That's what the Seattle PI believes is needed to defeat I-912, the anti-gas tax initiative.
So the leadership in defeating I-912 must come unabashedly from Seattle and the Central Puget Sound region.
I can't think of a better way to pass I-912 than to have Seattle leading the campaign against it, for reasons that I explained here. Those outside Seattle generally don't much like the political leaders there — and they almost never trust them.
(Should I be giving advice to the opponents of I-912, given that I will be voting for it, though with some reluctance? Well, I don't think I am giving away any secrets here.
And I was disappointed to see the PI repeat the argument that the rural areas get more than their fair share of the road money. As far as I can tell, those making this argument total the gas taxes collected in rural and urban counties and then compare that to the spending in those same counties. The problem with that argument, as I have explained before, is that many of those who use the roads in rural areas are drivers from urban areas, or are taking truck loads from one urban area to another.
An analogy may help make this clearer. Washington raises taxes from the entire state for the University of Washington, but spends nearly all the money in the Seattle area. Does this mean that the rural counties are cheated by this arrangement? Not necessarily, because many of the students at the UW come from rural areas, just as many of the drivers on those roads in rural counties come from urban counties.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 13, 2005 02:21 PM | Email ThisAnd get the spin ... it's now an "Anti-road" Initiative.
HELLO!! McFLY!!
Go check the financial statements for your own counties- it looks like property taxes cover most of it.
In the mt regions- or the coastal areas- I'd argue that the roads virtually finance logging operations.
I'd like to see them back the claim up county by county where the money in exceeds the gas consumed tax revenue consumed locally- a good accountant could debunk this stupid myth.
Posted by: Andy on July 13, 2005 04:19 PM
Blah Blah Blah Blah sing allo you want the defeat I912 mantra, spend millions please, because no one is listening to you thieves anymore!
I912 will pass with (as the legislature would say) Bi-Partisan Citizen Support.
Posted by: GS on July 13, 2005 04:48 PMKing County, on the other hand, will receive around 50% of the total.
This means that out of every 9.5 cents we fund, as individuals, we receive a fraction of that money in return.
An alternative view is to total the amount of money raised per county and argue that each county gets plus or minus a proportional share. But, as I note above, when seen from the perspective of an individual motorist, 98% of what we pay goes somewhere else. Which means we get screwed.
The basic Seattle-centric argument is that Seattle is the center of the known universe and anything spent in Seattle will have great and wonderful consequences for everyone else. Which I guess means that money sent elsewhere has zero benefit for Seattle?
Finally, if half the money must to go to Seattle, why not have regional gas taxes? We already have a sales tax that varies by city, by county, and even within my own county.
If we believe we had local control of our own money, we might even support generous gas taxes in our own region. But this gas tax is little more than a siphon to send money from non-King/Pierce/Snohomish motorists to Olympia, to be doled out to mostly 3 or 4 counties on the West side. In exchange, the State is funding a fair number of "make work" projects in the rest of the state. Which means that in the end, everyone pays more than is needed in order to have enough money to "spread it all around" to some relatively useless projects outside the Very Important People in Seattle.
Posted by: Ed on July 13, 2005 04:51 PMI'm filling out this darned election contribution form and I don't know what value I need to report for this latest PI editorial.
Also, Carlson had on some anti-912 person giving opinions and taking calls. Do I report that as well? or do I just subtract that from my total?
PS, when the guest suggested Carlson turn over his airwaves and controls for one hour, Carlson accepted but the guest, withdrew his challenge. How do I report that? I don't see a space on the form.
This election compliance is so confusing.
Posted by: Mr. Compliance on July 13, 2005 05:00 PMI suspect so!
I wonder Stephan, will we soon see a tax per post blog bill by Queen Gregoire and her court in the next session!
All hail the Queen!
Posted by: GS on July 13, 2005 05:30 PMWhoever writes editorials for the local newspapers are very out of touch with their audience, unless their intended audience are proponents of "tax and spend without accountability".
Posted by: Gary on July 13, 2005 05:55 PM"The state's three largest counties have subsidized the other 36 counties with $1 billion in transportation in the past 10 years."
The 9.5 cent gas tax hike would devote $4 billion out of $7 billion in projects to King County. At most, King County generates 30% of the gas tax revenues -- and should be getting only $2 billion or so in these projects.
So, the new gas tax increase subsidizes one county -- King County -- with $2 billion in extra transportation projects at the expense of the other 38 counties. This is twice the alleged subsidy received by the other counties in the past.
Hypocrisy?
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 13, 2005 07:01 PMA perfect match. One offered by a clueless "PI"--Princess Intelligentsia; one offered by an "IP"--Idealist Princess;
I'll bet on the latter;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 13, 2005 08:21 PMHah! Why?
Posted by: Deborah on July 13, 2005 08:22 PMFred is an urban planner by trade and good friends with Joe.
Joe and his wife need a new garbage disposal.
They stop by the bank on the way to Home Depot and Joe withdraws $20,000.
Joe's wife asks about such a princly sum for a garbage disposal.
Joe explains it to her. You see Fred down the street that lives in the 7,00 sq foot mansion is going to withdraw $30,000. and he has agreed to pay for 95% of our garbage disposal if I help him pay for replacing his old delapidated pool with a new swim pool at his place. It's a good deal. You see we are paying less than half his pool and he is paying for 95% of our garbage disposal.
Besides, just think of how it will look when someone comes to visit, with the neighbor's new pool as the centerpiece of tyhe neighborhood. It is sure to benefit us with an increase in prestiege amongst those who live where there is not cooperation from every body in improving the neighborhood's self esteem. Our property values are sure to rise so we will benefit financiall, so it is only fair.
Besides we may want to take a dip in Fred's pool and I am sure that he will make it convenient for us to use, we can even cancel our Y'Y' membership.
Oh the replacement of Fred'd crumbling Sea wall that he has been neglecting for years, well that needs to be done in order to put in the bigger more luxurious pool.
Fred's wife's answer only needed one finger.
And they all lived hapily ever after.
Posted by: JDH on July 13, 2005 08:31 PMQueen Christine and her tax and regulation happy court are straight out of the Grimms fairy tales. Grim for the Citizens of this state, full of lies and full of fairy dust as far as actual accomplishments per dollar of robbed tax payer money. They dream big dreams that pad their pockets and they never get anything accomplished. Their Robin Hood style will put them out of power soon thank goodness!
Posted by: gs on July 13, 2005 09:58 PMBut having the Seattle press lead the charge to defeat I-912 is silly. The only thing they ever report on is the former Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, now degraded to "520", and the scheme-of-the-day for the Alaska Way Viaduct. And that reporting is usually accompanied by "but it is still zillions of dollars less than required to do the job." So the message has consistently been that it is all about Seattle.
Anybody heard of the concept of "tolls" and "sinking fund"? How about "user fee"?
The ferry exacts a toll. The new bridge at Tacoma Narrows will exact a toll. Why is Seattle exempt?
Posted by: Terry J on July 13, 2005 09:59 PMSeattle needs a big fat, "Washington State doesn't revolve around me" stuck to its back end.
Posted by: Cydney on July 13, 2005 10:35 PMThey are elite liberal Robin Hoods! Everyone must pay their way!
After all it's for the children you know!
Posted by: GS on July 13, 2005 10:46 PMSo let them lead away right into a major loss they can't explain or understand.
I can hear it now "The simple minded, uneducated masses know not what they do. Oh if they would only do what we the informed know better."
THE REGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVES WILL CONTINUE TO REGRESS AWAY A LITTLE MORE FROM THE REST OF US. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!
Posted by: bigbird on July 13, 2005 10:55 PMSo they won't get near the projection of additional revenues they claim. But they are spending like drunk sailors, especially the Governor, who gave massive 10 to 20 k raises to all her closest court of honor.
Remember, the first count will be simply to assess how many votes they will need to "find" in order to defeat the initiative. The recount will be outcome driven, just like the so-called election for governor this past November.
Then again, Bridges says we have to use the broken, corrupt system to fix the broken, corrupt system. For a logical person like me, this seems to be a bit of a conundrum, but, then again, this is 'Rat-driven WA politics we're talking about.
Posted by: Interested Observer on July 14, 2005 06:41 AMDon't these clowns get it? Oops, dumb question wasn't it?
There was a chance I would vote against 912, but I suspected these responses would happen, so I didn't hold out much hope.
Having Sound Transit endorsement to vote no is like....?
Posted by: swatter on July 14, 2005 06:49 AMThe link to the Accountablity is about half way down the page under LINKS. Check it out, you'll get a Page cannot be found error, I thought it was so appropriate.
BTW: You can actually get to the link by going to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/weekly/default.htm
Posted by: Sean on July 14, 2005 08:58 AMWhy do governors have to appoint flunkies? Why don't they approve independent thinkers on these boards? Oops, I think I answered my own question.
Posted by: swatter on July 14, 2005 09:24 AM