Although it was posted in a string further down the board this morning, this is something that deserves a second look. Monte and the gang in support of I-695 came up with that new $3 billion local surplus figure a little while back to show how local governments aren't exactly strapped for cash.

Well if you take a look at today's Seattle PI http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/clue14.shtml you'll see that this $3 billion figure is simply not true. The fund does not represent a year end surplus as the supporters would like us to believe, but a short term account. Basically, it's like someone pointing out how much extra money you have right after you deposited your paycheck but BEFORE you've paid any bills.

This all comes from personal research done by either Monte or someone else on the campaign. But instead of double checking with someone who would know to see if their assumptions were correct, they just started using the figure. And as it turns out, their amateur interpretation was just flat out wrong.

So they plan on issuing a retraction or at least stop using the $3 billion figure right? Wrong. Eyman has no intention to stop using it. He still clings to the incorrect interpretation even in the face of an explanation as to what the fund really is.

Is this a view of how their campaign works? Make a claim based upon someone's best guess at how they think something works, and when they're proven wrong CONTINUE to make the claim in hopes that the general public is too lazy and ignorant to realize that they are lying through their teeth?

I'm wondering if Westin, who is always outraged at the false statements at the No site, feels the same outrage here. Or is it okay to lie if it supports your point of view?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 14, 1999

Answers

Hi Patrick,

You may have noticed in another thread started by Westin ("Isn't opposition to I-695 all about socialism...") that he asserted that I and Joshua from the Speakeasy "both drive cars" and that therefore we are hypocrites for railing against the damage, both to the environment and to human lives lost to reckless driving, which cars do. There was just one little problem with his argument there. He forgot to ask me whether I actually own and/or drive a car. Guess what: I never have and never will! I don't know whether Joshua does; even so, from my side of this amusing little incident, voila -- another instance of Westin not checking facts before bellowing anti- oppo demagogue B.S.!

It would be quite interesting to rummage through his old posts ("rummage" as in rummaging through an extremely foul-smelling trash can!) to see how many more rhetorically convenient non-truths one could find...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 14, 1999.

Shush you two! Don't ruin their preconceived notions of the world.

Like Colorado, their wonderfully functioning tax restrictive paradise. Except for the fact that Colorado is facing a $13 billion road funding shortfall because of tax restrictions that they've placed on themselves.

And there also in the past couple of years was a huge class action lawsuit by rural school districts against the state of Colorado for $2 billion. Seems that the state is constitutionally obligated to provide for education (as is Washington) and when tax restrictions were enacted, education funding fell rapidly in rural and inner-city school districts because their property values weren't high enough to support bond issues. The state couldn't give them money because it couldn't increase its spending.

But remember, according to them Colorado's working great!

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

Gee... you three children all lined up in a row! Like "picking off ducks."

Patrick, you REEK with hypocrisy. You demand a retraction on the $3 billion dollar figure (which would make no difference to me if it did, or did not, exist) but manage to avoid righteous indignation against the deliberate inaccuracies of the various "no" sites.

In short, as an opponent of 695, you have no bitch coming until you work on getting your own house in order.

Jeffy, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you about the car thing. Your protestations notwithstanding, the fact is that you have mislead; shown your ignorance and, dare I say it? "Misstated" the issues so often that your unsupportable assertion is typical of so many of those made by a desparate opposition.

Can I prove it? Of course not. Nor can you. And, BTW... since you're obsessing on me so much? Feel free to, uh, rummage away. Obviously, you need to get a life... and that's as good a start as any.

And BB, who is as "factually challenged" as any I've seen in the opposition, hangs his hat on an alleged "$2 billion law suit" (How convienient that, once again, one in the opposition, sort of, well, "neglects" to post a site to verify their statement of "FACT" on a lawsuit that is STILL, according to BB (brain size?) underway... or at least, unresolved... and hence, meaningless.

In 1999, you can sue a ham sandwich. Thus, the presentation about an unresolved lawsuit is as meaningless as most of BB's assertions.

The fact is that there has not been, and as of now, is not any movement underway to do away with Colorado's tax law. If it is as bad as ol BB would have us believe, then why isn't anyone trying to get rid of it?

Gentlemen, you saw the numbers. The are insurmoutable, no matter how much your side lies; twists the facts or misleads the public. I know you have been in a state of panic since the polls were released, but can't you people at least maintain a SHRED of dignity?

Westin

67-69-74-66

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 14, 1999.

Westin, Westin, Westin. Do a little research before you spout off, okay?

"Colorado's support of public education has fallen so woefully short of the minimum requirements that the state faces a suit from parents of mainly rural districts that seeks $2 billion in damages."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1998/10/05/editorial1.html

"Gebhardt said the legal arguments in the coming lawsuit will follow four lines:

Health and safety concerns. Poorer districts are so strapped for funds that roofs are leaking, furnaces are failing and buildings are out of code.

Disparities in financing "power." Rich communities can collect far more in taxes per student than poorer ones, and their citizens are better able to afford tax increases.

Growth issues. Fast-growing districts can't meet parents' demands for new schools.

Technology. The current property tax system is creating haves and have-nots.

The lawsuit is important to business because it could shift surplus funds to schools from other infrastructure needs. Business groups have named road funding as a top priority, especially after voters rejected new taxes for transportation.

Or, as is becoming more likely, it could trigger a wholesale restructuring of the state's tax system, with winners and losers in the ensuing reforms.

Norton and House Majority Leader Rep. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, are revisiting the state's tax system. A major motivation is the lawsuit, sources said.

"The gun is to the head right now. You are going to have to do something to get the gun away from the head," said one industry lobbyist."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1997/12/22/story1.html

"CACI's identification of transportation as an issue of statewide importance was contemporaneous with a report from Gov. Roy Romer's Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation, which estimated an overall $13 billion shortfall in revenues needed to meet Colorado's transportation needs over the next 20 years."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1997/06/02/editorial5.html

"No one questions that most Coloradans, whether newcomers or long- time residents, perceive the state's transportation system as being in a woeful state."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1997/05/12/editorial5.html

"Tax limits curtail how much new revenue fire districts and cities can raise from property taxes to meet growing demands. Rather than using "surplus" funds to build firehouses and emergency medical gear, several districts are required to refund money to taxpayers under tax- limit rules.

Operating on a shoestring, the districts and departments face a major worry -- one large disaster literally will wipe out their budgets."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1999/03/29/story2.html

"But instead of socking away a few dollars to meet future needs, North Metro must refund $85,000 to taxpayers. By a slim margin of 50 votes, voters last November defeated a so-called "de-Brucing" measure that would have allowed the district to keep the money.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, written by tax-cut advocate Douglas Bruce of Colorado Springs, locks the additional revenues districts can collect to inflation plus the increase in the value of new construction. TABOR requires a refunding of excess revenues unless voters allow governments to keep the surplus.

In addition, state law caps annual revenue growth from property taxes at 5.5 percent. The 5.5 percent cap makes no sense when population growth hits 10 percent a year -- the case in Douglas County for most of the decade.

"We are having to rebate money. Even de-Brucing doesn't give us all the money we need because we are limited by the 5.5 percent rule," said Montoya, whose South Metro district serves some of Denver's wealthiest people.

Districts with heavy residential development get hit the hardest because yet another state law, called the Gallagher Amendment, places a much heavier share of the property tax burden on commercial property than on residential property.

Thus, Parker, with lots of homes going up but little industry to foot much of the bill, has one of the highest residential property tax rates in the state.

But as much as fire district chiefs worry about rapid growth, they fear a recession even more because it would cause property values to fall.

"If they finance now and growth goes to zero, you have debt hanging out there and no means to pay it back," Bondi said.

Fire and districts have consolidated, leased equipment, privatized ambulance services and delayed the construction of stations to avoid going to voters. But Bondi said the cracks are beginning to show. Districts "are replacing equipment slower. They are trying to stretch out debt long," Bondi said."

http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1999/03/29/story2.html

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Oh and one more thing Westin...

"The problem was highlighted in 1998 when 11 smaller and rural districts sued the state, saying the way school construction is funded is unconstitutional because it fails to provide an equal education to all public school students. The case is scheduled to go to trial April 24, in Denver District Court."

http://www.gazette.com/archive/99-09-08/daily/loc2.html

The suit's still ongoing.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Let's clearify things about the $3 Billion dollar figure. It's actually more than $3 billion. Consider this.

The average daily balance of the Local govt. Investment pool has grown from $ 1.48 billion in 1995 to the current value of $ 3.045 billion.

Rob Gavin of the P-I indicated that 420 taxing districts invest in the fund. If this is correct, the average surplus indicated by the daily balance is:

Av daily surplus (each taxing dist) = 3,045,000,000/420=$7,250,000

That is $7.25 million. Do you have that much excess in your bank account?

Rob Gavin helped us identify more than a $3 billion dollar surplus.

We know the Ben-Franklin transit has $12.25 million divided into 3 other investments besides the Local govt investment pool. This pattern is spread across the state with other taxing districts. There are a total of 1720 taxing districts according to the Washington Institute Foundation.

When the dust settles on this issue the local govt surplus could be double or tripple the $3 billion figure.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

Monte: click your heels three times, and repeat after me: IT'S NOT A SURPLUS. IT'S NOT A SURPLUS. IT'S NOT A SURPLUS.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand.

All the funds are invested so that they have an average maturity of 90 days.

Here's what their website says:

"The LGIP is comparable to a Rule 2a-7 money market fund recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (17CFR.270.2a-7). Rule 2a- 7 funds are limited to high quality obligations with limited maximum and average maturities, the effect of which is to minimize both market and credit risk.

The objectives of the State Treasurers investment practices for the LGIP, in priority order, will be: safety, liquidity, and return on investment. To provide for the safety and liquidity of funds deposited in the LGIP, the state treasurer and designated investment officers shall:

adhere to all restrictions on the investment of funds established by law and by this policy; limit the purchase of investments in securities so that the average maturity of the portfolio does not exceed 90 days; limit the purchase of investments to securities that have a maximum maturity of 397 days, except securities used as collateral in repurchase agreements; limit the purchase of investments in securities other than those issued by the U.S. government or its agencies; and, prepare regular reports of portfolio activity. The primary objective of safety will be measured in cash, as opposed to accounting terms, where different, and in terms of the portfolio as a whole, as opposed to the terms of any individual transaction. This means, for example, that a single transaction that generated an accounting loss but actually increased the amount of cash received in the portfolio would be considered to have increased capital, and not decreased it. Within the restrictions necessary to ensure the safety and liquidity of funds, the investment portfolio of the LGIP will be structured to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles."

http://www.wa.gov/tre/lgippoli.htm

I don't understand why you are implying that this is extra money, Monte. It's not. It's tax money that is collected and invested for a short period of time until it is spent.

How can you be getting something that is this obvious so totally wrong?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

BB,

I appreciate your posts... I really, really do.

I also appreciate your verbiage. You sling it like a professional liberal hack... you need a little more work, however... as I will show you:

What you've told us is that a suit has been FILED.

Are you capable of understanding the difference between FILING a suit and WINNING a suit?

Apparently not, as you seem to infer that they are the same thing; that the mere fact that some parents and or districts got pissed off and filed a suit, a suit that has not been decided, in and of itself means that somehow, this act has already been tossed out.

Editorials are meaningless, as the variety of those in our local media have shown. They have had no effect, because, frankly, no one believes the words, insults or conclusions from a biased source. For example, how much effect did the Seattle Times have on I-200, with their now-legendary violation of any remnant of objectivity on the issue?

And what has been the effect of the massive media campaign against this issue? By now, even you know the answer.

While I (again) appreciate the fact that you posted these various unsupported positions (for which, I will note for the record, you did provide links) from many of the same sources who, no doubt, opposed this measure in the first place, the fact remains that 76% of ALL tax increases requested in Colorado have been passed, a figure you managed to either avoid or just flat left out.

The fact remains: That bureaucrats don't think very highly of this is meaningless in the face of the obvious support of this system by The People of the state. Nothing you posted showed any organized effort to amend, modify or get rid of TABOR, and that is where any concern over THIS initiative would show. Colorado has a legislature. They have a governor. Now, where is the list of efforts to get rid of this program? And if its so awful, then why is it still in effect?

So... this suit has been in progress since April 24? Man... THAT'S a clear-cut case of... what? More waste of the taxpayer's money.

The unalterable fact of the matter is this: Had those SUING worked as hard to convince their constituency of the need for the increases in question as they have to make the fools of themselves that they appear to be now, then the people in question would have given them what they wanted in the first place, and none of this would have been happening.

Try and remember the words of Larry Kallenberger, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc. Kallenberger was one of the naysayers. As director of state Department of Local Affairs under Colorado Governor Roy Romer, Kallenberger was a prominent opponent of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

But he said predictions that voters would reject most tax-related ballot measures haven't come true, in part because elected officials have been selective in what they put on the ballot.

Are you with me so far, BB? Good.

Cities, however, have been more successful than the counties Kallenberger represents. "People will vote yes on tax or rate increases provided they know exactly what it is going for," he said, "and with cities, voters can almost look out their window or drive down the street and see the improvement."

Government leaders, he said, must respect the will of the voters, not patronize them or make excuses.

Read this sentence above THREE TIMES... REAL SLOW.

"I don't share the belief that the citizens just didn't understand what they were doing," Kallenberger said.

But many opponents of 695 believe that supporters are dumber then dirt. They see only themselves as knowing what the hell they're talking about, and completely dismiss any argument that tends to undermine their position.

"I think they have a general sense of what they are doing.

"And what they are doing if they vote yes is, they are saying no to government and saying no to what they see as the endless capacity of some governments to just keep building itself bigger and bigger."

Do you understand this, BB?

Government officials are being tested under the strict regime of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Kallenberger said.

"The day will come - I think sometime in the next decade - where America will face a crisis," he said. "When that crisis comes, if we have done a good enough job that we can be trusted, people will say, `We need government to help us out of this.'

"But if we keep acting like citizens are our enemies and we have to fight with them all the time, I don't think we will be in that position."

(With a tip of the hat to David Postman of the Seattle Times)

You support a government that seems to feel exactly that... that we are the enemy... so we have a government that will do everything in its power to avoid controls by the people they are allegedly there to serve.

I don't.

Like Colorado, the truth is that we CAN try this. And if it doesn't work, we CAN try something else. I recognize the thought of something new and different frightens you, but in time, you'll get over it.

As for Colorado's law... the lawsuit(s) don't mean spit. What matters is the outcome... and I hope one day, you'll learn that, and stop buying into all the verbiage.

Westin

Who sincerely thanks you for playing. Next!

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 15, 1999.

Westin writes:

"So... this suit has been in progress since April 24? Man... THAT'S a clear-cut case of... what? More waste of the taxpayer's money."

Westin, try actually reading the post before you put your foot in your mouth.

The suit GOES TO TRIAL on April 24th.

Here, let me repost something for you about this lawsuit, since you obviously had trouble understanding.

"Or, as is becoming more likely, it could trigger a wholesale restructuring of the state's tax system, with winners and losers in the ensuing reforms.

Norton and House Majority Leader Rep. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, are revisiting the state's tax system. A major motivation is the lawsuit, sources said."

See that Westin? "IT COULD TRIGGER A WHOLESALE RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE'S TAX SYSTEM." Politicians in Colorado appear to be concerned enough about it to consider wholesale changes in their tax system.

But I guess we should believe your opinion over the newspapers and elected officials that are actually in Colorado.

TABOR shifts the funding burden from the state to local districts. But the state is still constitutionally obligated to provide for the education of its students. Does TABOR trump that constitutional obligation? That's what we'll find out in court eventually.

"The unalterable fact of the matter is this: Had those SUING worked as hard to convince their constituency of the need for the increases in question as they have to make the fools of themselves that they appear to be now, then the people in question would have given them what they wanted in the first place, and none of this would have been happening."

See the above Westin. These rural school districts do not have the tax base to fund their own operations without state help. They ALREADY asked their constituents to fund their operations, and their constituents said yes. And it wasn't enough. The consitution doesn't simply melt away, Westin. The state has to fulfill its obligation, and that means providing money to these districts to make sure that their students meet required standards.

You know, you really should read about Colorado before you go spouting off about it. One constantly repeated quote from the Seattle Times just doesn't cut it.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

BB,

You STILL don't get it.

You emphasize the phrase: "IT COULD TRIGGER A WHOLESALE RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE'S TAX SYSTEM."

Are you even REMOTELY capable of understanding the phrase: "IT COULD?"

COULD, my dear BB, does NOT equate to WILL. Yet, you insist on acting as if it already HAS.

Do you understand the difference?

Let me try and put it in perspective to you.

I could hunt you up, and sue YOU. But SO WHAT IF I did?

I have no REASON to sue you. But that, in and of itself, could not STOP the lawsuit until the motion phase.

You STILL with me?

There is an idiot Metro Commissioner in Portland that thought it would be nifty to put toll booths on our two interstate bridges, for the sole purpose of charging WASHINGTON RESIDENTS ONLY to use those bridges!

Now, you know as well as I do, and as well as he does, that such a proposal could NEVER happen. But did that stop him from making the attempt? Hell, no.

Do you suppose it matters that this same guy is running to become the Oregon State Treasurer. and he needs some name recognition? Nah... that had NOTHING to do with his efforts... right? No one EVER sues anyone for political reasons, right?

Why, Senator Heavey sued to overturn R-49. It was a LAWSUIT!!!! You know; kinda like the suits YOU'VE trotted out. AND WHAT HAPPENED?

A FILED suit COULD do ANYTHING.

Until a decision is reached, it can't DO anything, and means even less.

Get over it.

As for rerunning the quote from the same article? BB, that article by itself has more substance then all of yours put together. That article, astonishingly published in an EXTREMELY hostile media source, is the most unbiased piece of reporting I've seen on either side. It's age does not effect its quality. You see, that article talks about the way things actually are and how they were. Your selective research only from sources that oppose the current system is the peculiar perspective (not unlike your own, for that matter) of those who want it to be different BUT WHO LACK THE ABILITY, SKILL, MOTIVATION OR SUPPORT TO GET THE *PEOPLE* TO OVERTURN THAT ACT.

No, instead they take the cowardly way out, and do everything they can to ignore the will of the people... just as people like you will attempt after this passes.

I hang my hat on the following fact: If the PEOPLE wanted to do away with their tax act, then the PEOPLE would work to end it. Not politicians (how much monumental bitching have we heard from opponents of I-601? And how many of those gutless idiots have gone to Olympia to file an initiative to overturn it?) and NOT the courts.

In sum, you've provided a bunch of quotes from people that opposed Colorado's act before it was implemented; who do not CARE what the people want, and who, in effect, fit perfectly into the profile of the opponents up here. You have NOT shown the demise of that Act; nor have you shown any groundswell of effort to get rid of it.

You can call a duck a dog all you want. But only one of them can fly, no matter WHAT you say.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 15, 1999.

BB, Using the same issue of the Denver Business Journal 10/5/1998 that you referenced about the lawsuit, it speaks of

"the state's designated tax windfall to major capital improvement projects during the next five years."

Now if the state must go to the people for every tax increase, HOW have they managed to come up with a 'windfall'?

It seems that the only problem they are having is in the proper 'distribution' of the funds. And whether it is an 'actual' problem or a 'perceptual' problem is the question.

Let's read some more recent news from Colorado the 'predictor of our impending doom'http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1999/01/11/newscolumn1.html A proposal to suspend sales tax because there is TOO MUCH INCOME FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!

And this one http://www.amcity.com/denver/stories/1999/07/26/editorial4.html but substitute the name Washington for Montan because that's what is happening in this state. Nope don't compare us to Colorado. Compare us instead to Montana or possibly Cuba. Because that's where we are headed

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

BB You say "See that Westin? "IT COULD TRIGGER A WHOLESALE RESTRUCTURING OF THE STATE'S TAX SYSTEM." Politicians in Colorado appear to be concerned enough about it to consider wholesale changes in their tax system."

Well you get right to the heart of the problem. 'Politicians in Colorado appear to be concerned enough about it to consider wholesale changes in their tax system.'

The politicians are the ones who created all of the problems to begin with. The only way they can see their way through ANY situation is to put a heavier burden on the taxpayer. They can't do the obvious thing and re-allocate funds to create a more reasonable distribution.

But they can certainly wring their hands, gnash theri teeth and cry 'Oh WOE IS ME' or to go one better, myy favorite line from Annie.

"Oh my goodness, oh my goodness."

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Westin writes:

"...the fact (sic) is that you have mislead (sic); shown your ignorance and, dare I say it "Misstated" the issues...

Can I prove it? OF COURSE NOT."

(emphasis added)

So shut up already, Westin! You still have yet to directly address several critiques posted by me and others which point out where you've presented outright B.S. in defense of I-695. I'm still waiting to hear where you got the hot info about me being an automobile driver (and therefore a "hypocrite" vis-a-vis I-695)...

Answer this DIRECTLY in your next post, Westin. Otherwise, as I'm sure you yourself would say (or words to the effect), "If you can't run with the BIG DOGS then GET OFF THE ROAD!"

As for who's obsessed with whom, Westy, I have yet to write The Don Rickles Condensed Version of War & Peace in response to any of your posts!

Later...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 15, 1999.

Westin writes:

"Patrick, you REEK with hypocrisy. You demand a retraction on the $3 billion dollar figure (which would make no difference to me if it did, or did not, exist) but manage to avoid righteous indignation against the deliberate inaccuracies of the various "no" sites."

Alright Westin, can you show me where I "demanded" a retraction of the $3 billion dollar figure? Well? Oh wait, I NEVER DEMANDED A RETRACTION!!!!! You are so hilarious Westin. Time and time again you make up a fake comment in your fantasy world and then attack that comment. Of course you can't see past your own ego to even realize this, but that's okay. It's always fun to point out your really lame attempts at responses.

You're the one who's always commenting about errors on the No sites and how they aren't fixed right away. But somehow I'm a hipocrite because I pointed out a mistake on the Yes site? Yeah right Westin. Now let's see what fantasy comment he comes up wi

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Patrick,

It's been three days now since I asked Westin where he got the hot tip that I am an auto driver and therefore a "hypocrite" for opposing I-695 (oops! I don't drive!). Haven't heard from him yet. I'm sure you'll get the same treatment. He'll show up in another thread within a couple of days to flame you on some other issue, without ever directly answering your question.

Somewhere in Washington State there's an intelligent and civil supporter of I-695.

And pigs fly when you're not looking at them.

See you all at the polls!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 16, 1999.

Jeff,

For a really good time you should check out the East vs. West thread. Westin spent several days trying to poke holes in a study that I found disproving the idea that a disproportionate amount of money is spent in the Puget Sound region compared to the rest of the state.

Of course he didn't have a copy of the study and was just going on the assumption that there COULDN'T be facts that contradicted his view of how the world works. It was pretty fun explaining to him over and over how his current rebuttal to the study had no basis in reality, and that he should try reading it BEFORE he tried attacking it. But you know our Westin. If he thinks it, it must b

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.