As I understand it, Boeing is threatening the entire state over I-695.

Debby Hopkins, CFO for Boeing, sniveled in front of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce the other day, in effect whining about the poor business climate of this state.

Well, perhaps Boeing should begin paying the B&O tax? Perhaps we should require them to collect the sales tax?

Perhaps, we should just QUIT kissing their ass, and tell them to take it down the road?

Boeing has 81,000 employees in this state. Losing those jobs would be tough, but think of all the wonderful side effects to counter the "end of the world" scenario that anti's like to scream at us.

Think of it.... all those cars off of our freeways in the KingCo area... the anti's would rejoice!

I'm sick of them. I'm sick of their threats. I'm sick of their whining.

So, to Boeing, I say this: enough, already. You don't like this state? Then get your ass down the road.

Westin

"I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense to the White House." ...

"Americans in every region and in both political parties have been shaken by the betrayal of public trust ... and the dishonesty of the public officials."...

"Any government official who ... lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately." Senator Al Gore

Source: Seattle Times, June 29, 1987

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999

Answers

And it would be nice for me because housing prices in King County would plummet overnight. Since the odds are very high that I'll be working on the West side after I graduate, that would help me out tremendously.

It would also be a boon to the "growth management" (read: anti- suburbanite) folks who share most of the blame for the skyrocketing housing prices in King County.

And, let's face it, Boeing is nowhere near the lean, mean, corporate machine it palms itself off as. Boeing, in fact, has come to replicate the government agencies it serves in its management style - bloated, entrenched bureaucracies and overpaid union employees. And that's reflected in its stock price which is half of what it was two years ago. Boeing also has had a great deal of trouble staying on time/on budget with several of their projects. In fact, they were so far out of line with the A-12 and the V-22 that the normally free- spending DoD cancelled both programs. And they're in danger of losing the F-22 for the same reason. The "Freedom" space station program is also theirs and it's "only" about a decade late.

Plus, I don't believe they are required to pay B&O taxes, and I think they get several other tax breaks.

All in all, I don't think Boeing is really in a position to complain right now. They need to get their heads out of their asses and build airplanes like they're supposed to.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999.

Are all of you pro-695 people completely insane? Yeah, lets cut government services to the bone, make them ask us every time they want to do something as puny as library fee increase, and, on top of that, let's kick the states biggest employer, and their 81,000 jobs, out of the state. There's a good idea! God, how can someone even answer a statement like that intelligently. Does anyone remember how bad things got back in the late 60's and early 70's when Boeing was in a real slump? I remember a bill board that said, "The last one out of Seattle, turn out the lights." Is that what you all want to go back to?

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 12, 1999.

Well, Dave, let me give you a few pointers.

The first thing you need to do to be able to answer this statement intelligently is to realize that Boeing is not the be-all to end-all that they were in the 70's. Once you come to grips with that fact, then true awareness may begin.

Heh.

Second, you can understand that the vast majority of states and countries have no Boeing presence at all... but somehow, manage to struggle along quite nicely.

Yeah... I remember the billboards... but I came to realize that 1999 isn't 1975.

Do I want to see the jobs leave? Of course not. But Boeing needs to begin to understand that they are not Shogun; that they have to coexist with over 5 million people who have nothing to do with them.

I repeat: If they don't like the business climate here, they can take it on down the road... and we'll take steps to get the European aircraft cartel in here to take over the plants. Meanwhile, we'll enjoy the wonderful benefits of population exodus, reduced traffic and pollution (BOTH major lynch-pins of the liberals and tree huggers that oppose 695) and make sure that whoever replaces Boeing pays the taxes that a slavish legislature has exempted Boeing from paying.

In fact, for Boeing or any other tax-exempted or tax-reduced business to oppose 695 is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

Yes, once you understand that Boeing could disappear off the face of the Earth and we'd survive it, it would be easy to "intelligently" answer this statement.

Westin

"My first pledge will be to restore integrity to the White House. And I'll fire anyone who has lied to the American people or the United States Congress." - Al Gore, in a February 2, 1988 presidential debate

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

Dave K.

Don't bother. It's not worth it. This kind of comment from Westin just shows the absence of rational thought on the Yes side of the initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 12, 1999.

"the absence of rational thought on the Yes side of the initiative.

" Kind of painting with a broad brush, aren't we d?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.

Is there anybody that the pro 695 people AREN'T mad at? First government, then business, now Boeing specifically.

The state's unemployment rate is about 4.5% right now. Add those 81,000 Boeing workers and it goes up over 7%. But you can bet there would be even more layoffs in other industries if all those Boeing people lost their jobs.

Boeing workers have roughly a billion dollars in after tax money (give or take a half billion or so) to spend in this state each year. Somehow you are saying this will be a good thing for this money to go away? Wow.

BB

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

I looks like a common thread among those who oppose 695. Fear of the will of the people... worship of government programs... personal attacks. I think its an organic part of the opposition: you know... to call those who disagree with them "irresponsible," to call the initiative "irresponsible," to call those who provided 514,000 signatures "irresponsible."

It is, of course, far easier to avoid the issue then to take it on... thus the intellectually courageous position by db (above).

I notice no one in the opposition holding Boeing accountable for their actions in this matter... their insistance on acting like a spoiled adolesent always used to getting their own way.

When has anyone in this state said "no" to Boeing? Why don't they pay the taxes that every other business pays in this state?

You people in the opposition think they're wonderful because they're using you in an effort to help them protect their tax exemptions that would arguably be put at risk if this passes. In fact, you know that most of the tax exemptions our legislature and local governments have provided for many of these businesses would dry up if this passes.

How many tens of millions of dollars has Boeing avoided paying to this state? How much of the revenue would make up for the temporary shortfalls resulting from the adoption of 695?

But no... none of you in the anti's are calling for them to pay. It's time for Boeing, one of the largest users of the infrastructure that they do so little to pay for, to be taken off their pedestal.

In short, anti's want us to pay... but have no problem with Boeing avoiding paying their share.

Yeah... there's irrationaility around here, all right. But I don't believe that it's on the side of the proponents.

Westin

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." Al Gore, July 3, 1988, quoted in the New York Times

The same Al Gore that flails Republicans for tabacco money support.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

Westin writes:

"In short, anti's want us to pay... but have no problem with Boeing avoiding paying their share"

Find a post where anybody has said that we have no problem with Boeing avoiding paying their share.

BB

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

BB,

You don't get it. What I'm looking for is the post that says you DO have a problem with Boeing and their tax avoidence. There doesn't seem to be any.

There is, IMHO, a basic hypocrisy on the part of Boeing when THEY oppose a tax cut that effects US, while at the same time, THEY are the beneficiaries of tax cuts/exemptions that give them millions.

The fact that none of you have posted that you have no problem with Boeing skipping the taxes that every OTHER business in this state pays doesn't mean a thing. Your silence on the privlege and advantages that Boeing enjoys over the rest of the state is eloquent enough.

Westin

At the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gaving a moving speech about his only sister's painful death from lung cancer. And since then he has pushed the administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

What Gore didn't mention is that he grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and continued to accept checks from that farm for years after his sister died. In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote up above: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.') He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

Gore claimed that "emotional numbness" led him to defend and profit from the tobacco industry. "Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to."

Gore himself smoked during college. "Peer pressure played a factor," he said, "stress in college." We should have guessed that the guy who said "Tobacco addiction ... is just as powerful of an addiction as heroin or crack addiction" was an ex-smoker.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

O.K. Mr. Westin, I'll say it. I don't have any problem with Boeing getting tax cuts to stay in this state. I don't have any problem with any large socially responsible company getting a tax cut to stay here when they pump Billions of dollars into the local economy. I think you are under the assumption that life would be better here if there were no government services of businesses around to clutter up your life, but government services are needed, and we have to pay for them somehow. We are one of the few states lucky enough to not have a state income tax, so it has to come from somewhere. If that is the kind of life you want, great, head out to the rocky mountains and live in a cabin next door to the uni-bomber. Some of us though are socially responsible citizens who understand that services need to be paid for. Believe it or not, there is not much waste in government at the local level, and that is where this is going to hit the hardest. Have a nice day.

-- Dave K. (dpk9030@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

First of all, Dave... they get much more then "tax cuts" The phrase "tax cut" infers that they pay SOME tax of SOME kind... which they do not. They are tax EXEMPTED.

Boeing is no more "socially responsible" then any other company in this state, unless you arrive at your "social responsibility" rating based on the initiatives they oppose.

Boeing whines about infrastructure, yet pays little to nothing to support it themselves, expecting all of us to do it for them! This is base hypocrisy.

I recognize that many of the anti's are in self-denial, and for many others, delusion rules the day. But if you support Boeing in their "Mariner-esque" approach to this initiative, you deserve to be disillusioned.

You refer to Boeing as "socially responsible." You actually find it socially responsible that Boeing, who uses huge amounts of infrastructure for their various facilities should have to pay little or nothing for the privlege?

If you believe that, you will, of course (as your opposition suggests) believe anything.

The assumptions that you make about me are no more accurate then your support of Boeing hypocrisy. We are not "lucky" to not have an income tax... we don't have one because the people of this state wouldn't stand for it... like they won't stand for the continuation of the absurdity represented by the current MVET.

Once this passes, I urge you and every other "socially responsible" citizen to do what Boeing refuses to do: continue to pay the tax as if 695 never existed. The state WILL accept your donation, after all. That way, instead of your conscience being clogged up because you actually could spend the money you save on yourself or your family, the state government could relieve you of that burden.

Your delusion is complete if you actually believe your comment about government waste. Of course, once 695 passes, then we'll know, won't we?

Westin "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

VP Al Gore March 9, 1999

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.

Westin writes:

"There is, IMHO, a basic hypocrisy on the part of Boeing when THEY oppose a tax cut that effects US, while at the same time, THEY are the beneficiaries of tax cuts/exemptions that give them millions."

You don't know that Boeing would oppose sensible tax breaks for everybody. If you have any facts to back that up, feel free to present them. Opposing 695 does not equate to opposition of sensible tax breaks. Opposing 695 equates to opposing the idiocy of replacing respresentative democracy, a system that has worked for two centuries, with direct democracy, a system that the founding fathers of this country recognized was a bad idea.

So the tax cuts to them are in the millions? And giving them tax cuts worth millions keeps billions of dollars flowing through the Washington economy? Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me.

Until you present some specific numbers in terms of how much tax money is lost by the state to Boeing, your argument is meaningless.

BB

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

"So the tax cuts to them are in the millions? And giving them tax cuts worth millions keeps billions of dollars flowing through the Washington economy? Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me. " Fine. So give me MY tax cut via I-695 and I'll keep my money flowing through the Washington economy too, plus an additional $240 or so. Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to ME.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Who cares if Boeing is against I-695? Last I checked Boeing can't vote. But they can use their checkbook. Which they have indicated they will do.

I do not vote one way or the other on what a group recommends. I study the facts and decide on my own. I am pro-business and pro-capitalism, but I can't stand someone telling what I can and can't do or how I should vote on something.

The local rag (Tri-City Herald) is a fine example of this

Ed - now back to hate talk radio

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

BB wrote: "You don't know that Boeing would oppose sensible tax breaks for everybody."

Of course I do. They oppose THIS "sensible" tax break for everybody. And the FACT is THEY are tax-exempt. Yet you honestly believe that they would support ANY tax break to you or me that would possibly threaten THEIR tax exemptions? Please.

"If you have any facts to back that up, feel free to present them."

Done and done.

"Opposing 695 does not equate to opposition of sensible tax breaks."

My good fellow, it certainly does when the company in question enjoys greater tax breaks in this state then any OTHER business.

"Opposing 695 equates to opposing the idiocy of replacing respresentative democracy, a system that has worked for two centuries, with direct democracy, a system that the founding fathers of this country recognized was a bad idea."

Man, BB, get off that "found father" kick. If you think the founding fathers, having been brought back to life, would actually approve of the government this state has now; and what that government has been and is doing to us, then you must be high.

I can see it now: "I'm sorry, Mr. Jefferson, but you're going to have to pay $2500 this year to license your horses and buggy. The government says so." They'd lead the revolution themselves.

There is little to no resemblance to the government of this state and what the founding fathers proposed. You know it, and so do I.

"So the tax cuts to them are in the millions?"

Uh, gee... Boeing pays no sales or B&O taxes. According to their web site, they did $15.132 BILLION dollars in 2Q/99. Now... let's assume a B&O tax of say, 2%, and of course, a sales tax of 8% or so.

Do the math, BB. I think that if you check the numbers, you'd see that Boeing, BY ITSELF, would make up for the ENTIRE revenue shortfall projected for next year!

"And giving them tax cuts worth millions keeps billions of dollars flowing through the Washington economy? Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me."

WONDERFUL! Then let's treat EVERY business the SAME way!

After all, exempting EVERY business (not just Boeing) would have the precise same effect that you suggest should be the exclusive realm of the Boeing Company... right? I mean, you have no trouble with giving a company that supports your position a free ride for taxes... well... let's line them up and give them ALL the same break. Fair's fair, isn't it?

"Until you present some specific numbers in terms of how much tax money is lost by the state to Boeing, your argument is meaningless."

On the contrary, anyone here with the awareness of a mushroom knows that Boeing's business is done in the billions. When one does business in the billions, one knows that when the amount is tax exempt, the number would equate to hundreds of millions, as it does here.

But, like I say, the fact that Boeing skates on the tax issue, and that their PRIMARY motivation is based on protecting THEIR tax exemptions at OUR expense; is meaningless to those who oppose 695.

Otherwise, in the midst of this tax revolt, those in the opposition would begin to demand that Boeing be held accountable, and that THEY contribute as much as any other business that doesn't own politicians.

You say "Opposing 695 does not equate to opposition of sensible tax breaks." So where is the alternative? What "sensible tax break" has been suggested by Boeing, or anyone else on the anti side? Why didn't Boeing, or AWB, or anyone else on the anti side demand a special session to PROVIDE "sensible tax breaks?"

What BETTER way to derail 695, then to take action making it unnecessary?

Gee, BB... that's a toughie... a REAL toughie.

Westin

"Why? Because."

J.-J. Rosseau - "The Social Contract"

BB

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.