I695, made by a man who is wealthy and has enough money to spend on car tabs. This really does favor the rich because the poor have poor cars so they wouldn't need to pay high tab prices. The rich don't really care. Before voting, some people just thought that I695 meant more money for them. But that's not really the truth. It will cut public services. That's what some people don't know. Why don't you look at the truth? This really isn't about helping the poor people, it's about saving money for rich that they don't need and cutting public services. Washington was a very wealthy state. What is going to happen to Washinton now?

Freshman, CKJH

-- Melissa (_buffy_3@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999

Answers

Mellissa,

Walk on to the University of Washington campus, go to the Health Sciences building and ask them why they need to build a 4th elevator at a cost of 7 million dollars. It's not the rich who are hurting this state, it's those people who believe the politics of envy. The socialists in government who drain our life energy.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 06, 1999.

I695 will not cut anything. Our government will do everything to try to hurt us.After all don't they know better what's good for than we do.

Since when are the people with money less of an Americian than those with out. Do you think they take there money home and hide it from everyone so they are kept down. If not for the rich you wouldn't have your little computer to spread your misunderstanding of reality.

-- glenn (racerglenn@netscape.net), November 06, 1999.

Melissa, do you think those evil rich people are not paying their fair share at the grocery store? Should they pay more for gas and t.v.'s, etc?

The rich don't feel the tab fees as much as the rest of us do. $1,000 isn't as much to many rich people as $100 is to me. I saw all kinds of yes on 695 signs on poor to middle class cars, not on fancy ones. If the rich were really the ones endorsing this campaign, why were we outspent by so much?

This is really about keeping more of our money, spending it as we see fit and keeping gov't from spending it on their pet projects-whether we like them or not, necessesety or not. If people want all these services (which aren't going to be lost anyway) they need to pay for them themselves. Politicians really have no business turning our form of gov't into a socialist one. Any time gov't forces people to give up money to pay for services for others it is SOCIALISM.

I'm glad you wrote on this forum. I do hope you consider what is said here. Not many people are interested in informing you about what freedom really is and THAT is the TRUTH. Most of the big backers against this initiative are interested in robbing the tax payers, like you, for their advancement.

You feel that 695 is subsidising the rich, but not supporting it is subsidising rich big business. Does that bother you?

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 06, 1999.

Melissa,

When my wife and I got out of the Navy in 1963, we had all our possessions in the back of a 57 Ford and all of our money in the car too, aout $700. In the 30 plus years, we have raised a family, contributed to the community through community service and donations and insuring our children were raised by us without becoming a drag on the government. We have never used food stamps, free housing, SSI or any of the other donations from the state that are thought by some as "rights" of living today. Rather, I had up to three jobs at a time to try to make ends meet. Finally with hard work, lots of effort, consiverative investments and savings, we have been able to retire and in all that time, I drew only one week of unemployment, the week between leaving the Navy and starting my first job after arriving here in Seattle. I am not rich but I have enough to live on and I feel I should be able to keep what I have earned. Just because someone has less is no reason I should transfer some of what I have to them because they are "sitting on a dead donkey" and too lazy to do more. The key to having all the things you want and can have if you want, is go get off your dead donkey and do something besides whining and wishing and complaining. I always taught my kids, "if you can dream it you can do it" and they are living their dreams and are all sucessful. Think of what I have said and the spirit it has been said. Set some goals and you too, can be sucessful and maybe vote in fovor of the next I-695. You too have it in you and if you want, a Lexus is a very nice car.

-- Jim labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 07, 1999.

"When my wife and I got out of the Navy in 1963..." "We have never used ... free housing"

EXCUSE ME??!??!?

-- Peter H. (hartikka@primenet.com), November 07, 1999.

You are excused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 08, 1999.

Peter:

"When my wife and I got out of the Navy in 1963..." "We have never used ... free housing"

EXCUSE ME??!??!?

Excuse you, sir. Excuse you, big time, sir. The man was defending his country. Base housing and barracks are not free housing when you're putting yourself in the position of dying for your country. Go defend your country, Peter, and I won't complain one whit about 'subsidizing' your housing. You do NOT have a right to subsidized housing simply because your parents were smart enough to procreate you, however. Anyone who's brave enough to pick up a rifle and defend my butt deserves room and board from the gov't. In contrast, you don't get government subsidies simply because you weren't smart enough to stay away from nose-candy or smack.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 08, 1999.

Peter, Your comment is totally ridiculous. "Housing" was compensation, neccessary because pay was so poor. Ever heard of retention? We aren't talking luxuries either. Just the bare necessities. He EARNED every dime of his wages and compensation.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 08, 1999.

Go out and look at junior enlisted housing at McChord if you think this is such a great deal. It's an embarassment. My father was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. In twenty years, we lived in base housing for two years; temporary housing in San Diego for 6 months, temporary housing in Guam (quonset huts) for 6 months, and permanent housing in Guam for 12 months. The other 18 years, there was inadequate housing for us to live on base, and we lived "on the economy." My father did get an additional seven years of housing - aboard ship. On one ship he was senior enough that he only had to share a sleeping compartment with one other individual, the high point of his sea duty. The low point was when his cruiser was sunk at Savo. He shared a compartment with about 40 people on the destroyer that picked them up out of the water.

You put in 20 years service to this country Peter, and I might listen to your concerns over the military's subsidized housing. Until then, you're just demonstrating equal parts of ignorance and arrogance.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 08, 1999.

I am sorry to have caused such a stink! What I was referring to was free housing that has become considered a right by so many in our socialistic society we are rushing headlong towards. Public housing or assisted housing that is so common here in Washington. All you have to do is not feel like not working. My first hand experience with it was a few years back when I volunteered for several agencies, among them the Crisis Clinic (was on the Board of Directors and and later, as a phone worker) and with Big Brothers. The young man I was paired with in Big Brothers was living with his mother and sister (by two different fathers, both absent) in public housing and drawing SSI and food stamps. She did not try to get a job, refused to go to school, got the house for free, got $600 plus as spending money plus food stamps. Her sister did the same thing and so had her mother. The hardest thing to take was when I would go to pick up my little brother for the day was she was sitting and watching one of the several pay cable TV channels, eating Ben and Jerry's ice cream and smoking cigaretts, all at our expense. She would still be doing the same thing at the end of the day. Also, what I was referring to was all the years after I got out of the navy, I would work extra jobs to make up the difference, even when I could have had the food stamps and all. We bought our kids clothes at Good Will and St Vincents because that was all we could afford but all the time, I knew that sucess would not come by wishing and expecting a hand out. So if this bothers you Peter, I suggest you go to your proctologist to see if they are still doing cranialectomys. Sorry to be so crude but I tire ealily of the malingerers and others that expect handouts.

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 08, 1999.

This thread is really causing a storm. It's not about free housing. And I agree that it is not FREE housing because you really are risking your life for your COUNTRY! Just look at the facts. It will cut public transportation. Look at the other side of the issue for a change!!! Where do you think all this money for public transportation and services are coming from? It sure isn't free! As a state, we have to pay for it somehow and with car tab fees, THAT is how we pay for it! It's not like the government is wasting our money! They are using it for the good of the commutity! Try and keep your facts staight!!!!

From a freshman at Central Kitsap Junior High

-- Melissa (_buffy_3@yahoo.com), November 08, 1999.

Melissa, The pro I-695 voters know where the funding for Public Transportation comes from. We are also aware of HOW the Public Transportation money is being spent. Please read Craig Carsons posts regarding this topic in this forum. We need Public Transportation, but only WHEN and WHERE it makes sense. Please tell me why you think I should pay for my OWN transportation in my OWN vehicle, (including high, unfairly applied tab fees) and also pay for Bus Riders, in say, Tahuya? I live in Mason County, where Mason Transit picks you up at your door. (no matter how remote an area you live) This is costly, and inefficient. It is also funded by MVET. Transit Riders only pay a very tiny portion of the cost associated with a bus ride. We believe our Legislators have done a poor job of spending our Tax Dollars and We are "assisting" them in making better choices on how to spend it. Melissa, this is OUR money. We earned it. Supporters of I-695 are not selfish rich people, trying to hurt the poor. These are hard working, tax paying Citizens who have had enough of wasteful spending. I realize that it may seem selfish to you now. But when you become a working adult, you may think differently. If you are not familiar with the Boston Tea Party, or Democracy, perhaps we should look at Public School Funding next.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 09, 1999.

Just look at the facts. It will cut public transportation. Look at the other side of the issue for a change!!! 4

Yes it will Melissa, if other funds are not reprogrammed to offset this. And given these FACTS, these issues would appear relevant: What is the purpose of public transportation? A guaranteed ride for everyone, or a safety net for those without other options? What level of service should be provided, and should this be different for a citizen ion a rural area compared to a citizen in an urban area? What percentage of public transportation ought to be funded with user fees (fares) and what percentage ought to be funded from tax revenues? What mechanism ought to be used to provide the tax revenue for transit? Sales taxes? Property taxes? Excise taxes? B&O taxes? Commuter taxes? Income taxes? Given that ALL government programs compete for public revenue, what would be your assessment of where priority should be given, education, fire and safety, public transit, or public health?

All of these questions are wrapped up in this issue. How would you answer them, and why?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 09, 1999.

It's not like the government is wasting our money!

OK Melissa. Here is a plan for the government to spend $2.5 million per year (after the costs of building two ferry terminals and two passenger only ferry boats), so that 700 people can commute daily between Kirkland (a reasonably well-to-do suburb of Seattle on Lake Washington (http://www.kirkland.net/inside.htm)) to the University of Washington. (http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=3825b01d3f&query=ferry)

That is a public subsidy of $3571.42 for each person each year, not counting the start-up costs of building the ferry terminals and the ferries. Is this a WASTE of our money? Depends upon your definition of waste, I guess. There is significant benefit for those 700 people, and the rest of us benefit by getting them off the public roads. But is the benefit commensurate with the cost? Id say no. And that in a nutshell is the issue with government spending, not whether or not someone somewhere benefits, but whether the benefit is significant enough that it offsets the cost. Would you consider this WASTE, inefficient spending, or a good idea? Is it still a good idea if we fund it by taking $2.5 million a year out of Central Kitsaps school budget to make it happen?

You're right when you state that these things have to be paid for, but what to pay for, and what price is reasonable, and how the money should be collected (and from whom) are all issues that free citizens get to decide about. That's what democracy is all about.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 09, 1999.

You ask a very difficult question. The money generated by the MVET paid for various items in the state, county and city budgets. "Essential" services COULD get cut. WILL they get cut, is another story.

What we believe COULD happen and what WILL happen may be two entirely different things. Some happen to believe that public services won't be cut. Some others believe that it could be cut. In either case, the people need to contact their representatives to voice their opinions on where these cuts should occur.

Under the democratic process, we have the responsibility to elect people that will represent our general views. But we have another responsibility beyond electing a representative and that is to relate our specific views to our representative. This is accomplished through letters, public forums, personal visits, e-mail, etc. If our representative does not represent our views accurately, then we should remove that person from office.

What is interesting about I-695 is what many people expect the government to do. I-695 sent a general message that taxes were too high and that the various governments would have to do with less. But it does not indicate where these budget cuts would come from.

The people who started this initiative have carefully avoided this issue. In this way, they have passed the hard work back to the government officials to work. They avoid upsetting anyone who might suffer from the eventual budget cuts. They assume all of the glory for passing the initiative, but suffer none of the blame when the budget cuts have to occur.

As for the future of Washington, it is still in the hands of the people and their representatives. We have the opportunity to provide our representatives with input on what we consider important and what is not. Whether we make use of this opportunity is up to each one of us.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 09, 1999.

Gene, you make some excllent points, however, when we have had tax increases in the past, the legislators left it up to us to cut our spending so we could send more of our hard earned dollars. We do have an obligation to suggest where our priorities are and there are various ways to do so. I agree that direct communication via e-mail, telephone or just taking the time to go to the office of the official and talk directly. Answering poling questions such as is on Ron Sims website is another. Attending city council meetings at the local level is a very enlightening process too. We can all do our part and should. BTW, the same issue is up on Vote.com and winning by a wide margin nationwide!

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 11, 1999.