I decided to reprint my response to Thomas Shapley's article in the P.I. which was his analysis of the reason the 695 passed. His article can be found at http://www.seattle-pi.com/opinion/tomcol1.shtml

Your opinions of initiative 695 are yet more ammunition as to why public skepticism of the press is at an all time high. Your all too typical snobbery towards the electorate is a window into the mind of big corporate and big government snobbish mentality. I read your article and found myself giggling at your references towards the sale of greed to the people of Washington. I then turned to my printout of the anti-695 supporters and read down the list. A veritable who's who of big money, big politics and fat cats who would sell the rights of a free people to make an extra dollar.

As I look around the city of Seattle, and see the dizzying array of construction and new business and buildings go up, plus the general heat of the retail economy, I can only think of one thing when considering lost revenues due to MVET: The city, county and state are getting a piece of every transaction, every brick laid, every item bought, every mile driven, every hole dug, every building built. Their revenues are rocketing up at the current tax rate, and yet they still want to increase taxe rates. Also, for those of you who don't support 695, you're more than free to write out your vehicle license tab check based on the same pre-695 formula. But the funny thing is, whenever I suggestthat solution, the response is always the same: "It's not about what I'm paying, it's about what someone else should be paying". How about this for a solution to state funding problems: Less corporate welfare, Nordstrom, Boeing, and more tax cuts for regular guys, er "little guys", like me. I know that you may not sleep at night knowing that it was the 'little guy' that voted on this initiative. I know it bothers you that the reality of left vs right politics has been exposed by this initiative that "defies convention" as Jim Lynch put it. In the end, the brotherhood of fascism and socialism join forces to expel the one thing that both ideals hate: freedom of the people. Freedom from the burdens of despotism, tyranny, and in a small, philosophical way, have a government which serves those same people-- not itself, and a few wealthy special interests.

Paul Oss. Seattle.

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

Answers

Not sure if anyone's reading this still, but I have a question I'd like answered. I liked what 695 had in mind in terms of limiting tax increases and getting people more involved in decision making. And I also would agree that there's plenty of fat to be trimmed in state and local government. But why attack this very important point at this point?

If one of the key premises of this bill is to allow the people to decide on things, why tie this into legislation that will in effect countermand R47, road improvmenets that people said they WANTED to spend money on.

This was my big problem with 695. It seemed like very lazy legislation. You've got two completely different issues here - car tab fees and systemic operation issues within the goverment - on one bill. To be honest, I think this bill passed because it created an immediate but in my opinion rather insubstantial benefit for people. But everyone can surely admit that this bill in many ways created more problems than it solved. Both sides talk about how this helps or hurts the little guys, but the bottom line is this: no one really knows how this will affect services that many of us rely on (like the bus and the ferry), and the fact that 695 proponents suddenly find a burst of faith in our legislature to "figure out a way to get funding" boggles my mind. Aren't these the same people you just told me not to trust with my tax money?

I wish there had been a bit more investigation before this was put out. If Eyman had found a legitimate chunk of fat that needed trimming, this would have been a great bill. As it it, I think it's an ambitious idea carried out with little real concern for the ideals it claims to adhere to.

Eyman was on Fox news the other night, and the fellow interviewing him couldn't understand why big business like Microsoft was against a bill that he called "against big government". Think about that one for a minute. Is Microsoft pro big government? No way. Then why were they against this bill? Not that I'm advocating taking their advice, but it is an interesting thing to think about.

-- Jeff Running (jeff@djc.com), November 08, 1999.

Jeff,

In your first paragraph you say "And I also would agree that there's plenty of fat to be trimmed in state and local government." and then later you comment "If Eyman had found a legitimate chunk of fat that needed trimming, this would have been a great bill." Now if you agree that there is plenty of fat (your words) don't you think Tim Eyman was able to find legitimate chunks of fat? Let me answer for you. If you had paid close attention to Tim and the people writing on this forum you would know the answer is a resounding yes! Revisit "1.1 billion reasons to vote yes on I-695" on this forum.

Do not perceive this initiative as a burst of faith in the legislature, on the contrary, this initiative made the following statement: Fund basic services with current funds, without an unfair car tax, and without raising taxes. If they can't do that then we will replace them, which in the case of Gary "unlocke the state vault" and Ron "tax to the max" Sims, may be a distinct possibility.

P.S. It's R49

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 09, 1999.

Tony: If you agree that road projects are something that we want and aren't to be considered "fat" then I still say this bill is one step removed from attacking this problem at its core. Say you find out there's some dryrot under the shingles in your roof. Would it make sense to tear into the good part of the roof to get to the bad, or would it be better to figure out where the bad spots are and get them directly? But I guess if you think the car tab fees and funding these road projects is indeed dryrot in need of repair, then this bill works.

-- Jeff Running (jeff@djc.com), November 09, 1999.

Jeff,

OK, let's carry your scenario one step further. My house has dry rot and I don't want to go through the good part of the roof to get to it. Now let's also assume I'm like most people and I have a fixed income mandated by my employer. Also, like many people I have cable TV, internet services, I eat out occasionally, and I go to the movies. Guess what? I have a choice. If I want to repair the dry rot without going through the good part of the roof and it costs me more then my fixed income will currently allow, then I'm going to have to cut back on some non-essentials. If I don't I'm going to get wet. Especially here in Washington!

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 10, 1999.

Tony:

I don't think I follow your point. My "scenario" was meant to show you how inefficient I think 695 is. Why would you assume that "If I want to repair the dry rot without going through the good part of the roof and it costs me more?" Why destroy the whole roof just to fix the broken section? Attack a problem head on and you have a much better chance of solving it. Go about it half-cocked without a firm direction, and you're going to spend much more time and resouces getting to the actual problem - if at all.

-- Jeff Running (jeff@djc.com), November 10, 1999.

Jeff,

Which point are you unable to follow. The voters with passage of I- 695 have mandated that government spend OUR money more wisely. The idea that we will "destroy" state government ("the whole roof") to fix our transportation problems ("the broken section"), is not factual. Although, I'm sure there are many politicians who would like us to believe that would be the case. Also, I would contend that supporters of I-695 did attack the problem head on. Most of the political elite were unable or unwilling to solve the high cost of license tabs problem, so we solved it for them!

-- Tony McCreary (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 11, 1999.

"Most of the political elite were unable or unwilling to solve the high cost of license tabs problem, so we solved it for them! " Any of our elected representatives (Such as Ruth Fished, D - Tacoma) who find public service distasteful or "too hard" after I-695 are welcome to leave government service and take up jobs in the burgeoning food service industry. You want that super- sized?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

People seem to have many different ideas of what Initiative 695 will and will not do. It will force the government to reduce waste and eliminate inefficiency. It will eliminate government corruption. It will force government accountability. It will stop government-sponsored projects and programs. It will not affect those services that are consider "essential".

Initiative 695 limited the cost of vehicle registration to $30 and limited government's ability to recover the subsequent loss of tax income. That's all that it was designed to do - Period! If you thought that I-695 accomplishes anything more than that, then you have a false impression and will probably be disappointed.

Tony was correct in stating that it solved the problem of high cost of license tabs. But it does not solve the other problems of waste, inefficiency, corruption and lack of accountability that many people believe I-695 will accomplish. Granted, some of these things MIGHT occur to a small degree, as a result of passing I-695, but IT IS NOT GUARANTEED! Neither is how it will affect those services that some consider as essential.

THERE IS A RAY OF HOPE! Because the state, county and city governments are now reviewing their budget priorities, you have another opportunity to guide their decisions. Public forums are being held to consider various budget and project issues. If you have an opinion, make sure that your representative knows what it is.

Under this system of government, you have always had this ability to participate in government decisions. If you decide not to, then you are leaving the decisions to those who are willing to participate. I can not guarantee that you will get what you want if you participate. I can guarantee that you will not be heard unless you speak up.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 11, 1999.

"I can guarantee that you will not be heard unless you speak up." If what I want is LESS government, I can be heard at the ballot box, now that I-695 has passed.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.