Before it was even drafted, the "son of 695" initiative was showing significant public support. 27% were opposed. 6% were undecided. The rest supported it, to one degree or another. The low percentage of undecideds again indicates that it won't be easy to budge the numbers. Anyone willing to kick in some more money so the anti's will spend ANOTHER $2.5 million on a scare campaign? Be good for the economy, use up the lobbyists slush funds, etc.

Son of 695 Is Born November 23, 1999 OLYMPIA - The creators of I-695, the $30 car tab measure, are at it again.

A follow-up initiative is to be filed today in Olympia. It's called "Son of 695".

"Son of 695" would work in tandem with the original car tab measure approved by voters this month. Creators of the $30 car tab measure say local governments violated the spirit of the initiative by rushing to raise taxes before the election.

This new ballot measure would undo tax hikes approved between July of this year, when I-695 first qualified for the ballot, and next January when it goes into effect.

The new measure would also limit governments from raising property values as a way to sidestep 695. It would also exempt vehicles from property tax.

To qualify for the primary ballot nearly 180,000 signatures need to be gathered by the end of the year and even supports say that sounds nearly impossible.

If they have the signatures by July the measure would qualify for the November ballot.

So, how do you feel about this new measure? Nearly half of those surveyed in a recent KOMO 4 News poll said they like the idea.

49% of the adults surveyed say they would strongly support the measure.

18% say they have moderate support.

27% say they would have little or no support for the measure.

6% were undecided.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 23, 1999

Answers

Craig writes Anyone willing to kick in some more money so the anti's will spend ANOTHER $2.5 million on a scare campaign? Be good for the economy, use up the lobbyists slush funds, etc.

This would certainly be fun.... but I fear the too many voters will return to apathy.

My preference is to track the WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN tax raisers for future reference, (November) and wait to see if there is an injunction to stop I-695 or it is struck down. That may then raise enough voter indignation to file several carefully written initiatives to kick some a**. Just an opinion.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

The content of Son of 695 needs to be looked at carefully, to remove the problems 695 has with unintended consequences and constitutional questions. I assume this would undo tax increases that were NOT approved by the voters as specified in 695, and not all tax increases. The property tax issue is complicated, because of the constitutional requirement for tax equity, and you can't change the constitution in this state by the initiative process. If it results in properties being valued on a different basis, or tax rates that are different in the same taxing district, it will likely be unconstiutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa,freei.net), November 23, 1999.

Actually, d, it wouldn't necessarily matter. If the pro big government people wind up paying ten times as much for their campaigns as the anti- big government people and the pro big government people wind up funding the court appeals while the taxpayers as a whole (the State) is funding the defense, you can decrease the size of government by using up resources paying lawyers rather than buying votes and bankrupt your opponents at the same time. Kind of like a guerrilla war using a scorched earth policy. Back in my younger days I was quite a student of Mao. Still got a little red book (English translation) somewhere. Monster that he was, he really new how to fight a guerrilla war. He'd be real amused by this. It's basically how we bankrupted the Kremlin, Reagan forced them into an economic situation (arms race) that they couldn't win.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 23, 1999.

Craig, If your goal is to destroy government in Washington like the Kremlin, I'm sure you can do it by tearing down the whole system, instead of fixing it. As you see there, fixing it later is nearly impossible. I hope that is not what will happen here. I still believe that we can craft solutions, not just hope that a phoenix will rise from the ashes a hundred years after we tear down existing tools of making decisions.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), November 23, 1999.

Bob--"Craig, If your goal is to destroy government in Washington like the Kremlin, I'm sure you can do it by tearing down the whole system, instead of fixing it. As you see there, fixing it later is nearly possible. I hope that is not what will happen here. I still believe that we can craft solutions, not just hope that a phoenix will rise from the ashes a hundred years after we tear down existing tools of making decisions."

If that's what you got out of Craig's post, I'd suggest you reread it and think about what he's saying. Here's a hint, it has very little to do with government per se and a whole lot to do battling large, over-influential special interests. His point explains (rather dramatically) why I thought that I-695 is a win for the popular citizenry even if I-695 *didn't* pass.

Okay, that was more than a hint.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 23, 1999.

Brad:

I re-read Craig's post, and I get the same message Bob did. Spend money on lawyers instead of services, and destroy "big government". Another anarchist approach to problem solving. If you don't care what damage you do, you can throw fire bombs to make your point. This seems out of character for Craig. Perhaps he was having a bad day.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 25, 1999.

no d-

I wasn't having a bad day. I'd suggest you read (or hopefully re-read) the post I put up just for you on leverage. One of the things causing the populist revolt that I-695 is part of, is the tricks that have been used to increase the size of government by such things as funding less popular things first and holding more popular things hostage to increased taxes and bundling important things with pork to appease the special interest groups and lobbyists who can devote 8 hours a day to making the system provide goodies for their employers, while the average voter has neither the time, resources, or hope of individual gain necessary to justify that level of involvement. The current level of service is in substantial part due to such lobbying and such ploys, IMHO. Leverage, however, works both ways. What I said was that, judging from how I-695 turned out, the people in favor of big government found the tables turned, that they spent more money than the I-605 supporters, lost anyway, and because of the rules of the game would now be forced (as taxpayers) to partially subsidize the defense of I-695 while paying entirely for the court case AGAINST I-695. Additionally, any resources that are used up in the defense of I-695 can't be used for the other government programs that the pro big government people want. They now find themselves in an adversely leveraged position, and I find that rather ironic. Now going from that statement to allegations about advocating anarchy and firebombs is sheer demagoguery, and both you and Mr. Dick should be ashamed of yourselves. Why is it that opining that the government is attempting to perform services that exceed in breadth or level of service what is appropriate is always met with the usual liberal litany of being against the poor, being mean spirited, being a racist, being an anarchist, being a kook, etc? If someone just honestly felt that the government ought to be doing 85% of the things they were currently doing (and privatize the rest) at 85% of the current level of service, do you believe they are destined for Hades, ought to be confined to the funny farm, the FBI ought to monitor them,or what? Can't they just have a difference of opinion with you of this much without being extremists? If you truly believe that such a position constitutes extremism so outside the fold as to be pathological, we'll just agree to differ. But if you see such a proposal as being within the broad range of reasonable political debate, tossing around expressions like :"Craig, If your goal is to destroy government in Washington like the Kremlin, I'm sure you can do it by tearing down the whole system, instead of fixing it." and "Another anarchist approach to problem solving. If you don't care what damage you do, you can throw fire bombs to make your point" is the cheapest type of political demagoguery and d, I'm ashamed of you. Mr. Dick I've met in person, and really didn't expect much different.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 26, 1999.

I gotta throw in with Craig on this one. He stated a fact. D and Dick started slinging mud. Senator McCarthy would have been proud of both of them. Are you still a member of the Communist party Mr. Dick? Do you still beat your wife, D? How do you like unfounded allegations? Looks like you guys will do anything to discredit someone you don't agree with. You guys are the ones with the "scorched earth" policy.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

Craig:

OK. I reread your post again. If you are talking about the opposition to 695, and the leverage of those out of government, I stand corrected. I thought my impression was out of character, and said so. My impression was that you were talking about "big government people" within government who would be "using up" OUR public resources, and as a result would reduce the effective size of government by the expense for lawyers. If that is not what you meant, it is one of those missed communications when the words can be read from differing perspectives.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 26, 1999.