Hello, why do you have to have the voter approval clause in the I-695. This should be a totally seperate voting issue and not part of initiative-695. I'm all for initiative-695 and will vote yes for it but I think that the voter aprroval thing should be seperate issue all together. Personally I don't believe in it, becasue that's why we hold elections every few years to tell politicians what we think. If anything it should only be a vote on certain taxes, like gas, food, ect. We'll that's what I think, and would like to know why you decided to include voter approval of all new taxes in initiative-695. Let's hope a $30 a year tab fee becomes a reality.

-- Patric Urso (zerotap@aol.com), September 26, 1999

Answers

Without the voter approval clause of this initiative, every level of government effected by this initiative would have just turned around and shifted the taxes saved from the reduced MVET to somewhere else.

This way, the increase in taxes is reserved for the people... and with a legislature so unresponsive to the people's demands to reduce taxes, the controls have to be implemented to insure that the democrat-controlled government of this state doesn't arbitrarilly raise our taxes, as they have so often in the past; or that the various other government levels don't respond with panic and short- sigtedness, as many already have by instituting increases in taxes before 695 passes, so that don't have to bother getting the permission of those they work for... the people they want to tax.

Westin

(Who also notes that when this initiative was filed last year, it failed, on its own, to gather the signatures it needed to get on the ballot. Without the vote clause, it wouldn't have gathered the signatures it needed this time, either.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 26, 1999.

Westin wrote: "Without the voter approval clause of this initiative, every level of government effected by this initiative would have just turned around and shifted the taxes saved from the reduced MVET to somewhere else"

Since you have been so explicit, perhaps you can explain why the voter approval requirement applies to any state agency or local government, regardless of whether they get any MVET money or not?

While you are explaining, you could also address the issue of whether this is a vote on a funding proposition, or a referrendum on the programs funded by the MVET.

You could also try to explain how the state can replace the funding in time to prevent an incapacitation of some agencies and local governments.

I believe tha answers are: 1. No logical reason 2. funding, not programs 3. Not possible. At least some of what are called "scare tactics" are real problems that can't be fixed in time.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 26, 1999.

dbvz wrote: "You could also try to explain how the state can replace the funding in time to prevent an incapacitation of some agencies and local governments."

First of all, there are plenty of offices and governmental functions which SHOULD be incapacitated. So, logically, what would happen, is that those wasteful government agencies would be cut, and the savings would be deferred to the essential programs which would lose funding from the MVET. Those 'essential' programs should already be funded from the general fund, yet they are treated like special programs. This is the biggest fallacy of all. As I keep repeating, a complete, top to bottom restructuring of Washington State spending MUST take place. The fact that this might, just MIGHT be forced by a voter initiative makes it all the more delicious. Remember this and remember it well: Government will never, EVER reinvent government, only angry, fed-up citizens will.

Secondly, and something that is CONSTANTLY ignored, is that whenever a tax cut is put in place, revenues often go up, due to the increased spending by the tax-paying sector which is resultant of the reduction of the burdensom tax. The state not only makes money from the MVET, it makes money from the sales tax of new vehicles. A sales tax which is oppressively high already, and hopefully will be the next target of the people. Nonetheless, I will be buying a new car next year of the MVET is eliminated. So, as far as a non-scientific study goes, I am a perfect example of someone who will be spending money I wouldn't normally spend due to the reduction of a tax. Therefore, the state will instead make money in sales tax that it wouldn't have made due to the mvet tax. Now, one might say "Ah yes, but the MVET tax was applied EVERY year, not just the sale year". Well, do you like apples? The MVET is a dishonestly applied tax, applied to the RETAIL, MANUFACTURERS suggested retail of the vehicle. The mvet does NOT proportionally go down with the natural devaluation of the car or is it even based on what you PAID for the vehicle. So, the state *could* have avoided this little funding snafu if it had made more MEANINGFUL reforms on the mvet by applying the tax based on the normal devaluation of the vehicle, instead of their immoral, naziistic tyrannical application they have now. How do ya like them apples?

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

Why, howya doin' db?

Westin wrote: "Without the voter approval clause of this initiative, every level of government effected by this initiative would have just turned around and shifted the taxes saved from the reduced MVET to somewhere else"

db wrote: "Since you have been so explicit, perhaps you can explain why the voter approval requirement applies to any state agency or local government, regardless of whether they get any MVET money or not?"

I admit it.. you've confused me. I believe I wrote, and you actually did quote "...every level of government effected by this initiative..." Presumably, agencies not receiving MVET funds would not find themselves "effected" by this initiative.

However, those that are not directly effected may find themselves receiving less money as the legislature shifts funding to cover the initial shortfalls.

Now, if you're asking the philosophical question as to why ALL agencies were covered by this initiative... well, you really don't believe that government at every level isn't capable of money- laundering style activities, do you?

The fact is that the only way this would work is to drop the hammer on tax increases as well... like next year's property tax initiative.

You went on "While you are explaining, you could also address the issue of whether this is a vote on a funding proposition, or a referrendum on the programs funded by the MVET."

Uh, I believe it is neither.

You continued "You could also try to explain how the state can replace the funding in time to prevent an incapacitation of some agencies and local governments."

HHHmmm.... perhaps they can budget now for the post 695 cuts... and begin the process of putting their funding requests together for the next round of school levies... typically in the Spring?

But, you know what? I'm more then willing to risk it... because, for the most part, I believe many of these agencies are lying. It is legal to lie, after all, so they have no real percentage in telling the truth.

C-Tran comes to mind. They anticipate a cut of $2.9 million. They claim that such a cut will "force" them to eliminate 16 out of 31 routes, while reducing 9 others... leaving 6 unscathed.

That's a scary scenario... until you look at C-Tran's bankbook and discover that they have a $70 million dollar balance... on hand.

Then, all of a sudden... it ain't so scary, is it?

You finished by saying: "I believe tha answers are: 1. No logical reason 2. funding, not programs 3. Not possible. At least some of what are called "scare tactics" are real problems that can't be fixed in time."

You say "no logical reason" and then ignore the face that, last year, without this clause, they couldn't get the signatures... and with it, operating on a shoestring budget, a half-million signatures were turned in.

It makes perfect sense to me. Without it, cutting the MVET would have been nothing but a paper exercise for a democrat controlled legislature and governor's mansion. Further, as far as I know, the only poll that actually broke out the questions was the KOMO poll, and the numbers supporting the vote provision were 74%, 5% higher then the cuts in the MVET. So, it obviously makes sense to a whole lot of people besides me.

And I agree with the assessment that the tax votes could only be reduced to a few items.

Westin

Pleasure doin' business w/you!

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 27, 1999.

From the Seattle Times Sunday "And while there may be common ground on popular programs, such as sales-tax equalization and police services, the debate over money for transit, local health districts and highway projects is likely to be divisive." http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/init_19990926.html

And I think this is the true reality. Most of the things that are commonly viewed as essential functions are not going to have a problem getting legislative support to restore funding. Police services, basic public health, etc. But the money going to transit and ferry operations is going to be looked at long and hard. And about time, too, IMHO.

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

d

Writes Since you have been so explicit, perhaps you can explain why the voter approval requirement applies to any state agency or local government, regardless of whether they get any MVET money or not?

d, youre the one that keeps telling us that every part of government will be effected by I-695. Which is it? Some may be or all will be?

Ed  hoping its all government, so theyll finally get the message.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Since you have been so explicit, perhaps you can explain why the voter approval requirement applies to any state agency or local government, regardless of whether they get any MVET money or not?

Because the bulk of government funds are fungible, that is, they are not dedicated to any specific sources. Therefore, if the voters were to pass I-695, in the absence of the voter approval requirement, other agencies could just raise their taxes/fees and offset the tax reduction portion of I-695. In fact, that also means that with the restriction, these other agencies/functions can share the deficit caused by I-695, and cushion the blow to those affected by the loss of MVET dedicated revenues.

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

I was sitting in class a few years ago, when a classmate started an argument. His point was that once we (the People) elect an official, we have already pre-approved his/her decisions for duration of his/her term in office. In other words, the People's sovereignty over the elected official ended at his/her taking office and the People would not have any say, whatsoever, until that person is up for election again. How absurd!

Jim Roberts, Mercer Island

BTW, I'm not a "rich Mercer Islander" who benefits by reducing taxes on a $70,000 Mercedes. I'm an average, mid $20's earner with an '87 Mazda whose tab fees will merely be cut in half, and I'm still FOR I-695). I've heard enough of the left wing's "make the rich people pay" chest-beatings.

-- James W. Roberts (tekhelet@excite.com), September 27, 1999.

What the government is trying to do is wage a scare tactic against the people. I-695 is exactly what every state needs. It will put a stop to the millions of dollars that are wasted every year in all of the construction projects. Anybody ever see 2 men working while 8 stood by and watched? I thought so. This will just make the government more accountable. They no longer will get a blank check. If there needs to be more money raised then they will have to pose a good arguement for it and let the people decide if it is necessary. Once again the power will be in the people's hands. Everybody needs to pass this in November!

-- Denver Morford (denver@foxinternet.net), September 28, 1999.

Westin wrote, "Presumably, agencies not receiving MVET funds would not find themselves "effected" by this initiative.:

Actually, that was the issue I raised. All governments are effected by the initiative. Not in the MVET losses directly, but in the voter approval requirement. That is what I wanted an explanation for.

Craig Carson wrote, "Because the bulk of government funds are fungible, that is, they are not dedicated to any specific sources. Therefore, if the voters were to pass I-695, in the absence of the voter approval requirement, other agencies could just raise their taxes/fees and offset the tax reduction portion of I-695. In fact, that also means that with the restriction, these other agencies/functions can share the deficit caused by I-695, and cushion the blow to those affected by the loss of MVET dedicated revenues."

This at least begins to address the question. I can understand the arguement for those governments that get MVET in some agency or other, but what about those governments that GET no MVET? So the state, or a city, or the county can move money around to cover the loss with other taxes, so you plug that possibility. Never mind that they are already limited in what they can increase, and how they can increase it. What I want to know is how that logic applies to a fire district, or library district, or school district, that gets no MVET in any way shape or form? Why does the voter approval requirement need to plug the possibility or recovery of MVET losses when they have no MVET losses?

Ed: All of government is effected, contrary to what Westin wrote.

I stand by my conclusions to the questions I asked. Nothing presented contradicts them: 1. No logical reason 2. funding,not programs 3. Not possible.

On the third point, none of the proponents seem at all concerned about the damage that will be done if the initiative is approved, and the courts uphold it, and government must implement the new rules in 2000. I see comments like, I hope they get the message, or some of those programs need to be cut; but no concern about who is harmed in the sending of the message, and the cutting of programs. I am not talking about the government workers here, but government progams exist to provide services and benefits to your neighbors (near or more distant). The harm just doesn't figure into your consideration at all.

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

"On the third point, none of the proponents seem at all concerned about the damage that will be done if the initiative is approved, and the courts uphold it, and government must implement the new rules in 2000"

Actually, I don't see this as necessarily damage. I see it as necessary change in an inefficient monopoly. And I certainly do hope it passes and the courts uphold it, because should it pass and the courts NOT uphold it, I think the next populist initiative will be regarded by you as even more Draconian than this one. This is a populist uprising. Success will likely mellow it out. Failure (or betrayal by the courts) will likely push it to even more aggressive positions.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.

Craig wrote, "Failure (or betrayal by the courts) will likely push it to even more aggressive positions."

It is a populist uprising, but if you fail to get a majority you will not take no for an answer? Better to look at why it fails, and correct the flaws in the proposal that leave many of us concerned. Going to more aggressive positions, is likely to increase public concern and reduce the rate of voter approval.

As for the courts, their job is to assure that the institutions of government are in proper balance, and that justice is done. That sometimes means they overturn laws passed by the legislature that are inconsistent with the constitution, and the same could happen with all or part of 695. That is not a betrayal. It will simply confirm what I have said several times: 695 is poorly drafted, does not even do what it is trying to do well, and what it is trying to do is wrong- headed. A better approach, again, is to look at what the courts find wrong and correct that. You could also attempt to change the constitution, as Prop 13 did in California; which would remove some potential for court challenge.

I hope it does not pass, but gets close; and the legislature takes action to deal with MVET and tax issues in the 2000 session so we do not need to do this again. They are better able to address all the issues, and deal with them comprehensively. 695 is the wrong tool for the job.

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