|
Printer Friendly |
I 695: A cure worse than the disease
Initiative 695
A cure worse than the disease
The state Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is an abomination -- unfair, arbitrary,
regressive, a clear example of government gouging. No one in Southwest Washington,
just a bridge away from Oregon's $15-a-year auto licensing fee, needs to be
told that. State lawmakers, from Gov. Gary Locke on down, have no one but themselves
to blame for the MVET revolt that's now under way.
But the battering ram of that revolt, Initiative 695, the so-called "$30
License Tab Initiative," is just as unfair and arbitrary as the tax it
targets, and even more regressive in terms of what it would do to essential
public programs, especially at the community level.
The initiative would, as promised, drastically cut the cost of auto licensing
-- an estimated average savings of $143 per car per year, and much more for
newer and more expensive vehicles and RVs. But the cuts would cost the state
an estimated $1.1 billion over the next two years and $1.7 billion during the
two years after that.
Such a large hit cannot help but hurt state programs and services that many
voters like and would gladly pay for -- in particular, highway construction
funds. Also hard hit would be the revenue-sharing dollars that help local communities,
particularly those like Battle Ground, Ridgefield and Washougal that lack large
commercial tax bases.
The Legislature may be tempted to make up the difference in the short term
by dipping into the state's financial reserves. But those reserves were created
by an earlier ballot measure -- Initiative 601 -- to be saved for a financial
emergency. By approving 695, voters will in effect be creating that emergency
while postponing the shortfall only a couple of years.
Yet that's not the worst of it. Although supporters stress elimination of the
MVET, the initiative's most significant and destructive effect would be to require
voter approval of any future tax or fee increase by any state or local government
agency.
In theory, that might sound OK; in practice, it would be a nightmare. A public
vote to raise fishing license fees? Fines for overdue library books? Bus fares?
All would be required under Initiative 695. And unlike state government, which
could get around the public-vote requirement with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature,
local governments are allowed no emergency escape clause.
Initiative 695 has some other major problems. It repeals the ban on assessing
property taxes on motor vehicles; although state officials aren't likely to
impose such a tax, it will forever hang out there as a possibility.
Finally, the initiative might simply be illegal. By so radically changing the
way taxes can be imposed, the measure could usurp the Legislature's ability
to make laws -- something that cannot be done without a constitutional amendment.
Locke and the Legislature blew it by letting the MVET problem fester and inflame.
Voters shouldn't compound the injury by approving I-695; instead, they should
defeat the measure, and then vote out any public official who doesn't support
and help implement a better, fairer state revenue system.
