Locke's plan to mend tax puts twist in election

Saturday, October 16, 1999

By ROBERT GAVIN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

OLYMPIA -- After months of quietly campaigning against Initiative 695, Gov. Gary Locke has stepped forward with a proposal that could have ramifications in next month's election and in November 2000.

Over the past week -- first in Spokane, and then in Aberdeen -- Locke vowed to put forward a plan to reform and cut the motor vehicle excise tax if voters reject I-695, the measure that would eliminate the tax altogether.

Locke yesterday offered no specifics on the plan, including how big a tax cut he would seek. David Chai, a Locke spokesman, said the governor supported both a lower rate and a fairer method of determining a vehicle's value to reduce license tab taxes.

But Chai said Locke would not detail a proposal -- including the size of the tax cut -- until after the election.

I-695 supporters quickly condemned Locke's move as a desperate attempt to undermine support or the initiative, which recent polls show heading for approval.

Tim Eyman, the I-695 sponsor, called the governor's proposal a "Hail Mary" pass.

"How do you put a snicker in a quote?" Eyman asked. "For 62 years, they had the option to come up with a more reasonable license fee system, and they never did. We're in the 11th hour, and they're showing they'll say and do anything."

But I-695 opponents said Locke is giving voters a reasonable alternative to a radical tax proposal.

"We'll work with him," said Mark Funk, spokesman for the No on Initiative 695 Committee. "Nobody in this campaign has been defending the MVET. But we believe the license tab issue needs to be reformed by the Legislature because we can avoid the other problems of I-695."

Chai, the Locke spokesman, said the governor, too, is concerned about the "meat ax" approach of I-695.

"The governor believes there's a right way to fix the motor vehicle excise tax and a wrong way," Chai said. "And we should do it the right way."

What effect Locke's pledge will have on the Nov. 2 election remains unclear. Opponents said it might sway some voters who dislike the motor vehicle excise tax but fear the effect of its sudden demise on transportation, local government and public services.

I-695 would cost the state about $1.5 billion in the first two years, according to the Office of Financial Management.

I-695 supporters, however, said voters will dismiss the governor's move as a political ploy. Republicans said the maneuver only underscores Locke's failure to provide tax relief during his first term and vowed to make it an issue in next year's gubernatorial election.

The state Republican Party recently endorsed I-695.

"It's not leadership, it's governing by polling," said Dale Foreman, the state GOP chairman and a possible Locke opponent. "It's a deceptive tactic. He's basically saying to the voters, 'Trust me,' . . . and the voters are sick and tired of it."

State Sen. Dino Rossi of Issaquah, ranking Republican on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said I-695 is the price Locke and Democrats have to pay for refusing to consider tax cuts in the last session.

"What we have now is really the result of the unwillingness to recognize that people feel overtaxed," Rossi said. "It takes a 2-by-4 on the side of the head for them to understand that the people of Washington feel overtaxed."

But Blair Butterworth, a political adviser to Locke, dismissed the Republican attacks as "hot air to otherwise spoil a beautiful fall day."

Chai said Locke has long believed the motor vehicle excise tax was unfair and proposed cutting it in 1998.

But last year's approval of Referendum 49, which designates the MVET as the revenue to pay for the massive transportation program, unraveled those plans.

Chai explained the timing of Locke's proposal as "the governor being a governor."

"He's hearing the concerns of the people of Washington, and acting on them," Chai said.

Democratic lawmakers, said they, too, would support overhauling the motor vehicle excise tax should I-695 fail.

Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, said it would be a high priority when the Legislature reconvenes in January, but what shape it might take is unclear.

"All kinds of things are being talked about," Snyder said, "but there's nothing at all definite. It's a question of how much we can afford and how we go about it."

#1 Where do we start? How about this line (my favorite) "But Chai said Locke would not detail a proposal -- including the size of the tax cut -- until after the election" So the Gov wants to wait till after the election. For what? To see if it passes or praying it fails. If Locke has a plan why doesn't he say what it is? Oh I get it, if he doesn't tell us how much he wants to cut the MVET by now we can't hold him to it later.

#2 Here is another "But I-695 opponents said Locke is giving voters a reasonable alternative to a radical tax proposal"

Question? What alternative? All he's said is he wants to lower it. By what $1 maybe $2. Tell us your plan and give details.

#3 Then Mark Funk states "But we believe the license tab issue needs to be reformed by the Legislature because we can avoid the other problems of I-695."

Oh Mark, the legislature had their chance and they never brought it up this past year. They knew the voters were upset with the MVET because of last years attempt to lower the tabs to $30. But they and Locke figured we'd forget about it apparently.

#4 Now to Mr. Foremans statement "It's not leadership, it's governing by polling," said Dale Foreman, the state GOP chairman"

Okay Dale, so you and the rest of the republican leadership just waited for the right time to endorse 695 or were you watching the polls to?

#5 Heres a good one "But Blair Butterworth, a political adviser to Locke, dismissed the Republican attacks as "hot air to otherwise spoil a beautiful fall day."

The current priority is not how much the taxpayers are paying but how good the weather is.

#6 "Chai said Locke has long believed the motor vehicle excise tax was unfair and proposed cutting it in 1998."

Just how long is long Mr. Chai. Would you mind showing us in previous speeches or notes where Gov. Locke has stated this. And please not something from this past week.

#7 "Chai explained the timing of Locke's proposal as "the governor being a governor."

NO the governor is lying. If he had had a plan before now he would have told us. He had no problem telling us all his plans he he was running for office and when its to explain some new pet project to be funded with our money.

#8 "He's hearing the concerns of the people of Washington, and acting on them," Chai said."

He's hearing to roar of the people who are tried of being screwed and have finally woken up.

#9 " Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, said it would be a high priority when the Legislature reconvenes in January, but what shape it might take is unclear. All kinds of things are being talked about," Snyder said, "but there's nothing at all definite. It's a question of how much we can afford and how we go about it."

What's unclear is what your and Gov. Lockes plans are for reducing the MVET.

I'm sure all kinds of things are being talked about but giving us a tax break probably isn't one of them. Of course there isn't anything "definite". If I-695 fails you'll come out and say that the people obviously didn't want a tax cut, so screw you.

The last part of this quote is great. First Mr. Snyder you and your buddies can't afford squat unless we pay our taxes. Its how much more of your over taxing us can we AFFORD. And I don't give a damn how you go about it, you haven't done a damn thing for the people of this state. Admit it Mr. Synder you're there for yourself and no one else

#10 "Locke's plan to mend tax puts twist in election"

The only thing twisting is the politicians trying to figure out how they can get us to vote no than not do anything with the MVET.

The Governor and our Legislators (Repubs & Demos) are scared. The people of this state are going to take back control of their money and the elected officials can't deal with it.

You can go here for the original text. http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/lock161.shtml

Ed - just went to a guys house who has 2 vans and 4 cars. Tabs are expired on 2 of the cars. Said he couldn't afford to pay them. Of course these were the only two that ran.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999

Answers

Ed, Thanks for the post and your analysis. An additional thought. You don't suppose the good Governor - having read the latest polls - is trying to position himself to say later "Oh yes. I was a champion for reducing the MVET all along". What a piece of work, our Governor - Slick Willy of the West. Wayne

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

Wayne

No. Our Governor would never, ever do anything so blatant as that. I mean this was his plan all along. Use the initiative process to find out what kind of support there would be for a tax cut. Yea, that's it. It was his idea from the beginning. He just didn't want to take all of the credit for it.

Ed - missed the last thorazine injection

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999.

"Sign here, have I got a bridge for you". This is the same old saw that pitch men have used for years to fool the masses. Well, Gov. Lock's new and radical promise validates the above quotation. Gov. Lock knows very well that the legislature won't pass such promise. Keep focused on passing 695 and enjoying the immediate positive affect it will have.

On to Victory,

Richard Henderson

-- Richard Henderson (grassroots3@earthlink.net), October 17, 1999.

Strawman, strawman!

You ascribe motivations to the Governor, and then attack him for that motivation. Could it be you are concerned that the hope of srational relief on the MVET will cause some of the supporters to have second thoughts about this poorly drafted proposal?

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

Here's where the proponents get a chance to show whether they're driven by the will to "do the right thing" (i.e., fight to get tax relief both for them and their fellow citizens), or by pure testosterone ("goes to show we were right all along, nyah nyah nyah!").

If Governor Locke is now doing what a proper legisator is supposed to do and is listening to his constituents and offering a constructive response to their mandate, are proponents willing to now be rational and constructive and work with Olympia? Or will we see more mindless anti-tax anti-representative government McVeighspeak from the usual suspects?

Let me make clear that I'm not exactly fond of Mr. Locke due to his complicity in Stadium Madness and his pro-"free" trade stances, among other things. But here's where I agree with his solution. He's offering to make the MVET a fairer system, as per I-695 proponents' (alleged) wishes, but without the irrational anti-representative government attitude which underlies Section 2 of I-695.

From what I've seen both in this forum and in various letter column debates in and apart from the Times/P-I monolith, most I-695ers support it simply because they want (and in some cases, actually need) the tax relief, and really have no involved concern over the less narcotic qualities of Section 2.

Governor Locke is now offering that tax relief, in a manner which will not put the ax to so much that another type of "little guy" (i.e., those who can't even afford to own & drive a car, much less worry about the cost of the tabs) desperately needs.

So what's the problem?

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), October 17, 1999.

db--"Could it be you are concerned that the hope of rational relief on the MVET will cause some of the supporters to have second thoughts about this poorly drafted proposal?"

Earlier, I wondered about this as well.

With part II of the initiative more strongly supported than part I of the initiative (KOMO poll numbers), I think the Guv is barking up the wrong tree.

Given part II's apparent popularity, I did wonder why his proposal only addressed the MVET and didn't include a provision that would allow voters a direct say on tax increases (ie a constitutional amendment requiring referendums on broad-based tax increases).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 17, 1999.

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

dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net) responded to a message you left in the I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative bboard:

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.

-----------------

To post a response, come back to the bulletin board at

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=I%2d695%20Thirty% 20Dollar%20License%20Tab%20Initiative

-------------

If you are no longer interested in this thread, simply go to the following URL and you will no longer get these notifications:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/shut-up.tcl?msg_id=001a50

-------------

Note: this message was sent by a robot.

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

Jeff-"From what I've seen both in this forum and in various letter column debates in and apart from the Times/P-I monolith, most I-695ers support it simply because they want (and in some cases, actually need) the tax relief, and really have no involved concern over the less narcotic qualities of Section 2."

It seems to me that if this were the case, polls would show part I of the initiative with greater support than part II of the initiative. Unfortunately for your statement above, the KOMO poll results show part II as the more popular part of the initiative.

"Let me make clear that I'm not exactly fond of Mr. Locke due to his complicity in Stadium Madness and his pro-"free" trade stances, among other things. But here's where I agree with his solution. He's offering to make the MVET a fairer system, as per I-695 proponents' (alleged) wishes, but without the irrational anti-representative government attitude which underlies Section 2 of I-695."

Off-topic curiousity, what's wrong with free trade?

In the case of tax increases, it seems quite rational to force governments to get the approval of the people who'll actually be forced to *pay* the tax (AKA tit-for-tat). Furthermore, WRT broad-based taxes, I've never seen a rational (your word) explanation from the no695 campaign why this would be a too onerous requirement (probably 'cause it isn't).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 17, 1999.

Chez

As I stated in my comments, if Locke has a proposal what is it? That's the problem. He's not saying. To me all Locke is doing is throwing some ideas out to see what the reaction is. But again there is no substance to his ideas. Anyone can say "hey I've got a plan to lower taxes" but what is the plan? Why the big secert?

You also write "Governor Locke is now offering that tax relief, in a manner which will not put the ax to so much that another type of "little guy" (i.e., those who can't even afford to own & drive a car, much less worry about the cost of the tabs) desperately needs"

Did Locke tell you all about his little plan? Again what "MANNER" are you and he talking about? Until I see numbers that we the people can hold Locke to, I'll trust his word as much as I trust Clinton's.

Ed - Apparently everyone is in on Locke's plan except for the Yes on I-695 crowd.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999.

Jeff wrote:

If Governor Locke is now doing what a proper legisator is supposed to do and is listening to his constituents and offering a constructive response to their mandate, are proponents willing to now be rational and constructive and work with Olympia? Or will we see more mindless anti-tax anti-representative government McVeighspeak from the usual suspects? _

Governor Locke is now offering that tax relief, in a manner which will not put the ax to so much that another type of "little guy" (i.e., those who can't even afford to own & drive a car, much less worry about the cost of the tabs) desperately needs.

So what's the problem?

Ill assume youre not being disingenuous here since anyone with even a passing knowledge of politics, let alone a foremost scholar such as yourself, would know and explain the problem to you.

First, of course, is that Locke blew his credibility when he lied about I-200. In short, he has shown that he is willing to lie to get an outcome that he wants. While the electorate has a short memory it aint THAT short. Therefore, the fact that the governor has promised anything is, of course, meaningless.

Second, you claim that Locke is offering tax relief. Really? How much? When? Effecting who?

The fact is that hes offered nothing, in reality, and as a result, his comments concerning a special session and/or any tax relief can only seriously be considered what they were: a last second, desperate attempt to fool the people into voting against 695.

Third, he offered nothing concerning the voter approval provisions of 695.

So, the problem is that, even though hes had months of time; hes really offered nothing; done nothing and accomplished nothing. There is nothing to work WITH; no alternative to compare TO, and therefore, his comments were meaningless.

There. Any more questions?

Westin

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet

VP Al Gore, Mar 9, 1999

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 17, 1999.

Westin,

You've got an awful lot of gall calling anyone a "liar", especially since you're the same guy who once ranted about what a hypocrite I am because I drive a car, which was a big surprise to me, having never done such a despicable and anti-social thing in my entire life.

To say nothing of saying that Governor Locke "lied" to us about I-200. Tell me exactly what these "lies" were, Westin: cite them, with quotes & URLs & all, then REFUTE them.

Are they anything like the big fat lie that Tim Eyman (along with John Carlson, Ward Connerly & all the rest) effectively & collectively told the voting public by pushing the myth that Affirmative Action = Quotas, which has always been flat-out B.S.?

From past experience, I know that you won't even try to present any facts or half-way decent rhetoric in response to this, Mr. Travelodge (aka Holiday Inn aka Sheraton aka Best Western), so let me beat you to the flaming punch, you yellow-bellied shuckin and jivin trash-can raiding piece of POOP:

Hey Westin, I heard you and Ethel Rosenberg got a little "thing" goin' on! Nothin like a little "above and beyond the call of duty" for the land you truly love, huh? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

P.S. What's that on your shirt? Hah hah Westin! Fooled you!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), October 17, 1999.

Chez

So I answered your question when are you going to answer Westin's and mine. Because when you fill cornered, your only retort is to start name-calling.

And when it comes to offering facts, Chez the Liberal, you should not be throwing stones. You have yet to back up one fact concerning any of your utopian societies you wish you were living in.

Ed - loved the one about what a great humanitarian Castro is

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy

The imminent passage of 695 has, if anything, seemed to have damaged your brain even more then whatever controlled substances you typically use.

You asked the question I answered it.

Your specious claims about car ownership notwithstanding (like we can actually believe you?) Lockes lies are a matter of record, and were easily proven unlike your claim about owning a car.

So, since what I have a lot of gall is true, my position on your car ownership claims is, as any 5th grader would know, totally irrelevant to the issue.

I guess, for me, the question is, why does any of this drop you into the playground mode?

Since Im not in the business of doing your work for you, feel free to think I made up If your attention span during that election was so short that you cant remember through the fog Lockes lie, pumped into our houses and cars, night after night: "Initiative 200 is written to sound good, but it's misleading and full of hidden consequences. It will abolish affirmative action and hurt real people," then tough. The rest of the hundreds of thousands of us that voted for I-200 have no problem recalling his sorry effort.

As for your rant on I-200, let me quote someone of your acquaintance: Tell me exactly what these "lies" were, Jeffy: cite them, with quotes & URLs & all, then REFUTE them.

Ill cheerfully bow to your overall brilliance vis the issue of responses. One need look no further then your cowardly refusal to address the issues I raised in response to your post asking the question: So whats the problem?

I suggest you get back up to your regular dosage, Jeffy. Your side getting its collective ass kicked seems to be causing you to lose it. Westin

Who takes this opportunity to wonder what AA program got YOU into the UW, eh, Jeff? Cause you damned sure couldnt get in like the rest of us did.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Jeff wrote:

"Here's where proponents get a chance to show...pure testosterone"

Thank you, Westin, for resting my case for me.

-- The Phantom Racial Quota Menace (chez@u.washington.edu), October 18, 1999.

Jeff,

I must admit that your inability to respond to the issues (thereby, of course, showing your acknowledgement that I'm correct) is gratifying. After all, if I was in any way incorrect about my responses to you, I'm sure you'd attempt to let the world know about it.

But your silence on the subject is just as good as an "I was wrong" any day. But then, we all know that, don't we?

Westin

Do try harder next time, won't you, Jeffey?

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Hey Phantom Chez

Is that all they teach you now in Liberal 201. Make one argument, if that doesn't fool them start name-calling. You are one of the weakest, most spineless, poor excuses for a liberal I have ever seen. Most at least can last for more than a few rounds before the name calling starts. But your pathetic. No wonder the U doesn't receive as much money as other schools, what with rocket scientist like you going there.

By the way, haven't you found a new great utopian society that you can use in one of your finely crafted rebuttals? Also are you learning different languages so you can move to one? I would doubt that Castro would allow someone of your intellect into Cuba. Probably hate to lower the level of the nations I.Q.

Ed - no wonder the dawgs got pounded by ASU. What with Chez being there

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Westin,

"There you go again!"

Presidential candidate Al Gore, responding to President Carter during the 1980 Presidential Debates

-- I Forgot What "Liberal" Even Means, I Just Know It's A Bad Bad Word (My Daddy Told Me So) (chez@u.washington.edu), October 19, 1999.

From the FWIW Dept: http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cim.seattle.text/news;sz=120x30;tile=1; hr=1;pg=news;ord=OA@RY8Co@QsAAAOEGp4http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cim .seattle.text/news;sz=120x30;tile=1;hr=1;pg=news;ord=OA@RY8Co@QsAAAOEG p4

Thursday, October 21, 1999 Locke pledges to cut car tabs if 695 fails KIRO TV & ASSOCIATED PRESS I-695 in-depth | What's your vote? | Speak out! (Olympia-AP) -- Governor Locke is pledging that if voters reject the car-tab initiative, lawmakers will cut the tax. But he conceded at the capitol news conference Thursday that he has no specific plan himself. Locke surprised lawmakers recently by making the tax-cut pledge on their behalf, but made it clear that he won't be offering any specifics before the November 2 election. Locke insisted that there is broad consensus in Legislature, on both sides of the political aisle, to deal with the issue "as the first order of business." He held opeb the possibility of a special session before January if voters reject Initiative 695. Locke says he wants a significant car-tax cut, but won't speculate on how substantial it might be. And he said he wants to base the annual fee on the vehicle's Blue Book value, rather than using the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price. He had no further details or a pricetag for this. I-695 would eliminate the car tax of two-point-two percent of a vehicle's value. It would substitute a 30-dollar fee, regardless of the vehicle's age or worth. And it would require a public vote on all state or local tax or fee increases.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.