Do you find it amazing that 'our leaders' are trying to convince us that they cannot maintain the vital functions of government if they lose the MVET. Aparently they are incapable of adjusting priorities to deal with a two percent reduction of revenue. God help us if they had to deal with a real crisis.

So the question the people are left to answer, do you 'our leaders' when they say they're incompetent - or do you believe they're lying? Something to ponder before the next election.

Wayne

-- Wayne (wsmith@precisionimages.com), October 16, 1999

Answers

Wayne, You may not be aware that the reason the Legislature CANNOT lawfully "reprioritize" and spend the "surplus" to cover vital things for which I-695 expressly cuts off the funding allocated by the voters last year in Referendum 49 is: 1. The voters said so in Initiative 601, which sets specific spending caps and requires all revenue over that cap to go into an "emergency reserve fund." We told the Legislature that the money in the emergency reserve fund could ONLY be used for real emergencies (and then only with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature), unless approved by a vote of the people at the next General Election. 2. Last year we (the voters) adopted Referendum 49, reapplying that prohibition, so under our Constitution, the Legislature can't change it for two years without a 2/3 vote of each house. There is no way they could get 2/3 to change what an initiative last year imposed, even if they could agree to correct their own mistakes. 3. The result is that unless the Legislature can agree to put a whole new change on the November Presidential election 2000 ballot, scrap what we said in Intiative 601 and Referendum 49, "reprioritize" whether an emergency reserve fund is proper or whether it should be spent to keep replace local transportation, transit, law enforcement and health programs we said should be increased and devoted most of the MVET to pay, then that "surplus" can't be used. If we hadn't chosen by initiative to limit the purpose for which money could be spent,then the Legislature could reprioritize as you would logically expect. They just can't do both. By the way, even if they could spend the "surplus" which will be in the "emergency reserve fund" next year, to make up for "local transit, transportation, law enforcement and health" most of us think are higher in priority than some state programs, once spent (and the surplus will pay about one year's worth of the MVET loss), there won't be any surplus to pay for the annual reductions in those programs caused by I-695.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), October 17, 1999.

Bob, I appreciate your response, but you've missed my point. When I talk about reprioritizing, I'm not talking about spending the surplus. I'm talking about spending 2% less, period. Since the budget has grown 11% since the last biennium and we've hired 6000+ new goverment employees, this would seem feasible. In fact, if they only idea they come up with is to raid the 'emergency fund', then they didn't get the message at all. Wayne

-- Wayne (wsmith@precisionimages.com), October 17, 1999.

Wayne

you have it right. I don't want them to go through a mad search to find "another source of funds".

I want them to CUT the budget 2%.

Talking to the pols and the bureaucrats about "cutting" their source of their drug of choice OPM(other peoples money)gets the same response any other addict would have.

They are in denial that it is really happening. Cognitive dissonance. On to victory.

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 17, 1999.

You seem to believe the numbers quoted by the YES campaign. The 11% you are talking about includes the inflationary increase needed over a two year period, as well as some capital project funds that were reauthorized in the current budget, from the prior budget. The 2% you refer to is 2% of all government spending in the state, including all the local governments. The bottom line is, the state will need to cut more than you seem to think, and the programs that will be cut are important to many in this state. We just don't know who will be injured by the cuts, so that makes it easier to just tell them to "cut the waste".

My "waste", may be your favorite state or local program. Someone on this forum seemed to be voting for 695 to stop the Tacoma Narrows bridge construction. Don't be surprised if the bridge is built anyway, and something like sales tax equalization or state support for police jobs is cut. We just don't know what this tax/revenue cut will do, and that is one reason I am opposed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 17, 1999.

To: Mr. Coward (AKA dbvz@wa.freei.net)

Dear Mr. Coward (AKA dbvz@wa.freei.net)

As far as the personal attack - You're still a mouse - especislly if you can't stand an honest assessment. As long as you hide your name, you're a mouse.

In case you haven't been listing or reading. The county assessors have already informed Mr. Locke (collectivily) that they WILL NOT collect this tax. Because, the MVET replaced the property tax at the time and they don't have the resources to set up the collection or even how to assess the worth.

Even if they were to impose the property tax it's only 1.1% Less than half of what I'm paying right now.

The government can't collect the tax if nobody will do the work.

-----Original Message----- From: dbvz@wa.freei.net [mailto:dbvz@wa.freei.net] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 3:41 PM To: wsheehan@billsheehan.com Subject: Response to I-695 and court action

Subject: Response to I-695 and court action

Billy S.

Once again, I was not proposing that a government official who is doing his job is my hero. He is also not an evil monster that needs to be run out of office, as you seemed to be advocating. My point was that if their job requires that they file a suit to get some clarity on the legal effect of the initiative, they are not necessarily working against the people that voted for it. The initiative has some legal issues that need to be resolved. Expect suits to be filed if it is approved November 2. One may even be filed by supporters, to get a reversal of the Department of Revenue instruction to county assessors that they are to collect property taxes on vehicles as a consequence of the repeal of the exemption by the initiative.

P.S. Your personal attack is exactly why I don't use my full name. Stick to the issues. You get my opinions, and that is all that is necessary on this forum.

Mr. No Name dbvz,

They were not doing their jobs... That's why we passed 601 and now 695 is next.

Personally, I hate it when someone is held to a high standard, for just doing their job, just as you have done here. I'll bet that you think Ken Griffy Jr. is a hero...? I got news for you, all so called "sports heros" are paid to do their very best. When they win, they were just doing their job. They are not heros!

A hero is someone who commits a selfless act to help others even if their life is in imminent danger. People who "just are doing their job" as elected officials, are not the kind of elected official I want representing me.

No Name, your standards are so horribly low. You refuse to put your name to what you say, consequently your a mouse, a coward and rather mundain. And if you want to know more about me, go see www.billsheehan.com.

-----Original Message----- From: dbvz@wa.freei.net [mailto:dbvz@wa.freei.net] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 11:00 AM To: wsheehan@billsheehan.com Subject: Response to I-695 and court action

Subject: Response to I-695 and court action

Brad:

Inappropriate, as in unjust to take political action against an official who is just doing the required job. It may be effective in getting someone out of their position, but it would not be right. This could be an example of the tyrany of the majority. Appoint an official to make sure the government is following the law, and then boot them out if they do their job.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 17, 1999

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 17, 1999.