Unfair proposal would benefit rich

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

From the Spokane Spokesman-Review

10/7/00

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=100700&ID=s862455

Unfair proposal would benefit rich

Our View: I-722 threatens schools, fire districts and other services.

After the wild popularity of Initiative 695 at the polls last year a sequel was inevitable. But like most sequels, I-722 isn't nearly as compelling as the original.

Initiative 695 cut license plate fees and required voter approval for tax and fee increases. It took effect Jan. 1.

Now, I-695's sponsors want to backdate the restriction on tax increases to July 1999 when their petition for the initiative was filed.

This proposal is patently unfair. State and local agencies that approved increases in good faith before the initiative went into effect would have to refund revenue they collected and spent.

Sponsors claim government agencies conspired to circumvent I-695, passing increases before it became law.

In truth, public agencies know tax and fee increases are unpopular and seek them only when there's good reason -- namely, an increase in the cost of performing their services.

Imagine if the government approved a tax or fee increase and then a year later extended the increase to the six months prior to the original effective date. Citizens would be infuriated. This is exactly the type of action I-722 proposes.

A separate portion of I-722 would would prevent government agencies from receiving more than a 2 percent annual increase in their property tax collections. This would mean that in many years, government revenues could not keep pace with the rate of inflation. This would lead to service cuts and layoffs and make it difficult to keep wages for public employees, such as school teachers and police officers, even with inflation.

Under this measure, tax collections could not keep pace with the rising value of land. Wealthy landowners with fast-appreciating property would benefit the most.

Our schools, law enforcement, libraries and other services funded by property taxes would suffer.

Washington already has several laws that hold down property taxes and government spending. One prevents property tax collections from rising by more than 6 percent a year. Another requires a supermajority vote for governing bodies to let tax collections grow by more than the rate of inflation.

Initiative 722 would benefit the wealthy and jeopardize services of schools, fire districts and other agencies on which we all depend. Don't let this spawn of 695 grow into a bodyguard for rich landowners who don't want to pay their share. Vote no.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000

Answers

Same whiney argument the Mandarins made with 695.

It was bogus then, it's bogus now.

Get a REAL job, BB. No future for political parasitism in the land of the initiative.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000.

>>Same whiney argument the Mandarins made with 695.<<

What does China have to do with anything?

And which argument is the same as made with 695?

>>It was bogus then, it's bogus now.<<

How is it bogus?

>>Get a REAL job, BB. No future for political parasitism in the land of the initiative.<<

Thanks for your concern, but I don't work for the government. Your own misconceptions about opponents to Eyman's initiatives are dominating your opinions again.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 24, 2000.


">>Same whiney argument the Mandarins made with 695.<<

What does China have to do with anything? "

If you spent more time educating yourself instead of trying to rip off other people's tax money, you would know that Mandarin referred to a class of Chinese nobility that lorded it over the common folk, taxed them, and generally enriched themselves at the expense of the peasants they claimed to be protecting and governing.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 25, 2000.


>>If you spent more time educating yourself instead of trying to rip off other people's tax money, you would know that Mandarin referred to a class of Chinese nobility that lorded it over the common folk, taxed them, and generally enriched themselves at the expense of the peasants they claimed to be protecting and governing.<<

Ahh, I see. So you're talking about a system that is nothing like that of the United States. Why even bring it up then?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 25, 2000.


"Ahh, I see. So you're talking about a system that is nothing like that of the United States. Why even bring it up then? " I'm talking about the system YOU would like to see implemented, where initiatives are unheard of and a small select group of "royalty" can tell everyone else how they must live their lives.

Unfortunately for your dream world, the initiative system isn't going to go away, and we are going to keep populism alive in this state for a long, long, long time!


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.


>>I'm talking about the system YOU would like to see implemented, where initiatives are unheard of and a small select group of "royalty" can tell everyone else how they must live their lives.<<

Nice strawman you knocked down there. If you just want to argue with yourself, why post anything at all?

I'd ask you to show where I've said that I want a "small select group of 'royalty' to tell everyone else how they must live their lives," but what's the point? We both know you're just making it up as you go along.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.


BB,

I see the article did not mention the logical problem of, "Sponsors claim government agencies conspired to circumvent I-695, passing increases before it became law." I-695 is unconstitutional. It was not law when the tax and fee changes were passed, it is not law now, and the court made it clear in the decision that requiring a public vote on tax measures is effectively mandating a Referendum without the necessary petition in violation of the state constitution. The justification for I-722 seems to be that local governments "conspired" to follow the law as it was in effect in 1999 and today, and the Constitution of the State of Washington. How could they do that?! Throw the bums out!!

I-722 will also be found unconstitutional, and perhaps people will begin to see that working within the process in the Legislature is the better way to pass legislation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.


"Nice strawman you knocked down there. If you just want to argue with yourself, why post anything at all? " Strawman he**, that's what your contempt for populism demonstrates. You don't have to say it, it's obvious enough.

But that's OK. Initiatives aren't going away, just because you and dbvz don't care for them. And every dime you and those like you spend fighting them is another dime you can't spend buying politicians.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 30, 2000.

>>Strawman he**, that's what your contempt for populism demonstrates. You don't have to say it, it's obvious enough.<<

Translation: I'm making it up as I go along and got caught with my pants down making up a strawman argument.

If I have any contempt at all, it's for poorly written unconstitutional legislation, whether it comes from the legislature or Tim Eyman & Co.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 30, 2000.


Predictions:

I-695 passed with just 56% after an extensive campaign that had signs on every corner. I-722 will narrowly lose after a non-campaign, because most people are not that excited about poisoning government at the roots. Careful trimming is one thing, but this is something else.

If I am wrong, and I-722 barely passes, an motion for an injunction will be filed before the end of November (perhaps within the week) to stay implementation - and after the decision on I-695 it is likely to be issued by the courts. Local governments, including the county assessors, need to know what the rules are. When presented with an initiative that seems clearly unconstitutional, they need a court to issue a ruling BEFORE damage is done that can not be repaired.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 04, 2000.



if leadership is lacking out of Olympia, the unwashed, untrained, and badly represnted will be only to happy to prune this bush with a chainsaw....the only implement allowed and endorsed by Washington State Supreme court. Carefull what you wish for....

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 05, 2000.

no chance,

Read my post again. My "wish" is that people use the existing political processes available through the legislature, rather than wasting our time and money on unconstitutional proposals that do more harm than good.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.


Ok, I have said enough. We shall see if 722 and 745 pass, which they will. Then I will come back on the eighth and laugh... See you after the elections-

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 05, 2000.

>>Ok, I have said enough. We shall see if 722 and 745 pass, which they will. Then I will come back on the eighth and laugh... See you after the elections-<<

Why will you laugh? Neither 722 or 745 are going to withstand legal challenges.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.


The Legal challenges mean nothing. What is important, is the percentage of people who overwhelmingly vote for these two initiatives. What is important, is the Initiatives on the Next election...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 06, 2000.


"Ok, I have said enough. We shall see if 722 and 745 pass, which they will. Then I will come back on the eighth and laugh... See you after the elections-"

Both are dead letters (so to speak). First of all, neither will pass: no endorsements, unconstitutional (like 695, their pappa), and both are polling nearly 30% undecided even this late. Historically, (in fact, I can think of no initiative that has broke this mold), most voters who are undecided this late will check "no" on Tues. Secondly, both will be immediately challenged (and overturned).

You dont care? You think it still sends a message? Yeah, it sends a message alright: youre all either mental midgits (I'm putting my money here) or could care less about our constitutional REPRESENTATIVE republic. If you are of the later, then get the hell out and live in your direct democracy/ minimal government paradise: Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, Biafra, etc.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 07, 2000.


Nauseous Nate,

While you are directing your diatribe at these folks, remember, they areexcercising their constitutional right. It seems you only care to have those of dissenting opinions participate in the part of the process that you approve of. If youdon't like it, perhaps it is you who should find somewhere else to live. You are the mental midget who is dangerous to democracy if you seek to prevent that which is gaurenteed by the constitution.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 07, 2000.


Nate, if both amendments are unconstitutional and will be thrown out, than why are you so upset about them? You have proved my point. Since Olympia knows they will not be bound by them, if they pass; just ignore them. Your saying an intiative not bound by law , has no teeth, so our legislators will ignore them and the WILL of the people. The bottom line is the same: Our legislators are not LISTENING to us. Get it?.. Oh, by the way,,What elected office does Rush Limbaugh hold?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 07, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ