November 09, 2005

Republican moderate is not an oxymoron

One more item I need to append. Arise, moderate republicans, arise! Cheers to all those moderate Republicans in our state who had the cajones to stand up and vote for the gas tax in Olympia and yesterday at the polls. I and the rest of liberal Seattle salute you. And here's hoping you're able to take your party back. I do recall, once upon a time, actually voting for a Republican, back when there were Republican moderates to vote for. ian

Posted by at November 9, 2005 03:34 PM Comments Ending elections on a positive note Well said Ian. I have to second Garrett here though, especially as it's now quite clear I-912 is doomed. The voters in King and Snohomish counties have spoken, and they want to keep the gas tax. Oh well. At least we had a rousing debate over transportation, and the people had a chance to speak up on the matter through the ballot box. I just hope we really see some real improvements in our major transportation infrastructure (i.e. the Viaduct and the 520 bridge), especially over the next 1-2 years. A final question, though: if the Viaduct and 520 bridge are in such danger of imminent collapse, how come we don't just shut them down right away, as in right now? Back to my city's (Snoqualmie) mayoral race, the results are in and Matt Larson (with 620 votes) is leading by about 112 votes over Greg Harrelson (508 votes). It's a nice conclusion to a pleasant neighborhood-style campaign for both candidates. It's been a pleasure blogging with you guys, despite our sometimes spirited disagreements. Life would be boring without discussion and debate, and the Backyard Blog was a perfect forum for it. -Will Posted by at November 9, 2005 01:23 PM Comments Election aftermath: putting the pieces together Victory snatched from the jaws of defeat? Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory? In either case, there's a new coalition in our state. Take a look at this map of where 912 failed. Our most populous county (King) teamed up with our fastest growing (Snohomish and Clark), a few other counties connected to Puget Sound, and lo and behold, the proud Eastern Washington county of Walla Walla (albeit by a hair) to help put 912 on the road (HA!) to defeat. In his column this morning, Danny Westneat says that last night's results show voters are trusting government a little more. I think he's really close to the mark, but I would make one tweak. Voters in this new coalition are realizing that government isn't free. We can't keep cutting taxes and expect money to battle traffic congestion to magically appear. I think the lesson of last night is voters don't want ALL roads ALL the time (See the 2002 defeat of R51 ). What we do want is a sensible package that does just enough to take care of our most critical needs. Get us just enough roads to get around, and that's plenty -- no one wants Seattle to be the Los Angeles of the Northwest, but we also are responsible enough to support smart road investments. Now, what can we do with that leftover Monorail money? (Note to Garrett -- thanks for voting no on 912, but you Eastsiders ain't getting any of our Monorail money!) Posted by at November 9, 2005 11:19 AM Comments Garrett's channeling Churchill Fellow Bloggers-- I would like to think of it as semi-victory. As I awoke and all the smoke had cleared and the spin machines slowed, it seems there was something for all of us. First, the voters said no to the silly monorail but yes to funding for more roads. Although I voted for I-912 -- more for a lack of faith than some masochistic love for traffic -- desperately want to be proven wrong. I can only hope that all of us voters measure the Democrats'’ promises against Democrats' results. We have given you the money, now show me the roads. Heck, we even gave Ron Sims another chance. Big Insurance was not able to pass I-330. Although as Natasha points out we need reform, the place for that remains in Olympia. The issue that stung the most for me was the smoking ban. I hate smoking, a vile habit that I detest enough to avoid any establishment where it is permitted. However, the thought of Government through its police powers forcing private businesses to not permit smoking is a horrible precedent. The fact that Daniel's Broiler will have to close their cigar room is just silly. We must remember that freedom is sometimes allowing those things that we like the least, the things we object to, or those we just find uncomfortable. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all others that have been tried." --Winston Churchill Posted by at November 9, 2005 09:28 AM Comments Election day aftermath Ah yes, the bittersweet taste of semi-defeat. It must be a happy day for my ideological opponents, Ian and Natasha. The results are in and things aren't looking so hot for my favorite initiatives, except for I-900. On the upside, I got all three of my port commissioners (Creighton, Hara and Jolley), which is a small comfort. [Editor's note: As of Wednesday morning, Jack Jolley is trailing against Pat Davis] I-912 isn't quite dead yet; in fact, it might need a recount, but we'll have to see how the urban votes go today. I'm still waiting for the vote tallies to be published for our mayoral and city council races out here in Snoqualmie. Interestingly enough, I find myself caring more about those results than the bigger picture (especially after the bigger picture entails fewer victories than I had hoped). I suppose it stems from knowing several of the participants and literally seeing them next door. All in all though, we had good turnout this election and people seemed to get into the debate more than in previous off-years. Both of these things are very good things for our representative democracy. -Will Posted by at November 9, 2005 09:15 AM Comments I-912 is dead. As of right now it would need to get 85% of the votes remaining to be counted in counties that have been supporting the initiative, and that's assuming that the remaining votes in the counties rejecting it only go 55% against (as opposed to the whopping 65% against in King County, which makes up most ot that uncounted vote total). Final tally could have I-912 failing by 8%! And so many people were predicting a 15% win. Got to make you wonder just who signed the petition given that the petition count was about 80% of the current vote count in favor. Obviously the die hard faithful signed and after that there wasn't much support. Posted by Daniel K. Alas, my early optimism has faded to sound rejection, as reality has now set in (including the updated Jolley results). Oh well. Posted by Will. November 08, 2005 And boom goes the dynamite Yes, those whining right-wing fanatics! I saw that list and it's pretty darn vague, Ian. Forgive my skepticism, but "a 16-year plan" doesn't even begin to describe where the money's going to go exactly Is it going to be set aside? Or is it going to go into the larger budget and then used? Do we even know? And why not? Come to think of it, the asphalt ratio and number of guys named "John" would be nice to know while we're at it. That's why I voted for I-900. -Will Posted by at November 8, 2005 06:26 PM Comments Wow. Two sides of a pretty engrossing argument here. But I'm going to have to side with Will and Garrett. I voted yes on I-912, not just because I have no choice but to drive, and not just because I want to make it easier for Bill Gates' wallet. I think that we've given our legislature enough time to come up with a concrete plan-one that doesn't require a down payment now, and then more money later. If they're going to take my money, I want them to use it wisely, not request that I give more to them if they feel like it. Posted by Hilary-Rose Bryant. It's getting hot in here Another favorite tactic of conservatives. There's no plan. (Waaah!) I want to see the details. (Waaah!) Okay, Will. Which details do you want? They're all right here, county by county, of what the tax will go to. Maybe I can get you some info on the rock to asphalt ratio of the new paving, perhaps? Or how many people who will work on the project are named John, if that's your fancy? And, oh, one more thing. This whole plan was drawn up and passed last legislative session. I'm sorry we didn't give you and Garrett the full two years to go through the details... -ian Posted by at November 8, 2005 06:23 PM Comments What's driving Will's vote on I-912 My logic is actually pretty straight-forward, Ian: give us a plan. Don't levy this rather large tax at the last-minute and fail to simultaneously give us the details of what you're going to do with all that money. And I'm not against taxes period. IF the state legislature and/or Governor Gregoire had said "look, this money's for the Viaduct/death trap and for the 520 bridge," then that would have been fine by me. IF specifics had been placed on the table, or IF programs had been specifically earmarked that would receive the money (and it is quite a lot, as 9 and 1/2 cents a gallon means about $5.5 billion dollars to "play" with!), then I would most assuredly have voted against I-912. In fact, even if I-912 succeeds, I would urge my legislature to go through with another tax (maybe even another gas tax), as long as we know exactly where that money goes. Wouldn't it be a shame if it got chugged into the general fund and never saw the light of fresh, gooey asphalt? So let's see some plans and some detailed projects. If I-912 is defeated and our money gets sunk into open-ended and fiscally irresponsible projects like Boston's Big Dig, it'll be our fault, and no one else's. All I want is some accountability. Garrett, your thoughts? As far as Sound Transit is concerned, all the more power to it. As a student, I'll probably be taking it to the UW next year. -Will Posted by at November 8, 2005 06:19 PM Comments "You can't just throw duct tape on the road" Ya know, I try and try to follow Will's and Garrett's logic on the gas tax. I've tried for weeks. I just can't get there, just too many cop-outs. You guys obviously want roads, but seem to have no faith that the state would do anything with this money. Let me try a different tack.... How many times have you tried a DIY project on your home? Car? Watch? Anything? Did it go right the first time? How long did it take? Did you have the know-how to get it done right? Now ask yourself, was there a professional out there that could have done it better? Faster? Undoubtedly so, though it probably would cost you some cash. None of us four knows how to build a road, nor would we try. My point (yes, please get to it)? These projects are way more complicated than you're acknowledging. And we're asking a government agency and government workers to do the job. These folks get tarred and feathered by conservatives all the time, but there's plenty of hardworking, bright people doing these jobs. It's just that you guys figure, hey, it 'taint that tough to build me a road. What's taking so long/so much? You can't just go out and throw duct tape on the road. This stuff takes engineers, contractors, state patrol, traffic control, and countless other steps I'm probably leaving out. In short, this in no way compares to that lock you tried to fix this weekend. This whole idea of passing off as "government waste" or 'liberals' as the reason nothing happens is a red herring. Frankly, I'd rather we do what we need to make our current road system the most efficient that we can, and then not build another road. Ever. You want to get poor starving students to class? Use a bus pass. You want to get single families around so they spend time with their families and not in their car? Build a mass transit system. There's no way we're going to road-build our way out of traffic. Los Angeles is a prime example of the wrong way to go. So let me try to slap both of you upside the head with the notion again: I'm voting for both of our roads projects, so we can vote for both of our transit projects next. I mean, I'm not even forcing this on you! You've basically suckered me in to a plan that will let you continue to drive to visit me for lunch on THIS side of the lake? Don't you guys know when you're getting a steal of a deal? -ian Posted by at November 8, 2005 05:04 PM Comments Gunning for the gas tax It's funny to hear Republicans calling 'chicken little' when Kirby Wilbur and the KVI crowd are throwing around howlingly cracked conspiracy theories in public. I-912 may be the funding underdog, but it's swept all prizes for having the biggest loudmouths. It isn't the 9-1/2 cent gas tax you'll notice that much, Will, it's the ravening greed of oil companies who are making record profits to go with their sky-high prices. They push gas up fifty cents, a dollar, a buck fifty in the last four years, and we all just sit around like heat-addled frogs in a pot, grumbling that our nice, little jacuzzi is getting a touch too warm, thanks. There needs to be another freeway lane to ease the long, slow commute between Everett and the Seattle area. There need to be rural road improvements, landslide abatement and roadside safety enhancements made all over the state. Now we have cheap car tabs, yay us, so the money for all that has to come from somewhere else. I'd kind of rather it didn't come out of the state tuition subsidy that every single public college student, and that means both of us, gets subtracted from their tuition before we even see a bill. I'm glad to hear a Republican express some sympathy for single moms, though. That's progress. Next, try supporting policies like universal health care, public daycare, or more expansive job retraining programs that would really make a difference in their lives. - natasha Posted by at November 8, 2005 04:39 PM Comments How did we get on the subject of black helicopters? Hey you two, Ha! The I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Project is already underway, regardless of the outcome on I-912. And Garrett's right about all this Chicken Littleism (which just came out in theatres -- how timely). Where was the anti-912 campaign before? What was their platform? It seems to me that it was only in the past several weeks and with a massive infusion of last-minute mega donations has the"No on 912" campaign gathered steam. As it is, the largely grassroots and comparatively humble pro-912 operation is out-spent and out-advertised. It really is the underdog here. Furthermore, I'm voting for it because I'm a student and gas is already way too expensive (here's Donald Trump's take on high gas prices at his "Trump Blog"). And it's not just poor starving students, but single-parent families too. The people on the lower rung of the economic ladder are going to be paying for this gas tax. We're already in the higher end when it comes to prices, as our own state reviews have shown. If anything, there should be panic about ever-increasing gasoline prices, not hastily-made up disasters that can be "prevented" by raising taxes. It all sounds a little too convenient for me. Will P.S. Here's some handy info on those black helicopters/secret U.N. troops (if it's on Wikipedia, it MUST be true ;-). Posted by at November 8, 2005 03:53 PM Comments Ian raps back Um, Garrett? You might want to be careful quoting Chuck D...a quick peek at their website would show you that when they say "Fight the Power," they mean you (well, Bush and Republicans at least). My theme is I wish it was 2006. No offense to all the great local candidates on the ballot today, but the timing of the confluence of events is about a year early or a year late...Bush would not have been re-elected if he were on the ballot today. But I digress... Now it sounds like you're saying the State is faking rock slides to get support for the gas tax. Should I expect the black helicopters and secret UN troops to surprise/attack me when I leave the office today? -ian Posted by at November 8, 2005 03:49 PM Comments Election night begins on a musical note with Garrett Fellow Bloggers: A few of you might remember an early 90's rap duo called Public Enemy, who had a hit song called "Don't believe the hype!" Well, as I drove across the 520 bridge (soon I am told to sink) I thought this is the perfect theme for this election. Yesterday, the hysteria reached new levels as there was a suggestion that there will be more rock slides on I-90 if we do not give Olympia the gas tax. The big insurance industry kept pounding the television last night with actors dressed as nurses and doctors claiming they will be forced to leave the state if they are not allowed to take away patients right to a jury trial. How many times can we seriously be told that the sky is falling? What is your theme? -Garrett Posted by at November 8, 2005 03:45 PM Comments November 07, 2005 Will does love to vote Tomorrow's the election, and an important one at that. This is an off-year, but there are a slew of local candidates and several higher-profile initiatives whose fate is in our collective hands. This morning, my history instructor, who is from Britain, marveled at the enthusiasm of Americans to vote on and for so many varied positions, proposals and initiatives, on a regular basis, nearly every year. Other countries appoint officials like judges and county executives, leaving the decisions for an educated cadre of "higher-ups." Here in the USA, we vote on 'em. This stems from our nation's origin. Our freedom-loving forefathers were sick and tired of a Parliament and a king from a far-away mother country appointing officials to run the colonies, and so our ancestors fought a War of Independence to win the right to decide for themselves how to run things. The result being, of course, that we get to go out tomorrow and vote on the minutiae of how our local and state government gets run. As the old cliche goes, don't complain if you don't vote. It's up to us, people! What do you think? Posted by at November 7, 2005 01:08 PM Comments The problem is the initiatives system is totally corrupt. Special interest can buy their place on the ballot and buy votes with deceptive ads. That is not democracy that is oligarchy. Fat cats that buy initiatives have to responsability to the voters of the state and no accountablility. Posted by Jacob Metcalf. November 04, 2005 Port of Zzzzzeattle Race Yawn. You're right...I'm almost asleep from thinking about it. But I've gotta ask why you chose Paul Schell as the endorsement of choice that you thought might sway me...I mean, I like Paul Schell as a person, but I have a hard time seeing how that endorsement helps Creighton. And then your selected Hara endorsements. I get why you highlight Gary, but no offense to the fine people in uniform, what weight do I give the King County Police Officers Guild since they have next to no involvement with the Port? If you're trying to sway me, you should have mentioned his endorsement by the Sierra Club. Even with that, I'm going with Berkowitz. His endorsement list reads like Seattle's biggest union meeting, and anyone endorsed by dudes who move very heavy boxes and make a good living at a union job works for me; plus virtually every Seattle Dem legislative district. Here's an oddity...it seems Hara and Berkowitz hired the same web developer. I thought we left those times behind in the 90's? At least we see eye to eye on Jolley. One for three ain't bad. ian Posted by at November 4, 2005 04:28 PM Comments Pay attention to the exciting Port of Seattle race ! (?) All right, so we've talked about the initiatives and the "big" race that'll be decided next Tuesday, namely, Sims versus Irons, but what about the Port of Seattle commissioners? I know, I know, it's not that "exciting" and certainly doesn't make the top ten list of the most interesting things in the world, but it's still important. After all, the Port of Seattle is one of the main reasons why there's even a city here in the first place. And for someone out in the boondocks of eastern King County, voting on who's going to fill the essential job of port commissioner could be one of the few ways I can have a say in how Seattle's run. An e-mail from a reader brought it to my attention (or lack thereof), and made me think about who the heck I'm going to vote for. Here are the positions and the people: Port Pos. 1 - John Creighton vs. Lawrence Molloy Port Pos. 3 - Lloyd Hara vs. Richard "Rich" Berkowitz Port Pos. 4 - Jack Jolley vs. Pat Davis Also, the King County Elections site has an online copy of the voters guide that summarizes their positions. Personally, I say John Creighton is the best pick for position #1, being the non-incumbent. He has a Masters in International Relations from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a law degree from Columbia University, and has worked as an international lawyer in places like Singapore, Helsinki and Istanbul. Plus, if those qualifications aren't enough, he has tons of endorsements from people as far apart on the political spectrum as former Seattle Mayor Paul Schell (and yes, Ian, that's Democrat Paul Schell) and Slade Gorton. With position #2, Lloyd Hara is the better of the two candidates. Hara has served as a King County Auditor, Seattle Treasurer, and the Regional Director of FEMA, and is a retired US Army Reserve Officer. Former Governor Gary Locke has given him his full endorsement along with the King County Police Officers Guild. As far as position #3 is concerned, Jack Jolley should get the job. A Washington native and graduate of the UW (with an accounting degree), he's worked in New York as a successful private investment banker. He's worked for Benaroya Securities and then Microsoft here in Washington since the late 1980s. Jolley's gotten the endorsement of the Sierra Club (*gasp*) and business and labor leaders, and wants to bring a sense of accountability back to the port. So, what do you guys think? Posted by at November 4, 2005 04:22 PM Comments Great picks, I have to agree. Really have enjoyed the blog posts. Posted by Merry O. McClean. You are wrong on all three. And relying on endorsements from other interests is really a bad way to make decisions about who to vote for. Next time do more research before you expect us to think your views have wieght. Vote for Pat Davis, Lawrence Molloy and Rich Berkowitz. Why? We need more Port Commissioners like Pat Davis. She supports the men and women on the docks, she's boosted oversight on port projects, she's an advocate for better environmental practices at the Port and under her watch, the Port has become far more environmentally friendly. She also pushed civil rights protections that matter to anyone who belives that no one should be discriminated on the basis of age, race, sex or sexual orientation. jack Jolley's campaign has been a joke - when he didn't catch on with voters he was reduced to name calling and slimey negative attacks that has nothing to do with effectively running the Port. Say no to the lowball cheap and slimey campaigns that represent Jack Jolley: vote for Davis. Molloy. I normally wouldn't vote for him because he hasn't done much in his 4 years on the Commission. But I think its good to have a real strong and focused voice for the the environment on the Port commission. He has been that - not as effectively as Pat Davis, who at least works with others, but Molloy represents an important voice in Port affairs. Berkowitz. Have you met the guy? He's really a terrific person and obviously quite capable. Have you met Hara? He is quirky at best. Berkowitz is the only candidate among the two who actually knows something about port affairs. Hara is another odd-ball politician who just wants the profile and the perks. Posted by Thor. November 03, 2005 Sic transit transpo initiatives - let's build light rail Garrett, let me try to show you the progress by starting with some minor earth-shattering news for you. I voted against the Monorail. (I'll wait while you get over your shock) What did it for me (and all those who will help send the Monorail to a defeat next week) is the finance plan. I can't fathom paying that much interest for a line that won't even make it past Magnolia. I still maintain mass transit of any kind is a good idea. But we approved a plan that was too heavy on borrowing (of course unknown to us/me at the time) and I can't even imagine what the cost would be to build the four lines we were originally dreaming about at that interest rate. So now for the second shock, which I'm sure won't be surprising to you at all. I want to keep the license tab tax and send it to Sound Transit to keep expanding light rail. "Expand?!" Garrett exclaims to no one in particular since he's sitting in front of his computer, "What do you mean expand, they haven't built anything!" See this picture? That's Light Rail being built by the Airport, you may have noticed it and thought it was a road. All built with a debt ratio that's far more sane that the Monorail. Not convinced? Drive down Rainier Ave or Airport Way and see how fast they're moving. It's actually pretty hopeful to see this stuff up close...something is actually getting done! It's already paid for (yes, I said paid, as in they don't need $$ from you to finish it), and will open in three years. Check out the animations of the line operating AT THE AIRPORT and once and for all end your confusion about will it/won't it get there. I know, you're going to bitch about how expensive light rail is. Well, yeah, it's not cheap when we've delayed doing anything with talk-talk-talk for thirty years too long! Even putting aside this, think about the thousands of cars transit (Sound, Metro, Pierce, Community) takes off the road every day. Without these, there's no way you'd be crossing the lake (which, and I say this with my tongue firmly in cheek, sometimes wouldn't be such a bad thing!). But in any case, let's take that cash, put a station back in First Hill, get West Seattle and the northwest seattle connected, and send this train over to the eastside to pick up your penny-pinching booty. It's way cheaper and less destructive than building that new freeway Kemper Freeman (and yes, your man Irons) wants to build. Your final demand, show me the roads. My how the contradictions multiply. You want a really good argument for why you, the poster child of Young Republicans of Washington should vote No on 912? Read this editorial: Then, let's build you some roads, me some transit, and you and me sing kumbaya as we pass each other downtown. Ian Posted by at November 3, 2005 03:53 PM Comments Well put, Ian, this Ballard conservative likes your logic. I wonder, if we put the monorail money (just the principle, not the interest) to use on light rail if it would pay for the NW connection? I think that would be kumbaya worthy. Posted by Benjamin Ballard. There is no political group called "Young Republicans of Washington". Posted by Jacob Metcalf. Benjamin - I'm not quite sure if we would get the NW connection with just the monorail money. I think the dillema is how we would run the line, whether street or elevated. I'd love to see the City of Seattle play along...like by giving 3rd ave over to Light Rail. People are already getting used to not having it because of the bus tunnel closure, so let's put some tracks down the middle! I know it's going to be hard to get to West Seattle since the bridge is pretty weak. Then again, NOT getting there could be our final revenge against Joel Horn for blowing the monorail up the first time around. Jacob - Not like i'd know whether there's a Young Republicans group anyway. Maybe I just nominated Garrett to lead it! Posted by Ian. I think Seattle should spend at least another $20 to $30 million and tear down the 2 existing sports stadiums and then build 3 NEW ones this time around! Who needs mass transit....more professional sports stuff!! Woo-hoo Posted by Dick Butkus. November 02, 2005 Let's dig into I-912 (repeal of the gas tax) Hey all, Last week I went on a field trip with my agriculture class to a selection of farms in Eastern Washington and Oregon. We descended on six farms in three days; the cost of fuel was a constant undertone and that has everything to do with the coming election. When I go to the gas pump, it costs me $15 more to fill my tank than it did at the beginning of the year. For a farm, this increase might mean switching from one type of fertilizer to another simply because the yard where it comes from is closer to the fields. The costs of pesticides and fertilizers made in a $3-gallon world have yet to materialize, but all their shipping costs are up. Growing operations that have managed to diversify by finding alternate uses for portions of their land, directly marketing their products to shoppers or catering to specialty food markets seemed to be doing fairly well. Yet many state farms are still having to go head to head with produce from Asia and South America and are just squeaking by. This year, the hurricanes in the southern United States also robbed many California growers of a market and their produce ended up being dumped into Northwest markets at rockbottom prices that undercut local farms. Taking all of that into consideration, along with longer commute times to shopping and sometimes work, I'm not surprised that rural Washington largely supports I-912. With an extra dollar per gallon going to foreign governments and large oil companies, it isn't surprising that they want to say no to a $0.095 increase that they have some say over. Still, I oppose I-912 and continue to think it's a bad idea, as much empathy as I have for the opposing viewpoint. A sixth generation farmer who's been in the business for three decades was telling us how he'd recently lost a truckload of onions. It seems that they hadn't been packed with enough ice, so by the time they reached the market, the internal temperature was 48 degrees instead of the desired 40 degrees. The entire shipment was rejected on the spot. This farmer ships most of his produce to Portland, with some going to Seattle and Alaska. Consider for a moment what would happen if the far off (to him) Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is literally falling over very slowly, were to collapse. As I've said before, access to the Port of Seattle would become temporarily impossible, diverting all port traffic to cities like Tacoma and Portland. It would be months probably before all the debris was cleared away, turning the Greater Seattle area into one enormous traffic jam from morning to evening. Anything that couldn't be shipped over land would face higher prices and less capacity whether it was going by sea or air. Shipping out of SeaTac Airport would be in higher demand as well, so let's imagine that the borders of Seattle's traffic jam went all the way to SeaTac at the least. I think that not only would shipping costs increase more than nine and a half cents, more farm shipments would be lost to unpredictable traffic patterns that trapped ice cooled produce on the freeway for too long. While that's a worst case scenario, bad roads, emergency road repairs, traffic accidents and the resulting slowdowns cost Washington farmers money every single day right now. The trucks that ship their produce get worse gas mileage on poor surfaces, as well as facing increased risks of losing entire loads in stop and go traffic. Even the deficiencies in public transit play into this, forcing commercial and commuter traffic to compete for freeway space that seems to fill up as fast as it's added. I-912 is nothing more than a lollipop being used to distract voters from a seeping fiscal wound. If we lose the capacity of our roads, we lose our commerce and strangle our agriculture. Please, just say no. -Natasha Garrett responds Natasha you woke me from my slumber! I must admit that your argument and perspective is fairly persuasive. The imagery of the Alaska Way viaduct crashing down as onions roll into the sea is indeed a terrible event. However, if we allow ourselves to justify every liberal's tax increase because something “terrible” might occur then the taxing simply will never stop. I think whether you are liberal or conservative sticking the Washington taxpayer with a gasoline tax in the middle of a crisis is just plain bad government. Let me address all three different voters. Liberal (Progressive): There is no dispute that the gas tax is regressive. In other words, Bill Gates in a sea of SUVs is minimally impacted, whereas the single mom commuting in from Duval to her job in the city because housing is too expensive pays the same tax, the same fees, and suffers infinitely more. To the degree we value social equality and the working poor, I-912 is a step in the right direction. Conservatives: Washington State is rapidly heading towards the highest gas tax in the nation. We already have a grossly overtaxed state compared to our infrastructure, and there simply is no end in sight. With a liberal Olympia, we can be assured that there simply does not exist a tax that Governor Chris will not hike. Even if it is a small step, we must take this step now. Every One Else: How many times are we going to allow irresponsible politicians and want-to-be Chicken Littles tell us that if we do not approve their taxes there will be no more ambulances (Medic One), no more roads (30 dollar car tabs), no more government (I-601); time and again we hear these absurd statements. Now, we will perish when the 520 bridge collapses and the viaduct falls. If our leaders in this state consider these issues as the last priority on the laundry list of government spending, then the solution is not only to approve I-912 but to also vote the bums out. My two cents, Garrett Here's Ian Shhh! Quiet folks! See that movement? Look closely...it's the wild speckled Ferencz! They only come out of hiding every two weeks or so, usually when someone mentions a "tax increase". Good to have you back, Garrett. But it's time to stand up and be counted. While I agree the gas tax isn't the fairest (though at least you pay when you use), how would you suggest we make our roads safer? Quoting you: >In other words Bill Gates in a sea of SUVs is minimally > impacted; whereas, the single mom commuting in from Duvall > to her job in the city because housing is too expensive > pays the same tax, pays the same fees, and suffers > infinitely worth. To the degree we value social > equality and the working poor, I-912 is a step in the > right direction. Social equality? Comparing a really rich person with a middle class person and suggesting Bill can afford more? You really do want an income tax, don't you? My goodnessGarrett, I do think you're starting to come around. Ian Garrett responds Fear not, I am certainly not calling for the workers of the word to unite. However, you ask a fair question. Of course my knee jerk reaction is to tell you that better management of our resources, by whichI mean government resources, is part of the solution. Yet, let me make this pledge. Show me that the monorail makes sense. Show me that sound transit has efficiently used our resources. Show me why our bus tunnel is now closed for two years because we put in the wrong tracks. Show me when we are going to build more roads. Then Jerry Maguire, I will show you the money! However all I have seen is Ron Sims, and a cheesy political grin, standing in some forest and accusing his opponent David Irons of wanting to build roads. That is right, only in liberal Seattle, would someone as a negative attack ad accuse his opponent of trying to build roads. So you are right, Bill Gates could just send a check to Ron Sims, but for the working families in this state, keeping this money in their pockets is far better than letting Sims build another monorail. Just my eight cents. Posted by at November 2, 2005 11:45 AM Comments Garrett said, There is no dispute that the gas tax is regressive. What hogwash. You conveniently pull out such an argument, but fail to recognize the truly regressive taxes Republicans in D.C. just wet themselves over. The gas tax, which funds road work, is a user tax. You drive a million miles you pay more than the guy who drives 1 mile. Is that too tough a concept to get your head around? Natasha is right to point out the effect on farmers who need to move their produce fast and on good roads. That's why we are all in this together. A farmer in Eastern Washington has the ability to vote to improve the road he drives on in Washington. He can't vote for such improvements in neighboring states. If he could he would. Meanwhile, if you want to argue that gas prices are too high, go do that in the executive board rooms of the big oil companies that have been boosting prices while bringing in record profits despite supposed setbacks from the hurricane season. Prices go up and down like a yoyo it is ridiculous. I'm sure you couldn't tell what date the 3 cent gas tax increase went into effect this year from the prices of gas you saw at the pump last summer. But I'm sure you noticed when the price of gas jumped 20 cents when Katrina blew in. Posted by Daniel K. The roads and bridges of Washington are in a historically low state of disrepair. Things are so bad that, in a fairly short period of time, we could have bridges collapsing under regular traffic loads. The Federal government has made it clear that they are getting out of the business of infrastructure maintenance so it is up to the states. There are some functions that fall to the public to construct and maintain simply due to their scale and cost. Moreover, there are some things that government is obligated to do. Rather than wringing our hands and talking about whether the gas tax is or is not regressive, let's put the cost of these projects in the driveways of those who do the damage to the roads: everyone who gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. This is the most equitable and logical approach to the problem. Rather than becoming entangled in a Tim Eyeman-inspired political debate, let's fix the damned roads. Posted by Craig. November 01, 2005 Natasha has hard questions for I-900 Regarding I-900, I'll quote the opposition statement from the voters' guide: "The 2005 Legislature passed two performance audit bills, one for Department of Transportation programs and another for state agencies. Many local governments already provide accountability by conducting their own performance reviews. This initiative is an unnecessary duplication that would add another layer of government and cost tens of millions of tax dollars." Why exactly is it that people who otherwise seem to be in favor of small government would now like to create a whole bunch more of it? While the proposal specifies a minimum additional amount to be diverted to auditing, it fails to account for the imposed compliance costs to other agencies and local governments. There are towns in this state that don't even have a website, but you want them to make an extra report to Olympia, or whoever's been contracted for the job. That contracting clause also bothers me. There's no way that Sonntag's office is going to get enough staff to carry out this mandate in-house, presumably the reason for the provision allowing the work to be farmed out. Do we have enough spare capacity within the state's auditing profession to do this without unqualified opportunists stepping up to take advantage of a tight market? Are professionals going to be shipped out to every corner of the state at great expense or will local FBI (friends, brothers and in-laws) networks be trolled for someone who can pass as an auditor and be offered a contract where such services are in short supply? Who'll cover the printing, faxing and shipping costs for the extra documentation, particularly if it has to go through a contractor before getting dropped in a file drawer at the state auditor's office? I like the idea of open government, yet this initiative seems hasty and poorly thought out. If it turns out to be a waste of public money with little return, then it will simply be a mockery of what government should be, a hypocritical thumbing of the nose at the principle of accountability to the public good. This initiative creates nothing like the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that reviews federal expenditures and generally conducts itself as a model of professional propriety. While I know that it's unreasonable to expect a local GAO, the wording of I-900 seems to invite the voter to imagine scenarios of vendetta and nepotism played out under the cloak of responsible government. Sonntag won't always be the state auditor. The wording of I-900 makes me worry that if someone like George Bush were to end up in his seat in the future, we might end up with a state auditing office that resembled the unlamented Coalition Provisional Authority that was set up in Iraq. Posted by at November 1, 2005 10:51 AM Comments Natasha blows hot and cold on I-901 As far as I know, one of the best arguments for banning smoking is the health of restaurant and bar workers. As good a reason as I think that is, it also seems this initiative stands a fair chance of passing because society already restricts indoor smoking. When I was a kid, it seemed common to see an ashtray on the table at any restaurant that my family went to, but now it's the exception. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the actual number of food service workers exposed to damaging levels of secondhand smoke has dropped considerably just in our lifetimes. Also, it simply seems odd to me that smoking might be prohibited in bars. They're bars, for crying out loud. They exist to allow people to enjoy their legal drug interests in a social setting, possibly with the added spice of dancing, flirting, gambling or pool. The vital purpose of creating a safety valve for consensual adult vices seems like an important one to me and I lean towards leaving things as they are. After all that, I too have yet to make up my mind on I-901, even if I'm inclined to vote no. Though I suspect that my choice of argument against it might just tip Will to the other side ;) Posted by at November 1, 2005 10:44 AM Comments Marketplace Jobs Autos Shopping Homes Rentals Post an ad September 2006 S M T W T F S           1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ARCHIVES November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 RECENT ENTRIES Republican moderate is not an oxymoron Ending elections on a positive note Election aftermath: putting the pieces together Garrett's channeling Churchill Election day aftermath And boom goes the dynamite It's getting hot in here What's driving Will's vote on I-912 "You can't just throw duct tape on the road" Gunning for the gas tax Powered by Movable Type 3.2 seattletimes.com home Home delivery | RSS feeds | Low-graphic | Search archive Site map | webmaster@seattletimes.com | Contact us | Privacy statement | Terms of service NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertise with us | The Seattle Times Company Back to top