|
Printer Friendly |
Two sides spar on effects of initiative 695
TWO SIDES SPAR ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVE 695
Wednesday, September 29, 1999
By GREGG HERRINGTON, Columbian staff writer
Initiative 695: an overdue and affordable tax break for the little guy or
open season on programs such as road-building, bus services and shots for needy
kids?
The sponsor of the Nov. 2 state ballot measure offered the first view at a
local forum Tuesday night; a leading opponent responded with the second.
Calling for "a splash of reality," David Allen of the No on 695 committee,
said, "It sounds good. I would save $165" in taxes on one car. "But what do
I lose?"
A state budget cut as big as I-695 would impose is too drastic all at once,
he said. "If we're going to do this, then let's do it responsibly, gradually
over time."
But Tim Eyman, 695's sponsor, said, "Big business is getting tax breaks down
in Olympia, and for a change we thought we'd give one to the little guy." With
the state's emergency fund in excess of $1 billion, he said, "if we can't cut
taxes now, when can we?"
Eyman snickered at Allen's suggestion that voters reject I-695 so the Legislature
can phase in a more gradual tax cut on motor vehicles.
"It hurts me" to hear those arguments, Eyman said. "They say, 'Trust us, we'll
fix it.' "
There are always those opposed to significant tax cuts, he said. There were
warnings "when we got rid of the sales tax on food 20 years ago, and on Initiative
601(in 1993, which put limits on state spending).
"These guys are a broken record. Every time they predict doom and gloom, it
just doesn't happen."
This is a good time for a tax cut, he said, because these are good economic
times and the state has a hefty emergency fund that could be tapped by the Legislature
to help programs that might need an immediate infusion of cash if 695 passes.
But Allen and opponents in the audience Tuesday noted it takes a two-thirds
majority of the legislators to tap most of the rainy day fund, and in any case
it is a lump sum that won't necessarily grow.
David & Goliath?
Eyman described the pro-695 campaign as the "David" to the anti-695's "Goliath"
because organized labor and big business are aligned against it. Opponents got
support from another front this week when 10 of the state's largest environmental
groups announced they, too, will fight I-695.
The opponents, Eyman said, are using "threats, lies and scare tactics ...
and a lot of money."
But at Foster Auditorium at Clark College Tuesday night, Eyman was the Goliath
of the debate, consistently making sharper, more pointed responses than Allen.
In fact, Allen, in his opening comments, said,"My hat's off to you, Tim. You're
a magnificent orator."
On a few occasions Allen apologized to the audience for not knowing more about
I-695's specific effect in Clark County.
The lion's share of the audience appeared to be on Eyman's side as well, based
on applause, questions from the floor and occasional low-key but audible catcalls
from the seats.
Margie Ferris, chairwoman of the Clark County Republican Central Committee,
which sponsored the event, thanked the audience afterward, but added, "You were
fairly polite."
One of the most poignant comments against I-695 Tuesday night came from Kay
Koontz, executive director of the Southwest Washington Health District. After
several pro-695 members of the audience had spoken, Koontz spoke mater-of-factly
about the agency's budget and said 11 percent is from the motor vehicle excise
tax that would be eliminated by I-695.
"It helps us pay for vital services, such as fighting the recent outbreak
of E. coli" at Battle Ground Lake, she said in reference to the recent emergency
that closed the lake and resulted in several youngsters being hospitalized.
On the other side, one man won nods and comments of support when he complained
about owning a recreational vehicle and driving it just 1,000 miles a year in
Washington state and having to pay a motor vehicle excise tax of $2,500.
"That's $25 a mile," he said.
Throughout the forum, Eyman returned to his basic two themes. The first: Washington
residents are taxed too much and this is a way to substantially reduce the burden
when the state can afford it.
The second was to defend the initiative's other key provision: requiring a
public vote any time any state or local government or one of its agencies wants
to increase any tax or fee.
"The opponents are going crazy because the great unwashed masses are going
to decide the issues rather than those in Olympia," he said.
Eyman said I-695 would force governments to look for ways to save money before
seeking tax and fee increases in public votes.
"We plead guilty to making it tougher to raise taxes," he said.
Allen responded, "Tim talks common sense really well. But this gets down to
a library wanting to raise the late-book fee."
Allen's repeatedly termed I-695 a "meat-cleaver" approach to trimming government.
After Eyman and several audience members spoke generally of government inefficiency,
including a woman who complained about under-used C-Tran buses running all the
way to Yacolt, Allen came to government's defense, saying, in essence, it does
things private enterprise doesn't do because it wouldn't make a profit, such
as run local bus systems.
C-Tran, he said, would lose $12million in state money the first year if I-695
passes, and probably would lose a public vote to raise tax money for it. Transportation,
social services and higher education, he said, will lead the state's hit list
when the Legislature comes to grips with a smaller budget if I-695 passes.
Eyman argued government can always ask voters for more money.
"It doesn't seem that big of a thing" to ask voters to decide, he said.
Allen responded, saying I-695 doesn't "just say, 'Make government make do
with what it has.' You're saying, 'Let's slash government, then have it make
do with what it has.' "
I-695 on tap
On TV: Cable Channel 47, CVTV, will air Tuesday night's debate on Initiative
695 at 6 p.m. Thursday.
FUTURE I-695 FORUMS: 7 p.m. Thursday, lecture hall, student services building,
WSU at Vancouver, 14204 N.E. Salmon Creek Ave., with former Gov. Mike Lowry
and sponsor Tim Eyman; also, 7 p.m., Oct. 12, Foster Auditorium, Clark College.
Web sites: Pro-695: www.i-695.org; anti-695: www.no-i-695.com; state Office
of Financial Management: www.ofm.wa.gov, then click on "News" at left, then
scroll down to "Press releases and reports" and find "Potential financial impacts
of I-695."
Initiative 695
Ballot title: "Shall voter approval be required for any tax* increase, (shall)
license tab fees be $30 per year for motor vehicles, and (shall) existing vehicle
taxes be repealed?"
* The body of the initiative, which will not appear on ballots, says, "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" but the definition of tax "does not include higher education
tuition and civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of
restitution or violation of law or contract."
