Day 3 of my lonely, virtual vigil dawned cool and rainy, with still no official word from David Irons as to where he stands on the anti-roads initiative, I-912. I had hoped that I might take advantage of my close working relationship with Irons’ webmaster, Stefan Sharkansky, to get my question in front of the candidate himself, but Stefan proved as resolutely silent as his tongue-tied boss. So yesterday I emailed Irons’ campaign directly, and eagerly await his response.
As long as Irons refuses to publicly endorse or oppose I-912, the best we can do is try to divine his position by reviewing his prior public statements on related issues. For example, about a year ago Irons came out resolutely behind the Regional Transportation Investment Districts’ $13.4 billion plan for critical transportation improvements in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties… a package that placed a high priority on replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge.
“Our transportation problem has grown beyond the ability to solve it with any one fix,” said Councilmember David Irons, an alternate on the RTID Executive Board. “But we must solve it for the mobility needs and economic survival of our region. Raising taxes is not politically popular, but the alternative of doing nothing is unthinkable. We must demonstrate leadership and make some tough decisions, and we need the guidance of our citizens in order to make the best choices for our residents, our businesses and our future generations.”
I wholeheartedly agree with Irons that “we must demonstrate leadership and make some touch decisions”… and I congratulate King County Executive Ron Sims for once again showing such leadership in opposing I-912. Yes, “raising taxes is not politically popular,” which I suppose is why Irons refuses to publicly support the gas tax increase that I-912 would repeal.
And what of his statement that “we need guidance of our citizens”…? He was referring to the advisory ballot measure on the RTID proposal which King County voters passed by more than a two-thirds margin… a margin which Irons himself trumpeted as a mandate.
“We have debated this question long enough, and the voters have told us they are tired of talk,” Irons said. “These poll results give us a mandate to move forward.”
But then, that was before Irons declared his candidacy for King County Executive, and before KVI fired up the anti-government crowd with misleading rhetoric in support of I-912. I suppose its possible that Irons now believes that our transportation problem has not grown beyond our ability to solve it with one fix, and that doing nothing is now eminently thinkable. Perhaps Irons now believes that leadership is unnecessary, that tough decisions need not be made, and that we have not debated this question long enough.
As long as Irons remains silent on this issue, I suppose voters are free to suppose whatever they want. Which I suppose may be exactly what Irons hopes to be the result of his silence.
The misleading rhetoric on I-912 exists on both sides, my friend.
be fair.
Irons wants to be a leader. Wouldn’t this be the perfect time for him to step up and lead against the anti-roads initiaive, since that is what he has stood for before?
If he really wants to be elected, let him show that he would rather have good policy than give in to the feel good rable rousers of the right. Show that he leads based upon his beliefs, not the marching orders of KVI.
Completely Off Topic, but I thought the reality based community members might enjoy this:
http://www.theonion.com/news/i.....38;ref=myy
Don Ron Sims King, the corrupt and evil leader of KingCo, has taken a heroic stand against I-912 and for the fleecing of the rest of the State of Washington to benefit his homey-county of King and the capital of his evil empire, Seattle (aka Absurdistan aaka The Anal Canal of the Universe)!
Buckwheats campaign honky, David Goldstein, continues to press what he hopes will be his next Gay conquest, Stefan, for his support of the massive tax increase with no accountability.
Perhaps it would help if others emailed Mr. Irons and asked him. david.irons@metrokc.gov
or called his office at 296-1012
I just read on the KVI web site that are not going to support David Irons because he does NOT endorse I-912. While Kirby and John are not going to consider him “hostile towards the Republican agenda” they are not going to whole-heartedly endorse him either because of a conflict of interest with transportation needs of King County and the taxation of the entire state.
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation said on their web site that when it really counted, you couldn’t count on David Irons to add and subtract successfully. Lois Beard said “I know, I was there, I saw David trying to use a calculator, but he just couldn’t be counted on when it mattered.”
The Spokane Review said David Irons and Jim West have collaborated on a few illicit online business ventures.
The King County Journal has reported that David Irons has frequented the ChokeYourChicken Ranch in Enumclaw on numerous occasions.
The Department of Homeland Security is investigating alleged links between David Irons and Al Qaeda.
Even David Irons own mother won’t vote for him. What does that say about his character?
Can we trust someone like David Irons? Someone who has links to terrorists, promotes the gay agenda, can’t add, can’t subtract, molests animals and has a severe drinking problem?
David Irons is out of step with mainstream America.
In November, vote for anyone but David Irons.
Paid for by Puget Sound Citizens for Truth.
GBS–
Your alleged mind is a vast, vast WASTELAND dude.
Get a real job.
Donnegedon at @
Laughed my ass off.
Irons is preparing himself for higher office by acclimatizing himself to the Seattle Way.
Talk, talk, talk, do nothing; followed by talk, talk, talk, do more nothing.
@3
I wonder if the good reverend could explain why stuff was falling before Jesus showed up?
jdb; its the anti waste coalition; only way we know to stop waste in its tracks. Admittedly a clumsy way to go, but its all we got.
Ms. C at 7
Why is it when I make up shit my mind is a vast wasteland, but when your side blatantly does it you’re being patriotic?
Is yer Git-R-Done truck all gassed up with $2.85 gas, chains in the back and ready to run down all the Camp Casey Crosses tonight?
12
Cynical doesn’t have to buy $2.85. All he has to do is fart into the fill tube.
GBS,
Careful, if you do that too much, Goldy will have to report this as a Sims Campaign contribution in kind.
I think that wasting at least a billion dollars (if not many billions — remember the Big Dig in Boston) on a gold-plated tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct is reason enough by itself to repeal the gasoline tax increase.
Granted, there are at least a couple of billion of necessary projects included in the package. But the extravagant waste contained in the Alaskan Way tunnel replacement is reason enough to reject the entire package.
Richard @15,
You know… enough that line. For somebody running for Port Commissioner, I expect you to be a bit more honest about our region’s infrastructure.
The transportation package most definitely does NOT specify that hte AWV replacement will be a tunnel. It specifies a dollar figure towards the state portion of whatever the replacement option is eventually chosen, the remainder of the cost coming from Seattle and King County (plus the already allocated federal dollars.)
A tunnel is one of three major options being discussed, and while it is certainly the most elegant option — one from which the city would eventually reap large rewards in increased tax revenues as property values soar along the waterfront — it is not likely to be the option chosen given current financial constraints. The most politically viable option is to replace the AWV with another elevated freeway.
But regardless of which option is chosen, it won’t cost state taxpayers an extra dime.
So really, for you to say that the AWV tunnel is reason enough to vote for I-912, is a bold faced lie. Period.
Richard Pope – Care to make an argument based on reality, instead of your speculation? But then you’d be left with no argument.
Donnageddon@3
I like the article, cute. Now that said, no I dont buy it I am a believer of gravity :). Now here is food for thought, if a 10lbs steel ball and a 1lbs ball were dropped simutaniusly off of the empire state building, would they hit the ground at the same time? Also a rifle fired parallel with the earth at this same time from the same height as the two balls, it too would hit the ground at the same time (if it wasnt stopped) although it would be several hundred (thousand) feet away. Now think about this…does it really sound logical? These are the facts but does it really sound logical or does it sound like something with less than logic guiding in control? Possibly intelligent falling… No I dont subscribe to it, just having fun here…but think about it.
Roger Rabbit @13–
Damn it Rog….I told you not to “spill the beans” on my new “alternative energy” innovation!!!
Goldy@16–
Do you know what “bait-and-switch” means Goldy??
That’s what will happen with the AWV.
Plus they WILL start a project KNOWING they do not currently have the funding to finish it.
As Buckwheat’s Honky Campaign Manager…you need to try again!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOTAY GOLDY?
chuck @ 18, I appreciate your post. One of the most laughable parts of Intelligent design is that if one were to buy the premise (That life is too complex to evolved without an intelligent creator is this:
It sounds like the Intelligent Creator is pretty complex, what designed the Intelligent Creator,… on and on in infitum.
No ne knows where all “this” came from.
But in the end, we all get an answer… of sorts.
Goldy — Richard, of course, was also the one who posted that 912 didn’t complete a single project in King County. It completes at least 55. Let’s just say that veracity is at times not his strong suit.
Bax @ 23
It is true that about $1 billion of the $4 billion earmarked for King County will complete a few dozen projects.
However, the remaining $3 billion earmarked for King County goes to partially funded projects, which can only be completed with substantial amounts of extra money.
When David Irons was endorsing a local tax package for transportation back in 2004, did this include a tunnel for the Alaskan Way replacement? Somehow I don’t think so. This tunnel idea was rammed through in the 2005 legislative session.
In any event, I think voters statewide will resoundingly reject the proposal to spend $4 billion out of $7 billion on King County projects, when King County has just over 25% of the state’s population.
I would be more favorable to a balanced approach — take $1 billion from the viaduct and give $500 million more to the Evergeen Point bridge and $500 million more to I-405 and Valley Freeway improvements. But this would still fail statewide, due to the extremely disproportionate benefit to King County.
Richard @24,
Again… the state transportation package does NOT specify a tunnel for replacing the AWV. It allocates a fixed sum of money as the state’s contribution towards the replacement… if Seattle chooses the more expensive tunnel option, then Seattle taxpayers (or toll payers) will be stuck with bill.
Until your are honest about this, the rest of your arguments simply aren’t credible.
I wish Irons would come out against I-912. I want to vote for him instead of Sims, but taxing gas is progressive and important to me — wherever the money goes.
By the way, RIGHTWING DITTOFINGERS: gas tax is not a regressive tax; gas tax is a consumption tax. You fiscal conservatives are supposed to like consumption taxes.
Goldy @ 16
Transportation planning in Seattle is like a Gordian Knot. The only way to undo it is to hack it to pieces. And, the Alaskan Way Viaduct ‘replacement’ is the best example of this Gordian Knot theory:
The option not on the table is advocated by People’s Waterfront Coalition – neither tunnel nor elevated replacement of I-99. I believe they are correct that rerouting I-99 traffic is possible and desireable. It forces planners to admit that road expansion increases traffic, and reducing road capacity adds pertinent considerations that are the only real means to reduce traffic congestion and a host of other ills.
Any candidate, Left or Right, that admits credibility of this planning philosophy is dangerous to the establishment. If no candidate voices an understanding of this option, none are qualified to serve the public interest.
Heath, Of course a gas tax is regressive. You “progressives” are supposed to know things like that.
The only thing that you can be sure of with a Republican is that he will do everything in his power to make the rich richer at the little guys’ expense, and blame it all on the Democrats. And enough of the little guys are stupid enough to believe it that they tip the balance in favor of the venal Republicans.
These raises in the price of gas is cash-money that is coming directly out of YOUR ASS to make the rich richer—-and you bitch about a gas tax that amounts to pennies on the gallon! Your next pay raise(if you get one) is going in your gas tank and straight into the pockets of Bush , Cheney, et al… Working class people who vote Republican should lose their citizenship.
Wells @ 27 – I keep hear you guys saying “roads cause traffic”. That’s rigoddamdiculous. That’s like saying hospitals cause illness.
Traffic is “caused” by people who want or need to travel. Do you think people go out and drive around for no reason? Most of my driving is to work and back, and to do my part to support this fabulous expanding free market economy that we have. I think I am not unique in my driving habits.
Let me burst another bubble while we’re at it. Ready? We CAN build our way out of the traffic mess. All we need to do is start pouring fucking concrete. Dun.
Zip, it is only correlated with incoming, not tied to it. If people use less gas, and their income remains the same, then their tax goes down. That is why it’s a consumption tax.
Compared with income, the tax is neither marginally progressive nor regressive. The tax burden depends on usage of gasoline.
It is certainly true that gas is a commodity and you could argue that a consumption tax on a commodity is effectively (if not technically) regressive. But since this is a side-effect of what it is actually tied to (consumption of gasoline), you have to then ask yourself if it benefits society or harms it. It’s not as simple as the usual “regressive marginal income tax rate bad, progressive marginal income tax rate good.” It becomes the “we’re running out of oil, cooking our grandchildren, and paying our enemies for it.” That’s why I support a gasoline consumption tax, the Federal tax credit (2 grand!) for buying a hybrid-electric that gets high mileage, and everything else which shifts us from gasoline consumption to other forms of transportation. I ride the bus as much as possible for this reason, although it ‘spends’ 25 or more extra minutes of my day.
I’m lucky I live near a bus now. I grew up in Midwestern farm land. Other than our neighbors, my grandparents, we were half-a-mile from the next-nearest farm house.
The people the gas tax could really hurt at rural dwellers. I think actually for-profit farmers could deduct the tax as a farming expense, but I could be wrong — who reads the entire tax code here? Business travel probably gets to deduct the tax in general with the other expenses of doing business. I know deducting income doesn’t balance it all out, but it’s a start.
If farmers got a tax credit for the gas tax, then it would be perfect. I-1024, anyone?
Did I just get spam blocked? How do I get what I typed to come back?
Wells,
If a politician admitted to me that they thought we could ‘re-route traffice around downtown instead of via 99’ I might die laughing at them before I got around to explaining that they permanently lost my vote.
Let me ask you something: Do you live in Seattle? When did you last drive on AVW?
Richard Pope @ 24
“When David Irons was endorsing a local tax package for transportation back in 2004, did this include a tunnel for the Alaskan Way replacement? Somehow I don’t think so. This tunnel idea was rammed through in the 2005 legislative session.”
One of the things I like about you, Richard, is that you sometimes dig deeply into issues and pull out the facts that others have overlooked. I find myself very puzzled by your statement. I’ve read the Transportation Package and found no mention of the AWV, let alone any of the specifics of any variant of the AWV. Perhaps you can explain what you mean here. Or, if you haven’t read the legislation, please do so.
As far as I know, there are no specific plans for a tunnel. I believe the tunnel is, at this point, simply an idea being thrown around by Seattle, but not being kicked around by the State.
Furthermore, I have not heard anything about gold plating the tunnel. That seems to be a figment of your imagination.
zip –
I think my tax story reply got nipped by the spam filter. Here is a recap.
Yes, a consumption tax on a commodity like gasoline is usually regressive in effect. Technically, since it is tied to consumption, not income, it’s neither regressive nor progressive.
For example, if you get a raise and buy a more efficient car, your gas tax as a fraction of your income goes down twice. (Unless you change how much you drive, too — assuming that doesn’t change.) So, it’s not a progressive marginal income tax rate.
Now, one problem is that we buy gasoline from people who don’t love us. Another is that the by-products of burning gasoline are slow-roasting our grandchildren, born and unborn. Finally, there is the fact that we will definitely run out sometime, and then have no more non-recycle plastic products, either.
So, there is a cost/benefit question: is it so important to have a consumption tax, that we want to risk some cases of regressive or burdensome tax? I say we do. In other words, we want to discourage gas usage a little. This is how we make progress or ‘shape up’ society. Some people hate the idea of some people shaping up other people. For example, the left gets pretty militant against the right sometimes when the right is trying to make progress. When I think “Progressive”, I think “someone who intends to make progress for society.”
A lot of people seem to think “p-word means higher taxes,” and that’s not so.
I think the gas tax could be fair if farmers could take farming-related expense as a paid-tax credit.
Redneck and Heath, Enjoy the traffic. Enjoy the cost of gas, car payments and insurance premiums. Enjoy the smog and the poisoning of Puget Sound. Enjoy the killing wars for oil. Can’t wait to go into Iran and spill some blood! Hey, there’s uranium there too – two birds with one stone. We’ll need that radioactive material for bunker busters and WPPSS Part II.
If I-99 were decomissioned, the course of regional development would eventually reduce the need for long-distance travel and lower all associated costs. Think about it.
Richard Pope wrote, “In any event, I think voters statewide will resoundingly reject the proposal to spend $4 billion out of $7 billion on King County projects, when King County has just over 25% of the state’s population.”
Wow. Terrific rounding Mr. Pope. Where’d you learn how to do that? Where do you come up with any of those numbers? None of them are correct.
Here’s some exact rounding: The gas tax produces $5.546 billion. The total transportation package addresses $8.475 billion in improvements. King County accounts for 28.7% of the total population of the state. There is no proposal being put in front of voters that allows them to reject $4 billion of $7 billion. I-912 is not such a proposal. If that’s a proposal you wish to put up for a vote then make an initiative for that.
Meanwhile, totally contradicting the assertion that this area is not putting in its part to pay for statewide transportation costs, considering all state and federal transportation revenue and projects from 2006 – 2015, the Puget Sound region will raise $14.3 billion in taxes, and receive $14.3 billion in projects. Meanwhile, the rest of the state will raise $13.85 billion in taxes, and receive $13.84 billion in projects.
If that’s not a balance you can support then you have a completely twisted sense of what balanced is.
Here’s another point for the “rebuild vs. tunnel” crowd: rebuilding the viaduct would NOT be the cheapest solution. You can compare the options on the table at this location.
Furthermore, all 5 alternatives that have been considered have been estimated to cost at least $2.5 billion to build. The transportation plan has been criticized by many, erroneously, as “writing a blank check for a project with no plan”. Well when every plan on the table will cost more than the money that will be provided through this funding source, then that’s not like writing a blank check. What it is is preparing for the inevitable. Responsibly.
Of course, none of these realities serves the purposes of those who cannot address the facts, and instead would rather tax the truth.
No one who would repeal the gas tax portion of the funding has the foggiest idea how else the needed money will be raised. They do not suggest which supposedly insignificant projects of the 270 that would be receiving funding they would cancel. They offer no solutions. They are accountable to no one, do not read the documentation and literature that explain the alternatives, the projects, the issues. They twist facts, are purposely lazy with the truth and the numbers, ignore untidy realities, and at the end of the day can do nothing that protects them from being seen as what they really are: people who want something for nothing.
The real problem with i-912 is that the rest of the state (not KC) is so pissed at KC they don’t want to fund these projects. This is because of who did it and how it was done.
It’s not about roads, it’s not about taxes. It’s about sending Chrissy a message to back off.
I’m not suggesting this is right. I am stating what I have heard around the state from voters. It’s also not a Democrat vs Republican issue. It’s KC vs the state. My money is on the state to win this battle. They felt they got robbed in the last election. They want payback and this is going to have to hold them until 2008.
Daniel K @ 37
You say that the 9.5 cent gas tax produces $5.546 billion, and that the total transportation tax and fee increase passed this spring (which includes a lot of weight fees, etc.) will fund a total of $8.475 billion?
Okay, if the legislature passed a total of $8.475 billion in tax and fee increases, then why is this only funding $7.139 billion in projects? What is happening with the extra $1.336 billion?
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdo.....County.pdf
$4,058.8 billion of the $7,139.4 billion in project money is going to King County. Only 28.65% of the state’s population lives in King County, according to the July 1, 2004 U.S. Census estimates. King County’s pro-rata share of this $7,139.4 billion would be $2,045.2 billion.
So over $2 billion in gas tax (or other fee increase) money is being transferred from the other 38 counties to pay for projects in King County. This certainly won’t make the gas tax increase very popular in any of the other 38 counties.
I would also note that $2.929 billion of tax and fee increases will remain, even if I-912 repeals the 9.5 cent gasoline tax hike. This would almost be enough money to pay for all of the $3.081 billion earmarked for projects outside of King County.
Enough @ 39
The anger of the other 38 counties will be sufficient to pass I-912. Of course, a lot of people in King County will also vote for it.
39
The simple answer to your tirade is that King County drivers pay for the roads in most of the other 38 counties, not the other way around.
And the simple solution to I-912, if it passes, is for King County to keep the $127 million a year of gas taxes it sends to other counties.
28 of Washington’s 39 counties get more gas tax money than they pay. You are a moocher if you live in one of these counties: Skagit, Kitsap, San Juan, Jefferson, Kittitas, Douglas, Grays Harbor, Grant, Stevens, Adams, Lincoln, Klickitat, Island, Okanogan, Ferry, Whatcom, Pacific, Wahkiakum, Lewis, Walla Walla, Garfield, Whitman, Skamania, Franklin, Columbia, Pend Oreille, Clallam, Asotin.
35
Unless I’m mistaken, the gas tax doesn’t apply to agricultural fuel.
Richard @ 40
For a guy who wants to be a Seattle port commissioner, you don’t seem to know very much about where Washington’s population lives.
Because significant portions of Pierce and Snohomish counties are commuter suburbs of Seattle, the King County projects will impact residents of all three counties, who comprise over half the state’s population.
The eastern Washington counties have only a fifth of the state’s population, and much of that is concentrated in four cities: Spokane, Yakima, Tri-Cities, and Wenatchee. The rest of eastern Washington doesn’t amount to squat, when it comes to elections. It may be 2/3rds conservative, but that’s 2/3rds of maybe 10% of the state’s voters.
Richard, you may be right about a lot of King, Pierce, and Snohomish county voters going for I-912. If they do, they will have no one to blame for their future traffic nightmare but themselves. Imagine a 2-hour commute from Federal Way to Bellevue, or a 3-hour commute from Mukilteo to Renton. There are already days like that, and we haven’t even lost the Viaduct or 520 bridge yet.
Mark @ 30
There isn’t an urban planner in North America who agrees with you, and experience in virtually every large city argues otherwise.
Los Angeles poured concrete like crazy, and made no effort to get people out of cars and into mass transit. Tell me, what’s the traffic flow in L.A. like? They’re living proof that if you build freeways, people will come.
Cripes, I get tired of ignorant fools who fling around clods of bullshit as if they’re facts.
and then dress the in jodhpurs!
Hey, kids, go have some fun slicing and dicing this:
http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/.....t_2005.pdf
It is the 2005 Urban Mobility Report from a couple of folks @ Texas A&M. Take a look at ALL of the different comparison numbers. I keep hearing how much better Portland is — and it is on SOME measures — but it seems to rank with Seattle on others. Proof again that you can back up almost any point by picking and choosing the right statistics.
Richard @15
Speaking of wasting tax dollars, Richard filed papers with the AG alledging misconduct by several government agencies relating to I-912 when every piece of evidence in front of him indicated that the I-912 campaign had made a simple mistake (posting the names of the agency’s on an anti-912 website without informing the agencies, none of which had taken a position). The mistake was fixed by e-mails and a few phone calls in minutes. Richard knew this. Yet that didn’t stop him from filing a request to the AG – after which the Public Disclosure Commission launched a full scale investigation that wasted many thousands of our tax dollars to conclude what Richard knew all along – there was no wrongdoing, case dismissed. Take a look for yourself – all the unecessary paperwork (detailing how, if Richard were a reasonable person, he knew there was no wrongdoing before he sought an investigation) in now on file at the PDC in Olympia courtesy of Mr. Pope. But then again, maybe his goal was something different. He did land some coverage in the MSM. So in a way, he found a tricky way to waste tax dollars to enhance his name ID for his own campaign.
Mr Pope: You cannot look at a source of funding in a bubble! Everything relates to everything!
Again, look at the period from 2006-2015:
When considering pre-existing revenues, including the 23 cent gas tax, the Puget Sound region will contribute $1.65 billion for projects throughout the rest of the state. The region pays $8.9 billion in taxes, but receives just $7.2 billion in projects. The balance of $1.65 billion in Puget Sound tax revenue is spent on projects in other parts of the state.
When considering the 2003 “nickel package”, the Puget Sound region receives $391 million more in projects than it raises in taxes.
When considering the 2005 9.5 cent package, the Puget Sound region receives $1.2 billion more in projects than it raises in taxes.
OVERALL, considering all state and federal transportation revenue and projects from 2006 – 2015, revenues and expenditures are in balance between the Puget Sound region and the rest of the state, the Puget Sound region raises $14.3 billion in taxes, and receives $14.3 billion in projects, while the rest of the state raises $13.85 billion in taxes, and receives $13.84 billion in projects.
Meanwhile, your $7+ billion number does not include money that comes from other taxes that are available for non-highway investments.
Your whole argument that this money should even be divided up bases purely on population is pathetic. Look at the number of freight and traffic that passes through the Puget Sound area, and compare those numbers. Look at the miles of road in both areas. Look at where money in the last 20 years has been coming from and going.
Taxing people is not a popular thing to do. Unfortunately it is a necessary thing to do. Without taxes, you don’t have ANY of the roads or ferries or buses people rely on every day. This country was built on courage, sacrifices and tough decisions.
Daniel K @ 49
I don’t know where you get the 2006 to 2015 numbers. And I can’t see how any overall projection of everything for the next 10 year could possibly approach accuracy. How do we know what projects will be approved by the state or federal government in, let’s say, 2009? We don’t even know who will be President or Governor in 2009 or what the political makeup of the state legislature or U.S. Congress will be.
The only thing we do know is what specific blueprints have been approved (or at least promised in good faith) for certain taxes and projects. For example, there is a blueprint for spending the recent gasoline tax and other fee increase money, and it shows $7.139 billion out of $8.475 billion being spent on road and highway projects. And $4.059 billion of this $7.139 billion in project money is being spent in King County — which I have said is grossly disproportionate.
Obviously, you can try and guess at lots of other things that may happen in the next ten years, and make the overall numbers come out whichever way you want to. But the gasoline tax increase (and the larger package it was a part of) clearly goes overwhelmingly to King County, and is likely to be overwhelmingly repealed by voters in the rest of the state.
This is the first discussion mostly devoid of innuendo regarding the gas tax. Congratulations except Headlice Loocy! Loocy U R an asshole. Apparently you have no clue about refining processes. Everything in you pea-brained small intellectual prison is about Halliburton, War-for-Oil, Repub profits. I suggest you look at money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price2.htm & money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price4.htm
Congrats on a good thread! Back to work!
Daniel K @ Various
As we both agree, the legislature passed a total of $8.475 billion in tax and fee increases (of which the 9.5 cent gasoline tax increase produces $5.546 billion). $7.139 billion of this is funding road and highway projects. The remaining $1.336 billion is evidently going to other things.
By the way, all you folks who say that the expensive tunnel is not the official replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct are wrong. The Washington Department of Transportation website clearly says that the replacement will be a tunnel, at the hoped for price of $4.188 billion:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/
As I said before, a tunnel will cost at least $1 billion more than replacing it with a structurally sound viaduct built to modern engineering standards.
So there is at least $2.336 billion which can be cut out of the package, including the $1.336 billion which is not going to road and highway projects.
So the voters can pass I-912, and the legislature can come back with, let’s say a nickel increase, in the spring of 2006, which cuts out most of the fat from the package, and still does everything else.
Thor @ 48
I took the contents of the Keep Washington Rolling website at face value and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was illegal for the public agencies in question to join a political committee such as Keep Washington Rolling. At most, they could have taken an up-or-down vote on whether to support or oppose I-912, and only at a public meeting with proper notice and procedures.
As it turned out, Keep Washington Rolling was committing an extremely careless lie in saying that these public agencies (and also many organizations and businesses) were part of its committee. They had simply listed dozens of businesses, organization, and agencies in the hopes that they would be supporters.
My complaint did result in Keep Washington Rolling correcting its website very promptly. Apparently within hours after I filed it. Had I not filed the complaint, they would have continued with this misrepresentation for some time longer.
Unfortunately, it is not illegal for a campaign for or against a ballot measure to claim endorsements from people and organizations that really aren’t endorsing it. The law about false endorsement claims only applies to candidates. If a ballot measure is involved, you can get away with saying almost anything, including intentional falsehoods.
In any event, this PDC investigation may cost a few thousand dollars and has quickly resolved an important issue regarding a ballot measure that will affect over five billion dollars in gasoline tax increases.
The same cannot be said about the lawsuit that gasoline tax supporters filed using public money from San Juan County and the City of Seattle against the NoNewGasTax.Com people. This was the first lawsuit in state history over PDC disclosure violations brought without an investigation by the PDC and Attorney General.
Part of the lawsuit involved technical disclosure violations about the addresses of donors. NoNewGasTax.Com was already dealing satisfactorily with a PDC investigation of this matter. But many tens of thousands of dollars were spent on lawyer fees(and government administration costs) to have a superior court judge address this matter.
The other part of the lawsuit dealt with reporting the value of radio talk show hosts time. This was a novel interpretation of the PDC law, which seems to clearly say that media editorials don’t need to be reported as contributions. It also involves a constitutional first amendment issue of free speech, regardless of what the PDC law is interpreted to mean.
If NoNewGasTax.Com prevails in its position on the radio talk show hosts time issue, then San Juan County and the City of Seattle will have to pay all of the attorney fees that NoNewGasTax.Com incurs in defending the lawsuit. This could become a colossal waste of taxpayer money — first paying the overpriced lawyers at Foster Pepper to file the lawsuit, second paying the defense attorney fees if NoNewGasTax.Com prevais, and third paying the costs of running the court system to consider this matter in any event.
Rabbit @42,
Thanks for that info; I didn’t realize agriculture was already taken care of in the gas tax.
Richard @ 53
The PDC records reflect that the campaign fixed the error before Richard filed his complaint to the AG – that Richard knew that (because the public agencies you alerted demanded that the web site be corrected after you alerted them to the campaign’s screw up) – and that Richard went ahead an demanded that the state waste tax dollars anyway on a problem that had been fixed and did not require a full blown investigation (at least in the view of any reasonable person).
Or, perhaps the AG could have stopped the waste by making a few phone calls prior to knee-jerking Richard’s complaint to the PDC. (The PDC finding: no evidence to support any violation.)
Richard is right about one thing – it was obvious that the campaign had made a stupid mistake. It was also obvious that they fixed it quickly – and not as a result of Richard’s complaint to the AG – but well before he tried to make a “federal” case out of it. But that didn’t stop Richard from trying to make hay out of thin evidence (or no evidence) on the public purse.
That’s just not very responsible. It is cheeky. Candidates use our campaign finance laws all the time to waste money and distract people to cast doubt on their opponents (both the PDC and FEC) and draw attention to themselves as – there is nothing new in that. But that doesn’t make it right.
Oh. And thanks to Richard for reminding us that the Keep Washington Rolling campaign did other stupid wasteful things too – just like he did.