Why are so many people grumbling about all the "lost services" that I-695 supposedly will bring?

I mean, even though cities will lose vast amount of money for fire and police protection, clean air programs, public health (including immunizations and HIV testing and healthy mom/child care), we'll only have to pay $30 for car tabs.

Some people just don't have their priorities straight...

-- Dave (everett244@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999

Answers

Gee, Dave... how cute!

Now, for an ACCURATE presentation of your sordid little fantasy:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Why are so many opponents grumbling about all the alleged "lost services" that I-695 supposedly will bring?

I mean, even though cities will possibly receive less of OUR money for fire and police protection, clean air programs, public health (including immunizations and HIV testing and healthy mom/child care), if these officials can get off their cans and convince us the money is needed, and do a decent job of prioritizing (unheard of now, BTW) we'll vote for their increases, and we'll STILL only have to pay $30 for car tabs.

Some people just don't have their priorities straight... &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You are, of course, speaking for yourself?

There. Much better... and much less, well, rhetorical.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 31, 1999.

That's all we need is to run an election costing us taxpayers $100,000 or more in each county and city of the state just to raise our taxes for necessary police, fire fighting and health services and to provide for clean air. That doesn't seem like a good use of resources to me. Who gets rich off elections -- newspapers, radio and TV advertisers, ballot printers and elderly poll workers.

-- Dave (unified@whidbey.net), September 01, 1999.

Come ON, Dave!

You wrote:

"That's all we need is to run an election costing us taxpayers $100,000 or more in each county and city of the state just to raise our taxes for necessary police, fire fighting and health services and to provide for clean air. That doesn't seem like a good use of resources to me. Who gets rich off elections -- newspapers, radio and TV advertisers, ballot printers and elderly poll workers."

Let me get this straight: You ACTUALLY think that this initiative will result in special elections EXCLUSIVELY for addressing the issue of tax/fee increases?

Give me a break.

Just about every locale in the state has AT LEAST 3 elections per year, every year, right now.

And you REALLY believe that its impossible to add these financial questions to elections ALREADY scheduled? Or that it's equally impossible to have mail-in elections?

Yup, I can see it now... the counting computers have to decifer the meaning of a couple more punches in the ballot card. And the COST!!!! My God, can you IMAGE how much its going to cost to have those counting machines count those two or three extra holes for each regularly scheduled election? Why, we'll be broke in a year.

Please.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Dave:

State and local government will adjust (just like we do when they raise our taxes). Washington will not fall into the ocean when I-695 is approved.

Washington is the 6th highest taxed state in the nation (www.taxfoundation.org)

Washington has a $1 billion tax surplus.

The MVET only represents less than 2% of government spending. The state just increased their revenue by 11%.

Working class folks should be able to buy newer cars (not just the rich).

By the way Dave. Each time you buy 10 gal. of gasoline you pay $4.14 for the roads.

People will have more money to spend on their children when I-695 is passed.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

You often hear 695 supporters say that Washington is the 6th highest state in the nation. Well, I'm not entirely sure if that's true. Here's what the Republicans against 695 (www.noi695.org) website says. Their claim is that we're 6th highest in terms of $, but if you adjust for the percentage of personal income (seeing how every state has a different level of income), Washington is 18th.

1998 State Tax Revenue

Column 1: Total Taxes ($ million) Column 2: Total Taxes Per Capita Column 3: Total Taxes - Rank Column 4: % of Pers. Income Column 5: % of Pers. Income - Rank ALABAMA 5,734 1,318 46 6.4 40 ALASKA 1,186 1,932 12 7.8 21 ARIZONA 6,949 1,488 42 6.9 31 ARKANSAS 4,057 1,598 31 8.2 14 CALIFORNIA 67,713 2,073 9 8.0 17 COLORADO 5,898 1,485 43 5.6 47 CONNECTICUT 9,394 2,869 1 8.0 16 DELAWARE 1,981 2,663 2 9.5 3 FLORIDA 22,513 1,509 41 6.2 42 GEORGIA 11,589 1,517 38 6.5 37 HAWAII 3,176 2,662 3 10.4 2 IDAHO 2,057 1,674 25 8.3 12 ILLINOIS 19,771 1,641 29 6.0 45 INDIANA 9,747 1,652 27 7.2 28 IOWA 4,803 1,678 24 7.3 26 KANSAS 4,648 1,768 21 7.5 24 KENTUCKY 7,115 1,808 17 8.8 8 LOUISIANA 6,082 1,392 45 6.8 32 MAINE 2,370 1,905 14 8.7 10 MARYLAND 9,190 1,790 19 6.3 41 MASSACHUSETTS 14,488 2,357 5 7.6 23 MICHIGAN 21,693 2,210 6 8.9 6 MINNESOTA 11,504 2,435 4 9.4 4 MISSISSIPPI 4,343 1,578 34 8.8 9 MISSOURI 8,222 1,512 40 6.4 39 MONTANA 1,332 1,514 39 7.7 22 NEBRASKA 2,633 1,583 33 6.7 33 NEVADA 3,228 1,848 15 7.3 27 NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,009 851 50 3.1 50 NEW JERSEY 15,605 1,923 13 6.0 44 NEW MEXICO 3,575 2,058 10 10.7 1 NEW YORK 36,155 1,989 11 6.6 35 NORTH CAROLINA 13,869 1,838 16 8.1 15 NORTH DAKOTA 1,078 1,690 23 8.4 11 OHIO 17,643 1,574 35 6.5 36 OKLAHOMA 5,301 1,584 32 7.9 20 OREGON 4,999 1,523 37 6.4 38 PENNSYLVANIA 20,629 1,719 22 6.7 34 RHODE ISLAND 1,784 1,806 18 7.0 30 SOUTH CAROLINA 5,683 1,482 44 7.3 25 SOUTH DAKOTA 834 1,130 49 5.4 48 TENNESSEE 6,996 1,288 47 5.7 46 TEXAS 24,629 1,246 48 5.4 49 UTAH 3,458 1,647 28 8.3 13 VERMONT 958 1,620 30 7.1 29 VIRGINIA 10,543 1,552 36 6.0 43 WASHINGTON 11,806 2,075 8 8.0 18 WEST VIRGINIA 3,012 1,663 26 8.9 7 WISCONSIN 11,150 2,134 7 8.9 5 WYOMING 856 1,779 20 7.9 19 Total 474,991 1,761 7.0

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Ahhh crud. Let me try that again. Hopefully it'll actually work this time. Take a look at http://www.noi695.org/taxburdens.htm to see for yourself.

1998 State Tax Revenue

Total Taxes ($ million) Per Capita Rank % of Pers. Income Rank ALABAMA 5,734 1,318 46 6.4 40

ALASKA 1,186 1,932 12 7.8 21

ARIZONA 6,949 1,488 42 6.9 31

ARKANSAS 4,057 1,598 31 8.2 14

CALIFORNIA 67,713 2,073 9 8.0 17

COLORADO 5,898 1,485 43 5.6 47

CONNECTICUT 9,394 2,869 1 8.0 16

DELAWARE 1,981 2,663 2 9.5 3

FLORIDA 22,513 1,509 41 6.2 42

GEORGIA 11,589 1,517 38 6.5 37

HAWAII 3,176 2,662 3 10.4 2

IDAHO 2,057 1,674 25 8.3 12

ILLINOIS 19,771 1,641 29 6.0 45

INDIANA 9,747 1,652 27 7.2 28

IOWA 4,803 1,678 24 7.3 26

KANSAS 4,648 1,768 21 7.5 24

KENTUCKY 7,115 1,808 17 8.8 8

LOUISIANA 6,082 1,392 45 6.8 32

MAINE 2,370 1,905 14 8.7 10

MARYLAND 9,190 1,790 19 6.3 41

MASSACHUSETTS 14,488 2,357 5 7.6 23

MICHIGAN 21,693 2,210 6 8.9 6

MINNESOTA 11,504 2,435 4 9.4 4

MISSISSIPPI 4,343 1,578 34 8.8 9

MISSOURI 8,222 1,512 40 6.4 39

MONTANA 1,332 1,514 39 7.7 22

NEBRASKA 2,633 1,583 33 6.7 33

NEVADA 3,228 1,848 15 7.3 27

NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,009 851 50 3.1 50

NEW JERSEY 15,605 1,923 13 6.0 44

NEW MEXICO 3,575 2,058 10 10.7 1

NEW YORK 36,155 1,989 11 6.6 35

NORTH CAROLINA 13,869 1,838 16 8.1 15

NORTH DAKOTA 1,078 1,690 23 8.4 11

OHIO 17,643 1,574 35 6.5 36

OKLAHOMA 5,301 1,584 32 7.9 20

OREGON 4,999 1,523 37 6.4 38

PENNSYLVANIA 20,629 1,719 22 6.7 34

RHODE ISLAND 1,784 1,806 18 7.0 30

SOUTH CAROLINA 5,683 1,482 44 7.3 25

SOUTH DAKOTA 834 1,130 49 5.4 48

TENNESSEE 6,996 1,288 47 5.7 46

TEXAS 24,629 1,246 48 5.4 49

UTAH 3,458 1,647 28 8.3 13

VERMONT 958 1,620 30 7.1 29

VIRGINIA 10,543 1,552 36 6.0 43

WASHINGTON 11,806 2,075 8 8.0 18

WEST VIRGINIA 3,012 1,663 26 8.9 7

WISCONSIN 11,150 2,134 7 8.9 5

WYOMING 856 1,779 20 7.9 19

Total 474,991 1,761 7.0

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

The Tax Foundation assigns state ratings based on percapita income for several years. Check it out (www.taxfoundation.org)

Washington was 8th last year and is now 6th this year. Our legislature just increased state spending by at least 11%. At this rate if I-695 does not pass Washington will be challenging the nation for the highest taxed state in the nation.

Here is why I-695 will pass in November. There are more angry tax payers than there are tax takers.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

Westin, you're assumption that municipalities have at least 3 elections already each year is hogwash. You wrote: "Just about every locale in the state has AT LEAST 3 elections per year, every year, right now.

And you REALLY believe that its impossible to add these financial questions to elections ALREADY scheduled? Or that it's equally impossible to have mail-in elections? "

It isn't that way in Island County. County officials are elected every four years (even numbered years like 1998) with one county commissioner race in the 2 years in between (2000). City council races are every 4 years in odd numbered years (like 1999). Otherwise counties and cities do not have standard election issues. Other districts have officials elected in similar fashion.

According to our county auditor, mail in elections cost as much if not more to process ballots than in-person elections.

The long and short of it is that it will cost big bucks to the taxpayers for elections if I-695 passes and will be another drain on the budgets of municipalities.

-- Dave (unified@whidbey.net), September 05, 1999.

Dave-

"The long and short of it is that it will cost big bucks to the taxpayers for elections if I-695 passes and will be another drain on the budgets of municipalities. " No it won't. What will happen here is just what happened in Colorado. Politicians will not float proposals that are not reasonable and well justified, because THEY will lose money from their baselines (through the cost of the election) if the increased tax or fee is NOT justifiable because it WOULD be voted down. It gives the politician an incentive to NOT try for unjustified tax and fee increases. That will save the taxpayers buckets of money, not cost them.

The

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 06, 1999.

Craig writes:

"No it won't. What will happen here is just what happened in Colorado. Politicians will not float proposals that are not reasonable and well justified, because THEY will lose money from their baselines (through the cost of the election) if the increased tax or fee is NOT justifiable because it WOULD be voted down. It gives the politician an incentive to NOT try for unjustified tax and fee increases. That will save the taxpayers buckets of money, not cost them."

Explain to me how the situation in Colorado (WHERE CITIES DID NOT LOSE ANY FUNDING!!!!!!!!!) relates to the one here?

For example, the City of University Place in Pierce County will lose about 31% of its revenues if 695 passes. Please name one city in Colorado that lost 31% of its revenues when their initiative passed.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

BB-

It would be helpful to us all if you would LEARN TO READ before placing mouth (or in this case computer keyboard) in gear. This was the posting Dave made that I was replying to:

'Westin, you're assumption that municipalities have at least 3 elections already each year is hogwash. You wrote: "Just about every locale in the state has AT LEAST 3 elections per year, every year, right now. And you REALLY believe that its impossible to add these financial questions to elections ALREADY scheduled? Or that it's equally impossible to have mail-in elections? " It isn't that way in Island County. County officials are elected every four years (even numbered years like 1998) with one county commissioner race in the 2 years in between (2000). City council races are every 4 years in odd numbered years (like 1999). Otherwise counties and cities do not have standard election issues. Other districts have officials elected in similar fashion. According to our county auditor, mail in elections cost as much if not more to process ballots than in-person elections. The long and short of it is that it will cost big bucks to the taxpayers for elections if I-695 passes and will be another drain on the budgets of municipalities. " The ISSUE was whether or not multiple additional costly elections would need to be held. I replied to THAT ISSUE. I am aware (and very thankful) that a tax cut will accompany passage of this initiative. As for University Place, it receives these funds currently for sales tax equalization, not for MVET equalization. I would suggest that it might be more logical to fund that out of.......... THE SALES TAX. Now if you are through nitpicking, why don't you go to the "How much should the ferry be subsidized" thread and answer the two questions you have been ducking there for some time. How much should transit services and ferry services be subsidized by tax funds? How much should be payed for with user fees. You said you couldn't make a decision until a comparison with BC ferries was posted. So it's posted. Their subsidy is 6%. Are you seriously interested in dialogue or just harassing the process.

Love and kisses

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

Craig writes:

"The ISSUE was whether or not multiple additional costly elections would need to be held. I replied to THAT ISSUE."

That you did. And your answer was, and still is, specious reasoning.

The reason that there haven't been that many elections held in Colorado is because no cities faced drastic cuts in revenue, like University Place or Lakewood do, to name a couple. Cities in this state that are facing huge revenue shortfalls are going to have no choice but to go to the voters to ask for a tax increase. In Colorado they didn't have to do this, because they didn't lose that much revenue.

So when you bring up Colorado as an example of what happens here, you need to qualify it with the whole truth.

Speaking of the whole truth, how come that little blurb in the "claims" section still doesn't explain how 695 takes all the R-49 funding away?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

"Cities in this state that are facing huge revenue shortfalls are going to have no choice but to go to the voters to ask for a tax increase"

Nonsense. Since they are losing sales tax equalization money they can also go back to the collectors of the sales tax and say that they would like their share from the source. Will that require the legislature to do some work? Sure. But they should have funded sales tax equalization from slaes tax revenues (duh!) to begin with.

I notice both you and d (the alphabet boys) are continuing to dodge the question about ferries. At least he has the courage to admit that he's incapable of finding a government program he doesn't love. You issued the challenge, and are now ignoring the question. Why should we believe any of your other postings are credible when you won't take a stand on that one?? Hmm?

The Craigster

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

"Cities in this state that are facing huge revenue shortfalls are going to have no choice but to go to the voters to ask for a tax increase"

Nonsense. Since they are losing sales tax equalization money they can also go back to the collectors of the sales tax and say that they would like their share from the source. Will that require the legislature to do some work? Sure. But they should have funded sales tax equalization from sales tax revenues (duh!) to begin with.

I notice both you and d (the alphabet boys) are continuing to dodge the question about ferries. At least he has the courage to admit that he's incapable of finding a government program he doesn't love. You issued the challenge, and are now ignoring the question. Why should we believe any of your other postings are credible when you won't take a stand on that one?? Hmm?

The Craigster

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

"Speaking of the whole truth, how come that little blurb in the "claims" section still doesn't explain how 695 takes all the R-49 funding away? "

Expand on this please. I don't follow your thoought. What "claims" section? I-695 certainly takes the vast majority of the MVET away ($30 per car is still some MVET). Those things currently funded by MVET will then have to compete with everything else for the remaining 98% of the tax dollars. Those things that don't make the cut will go away. Since the vast majority of these things are reprogrammable by the legislature, the MVET doesn't necessarily cut any programs. They could all be scaled back to 98% of projected. For most programs this would still be an increase. If you want to fund R-49 priorities, take it out of the other programs increase.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 07, 1999.

Craig Carson writes: "I notice both you and d (the alphabet boys) are continuing to dodge the question about ferries. At least he has the courage to admit that he's incapable of finding a government program he doesn't love."

I really appreciate such kind words from you! Actually, I didn't say I couldn't find a government program I didn't like. What I said was, no one should expect to find a government they are entirely content with, unless they are the King. The fact that I AM unhappy with some programs is no reason to withdraw support from the governments that serve me well in so many other areas. I don't expect all my personal preferences and priorities to be perfectly reflected in government programs. I do expect to have the opportunity to use the legislative process and public forums to influence the decisions, and that has always been available if I take the time to find the right buttons to push and people to contact. If I am not very interested in the issue, like ferry rates, I guess I get what I get. If I work hard at local highway plans, I may be able to influence a multi-million dollar decision on an interchange design in my community. On balance, I would rather live here than some other places that have lower taxes; because the taxes buy services I (mostly) appreciate. If I really wanted low taxes, I could shop around for some third world village; but the roads would be dirt and they have no jobs. If that appeals to you, you could probably live the rest of your life on what you have now, and not need a job. Just a thought.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

"I do expect to have the opportunity to use the legislative process and public forums to influence the decisions, and that has always been available if I take the time to find the right buttons to push and people to contact. " Don't forget the INITIATIVE process either, D. It's democracy in action in its purest form. After we pass I-695 who know what other great things we can do! Property tax reform, perhaps?

.

-- Craig Carson (crigar@crosswinds.net), September 08, 1999.

Oops- Don't know how that happened. This is the correct e-mail address.

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

Craig Carson:

You have me interested. What did you have in mind for the property tax? We already have the 106% limit. Referendum 47 added the IPD limit. If I-695 passes; local government would not be able to increase the levy rate, or monetary amount, or expand the definition of the tax base without a popular vote (essentially replacing both of these). Have you thought of something specific to propose, beyond these restrictions on taxes?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

D--

Yes.

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

Craig:

Yes?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I've been busy...

Craig writes:

"Expand on this please. I don't follow your thoought. What "claims" section?"

I was referring to the "facts vs. claims" section on this website. In the claims section, there is reference to the fact that 695 will take away the funding for R-49. The "facts" (I use that term loosely) column basically doesn't even address this issue; instead it says that people voted for R-49 because it insulted them. Which is a little bit confusing, to be honest. I've never heard of people voting for something because they were insulted.

In any case, my question: why doesn't the "facts" column address this issue? Why doesn't it admit that 695 takes away the R-49 funding?

"If you want to fund R-49 priorities, take it out of the other programs increase."

I'm a little unsure of the legalities of changing a referendum. My understanding is that it'll be at least another year before R-49 could be changed (since it takes at least two years to change a referendum or initiative).

First of all, the MVET is what is designated to fund R-49. R-49 was going to use bonds to fund its construction projects; these bonds would be backed by MVET money. Given the fact that 695 supporters want to see the both the MVET and the state RESERVE (not surplus) go away, and R-49 is based on the sale of bonds, how can you expect that the state will be able to do anything with R-49? Nobody will buy the bonds if there's no money to back them up.

Why would any bondholder want to buy them from a state that is massively decreasing its revenue streams, thus increasing the possibility of a default in the future? Been there, done that with WPPSS. We don't need to do it again. Which of course means this state's gonna have a heckuva time funding anything with bonds if 695 passes.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Dave, Dave, Dave...

For refresher purposes, you told us:

"It isn't that way in Island County. County officials are elected every four years (even numbered years like 1998) with one county commissioner race in the 2 years in between (2000). City council races are every 4 years in odd numbered years (like 1999). Otherwise counties and cities do not have standard election issues. Other districts have officials elected in similar fashion."

Gee... I'm sorry to hear that your county is exempted from school levy elections, some primary elections, and the statewide elections (such as voting on the initiative) that take place on a yearly basis. Here I thought democracy extended to EVERY county.

Use your head, Dave. The election dodge is a red herring, wholly unsubstantiated by the facts.

"According to our county auditor, mail in elections cost as much if not more to process ballots than in-person elections."

Your county auditor, no doubt similarly opposed to 695, is lying.

One of the major arguments FOR mail in elections is cost savings. Or do you folks pay for poll watchers when their aren't any polls?

"The long and short of it is that it will cost big bucks to the taxpayers for elections if I-695 passes and will be another drain on the budgets of municipalities."

Sorry, Dave... if you actually believe this, then the long and the short of it is that you're delusional.

The cost of elections, compared to the tax-savings that the voters stand to realize, doesn't even make a drop in a bucket.

"Election cost" is a non-starter. Clearly, your side of the issue is desperate to find any excuse to scare people out of supporting this initiative.

Get over it, or arrange counseling.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.