Elected leaders not willing to be panicked by I-695

Measure to cut car tax takes back seat to other priorities, they say

Beth Silver; The News Tribune

BLAINE - Asked by the state's business leaders Thursday to list their top priorities next session, legislative leaders and the governor said public education, health insurance reform, rural economic development and reducing property taxes.

Dealing with the issues presented by Initiative 695 topped none of their lists.

And some 250 business people, meeting for the Association of Washington Business annual policy conference, took note.

The measure, which would abolish the motor vehicle excise tax and replace it with a flat $30-per-vehicle fee, has galvanized voters across the state who want to see a more equitable car-tax system.

It has also allied many politicians, Republicans and Democrats, who are reluctant to face the loss of millions of dollars in tax revenue - $743 million next year, more thereafter.

It's not that lawmakers aren't willing to address the initiative; they assume they'll have to whether the ballot measure passes Nov. 2 or not.

But they - Gov. Gary Locke, House co-Speakers Clyde Ballard and Frank Chopp, Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder and the Senate GOP's deputy leader Dino Rossi - weren't willing to give it top billing.

Instead, Locke spoke of reducing class sizes and teacher testing. Snyder (D-Long Beach) said the Legislature has to address the individual health insurance market, which has made it nearly impossible for many self-employed people or employees of small businesses to buy insurance. Chopp (D-Seattle) talked about ensuring that the state's money is well spent on public education. And Rossi (R-Issaquah) said he's looking to eliminate the state's portion of the property tax.

Four of the five politicians have publicly stated their opposition to I-695. Only Ballard (R-East Wenatchee) has refused to say which way he'll vote, although he speaks in favor of I-695.

"Everyone's jockeying to figure out if they should say something or not. I think they're kind of walking a tightrope on that," said Don Brunell, president of the business association. The AWB is against the initiative for fear that businesses will bear the brunt of tax hikes to make up for the lost revenue.

The legislators acknowledged to the group - which repeatedly brought up the initiative - that the excise tax should be overhauled. Rossi said, for example, that the state assessed the value of his year-old car at one-third above what he paid for it.

Snyder said he didn't think the initiative would pass. But he said the Legislature should still make changes to the car tax.

"I think we want to get together with the governor win or lose," he said. "I'm fully confident the Legislature will come up with some relief."

Ballard said if the initiative fails and the Legislature ignores the tax, another initiative will crop up next year. But, unlike Snyder, he wasn't optimistic about the Legislature's will to change the tax system.

"It is important that something is done. The chances of the Legislature lowering the auto license tabs at all is about the same as you winning the Powerball lottery having not bought a ticket," Ballard said.

The 10th annual conference at the Semi-ah-moo Lodge served as a kind of crystal ball into the next legislative session, which begins in January. In addition to the legislative leaders, lobbyists who served on panels also addressed issues likely to come up next year.

LeeAnn Prielipp, president of the Washington Education Association, said raising teachers' salaries remains the group's legislative focus, even though teachers received millions in raises last year.

Ed Zuckerman, executive director of Washington Conservation Voters, the political arm of the environmental community, said his group would narrow in on salmon recovery and the state Shoreline Management Act.

And Rick Bender, president of the Washington State Labor Council, said he would renew the fight for changes to the state's unemployment insurance system, money for worker retraining and a measure that would allow state employees collective bargaining power.

- - -

* Staff writer Beth Silver covers state politics and government. Reach her at 253-597-8603 or beth.silver@mail.tribnet.com.

) The News Tribune

09/24/1999

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 24, 1999

Answers

hammer:

Like I said, the legislature is focused on what people keep asking for. Their job is to balance the priorities, and keep eveything within reason - including the funding required. It didn't sound like they are hot to fix any problems created by 695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.

"hammer:

Like I said, the legislature is focused on what people keep asking for."

No they're not! They're not focused on what people ask for at all. People have been asking for a tax cut for YEEEEAAARRSS and it never comes, or when it does, it's insultingly little, or favors some special interest group. The people didn't want a statium, we got a stadium. The people want their property taxes lowered, they raise our property taxes. They created a state lottery designed to pay for education so they wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for education. They raise taxes to pay for education. They threaten an income tax LONG before anyone heard of 695 because they don't have "enough money" despite huge surplusses. Taxes go up. Property taxes go up. Sales taxes go up. Gas taxes go up. Hotel taxes go up. Laundry machine taxes for apartments go up (yeah, that's what I said.. wha??? but it's true). King county sales taxes approach 10%. Not to mention everything else we're taxed for. Taxes go up. NO MORE! I, the person, and we, the people want some REAL tax relief: PASS I695!

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

Whoa there Paul, take a breath now. We don't want that vein in your forehead to burst.

"The people didn't want a statium, we got a stadium."

It was voted down by a razor thin vote, true. Although tonight was the last home game of the season. I believe the figures had 30 sell outs out of 43 games there (more sellouts than in ALL the years previous at the Kingdome.) And most people the news interviewed said they went to be at the field NOT to see the team. Sounds like they want the staduim now.

"The people want their property taxes lowered, they raise our property taxes."

Actually, I think the last time the legislature raised property taxes was in 1993, but it may be longer than that. And they have lowered it since then.

"They created a state lottery designed to pay for education so they wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for education."

No, it was NEVER designed to pay for education exclusively. A common mistake, but lottery funds have ALWAYS gone directly to the General Fund.

"They threaten an income tax LONG before anyone heard of 695 because they don't have "enough money" despite huge surplusses."

When was this? Perhaps in the early 90's when the state faced about a billion dollar shortfall?

"Gas taxes go up."

Last time was 1991 (and it is NOT adjusted to inflation).

"King county sales taxes approach 10%."

Isn't it 8.2%? Ah, rounding up.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me. If it is true that no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity, and we are currently on the verge of being in the longest period of economic growth EVER, then are we truly taxing ou

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Hmm, forum cut off my last line again. To finish:

Are we truly taxing ourselves too much?

(And here's an extra line for the forum to eat)

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

"It was voted down by a razor thin vote, true. Although tonight was the last home game of the season. I believe the figures had 30 sell outs out of 43 games there (more sellouts than in ALL the years previous at the Kingdome.) And most people the news interviewed said they went to be at the field NOT to see the team. Sounds like they want the staduim now."

Ah, so once again, it's a derned good thing the voters were subverted, cause once again, we didn't know what we want. *wiping brow*. Thank god for politicians who keep us on the straight and narrow. Hmmm... sales taxes:

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION: Financing info on stadium. And I quote: Special stadium sales tax of .5% on restaurants, bars and taverns in King Co. Special stadium sales tax of 2% on rental cars.

Looks like more 'o those tricky "deferred, general public won't notice 'em" taxes.

More reading: "The Authority would impose two new local taxes, a sales tax of 4/10 of one percent and an annual motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) of 3/10 of one percent. RTA hopes that federal grants will cover almost 20 percent of the 10-year cost. "

Hmm, good thing this 695 thing is coming up. They wuz a gonna raise the mvet on us. Hoo dogey, looks like we beat 'em to the punch.

Hmm... yet more: "Under the RTA proposal, the sales and use taxes would increase from 7.9 percent to 8.3 percent in the portions of the Regional Transit District within Pierce County and the City of Everett, and from 8.2 percent to 8.6 percent in the rest of the district."

Oh no. We're not approaching 10%. We're MIIIIILLES from 10%. We'll never get to 10%. 10%? Naaw, what makes me think that?

Oh, I was just reading another article where the new stadium sales taxes were tantamount to 'corporate welfare'. Apparently we don't feel this way, all of a sudden???

Me: "Gas taxes go up."

You: Last time was 1991 (and it is NOT adjusted to inflation).

Me again: Gas taxes go up. And thank god and all of his little minions that it isn't adjusted to inflation.

"If it is true that no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity, and we are currently on the verge of being in the longest period of economic growth EVER, then are we truly taxing ou..."

Yes... yes we are. A good economy is not the cornerstone of a free and stable society. A good economy is the result of a free and stable society. More specifically, having a good economy does not equal a free society. Nazi Germany had an EXCELLENT economy under the keen leadership of Adolf Hitler. We don't oppress oursleves, and then when the economy is good say: "There, see? A little oppression goes a long way towards a good job and a sports stadium". Well, lemme rephrase: I don't say those things, but you might.

Oh, some stuff on property taxes. Why is it when a tax cut which is TINY is proposed, the state gov't scoffs at how little it is, but is deathy afraid of its passage:

"That's the equivalent of "two lattes a month," scoffed John Arthur Wilson, spokesman for County Executive Ron Sims." - King County official on proposed property tax cut.

More on property taxes: "Currently, the county increases spending by 6 percent a year and has done so since the early 1970s. State law limits the growth of property taxes to 6 percent a year. Most governments, including King County, assume the full 6 percent increase each year."

The point to that one? Well, the point is, if you give gov't room to move, they take IT ALL. I recall another post regarding greed (not from Patrick, but someone who agrees with his anti 695 position).

Oh, and in the spirit of fairness (I'm all about value) property taxes have gone down in some places, in some circumstances, due to referendum 47. However, this blurb is interesting:

"At the state level, Referendum 47 has been an unqualified success. The permanent 4.7% reduction in state property tax collections and the annual inflation limit have provided $297.9 million in tax relief so far, and will save taxpayers a further $2.3 billion over the next six years

For Washingtons counties and major cities the results continue to be mixed. Our 1999 survey finds that 25 (64%) of counties did not implement Referendum 47s inflation limitation, representing a 13% increase in the number of counties not applying this limit compared to last year."

More gov't officials ignoring referendums by "the people".

The thing I get from you, Patrick, is you seem to have a real nut for higher taxes, especially given your 'tax us into prosperity' quiz. You're free to donate ALL your money to the causes and gov't departments that you think are doing a good job. Please don't aim your legalistic gun at people who don't wish to follow you.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

Paul writes:

"Ah, so once again, it's a derned good thing the voters were subverted, cause once again, we didn't know what we want. *wiping brow*. Thank god for politicians who keep us on the straight and narrow."

As dbvz has so aptly pointed out, there is a logical disconnect in your thinking. The stadium was built as a result of direct citizen input to the state legislature. Thousands and thousands of people mobilized and lobbied the state to keep the M's here. They told the legislature that they wanted to keep the team.

That's exactly what you want people to do to let the state know what programs should be funded post-695.

If the M's stadium should not have been funded, then 695 really is a vote on the programs funded by the MVET. That means that when funding for things like police departments goes away, the legislature should not replace it. That's the logic you're using with the stadium, after all.

But if you want things to be funded based on citizen outcry to the legislature, then you should support the funding of the stadium, because that's exactly what happened there.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 27, 1999.

You know, another comment that is often stated is that the only constants in life are death and taxes. But it also seems clear that complaining about taxes is also a constant in the universe. What are the odds that there are people in Alabama (one of the lowest taxed states in the country) who complain about being taxed to death too? It's one of those fundamental things about being American. There's an interesting editorial in today's Seattle Times about how people in general like to complain about how there are tons of useless government programs and regulations, but when it comes down to eliminating some of them, those same people resist that idea.

You know Paul, I don't exactly relish the idea of paying an extra 8.2% for every non-food item that I buy. But I think things through enough not to take the knee jerk reaction of complaining about how a tax was raised eight years ago, and how burned I feel about a car rental tax when I probably won't ever rent a car here.

I know that because of that stadium, retailers are still bringing in the money on stuff bearing the Mariners logo and establishments in the Pioneer Square area won't go under due to a lack of foot traffic 6 months out of the year.

I also know that although our education system (paid for by our taxes) is far from perfect, it is good enough to keep new recruits coming to companies like Microsoft and Boeing, and has given us one of the strongest economies in the country. And we all know that comparing us to Nazi Germany is just a tad outside reality.

Did you know that it is estimated that the interstate freeway system has produced a private return on public investment by over 7 times? Not bad for an oppressive gas tax.

Interesting figures on the RTA. Mind telling us where you read them? I do know that there are plans for Phase II of the RTA which would extend the light rail system to Snohomish and Pierce Counties in about ten years. I'm assuming that the tax increases you pointed out are part of that plan (again, in about 10 years), and were ALREADY planned to be placed on the ballot for the people to decide.

I would be happy to have a system where only the people who want to pay have to pay. Of course the only condition would be that those who don't want to pay DON'T get to use the services. You know, not use the public roads, prohibited from attending or even watching a game played in a public stadium, prohibited from hiring or even conducting business with a person educated in a public school, prohibited from obtaining subsidized utilities (I hope you live in a metro area Paul, because otherwise you'd probably pay several hundred dollars a month just to HAVE a phone line). Yes, that would be fine by me.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

"I know that because of that stadium, retailers are still bringing in the money on stuff bearing the Mariners logo and establishments in the Pioneer Square area won't go under due to a lack of foot traffic 6 months out of the year. "

Patrick-

All this show is that there are winners and users when you subsidize someone. It does not show that the public as a whole is any better off. For those who live (or own a business) in close proximity to the stadium, I'm sure it's a good thing. For the ironworkers who were making tremendous overtime under a PLA, there's no question they benefited. But the real issue for the state as a whole is are we any better off after this. Had the people not bought the Mariners logo clothing, the dollars would not have suddenly disappeared. They'd have been used on something else. To the extent that they bring in TV revenue from outside the state, there may be a net benefit to the State of Washington, but whether the people in the state bought Mariners, Sonics, or UW logo sports apparel wouldn't seem to make much difference for the overall bottom line. One might even guess we'd be better off if it was just the UW, since there aren't any stockholders to pay off.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 27, 1999.

D,

The weasels in Olympia don't want to address it because they might actually have to do their jobs and WORK!!!

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 28, 1999.

hammer: What weasels are you talking about? The elected officials? They address several thousand issues each session, in the form of bills proposed. It only tkes one elected official to propose, but it takes 51 + 26 + 1 to get it passed; and most die because of some flaw, or a lack of sufficient vocal support, or the politics of the moment. The elected officials work, but they are part-time and live and work in the real world like the rest of us most of the year.

"Fixing" 695 may no be high on their priorities, because they may have some confusion about whether the initiative is just about funding (in which case they should move money around so everything is cut by 2%), or is about the programs funded by MVET (in which case they should let those specific programs suffer and die). And they have the other issues to deal with, that will appear in the form of those thousands of bills.

I believe 695 is just about finding, and gives no direction about what to do about the funding loss; but I can see the other point of view. So can those agencies and local governments that get the MVET, and that is why they are pointing out the magnitude of their losses. That has been called scare tactics, but those agencies and governments have some cause to be scared. And so should we, who depend on those agencies; because the state may not "fix" 695, or not fix it immediately, or fix it the way we want it fixed. 695 is not a solution. It is another big problem.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.