I've been reading and hearing all the bull about how the MVET is funds all of this program and that program. And it is only 2% of the budget. It sounds as if Washington State must be funded by just the MVET, or the darn near it. Q. Were does the other 98% of the budget go... in someones pocket?

-- Ceg (cegarrison@yahoo.com), October 11, 1999

Answers

The 2% claims are just another of the many distortions and misrepresentations surrounding this initiative; like Washington being the 6th highest taxed, and the state "surplus" will cover the losses, and Colorado already did it and it works. None are accurate, if you check all the information, but they are often repeated.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

OK, 2.2% What about the 97.8%?

-- CEG (ceg@yahoo.com), October 11, 1999.

If you realy want to know, you could start exploring here:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget_toc.html#Governor/Legislative\\

Size of the state's budget? State Budget for the 1999-01 Biennium:

Total GF-S Other Operating Budget $ 37,162 $20,573 $16,589 Transportation Budget $ 4,506 $ 4,506 New Capital Approp. $ 2,297 - $ 2,297 Total New Budget $43,965 $ 20,573 $ 23,392 Reappropriation of Previous Cap. Approp. $ 1,270 $ - $ 1,270 Total Budget $ 45,235 $ 20,573 $ 24,662

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Oops. Lets try that again.

If you realy want to know, you could start exploring here:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget_toc.html#Governor/Legislative\\

Size of the state's budget?

State Budget for the 1999-01 Biennium:

Total GF-S Other Operating Budget $ 37,162 $20,573 $16,589

Transportation Budget $ 4,506 $ 4,506

New Capital Approp. $ 2,297 - $ 2,297

Total New Budget $43,965 $ 20,573 $ 23,392

Reappropriation of Previous Cap. Approp. $ 1,270 $ - $ 1,270

Total Budget $ 45,235 $ 20,573 $ 24,662

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Oops. Lets try that again.

If you realy want to know, you could start exploring here:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget_toc.html#Governor/Legislative\\

Size of the state's budget?

State Budget for the 1999-01 Biennium:

Total GF-S Other

Operating Budget $ 37,162 $20,573 $16,589

Transportation Budget $ 4,506 $ 4,506

New Capital Approp. $ 2,297 - $ 2,297

Total New Budget $43,965 $ 20,573 $ 23,392

Reappropriation of

Previous Cap. Approp. $ 1,270 $ - $ 1,270

Total Budget $ 45,235 $ 20,573 $ 24,662

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

I give up. It looks good on my screen. (In Millions) The Total New Budget is $43,965. Total Operating Budget is $37,162. If you want more detail, in a format that is easier to read, go to the OFM site.

Webmaster, please delete the first 2 attempts, above. Thanks.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Hey DB:

Let's examine each of your claims.

The Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org) is the organization that has published "Tax Freedom Day" for as long as its been published. They are the organization that releases the agreed-upon figures. And they say that Washington is the sixth-highest taxed state in the nation.

No one, not even DB's hero, admitted sexual predator Mike Lowry, disputes that the state has a $1 billion surplus.

As the surpluses go:

"No one knows the total local government surplus, but it probably tops $1 billion. The Association of Washington Cities estimates that municipal governments have reserve funds of $600 million."

"Transit districts reported reserves -- including money for bus purchases and capital improvements -- of as much as $400 million, according to the state Transportation Department."

(Seattle P.I., October 4th, 1999) "PAUL Schell picked a lucky time to be Seattle's mayor. Tax money is flowing so fast that budget officials are rewriting revenue forecasts, and Schell's supplemental budget is more than mere housekeeping adjustments.

Schell proposes increases in general-fund spending for next year of almost $10 million, to $550 million. The number of full-time employees would grow by 187, to 11,498 people."

(Seattle Times, October 5th, 1999.)

But then, we all know that DB, one of our resident tax leeches, will not, in his religious fervor, be dissuaded by anything like FACTS!

Make no mistake about it - governments and transit districts are flush with cash - cash extorted at gunpoint from people like me who work for a living. And the Times, the propaganda arm for the Seattle Left, admits that the City has enough cash to blow on 187 new cushy non-work nepotistic union city jobs.

But then, after the latest round of desperation tactics of the antis fail and 695 passes, DB is welcome to send the difference in his car tab fees my way - Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 12, 1999.

OK db,

So with all of the billions not part of the MVET. The politicians can't cut any of those fluff expenditures to make up the difference?

Oh, these are politicians, they would lie to us would they? Lets give them a rise since their spending our money so wisely.

ceg

-- CEG (cegarrison@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

"Seattle P.I., October 4th, 1999) "PAUL Schell picked a lucky time to be Seattle's mayor. Tax money is flowing so fast that budget officials are rewriting revenue forecasts, and Schell's supplemental budget is more than mere housekeeping adjustments.

Schell proposes increases in general-fund spending for next year of almost $10 million, to $550 million. The number of full-time employees would grow by 187, to 11,498 people."

(Seattle Times, October 5th, 1999.) "

Heck, Schell's a piker compared to Ron (tax to the max) Sims:

The budget also includes numerous fee increases, which Sims did not detail yesterday, and adds 307 new employees to the county work force, bringing it to 13,523.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/budg_19991012.html

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Aside from the people commuting to/from the suburbs, the i-695 will have little affect on Seattle proper. Why? Seattle has the largest sales tax base in the state. It is the small communities that will recieve the slug in the stomach. Cities that are almost entirely residential get next to nothing in sales tax revenue, and depend upon the MVET for funding of services.

As a Seattlite myself, I suppose I should be pleased as punch. However, as a proponent and twice a day rider of Metro, it scares the hell out of me. I stand to save about $550 a year on my '95 Explorer, but if bus service is negatively impacted, the 2nd car I would have to buy, plus all the fuel and upkeep would dwarf any saving I could derive.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.

"However, as a proponent and twice a day rider of Metro, it scares the hell out of me. I stand to save about $550 a year on my '95 Explorer, but if bus service is negatively impacted, the 2nd car I would have to buy, plus all the fuel and upkeep would dwarf any saving I could derive. " Oh, so this is all about YOU. I thought the pro-695 people were supposed to be the greedy ones.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Joe:

As I have noted several times, the state surplus may address the state losses, but this initiative does not just have an effect on the state. Not every local government has a surplus to cover the expected impact of the initiative. Not every local government has the resources of Seattle. The state surplus will not cover the loss MVET, even if the state decided to do it, past the first year.

As for your reference to the Tax Foundation, they are not the only sourse of information, and the bias of the source has an effect on how they do the calculation. A PI article October 4 used other sources, including the federal government, and came up with taxes at 8th, 13th or 18th, depending on what you are counting.

I note you did not address Colorado. They have something, but it is not as comprehensive as 695. They were at least wise enough to reject the attempts to pass something like 695 when it was tried in Colorado.

Everyone has FACTS, but how you interpret them and present them will reflect you opinions. I concluded this is a bad idea, for several reasons. Naturally, the FACTS I choose to rely upon will be those that support that position. You are free to ignore my FACTS, and I am free to ignore yours. Our opinions are obviously fixed. A very few readers may actually be undecided, however. They need to decide which arguements to accept for themselves. In the process, they will do what we have done. Rely on some FACTS, and ignore others.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 12, 1999.

Concerned WA Parent

Why with a 95 Explorer, would you have to buy a second car? Unless its a lemon like my brothers 98. Do you know how to drive or is it just to impress your big guy neighbors?

Ed - unconcerned

-- ED (when all else fails, play dead@unconcerned.i'm.not.insensitve.i.just.don't.care), October 13, 1999.

Joe:

P.S. How did you conclude that Mike Lowry was my hero? Never voted for him. Don't agree with much of his politics. For what it's worth, I don't like 695 because I am a conservative Republican. I prefer representative democracy that I know meets our needs, to the version of direct democracy being proposed. Conservative, as in prove your idea is better before you get my vote.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 15, 1999.