Some people are critisizing what Tim Eyman has accomplished. As is usual with critics, their short on ideas but quick to point out flaws of others and will do little else on their own. SO, I propose that ANYONE who thinks that they can write a better initiative, even if you want to hide your name, to post it here.

Then tell us how you plan to get the 511,000 signatures and how you're going to pay for it.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

Well even though I support I-695... I propose an initiative that cuts ALL Public Official's salaries by 50% and make them use their own vehicles. The second part of the initiative would require that the legislature convene for three months every two years and only receive a salary for those three months.

A third part would declare that the 'governor's mansions be sold and the governor required to live in a two bedroom apartment in Olympia.

Any Official functions could be held in the National Guard Armory.

How's that for a better initiative?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

Don't be fooled, William. Tim Eyman himself is a critic who has not proposed an alternate solution. He has attacked MVET, our state's fourth largest revenue source, but not proposed an alternate way for the state to raise that revenue. All he has done is provide convincing lies to make many people think that the state can do without that revenue; deny, deny, deny the overwhelming evidence that his pet scheme will harm the state; laugh at the sincere warnings of harm from well-informed people; and encourage others to laugh with him. A person who has Tim Eyman's persuasive skills should use them to promote a hard-to-sell cause that would genuinely benefit the public, instead of misleading the public for his personal entertainment.

Yeah, I know I'm not proposing an alternate either, but I don't have Tim Eyman's insight into the way things work. Obviously he does, since he has been so successful.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

Well Joe,

It's true that Tim is not offering any alternative to raise that revenue back. That would be rather STUPID since he's doing a lot to DECREASE that revenue stream.

You tell me that "All he has done is provide convincing lies...": What convincing lies is he providing? Is that all he has done? You mean to tell me that the No-on-I-695 camp never has lied?

What overwhelming real evidence, not predictions, do you have that this WILL harm the state.

The truth is that it's VERY difficult to get an initiative through. The first obstacle that is in the way is that all initiatives must be put on special sized paper. And it's always a different size. That means that you have to PAY to have the paper cut to that exact size and printed. After you go through that sludge, then you have to get people to sign it. Have you ever done that? It's HARD work and you have to PAY people to stand outside and get people to sign. That cost a lot of money.

What does Tim get for all this work. NOTHING but personal satisfaction.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 25, 1999.

Joe, you hit the nail on the head!

-- Ken (klemay@amouse.neet), October 25, 1999.

"He has attacked MVET, our state's fourth largest revenue source, but not proposed an alternate way for the state to raise that revenue. " Joe-

You just don't get it, do you. WE DON'T WANT THE STATE TO HAVE THIS MONEY. It doesn't matter if it is 2% as the pro-695 people say, or 6% as the pro-MVET people say. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS MONEY. WE DON'T WANT AN ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCE. WE WANT THE STATE TO GET OUT OF IT'S NON-ESSENTIAL AND LOWER PRIORITY FUNCTIONS. IF THE POLITICIANS CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT, LET THEM RESIGN AND MAKE ROOM FOR PEOPLE WILLING TO MAKE NEEDED CHANGES TO PROVIDE THESE ECONOMIES. Get it now????

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

I know I'm going to get a lot of grief over this, however. I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of MVET altogehter, and property taxes and gas taxes for that matter either. I do believe that we get what we pay for though, whats wrong with a state income tax, a FLAT tax on income 5 or 10 percent, what ever the number is that gets us the services that we are accustomed to. I realize that this is not greatly appealing to the rich but this is the best I can come up with. You asked for it here it is... Be gentle.

I just think hand-cuffing the budgets of small county governments is not the answer, especially since the effect on them appears to be a form of collateral damage.

As for getting 511,000 signatures, It would have to be something sensationalizing it, like "No more MVET, No more Property Taxes, then in small print the rest of the details. You know, something already tried and true.

-- Ken (Klemay@amouse.net), October 25, 1999.

Ken-

Other than the fact that it would take a two-thirds vote in both houses and a popular vote of the electorate, nothing. - - But aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Before you decide how much money to give government, shouldn't you decide what services we (collectively) are going to fund? I guarantee that government is capable of spending every single dime that is given to them to spend. Before you let them do that, why don't you decide what services it is appropriate for government to provide, and fund them ONLY to do that? The alternative, I guarantee you, is a black hole into which you might drop any amount of revenue and nothing will ever come back above the event horizon.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

William: Convincing lies: "2% of government spending," "$1 billion surplus," "6th highest taxed state," "$500 million," "$30 puts us in line with other states". Not exactly lies, but deceptive: each one carefully chosen to give a false impression to the majority of the people, who won't check to see exactly what it means. I expanded on this some more in the topic "I-695 Concern" http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001col

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

Joe-

I take it that no one ever accused you of being a gracious loser.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

I suggest that a fair alternative to the I-695 solution is to "charge by the pound", and that $0.06 per pound is a fair rate. That would make a 1999 VW Jetta that weighs a reasonable 2200 lbs. cost about $132.00 per year to license, and a larger Cadillac STS approximately $260.00. Motorhomes and commercial trucks would pay justifiably higher amounts, but the same amount per pound(?).

Owners of gas hog pollution-mobiles such as old clunkers and monster SUV's would pay their fair share of tax relative to the amount of damage they do to the roads, AND be motivated to possibly consider buying smaller, lighter, more environmentally friendly vehicles.

People who wan't big cars, and can afford big cars, can buy big cars and happily pay the correspondingly high tax relative to smaller ones knowing full well the additional expense up-front.

Manufactures provide Net and Gross vehicle weights, and if the information wasn't available for an older vehicle, scales could be set up at emission testing facilities. It would only have to be done once per the life of the vehicle. Trailers could be charged $0.03 per max allowable payload pound. The state would benefit in that it could expect the same, and fair, amount of money from drivers every year for the life of the vehicle. Simple and fair, and easy to put into practice.

-- A Dwight (aldwight@mindspring.com), October 26, 1999.

Heres the answer!!! Keep everything the way it is, and have no new tax increases.. We pay our current tab fees plus $30 more and that money goes to our Washington State teachers and law enforcement, for the out standing job these people do..I don't know about everyone else but I haven't seen anyone else out there arresting drug dealers, wife beaters, murders, sex offenders, and violent citizens. Next time I need 911 do I call Tims house. YA Right

-- theo (twatsan@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

The alternative to 695, is to lobby the legislature to do it right as hard as you have lobbied the voters to do it wrong. This initiative has some big problems, that would not have been missed if it had gone through the legislative process and been debated, hearings held, etc.

The initiative process should be limited to single issues, should be specific regarding programs effected, should not repeal existing law by reference to the RCW number only, and should be worded so the ballot title is not deceptive. If you want to vote against the Tacoma Narrows bridge, or Sound Transit; propose an initative that cuts the PROGRAM to reduce the taxes. That way voters can debate the merit of the program they KNOW is the issue, instead of voting on the tax with no idea where the money will be cut.

My best suggestion, is one that gets a lot of people excited. I believe we should replace most state taxes with a state income tax that is fixed at a percentage of the federal income tax; whatever that is for each individual. No new forms or different kinds of deductable items. Just a straight percentage, like 10%. Witholding would also be the same percentage, with no new forms to fill out. The big advantage is that state income tax is deductable on the federal income tax return, so 15 to 39% of the state tax would be effectively paid by a reduction of the federal tax. Since some state taxes are paid in big chunks, and income tax would be deducted as earned, the big crisis when a tax becomes due would be avoided.

You asked for alternatives. These are my suggestions. How about Initiative 700, for the 2000 ballot?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 26, 1999.

db and EVERYONE:

FINALLY!!! WE ALL GOT YOU!!! WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN "Plan bad: Vote No." Ugh! We'll here goes the reply to your idea head on...

"lobby the legislature", "gone through the legislative process and been debated, hearings held, etc.". Answer to that: ROTFLMAO! This is why we are going this route because ALL politicians can't stop bickering back and forth to approve legislation that the people REALLY want. They can't even keep a balanced checking account! Your route is old, and is like fighting city hall, it NEVER comes out right in the end, if at all! Point: Sandy.

"should be worded so the ballot title is not deceptive". Let's see, from the WA Voter's Pamphlet, "Shall voter approval be required for any tax increase, license tab fees be $30 per year for motor vehicles, and existing vehicle taxes be repealed." Uh, excuse me, where is the deception? At least this one reads in plain English compared to ones I've seen in the past. Point: Sandy.

Oh here comes my favorite: "I believe we should replace most state taxes with a state income tax that is fixed at a percentage of the federal income tax; whatever that is for each individual" and "Just a straight percentage, like 10%." Well now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Talk about unfair! Our friend DB here, who like's to tell us all that we have a bad, unfair plan, has the nerve to try to worm something here that DOES make the richer pay more and the poorer pay less. A flat income tax. I would rather be taxed on what I SPEND than what I make if you don't mind. But DB here always keeps posting how much 695 is sooo unfair, how it's soooo liberal, how it's sooooo crazy. Well call me crazy (you're crazy Sandy) because I think the programs should be looked at first and checked to see what can be cut back FIRST BEFORE cutting into basic services which should never be touched or used as a scare tatic in the first place! Point: Sandy.

"How about Initiative 700, for the 2000 ballot?". How about you give 695 a chance first. You sound too much like a politician in this and every post and the people are tired of the run-around and SOS. We've given them, what, 62 years AND months even after the signatures were turned in to even address changed and what we we got just before the election? "Trust us, we'll do it right.... we promise (heavy emphaisis)." Yeah right! You'll do whatever the person wants you to do that is lining your pocket with $$$ for your vote and your next campaign! Point: Sandy.

You have shown us your hand DB, better luck next round.

Game. Set. Match. Winner: EVERYONE after I-695 passes on Nov 2nd. VOTE YES! THIS IS THE BIG ONE!!!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

TWatsan

Have you been living under a rock.

Test scores in schools are down. Theachers are of poor quality in at least 30% of the staff. If cops are doing such a good job, why have the lawsuits agains them increased 10 times in 5 years? That's because they are breaking the law and not because people are sue happy. Not to mention that Seattle, King County, Bellevue Police have had nothing but problems for the last year for things like discrimination, theft, extortion, arson and murder to cover up for their crimes.

We got too may damned cops as it is. If you want to live in a police state, go to Cuba.

-- Bill Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 27, 1999.

d

You write, instead of voting on the tax with no idea where the money will be cut.

I know where the money will be cut from, the governments budget. Okay, I dont care where the politicians take the money from when I- 695 passes, as long as it isnt from me anymore.

As Ive stated before, if they want to fund their pet projects and de- fund police & fire then they will. But they will have to answer to the people why they fill that funding a gay & lesbian commission is more important then putting a cop on the corner.

Plus I dont want the politicians to figure out how they will get more money to make up for the cuts. We the people (over 511,000) want taxes to be cut. Not new ones imposed.

P.S. I would rather have a tax that the people pay in one lump sum. That way they will see just how much the state and feds are actually taking out of their pockets.

Ed  its not me, me, me, its my, my, my, as in my money not theirs

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

Sandy:

When you score the game yourself, how can you lose? Not surprisingly, I score it differently.

What I said was, lobby the legislature to do it right, as hard as you lobby the voters to do it wrong. You can't win by passing a bad law.

The title on the petition and the signs sells this as the "$30 license tab initiative." You can't take credit for what Ralph Munro did to try to make clear, what the drafters were selling with deception, and still are.

I did not advocate a flat income tax. I advocated a graduated income tax that is exactly a fixed percentage of the federal income tax, for simplicity and the elimination of any new forms, and any need for a state version of the IRS. If you do the math, it is clear that with an income tax that is deductable on the federal tax return the state could generate the same revenue for operation of the state government with LESS total taxes paid by state residents.

That happens because the federal government gets less. Oops, did I make a mistake? No, I just want our tax payers to contribute to the federal budget without the disadvantage we currently have relative to the other states. Nearly all of them have an income tax they can deduct, so we are paying proportionaly more to support the federal government than other states. I don't think we get proportionately more in federal services, so we are losing by the current tax structure.

While I am responding, I should make clear what I would put in I-700 if I was willing and able to push this as an initiative. It would say something like:

Shall the state Legislature be required to develope a proposed constitutional amendment to create a state income tax and repeal at least 50% of existing state taxes, with provisions substantially as follows; for submission to the voters of the state by the November, 2001 General Election:

1. The state income tax shall be a fixed percentage of the federal income tax.

2. State taxes repealed shall be specified in the constitutional amendment, such that they may be reimposed only through a future amendment process.

3. The income tax percentage shall be proposed to generate no more revenue than the amount of the revenue currently generated by the taxes proposed to be repealed.

I would leave the details of the development of the proposal the the legislative process, so they could work out what is possible and what is not. If they don't create an attractive proposal, the people can vote down the amendment; but at least the proposal would have been developed through a process that looks at all the impacts, and deals with them. You can't amend the constitution directly by an initiative in this state anyway.

As I said before, you asked for alternatives. These are my suggestions. In my opinion, since I am doing the proposing, they are all better than the damage that would be done by I-695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 27, 1999.

Mark: "WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS MONEY. [...] WE WANT THE STATE TO GET OUT OF IT'S NON-ESSENTIAL AND LOWER PRIORITY FUNCTIONS."

So in your mind, road construction and maintenance is non essential? Oh boy, do I agree. I'd much rather have my money spent on communities where I can walk to work and play, instead of having it build freeways that make it impossible for me to simply walk to work and play.

I-695 is unfair because it removes one way cars pay for car stuff - roads. It's a whopping third (not 2%) of transportation (build & maintain) and transit (move more people on the same roads) budgets. That money isn't even enough to keep up with the car explosion in this state, and I-695 wants to cut it.

Instead of I-695, I'd push for a way to have cars pay their way. Road tolls, based on road mileage and weight of your vehicle (as truthfully stated in an earlier post, heavier cars damage roads more). Quadrupled gas prices, that would reflect reality and get people thinking about how a luxury it is to drive. No free parking spots, so that non-car customers don't have to pay for parking they don't use as part of their purchase price. Pay-as-you-go fire and medical services when you have an accident.

Fair? Certainly. Extreme? I'm using real-life examples from other countries.

To make it happen, I'd start advertising "$0 TABS" to get lots of signatures. Then, I'd claim I'm raising the tax burden by "ONLY 2%". Finally, I'd celebrate my initiative with "YOU'VE BEEN FOOLED!".

Me, ironic? Oh, but I'm using real-life examples again.

-- Jeffrey Belt (jeffounet@msn.com), October 28, 1999.

to Jeffrey: If the voters want new road construction then they should pay higher tolls and/or higher gasoline taxes.

The MVET has rarely been used for new road construction. That's one of the reasons we have the severe congestion of today.

The existing gasoline tax goes mainly toward maintenance of the roads and ferries. If you want new roads and ferries, I-695 will require the voters to vote for higher gasoline taxes. What's wrong with that?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 28, 1999.

The voters already approved spending MVET money for roads. What's wrong with that?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 28, 1999.

As dbvz points out, MVET does fund roads.

About half the MVET is for state transportation, and a quarter is for transit. Road building and maintenance is a portion of that budget. Granted, it's not all of it. But those 3/4 are all to car's benefits, and this includes ferries, buses, etc. Why do people have cars in the first place? They don't enjoy traffic. They just want to access home, work, and play. I think the MVET should be spent on moving *people* rather than cars. That includes roads for cars, and all those other services that move people so they don't need cars. The reason we have the congestion we have today is that people focus on moving their cars, and the state can't build roads fast enough to keep up with the car growth. It can't. LA, Chicago, etc, all tried, and proved it can't be done.

If I-695 passes, odds are high I'll be one of those new cars on the road during rush hour. I'll hate it, but I won't have any other choice.

-- Jeffrey Belt (jeffounet@msn.com), October 31, 1999.

Jeff-

" The reason we have the congestion we have today is that people focus on moving their cars, and the state can't build roads fast enough to keep up with the car growth. It can't. LA, Chicago, etc, all tried, and proved it can't be done. " Bull****

LA has fewer road miles per capita than we do. We have congestion because the majority of the transportation capital investment dollars and much of the operating dollars go to transit.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 31, 1999.

Back to the original question: if our esteemed politicians didn't think I-695 was all that great, they had the opportunity and the responsibility to put an alternative on the ballot alongside of I-695 to let the people choose. Only problem is that they didn't. Probably anything they could agree to would be laughed off the ballot. The real failure here is that our elected officials are not capable of writing an alternative that will solve the twin problems of excessive taxation and unfairness. All they can focus on is the cash cow - MVET revenues projected to increase automatically every year. Since they did not put an alternative on the ballot, they should stop complaining about the choice that 500,000 Washington citizens gave them.

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), November 01, 1999.