What happens when politicians create a special new election date in order to place a tax increase before voters … when least expected?
Did I mention that, as the Seattle Times reported, Proposition 1 “enjoyed massive support among politicians, labor unions, environmentalists, social-equity groups and business coalitions”?
Or that the YES campaign outspent the NO side by $654,922 to a mere $7,700, a nearly 100 to 1 margin?
The answer: On Tuesday, voters in one of the most liberal counties in America said NO. A solid 55 percent rejected the ballot measure.
Proposition 1 would have hiked King County’s 9.5‑cent sales tax by 0.1 percent and imposed a $60 annual car-tab fee. The idea was to provide more funding for mass transit and local roads, with 60 percent of that revenue going toward the area’s mass transit system.
Transit officials argued that without the additional dough they’d have to make deep service cuts.
“The voters are not rejecting Metro; they are rejecting this particular means of funding Metro,” explained County Executive Dow Constantine. “We know the people of King County love and value their transit service.”
Love? Perhaps. Ridership is reportedly at a near-record high, about 400,000 a day.
Value? Not so much.
This very “progressive” electorate expressed, with utmost clarity, their unwillingness to pay higher taxes for transit. Further, there’s an unmistakable signal in the refusal of King County Metro officials to consider raising the price of their beloved service to become sustainable.
Isn’t it only fair to ask those riding the bus to pay the fare?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “Value the Vote”
Nothing that “enjoyed massive support among politicians, labor unions, environmentalists, social-equity groups and business coalitions” could possibly be good for the country.
.… Isn’t it only fair to demand of those that ride the bus, they pay the fare …?
Are you kidding?
What are you?!
Some kind of Libertarian or other, I’ll wager! B)
And don’t forget about the jitney option, Paul. In California, I remember a story last year, that the new smartphone apps are enabling nonlicensed transportation services to flourish. Of course the state bureau in charge of stopping things ruled these services need to be regulated and prosecuted. But the alternative economy will not be denied. I.e. THE economy.
2WarAbnVet, firstly thanks for your service. & you hit the nail on the head! & the other Brians are right too. BTW, Mr. Wright, I do use Uber & am grateful to ride in a clean car for less money. Now as to Paul’s column… wouldn’t it be obvious that those riding the Metro should pay for the Metro?! My behind, that the extra tax would actually be used for the stated purpose. Government has a way of eating up tax revenue & it is never enough.
I believe that the Seattle Metro (along with “public transportation authorities”) in areas of low taxes like Boston & new York City, HAVE REJECTED PAID ADVERTISEMENTS, PUT UP-OR WANTING TO BE PUT UP BY PRIVATE GROUPS– AGAINST JIHAD; SUPPORT OF ISRAEL; AND –TAKEN FROM THE FBI WEBSITE-PHOTOS OF WANTED TERRORISTS- WITH THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE FBI OFFICE IN CHARGE.
If the “transportation authorities” can turn down this advertising (paid, not free)-why hold they get fare increases or tax money?
If the people that paid the fare rode the bus, there’d be no room on the bus for the subsidized people that ride at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayers.
If a car costs about 35 cents per passenger mile to operate, the bus costs 50 cents per passenger mile while the rider pays about 17 cents per passenger mile. The difference in cost is loaded on the taxpayers, which is why they almost never get a say. That the politicians actually put this to a vote means that someone screwed up.
“Isn’t it only fair to ask those riding the bus to pay the fare?”
We wouldn’t be asking this question, if government wasn’t in the bus transportation business, and prevented a free market from providing bus transportation. If we had a free market, there’d be all kinds of choices for consumers of paid transportation, besides buying your own car. And likely many of them would be less expensive than government’s current provided transportation, even when subsidized.
Since when has government provided a good/service better than the free market? It never has.