Even though this article came from the Times on 10/22/99, I haven't seen anyone mention it, so I'll post it.

SD Vote Yes! On your way out of the booth, proudly claim you voted Yes too!!! ---------- If voters approve Initiative 695, the state would lose billions of dollars for police protection, public health and highway improvements, and the gas tax could double - at least that's the message in new TV ads launched by the No on 695 campaign.

Two 30-second spots hit the airwaves this week as part of a million-dollar media buy by opponents of the ballot measure that would cut vehicle taxes to a flat $30 annual fee and require voter approval on any future tax or fee increase.

What follows is an analysis of the two television ads:

Claim: I-695 would take $6 billion away from fire and police protection, public health and safer roads.

Assessment: The $6 billion figure is based on a six-year calculation.

First, the No on 695 campaign added the $4.5 billion that the state expects to collect in car-tax revenues during the next six years, roughly $750 million annually. About half of that money is doled out for law enforcement, public health and local transit services.

The campaign also is counting a $1.9 billion funding package that has been approved by the Legislature to finance road-construction projects statewide. Those projects were approved by voters under Referendum 49 last year. Part of the financing is supposed to come from car-tax revenues, but it also includes gas-tax money.

The math is sound, but the ad assumes state and local leaders would not come up with alternative ways to finance road-construction bonds and pay for local programs the car tax now supports.

Strategy: The campaign hopes to convince voters there would be devastating cuts in critical state and local services if I-695 passes.

Claim: And it even overturns our vote to fix the traffic mess.

Assessment: It's true that I-695 would gut the $2.4 billion transportation spending package that voters approved last year.

By eliminating the car tax, the state would lose the revenue stream that was supposed to help pay off a $1.9 billion loan to finance the bulk of the roadwork. Without the car tax, or an alternative money source, state officials say, they would have to cancel the bonds.

Strategy: To convince voters that Puget Sound traffic jams will get even worse if I-695 passes - and to remind them that supporting I-695 would cancel out their vote last year to authorize the state to spend what it takes to alleviate congestion.

Claim: And our gas tax could be doubled to make up for the loss.

Assessment: The math is correct. But no one in the Legislature is suggesting doubling the state's gas tax, which has stayed at 23 cents a gallon since 1992. It's likely that if I-695 passes, some lawmakers will suggest a modest increase to help pay for transportation projects.

If the initiative passes, any gas-tax increase would have to be blessed by voters.

It's worth noting that a 5-cent increase in the gas tax would raise enough money to replace the $1.9 billion in transportation bonds authorized by Referendum 49.

Strategy: Washington already has one of the higher gas taxes in the nation. Initiative opponents are trying to make voters think I-695 could result in a dramatic jump in the price of gas.

Targeting union members

The ads are running throughout the state, including five TV stations in the Seattle area, as well as in Portland, and are costing the campaign about $800,000, said Jim Kneeland, a consultant to No on 695. The campaign also bought time on cable TV.

The ads, produced by Democratic consultant Frank Greer, feature a Boeing machinist, a Tumwater firefighter, a Seattle health-care worker and an Everett police officer - all active union members.

That's no accident. Kneeland said the campaign is targeting union households because surveys show that 60 percent of those households support I-695 - though labor-union leaders are among those leading the opposition.

"We need to convince 10 percent of those households to oppose it," Kneeland said.

The opponents' polling indicates that conservative Republicans are among the measure's strongest supporters, while women and liberal Democrats are strong among the opponents, he said.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999

Answers

It's still a day late and a dollar short. With more and more people voting absentee, these last minute PR pushes are less and less effective. Let them spend their money. That's a few bucks less they can use to support pro-MVET elected officials.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 02, 1999.