The end of civilization as we know it seems to be the consequence of eliminating our worst tax, which really is only 2% of state and local government spending. We should have gone for the other 98% as the impacts could not have been so severe. But by going for 2% we still let the total coercive financing grow substantially. If we really want to reduce government, we are going to have to go for more than the biennial increase, not less, as I-695 does. By going for the other 98% we can avoid freeway gridlock, employ 74,000 construction workers, and let ferry and transit riders pay only a tiny fraction of the costs of getting to the public health clinics in subsidized cities and counties, safely, since there would be lots of cops on the streets. What were we thinking, going for the important 2% when we could have been really effective without causing problems for society?

-- Art RAthjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), October 31, 1999

Answers

Art

My god man, your exactly right. So what if next year we go after that 98% but give back the MVET. What would be their excuse then? Gov Locke wouldn't have $200 million to spend on the salmon? $36 million won't be spent on a Opera house?

Ed - like your way of thinking

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 31, 1999.

As Craig says, "chaff and flairs!"

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 31, 1999.

d-

"As Craig says, "chaff and flairs!"" It's chaff and FLARES, not flares. The reference is to countermeasures deployed defensively by an aircraft under threat of missile attack.. The "chaff" is aluminum foil strips that appear to be a target to the (less sophisticated) radar-guided missiles and the flares are literally burning flares that are used to decoy (less sophisticated) heat-seeking missiles.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 31, 1999.

Thanks for the explanation. LCDR A.D. Rathjen, USN (ret.) Surface Warfare Specialist

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), October 31, 1999.

No wonder you have some much common sense Art...Those last three letters USN expalina lot. Common sense and well fed too!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 31, 1999.

Art - you've fallen for one of Tim Eyewash's big lies. You have to be careful when reading anything written by a professional mail order salesman. If you read his sales pitches carefully, you'll see that he NEVER says it's "2% of state and local government spending" -- although that's what he WANTS you to think. He actually says, "2% of GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN THE STATE." That includes federal spending too! The funding loss is actually 7.5% of the state budget - by no means insignificant.

You have, however, at least understood that the cuts are only to specific portions of the budget. The majority of the population hasn't even realized that. They think that the cut is to the general fund, and the govt can easily move it around. In fact, it's a 71% cut to a very specific fund. You can check out these facts at http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/init_19990926.html and http://www.ofm.wa.gov/i-695/695august.htm.

Thanks to Two Percent Tim's clever wording, a whole army of cronies is chanting, "How could a 2% cut cause so much destruction to the state?" Just look at the number of newspaper letters that echo this mantra. They think that our transportation budget and other state- funded services will be cut by only 2%, if at all.

For it to be cut by only 2%, the US Navy, the Army, the Coast Guard, UW, WSU, every public school, every water and sewage utility in every city in the state, etc. would have to cut back its WA operations by 2% and donate to our gutted transportation budget! Who's going to make that happen? Uncle Tim??

This is one of the four carefully chosen and irrelevant statistics that Two Percent Tim has used to swindle the majority of the population.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 31, 1999.

As for why Tim went for that particular 7.5% of the budget, it's not hard to answer. He drives a $40,000 Saab, and lives in Mukilteo - he doesn't care a hoot about gridlock or public transit. He has a history of playing pranks to get attention. There's a story on him at http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=37b741e519. His co- sponsor, Marty Rood, is a car dealer who has much to gain if the public is encouraged to buy expensive cars.

Think they're doing this out of "compassion for the average taxpayer" ? Don't be fooled!

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 31, 1999.

Here is the justification of the MVET being 1.83% of state and local revenue.

Source: Tax Reference Manual published by the Department of Revenue (Jan 1999). you can get a copy by calling 1-800-451-7985.

Page Overview- 2. The total revenue for fiscal yr 1995 for state and local governments is given as $35,765.1 million (Duplicative intergovernment transfers are excluded from the total)

Page 192: MVET collections are listed as $654,528,000. (or$ 654.5 million)

%MVET = (654.5/35,765.1) x 100 = 1.83% We are saying 2% of state and local revenue

Note that federal expenditures for Navy, Army Air Force, and DEA Drug Busts are not included in these numbers. It really is 2%. At least according to the government, if they can be trusted.

-- Art Rathjen (LIBERTY@COASTACCESS.COM), October 31, 1999.

"Page Overview- 2. The total revenue for fiscal yr 1995 for state and local governments is given as $35,765.1 million (Duplicative intergovernment transfers are excluded from the total) Art Rathjen posts:

"Page 192: MVET collections are listed as $654,528,000. (or$ 654.5 million)

"%MVET = (654.5/35,765.1) x 100 = 1.83% We are saying 2% of state and local revenue..."

This would presuppose that all of the MVET was discretionary spending... but it is not. About 50% of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) is dedicated to local govenment (both city and county). Of that 50+%, some MUST be spent for criminal justice, some MUST be spent for public health, some MUST be spent on transportation, and some is for general government expenditures. The dedicated funds total close to $300 million in the year 2000 for counties alone.

Of the general government expenditures, the hit to local government is greatest to the smaller jurisdictions. For example, the non-transit hit to King county is 3% +/- while Garfield county will see a drop of nearly 50% in their general fund (discretionary spending - parks, assessor, animal control, planning, 4-H, etc...) revenues in the year 2000.

-- Tom King (---@---.---), October 31, 1999.

Hmm, looks like we got a government employee hireling servant here. Isn't it funny how some of these guys want to speak so loudly, yet, are such pansies that they can't even use their name or email address?

GOVERNMENT CAN BUDGET-GET THE CLUE. You idiots got us into this mess and now you're just going to have to get YOURSELVES and us out of it. Here are a few suggestions, stop funding gay dances for 14-20 year olds at our public colleges, stop paying 7 million for elevators, stop funding "interpretive" salmon displays-I think taht one was 23 million, but don't quote me they all seem to run together, stop over paying these big biz contractors, stop paying thousands and millions for public art(any artist who wants a name would donate his or her work just to be seen). Feel free to write me at my email for more common sense advice.

Citizens are not taking it up the tail pipe anymore, that's what this is all about!!!!!

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 01, 1999.

Paula:

When you budget with 40% less money, important stuff gets cut. YOU get a clue. Self-delusion will not make the real problems go away. The problems start 1/1/2000 unless the court approves an injunction.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 01, 1999.