The good argument that gives the game away
There’s one argument against 912 that wasn’t directly addressed in this article, and unfortunately, it’s the most effective argument that the gas taxers have. Unfortunately, it’s also the argument that gives the whole game away.
The argument is embodied here at the NW Progressive Institute blog, where they’ve been posting weekly photos of destroyed infrastructure and insisting that it will happen here if we repeal 912.
The argument, which has gained in popularity since Hurricane Katrina, is that because the tax increase is set to pay (maybe) for fixing vital infrastructure such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct, rolling back the gas tax will prevent us from doing it. But that’s hardly true.
I certainly believe that fixing the Viaduct and other public structures in danger from earthquakes should be a top government priority. But it appears that opponents of I-912 disagree with me. If they agreed with me, then they would certainly believe that such improvements should be made before raising taxes. Then, we can have a vote on whether or not to raise taxes for less vital issues. But, of course, that’s not the way it works.
It’s an old, old political game. First, you fully fund all the less popular parts of the budget. Then, you raise taxes in order to pay for the clearly important parts, and when the people cry foul against the tax increase, they are quieted by a hush from their betters who point out that their taxes are being raised for a Very Important Thing.
It’s an old game, but it’s usually played a bit more subtly. Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina made “progressives” like those mentioned above a bit too confident in their argument. Now that they’ve made it so strongly, they’ve given the game away.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Well, we have a message - priorities of government, please :-).
Thanks, Timothy.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Classic political stuff, from someone who held elective office 13 years, and knows how the game is played.
Precisely, fund all the crap, fluff, and take care of your friends, then plead poverty for the projects folks really want, and make them raise taxes to pay for it.
Kinda like Sims and parks.
Kinda like your fire district, who sells EMS levys to the old folks, so they think they get a free ride to the hospital, then try and charge them $600 for the trip.
Yahearme? Mill Creek?
October 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
I am not saying that government does not work the dodge you are suggesting, but pressure on annual road maintenance and repair budgets is such that major capital projects will absolutely require new funding sources. And I, for one, am unwilling to see these projects held “hostage” until such time as everything else is worked out to my personal satisfaction. The gas tax may not be perfect, but it’s a user fee and as such is good enough in my book.
In any case, it seems to me that gas taxes should be going up by a penny or two every year just to accomodate the effects of inflation, so given that we only do this intermittently, the most recent increase isn’t that far out of line, especially with the earmarks for capital programs included in the original legislation.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
HERE is a must read…
One more time for the oldie but goodie line… priorities of government, please
October 26th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Timothy,
My letter to the editor was published today. It takes on both I-900 and I-912, which I see as two of a kind.
Read it in the Seattle Times: A hole in the wallet
October 26th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Patrick;
If I may comment: The letter was definitely well-written and got the message across that gov’t needs to set priorities. This do everything for everybody “groupthink” is insanity.
We need a Priorities of Government model where safety, then congestion relief, then mass transit, then the “rest” is more appropiate…
Today, the editorial board of The Chronicle in Chehalis spoke. Mostly NO on 912 (but had supported Dino Rossi through and through the whole mess) but the one YES guy said regional funding is better. All I see that as is retaliation.
Again, priorites of government. Let the lower-level stuff get voter approval for additional taxes…
October 26th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Oh and NO on I-900, the overreaching Eymanist initiative. It’s well-intended, but will overstress the State Auditor’s Office and is underfunded.
(Okay, I admit: I voted Yes on the Senate Joint Resolution, Yes on 912 and No to the rest. The initiative process is being abused by special interest groups - from those of one person [Tim Eyman] to insurance companies [I-330].)
October 27th, 2005 at 4:44 am
BINGO!! you hit the nail on the head. Thats why education takes 2/3s of the state budget and why they still are not paying teachers any more than they ever have and why they wont. This is also why the road infestructure is so deteriorated in the first place.