I have just been to the "NO" site. I am trying to get all the facts so that I can talk to my friends and family about the arguements on both ends of the discussion. I don't understand why the "NO" site doesn't provide a place to ask the 'hard' questins. I need info on things like:

- The tabs tax originated oh so many years ago to fund road improvement. Slowly, our government has voted those funds into the general state fund. Now, government is asking us for new tax bonds to improve our highways and road, while the original money is being used in the general fund for the state.

- We had a surplus last year in our general fund. When that occured, the council and Gov. Locke were ready to create new program to put that money into. I want that money to come back to me, or to be able to vote on were it should go (like schools or those roads that they are trying to find funding for).

- Why do we have to cut the emergency fund and fire/police funds when other programs could be re-bugeted. Those are scare tactic words

- If all of these people are so concerned about the environment who are behind the "NO 695", why would they not want people to be able to buy a newer, more gas efficent car. Newer cars run with better milage and less pollution. Who is going to go out and buy 3 new cars just because of the tab break. No one. People just may replace their older cars with better cars-- BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, not worse, not more pollution, LESS!!

- New cars are up to $800 for tabs a year!!! Families can't afford another $800 for tabs, BUT, they could afford a newer car. Some people don't buy newer, safer, more gas efficent cars because they can't afford the extra expense of the tabs. Those are not the "RICH". Those are hard working families.

Any help with first hand documentation for the government spending in the last 10-15 years would be great, web site prefered (it is hard to get people to go to their library and look in archives).

HELP ME GET MORE SUPPORT!!!

Thanks---

Jennifer Robbs

-- Jennifer Robbs (jenrobbs@excite.com), September 21, 1999

Answers

Let me do my best to help you out here, admitedly I'm pretty sure 695 deserves my no vote!

There's a huge PDF on the history of the MVET avialable from here: http://www.mrsc.org/focus/i695/i-695.htm

On the environment: Any new car that has tabs of $800 a year is likely to be more of a polluter than my 87 volkswagon which has $67 tabs, whats the gas mileage on the RVs and SUVs the promoters show on the home page? Regardless whoever is buying such a car is obviously able to pay more for roads and pollution than is a poor person driving a junker.

And, remember the low tabs would encourage overall consumption of vehicles, otherwise why would Rood of Rood Buick et. al is be behind this initiative? I believe the gross number of cars dripping oil and taking up cement would increase as a result of its passing. If you think Detroit really needs to consume more steel, this initative is for you.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY! I think you are missing entirely the fact that 695 changes our tax levying system to a direct democracy, and this more important issue is not being considered, just look for discussion of it on the pro 695 site, or anti 695 ads.

Sarcastically I'll tell you I'm not worried about 695 passing because I know if it passes I could get it reversed by tacking a sales tax reduction onto a new measure that reverts tax levying back to a representative system and puts MVET charges up to $1000 for new cars.

Seriously I think the idea of direct democracy for tax levying should be considered FIRST, and apart from, any specific tax change.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 21, 1999.

Jennifer writes:

"- The tabs tax originated oh so many years ago to fund road improvement. Slowly, our government has voted those funds into the general state fund. Now, government is asking us for new tax bonds to improve our highways and road, while the original money is being used in the general fund for the state."

You are misinformed. The MVET replaced the property tax on cars way back when. The property tax went for all sorts of different uses. From the beginning, MVET was *never* designated specifically for road improvement.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

Well Billy addresses the environmentl question, but there are a few other points to discuss.

First, the car tabs (MVET) were NOT originally designated towards road improvements. It was 1977 before the first MVET funding went to transportation, and that was to the ferries. You've got the history all backwards. It originally all went to the General Fund, and has gradually been diverted into transportation accounts.

Actually, we did have a vote on what to do with some of that surplus. It was called R-49 last year. Part of the surplus went into replacing the general fund revenue that was diverted when the MVET was transfered to transportation funding. Other than that, it takes a 2/3 majority to touch the surplus, which is more like $500 million if you factor out the $500 million emergency reserve fund.

Well, I-695 targets the funding that goes towards these emergency services. Local governments can and will make adjustments across the board, but with a vast majority of them providing little more than vital services, it will be pretty much impossible for them to make budget cuts without affecting those services. Anyone who says otherwise should take the time to go over their local government's budget and try making the cuts themselves.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

"but with a vast majority of them providing little more than vital services" Patrick- That strange feeling toward the front of your face is your nose growing.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 21, 1999.

I don't generally quote myself Craig, but:

"Anyone who says otherwise should take the time to go over their local government's budget and try making the cuts themselves."

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 21, 1999.

"Any new car that has tabs of $800 a year is likely to be more of a polluter than my 87 volkswagon which has $67 tabs"

Maybe that is the case with YOUR vehicle, but I know that my 98 SUV ($600 tabs) contributes significantly less than the 60's era Dodge Dart down the street. My last emissions check barely registered on the meters, but that Dodge belches a black cloud of smoke where ever it goes. Don't tell me that it pollutes less!

As far as the pro 695 campaign being missleading, I know full well that it changes the tax structure THATS WHY I'M VOTING FOR IT! I think that it is pretty condescending that people really think that the general public will not do the research into the guts of the initiative before they vote. Those of you who oppose 695 have claim to have done the research, what makes you think that the rest of the voters won't do the same? I can tell you that if I had just read the tagline for I-676 (you know, the gun thing) that I would have supported it. But I did the research and made up my own mind that it was way out of line. I've done the research on this initiative and made up my mind based on that research. I suggest that EVERYONE do the same. I don't really care how you vote as long as you know what your voting on.

-- Mike Smith (smithm@pos-data.com), September 21, 1999.

It is really depressing to hear some of the emotional overlay to the digs going back and forth. Let's get back to the issues like the effects of the initiative and whether they are better or worse than the status quo.

A lot of speakers in threads have suggested that a reason to vote for I-695 is to get rid of vehicle taxation for purposes other than roads, and to restore vehicle taxes solely to fund roads. When MVET was substituted for property tax on vehicles in 1937 it was a general tax for any lawful public purpose, just as the property tax on vehicles which it replaced, when vehicles were made exempt from property tax, so long as we have an excise instead. It wasn't then for roads, and it isn't now. The mix of general purposes for which the MVET can be spent have changed with legislatures and referenda from year to year. Last year we voted in Referendum 49 to earmark more of that general revenue to transportation, to rebuild a failing infrastructure, and to increased local law enforcement and local health, rather than letting the legislature or local governments decide how to spend it. Repealing the MVET and the exemption of vehicles from property tax will repeal the earmarking done by Referendum 49, and return the taxation of vehicles to a strictly general revenue scheme available for all public purposes to which other personal property tax can be spent. We are telling the legislature and local governments to reduce the amount they collect and to spend the substituted personal property tax on anything they think appropriate. If we think they will pick a better set of priorities than those we set in Referendum 49, it might work. I'm afraid that they won't know what priorities we prefer, because we didn't express any, only deleted a few we say we don't want, like Transportation, law enforcement and health, plus a number of smaller priorities.

One of the other things I've heard about I-695 is that local governments can just choose different things to spend their other taxes on in order to restore distributions to local government repealed by I-695. I'm skeptical that local governments will dare to do so. If I-695 passes, they will know that people repealed distributions for transportation for them, distibutions for law enforcement and distributions for health. They don't know what we want instead, so they will be leary of doing at least those things we said we didn't want.

They will need to make big cuts, particularly some cities and transit governments who lose 40% or more of their total revenue, because they have no lawful way to choose a different form of revenue to perform any services we do want. If you think any government has 40% or more in efficiency saving available, you need to go in and point out how to do it, because local governments don't have a clue how to make cuts that deep. Unlike the legislature they generally can't decide to create new kinds of taxes, since the legislature only gives them a very limited list of options, which are limited in amount, most of which is used up to get where we are.

I can understand being angry at the legislature, but not at most local governments. Most of them are run by part-time citizen legislative authorities who live in your neighborhood and are pretty accessible, with few tools at their disposal. Most local govenments besides cities and counties have only one or two possible revenue sources. If you cut off one covering 40% of their services, they can't even ask their citizens to vote yes on an increase which would allow them to replace necessary services. Neither can we expect the legislature to chop state services and write hundreds of changes to laws to replace revenue sources more important local services need, particularly when it will require not only passage in a partisan legislature, but also state-wide voter approval. Maybe they could fix one or two obvious local needs unfairly cut off by repeal of MVET distributions, but not much more for several years. If we need the legislature to fix things they haven't figured out yet, we need to tell them what it is, not require local police and health officials to be fired for a year or three until the legislature figures out what we want, compromise on it, and get us to approve it state-wide.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), September 21, 1999.

Mr. Dick-

Maybe if it really does hit the fan for local governments, it will induce them to stay lean, focused, and not depending on unpopular or unfair taxes in the future. If I-695 accomplishes that, it'll be a real achievement.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark, I hope you are not serious when you suggest that taking a 40% reduction in funding by a local government which cannot create new revenue opportunities or even ask its citizens to approve an increase, if legislation does not make an alternative available, is OK. No local government, could possibly avoid dramatically cutting its core services by "focusing" if it lost 40% of its budget. Neither belated legislative prioritizing or a local vote of the people could keep such such a government alive for 2 or 3 years, let alone operate on such a reduced budget.

If we need reductions in some taxes and emphasis on others (hopefully deductible ones so we don't waste more money), we need to include what they should be in our initiatives, not just tell the legislature figure out our intent by magic, get a majority (or supermajority if they need to amend anything our initiative touches) to agree on it, and get state-wide voter approval to do what we intended, but refused to say.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.

"hopefully deductible ones so we don't waste more money"

For those who can't read the political speak here, our good friend Mr. Dick is advocating either an INCREASE IN THE EXCISE TAX, an INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, or a STATE INCOME TAX. These are the only things that would be deductible on the federal income tax. Since any deductible tax comes off a graduated tax rate, that makes these in effect MORE REGRESSIVE than a flat tax such as sales tax. The rich will have their state taxes subsidized by the feds (through federal income tax deductions). the less rich will have them less subsidized. If you take the standard deduction, sorry; you pay full price. The problem isn't that we are under taxed. The problem is that the politicians do not spend our taxes wisely. The solution is neither a STATE INCOME TAX, nor more money for politicians. The solution is to decrease the money that the politicians have to waste. I intend to vote for a 2% reduction in November.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

"but also state-wide voter approval" For those of you who don't understand what this refers to, Mr. Dick is advocating an increasse in taxes that, under I-695, would require voter approval. Mr. Dick, I don't know how to get this across to you but I'll make it as simple as I can. The people believe that the government already takes too much money. They want it to take 2% less. The purpose of the legislature coming back into session, if I-695 passes, is NOT TO FIND A FUNDING SOURCE TO REPLACE THE MVET. It is to redistribute the 98% that remains to equitably share the reductions caused by loss of the MVET. Government needs to prioritize things. If you can't come up with 2% savings in efficiencies, the bottom 2% of your priorities need to go away. Program managers will either (sob) have to live on 98% of their projected budget lines or justify killing the bottom 2% of funding priorities so the others can be fully funded. Government will have to do with less. If it can't figure out how to do more with less, it needs to figure the best way possible to do less with less. If government managers don't like that, they can quit government service and see if they can find a management job they like any better in private industry, where we have to make such management decisions on a day to day basis. If politicians don't like that, they can retire to the private sector. With a poli sci degree and certain verbal skills (You want to super-size that, Mister?) they will find appropriate success. Do you start to get the picture Mr. Dick???

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark:

I think your intent is quite clear. I believe many of the proponents are so intent on their goal, that they no longer care (if they ever did) what damage is being done. What I understood from Mr. Dick, is that in those local governments taking the biggest hit, it would take either a massive grant of state revenue to replace their losses, or a major change in what taxes they could even propose (if they can get approval) to replace the losses. If they are losing 40%, and you want them to suck it up for a 2% loss, somehow they need 38% or replacement funds to that specific local government; and it has to come from somewhere or they will be INCAPACITIATED.

Mr. Dick also pointed out that solving this may seem simple in general terms, but the legislature doesn't make big decisions in a hurry when it is nearly evenly divided between the major parties. A year or three may be an optimistic expectation. So a lot of people get laidoff who were doing important work for their communities. No big deal, right?

As for a deductable state tax to replace some of the mess we have now, I wouldn't mind that bit of rational thinking. How about something real simple, like a state income tax that is exactly 10% of whatever the federal tax is (no additional forms); and we get rid of the state property tax levy for schools, and half the state tax on gas, the MVET, and reduce the sales tax to 5%. I haven't looked into the revenue comparison, but I bet I could write a real attractive sounding initiative to get it done. Let the legislature figure out how to get the right amount of money to the agencies that lose through the cuts. Seriously, this kind of restructure of the tax system should be evaluated through a political process that will identify all the effects and deals with them all. I-695 failed to do that, and no one is real sure what it will actually do.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.

d-

" I haven't looked into the revenue comparison, but I bet I could write a real attractive sounding initiative to get it done. Let the legislature figure out how to get the right amount of money to the agencies that lose through the cuts."

I note with wry amusement that the above is PRECISELY what you complain the I-695 finders did. Do you appreciate the irony of your post. I LOVE IT. Go ahead and write your initiative for a state income tax. Tell me when you've got your first half million signatures. I continue to be amazed that the intent of I-695 goes over your head, Dick's head, all the can't get enough of government types. The intent is to control the growth of government. To get NEEDED services through efficiencies and prioritization. The budget baseline will go DOWN, not merely be shifted into different funding streams in a zero sum game.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark writes:

"The intent is to control the growth of government. To get NEEDED services through efficiencies and prioritization."

Please explain how Garfield County can make up 40% of its funding through efficiencies and prioritization.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark wrote, "I note with wry amusement that the above is PRECISELY what you complain the I-695 finders did. Do you appreciate the irony of your post. I LOVE IT."

Yes, that is why I wrote it. Did you not notice the "Seriously" later on? Did you not recognize my comment as intentionally not serious? I thought it was obvious, but perhaps not.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.