If I-695 passes how will the state continue to fund the programs in place. The state will lose 1.1 Billion. I don't like paying $500 for license tabs either but this is not the answer. Sure the excise tax is alot of money, but at least we don't have state income tax. Lets figure something else out. This is a bad plan.

-- Mike Crockett (crockettmj@aol.com), September 16, 1999

Answers

MC...........

Ask yourself,"do we need to fund all the programs that are in place?"

I think not!!! and if you want a place to start not funding try the Rural Mobility Grants. Okanogan County just got $300,000.00 for a bus demo project after it was voted down with a 67% NO vote. Sounds to me like we said NO THANKS and they said... aw, come on and take the money, we have to do something with it........

Should be interesting to run a state funded bus system in a county with over 5000 square miles and less than 6 people per square mile. But, we have money so lets find a place to spend it.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there are other stupid projects that the state throws money at?

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 16, 1999.

If you are looking for wastefulness there is no better place to find it than in our government. It is not a question of funding programs currently in place, it is about analyzing where our money should be going and where it actually goes. For example, our local governments are always complaining about lack of funds for vital social programs, but as we in King County know, we now have a new almost $600 million stadium built with taxpayer money after we voted NO! Government gives our money out to whomever and whenever it wants without, or often directly contrary to, voter opinion. This is WRONG and it must STOP! Forcefully reducing government waste while giving the average citizen a little much needed relief from overtaxation is a good idea. No, it's a great idea. 44 other states are able to provide services to their citizens without the level of taxation here in Washington. Keep in mind that in many cases this is while maintaining higher standards of education and better systems of public transportation in their large cities. The status quo in Washington is not working and it's high time we the people did something about it!

-- Jennifer Loveless (jennh@u.washington.edu), September 16, 1999.

The argument that somehow the state is going to "lose" money is completely absurd. In business a loss is referred to as less earnings for a time period in comparison to the same time period one year earlier. For example if Boeing states earnings for a quarter represent a "loss", it means the earnings were less than the same quarter one year earlier. Boeing still had sales and still had revenue coming in, it just happened to be less. Boeing would not necessarily raise prices to cover this loss. They would look at ways to maximize efficiencies and maintain customer loyalty by not raising prices. Government should take this same approach.

The biggest expense of any organization is employee payroll. If you want budget cuts that do not cut necessary services, explore government employee compensation packages, specifically retirement. Government retirement programs average the last three years of an employee's salary, then that average is used as an annual retirement salary. Government agencies maintain small staffs to maximize overtime pay. Once three years of an overtime-enhanced salary is established and the employee retires, the government must pay the inflated retirement salary. How many former employees are enjoying this "benefit"?

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

James:

Government employers operate in an environment of many labor-friendly state and federal laws. You may not like it, and I don't, but what will happen is positions will be cut and personnel will be laid off, long before retirement and other benefits are reduced. They have labor contracts. They have personnel who have worked for government for 20 or 30 years, and made contributions to the retirement program, and are entitled to the retirement benefits they have earned. People often want a civil service job because of the benefits. That was part of the "deal" when they were hired.

So your solution for the goverment funding problem created by Initiative 695, is to take the money out of the employee compensation package? Next time your employer runs short, they can just cut your retirement and other benefits to cover it. Great idea. Excellent way to spend a lot on lawyers, and judgements against the employer.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 16, 1999.