Frequent Elections?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

How often will elections be held once I-695 passes and we get to vote on every tax and fee increase? I don't know if I will be able to get to the polls every month, as I have read in some predictions.

Also, isn't it expensive to hold elections? I know that King County spends $800,000 just on a normal election - will we have to pay this much money EVERY month when we have an election?

One more: what will ensure that we are not made to vote on the most mundane of tax and fee increases? I like the idea of letting the voters decide, but it seems a bit excessive to vote on fee increases at the library overdue counter and a price increase on a tuna fish salad in a hospital lunch room.

Thank you.

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999

Answers

1. How often?

As often as government dares to ask...

But, in all likelyhood, the requests would be in conjunction with another regularly scheduled election... school levy... primary... general...

Votes every month? Scaremongering at its worst. Are they going to the polls every month in Colorado, where a similar requirement has been in place since 1992? No. It's equally unlikely here... but you never can tell... buearucrats and elected types can be insatiable.

2. Cost

Comparitively speaking, the costs will be insignificant... and they will NOT be "every month," or even close to that. The requests will most likely be at the same time as school levies, etc, and will consist of a few more holes to punch, count, etc.

But even if it IS $800K in King County, just imagine how much you'll save by voting "no" when they ask for an increase.

3. Mundane:

you are, of course, correct on your assessment about what people will be voting on. But the fact is that we will never see an election to increase library fines... or the cost of tuna fish sandwiches.

Many here throw that example around... but ask yourself: what would the professional life expectancy be for a bureaucrat that made such a ballot request?

Common sense must rear it's ugly head at some point... and those who oppose 695 should realize that reliance on such absurd notions just serves to inflame the electorate even more.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 20, 1999.


Further to Westin's reply to Concerned Citizen:

Common sense tells me that Washington's experience in tax votes before the people, when 695 passes, will be like Colorado's in which a lot more thought and care regarding tax measures is given by the government before the measures are put to a vote. Elsewhere on this site it is noted that the number of tax measures inflicted on Colorado voters has greatly decreased since that state passed its version of 695. Yet, of those measures placed before the people, the approval rate has gone up. This tells me that Colorado voters still take their civic responsibility seriously. Indeed, because they know the tax measure before them has received more thought and attention on the part of the government presenting it, the voters too are more inclined to take it seriously. Why would Washingtonians be any different? For the hard-pressed taxpayers of this state, any measure which makes government agencies think longer and harder before they put their hand out to the producers will be welcome.

I find it unlikely that we will have to vote on such items as library fine increases, hospital food increases etc. I bet that in this state, among all the rules, regulations and legalese that tie us down, there are definitions for "taxes" and definitions for "user fees." To me, overdue library book fines, school hot lunches, hospital meal charges, camping in state parks, etc. are primarily discretionary on the part of the user. If you want to use it, then pay for it. If you want to check a book out of the library, bear in mind the due date. If you want your kid to have a school hot lunch, pay the fee, but don't hit up the brown-bagger. Maybe it will take a court case to decide, but to me there is a difference between user fees that can be handled administratively, and taxes that nail everybody.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), August 20, 1999.


First of all - thank you to Westin and A.C. for clearly and intelligently stating your arguments. It helps a lot.

I am learning that I-695 is a good thing - except the initiative was written POORLY. I agree that the MVET needs to be lowered significantly, and I agree that voters should be more accountable for taxation. However, I think that maybe I-695 goes too far - requiring a vote on anything and everything is not a great idea, and reducing the tab fees down to $30 is TOO low - too many important services are threatened.

This is a tough issue, and it will be interesting to see the results of the November election.

-- Concerned Citizen (washingtonian@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.


Washingtonian.....You are missing the point. You say, "voters should be more accountable for taxation." No, the government should be held in check in regards to taxation and expenditure and the voters should be the ones who tell them what to do.

The second misconception is, "too many important services are threatened." Actually that isn't even a misconception. It's flat out not true. Many people have given examples of useless government projects that do NOTHING but waste money. And those examples have been ignored by you and the others who are fighting against the rationality of I-695.

Retaining a portion of the money that the government has been extorting from the people does NOT threaten any services. The government distributes funding as it sees fit. It does NOT distribute money in any reasonable fashion. If any desperately needed services are cut back then the responsibility for that action falls squarely on the back of government from Olympia clear down to the smallest burg in the State. There were be NO lack of funds. There will be a necessity for government to take a few dollars way from useless, diddling projects to take care of needed things. Another ignored example....the stadium. They had a shortfall to like magic they pulled the extra money out of the hat with the bunny and dumped it into the general fund to cover it. Isn't that amazing???

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.


If politicians say they have to reduce vital services because 2 percent of total state funding in reduced, then it will be up to the citizens to push for change and reallocation of resources. When 695 passes, I fully expect a lot of gnashing of teeth by politicians who don't have the courage or desire to change the way things are done. Too many in government think change is fine for the private sector, but not for government. Many politicians will have a desire to punish the voters for passing 695, so what better way to do it than scare people with reductions in key services in public safety and roads -- the primary reasons our government was established in the first place.

Your civic responsibility to monitor government won't end when 695 passes. Any time you give other people money and legal power, there is the potential for waste and abuse. That potential won't go away with 695's passage -- there will just be a bit less money to waste.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), August 20, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ