Amidst all of the lies and distortions from the usual suspects (socialist union thugs, left-wing extremist politicians, Patrick, DBVZ, etc), I've yet to hear about the money that the state successfully extorted from the tobacco industry.

If I'm not mistaken, we're supposed to be getting several billion over the next few years. This should more than cover the non-losses from 695.

Something to think about.

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

Answers

Yeah Joe, you would have a pretty good eye for "lies and distortion" seeing as the last time you identified me as a liar it was YOU that made the really cocky and completely incorrect claim. One would hope that after having your foot stuck in your mouth so securely that you'd be a little more cautious about calling me a liar based on something you're thinking about.

But maybe you'll learn this time around...

The state is scheduled to receive about $4 billion from the settlement. Big number, except that the payment schedule exends over a 25 year time period. Starting next year, the state will receive yearly payments of about $150 million until 2025. Now even if we took Joe's numbers of $330 million that were supposed to be the "final nails in the antis' coffin" (a number poor Joe picked up out of a state handbook which only covered PART of the revenue), that would cover only half of the funding loss. But of course the real numbers are closer to $700 million a year, so the settlement would cover less than a quarter of the expected loss.

Then again, you have to take into account that most of the settlement money is pretty much spoken for in covering health care costs and anti-tobacco education programs. So almost none of that settlement could be used in the place of 695 losses.

Joe, little bit of advice. Why don't you think about something BEFORE you post a comment? The AG's office has quite a number of pages dedicated to the tobacco settlement and how much the state will get. Had you bothered to check it out, you would have discovered that your theory about it covering the losses from 695 just went up in smoke.

Something to think about....

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

Easy, Patrick. I was just posing a question. I did so because, frankly, I'm not sure myself.

The reason I referred to your ilk as "liars" and "hypocrites" in my previous post is because your side continues to preach this dreck about how I-695 will require an election to raise library fines . . . but at the same time, it will allow a personal property tax to be imposed on motor vehicles. Get your talking points from Locke's office straight - which is it? You can't have it both ways. Yet after 695 passes, you'll merrily trot down to your local licensing agency and be glad to fork over only $30 for your license tabs.

Since your side has not gotten their story straight, I am left to conclude that neither scenario is true and that you are knowingly using those lines to confuse the issue. I also see the Clintonian rhetoric about surpluses that aren't surpluses, etc.

And I'm the first to admit that my reading of the numbers out of the DOR manual you referenced in your previous post was very likely incorrect. That doesn't change the fact that both the state and local governments are flush with cash. And they have more than enough fat they can trim to cover the costs of this initiative.

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

Joe you swim the "backstroke" rather well...

Honestly though, Im voting no because nobody has or can for that matter, given me a straight answer on where this money is to come from, fact is nobody can say with any degree of accuracy what service, program, or people this will effect. I cannot vote for something with that many unknowns in it. Ironic that the yes camp has time after time made reference to the fact that voting on issues after 695 passes will have to include a very thought out and direct campaign that have to answer every and all questions regarding it, while this very initiative cannot.

-- Ken (klemay@amouse.net), October 12, 1999.

Joe:

The No side can't get their story straight? The problem is that the initiative has so many unknowns. The state Department of Revenue has interpreted the initiative, in a memo issued to all county assessors about 2 weeks ago. Their interpretation, with advice from the Attorney General's Office, is that the initiative will repeal the exemption from property taxes on vehicles. No additional vote is necessary to cause that to occur. It is true that the county assessors have voiced strong objection to getting that responsibility, but that seems to be what the initiative does. And the initiative would require a public vote on any tax or FEE increase. Those are not inconsistent positions, and I can have it "both ways". What you fail to recognize is that the vote on the initiative, would be "voter approval" of the repeal of the exemption and the imposition of the tax, if the initiative is passed. I agree with you that the initiative is not clear on this point, or others, in its text; but that is what it does, at least according to the current interpretations I have seen. One of those little unintended consequences, when people try to write a law and don't know what they are doing. The initiative is poorly drafted, does not do what it is trying to do very well, and what it is trying to do is wrong-headed. It does not deserve approval. Perhaps if you research this further you will come to the same conclusion.

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

I think you guys are making this harder than it is. If you believe this state collects more of your money than it needs, and can afford to tighten its belt a little, and you don't mind a few extra items on the ballot, vote for it. If your waiting to hear how the cuts will be made and what services will be cut, you will be disappointed, because like anything else, you won't know till they (olympia) HAVE TO choose whats important and whats not. To me Safeco Field is the biggest Pro- I695 billboard, I tribute to a state "emergency" that required taxes, next time you see the teachers go on strike, or ferry service cut back,just pretend your in the stadium.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

I think you guys are making this harder than it is. If you believe this state collects more of your money than it needs, and can afford to tighten its belt a little, and you don't mind a few extra items on the ballot, vote for it. If your waiting to hear how the cuts will be made and what services will be cut, you will be disappointed, because like anything else, you won't know till they (olympia) HAVE TO choose whats important and whats not. To me Safeco Field is the biggest Pro- I695 billboard, A tribute to a state "emergency" that required taxes, next time you see the teachers go on strike, or ferry service cut back,just pretend your in the stadium.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Ken

You write Im voting no because nobody has or can for that matter, given me a straight answer on where this money is to come from

Did you happen to ask the state where the money came from when they raised the budget by 11%?

Ironic that the yes camp has time after time made reference to the fact that voting on issues after 695 passes will have to include a very thought out and direct campaign that have to answer every and all questions regarding it, while this very initiative cannot.

Ironic that the people who thought out the initiative put enough thought into to include that all tax and fee increase have to be voted on, so that our illustrious officials couldnt turn around and screw us some more.

I cannot vote for something with that many unknowns in it.

A majority of a minority voted for Clinton. Do think they knew all the unknowns?

Ed  a routine traffic stop is a phrase used by people who have never made one.

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

The 11% budget increase is another distortion. Remember that the state budget is for a 2 year period to start with, so that includes the increase in the cost of state activity over two years. In addition, some of that is money "reauthorized" from the prior budget. Projects not yet done, so the money is carried forward.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 13, 1999.