Well, where do we start? I could easily produce a piece three times as long, just addressing the individual phallacies of this message, let alone the general moral consequences of the underlying philosophy. While I appreciate your well-crafted letter, I'll have to start by saying, and paraphrasing the words of Mark Stilson, another poster in this newsgroup, that if you're attempting to make us feel bad by pointing out the pains of people who have been lured into the idea that their livlihood become dependant on a group of promises and fund misappropriations made by polititicians who have overtaxed the general population, you're "pumping at a dry well".

Yes, it is unfortunate the state plans to make such deep cuts, all the while preserving thousands of other wasteful programs which are not even discussed by the state officials, undoubtedly because they are 'pet' programs by individual lawmakers. Or, the waste comes in a far more dangerous form: Ridiculously high salaries for state officials, and certain state employees. Things like transit, police, medical, etc. are not usually seen as 'pet' programs. But I digress, because I don't want this to get into a rehashing of all government waste, which everyone, but EVERYONE knows exists, in large amounts. The point here, is clearly philosophical. And this, my friends, is where the anti 695 proponents do their worst. This is their weakest link. Both sides can haggle over the 'meaning' of budget numbers, both sides may have good points, but, only one side carries the philosophical high ground.

In a largely democratic society, the more we tax the general population, the more we hurt the population we so wish to remove from the chains and burdens of poverty. At the least, the more unstable we make their situation. We make their situation more unstable by creating dependancies on tax revenue, which come from other 'free people'. If those 'free people' decide that they want to keep more of what they earn, the funding going to the supportive programs dries up. The only way we can 'protect' these people from the possible loss of these funds, which come from nowhere else except these 'free people', is good, old-fashioned force. We employ racist policies, all created by the people who claim at the loudest volume to be the protectors of the poor, the minority races, the 'disenfranchised', if you will. How? We tell them: "We love you, but you can't do it without us." "These people just can't make it on their own." "They can't survive in our brutal, capitalistic society." "I feel your pain.".

I remember the movie "In the Heat of the Night", with Sidney Poitier. I remember the southern plantation owner who said something to the effect of: "The negro is like the wild orchid, the negro needs cultivating." Funny, I hear the same type of language coming from our government, everytime we employ special programs, funded at the point of a gun, to help or subsidize people who "Can't make it in the white mans world". I've been screaming for years that they CAN make it in the "white man's" (the phrase makes me sick just typing it) world, that they are smart enough, that they have the power, and the intellect to shape and enrich our country, as they already have, and they can do this in SPITE of government hand-outs. And yet, they accuse me and people like me of racism, or being 'anti-poor'. What the hell am I going to get out of 'keeping a bunch of people down', or poor. Nothing. What will the people who have built an entire political power base out of promises and special interest programs which serve the poor, or minority populations get out of keeping people down, or poor? Plenty. And I think you're beginning to get the connection, between my diatribe, and the moral, philosophical grounds of 695. The less dependent our population, the less need for taxation. The less need for political power leading to taxation, or demanding it. The less taxation, the less money to use as a political bargaining chip.

I feel, though, that I must address some of the specific comments, made by Mr Wells. He writes: "Please, I have nothing against you driving a 16 cylinder, 4-mile-per-gallon land whale, but please don't try to force the poor to carry the burdens of such extravagance." That would be you, sir. Seattle times, the complete frothing at the mouth, anti-695 platform was completely CONFOUNDED as to why the richest people in the state were against 695. An initiative that "defies convention" as Jim Lynch (Seattle journalist) put it. In fact, let me say something that I started saying in the early days of this forum: If all the people who voted no on 695 continued to voluntarily pay their pre-695 license fees, the losses to government would be less than half of what they'll be, post 695. Why? Because the wealthiest people in this state opposed 695, meaning, they were the people putting the most into the MVET. But, as I've pointed out time and time again, it's never about what you might be paying, it's always about what someone else "should" be paying. Oh, and please, back away from the comparisons to this country and europe. Please, europe has a horrible ethnic diversity and tolerance track record, and a lousy economic past, present and future. That continent will never, repeat NEVER relinquish the ideals of socialism and fascism. I'm always told to be happy that we pay lower prices and lower taxes because 'in europe this and europe that'. Yes, everything does cost more in europe, and that's because europe is still practicing the same basic, albeit kinder gentler (pshaw) socialism that they have been practicing for centuries, including but not limited to the National Socialist German Workers Party. They also have a propensity towards killing millions of their own citizens BECAUSE of socialism, and an overburdensom state, not in SPITE of it.

Paul Oss

Seattle.

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

Answers

Paul:

If the vote on 695 were actually about specific programs that need to be cut, you and I would have a lot in common on the philosophy and purpose of government. We may even agree on what should be cut, but that was not the issue. What will be cut, was left to the same political process that has funded the system we have, and it didn't directly change any of those priorities and programs at all.

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

695 wasn't supposed address where the cuts were. 695 addressed a tax cut. It's up to our representative government to make the necessary cuts. They're arguing that 695 is unconstitutional because it's a multi-subject initiative. To have addressed cuts in specific areas, initiative 695 would have read like a grocery list. I don't believe that it's the place of an initiative to address specific cuts. That's what we have a representative government for. The initiative process should be used for the more general purpose: We're overtaxed, cut taxes. To at least achieve that, 695 had to specify a tax to be cut. MVET was the perfect target. The problem with this whole thing about 'what to cut and what not to cut' is this: If ANY initiative ever brings the people a meaningful tax cut, the government will try to scare you out of it. It's a simple fact of social dynamics. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Give a special interest group, specific corporations a tax cut, government hardly complains. Offer people a tax cut which amounts to a cup of coffee a month, government pats us on the head and tells us that these are the kind of meaningful budget cuts that don't disrupt our family values. Offer people a tax cut which actually gives them some measureable, spendable income at the end of the year? Well now, that just can't be done. We're told that 'we' can't afford it.

INit 695 will make or break the leaders in our government. I'm gonna sit back and enjoy the show. I will, however, be taking notes.

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

Paul:

It seems to me that a meaningful discussion about the merits of a program would result, if a cut tied to that program were proposed. Craig has made a big point about the subsidy rate for the ferry system. If an initiative proposed that the ferry rates needed to cover 100% of the operating costs, or that the system should go private (and directed the legislature to accomplish that withing 3 years), we would really have some specifics to talk about; including the role of government in providing transportation routes throughout the state, and the need to maintain unprofitable routes as a public service. Unless you have something to talk about, the budget cuts that are needed to offset the revenue losses, are always described as unspecified waste and fat. I have noted several times that what you consider fat may be my most important government service. We talk past each other unless we talk specifics.

Another example is the Tacoma Narros Bridge project. Some here seemed to think voting for 695 would stop that project. If the initiative was a vote on the wisdom of buildng the bridge, or the appropriateness of charging tolls to fund bridge and highway construction (and directed the legislature to implement that policy change withing 3 years), we would have something specific to debate; and the vote would set a direction for the state that the legislature could implement.

I am not a fan of the initiative process itself, because the language of a short ballot title can rarely address a complex issue adequately and present an unambiguous choice for the voter. 695 is an example of a poorly drafted initiative. A bill with these problems could not have survived the hearings in both houses, floor votes, and the governors veto. The checks and balances prevent a radical change in course, and prevent making big mistakes. The initiative has no such checks and balances, and the people are capable of making big mistakes as they did November 2.

I would prefer to see the initiative process used only to set a direction, or a policy, or a goal; and leave the implementation to the legislature. If 695 had been written that way, I would have supported it; because the legislature could have crafted something that anticipated the effects on the state and dealt with them. As it is, many of the effects were either unanticipated, or are being described as "punishing" the voters by the critics. When some communities will experience a 40% reduction in revenue, they have no choice but to make some major cuts. Most of that would be unnecessary if the legislature had been given a direction, and some time to craft something reasonable.

What I find most unsettling, is the way some of those here seem to enjoy all the problems 695 has created for government. They don't even want elected officials to do what they can to minimize the damage being done. If that becomes the common outlook on public institutions, we are headed for anarchy.

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

dbvz:

I'm going to do something I'm not very good at, and that's keep it short. I have talked specifics, but obviously not at the level which you wish to speak about them. Fair enough. I must disagree that people 'don't want elected officials to do what they can to minimize the damage'... It's precisely the opposite. We WANT the state to cut the things that have nothing to do with police, medical, transit. Or, minimize those cuts to the overbloated areas of spending, such as the RTA, a plan which I seriously doubt will reduce traffic congestion, but will cost the state billions.

But my point is specifically NON specific, and more philosophical. Let's say 695 doesn't pass the courts. Let's say it's struck down. What then? When a significant block of the population vote for an initiative which, well crafted or not sends an absolutes crystal clear message, some attention must be paid. I completely respect your arguments about 695's shortcomings, although I don't agree with much of them. However, 695, standing or falling after the courts have made their decision still has one clear meaning: Stop this incessant over-taxation NOW, or someone's gonna get hurt. [hurt being a metaphorical term at this point].

This state has had a runaway train of taxation. Yes, it might be dangerous to start unhooking the cars while we're moving, but we're locked out of the engine by state officials, and they have continually, arrogantly refused us to have a hand in any of the controls.

Here's the ONE thing that no one, but NO ONE seems to be making: If 695 survives the courts, there is nothing stopping the state from raising taxes, except the voters, if they so vote that way. If the state wishes to raise property taxes, sales tax, etc., they may. But here's the problem with that: Politicians are smart. They know, deep down inside, as much as they HATE to admit it, they're spending our money. This initiative makes that abundantly clear to them, and they hate it. They don't care about $30 license tabs, db, you know it and I know it. They want that 2nd provision struck down, and struck down hard. It's not the loss of revenue. State revenue is rocketing. They don't want to have to ask you to raise your taxes.

"Evil doesn't announce itself as evil, it announces itself as your friend and your saviour, arriving only to reduce your burdens, worries and pain, if only you give it a little more control..." - ME!!!

Apologies for not keeping it short, like I promised.

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

"If the vote on 695 were actually about specific programs that need to be cut, you and I would have a lot in common on the philosophy and purpose of government. We may even agree on what should be cut, but that was not the issue. What will be cut, was left to the same political process that has funded the system we have, and it didn't directly change any of those priorities and programs at all."

d old buddy, we
fve been talking back and forth for some time now, so hopefully you will indulge me if I digress even a little more than usual.

The above quote has been a recurring theme of your postings since this began. Let me try to explain why it has NEVER been effective.

I don
ft know if you have ever been in the military but, IMHO, the greatest book ever written about the military was Catch-22. If you have never read it, I highly recommend you do so. To set the stage, it is relatively late in WWII. The hero, Captain Yossarian, is an aviator. His unit has been getting shot up continuously (actual attrition in the 8th Air Force in WWII was just over 5% per mission). To improve his standing with the brass, Yossarian
fs commander kept raising the number of missions for members of the group to fly, before they could be rotated stateside. This, of course, made it highly unlikely that anyone would actually survive their tours (example: Probability of surviving 50 missions was about (0.95)^50 or somewhat less than 8%). Ultimately, Yossarian refuses to fly. His commanders chide him, saying,"You don
ft want the Germans to win the war, do you?" His reply is that the Germans have no chance of winning the war. They were losing in the Med, losing on the Eastern Front, losing in France, that the allies had cut them off from their oil supplies, that it was only a matter of time until the Nazi empire collapsed. He saw no reason to further risk death to assist what was inevitable. His superior
fs comeback was, "But what if everyone felt that way?" obviously putting him in a patriotic dilemma. His reply, however, was "Well then I
fd be a damn fool to feel any other way, wouldn
ft I?"

Increasingly when watching your postings, I feel like Yossarian. To carry this analogy further, let me state it thusly:

I believe that we have TOO MUCH government. I believe that it tries to do too much, and as a consequence, does a great many things badly. I believe that we were all better off when the government was getting by on half the resources that it currently takes as a percentage of GDP. I believe we would be better off if half of the resources were taken away from government, and restored to the taxpayers. Despite this, I realize that the government has been penalizing this and subsidizing that for some time. People have made major decisions (where to live, how much to save for education, ho much to put away for retirement, etc.) IMHO, it would be unfair to abruptly cut government by 50%, because too many people would be hurt in the transition. Were it in my power, I would take an immediate 15% from government and give it back to the taxpayers. I would then cap the government expenditures at that level and allow inflation to slowly attrit away the value of the taxes being collected for the next 10-12 years until the 50% overall cutback was realized.

Now YOUR objection, of course, is that I
fm depriving people of services. My response is that the taxpayers have had their taxes returned to them so they can pay for those services themselves. Your NEXT objection is that I have not told the elected officials where to cut. That doesn
ft bother me. If they are competent individuals, they will cut the appropriate areas. Your next question, no doubt, is what if they are not competent? My response, similar to Yossarian
fs, is that if they are not competent to handle the 85% I would give them, I
fd be a damn fool to give them ANY ADDITIONAL money, wouldn
ft I?

This cut, relative to what is needed, is a baby step. Like WWII without Yossarian, there is no reason for the battle for public health, fire and safety, law enforcement, or all the other truly essential things to be lost, for want of this 2%. The elected officials need to show that they
fve gotten the message. They need to make I-695 work, and make it work well. If they do not, they will have shown themselves to be sufficiently i

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 20, 1999.

Paul:

I will keep it short. My comment was not about the state. I hope they will make reasonable cuts, and restore much of what would be lost if they simply let the loss of MVET cut those programs directly. I was speaking of the local governments that are faced with huge cuts (unless the state bails them out) and are attempting to meet the community needs by a reasonable balance between some tax and fee increases and some program and service cuts. Some on this forum would prefer to see them abdicate all responsibility, and let the ship sink; rather than give them some credit for what may be a necessary decision to raise a tax or fee before 1/1/2000.

We will get through this. We will get through it better if elected officials are not scared of their shadow, and do what they were elected to do - - make decisions in the best interest of the community, with consideration of the input they receive from the local community they serve.

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

DBVZ:

The ONLY way we will get through any of this in the long term, is to do the very thing 695 does. CUT taxes. Remember my post on sales tax equalization? It's pure truth. Government's overriding mentality is to raise taxes when they need new revenue. This MUST be stopped or we WON'T get through this. If we don't slow this ship down now, we will be so enslaved by the morass of mediocrity and state dependancy by choking off our own freedom, that we'll never be able to turn it around.

And, if not now, when? When the ratio of private sector jobs vs state employees is only 3:1, 2:1, 1.5:1??? This is the point I've been trying to make, apparently quite badly.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 21, 1999.

Paul:

Where we differ is that I have not concluded that this state was (or is) overtaxed. Whether you use the 6th, 13th, or 18th in taxes calculation; this state is not rated as being taxed much more in actual % of income than any other state in the top half of the 50 states. I like most of what government does, and I don't want the level of public services to be significantly reduced. That requires taxes, and my share has not been unreasonable in my estimation. If I thought it was, I would move to one of the states that tax least, and live with much reduced public services. No thanks.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 21, 1999.

Which is precisely why I'm for the voluntary taxation system of Washington. But on a *slightly* (not much) more serious note:

Property taxes in this state are high. Sales taxes are high. Property taxes are partly to blame for driving rents through the roof. Yes, folks, that's right, don't think you're immune cause you rent. Every time property taxes went up over the last 10 years, my rent went up within 60 days. State spending is going through the ROOF. The message, which we've been trying to pound home is, you can HAVE your services AND have a tax cut. 2%. 2%!!!!!!! In the long run, it won't even slow down the rate of growth.

And please, don't let me get off on another non-philosophical tangent. Let me introduce you to a term you've probably never heard of. You haven't heard it cause I invented it:

Altruistic triangulation.

When one party feels bad for a second party, and forces a third party to subsidize the second. Or, "I feel bad for him, you give him $10." How about something new... something never before tried: "I feel bad for him, I'LL give him $10." The point is... (I'm a little tired this morning... gotta pay my taxes) There's one group of people that make the state work, and provide you with those services you so dearly love: Us. The taxpayers. If we decide we're overtaxed, especially after watching the state grow by 10,000 jobs in two years... we're gonna turn the tap down a 1/4 turn.

Tax rates don't need to go up, they need to start coming back down, and we need to have the state utilize the dizzying amount of revenues they already have more wisely. And that's up to our representative government to do that. Not the initiative. The initiative said: "You're losing a teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny bit of your revenue, make do with the rest". Good leaders will, bad leaders won't. We're in the weeding out process, db. We're separatin' the men from the boys (to coin a phrase). Gary Locke knows it. He's a smart boy. Why, look how nicey nicey he's been after this initiative passed. Gary wants to get re-elected. Probably so he can add another 10,000 jobs by 2001.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 22, 1999.

d, You regularly give us the other point of view with such grace, that I take the time to read and attempt to understand your point of view. I believe it safe to call you a gentleman.

I'm curious, you made the statement that you believe your share of taxes is not unreasonable. If you were on a fixed income, or your yearly income was just a few thousand dollars over the limit for being classified as low income, making you ineligible for assistance, would it change your opinion regarding your share of tax burden?

I would like to offer up a simplistic observation that there were only two main motives for voting in favor of I-695.

1. The government spends too much. 2. The government is taking away too much from me and mine and it's starting to hurt.

Each of those motives may or may not be held concurrently. In general, you address and debate the first motive. I feel you avoid addressing the second. If that is not correct, I apologize, it is possible that I missed it.

If you were in different circumstances, you would probably be a slightly different person. When formulating an opinion, do you try to look at the issue as others see it? How do you respond when someone not so fortunate as yourself tells you his taxes are too big a burden?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999.

Marsha:

Thank you for the kind words. I have addressed the fixed income point, some time ago. I favor tax credits or reduced rates for seniors on a fixed income, and some of that already exists. What I don't support is a tax limit on everyone that is justified because of those who are on a fixed income. That makes no sense to me. I get a tax break just like my mother, because my mother is a retired widow? Why? For those who are working, and their income is rising with inflation, taxes can increase with the rate of inflation and it is not a tax increase in either buying power or constant value dollars.

You may be right, that I have not credited the position stated here by some, that the tax burden is excessive in this state. That is not without some knowledge of the situation, however. My son is living a subsistence existance in rural Mason County. My daughter is getting through graduate school on her own, using scholarships and student loans, and living in a $300/month garage apartment while she does it. I can't remember any occasion when either of them were in financial trouble BECAUSE of taxes. From what I have seen of their situations, the tax burden they pay is quite low, and a resonable share of their income for the benefits and services they get from living in a state like Washington. Before anyone jumps on my daughters education costs, she is attending a private university, and not a state supported one.

So my reaction to the position that the state and local government are taxing more than they should, is that those who say that have not valued the services and infrastructure provided by government high enough. It is often hard to see the value of programs that prevent bad things from happening, or enable or support the good things that are happening. You really find out their value if they are gone.

I believe that the majority in Washington value and support the level of services we currently anticipate from government, and were led to believe they could cut their taxes without any significant impact on those services. I also believe it won't work out that way. I don't believe it was that people couldn't pay the current taxes, but that they would rather not if they are given the choice. When they see the consequences, I still believe they will regret approval of 695.

I am not saying the MVET didn't need to be reformed, or that you can't find programs that don't make a lot of sense to you. What I am saying, is that government delivers a reasonable return for our money, and neither you nor I can reasonably expect to agree with every decision made by every board, commission, committee, and council.

You asked.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 22, 1999.

I did, and you gave me food for thought. Not that it changes my mind. I have seen some pretty amazing examples of government waste.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999.

We have just addressed the unfairness of the Motor Vehicle excise tax. Local governments should stop whining and, "Deal With It". Son of 695, when it passes, and it will; will address the unfairness of all these tax increases. After the 2000 elections, Local governments will REALLY, have to,"Deal With It".

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 25, 1999.