)

RE: A King County Council Republican cuts a backroom deal with Larry Phillips, screwing us out of our $30 car tabs in exchange for a lollipop



"Whatever happened to our $30 car tabs?" We hear that all the time and it's about to get worse.



Democrats in Olympia have ignored our repeated votes for $30 car tabs and passed a bill empowering the King County Council to unilaterally jack up car tab taxes WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.



But it's worse than that ... we've learned that one of the Republicans on the King County Council (Jane Hague, Kathy Lambert, Pete von Reichbauer, or Reagan Dunn) has cut a backroom deal with the Democrats (specifically Larry Phillips, the senior Democrat on the Council) and sold their vote in exchange for a lollipop in 2012 county budget (in King County parlance, a lollipop is a pet project or earmark). It's totally sleazy under any circumstances -- ignoring the voters' ballot box mandate -- but it's beyond the pale to sell a council vote in exchange for a pork barrel earmark.



All 5 Democrats on the Council (Larry Phillips, Larry Gossett, Bob Ferguson, Julia Patterson, and Joe McDermott) will vote to unilaterally jack up car tab taxes, but they need one sell-out Republican to get it passed. (After reading this: "King County Council member Larry Phillips, meanwhile, tells PubliCola he’s optimistic that the Democrats on the council will manage to sway at least one Republican vote", we did some investigating and learned about Phillips' backroom deal).



Here's the email addresses for the 4 Republicans on the King County Council. Tell them -- firmly, passionately, and professionally -- to not stick their finger in the eyes of the taxpayers. Tell them to respect our vote and most importantly, tell them to not cut a deal with Democrats by selling their vote for a lollipop. Email them right away:



jane.hague@kingcounty.gov; kathy.lambert@kingcounty.gov; pete.vonreichbauer@kingcounty.gov; reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov; tim_eyman@comcast.net

Too often, Republicans in the minority believe they've gotta cut sleazy back-room deals with majority Democrats to get re-elected (as if selling out the taxpayers for a pork barrel project is going to be well-received by voters).



We need your help to put a bright spotlight on this potential corruption. Send them your thoughts right away BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

We need that expense and more taxes on stuff like candy and soda. The new tabacco tax is good too. The government is going to take money, it's up to us where they get it from. I'd rather they take little things like extra fees on tabs then cut major spending on shitt that actualy matters. Maybe there's more to the story, and if there is, I wouldn't mind being enlightend.

The car tab initiative is the only Eyman-sponsored initiative I have voted for. It passed shortly after I first came to Washington. For me, it was a no-brainer at the time, given the alternative, which was having to pay about $600 to register my 1996 Honda Civic. That excise tax was the sort of thing we kicked the Brits out of this country over, and it needed to go.

That said, $30 (or the slightly larger amount we are paying now) is clearly not cutting it. Roads everywhere are getting worse, and car tabs being too cheap is arguably the key thing keeping us from fixing more of them. I would be in favor of slight increases for everybody, with larger increases for larger vehicles. In my mind, the ones doing the most damage to the roads should be the ones paying the most to maintain them. To be clear, I'm not advocating for a return to the old excise tax system (or anything too close to it), but I do think we are getting off too cheap. When I lived in Texas (1990s), I paid something like $70/yr. to register my cars, and it didn't kill me. We should probably be paying something slightly more than that amount, considering the complications associated with building roads and highways in our region (namely lots and lots of water and mountains to be negotiated).

Jgrizzle's point is well taken. We can pay for infrastructure through infrastructure use fees or we can pay for it by some other means. Frankly, I'd rather have it itemized as what it actually pays for, as that keeps things logical for us citizen folk and prevents politicians from diverting funds we think we are allocating to one critical service to something else (or worse, to their own pet projects).

I'm less gung ho on taxes that feed the General Fund without a clear purpose, like the candy and soda tax. I would argue that candy and soda (in moderation) contain nutrients vital to a happy childhood. I don't put them on the same level as non-medicinal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, the taxes on which I don't like but can't honestly argue with. Rather, I would like to see general fund monies itemized to their allocated purposes. Let's call a spade a spade (or a school tax a school tax, as the case may be). And for Christ's sake, let's start thinking twice before we approve everything Tim Eyman dangles in front of our noses as a surefire savings for the average citizen. More money today, while it may buy you an extra latte each week, isn't necessarily the way to a better tomorrow.

Well if its the kids eating the candy and soda, shouldn't we tax it to help with their education? You said our expenses should correlate with what they fund.

While that's not exactly what I said, I can see your point. Want to assess a tax to pay for education? Great. I will gladly pay my share. All I ask is that you call it what it is. Furthermore, in my opinion, if it's for something as critical as education, it should be coming directly out of our income, not predicated on the hope that a bunch of already economically-depressed citizens will continue to buy soda and candy at the same rate, despite increased costs.

I don't buy the arguments for favoring sales taxes over income and property taxes. Ultimately, I guess it comes down to Americans not wanting to face the reality of how much of their income actually goes to taxes, whether it's via direct taxation on income or via consumer spending. If something is critical to us as a society, we should be willing to pay for it out of our income so that it will always be accounted for.

This isn't a catch-all statement; there are plenty of examples of services that I think should be paid for by only the people who use them (fishing licenses are an example we should all be able to relate to). I believe car tabs fall into this area too. It makes sense that if you want to drive a personal vehicle on state and federal roads, you should be required to pay for the damage you do to those roads, while someone who does not drive on those roads should not need to pay for their maintenance. This case is a little less clear though, as it can easily be argued that even people who don't drive on roads do depend on them as routes for suppliers of the goods they buy. Perhaps there should be a small, base income tax for infrastructure and a supplemental registration fee for those who want to drive their own cars.

I won't pretend I think these matters are simple to resolve, but I think it's time we took a close look at the way we have been designing taxes, as they don't seem to be effective all the time. I also think that knowing where their tax dollars are being spent might lend some valuable perspective to those who argue that we are over-taxed.

I'm against the license tab excise tax for the same reason I was against the soda and candy tax - they just don't make sense to me. Both go (went) into the general fund, not to infrastructure. I'm perfectly fine with the gas tax and some general fund appropriations to road and bridge infrastructure.

I also think a state income tax would be a better method for funding state gov't. through the general fund than making every retail business in the state work for free as a state sales tax collector.

Without getting too far off topic, I thought the soda and candy tax was stupid. It was passed by the Legislature to help offset state gov't. revenue loss due to the recession. OK, but who the hell buys most of the soda and candy in this state (besides Todd's candy van)? Poor and low income people tend to buy more soda, candy, and junk food per capita than higher income earners. No skin off my nose, I buy a soda once every month or two. But since I didn't lose my job in the recession, I could have afforded to pay more tax than someone collecting unemployment. Oh well, can't let logic get in the way of bad government.

Sg

I barely ever buy soda or candy...and there's not actually any candy in the Murder Van...

Fish on...

Todd

Then maybe we should tax plastic sheeting and generic quarantine attire.

I personally really enjoy buying licenses for all my trailers. I can only haul one at a time. But hey, it all goes to a good cause.......doesn't it?

Of course. We can fund things like this:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Construction-Mistake-to-Cost-Taxpayers-97199654.html

What point did Americans decide that only everyone else needs to pay the taxes that keep our roads, bridges, schools, ports, parks and military up and running?

Every time I hear some little bitch piss and moan about having to fork over $50 I want to kick him square in the nuts.

Pikers. Dont want to pay taxes? Fine, stay the [censored] off my roads & bridges, homeschool your kids and GTFO of America if you hate it so much..

i feel we should tax those who flyfish and those who bassfish. and triple tax those who flyfish and mow lawns.

I think we should tax trolls. Their content is a waste of bandwidth.

I vote for a fat tax based on BMI, or maybe caliper measurement. BMI is pretty much outdated and/or wrong like most other government science. Maybe it should be your mile time or pullups or something.

I mean we already have the sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and candy. Lets get rid of the candy tax and go straight for gluttony. This way if you can't afford to eat healthy food, at least there will be a monetary incentive to eat less garbage food, and maybe take a jog around the trailer park every now and then.

Your car insurance charges you more for being a bad driver, and the life insurance company already charges you more for being a fat ass and a smoker. Why hasn't the gov't got on board?

There's no doubt that our nation's obesity problem, and all the associated diseases and ailments, will end up costing our health care system more than everything else combined, and it won't end soon...as a nation we get fatter and fatter every day, and there is a ton of very young very fat kids out there...

Fish on...

Todd

Hmmm... a fat tax would likely put me in a slightly higher bracket, but as long as it's clearly itemized and is used strictly to combat obesity issues, I suppose I'd be a hypocrite not to pay up (or perhaps slim down).

I think it sounds good. Tax fast foods. And not let fat people claim disability just for being fat. I think we should make fat people parking spots at the back of the parking lots, and move all the junk food to the back of the store. Also put a weight limit on the scooter cart things.

LOL. When does money become motivation. $1k/yr, $2k/yr? Most likely never (I think that is what I got out of Freakonomics). At one point I tried to get my company healthier to cut down on sick/doctor days, we got rid of the bad stuff in the snack closet, allowing the worst thing to be trail mix. A lot of weeks our office administrator would cut up veggies and fruit for the staff to snack on. They complained bitterly about that (especially vegetables).

Then we decided to pay for gym memberships, whatever gym they wanted to go to, as long as they were going. A few took advantage, and the rest complained bitterly that the few who were taking advantage were getting $50-60 a month more than those who weren't.

I would like to end this by talking about how much more productive and less sick that the staff was after we went healthy, but unfortunately the system was only in place for about 9 months before the economy went TU and all the complainers were shown the door. Although looking at it the staff who did not like healthy stuff, or exercise was generally less productive and easier to lay off.

Now everyone left goes to the gym regularly, but we all did before the program started anyway.

What happens in a gym shower stays in the gym shower...and since when is slipping another employee a "carrot" considered bad form?

Paying your airfare based upon your poundage would be a more equitable system also.

+1

I heard an obese woman once who said that she was discriminated against, and it was no different than an old person or a person of color being discriminated against.

I called bullsh!t, of course.

If you take a black man, an old man, and an obese man out to a dersert island with nothing but water and bread, and you pick them up a couple months later, you'll be picking up a skinny black man, a skinny old man, and a skinny man that used to be obese.

Obesity, in almost all cases, is simply due to a poor diet and lack of exercise. The fact that we're going to just sit here and allow it to cripple the country with escalating health care costs is a disgrace.

Damn Dan, how do you really feel/

I read recently that obesity will soon more than double our health care costs which are already thru the roof. I really have no idea how you can get folks to eat less. All the fast food resturants now post the calories of the various "foods", but I dont think most peole care. Hell, you can get a cup of coffe now that thas has more than 500 calories.

I totally agree Dan. I've always been curious about the stories of the 800 lb people that had to be placed on a sheet of plywood and carried by firemen out through a hole torn in their house wall because they were so fat. Somebody had to dump Twinkies and Ding Dongs in their face to eat. Tax those food providing idiots too.

Dave..........500 calories in a cup of coffee? Must be a morning fishing on the Harrison.

Yep, I double checked to be sure. One of their"coffees" is more than 600 calories.

Remember those HUGE pancakes at the resturant near the Harrison. I think that place burned down.

F'em. . ..they won't be able to outrun the zombies when the apacolypse comes .. . . .they will finally be usefull . . . .. bait ! !

+10000 Exactly spot on!


Fishy

I'm not buying the fact that it's fat people causing a huge rise in health care costs. Certianly they may have an impact but many probably die off before being too much of a burden.

Nope-I think they are just one BIG red herring or HUGE mis-direct!

I think the ballooning health care cost is 99% due to our borders being wide open to anybody that needs health care!

Well, you're simply wrong.

Heart disease, adult-onset diabetes, and many other afflictions are directly related to obesity and all place a huge burden on health care costs.

You can choose not to buy it if you want...........just like you can choose not to buy that the sun rises in the east.

Aunty is pretty much right. Increased early mortality for obese people decreases their actual health care costs over time. The difference is only something like a 4% increase in health care costs. The cost in time and productivity lost to the companies or public sector jobs that the un-healthy people hold is not quantified.

My fat-tax idea was tongue in cheek, obviously. Although sin taxes are real, gluttony might be taking it too far. What I found anectdotally was that un-healthy people tended to spend more sick leave on actually being sick, rather than screwing off and having fun which is what I prefer my staff to do with their leave.

Another way the gov't could reduce obesity and save money would be to cut corn and soybean subsidies (will never happen). Try living a week by not eating something made with subsidized corn or soybeans, and you will find you are eating much healthier (feed lot beef counts).

So when fat people reach their last days, they don't rack up the same kind of costs others do when THEY reach the end of their lives? Why would that be?

I'd like to read that recent study and check out the methodology used to draw their conclusions. Any link?

Fat people are allowed to be fat...there's no doubt about that, and no way in the world to tell them that they can't be...just like smokers can smoke, drinkers can drink, and if pot is legalized, potheads can legally get as stoned as they want...

But...just like smokers pay more for health insurance, so should those who maintain a lifestyle that will make them a bigger burden on the health care system...and anyone who thinks obesity (not necessarily just being overweight) is not a huge drain on our health care system, and destined to be a larger and larger drain as time goes by, is in total denial.

Diabetes, heart conditions...huge dollars. Even the orthopedic costs are considerably higher for obese people...knees, ankles, feet, hips.

The obesity epidemic will not only be the biggest cost for health care, it will only get worse as we continue as a nation to get fatter and fatter...

Fish on...

Todd

"Obesity outranks both smoking and drinking in its deleterious effects on health and health costs."

http://www.glahder.dk/engelsk/3xB2009/JunkFood/obesity%20Roland%20Sturm.pdf

"Recent headlines tell the story of a growing epidemic in America. In August, it was reported that people who are 80 or more pounds overweight live three to 12 fewer years than people who are normal weight, defined as between 18.5 and 25 on the body mass index scale. According to an article published in Health Affairs, one third of the rise in health care costs since 1987 is due to the rise in obesity. It is clear that obesity is taking its toll on our nation's physical and financial well-being, and unless we act, our national waistline and debt will expand exponentially.

In Texas, the economic impact of chronic diseases, including obesity, is staggering. A 2007 Milken Institute study indicates that the cost of treatment was $17.2 billion in 2003 alone — and this skyrockets to $92.5 billion when you account for lost workplace productivity. This growing problem is a sad reminder that when you get right down to it, we don't really have a health care system in America. Instead, we have a “sick care” system of uneven quality that uses most of its resources on treating people after they're already sick."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6679585.html


All kinds of statistics and information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

Those are just the top three in a Google search...there are literally thousands of documents out there saying the same thing as these three.

Fish on...

Todd

The second article down (written in 1999) shows on the left sidebar the gist of the study.

Obesity Scholarly Articles

The article is "Direct Health Care", and IMO the intrinsic costs are so much different than "Direct Health Care", that ultimately there is much more cost associated with being obese than not. Maybe the study was sponsored by Frito Lay or something. There are thin people who smoke or have diabetes, but they comprise much smaller portion of America.

Point taken.

However, getting cancer and having your joints give out due to old age are things you really can't do anything about. You CAN do something about obesity, though. That's something that's in your control, so racking up the health care costs of being an adult-onset diabetic or replacing joints due to punishment and not age is a little different.

At least that's the way I see it. I'm an insulin-dependant diabetic, as you know. And I do mt best to make sure I'm not a burden on the health care system by keeping my blood glucose in tight control. But mostly I do it because I don't want to die.

I don't dislike obese people..........I just wonder why they aren't more motivated to live.

Are you saying obese people have a higher quality of life than those who aren't obese?

I'm not sure I follow.

Hmmm, most of the obese people I know or have know admit to needing to lose "10 or 20" pounds, instead of 100. I think denial is a big part, no pun intended.

My mom's diabetic, but she can barely maintain her weight, and she eats me under the table at dinner. But she's got numerous health problems, so I have no idea what's at the root of her diabetes, other than a lifetime (86) of poor eating habits and 46 years of smoking.

Sg

Are you kidding?

Haven't you heard the rumor about fat chicks in the sack?

It was the '60's baby.....

Wrong. You have a habit Hank of making assumptions. There's this thing called verification; you should try it. Mom began smoking at age 21, quit at age 67. While the lung effects are largely healed, she has a host of health problems.

Sg