Hmm...Let's see...A YES vote adds over $100 to my budget. And a NO vote?....well,...uh...Gee, can someone provide a rational explanation for me to oppose this one?

-- Dave Stewart (dave@pasquier.com), October 19, 1999

Answers

Sure:

You aren't savvy enough to understand the complexities of the state budgetary needs, therefore, you are not qualified to vote on fee or tax increases. We (the state) will provide for you, and we will also manage your tax money for you. Yes yes, we ignored every attempt to fix the MVET tax when we had the chance, but this time, really, really really, honestly, we promise, cross our hearts, hope to die, pinky-promis, we really, really swear, honest injun, we super-duper promis to fix it this time. Just vote no, please!!!

Also, the state currently maintains a complex tax code, because that makes it difficult to change. Although you'd THINK we'd pay for police and fire 'n stuff out of the general fund, or better stated, with the first tax revenue dollar, but we don't. We're waaaaay too smart for that. No, what we do is we levy special taxes and then funnel those into basic infrastructure and visible programs, so when or if they get cut, we can threaten loss of police and fire protection. In fact, here's what you should do at home. A simple formula to justify why you can't afford the mvet. Take a percentage out of your paycheck, right now. That bit of money would normally pay your MVET taxes. Now, before you pay your mvet taxes, earmark that money to pay for food which will feed your hungry children. If 695 doesn't pass, scream bloody murder that the state is taking money out of your childrens mouths, because the money goes to pay for vital programs in your household. If the state looks at your overall budget and finds that you have enough to pay the MVET and feed your children, simply tell the state that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY reprioritize your spending, due to 'household budgetary nuances and complexities' that the state couldn't POSSIBLY understand.

Damn, I oughtta run for office... I'm good at this.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 19, 1999.

Paul

Damn that was good, got a cigarette?

Ed  my vital program is to restore an 82 Mustang GT w/T-tops. Then I can waste some more of the planets vital resources making Chezs head spin like one of my tires.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Well, let me take a serious approach to this. I'll technically save about $200 if this passes. Then again, the road projects already approved in my area that would have gone towards congestion relief won't go through and a number of the buses that also travel my commute route (most of which are full) will cease to run. End result? An immediate increase in congestion followed by worse conditions as time goes on, which causes me to spend more time in my commute, meaning either less time where I could be working or actually living my life and more money spent on gas (remember stop and go driving drop kicks your car's MPG).

So a rational explanation is: Oooo, $200 more in my pocket immediately, but a heck of a lot more than that lost sitting in traffic if I vote for it.

But that's just me. I tend to think long term (as in more than a few days) on most things.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Oh, I'm thinking long term. I'm thinking about my children's children. I'm thinking about oppression, tyranny, and the ever expanding neo-fascism in which this country engages. How's that fer long term? You whining about a bus route which WON'T go away, I'll just bet. And me? Oh, I'm just whining about the ever increasing symbitotic relationship our state government fosters with it's citizens, to the point where through a bevy of scare tactics and threats, those same citizens live in too much fear to vote out, curb, or slow down the ever increasing juggernaut of a tax burden under which we currently witness.

Vote yes on 695, do it for the children.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 19, 1999.

Just read all the threads. The explanation is in there, if you look for it. Read the responses also. Many just blow off the negative consequences of the initiative as unimportant, or they just refuse to believe they will happen. But the biggest reason to vote NO, is that the initiative is poorly drafted, does not do what it is trying to do well, and what it is trying to do is wrong headed. It has unintended consequences, like reimposing the property tax on vehicles, that just show how inept the authors were (unless, of course, they intended that to occur). If you want to save money, and reduce government waste, this initiative is the wrong tool for the job. Instead of accomplishing what you want, the drafting errors will put it in the courts for months, if not years, for interpretation of the legal effect and constitutionality. Vote NO because it is does not deserve your support.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 19, 1999.

Ed's response really says it all when it comes to the priorities and long-term vision of I-695 proponents. Oh yes Ed, I know you're being (click on caps lock) IRONIC (click off caps lock), and yes my feelings be hurt (y no estoy hablando como ironista asi senor!), but really what Ed has done there amounts to self-parody. Cause yes fossil-fuel fueled global warming IS a reality and at this point in the history of it, you might think you're being clever by proclaiming pride in your complicity, but like my good friend Nigel Tufnel said, "it's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

After all the carefully "calibrated" numerical figures have been tossed back and forth, the fact remains: support for I-695 is about every man for himself and civic responsibility be damned. Opposition to I-695 is NOT about embracing high taxes, but about knowing a recklessly stupid idea with the most uncivil of potential consequences when one sees one.

You wouldn't go see a dentist with the loose cannon personality of a maddjak or a Westin or an Ed bridges, much less the eerily vapid Pollyanna-vision of Tim Eyman, would you?

I wouldn't either. The analogy should be obvious to anyone with the slightest trace of grey matter.

Still mistrusting Tim Eyman the pol-i-tish-eye-an as much as Gary Locke the pol-i-tish-eye-an & still voting NO on I-695.

Special thanks to Woody Guthrie

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), October 19, 1999.

Paul complains about scare tactics and then complains about a growing neo-facist state forming and ends it all with a "do it for the children" comment.

Anyone for a healthy dose of iron

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

Patrick wrote: Paul complains about scare tactics and then complains about a growing neo-facist state forming and ends it all with a "do it for the children" comment.

Anyone for a healthy dose of iron ===

Whew... guess I'm a gonna have to slowww things down a bit. The real irony is, no one gets the irony. Oh well.

Vote Yes on 695, do it for the children, and the aged.

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 20, 1999.

Okay chez, so I can understand you are passionate about this issue. Your still a junior in college, probably living off Mom and Dad or student loans. Maybe taking the bus to school, biking, or walking. Got the ol' 8:30AM class mapped out in Kane. No problem. Passion is what college is about. The reality is paying the $700 for a reliable car when you graduate. I understand you are against this, but I don't think you are much imbedded in reality. If you are a true junior, you probably just got the go ahead to legally enter a bar.

Even the antis admit this is a cash cow that needs to be rethought. Having a huge cash cow that was originally set up for one reason, but got so big that they could afford to spill it over into other programs is a dangerous game for the constituents of Washington state, as this creates global dependencies and will become even more difficult to wean off. This also tells me that the legistlature really didn't care about answering to their constituents.

If I am mistaken, then what EXACTLY would you propose as an alternative?

-- Matt Greenway (mgreenwa@u.washington.edu), October 20, 1999.

Dave

No Dave,there is NO rational reason for you to oppose i-695.

There are of course many BUREAUCRATIC reasons to oppose this initiative. They have all appeared in one form or another in this forum.

They can ALL be summed up as:The Governor and Legislature, who enact and amend all laws and regulations,are powerless to change them.

If you look carefully at the opposition arguments,they are all fundamentally based on that BIG LIE.

For this BIG LIE to work,or even to be tried,they MUST assume that we are utterly stupid. I for one take offence at this supposition.

Listen up! If ANY of the necessary,essential services the state provides are interupted or in any way adversely affected it is because the Governor and Legislature,through malice or stupidity,allow it to happen.

They have the power to act or do nothing. Whatever the result,it will be on their heads.

They can do as the leaders in Ca. and Colorado did and make it work,or they can refuse to do what they were elected to do and suffer the consequences at the ballot box.

After the election,we must never let them forget that we are watching to see who does their jobs and who doesn't.

"you can lead a liberal to logic,but you can't make them think."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 20, 1999.

Paul, you speak about a 'symbiotic' relationship that the State has with it's citizenship. But it's NOT symbiotic. Symbiosis is an entertwined biological relationship that is beneficial to both creature involved. The state's relationship with us is more parasitical. The state takes and takes and takes until we (the host) collapse and die..

You're on the right track but you're not nasty enough!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

Matt,

Better to put up with the toothache than to visit the same dentist that Dustin Hoffman went to see in "Marathon Man".

But then again, come to think of it there IS an alternative for the Wallet Whiners after all:

RIDE THE BUS!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), October 20, 1999.

Jeff - I do ride the bus. So why should Westin have to pay for my transportation. I am willing to pay more if I-695 is passed. Besides, you never offered an alternative. Figures, nobody in the antis can.

-- Matt Greenway (mgreenwa@u.washington.edu), October 20, 1999.

Provided this input to another question and thought that it would also apply here...

I-695 basically imposes an environment where the overall budget is smaller and restricts how government can regain those lost revenues, nothing more. Inefficiencies, "pork barrel" politics, poor policy decisions, etc. could still exist and do not have to be corrected in this environment. I-695 DOES NOT FORCE CHANGE specific to how our government functions, sets priorities or funds projects. Change will occur, no doubt, but I-695 does not directed where this change will occur.

If your goal is just to force change in government with little or no care of the results, then you should vote for it.

If, however, your goal is to force SPECIFIC changes in government (e.g. address inefficiencies, stop/limit projects, affect policy, etc.), then you should vote against it because I-695 does not do that.

If you do trust government and the predictions on budget and service cuts are acceptable, then you should vote for it. If the predicted budget and service cuts are not acceptable, then you should vote against I-695.

If you do not trust the government, I-695 does nothing to stop them from fully funding their pet projects and then proposing additional taxes or levies to pay for essential services. If this is the case, then you should be voting against I-695. (Yes, they can be voted out of office by their constituents if they did this. But if their constituents didn't trust them, then they would not have been elected in the first place.)

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 20, 1999.

See? They just ignore the negative effects, or choose to believe they will not happen. Poorly written, Bad law. Vote NO.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 20, 1999.