I-912 Proponents Tax The Truth

One of the problems regarding the debate about the gas tax, that I-912 is looking to eliminate, is the amount of disinformation opponents are spewing forth in their zealous attempt to get something for nothing. The Seattle PI ran a letter in yesterday's paper that was more of the same:

If a 9.5 cents-per-gallon emergency gas tax will generate $9 billion over the next 16 years, where will the 28 cents-per-gallon regular gas tax that we now pay go? That will generate $26.5 billion over the same time frame, yet I hear no one on either side of the issue talking about current revenues. Aren't the current regular gas taxes relevant in this debate? I know that the taxes I pay are relevant to me.

Not one project that is planned with the new gas tax will be fully funded by that tax. Isn't that relevant? The new taxes are starter taxes only. We will then be asked again for more money to finish projects that had starter money but no finish money. And I haven't even mentioned that all these projects will not come in under or close to budget (they never do). Wouldn't honest dialogue indicate that this is just the tip of the iceberg?

...

In the face of such bunk I hope that I was not the only person to respond with a letter of my own. In case the PI chooses not to print it, here it is in full:

Like so many others, Mr. Popson has distorted the facts as he tries to argue against the gas tax. Unfortunately the PI has chosen to print his letter to the editor, offering his fallacies an audience, and surely sowing the seeds for further distortions.

So here are the facts: the 9.5 cent-per-gallon tax, which will be introduced gradually over the next 4 years, will generate $5.5 billion, not Mr. Popson's figure of $9 billion, over the next 16 years. Mr. Popson's simple math based on his wrong number therefore comes up with another wrong number of how much money the existing gas tax would generate in the same time frame. Instead of his $26.5 billion figure, the revenue from existing taxes, based on known consumption information would generate about half that much.

However, more outrageous than Mr. Popson's faulty math is the claim that "not one project that is planned with the new gas tax will be fully funded by that tax." This is simply not true. 270 different projects will be funded by the transportation package that was passed this spring with bi-partisan support, and most of these will be fully funded by it. Furthermore, these projects are all over the state, and while most of the media's attention has been directed at two large projects in King County, the SR-520 bridge or Alaskan Way Viaduct, a considerable amount of the investment citizens statewide are being asked to make in our transportation infrastructure will go toward fully funded projects in counties far from the Puget Sound area.

If people are going to vote on the future of Washington's transportation infrastructure, they need to properly educate themselves about the issue. Don't leave your education in the hands of a talk radio shock jock, a petition signature gatherer, or someone like Mr. Popson (or myself for that matter). Go look up the available information online or at your local library, or contact your legislator to inquire about the facts. Yet do not abdicate your responsibility to the economic future of our state by blindly voting against this gas tax just because it is a tax, because those 270 planned projects will not pay for themselves any other way no matter how much you wish they might.

(nwphtt60)