By Norman E. Kjono

The voting machines have barely cooled after their work-out in last Tuesday's primary elections and the storm of controversy over Seattle's rejection of a 10 cent tax on espresso has already begun. Sunday September 21, 2003 The Seattle Times published a page of Letters to the Editor about the proposed tax on espresso. Notable among the comments from citizens was an unusually virulent (even for Seattle's "anti" crowd) bit of stereotyping and negative labeling of those who voted against the espresso tax, by Jeff Dixon of Seattle:

"In a whopping victory for caffeine addicts, Initiative 77 has failed ("Latte tax creamed; Leave pot smokers alone, Seattle voters say," Times, page one, Sept. 17). The latte tax has not passed.  Citizens of Seattle were seen prowling Capitol and Queen Anne hills late into the night, high on the drug in celebratory jubilation.   In a Starbucks located on Capitol Hill, citizens were seen pulling $20 bills out of their wallets and purses and passing them to baristas who exchanged them for $4.50 lattes, cappuccinos and other assorted beverages laced with the mind-altering drug.   All over the hill, Seattleites were seen opening their purses and pockets, dropping the change in, and grinning maniacally.  "Thank my lucky stars that latte wasn't $4.60!" exclaimed one woman, who declined to be identified. The barista astutely noted, "Thank my lucky Starbucks." He was looking sullenly back and forth at the change going into the patron's pocket and at his empty tip jar.  Around 4 a.m., a 5-year-old Bellevue boy was getting a double tall with milk, and remarked that it's a good thing the tax didn't go through, as he is on a fixed allowance of $50 per week."

From Mr. Dixon's missive it appears that the only criteria for a new tax is that the "Targets" be "addicts" who are able to pay, including five-year-old kids. And, should one have the temerity to object to a product tax favored by the political elite, barbs of being cheap customers who do not tip and irresponsible parents who let their five-year-old children run around down town at 4:00 in the morning are hurled. Mr. Dixon's missive could have been scripted by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has long promoted the "scientific fact" that caffeine is a dangerous and addictive substance that must therefore be taxed and regulated.

Defeat of the espresso tax is a setback for politicians who cut funding for child care services during the state legislature's last session, perhaps expecting the revenue would be made up by the new tax in beverages already in the wings at the time. Had the espresso tax measure passed we can be assured that the message would have been "the people have spoken," accompanied by stony silence from mainstream media in response to objections. Having met a well-deserved defeat in the polls, however, it seems that the measure's proponents and supporters now choose to lash out through a compliant media at their fellow citizens who refused to fuel yet another special-interest gravy train. The fat lady has not yet sung on this issue. She apparently prefers to sulk and whine, hopefully awaiting her opportunity to bellow glorious arias after the next election passes new "Target Product" taxes that will now-predictably be on the ballot.

At least we have a dialog going on the issue here in Seattle, which is a good thing. The question is, dialog about what? This espresso tax has brought to the fore several important public issues. The most important issue is the basis for Seattle's rejection of the espresso tax. Was this a public and voter rejection of product-specific taxes, or does this recent vote merely point to an entrenchment of an "a tax for thee and not for me" mentality?

We at Forces reserve judgment on the issue at this point. It does seem safe to project that, given the desperate shape of the State of Washington's finances, new taxes are on the immediate horizon. Not only do new taxes on products consumed by a minority of voters, such as tobacco, provide a tax free-ride for the majority but they also provide a safe haven for politicians who do not want to take responsibility for raising taxes. So product taxes through Initiative become the easy-out for both free-riding voters and duplicitous politicians. Few things speak more plainly than ballots, however. 

It is also important to mention that, like I-775 2001 which added 60 cents per pack in new cigarette taxes in Washington, once passed it is possible the new product taxes may not even be used for the purposes stated on the ballot. After I-775 passed Governor Locke and the legislature suspended the application part of that new tax, diverting hundreds of millions in new taxes to the general fund and away from expanding health insurance for kids and the poor. So while we appreciate the apparent angst over kids being left behind because allegedly stingy Seattle voters wouldn't pass a new tax on espresso, we hasten to add that it is quite likely that once the tax was levied its revenues could have been as easily diverted away from kids and health as were revenues from I-775.

Perhaps voting on issues such as these speak more to the value systems of we as a people than they do to the merits of a specific product or its related tax. Accordingly, we believe that future votes on product-related taxes will produce a trend that defines what the present dialog is genuinely about.

It comes down to contrasting views among voters, such as those presented in The Times' Letters to the Editor from Mike Moore and Andy Aanderud. Mr. Aanderud said "I'm sure alot of those latte drinkers were all for [cigarette taxes], but now they are being put in the same situation and singled out as well. Welcome and stand by for the next round."  Mr. Moore opined "You can tax cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, but leave our espresso alone!!"

A first step in resolving the political conundrum of "anti" special-interests is to consider where we stand as individuals on that issue. With whom do you agree, Mr. Moore or Mr. Aanderud?

As you think about that, also consider that The Seattle Times' Letters the Editor included responses from Sweden, the U.K. and Canada, as well as Georgia and Colorado. The Seattle espresso tax also made the NBC evening news on the eve of the vote and to report its outcome. Perhaps it is most important to consider how and why a minor 10 cent tax on espresso in Seattle became nationwide and worldwide news. We believe that is the most important reason of all to begin earnestly considering your position on these issues: mainstream media has chosen to communicate, quite literally, to the world that a new round of taxes on "Target" products is on the horizon.

As you think about your vote on the next product tax consider that what we allow to be done to our neighbors will ultimately be done to us. For those of Mr. Moore's persuasion the message is a little more blunt: what goes around comes around, stick it to your neighbor and perhaps they'll stick it to you. Perhaps Mr. Moore and Mr. Dixon should get together and compare notes: a caffeine addict and an anti could figure out how to stick it to someone else. I suspect that they would choose to promote a new tax on expensive "soft and quilted" toilet paper used only by the rich to conclude an "innovative social policy interaction" that resolved their differences. There's poetic justice in that, however I doubt that Mr. Whipple would go for it because activists would then be "squeezing the Charmin."

It would be better to think that we're all in this world together and that by protecting our neighbor's interests we're actually protecting our own.