I-695: Legislature won't fix the problem

by Dale Foreman Special to The Times

LAST week, Gov. Gary Locke offered the voters a deal. If you reject Initiative 695, he promises to pursue "dramatic" changes in the state's Motor Vehicle Excise Tax with the state Legislature. The governor says that he's been a longtime believer in overhauling this unpopular tax.

Don't believe it. I served in the Legislature as House majority leader in the mid-'90s. The only way taxpayers will get genuine tax relief through lower auto tabs is to vote for Initiative 695, which lowers the tax to just $30 per vehicle.

I'm not a cynic, but I am a realist. The outrageous practice of calculating your 2.2 percent auto-tab tax on the manufacturer's suggested retail price - which is sometimes twice as high as the actual value of your car - didn't start occurring until after 1990. The legislation that made this happen was Senate Bill 6358, one of whose sponsors was state Sen. Rick Bender. Bender now heads the Olympia-based State Labor Council, which has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the anti-695 campaign. When the bill came up for final passage, it was supported in the House by state Rep. Gary Locke, currently residing in the governor's mansion, who now claims that he wants to fix a problem he voted to create.

Voters are getting tired of these games. That may be why they simply don't believe the increasingly frantic "sky is falling" scare tactics being used by the anti-695 campaign.

Last month, the Washington State Republican Party, represented by members in every county in the state, overwhelmingly voted to endorse I-695. There are two reasons this initiative makes sense, regardless of what party you belong to. First, we are overtaxed in Washington, and this initiative cuts a tax that is currently designed to cheat you.

Squabbles have broken out in the media over whether Washington is really the sixth-highest taxed state in the nation, as claimed by initiative supporters. The respected Washington Research Council shows us closer to 10th. But compare that to our next-door neighbors, Oregon and Idaho, which rank 24th and 26th respectively. Why do we rank so much higher here in Washington? Because political reality in Olympia is shaped by the people who spend the government's money, instead of the people who pay the government's bills.

The second reason to vote for I-695 is that it disciplines government by requiring voter approval for tax and fee hikes. I-695's opponents may dislike the tax cut, but they positively hate the idea of getting the permission of taxpayers before taking more money out of their pockets. My belief, which is reinforced in states that require voter approval for tax hikes, is that tax hikes become a last resort rather than a first option when you have to run them by the people.

Many voters may recall that when Mike Lowry was running for governor back in '92, he promised to seek higher taxes only as a "last resort." Within weeks of taking office, he proposed, and the Democrat-dominated Legislature accepted, one of the largest tax increases in state history. That would never have happened if I-695 had been in place then.

The initiative's critics claim that road building will screech to a halt if I-695 is passed, because the Legislature could never make up that much money.

Here are the facts, plain and simple. The total Washington state budget today is $45.2 billion - an 11 percent increase of $4.4 billion from just two years ago. More than 6,000 additional public employees have been hired, and there is a surplus of $1 billion, half of which is in a reserve account. Another $150 million in taxpayer dollars exists from declining welfare caseloads, due in large part to the Republican-crafted welfare-reform plan.

Can the Legislature move all that money around to fill the $1.1 billion cost of I-695? No, some of that revenue is federal funding that is merely passing through the state. Other revenue streams are devoted for other purposes, such as college tuition for universities, or fishing license fees for related purposes. But there is still a significant amount of money available for road building.

For instance, in 1996, I wrote a state budget that was $1.1 billion under the one eventually signed by the governor. That amount easily covers the dollars needed to fully fund road building and ferry service.

Another concern voiced about the initiative is that it would require public votes not only for major tax proposals, but also for every conceivable fee, such as library fines, lab fees at school, and food prices at government and school cafeterias. In reality, the state of Missouri has required voter approval of all taxes and fees since 1980, and this scenario simply hasn't happened. Initiative opponents are simply trying to scare people by pointing out the hypothetical, rather than realistic, impact of the initiative.

In the real world, if I-695 passes, you'll see government agencies attempt to save revenue and operate more efficiently before turning to the taxpayer for more money. In Colorado, which requires voter approval for tax hikes, most of the local tax and fee proposals pass. Most of the state tax hikes are turned down. Lesson to this story: People want their government close to them, where it operates more accountably to the people.

To be sure, the Republican Party's endorsement has not been received well by the coalition of Big Business, Big Unions, Big Government and Big Media that is running this $2 million campaign against the initiative. But lower taxes and more accountability are what the Republican Party stands for. Let's leave it to the people to decide who's right.

Dale Foreman is chairman of the Washington State Republican Party.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

With $2 million, you can buy a LOT of chaff and flares! But, IMHO, not quite enough!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

William

Great letter. Better late than never.

Now,where is that mealy-mouth Ballard and the other tax addicts in the Republican Party?

"No one's life,liberty and property is safe when the legislature is in session."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 25, 1999.

William:

This said it better than anyone ever could! This should be required reading for everyone to these boards!!!! Webmaster, make it happen!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.

I was aghast when I saw this in the paper -- because of the complete lack of substance in it.

I wanted to see what he had to say about the hit to the state's transportation budget. Check out the part where he addresses it:

"The initiative's critics claim that road building will screech to a halt if I-695 is passed, because the Legislature could never make up that much money. Here are the facts, plain and simple. ..."

Then he goes on to quote a bunch of irrelevant figures; then he ADMITS that they are irrelevant! "Can the Legislature move all that money around to fill the $1.1 billion cost of I-695? No, ..."

And then he gives us this resounding FACT, plain and simple:

"But there is still a significant amount of money available for road building."

Oh! That's great!! Still a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY!!! Well I'm reassured to know that it won't be so little that we wouldn't even NOTICE it!!!

Does Dale Foreman think that everyone who reads the newspaper is a fool?? As Tim Eyman put it, "The fact that [this] politician would lie shows how desperate [he is]."

The ENTIRE remainder of his letter is the same sort of, "I'm the good guy, they're the bad guys, so believe me," fluff that can be found on Tim Eyman's site. Except that Dale Foreman does a better job of it. He almost comes across as sincere. Not surprising, since he's been doing it longer.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

Joe-

I assume then, that you won't be inviting Mr. Foreman to the I-695 victory party at your house?

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

Will it cost a significant amount of money?

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

What, it's no host? BYOB??? You need to learn how to lose more graciously.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

Zowie, you should think carefully before you spend your money entertaining politicians and con men. Why does this politician have no facts to back up his words? I'd rather see my money spent on fixing roads.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

"Zowie, you should think carefully before you spend your money entertaining politicians and con men. "

Joe-

I didn't say MY HOUSE, I said YOUR HOUSE. I am practicing being a liberal. I'm giving a party with YOUR resources. How about you get us some chicken wings and some of those little meatballs in barbecue sauce? Remember veggies for the non carnivores, and soft drinks for the recovering alcoholics. Some beer and mixed drinks for the PRACTICING alcoholics would be good too.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

Looks like the con men have succeeded in making a robot out of Zowie.

To the others who are reading this and still capable of independent thought, take a close and careful look at Dale Foreman's letter for yourself, and ask yourself this: Why does this professional politician cite so many other honest-sounding, but irrelevant, statistics, and fail to cite the important one? If he HAD a real answer, he would have been eager to tell us what it was, wouldn't he? If he DIDN'T have a real answer, he would have tried to divert attention from the fact that he doesn't have one, and still sound like he knows what he's talking about - wouldn't he? He's sure done a really good job of sounding like he knows what he's talking about, and diverting attention from the absence of an answer. Most of the folks above didn't notice it.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

Joe

I like the Little Smokies in BBQ sauce.

Ed - I don't drink but will bring pop and cigars

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

:-)

More diversionary tactics from Tim's Yes-men. Trying to put a brave face on the embarrassing fact that they have no answer.

Good to know that we'll have a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY left over!

I rest my case.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

BAd argument. All people who support this are simply selfish bastards.

-- Anonymous (gyx@msn.com), October 27, 1999.

Hey Nonny Mouse GYX or whatever

BAd argument. All people who oppose this are simple, stupid bastards.

Now that's the easy way

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

I appreciate the fact that Foreman has finally awakened and seen the light.

Having said that, where was Dale and his tax-addict buddies in the GOP while we were all busting our asses trying to get this thing on the ballot? Where was Foreman when I was standing out in the hot sun gathering signatures while the owner of Kent Auto Licensing threatened to call the cops on me?

Thanks loads, Dale. Jump on the bandwagon now, when it's politically safe, and take credit for it when you run for governor next year.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 27, 1999.