Now that both I-912 "No New Gas Tax" and I-900 "Performance Audits" are on the November ballot, Tim Eyman calls this "a double-barreled message to Queen Christine". Neither issue should be a partisan one. People from all parties should want politicians to be held accountable for keeping their campaign promises, should want the government held accountable to do a good job of delivering the services that it promises, and shouldn't want to pay more taxes than they need to pay for vital services.
So it should be clear to people from all parties that Mrs. Gregoire's gas tax (a broken campaign promise) and her lame substitute for effective performance audits represent a preference for unrestrained unaccountable government.
I-912 and I-900 are a good way to tell Mrs. Gregoire and the Democrats in the Legislature to do a better job of listening to what the people expect from their government. Eyman's e-mail follows --
Candidate Christine promised NO NEW TAXES. Nonetheless, Queen Christine radically increased taxes on families and senior citizens, especially the poor and middle class. But thanks to thousands of supporters throughout the state gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures for both I-900 and I-912, the voters are guaranteed two opportunities to send her a double-barreled message: WE REJECT YOUR ARROGANT, ANTI-TAXPAYER AGENDA.
This same message has been repeatedly and unambiguously delivered by voters in successive elections. Voter approval of I-695 in 1999, I-722 in 2000, I-747 in 2001, and I-776 in 2002 & voters' overwhelming rejection of R-51 in 2002 and voters' overwhelming rejection of I-884 last fall. Voters aren't being subtle. THESE ARE VOTER APPROVED SLEDGE HAMMERS MEANT TO WAKE UP POLITICIANS TO THE VOTERS' CLEAR MANDATE: prioritize spending with existing revenue increases due to economic growth (there was a 7.1% increase in revenues even before the $450 million revenue increase announced in June) - not higher taxes. This is the only approach that voters will accept.
This year, voters can approve both I-900 and I-912 to send that same message.
Voters recognize that state and local governments spend billions every year yet accountability is non-existent in how those dollars are spent. With over $40 billion per year in existing tax burden, taxpayers simply reject the only-solution-is-a-tax-increase mentality personified by Queen Christine's 2005 reign. Voter approval of I-900 will signal a repudiation of her 2005 agenda. Performance audits of state and local governments and their agencies are meant to wring the most bang out of every taxpayer buck. $40 billion per year, plus increases in revenue from a growing economy, is more than enough to deliver government services in Washington. I-900 offers long-overdue accountability and oversight.
In 2002, despite massive spending by proponents of Referendum 51, voters overwhelmingly rejected the $7.8 billion measure. Rather than abiding by the voters' decision, Locke and the Legislature jacked up taxes $4 billion. And this year, despite her clear promise to not increase taxes, Queen Christine increased them $8.5 billion more. And just to throw gasoline on the fire, she declared the tax increase an "emergency," attempting to insulate it from the voters' constitutional right of referendum. Thanks to the heroes in the I-912 campaign, voters have the chance to veto Queen Christine's arrogant agenda from 2005.
Queen Christine and the Democrat-controlled Legislature pushed an agenda that did not even remotely resemble what they promised in the 2004 campaign. They thought they got away with it when they read the fawning newspaper editorials praising them for their "courage." But newspapers don't speak for us. Voters will speak for themselves in November. And it doesn't take a political genius to predict what they'll say.
The only question is how many times must voters send the same message
before politicians start to listen?
For too long the favorite their favorite brew has been Arrogant Bastard, and we're tired of picking up the tab.
Posted by: L. H. Smith on July 11, 2005 12:10 PMShould someone who has promoted several successful statewide ballot initiatives be considered "bottom of the barrel", or is that characterization more applicable to envious nobodies who do nothing more than hurl epithets at those who are more influential then they are?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 11, 2005 12:13 PMWhy reinvent the wheel? If someone puts it well, why rewrite (unless you do not give credit to the original author, aka NYT). One must assume that there is nothing factually wrong with what was said as you can only critisize the quote rather than the facts.
Posted by: fred on July 11, 2005 12:16 PMGoldy...Chutzpah! Not a lick of common sense or humility but Chutzpah!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 11, 2005 12:17 PMGoldstein should take a long walk on a short pier. He just parrots the liberal mindset with his Eyeman comments.
Posted by: RonA. on July 11, 2005 12:18 PMWhen Goldy thinks he's a celebrity.
It's adios reality.
Goldy acts just like a fool
And people think he's cool.
Just cuz he's on a blog.
Pretendin' to be a celebrity!
I'm more than happy for Mr. Owngoalstein to keep posting here.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 11, 2005 12:34 PM(Wow! Did anyone else hear an echo?)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 12:35 PMWhen all the waste and corruption begins to be uncovered, the MSM will not report it.
However, you Stephen will have fodder for this blog for years to come.
GOLDSTEIN SUCKS!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 11, 2005 12:44 PMBoth I-912 and I-900 are not going to change the hearts and souls of Olympia. It will however make them try to find a different way to block, and/or get control (taxes) in an slimmier way.
When it is voted in; (if the elections are clean) they will try to side step it again.
Solution: Vote them all out by over whelming numbers.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on July 11, 2005 12:53 PMOh brother, Ken.
Posted by: Editor on July 11, 2005 01:00 PMI'm more than happy for Mr. Owngoalstein to keep posting here.
Hell, Stefan... you should thank me. Your comment threads were starting to look awfully thin. Just thought I'd help out and spark a little interest.
Posted by: David Goldstein on July 11, 2005 01:00 PMIn any case, kudos to everyone who helped make these initiatives happen. Let's not forget it's the PEOPLE of the state of Washington that qualify these initiatives for the ballot. People like Eyeman, Wilbur and Carlson are the conduits in this process.
Posted by: Palouse on July 11, 2005 01:08 PMI hate taxes as much as the rest of you, but I think the biggest difference between you and I, is that I recognize when _something_ needs to be done. I mean, really...suggesting that the viaduct isn't failing? You're a fool if you genuinely believe that.
In short: rather than sitting on your overpriveleged ass, snarking about Gregoire (Snarkansky...), why don't you use your voice to make some constructive criticisms? Like, for example, explaining how we might replace the viaduct, expand 520, and reduce traffic congeston (all multi-billion dollar projects) without raising taxes?
Posted by: A Moderate on July 11, 2005 01:08 PMYour just like my neighbors dog. A mut, it's always barking at some imaginary foe. Barking all night long. You have nothing at AH so you invade this space with your taunts. I am holding up one finger, and it doesn't mean look to God.
Posted by: Real Men on July 11, 2005 01:10 PMThat is the point of I900 - find out what we are spending the other taxes on so that the people can prioritize what is wanted. Why the secrecy. If there is no money left after reasonable expenditures, and there is full accoutability, I will gladly have more taxes, as I am sure most on this board would.
As long as the government treats us like fools I do not want to give them any more money. Explain where the money is being spent, stop taking the road money and spending it on other stuff - like sales tax being charged on road work to transfer 6-9% of road money to general funds.
Posted by: fred on July 11, 2005 01:16 PMSay...how DOES your record on initiatives compare with Eyman?
Posted by: South County on July 11, 2005 01:21 PMI want an accounting of how our money has been spent before I write another blank check to you thieves. It’s funny to see the reaction you get from dems when you start talking about performance audits. How dare we look into their business and ask how our money is spent? I think people are finally starting to wake up to what has been going on.
It will be interesting to see the commercial the dems run against performance audits. What could they possibly say to try to convince us not to look into their little world?
Posted by: Brad on July 11, 2005 01:25 PMGiven that bias, taxes will tend to naturally increase until either:
1) The taxpayers can't pay any more [That would be the top of the Laffer Curve]; or
2) The taxpayers won't pay any more.
Since one of these two limits will eventually be reached, the only question is which of the two is preferable?
Berating the "stupidity" of the electorate is simply taking the preference for the first option. This "stupidity" is often generated by magicly placing the free flow of traffic and the funding of libraries on "the margin."
Understanding these realities, the appropriate response to the rhetorical onslaught is simply to note that the people chosen the second option, and have, therefore, placed the government on a zero-growth budget. And if the people we have elected cannot live within that budget, while keeping traffic flowing, and libraries open, we will replace them with politicians who can!
Finally, I will note that twenty years ago taxes were lower, yet traffic flowed freely, and libraries were fully funded.
Goldstein’s dubious notoriety as “leader” at a website where scurrilous profane banter is the best they can muster, puts him at a decidedly intellectual disadvantage at SP. He is afraid to have his “reputation” sullied by being bested in any neutral exchange.
I’ve been to Horsesass, but attempting to sort out facts amongst the effluvium at his forum is like trying to pick corn out of a turd - who wants to?
Obviously they like it. “To each his own.”
I know that if he restrained his tendency to reduce the dialogue to gratuitous petty insults and meaningless character attacks,
there could be some interesting exchanges of views about many issues.
I am quite confident that he would reveal for everyone his decided inferiority and lack of substance.
That's why the only time he comes here it is to try and yank Shark's chain.
His hit and run nonsense just proves “Goldy” has no point.
This was a message. We do not mind taxes, but we want them prioritized, spent wisely and audited properly. We can't get away with this in our personal checkbooks. The Legislature fears exposure of redundant bodies and programs. We have no money for roads? We found money to educate illegal aliens in college at a legal resident's rate. Go figure.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 11, 2005 01:38 PMSeattle and King County have, for over two years, had the authority to raise taxes to fix the Viaduct and 520. To date Seattle and King County have not held the election to raise the taxes. Why? Because the insane anti-car, mass transit only crowd will not support transportation tax increases if any of the money goes to building highways.
And as for the fiasco with the graving dock in Port Angeles, has it occurred to you to ask why does the State need to build a new gravind dock when 4 Lake Washington bridges and 1.5 Hood Canal Bridges were built without the graving dock. Are you ready for the answer? Because all of the pontoons and anchors have to be built at the same time. The new bridges cannot be built a piece at a time as has been done in the past because they would need to be stored and that would adversely affect the marine life in the mud under where the pontoons and anchors would be stored. Yes, the WSDOT wasted $60 million and God knows how much more to protect some worms in the mud under Puget Sound. Now that is what I call being frugal with the taxpayers money!
Posted by: JC Bob on July 11, 2005 01:53 PMSure. If you say so, moderate.
"rather than sitting on your overpriveleged ass"
A moderate of what?
Posted by: jimg on July 11, 2005 01:58 PMNo alternative to raising taxes? Sorry, you’re going to have to prove that on to me.
Squeeze the system first then raise taxes if nothing comes out. But I'm guessing lots of resources will fall out when the tree is shaken. so No proof needed, right?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 11, 2005 02:27 PMYou have got to be kidding me, that is his criteria???
http://www.komotv.com/stories/37890.htm
Good Gawd. What a flipping idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duh.
Talk about echo chambers!
"I mean, really...suggesting that the viaduct isn't failing? You're a fool if you genuinely believe that."
O.K. genius, really - who's the fool here. Cite one non-baised source of information that establishes that the viaduct is failing in any way. You cannot - simply because it isn't. Sure it eventually needs replacement, but this is about honest priorities versus cynical opportunism. The basis of the new tax is a ruse and if you are stupid enough to fall for it don't waggle your idiotic nonsense at me. Wise up or shut up.
You say, "Like, for example, explaining how we might replace the viaduct, expand 520, and reduce traffic congeston (all multi-billion dollar projects) without raising taxes? It has been done elsewhere and it can be done here, by people who are inclined to solve public problems, not curry favor with monied constituents interests.
See comments to Ivan, "Seattle to Monorail: Drop Dead"
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 11, 2005 02:41 PMThat said, it seems that there are two thoughtful responses to my post, which I will summarize briefly:
1) I want accountability, dammit.
2) I'm not giving any of THOSE people more of MY money until I'm happy with the way that it's spent.
The first is a straw-man argument. In case you were wondering, I'll probably vote for I-900. But, because I'm a realist, I very seriously doubt that "performance audits" will find the BILLIONS of dollars that are necessary to rebuild the viaduct, the floating bridge(s), expand the highways, and so on. It just isn't going to happen. Even if there _were_ billions of dollars of corruption and graft in the state government, I'll wager that most of that money is already earmarked for other programs, by law. Audits don't fix these problems -- they merely discover them.
As for the second, all I can say is "grow up." I'm not happy with the way every dollar is spent in this state, either. I don't like the monorail. I have problems with Sound Transit. I'm unhappy with the amount of money that the gas tax funnels into expanding I-405. But I recognize that as a mature adult participant in a democracy, I have to take a little bit of bad with the good.
I've campaigned against the monorail, written letters to my legislators about Sound Transit, and I intend to vote FOR I-900 and AGAINST I-912. These are the ways that adults make their opinions known. Just because I am not happy with the way the government is shooting my left foot, does not mean that I will cut off my right leg at the knee.
And for the record, if I-912 passes, I'll be the first person to sign an initiative that declares that all tax revenues must be spent locally. We'll see how you east-siders feel with 80% of *your* tax funding evaporates with one reactionary election....
I don't expect to find billions either, though I do expect to find where billions can be saved. From that the laws can be changed, allowed to expire, or outright repealed once we know the details. This will take time, but the gas tax is increased over time too. They need to explain why WA doesn't fix roads, has an enourmous backlog in maintenance, no new construction, and one of the highest gas tax in the country before the 9.5 cents.
The politicians need to act like adults with our money and account for it. I do not even allow my eight year old to have the attitude, I've got it, I can do what I want with it. They have behaved so irresponsibly that I have no desire to give them more until it is well explained. Doesn't it bother you that they do not want proper auditing? What are they afraid of? It will be interesting what 'groups' will be supporting and financing the campaign against I900. That will say a lot. It will be almost more interesting how they rationalize that we should not have any knowledge of how they spend our money.
Posted by: fred on July 11, 2005 03:16 PMThis is the present state of the hard left, they state they are "moderate" (who knows some are probably are so demented they may actually believe it) then they feel free to label those that don't think as they do as extremist.
Much as the democrat Senator who said Justice Ginsberg was a conservative so Bush was free to appoint more such conservatives as her.
Posted by: Mark O on July 11, 2005 03:16 PMLet's get something straight with respect to I-912:
Opposition for the gas tax has not been driven by a refusal to pay the tax. What drives I-912 is that the gas tax, coupled with the current culture in Olympia, merely throws money at projects in silly ways.
I campaigned for 912. I also don't mind paying another $0.15/gallon as long as the money will be spent on projects that are set in stone and make sense.
Animal overpasses? Mayor Nickels' waterfront revival project? As-yet undertermined solutions for 405 and 520? Uh-huh. Total ratholes, all of them.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 11, 2005 03:22 PMHe can post here all he wants, but just scroll down to the next post like you do with the other trolls. Goldstein's just upset because he's made a life cause out of rallying against anything coming from Tim Eyman.
Objectively, he's not concerned with the content of what Tim Eyman has proposed in the past, nor the merits of any other Initiative, nor whether the initiatives have been successful nor the will of the people.
Goldstein's simply against anything Eyman, and anything that's not liberal, progressive and that will give this Democrat controlled legislature more of our money to blow in any way they see fit.
Yep. I have a number of lib friends, all of whom curse most initiatives (becuase they associate Eyman's name with them). Why? I ask. "Because he's a jerk who took money for his initiatives," they reply.
When asking them on a position about a particular I-###, they usually respond with something along the lines of "all Republicans just want their taxes cut".
To me these are the lib dream voters. Goldy and his like have set the perfect conditions - create a focal point for the issue at hand (Tim Eyman, not the initiative, but Tim the guy), make the politics personal (Tim Eyman is pushing his latest...), demonize the poor guy (Tim is a horse's ass), and generally ignore whatever it was the initiative was supposed to address.
In this way they create a block of voters that pull the lever for the D's without fail. After all, if you don't think too hard, the party that tells you everything is peachy-dandy is the one to go with, right?
Posted by: steve_dog on July 11, 2005 03:48 PMAs many times as it takes, Mr. Sharkansky, As many times as it takes.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on July 11, 2005 03:58 PMI'd also like to add that Seattle needs a new sea wall. What's the best way to get it without having to pay for it? Complain that we need to replace or repair the viaduct to get everyone in the state to pay for it. Why should our precious transportation dollars be siphoned off to pay for a what should be a Seattle-only public works project?
Two of the three proposals for the 520 bridge include no more general purpose lanes than we already have. And, one of those proposals is to do nothing. Excuse me? The folks who will pay the bulk of the transportation tax (and tolls) may not get any more lanes than they have now? And, if the "No Build" (i.e., do nothing) option is chosen, will we get any of our money back? Not bloody likely.
Posted by: SheriJo on July 11, 2005 04:05 PMGood job. You skipped all of the way around the central point without dealing with it. The new gas tax is predicated on lies and distortions of facts and is not intended to improve transportation. I noticed that you had nothing more to say about the “failing viaduct.” I suspect the reason is that you are caught flat footed whenever anyone challenges the basis for your claims. As these claims are the basis for everything about which you opine, you might consider thinking a little before commenting. Your "moderate" superficiality is an example of the very problem we have in this area – rampant liberalism, i.e., gullibility combined with unexamined ideology. Liberalism works anathema to rationality, and liberal sources are all apocryphal, because they are all invented for political effect.
I suggest that you grow up and face the fact that your sources of information are nothing more than reasonable sounding liberal Democrat con jobs rather comprehensive plans, and your uncritical view of them is the real problem. I defy you or anyone to show where the revenues gained through the new gas tax are committed to ANY transportation improvements. Again, you cannot because they are not. This gas tax is a blank check in anticipation of another in kind without clear justification or rationale, for its use. Kid yourself all day long if you like, you are not kidding me.
One hint: Economic plans are best promoted and improved using economic methods, not bullshit political games.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by A Moderate at July 11, 2005 01:08 PM
For a start, we could quit throwing away money on light rail.
By the way lets get the donations in for David Irons, if we can kill this gas tax with 420,000 sigs in one month, Sims defeat is our next potential political target. We can do wonders with him and Dean gone!
As I like to say about politicians that I really do not care for, let's string him up by the feet and use him as a pinata.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on July 11, 2005 05:33 PMThe man is nothing if not a publicity huckster - ironically, in much the same way he accuses Tim Eyeman.
Could it be there is/was an active campaign amongst intelligent Conservatives (you know who you are!) to boycott his little blog home?
The HA.org gets a bit boring when it's nothing more than an echo ...echo, echo, echo... chamber of complaints, insults and profanity.
The little 'org' needs to have the appearance of a big audience because he desperately wants to be a big bad radio personality, (like Al Franken) someday. And, of course, the answer to that is to ignore the little 'org' and his little blog.
Posted by: Cheryl on July 11, 2005 05:47 PMAs for "A Moderate", you can join Schram as his trusty sidekick and the two of you can dig for ponies. Get a grip! The voters are tired of poorly planned, vaguely funded transportation projects that take forever to build and ultimately dip into every taxpayer's pockets because of "unforseen" expenses. If you really want to put your ideals into action, once the gas tax is repealed, calculate how much extra tax you would have paid every 12 months and send a check to Olympia in that amount on an annual basis. You can get your like-minded friends to do the same. However, I don't think you would do it "because it wouldn't be fair". A liberal by any other name still smells like a liberal.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 11, 2005 05:47 PMWhere does Eyman come up with that $40 billion figure? According to the Department of Revenue publication "Tax Statistics" (February 2005), Washington residents paid a total of $13.1 billion in state taxes in fiscal year 2004. That is all state taxes, including motor vehicle taxes.
Eyman's tendency to fast and loose with numbers continues to undermine his causes. With all the money he raises and spends, might he consider hiring a fact-checker?
Posted by: jsa on July 11, 2005 05:53 PMand how does the state have a budget of over 20 billion if they only raised 13 billion???
Posted by: sgmmac on July 11, 2005 06:16 PMSgmmac makes a good point....We are in big trouble if our budget is 20 bill, and the tax revenue is only 13 bill.
I don't mind paying taxes to improve our infrastructure, but I would sure like to know HOW it is being spent.
OK this just in....KIRO reporting that we taxpayers are paying a 3% tax on a tax imposed to pay for the Spanish American War, 107 years ago....Clinton Vetoed a repealing of the TAX when he was in office....do i need to say more????
WHERE are our tax dollars spent, and for WHAT are they collected for????
Ahhhhhh it must be a life of leasure to be Queen of the taxpayers wallets!
How will her campaign promises go next election......er I won't raise your taxes any more then the 50+ billion I will have during my first four emergency years?
Posted by: GS on July 11, 2005 06:36 PMYes, the total does include the gas tax. Note what my post said: "That is all state taxes, including motor vehicle taxes." Look at the report, which is available to anyone on the Department of Revenue web site. Click on "Reports and Statistics" and just scroll down the list.
You ask "How does the state have a budget of over $20 billion if they only raise $13 billion?"
Stay with me here:
1. The $13 billion is an annual figure that includes all budgets, operating, capital and transportation.
2. The state budgets on a biennial basis. Total state taxes for the previous biennium would have been something on the order of $27 billion. (FY 05 data not yet available for that report.)
3. The state does not have a budget of over $20 billion. It has an operating budget of about $49 billion, a transportation budget of about $6 billion, and a capital budget of about $3 billion.
4. Only a portion of the state's total budget is supported by taxes. The rest is supported by federal funds, fee revenue, bonds (in transportation and capital), and miscellaneous other sources. The $26 billion you hear referred to as "the budget" is only the state portion of the general fund, which itself represents only a little more than half of the total state operating budget.
I suspect that Eyman took an old figure for the biennial operating, capital and transportation budgets rolled together ($40 billion), made the erroneous -- and frankly stupid -- assumption that the three budgets are entirely supported by state taxes, and then compounded the error by mistaking a biennial figure for an annual figure.
As I said, fact checker needed. These are unnecessary mistakes that give easy opportunities to his opponents.
I was specifically addressing a factual error in Eyman's statement. We could talk all day about how our tax and other money is spent.
You know, it's not all that difficult to find out how your infrastructure dollars are being spent. The state does have a transportation budget, and detailed revenue and expenditure data. Have you ever asked for an explanation of how your infrastructure dollars are spent? I'm quite serious. You might disagree with how they're spent, and that's perfectly legitimate (so do I), but it is not a mystery.
The tax that KIRO reported on is a federal telecommunications tax often referred to as the E-Rate. The revenue raised by it is supposed to be used to connect schools to the Internet. It is a great folly, and there have been sporadic attempts to repeal it. I'm not seeing what a federal telecommunications tax has to do with the issue at hand, though.
Posted by: jsa on July 11, 2005 07:40 PMLOL JSA.... It has everything to do with this topic..... This tax was implemented at the turn of the century (1900), how many connections to the internet did schools need, it was not an Idea Yet. It was meant for the affluent whom owned phones..... Like the energizer bunny, it never ceased.
This is the whole point....Create a tax, forget about it, and let it ride, with no accountability.
Bingo. Why give any support at all to someone who so mindlessly abdicates the rights of the individual.
If you check out his comments, they're usually the same 5 to 10 people dueling back and forth. No real traffic. And he guards his actual traffic stats graphs because they require a microscope to view.
HA is a nugatory collection of drivel.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 11, 2005 10:04 PMI didn't ignore your point to make mine stronger. I ignored your point because I think you're delusional. Sometimes, in order to make a coherent argument, you need to skip responses to the moonbats...
That said, if you really don't think the viaduct is failing, I invite you to set up camp beneath it, and wait for the next major earthquake. Or the next city bus, for that matter.
I guess you could say that I trust the opinions of certified engineers more than your own. Even if they do work for the state, and are therefore "biased." Sorry.
Posted by: A Moderate on July 11, 2005 10:09 PMWhat precisely would constitute the accountability you talk about? I'm not being facetious or sarcastic here. I'm sincerely interested to know. What would it be? A different governance structure for transportation? A reorganization of transportation agencies? An oversight board of some kind? A different kind of transportation budget? Please don't say just more performance audits. That's way too simple, way too easy.
Second part of the question: Is there in your opinion any level of increased accountability of state transportation programs that would make any level of increase in the gas tax acceptable to you? Not specifically the increase passed this session, but any increase at all. Others please feel free to weigh in.
Posted by: jsa on July 11, 2005 10:27 PMWhen will the viaduct be fixed IF the tax goes through? Stop crying wolf, I don't believe it. One thing is for certain, IF I thought the viaduct was about to crumble to the ground, killing everyone around it; I certainly wouldn't drive on it. I have never driven on it and never plan to visit the rat infested city of Seattle, so it doesn't matter to me. But IF it is that dangerous, close it immediately and let no one drive on it until it has been fixed. Stop lying to us.
Posted by: Miriam on July 11, 2005 11:50 PMStop screwing around -- you can't be this stupid. Structural engineers keep telling us that the viaduct won't survive another quake like the Nisqually. That doesn't make it unsafe for daily use, unless you're the poor bastard who happens to be driving it during the next quake.
Good lord, folks. It's one thing to be ideologically conservative, but it's quite another to deny reality.
You are lying through your teeth. There are no structural engineers anywhere that are telling anyone that the Alaskan Way viaduct won't survive another quake like the Nisqually. They are saying nothing of the kind.
Cite any non-biased publication stating where any such structural engineers are saying any such things or quit lying like the typical liberal propagandist you are.
This is exactly the core of the liberal Democrat program. Liberals know that if they lie often enough and sound somewhat reasonable, people will begin to believe the lies.
*A Moderate* comes to us as a gift from his own arrogant carelessness to prove the reason why no one should ever trust liberal democrats or anything they say.
Exactly too easy, and too simple for our goverment to accept....
"Second part of the question: Is there in your opinion any level of increased accountability of state transportation programs that would make any level of increase in the gas tax acceptable to you?"
Accountability is just one portion, tell me how much you need and FOR WHAT, then abide by those decisions. How much of this NEW TAX will be used for the Viaduct, and a new 520, can anyone answer that? How much will they cost, or even IF the Replacement of Viaduct is the answer, maybe a tunnel will be built. Nobody with any power has the answers, and until they do, they shouldnt ask the taxpayer for MORE money.
You see, I don't live in Seattle, so the Chicken Little Theory that the Viaduct is Falling doesn't affect me on a commuter basis, but it does affect my pocketbook every time I fill my tank.
The citizens of this state voted that any tax increases would be brought to the voters, and not masked as an emergency! Let the voters decide is all I am saying.
I watched the Gov. on TV last night proclaim our roads are UNSAFE...To the average Joe, that is misleading. If they are UNSAFE, we wouldnt be driving on them. If the Viaduct is unsafe, close it down, and go around. Those kinds of statements are what make people VOTE to REPEAL the Gas Tax.
Posted by: Chris on July 12, 2005 09:30 AMYou don't know what you're talking about. Go take a look at the Viaduct. It has been shored up in several key places since the Nisqually quake. Most importantly, the addition of cables which tie sections together, to avoid what happened to the Cyprus structure in Oakland in 1989. (A quake that I experienced in California at the time as a young engineer.)
The Viaduct is more than capable of withstanding most quakes at this time, and that's why traffic still flows on it to this day. If it were at any real risk, it would already be shutdown, as much of the Embarcadero structure was in SF after the Loma Prieta quake in 1989, but before it was demolished.
Do we need to do more to make the Alaskan Way Viaduct safer? Yes. Do we need to spend extra billions to build a tunnel, a park, and completely replace the sea wall for such as tunnel? No.
That's why conservatives are angry. It's clear that the tunnel project is a pet project of Nikels and Sims. They control the cards, and they make these promises to waterfront property owners and developers who stand to make millions from the appreciation of Downtown waterfront property if a more aesthetic tunnel option is chosen.
But, as we have seen, there are many projects in WA that need attending. Most of which won't even improve traffic flow, which like it or not is THE primary mode of travel in this state.
That's what conservatives want, take our precious tax dollars and spend them wisely where they will offer the most bang in improving transportation overall. As well as making it safer in the critical areas.
For now though, go to the Viaduct. Look at the structure. You will see lots of steel strapping at key places. And cables to join the sections preventing domino collapse. Will this stop the largest of quakes? Of course not, but then again, you can only engineer for so much. If we have a 9.0, a lot of stuff is coming down no matter what we do.
Stop selling fear, uncertainty and doubt to try and get your way. This is the way liberals operate, but now in the age of the Internet, we can and do have access to more rational assesments, so your fear mongering ways no longer sway voters.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 12, 2005 09:33 AMYes that's why no one respects or believes Queen Christine. She's a transparent liar. She will say many infammatory things to try to scare the naive, but she is almost totally unconvincing to anyone older than age 12, who is willing to shed their obsessive liberal bias.
Remember: "It's those talk show radios" that are causing all of Washington's problems! ;-)
Here is a list of the recent performance audits that have conducted on transportation agencies and programs:
Joint Legislative Review and Audit Committee (JLARC), Department of Transportation Ferry System Performance Audit, 1998.
JLARC, Follow-Up to 1998 Ferry System Audit, 1999.
JLARC, Department of Transportation Highways and Rail Program Performance Audit, 1998.
JLARC, Performance Audit of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Functions at the Department of Licensing, 1999.
Plus three notable current studies:
Review of Accountability Mechanisms for Washington State Department of Transportation, June 2005.
Washington State Department of transporation Capital Project Management, January 2005.
Environmental Permitting for Transportation Projects, January 2005.
The transportation revenue act passed this year provides for independent performance audits of transportation-related agencies. See Sec. 104, C 314 L 2005 (ESSB 6103).
Were you aware of these things? If you believe that previous performance audits were not valid or helpful, then explain why you think so, and make an argument. If you believe the performance audit language in the current transportation revenue bill is inadequate, then explain why you think so, and make an argument. Don't just make big assertions. That's not useful. It doesn't add to the discussion.
You didn't respond to the second part of my question. That's O.K., though. Never mind.
Posted by: jsa on July 12, 2005 12:23 PMDo any of those above listed Studies/Audits tell the average Taxpayer how much it will cost to replace/repair any of the Big Hype Projects aka UNSAFE Roads that plague our state.
Come on JSA, the whole point of this is, the LAWMAKERS of WA STATE choose to ignore the voters, and issued emergency rulings. All the performance audits in the world will not make up for the DISTRUST that our lawmakers have reap upon themselves.
Posted by: Chris on July 12, 2005 01:05 PMOf the 130 reports listed, only 6 had anything to do with DOT. The only one dealing with roads since 1999 follow-up report was the 2005 capital project management report.
I scanned through some of these reports and looked at their one page summaries and didn't really see much in the way of recommendations that would lead to greater cost savings. Granted, it didn't appear as if that was the focus of the studies.
The Overview of Environmental Permitting for Transportation Projects, http://www1.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/Audit+and+Study+Reports/2005/05-4.htm, only mentions potential savings of about $150k over five years.
Other reports, studies and communiques on the Washington State website seem to always be telling us why we aren't taxed enough.
Any performance reviews should always have a few core questions:
1. What methods and procedures can be improved to reduce the tax burden of the citizen?
2. What spending practices could be implemented to reduce the need for an increased tax burden on the citizen?
Looking at several of the 5 cent projects, the environmental mitigation ranged from 2% to 34% of the project costs. In one instance (21% mitigation costs), .81 acre of wetlands were affected by construction. A new 8 acre wetlands was created to mitigate the impacted .81 acre. In another example (34% mitigation costs) 7.7 acres were affected. These were mitigated with 49.3 acres. Is more than a 2:1 or 3:1 mitigation really necessary? Is it mandated or is there descretion? If there is descretion, couldn't the state meet the needs at a lower cost to the taxpayer?
Why are tax dollars that are used to buy construction materials and equipment taxed again? I'm not clear whether it is the 6.5% state tax or include up to an additional 2.4% for local jurisdictions. Basically, this is potentially up to 8.9% of a project being funneled into the general fund. Why can't we keep those funds on the project.
The legislature failed to address these issues before they slapped an emergency clause on the tax increase. The governor and legislature did not produce a review of the effectiveness of the nickle package before they increased the tax, as was promised. How much of any of these projects are obtaining federal funds? Wouldn't we be elegible for federal funds on any of the interstate work?
The tax increase allocated 2 billion for the viaduct. There are 5 scenarios on WDOT for the viaduct. Which one are we paying for?
Why weren't these questions answered before we were committed to a 33% gas tax increase?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 12, 2005 03:15 PMChilling, isn't it?
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2005 03:43 PMAgain, re the viaduct, spot on. I closely observed the condition of the repairs and reviewed the status last November.
A moderate is a liberal talking out of his resposne.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 12, 2005 09:45 PMSouthern Roots: I have read all of the 1999 perfomance audits of DOT, not just the one-page summaries, and thought they very competently done. It is unfair to critize audit reports simply because they didn't reach the conclusions you'd have preferred.
I agree entirely with your statement about the Viaduct project, and would echo your question.
Posted by: jsa on July 18, 2005 09:30 PM