With only a matter of days to go before the September 16 primary election, I thought I would put in a good word for the much beleaguered Seattle city Initiative-77, a.k.a. the espresso tax for early child care and development programs in Seattle.

The notion of charging Seattle espresso lovers ten cents per cup when they patronize a coffee shop has been voted a big thumbs down in most of the Seattle media. Not surprisingly, many a coffee shop I patronize is campaigning against the tax as well.

In my brief career as an initiative signature gatherer last summer I collected signatures for I-77. One woman signed it while holding onto a 20 oz. latte that cost her $3.83 at the Peet's coffee bar in the Larry's Market in Lower Queen Anne. By my own estimate this woman also happened to pay 33 cents in state sales tax with her purchase. She would have paid a fraction of the cost for her beverage if she had purchased the ingredients at Larry's and prepared it at home. She wouldn't have paid the state sales tax either. Now why is it a crime against humanity to suggest that she pay an extra ten cents to help out Seattle's underfunded early child care and development programs when she buys her latte at a highly inflated price at Peets?

One of the misconceptions about the espresso tax is that it is "ridiculous" to treat espresso beverages purchased in coffeshops and restaurants as "luxury" or "sin" items, as if the two terms are inseparable in how they are applied to taxation in Washington state. In all the arguments against I-77 I've never heard or read anybody point out correctly how coffee is and isn't taxed in Washington state.

Coffee purchased in ground or whole bean form in a grocery store is treated as food, and, hence, not subjected to state taxation. However, coffee purchased in any form, drip or espresso, in a restaurant is subjected to state taxation. Buying a cup of espresso coffee at your neighborhood coffeeshop is already treated as an unnecessary luxury purchase, not a "sin" purchase subjected to a "sin" tax. (Alcohol, for example, is taxed, whether purchased at a tavern, a sports event or a grocery store, and is, therefore, treated as a "sin" purchase subjected to a "sin" tax.). By the standards of state taxation laws in practice I-77 is an entirely legitimate proposition.

The question posed to me often by people I solicited to sign the petition to put I-77 on the ballot was, "What's the connection?" I would reply, "It's a source of revenue for these programs and we drink oceans of espresso beverages in this city." What else do you need to know? Why does the 33 cents the above mentioned woman contributed to the state's general fund help fund the day-to-day operations of a municipality in Washington state she never has, and perhaps never will, set foot in? There are public funds being spent for things we as tax payers never use on a daily basis. This is the way the world works in a complex industrial civilization like our own.

If Seattle coffee drinkers want to opt out of the tax, then they can just buy a cup of drip like I do most of time. You'll get served faster. You will learn how truly bad a cup of drip coffee is at Starbucks, if you are unfortunate to regularly patronize their stores. You will save money on your purchase, plus pay less state sales tax as well.

Yes, I-77 is a short term, piece meal solution to a much bigger problem in Washington state, much less the general fiscal crisis being experienced nationally. A short term, piece meal solution is better than nothing for these programs for the time being. We need to increase the revenues flowing into the state treasury, but that's not going to be happening any time soon. These days Olympia is a place overrun with spineless politicians who live in mortal fear of Tim Eyman's Anti-Tax Jihad and his flock, who listen to right-wing talk radio on KVI and KTTH.

Many observers have characterized I-77 as "stupid." What's stupid about putting an initiative on a ballot with a funding mechanism? I am personally fed up with all these "make a wish" ballot initiatives that ask for something while the state budget is getting cut to the bone by one Tim Eyman tax cut initiative after another. I was more than a little baffled when in 2000 Washington state voters simultaneously passed a wish for a pay raise for the state's teachers and a Tim Eyman tax cut initiative.

If Washington state voters would stop insisting on financially gutting their state government, then there wouldn't be any need for I-77. Vote for I-77 on September 16 and then help yourselves to an espresso drink immediately afterwards. You'll be demonstrating a level of intelligence far higher than the average Washington state voter, who wants government funded services but refuses to pay for them.