I have in my possession the DOR's "New Business Handbook."

According to the OFFICIAL DOR numbers, in FY 1997, taxes made up 68.3% of the $13.3 billion "State General Fund Revenues."

The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax makes up 2.5% of that $13.3 billion, or $332 million. General Fund expenditures were $12.7 billion. Zee Higher Math (which the fat, lazy, underworked, overpaid educrats do not allow to be taught in public schools) tells us that, in 1997 alone, the state took in $600 million more than it spent.

In other words, even with 695 passing, the state will still be taking in $268 million more than it is spending.

These facts destroy the credibility of the anti-695 side. These facts, from the Department of Revenue's own publication, exposes the blatant lies and fabrications of the anti-695 crowd. It's not enough for these LIARS and HYPOCRITES (db, Patrick) to live their lives on the backs of us taxpaying citizens who earn an honest living. For these people, the end justifies any means, including brazenly lying to keep their extortion money coming. How dare us mere mortals demand some of our own money back.

________________________ Joseph A. Hylkema

josephhy@wsu.edu

Saint Thomas Aquinas on Capital Punishment:

"The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146.)

Support a Husky-Free Northwest!!

GO COUGARS!!!

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 01, 1999

Answers

Well you heard him db. I guess we just have to pack it in.

Or....

I could inform the distinguished representative from the highly decorated and honored institution of higher education located in Pullman of a few minor errors in his most eloquently stated theory.

First of all, I suppose that I should inform him that this is 1999, so expecting revenue and expenditure numbers to remain constant from 1997 is a little bit of a reach.

Second, in case he didn't know, there are in fact THREE different budgets that the state government drafts every two years: the Operating Budget, Capital Budget, and Transportation Budget. This is a key item to know since his numbers come solely from the Operating Budget. In other words, his discovery that the MVET only brought in $332 million in 1997 (actually it was from 97-99) was, in fact, ONLY the amount of MVET money deposited into the General Fund. In 1997, only about 20% of the MVET went there. The actual total of the amount of MVET funding generated during this time was $1.598 billion. (Well golly, he was only off by about $1.266 billion)

So let's go back and assume that 695 was introduced and passed in 1997. As Joe stated, the state brought in about $600 million more than it spent. Now, as a graduate of the public school system, I guess I picked up my math skills somewhere else, because somehow I was able to figure out that the state would have experienced almost a billion dollar shortfall in that biennium without the MVET money, NOT the $268 million that our man Joe calculated.

Thanks for trying Joe, but it would appear that you need to do a little bit more research on state budgetary matters before you get all cocky about putting the "Final Nail in the Antis' Coffin." Just picking up a handbook and copying down some of the figures without understanding the whole picture can lead to some embarrassingly wrong conclusions.

I suppose I could make some Cougar insults here, but why bother. Their football team will be playing a game tomorrow. Tha

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 02, 1999.

Perhaps Joe's spent a little too much time at Shakers.

BB

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

Joe:

I think BB covered the math. I will just restate that my biggest problem with 695 is not the MVET. It is section 2.

As for the "LIARS and HYPOCRITES (db, Patrick)", I refuse either title in connection with these posts. Why can't we have a civil discussion of opinions on the initiative? The fact that I may disagree with you on some points does not make me a liar. If you want to point out some statement I have presented as fact, that you believe is in error, we can discuss it further. I believe most of the comments here have been opinion, or interpretation of facts.

I could infer that your post makes you a liar, but I prefer to believe your interpretation of the facts was in error.

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

db--"I think BB covered the math. I will just restate that my biggest problem with 695 is not the MVET. It is section 2."

It's refreshing to see people admit this is their main problem with the initiative (the revenue issue is meaningless).

Why are you opposed to people voting on their tax increases?

FWIW: if you're not opposed philosophically, but don't like this particular implementation I'd be interested to hear that as well.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 04, 1999.

Brad:

1. 695 is an excellent example why direct democracy is a dangerous way to set political policy on major issues. It has several flaws in the drafting of the initiative that will keep it in court for months, if not years. While that is sorted out, governments spend our time and money trying to do what they think is required, but with every attorney giving different opinions it is anyones guess what the decision of a court will be after all the appeals are done.

2. It is not possible for the general public to become as fully informed as they ought to be on every detail of the funding of every state agency and local government that may be required to submit their funding issues for a vote. I have tried to explain the funding of Medic One a few times here, with very limited success; and that is just one service with what should be a high priority for funding. The general public is better served by the existing system of delegated responsibility to their elected representative who are required to take the time to study the issues, hear testamoney, anticipate all the consequences, and make decisions in the interests of all the people.

3. What is right is sometimes not popular. No one wants to pay taxes, and given the choice they may vote no without much thought about the next time they need public services. Our state "community" includes those who are not your immediate neighbor, but if you are a west sider you may not see much point in voting for fundng something east of the mountains. East siders may not see much point in supporting the ferry system (I have seen a lot of comment about that here). Elected representatives can balance those interests, and get all areas a fair share of needed public projects.

4. The easiest thing to do is say NO. People will always find programs and projects they object to, and use that as an excuse to deny funding to government. That also happens a lot here. You can not expect to agree with everything done by government, but everything done by government is valued by someone or the program would not exist, or be continued.

5. 695 is the worst kind of direct democracy. It takes comprehsive action, but with no specific consequences. No one here has been able to argue the issues, because no one is very clear on what it will do. If it is intended to cause government to "cut the waste", it is totally silent on what the "waste" is. What I call waste is someone elses favorite project, but we can't debate the merits of the program cuts because we have no idea what programs will be cut.

6. Ballot titles are necessarily simple statements, if for no other reason than the length is limited. Many voters never read more than the ballot title, in making their choices. Some have no idea there is more to read, to understand the issue they are being asked to decide.

7. I beleve that representative democracy has worked well for over 200 years, and will continue to work well if the public uses the tools they have available and get involved in issues that are of interest to them. I have less confidence that direct democracy on funding issues will work well. Since supporters of the initiative are proposing change, they need to prove the new system will work at least as well as what we have now. An appeal to greed, or an assertion that direct democracy is obviously better because it takes back power from the elected representatives, is no proof it will actually BE better.

8. We have a system that already limits tax increases in a rational way, that accounts for inflation and the need to provide services to the new businesses and homes that are built. That system has been approved by the voters in several different ways. The IPD limit was established by statewide vote. The 106% limit on revenue increases has been in state law for several years. Local voters approved taxes and levy rates with reference to and agreement with the existing processes concerning how that tax could increase within those limits. 695 requires voters to, year after year, reconfirm thay they meant it the first time, they approve the service level and the funding to make it happen. It makes no sense to approve the individual annual tax amounts, when the taxation process has been approved by the voters already.

9. It is getting late, and this is already long enough. The bottom line is this is a bad idea, poorly drafted, does not do what it is trying to do well, and what it is trying to do is wrong headed. I could keep writing, but you get the idea. I believe the current system works. Some don't. I am concerned that the proposed change will create many more problems than it is intended to solve. Some aren't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 05, 1999.

PS:

I didn't say the revenue issue is meaningless. I stated that my biggest problem with the initiative is section 2. The cut of MVET, without specific program targets, is at least one of my concerns because it prevents an honest discussion of the merits of the programs proposed to be cut. We don't know what they will be.

10. The inclusion of fees as well as taxes is another problem with the voter approval requirement. Can you see putting college fees to a state vote? Or water charges? Or dump charges at transfer stations? Some of the implications show this is just simple minded.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 05, 1999.

"Can you see putting college fees to a state vote? Or water charges? Or dump charges at transfer stations? " Sure. Doesn't bother me at all.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Mark writes:

""Can you see putting college fees to a state vote? Or water charges? Or dump charges at transfer stations? " Sure. Doesn't bother me at all."

At $1 million per statewide election, it should bother you.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

"At $1 million per statewide election, it should bother you. " Elections are going to be held no matter if one of these issues is on the ballot or not. If you think that the MARGINAL cost of adding this to the scheduled election is a million dollars, you are ignorant. If you planned to have an election for the SOLE PURPOSE of debating dump charges at transfer stations, you're stupid.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Mark:

Ignorant? Stupid? Your contribution to rational debate is underwhelming.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 05, 1999.