Driving home last night I saw a pro-695 campaign sign. All I could read from the road was "Vote Yes on the $30 tab initiative" or some such.

The Machiavellian tactics of the 695 campaign are a big turn off.

The SIGNIFICANT change that 695 makes is to change tax and fee levying to a populist / direct democratic model from a representative one.

Yes on 695 sponsers continue to advertise "$30 tabs!", ... all the while putting in question whether direct democracy is fatally prone to hiding one issue in the attractive clothes of another.

Do you folks who support 695 think the pro campaign should address the real issue we are facing, or are you happy to wave your $30 tab sign, thinking that the end justifies the means?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

Gee, Bill...

I'd really like to respond to your question, but I note that you've left the anti side of this initiative completely off the hook. You aren't asking why they lie, mislead and belittle. Why the pro-side does what it does, or how they do it, pales in comparison to the Goebbels-like campaign that those who're striving to protect THEIR tax breaks are engaged in.

Westin

"I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist temple."

Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took place in a Buddhist temple.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Billy--I find this an interesting question as well, but probably for a different reason than you do ;-).

According to the polling data, part II of the initiative gets a higher level of support than the $30 tabs portion of the initiative. An astonishingly large percentage of people (IIRC 80-85%) support the voting aspect of the initiative. Assuming these stats are representative (I've no reason to believe they aren't), I think it would be in the yes-695's best interest to focus on this message. I suppose it's neither as dramatic nor simple as the $30 tabs side of the initiative.

BTW, you've only addressed half the issue. Paraphrasing your posting:

When will the no on 695 campaign address the real issue--allowing voters a direct say on tax and fee increases?

All they grumble about is the lost revenue.

"Do you folks who support 695 think the pro campaign should address the real issue we are facing, or are you happy to wave your $30 tab sign, thinking that the end justifies the means?"

Based on what I just wrote, you'll probably understand when I say you've worded this question too narrowly.

Put simply, both sides are Machivellian. Both sides are working to frame the debate advantageously. Both sides have made statements that are a bit naive or misleading (depending on your perspective).

The main difference (IMO) between the two campaings:

One campaign is heavily financed (donor-wise and $$$-wise) by special interest groups and organized by professional public relations firms--The Rockey Co (www.rockey-seattle.com) and Pacific Public Affairs. The other is "heavily" financed (donor-wise *not* $$$-wise) by individual donors and organized by a small number of individuals.

If you pretend to be an impartial observer, which campaign deserves more "slack" regarding its statements and tactics?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

< Goebles? Where the heck did that come from, the shortwave?>

There has been plenty of posts on this board about how evil and misleading the N 695 campaign is... about how its all big business and big government 'nannys' hosing the people.... Yawn!

I, a plain, ordinary citizen believe 695 is a horrible initiative because it subverts a radical change in taxing under a regressive auto licensing tax change flying $30 tabs banner.

This hasn't bothered you guys.. perhaps reasoning govt is evil, we have to play dirty to beat it but I for one expect an initiative writer and proponent to present their work clearly and honestly to the people. I wasn't asked to sign the petition but after seeing how the initiative is marketed now I wonder if most of those who did just thought they were signing up for $30 tabs?

Nice that you say most people support the significant effect of the petition that would of turned Thomas Jefferson's stomach... Tim in his letter to the times cited a tiny KOMO poll that was something like 60%, where did the new data come from? How was the issue presented?

I agree that it remains a very good question why the No campaign people don't argue the real issue too, but that doesn't excuse the proponents' immorality.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

>>If you pretend to be an impartial observer, which campaign deserves more "slack" regarding its statements and tactics?

Isn't the other proponent of 695 besides Tim a Mr. Rood as in Rood Buick?

I don't share a lot of the sentiment I've seen on this board that our fellow citizens who make up our government are willfully corrupt and deceiptful.. but it is true both car dealers and beaurocrats have a short term vested interest in 695. Long term we all have an major interest, too bad its being ignored because of the focus on $30 tab fees verses cutting the budget.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

I can only assume that your comment about Thomas Jefferson, was in reference to the public vote of all future tax increases. Since taxation should only be a fraction of our elected officals duties, and could possibly cause more people to take more of a role in their own goverment, by giving them a further insentive to go to the polls. Which part makes you nervous, what services will be cut, or a goverment that more accurately reflects the voter

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Billy--"Nice that you say most people support the significant effect of the petition that would of turned Thomas Jefferson's stomach... Tim in his letter to the times cited a tiny KOMO poll that was something like 60%, where did the new data come from? How was the issue presented?"

Look here for the answer to your question about the poll numbers.

It's interesting you bring up the fact that the direct vote part of I-695 would make Thomas Jefferson nauseous. Personally, I think it's likely he'd be nauseous if he saw 39% income tax rates, programs delivering methadone to heroin addicts or political campaigns.

"I agree that it remains a very good question why the No campaign people don't argue the real issue too, but that doesn't excuse the proponents' immorality."

What do you find immoral? The only thing I've seen you complain about in this thread is their lack of emphasis on part II of the initiative. If I've correctly stated what you find immoral, I'd like you to explain to me *how* it's immoral.

"I, a plain, ordinary citizen believe 695 is a horrible initiative because it subverts a radical change in taxing under a regressive auto licensing tax change flying $30 tabs banner."

If you say I-695 is regressive, this implies you believe the current MVET structure is progressive. Personally, I'm not convinced the MVET is progressive. I'm unconvinced because the amount of money one spends on a car doesn't *necessarily* dependent on income (at the low end). Put another way, rich and poor consumers alike can and *do* buy identically equipped 4-door Accords. Since they pay the same amount of TTL, in this circumstance, the MVET is obviously regressive.

There's another way the MVET might be regressive in nature. If you presume that poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on a vehicle purchase than richer people, it's simple to show that the TTL paid by the poor family is *relatively* higher as a percentage of income. This line of reasoning should be quite familiar as it's often used as an argument against the sales tax.

Personally, since I've no evidence either way, I wouldn't confidently state the MVET is progressive or regressive. Since you've confidently stated your belief it's progressive, I'd be curious to see some evidence that supports your belief.

As far as the "radical change in taxation goes," I say tomayto, you say tomahto.

"I wasn't asked to sign the petition but after seeing how the initiative is marketed now I wonder if most of those who did just thou ght they were signing up for $30 tabs?"

Given the results of the above KOMO poll, your question is moot.

"Isn't the other proponent of 695 besides Tim a Mr. Rood as in Rood Buick?"

I don't know. It's my understanding that the primary "facemen" for the I-695 camp are Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Monte Benham.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Jefferson said

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." and he just as well could have been referring to the $30 tabs signs which ignore the initiative's more important effect.

In changing the tax system from representative to populist, I am concerned that we are risking a system where voters can be manipulated by hiding a more complex idea in a quick payoff, such as 695 does, or drastically increased 'informing' of people's opinions by big money.

Are you ready for timber interests to come out with a $10 Million campaign against school funding because it would cost them $12 Million if they were taxed for schools? Currently they can't get away with paying our legislators $10 Million now for the same effect but under 695 could they? Why wouldn't they as it would clearly make sense to their bottom line?

There has been precious little debate on the real issue lurking in 695, and no precedent, Colorado being very different. Certainly there has not been enough discussion to inform whosoever said they were for the tax system change in the polls mentioned above.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Billy--"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." and he just as well could have been referring to the $30 tabs signs which ignore the initiative's more important effect."

That's funny. I thought he was referring to the misleading and over-dramatic statistics released by the no695 campaign. Personally, I think one could argue he'd find the no695 camp's behavior more disturbing as they represent the "official" position.

"In changing the tax system from representative to populist, I am concerned that we are risking a system where voters can be manipulated by hiding a more complex idea in a quick payoff, such as 695 does, or drastically increased 'informing' of people's opinions by big money."

I agree with your reasoning on both counts. Unfortunately, here's where we'll probably differ, I think this is a "good thing."

I think this is good thing because it's my belief the process *already* works this way (just smaller in scale). If I-695 passes, the process will necessarily become more public (WRT tax increases).

"Are you ready for timber interests to come out with a $10 Million campaign against school funding because it would cost them $12 Million if they were taxed for schools? Currently they can't get away with paying our legislators $10 Million now for the same effect but under 6 95 could they? Why wouldn't they as it would clearly make sense to their bottom line?"

How does this matter? If they've a good case to make, why should it matter if they spend $10M or $1? If the I-695 campaign has shown us anything *so far*, it's that $$$$ alone doesn't guarantee success in an election.

"There has been precious little debate on the real issue lurking in 695, and no precedent, Colorado being very different. Certainly there has not been enough discussion to inform whosoever said they were for the tax system change in the polls mentioned above."

I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, neither side has wanted to focus publically on this issue.

Conceptually, I-695 and TABOR are very similar. While I-695 is certainly more strict than TABOR, but it's reasonable to presume (if I-695 passes) that Washington's experience would be reasonably similar to Colorado's. Personally, I would've written I-695 somewhat differently, but sometimes you gotta take what you can get.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Brad:

"Conceptually similar" does not provide much help in a review of what it will do and how well (or not) it will work. From what I have seen, they are as different as they are alike, and the differences are significant.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 16, 1999.

I fear taxes will become even more regressive and special interest loopholed than they already are if put to a vote of the people, affected by special interest money, instead of by representatives, affected by special interest money.

The effects of levying taxes by popular vote is a large unknown for this state,and it dwarfs the $30 tab aspect in importance.

I read the voter's pamphlet this weekend and was dismayed to find The No on 695 voters pamphlet entry doesn't address how 695 affects how taxes and fees are levied.

Both of the campaigns apparently think the voting populace is dumb or uncaring about how process as opposed to the ends. It will be interesting to see if their tactics work and how.. I'm not going to vote yes unless the point is satisfied for me because should 695 pass we will really be in the dumper.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Billy--"I fear taxes will become even more regressive and special interest loopholed than they already are if put to a vote of the people, affected by special interest money, instead of by representatives, affected by special interest money."

I'm curious as to why you think taxes might become more regressive if the voter's had a say on tax increases.

I'd understand if you said taxes might become more focused if popular approval is required, but I don't see any connection between regressive taxes and popular approval for tax increases (to be fair, I do see *one* implausible way they might be connected). Similarly, I'd understand if you said popular approval for tax increases will (over time) shrink the size of government and, as a result, there will be fewer social programs aiding the poor. Unfortunately, these issues don't really appear to have anything to do with regressive *or* progressive taxation.

"The effects of levying taxes by popular vote is a large unknown for this state,and it dwarfs the $30 tab aspect in importance."

I partially agree.

"I read the voter's pamphlet this weekend and was dismayed to find The No on 695 voters pamphlet entry doesn't address how 695 affects how taxes and fees are levied."

Given its popularity in the KOMO poll, I imagine it's not an issue they'll ever highlight. Furthemrore, I doubt many politicians want to be too vocal about it either. They would need to explain *why* they're opposed to the voting requirement (IMO, it would take a quite polished individual to come up with an explanation that didn't appear artificial or self-serving).

FWIW, I understand the ballot statement was written before the KOMO poll. It's probable the authors of the ballot statement (PR firms???) probably understood that part II was popular long before the poll was taken.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

"I'm curious as to why you think taxes might become more regressive if the voter's had a say on tax increases. "

Because 695 would make the MVET regressive.

I'm not sure whether a populist levying system in general would tend towards regressive or progressive taxes.. it would depend on who was voting... and who was advertising what.

The populist levying issue would have been a good one on its own merits. If and when 695 is defeated maybe the backers will have the integrity to present the issues the right way around next time.

Likewise I'd expect then the folks against populist tax levying to have to face the issue. A pointer to the KOMO poll would be interesting. Questions asked and sample size would be good info, but I can't find it on their web site.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

KOMO's website bites. . .what kinda news site doesn't have full-text search capability?

Anyhow, a copy of the Komo poll is found knotwell@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Ack, I meant look here

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.