The Seattle PI, the newspaper all those Spiro Agnew types would love to hate, says:

695 IS PENNY-WISE AND PLAIN FOOLISH Friday, October 29, 1999

Admit it. It seemed pretty exciting at first: Dump the most hated tax in the state. Save hundreds of dollars. Skip writing out that honking check each year at license tab time. Send a message to Olympia that they should have fixed this cockeyed tax long ago.

It was attractive enough to garner the signatures of more than a half-million Washington residents. Now that the flaws in the initiative and its negative impacts have been so clearly laid out, a bunch of those signatories may be wishing they'd used disappearing ink.

But the error can be erased, with a No vote on Initiative 695 Tuesday.

In exchange for a very tempting, personal financial gain, voters in Washington are being asked to force state government to do some very imprudent things.

By slashing the billions in Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenues over the next five years, we would be deciding to abandon a major transportation improvement program authorized by the voters with Referendum 49. We would be doing so despite the fact that residents repeatedly cite transportation as one of the two top priorities for the state, along with education.

By attempting to replace those lost MVET funds we would be abandoning a course of sound fiscal policy instituted by voters in Initiative 601. At the very foundation of I-601 are the policies of strict limits on spending and maintenance of a prudent reserve for emergencies and economic downturns. Raiding the surplus created by those policies and exceeding the spending limit by hundreds of millions of dollars flies in the face of I-601's inherent fiscal conservatism.

A little-recognized provision of I-601 requires that when the so-called surplus reaches a certain level, all additional surplus revenues roll over into a special fund for school construction. The surplus has neared that level. Tapping it now would forgo the prospect of fueling more school construction.

Good economic times are times for savings and investment. I-601 has provided the vehicle for savings by limiting spending. R-49 provided the vehicle for investment by dedicating MVET funds to upgrading our crumbling transportation infrastructure. Each of those will contribute to greater economic prosperity. I-695 says you get one but not both.

I-695 would also have us abandon a long tradition of representational democracy, in which we freely choose those we deem best qualified to vote in our best interests. If they don't, we can toss them out. But where is the representation in holding a public election on every uptick in tax or fee? Whom do we hold accountable? Whom do we vote out of office for not voting our way?

The potential financial negatives of I-695 are real. They are tangible and demonstrable. And they go way beyond the tax dollars immediately lost. Indeed, the damage inflicted by attempts to backfill for those lost dollars could be far worse.

In public policy terms, those $30 license tabs could be the most expensive ones ever sold.

Please vote no on Initiative 695.

-- David (unified@whidbey.net), October 29, 1999

Answers

As a rule, I have been well-guided in my life by doing/voting the opposite of the way the PI in particular, and media in general suggest.

This piece of dreck confirms it.

Weston

A simple truth beyond the PI... the media... and the anti's...

"Don't tell me how bad it's going to be without car-tab revenues; explain how you defend the current tax. If a tax is unfair at its core, a free people have the right to repeal it."

Vesely

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 29, 1999.

David: Isn't it amazing how the rebuttals ALWAYS are like Mr. Westin's magnificent piece of composition?

'Nuff said.

-- I.am.smart (not.stupid@brains.com), October 30, 1999.

billions did you this state will lose billions? hummm looks like we have even more people than i thought live in the state!! YES on I-695

-- john (mlvc72ss@aol.com), November 02, 1999.