Seems a poll shows that people weren't exactly looking to cause a revolution with 695, but just wanted cheaper tabs.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/vote11.shtml

Almost 3/4 of the people polled said that they would support an incerase in the sales tax to fund education, and over half would support the same to fund public transportation (note to Craig). "Only a small portion of those favoring the measure said they wanted more of a voice in government or a better managed government".

The poll was conducted in December, asked 800 people, and has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000

Answers

If you read the article yourself, it doesn't exactly (or even sort of) say what Patrick indicates it says. But that's OK Patrick, I personally hope that the legislators ignore the message in I-695. It'll set up the election to produce a more reasonable crop of legislators. If you look at the adjoining thread on the change in the political landscape you'll find out that MOST of the politicians, even the fairly liberal ones, are smarter than that. Democrat's are falling all over themselves to propose tax cuts. What a day. I wish my father had lived to see it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

Ahh yes, Hart Research. Yet another Democratic Push Poll from the Hartster.

Lemme see, here, *rustle*rustle* looking at my 695 poll predictions vs actual results paper. Ah yes. Hmm, almost 100% failure rate. Who was it who ran the N0 on 695 campaign, Mark Funk? Yes, I think that was it. I wonder if Mr Funk is more 'careful' these days when he reads a poll. I know I would be if I'd have been burned as badly as he/they were.

Paul says: Never lean too hard on a poll, it might not have good foundation.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 11, 2000.

Well I did post the address to the article, so everyone can read it for themselves. How did it NOT say what I mentioned? Apparently there was a question about whether people would support an increase in the sales tax to fund education, and there was a question asking if people would support an increase in the sales tax to fund public transit.

I don't know, maybe it was the title of the article "Poll on I-695 says voters sought tax cut, not reforms" threw me off.

Yes, there seems to be a great push in Olympia to propose property tax cuts. But I thought that the general concensus here was that politicians NEVER listen or know what the public really wants. The poll makes it look like they are still don't know what the people want.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

" Yes, there seems to be a great push in Olympia to propose property tax cuts. But I thought that the general concensus here was that politicians NEVER listen or know what the public really wants. The poll makes it look like they are still don't know what the people want"

Suddenly losing your faith in our elected representatives Patrick?

If so, a rare moment of agreement between us.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

I thought most people (except, perhaps Patrick) knew you could slant poll responses simply by how you ask the question. Also, what information is not released to the press by the pollsters? Sorry, but these people get paid to retrieve responses favored by those who write the check.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Despite all this cynicism, if you want to know what the voters said, read the inititiative. It said they would gladly reduce funding to local governments, eliminate sales tax equalization, reverse their recent approval to use MVET to fund highway and ferry projects, and to hobble government at all levels byadding to the already in-place controls on tax increases...in trade for a large, hit-and-miss, tax cut. Reading anything else into the results is pure, and often slef-serving, speculation. This may or may not be what the voters meant to say, but it is what they did say. Government by blunt force, through a poorly (or deceptively...or both!) constructed initiative, doesn't provide for enlightened discussion, but serves best those who yell the loudest.

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 12, 2000.

Keith--"Government by blunt force, through a poorly (or deceptively...or both!) constructed initiative, doesn't provide for enlightened discussion, but serves best those who yell the loudest." Ummm, from my perspective, the no-695 campaign "yelled" much louder than the yes-695 campaign. As a result, I'm a bit sceptical of this claim.
FWIW, I'm using a non-standard (convince me it isn't apropos) definition of yell. Given our context, it's seems reasonable to define the "loudest yeller" as the camp who spent the most advertising $$$$.
In any case, I'd not convinced that government by subtle nudge provides for an enlightened discussion. From what I can tell, "government by blunt force" did (and still does) a fabulous job of engendering a discussion. On the other hand, government by subtle nudge (ie the Blue Ribbon panel) seems to function (term used loosely) without much public input.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 12, 2000.

I think Peter Callaghan says it best in the News Tribune http://www.tribnet.com/frame.asp?/news/columnists/peter_callaghan/0111 b15.html Basically there were at least 6 different reasons why people voted for 695. Which one(s) were the TRUE reasons are essentially based upon your own opinion, and not actually based on there being one or two reasons why over a million people voted for the thing.

It is rather simplistic to think that there was one message sent with the passage of 695. It's like saying there is only one reason why you have children.

So when you wonder out loud if the politicians "got the message," you should remember that you're pretty much only talking about YOUR message. That is, unless you personally polled everyone in the state who voted for the initiative or compiled a random sample of voters with a significant enough number to provide a reasonable margin of error.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

"So when you wonder out loud if the politicians "got the message," you should remember that you're pretty much only talking about YOUR message. That is, unless you personally polled everyone in the state who voted for the initiative or compiled a random sample of voters with a significant enough number to provide a reasonable margin of error. "

The _reasons_ for voting a certain way are very difficult to fairly determine. Especially from a scientific point of view. I think it could be fairly done, but it might not be practical with standard polling practices. From my personal unscientific polls of everyone I knew that voted on it, either yes or no, there were really just two, maybe three categories:

Yes voter: Taxes are too high, especially my car tabs.

This one was quite simple. I really didn't find a single individual who voted 'yes' on the issue to have any other reasoning except that the state has waaay too much money and it's time for reform. Taxes too high, cut them, and cut them now.

No voter: (private citizen) This one is more complicated. Some voted no because they thought it would hurt the state. Some voted no for no other reason than they believed that someone with a big, expensive vehicle should pay more. (This second one turned out to be a big joke because those people with more expensive vehicles still pay more, because car tabs aren't $30. The BASE price is $30, but there are other taxes which apply to the vehicles value, causing more expensive vehicles to pay more... so their argument is OUT!)

No voter (public/corporate/contractor) Don't know any of these, but they provided me with insight into their opinion through the media and their no-695 campaign contributions and paid advertisements and public announcements. They voted no because they profit from the monies taken from the private citizens, ie ME. Meaning that if I get sick and tired of paying inflated taxes and revolt against the system, they might not be taking their kids to Hawaii or buying the new cadillac next year. Too bad, so sad.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 12, 2000.

I believe that we can safely say this much:

If the legislature and the governor DON'T figure out the message, then we'll have two new initiatives pass, and there will be hell to pay at the ballot box if they don't.

BTW, it's clear that the people in Hong Kong hadn't heard about the desolate hell-hole that Washington State has become as a result of the passage of 695. If they had, they no doubt wouldn't have chanced the trip in the conex containers. Obviously, they had it much better off where they were.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.com), January 12, 2000.

". Government by blunt force, through a poorly (or deceptively...or both!) constructed initiative, doesn't provide for enlightened discussion, but serves best those who yell the loudest." Well if this was true then the opponents of 695 would have won..because the screamed louder, longer and more expensive than anybody else and then they fell flat on their collective face

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

I haven't seen the final analysis of what we anti-695 people spent, but it was a miniscule fraction of the $140 (or whatever) per vehicle tax cut. My own guess is that the tax cut to yes voters probably averaged a good deal more than the "average". R-49 passed because it offered voters a $30/vehicle (average) license fee cut in exchange for borrowing money to fix our transportation problems. The voters -- thanks largely to Governor-wannabe Foreman -- never had the opportunity to vote on a "pay as you go" gasoline tax option. BTW, more expensive vehicles only pay more in those few counties that have a _voter-approved_ local MVT. For owners of older cars (like me), my registration fees will increase. And since I live in a city with very little commercial property, my local taxes will go up and services go down to compensate for lost sales tax equalization funds. And if "son of" should also unfortunately pass (and not be properly thrown out!) we'll hold an election and raise them again.

It's unfortunate that the legislature didn't get the message last year and provide some more meaningful reforms for financing our transportation system. A more reasonable MVET based upon value and weight, direction of sales/use tax on automobiles into the transportation fund, higher gasoline taxes, local options for toll roads and other demand pricing tools...but this debate was effectively cut off by Dale Foreman's edict that Republican support of any of these concepts would result in excommunication. Out of chaos and the Governor's inability to repair the damage of I-695, the Governor-wannabe will rise up and save us. I can't see any other reason why he supported undoing his own transportation "fix".

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 13, 2000.

"I haven't seen the final analysis of what we anti-695 people spent, but it was a miniscule fraction of the $140 (or whatever) per vehicle tax cut. My own guess is that the tax cut to yes voters probably averaged a good deal more than the "average". R-49 passed because it offered voters a $30/vehicle (average) license fee cut in exchange for borrowing money to fix our transportation problems."

Umm, something to ponder. In general, a vote for I-695 was *negatively* correlated with income.

Regardless, you're comparing apples to oranges. The reality was that the no695 compaign dramatically outspent the yes695 campaign. Furthermore, they had far (I'd guess 2 orders of magnitude) different positive editorializing in the press. Who "yelled" the loudest? I guess it depends on how you define yell.

FWIW, I understand the point you were trying to make. . .I just consider it a red herring. If I shouldn't, you should try to convince me why it's relevant.

"The voters -- thanks largely to Governor-wannabe Foreman -- never had the opportunity to vote on a "pay as you go" gasoline tax option. BTW, more expensive vehicles only pay more in those few counties that have a _voter-approved_ local MVT. For owners of older cars (like me), my registration fees will increase. And since I live in a city with very little commercial property, my local taxes will go up and services go down to compensate for lost sales tax equalization funds. And if "son of" should also unfortunately pass (and not be properly thrown out!) we'll hold an election and raise them again."

RANT MODE ON

I thought I was supposed to be the selfish one. Lemme guess, live up north (or down south) in a big, cheap house (relatively lower property taxes of course) and commute to Seattle (or Bellevue. . .etc).

RANT MODE OFF

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 13, 2000.

Keith "And since I live in a city with very little commercial property, (1) to compensate for-------- (2)"

Well let's address (1)If your local taxes go up it is because you haqve been allowed to CHOOSE at the voting booth to raise the local taxes. Since it will be your decision then you shouldn't gripe at anybody else. Services will only go down if the local administration chooses to continue funding unncessary projects in favor of needed services.

(2)Lost sales tax equalization funds can only be the result of a devious State program which has nothing to do with SALES tax but is, instead a redistribution program of funds other than sales tax. A true sales tax equalization program deals solely with SALES TAX which it might surprise you to discover is a tax that is charged on the SALE of an item and not a confiscatory FEE or EXCISE TRIBUTE

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Maddjak wrote, "Services will only go down if the local administration chooses to continue funding unncessary projects in favor of needed services."

You must be assuming that the state will replace most of the lost MVET revenue for those local governments that lost 10 - 20 - 30 - 40% of their revenue, right? Or do you assume local voters have been so unobservant they did not notice the waste of that kind of money on "unnecessary projects"? I will just note again that most of what government does is not "essential", but it was supported by some in the community or it would not be in the budget at all. Some will think the programs lost were necessary, even at the 2% budget cut you were selling. Many more will think the cuts will fall on necessary programs at the 10 - 40% level of budget cut.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 14, 2000.

"Or do you assume local voters have been so unobservant they did not notice the waste of that kind of money on "unnecessary projects"?"

One of the mechanisms the pro big government people have been doing for years is to make grant and matching programs that obscured the REAL cost of government by dealing in a way that made the voters think that the local cost was the only cost. Example: Portland MAX. Never a particularly good idea, but since the federal government funded 80% of the initial construction, the voters decision was based upon whether the benefit of the WHOLE system exceeded THEIR marginal cost, twenty percent of the real cost. They went for it. Later, the federal government ceased being so "generous" and the voters said no to an expansion.

So yes, d, the voters have ceased to be observant because local politicians keep telling them that WE ARE SPENDING SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. Except, of course, all the money ultimately comes from the taxpayers. That's one of the reasons I do NOT believe we ought to have matching funds, grants, or for that matter "sales tax equalization." The only thing that keeps people (or governments) from wanting EVERYTHING is the price they must pay. For most things that people find desirable, if the cost goes below the true cost of providing the service, the demand goes up well above where it would have gone had the market been allowed to work, and people waste resources to get those goods and services. By hiding the cost, politicians can inflate the demand, building government bigger and bigger.

This also says something about the TRUE desirability (as measured by demand) for transit. Even with 85+% subsidization, you almost can't give it away. It continues to be promoted for reasons of philosophy and big government empire building, far past the point where it makes economic sense.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 15, 2000.

Craig:

What I am talking about has nothing to do with transit or matching funds. You seem to be hung-up on one subject. Most local governments hurt by 695 have little or nothing coming in as matching grants that have distorted their budgets. They will LOSE MVET in big percentages, and nothing they consider "unnecessary" is available to be cut.

You seem to be saying that local government should not be looking to the state to help cover the losses. How will local governments get to the point where 695 is "only a 2% cut of the budget" if the state does not "reprioritize spending"? Was all that rhetoric just a sales pitch?

I know we disagree on sales tax equalization. I believe it is appropriate and necessary to return some of the sales tax to the tax PAYER as services, based on where he lives. I don't believe it makes any sense to allow the sales tax money to be retained entirely by the state and the communities where it is collected. The retail outlet is just the tax COLLECTOR, and has much less right to the services the sales tax money pays for than the tax PAYER, who often does not live in the same community.

Think of it this way. If sales tax were not collected at time of purchase, but paid annually based on itemized reports like the income tax, how would we calculate where the revenue came from? I submit it would be based on the tax payer address, and not the tax collector address. Using your method, Ogden Utah would be considered the source of all federal income tax in the entire Northwest (about 10% of the U.S.), because that is where the money is collected. It makes much more sense to return services to the tax payer, rather than the tax collector IMHO.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 15, 2000.

No d-

I am not hung up on transit when I mention matching funds, I merely used MAX as an example. You can make the same case for other matching funds. The last I checked, the federal government funded about 7% of public education, and makes the schools jump through innumerable hoops for that 7%.

The issue I was addressing was that subsidies that are not perceived as coming from someone's own pocket (even though they in fact are) distort the economic controls we normally use to price goodsand services because somebody else appears to be paying for it. It's only human nature. Dec. 31 st my wife and I bought two new pairs of glasses and two new pairs of prescription sun glasses. I really needed the extra pair of glasses, but the rest was mainly to burn up the remaining pre-tax money in my MSA before all remaining dollars went to Ogden if not obligated by the end of the year.

But the effect of such distortions of pricing mechanisms is that we buy more government services (and less cost-effective government services) than we otherwise would. That is the point I was trying to make.

I also TOTALLY understand that you don't see tax equalization as a subsidy that induces places that otherwise would not do so to add another layer of government overhead. But I do. If you want to simply give every resident back his/her per capita share of the sales tax and then let them decide if they want to keep it or use it for a local government, I could probably live with that. But the way it is being done distorts the pricing curve in a pro big government direction. Since we have already established that I think we need less government and you think more government is better, I can see that we are unlikely to ever agree on tax equalization. So you proselytize your views and I'll proselytize mine, but between the two of us we'll just have to agree to differ.

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 15, 2000.

d-

It says in the paper it
fs an anti-695 initiative, but really it isn
ft. http://www.djc.com/news/business/11002884.html

What it would do is give you a guaranteed reduction in state taxes and the OPTION to give it right back to the local government. This would be somewhat akin to what I earlier suggested. I know you haven
ft seen the wording (neither have I) but if it is as represented could you support such an initiative, d?

January 14, 2000 Yakima official proposes anti-695 initiative

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) -- The Yakima County prosecutor has a plan for reducing the financial losses to cities and counties caused by Initiative 695. Jeff Sullivan said is starting an initiative campaign to shift some taxing power from the state to local governments and cut the state's property tax. "Local government needs a stable funding source," Sullivan said Wednesday. "Most people think their property tax goes to cities and counties anyway." His plan was sparked by I-695, which was launched by Tim Eyman, a Yakima native now living in Mukilteo. The initiative replaced the state's value-based license tab tax with a flat annual fee of $30 per vehicle, a move that will cost local governments nearly $200 million this year. Sullivan's plan would make up for those cuts by reducing the state's property tax levy by a third. Local voters would then have the chance to dedicate that amount to local government. Cities could ask for 25 percent of that savings, while counties could request 75 percent. Under Sullivan's proposal, the owner of a $100,000 home who now pays $360 in state taxes would pay $240. If voters approved, cities could get up to $30 that previously went to the state, while counties could get as much as $90. Sullivan said his initiative would make local governments more self-sufficie

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 16, 2000.

Craig:

Actually, I don't like big government. I really like local small government that is close to the people and responsive to their needs. I thought I made that clear. What you call another layer of government (a small city) I call delivering the services of a large unresponsive county through the ALTERNATIVE of a smaller more responsive local government, that is likely to do the job better and cheaper.

That is why I really don't like 695, and the proposed children. They treat all government as an evil to be starved, without any distinctions between those that are doing what their voters want and those that aren't.

As you said, we can agree to disagree.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 16, 2000.