Either Way, Transportation is Taxing

opinion by John C. Flavin

"My goal is from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, that Permanent Offense will distribute to Tim a total of $100,000 over and above expense reimbursement. We can keep the disbursements steady throughout or start out smaller and spike it after the signatures are submitted, whatever keeps our reserves adequate to accomplish our goals." (Excerpt from Tim Eyman e-mail on 1/30/00 to then vice-president/secretary Suzanne Karr of anti-tax initiative maker Permanent Offense. Source: Public Disclosure Commission at www.pdc.wa.gov/compliance/reports/default.asp)

Tim Eyman and his apparently for-profit Permanent Offense, cannot be trusted any more than our elected officials. By default, then, greater caution is sensible when endorsing PO's goals, because there is no electoral recourse if implementation of its initiatives proves harmful. The most recent initiative from PO has been I-776--the "$30 car tabs for everyone" initiative. Sponsors of I-776 have also proposed Referendum 50 to repeal a Democrat-led tax increase intended to help pay for the variety of transportation problems in Washington. Now, vehicles of all sizes, millions and counting, have an indisputably harmful effect on all of us. Proponents of "$30 Tabs for Everyone" suggest fewer taxes and offer no comprehensive plan as a solution to this predicament. Opponents support a tax consistent with one's transportation choices. If drivers want their cake, they'll have to pay for it.

Proponents: You drive big car, you do big damage, you pay small sum.

Opponents: You drive small car, you do small damage, you pay small sum.

If the distinction is still not clear, consider this basic definition of tax: "a burdensome charge, obligation, or demand." It is inherent in taxes that the taxed should pay more than they want to pay. If we were to end all government involvement regarding transportation, from fixing potholes to providing mass transit to financially taxing common citizens, our burden would quickly become very different. Rather than pay a progressive tax that is proportionate to the size and cost of our vehicles, we would get cancer and heart disease more frequently (who pays those medical bills?), listen to a lot more talk radio, and maintain our vehicle's suspension systems monthly.

Well, no one wants that, not even a Libertarian. Soon, we would levy a tax and pay government employees to fill potholes to save our cars. We would provide mass transit to keep our freeways flowing, and we would require everyone to get regular emissions tests to keep the cancer and heart disease patients out of our hospitals and the government out of our pockets to pay their million dollar bills.

Oh, wait! We already do all that. And still, we have cancer, congestion, and potholes.

So the choice is this: "$30 tabs for everyone" and subsequently fewer dollars to pay for transportation improvements, or change people's choices by placing the "burdensome obligation" on that which is most responsible for the problem: large vehicles with poor gas mileage. Could it be any simpler?