vision2020
RE: vaguely familiar I-695
This sounds vaguely familiar.
Steve Cooke
-----Original Message-----
From: John Murray [mailto:jbiggs50@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:38 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Stop the madness!
Following is a nice little article about something on the Washington State
ballot this November. DON'T let this happen in Idaho! California tried
something like this for school bonds in 1979, and the school systems in the
Golden State are gutted. Friends don't let friends vote stupidly.
jm
I-695: A Rough Road Ahead For Government?
By Grover Cleveland (I guess it's really his name!)
Initiative 695 could well mean a rough road ahead for government. The
initiative is now headed to the ballot in November. Along the way,
petitioners gathered more than 500,000 signatures, making I-695 the second
most popular petition in state history. If passed, it could also be one of
the most devastating.
In a nutshell, I-695 would do at least two things: (1) repeal the Motor
Vehicle Excise Tax ("MVET"), replacing it with a flat $30 license tab fee
and (2) require a vote of the people on virtually any new or increased state
or local government charges. The Washington Research Council summed up the
impacts of the initiative by stating that I-695 "would gut transportation
investment and impose an asinine restraint on representative government."
The voter-approval requirement is extremely broad. It appears to cover
virtually any payment to state or local governments, including charges for:
photocopies, dog licenses, permit fees, utilities, regulatory fees, bus and
ferry fares, park use fees, camping permits, green fees at public golf
courses, solid waste tipping fees, landing fees at municipal airports,
tolls, emergency medical services, local improvement assessments, services
from public hospitals, and taxes. The initiative expressly excludes only
higher education tuition and fines (or similar charges) from the
voter-approval requirements.
Major Revenue Losses for Transportation. The MVET, which I-695 would
eliminate, has been a major source of government income in Washington since
1937. The State has estimated that for the 1999-2001 biennium, the MVET
would normally generate approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.
Approximately 75 percent of that money is slated for transportation
projects, including those for which funds were allocated under Referendum
Bill No. 49, approved by the voters last year.
If I-695 passes, R-49 is dead in the water. Investors will not buy bonds
for which there is no reliable source of repayment. Potholes are likely to
get bigger; commutes are likely to be longer. The state ferry system would
also be hit hard, because the MVET is a major source of its funding.
The repeal of the MVET would also slash funds for public health programs and
city and county criminal justice programs and would eliminate city and
county sales tax equalization funds. This would have a particularly severe
impact on smaller communities. Under I-695, local governments would not
receive any of the $30 license tab fee - which in any event would raise only
a fraction of the revenue that the MVET currently raises.
Other Taxes and Fees Eliminated? I-695 could also preclude counties from
collecting local option vehicle license fees under RCW 82.80.020. That
statute permits counties to impose fees on all vehicles that are subject to
license fees under RCW 46.16.060. I-695 would repeal 46.16.060. As a
result, vehicles would no longer be subject to license fees under RCW
46.16.060, arguably eliminating the authorization for counties to impose the
local license fees.
Voter Approval - For Just About Everything. At the same time that I-695
reduces government funding, it imposes extremely burdensome - and expensive
- requirements on governments to obtain voter approval for virtually any new
or increased fees or charges. The voter-approval provisions of I-695 state:
1)Any tax increase imposed by the state shall require voter approval.
2)For the purposes of this section, "tax" includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, sales and use taxes, property taxes, business and occupation
taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, impact fees, license fees, permit fees, and
any monetary charge by government. . . .
4)For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a
tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and
an extension of an expiring tax.
5)For the purposes of this section, "state" includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, the state itself and all its departments and agencies, any city,
county, special district, and other political subdivision or governmental
instrumentality of or within the state.
These broad provisions arguably preclude jurisdictions from initiating or
increasing virtually any charges payable to government - unless the
jurisdictions obtain voter approval.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Back to TOC