whay DB said, if I-695 passes, I *might* someday regret the fact that we made the state treasury take a 2% diet. On the other hand, I guarantee I won't regret the provision about voter approval for nex tax increases.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

Brad writes:

"3) 1200 fire fighters laid off. again, other than for the firemen, who really gets hosed (pun intended) by this? even more interesting, what percentage of people actually use their fire department's services in a 2,5 or 10 year period?"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Everybody gets hosed in your scenario. Less firefighters = higher insurance rates. The taxes that you pay for this service are more than made up in your lower insurance rates.

The same thing applies for the cops as well. Lay off 13% of the cops in this state and the crime rate will go up. One police department has already had to disband because its city is afraid that the funding will no longer be there if 695 passes.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 12, 1999.

BB--"You have no idea what you are talking about. Everybody gets hosed in your scenario. Less firefighters = higher insurance rates. The taxes that you pay for this service are more than made up in your lower insurance rates."

This is only a *hurt* if my insurance rates go up *more* than the reduction in car tabs. Given the average rates for homeowner's insurance in "The Seattle Times" a coupla weeks ago, I find this scenario *extremely* unlikely. You can feel free to believe it if you'd like.

"The same thing applies for the cops as well. Lay off 13% of the cops in this state and the crime rate will go up. One police department has already had to disband because its city is afraid that the funding will no longer be there if 695 passes."

I say you're being extremely naive about crime in the US. Crime rates are trending downwards everywhere in the US. While it's reasonable to presume increased police presence has something to do with this trend, it seems more likely that longer sentences for habitual criminals and a relatively smaller pool of males between the ages of 18-34 (who commit the vast majority of criminal activity) account for most of the trend. I have seen any criminologists weigh in on I-695, but I wouldn't expect the downward trend in crime to stop. That being said, it would be reasonable to say it *might* trend downward at a slower rate.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

Brad writes:

"This is only a *hurt* if my insurance rates go up *more* than the reduction in car tabs. Given the average rates for homeowner's insurance in "The Seattle Times" a coupla weeks ago, I find this scenario *extremely* unlikely. You can feel free to believe it if you'd like."

You care to provide a URL? When it comes to fire insurance, the ISO grades each particular fire department district-wide. But in Washington, most properties are also individually graded. The difference in insurance rates depends on the size and type of house, but for one worth say $300,000 you can spend anywhere from $200-$2000 per year more on your insurance depending on how much your property is degraded. Lay off firefighters and insurance will be degraded, because staffing is a big part of ISO grading.

Commercial insurance rates would vary even more. For small commercial properties the difference could be $2000-$5000 per year. For large structures, like high-rises, rates could rise by tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Guess what? Businesses will relocate to places where they don't have to pay as much in insurance. Why do you think Los Angeles became such a mecca for new development after World War II? For decades they were the only major city with an ISO Class 1 FD in the US, meaning everybody paid VERY low insurance rates. Las Vegas and Clark County now have this insurance rate also; have you noticed the building explosion in that region recently?

"I say you're being extremely naive about crime in the US. Crime rates are trending downwards everywhere in the US. While it's reasonable to presume increased police presence has something to do with this trend, it seems more likely that longer sentences for habitual criminals and a relatively smaller pool of males between the ages of 18-34 (who commit the vast majority of criminal activity) account for most of the trend. I have seen any criminologists weigh in on I-695, but I wouldn't expect the downward trend in crime to stop. That being said, it would be reasonable to say it *might* trend downward at a slower rate."

The problem is that many, many people who were among the first to be sentenced on federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses in the 80's will be getting out of jail soon. Reduce the funding for cops, and when these bad guys get out of jail the crime rate will probably start slowly sliding back up again.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.