So far, it seems that the majority of concerned citizens who are pushing the 'no' vote for I-695 are from Seattle. I've lived in this state for over twenty years, and have watched Seattle influence state votes time after time. Even the rebuttal in the voter's pamphlet has a very obvious Seattle slant to it. With all the debate over this issue going on, I would love to see some figures on how many funds are going to Seattle and King County versus the rest of the state. I live in the country and need a good, reliable car and I'm not rich. I resent paying huge fees if I'm not getting equal benefit.

-- Scott Kelley (skelley@ncia.com), October 10, 1999

Answers

Scott,

Of course king county gets a large portion of the mvet. when a county has more than 1/2 of the state pop. there is more demand on the infrastructure, services etc. that is a fact of life, and like it or not, they can carry a vote. If you don't like it, how about writing legislation to have a regional gov't. East/West. then there will be the inequity of spokane carrying the votes.

As far as getting equal benefit, you live in the country. You commute to work, and you get more than an equal benefit. the cost of sprawl to the citizens living in the central city is expensive. developers and rural homeowners have been subsidized for expanding growth into the undeveloped areas of the state. It is a fact that the cost of services rise significantly the further from the central city you go. You enjoy the benefits of open space, but believe it or not, you do not pay enough as it is.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

Tell you what, Tom... If Scott isn't paying enough, then you aren't either. Be a good chap, and voluntarily pay twice as much as you need to for your tax burden. After all, we can't very well have you wandering about with a heavy conscience, can we?

BTW... you WILL continue to pay more then you need too to put tabs on your car after this passes, right? Both you, your union buds (and of course, just like I-200, union rank and file will vote for this) and your entire family, right?

Didn't think so.

Westin

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, & that one word is 'to be prepared.'" Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 10, 1999.

"It is a fact that the cost of services rise significantly the further from the central city you go" Kind of makes you wonder how the original settlers could afford to live at all, don't it?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

Westin,

Ok I'll pay twice as much to subsidize scott's wasteful style of living, then maybe I'll give a stranger my credit card and tell him to have a fun time. Nice argument, but it fell way too short. I am talking about the price of sprawl here. Is that beyond your mental capacity.

If scott cannot afford to commute or needs an affordable commuter, why doesn't he take the bus, or here's a novel idea, move closer to town. quit bitching about how much you have to pay because of your commute, it is a choice you made on your own, and everyone has to pay the consequences of sprawl.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

Craig,

you can do better than that.

maybe because the "original settlers" didn't have to pay for all of the services and facilities we have today. They were also subsidized by the federal govt. to move out here.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

Tom,

Since you strike me as the kind of liberal union lackey that would, say, continue to support the president even if you've just viewed a video tape of ol' Billy molesting a girl scout troop, what say we not worry about the shortness of my argument.

This thing is going to pass... and big. You have already suggested that we don't pay enough. I suggest that such a position is sick.

Westin

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 10, 1999.

once again, falling short of a good rebutal. 695 has nothing to do with bill and child molesters. Maybe I need to make myself more clear. Do you like to subsidize Scott's expensive lifestyle? There's the inequity. you can keep all of the dirty beurocrats out of this conversation, we all know they are no good, but like it or not, they are smart enough to cut the workers below them before they trim any fat out of their budgets.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

Scott, I'm not sure if the thread is still there, but if it is, you might want to check out the one labeled "East vs West". I found a report that counted up all transportation taxes and fees collected by county and compared it to the amount of transportation funding directed to the counties.

Turns out that the Puget Sound counties actually pay in more to the system than they get back (yes, that even includes ferries), while pretty much all the Eastern Washington counties get more than the put in. Since Puget Sound counties have a much higher density than those in Eastern Washington, there are more people that pay into the system. This is opposed to rural counties that have much fewer people, but may in fact have more roads.

So instead of resenting the Puget Sound residents for sucking all your money away, it is quite the reverse. We are subsidizing your needs. Of course that probably goes towards most of your utilities as well. I hear that it costs quite a bit of money to run phone lines and maintain them to the more rural areas of the state. But of course those costs are distributed to those of us in urban and

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

The thread is still there.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001KZa

Quite an eye opener about how the Seattle area DOES NOT get more than its fair share of the wealth

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

I heard recently how the City of Seattle is paying our record amounts of overtime. No wonder the people of Seattle hate I-695, their economy will dry up with the overtime.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 10, 1999.

and if seattle's economy dries up, what happens to the rest of the state. like the thread above states, the urban areas (seattle) is subsidizing the rest of the rural areas. there goes the subsidy, and look has to pay their fair share.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 10, 1999.

"Billy molesting a girl scout troop"

Damn, I didn't know the President was a Libertarin?

-- Mikey (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 11, 1999.

"As far as getting equal benefit, you live in the country. You commute to work, and you get more than an equal benefit. the cost of sprawl to the citizens living in the central city is expensive. " Please see: http://www.rppi.org/ps245.html#Heading1 We are subsidizing transit tons more than we are autos.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

tom--"once again, falling short of a good rebutal. 695 has nothing to do with bill and child molesters. Maybe I need to make myself more clear. Do you like to subsidize Scott's expensive lifestyle? There's the inequity. you can keep all of the dirty beurocrats out of this conversation, we all know they are no good, but like it or not, they are smart enough to cut the workers below them before they trim any fat out of their budgets."

I don't know anything about Scott or his lifestyle. I do find the following comment rather ridiculous "they are smart enough to cut the workers below them before they trim any fat out of their budgets."

If you believe (as I do) that government attempts to provide many inessential services, it's safe to say the workers *are* a big portion of fat in the budgets. Before you respond, I'm not saying the workers are lazy (like anywhere else I'd imagine some are and some aren't). Any person (even a hard-working one) who's employed to provide this service is part of the "fat." Put another way, it's the difference between efficiency and effectiveness.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

You posted something about Seattle's economy drying up because the overtime went away??????????

Where is the logic in this? Paying excessive overtime money to people who PRODUCE NOTHING is NOT a boon to the economy.

The OVERTIME MONEY is already budgeted but would be much more wisely spent by hiring parttime paperpushers to shuffle around while impatient citizens watch.

Cutting out overtime REDUCES EXPENDITURES. It does NOT destroy the economy....

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 11, 1999.

Overtime is *nowhere* near as expensive as hiring extra workers. Whenever a company, or gavernment agency, hires a new worker, the amount of money spent "supporting" the individual is a lot more significant than their base salary. There is benefits, and infastructure. Do you think all of boeing mandatory overtime is wasting them money? Do you think that they haven't done detailed cost analysis of the trade-offs?

If overtime was eliminated, more jobs would be created, and more money would flow into the economy, but the cost to Corporate America would rise significantly. Of course all of you stupid Ayn Randians out there believe that corporate america *is* america, and should be allowed to run rough-shod over the rest of us.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 11, 1999.

mike--"Overtime is *nowhere* near as expensive as hiring extra workers. Whenever a company, or gavernment agency, hires a new worker, the amount of money spent "supporting" the individual is a lot more significant than their base salary. There is benefits, and infastructure. Do you think all of boeing mandatory overtime is wasting them money? Do you think that they haven't done detailed cost analysis of the trade-offs?"

First, it's not always accurate to say overtime is cheaper than hiring another worker. In studies of construction employees, if an employee works 50 hrs/wk for more than 4 weeks in a row, in the 5th week, they will accomplish less in 50 hours than a normal worker will in 40. To qualify this statistic, I don't know how if this yardstick is generally applicable or only applies to workers in the construction trades.

Have they done a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the trade-offs? In my experience, the decision to use overtime has almost *nothing* to do with the cost of hiring another employee. Instead, it was due to one of two things--problems in hiring or it was "crunch time." Put another way, I'm confident saying rational economic analysis has very little to do with the use of overtime.

Do I think Boeing's mandatory overtime is a waste of money? I don't work for Boeing so I've no idea. I'd go a bit further and state if you don't work for Boeing you've probably no idea either.

"If overtime was eliminated, more jobs would be created, and more money would flow into the economy, but the cost to Corporate America would rise significantly. Of course all of you stupid Ayn Randians out there believe that corporate america *is* america, and should be allowed to run rough-shod over the rest of us."

Mike, given the difficulty you have spelling the word Libertarian, I'm surprised you spelled Ayn Rand's name correctly.

I'm curious to see the relationship between the following: elimination of overtime --> increased costs for corporate America. Although, I'm not certain why I care since this forum isn't a place for discussions of Libertarianism (FWIW, I'm not a Libertarian) or corporate America for that matter.

As an aside, I'd like to see some evidence to prove your assertion that Libertarians think "corporate america is america and should be allowed to run rough-shod over the rest of us." I hope you're not offended if I don't hold my breath.

Out of curiousity, if you can stop frothing at the mouth long enough to answer, why so much animus towards Libertarians?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

Brad -- First off, my name isn't mike. Good Guess though.

Second -- Yes, I don't run my posts through a spell checker. If someone tells me that my posts have become totally illegible, I will consider it.

third -- One mans froth, is anothers frosty mug of root beer. A have no particular animus towards Libertarians in particular... I have a number of work buddies which espouse that philosophy, and we get along just fine. It's just that the philosophy, while noble, is just as fataly flawed as communism, and for the same reason.

Communism works wonderfly in small groups where everyone actually believes in working together for the common good. Everyone works for the good of the community, and takes only what it needs. In large practice, those at the top become corrupt, and while those at the bottom of society are living in an egalitarium society, it is one of enforced minimal existance.

Liberatarianism has never really been practiced on a large scale, because it would be nearly impossible. Either nobody would pay taxes, and therefore infastructure, and the common defense, would be non-existant in any sort of public form. The vacume would be filled by those who are hungry enough for power to grab it, and the result would be *less* liberty, not more.

In our system, we have given elected represenatives the authority to tax and spend, knowing that they are answerable to the people who have the ability to vote them out on their rear. But also knowing that, they have the responsibility to read budgets and needs *in depth*, and make sometimes painful choices which they decide as best for their constituencies. I don't have time to do all that, so I try to get people elected that think as I do, who I believe would vote as I would if I had the time to get *really* educated about the issues.

My animosty towards the libertarian dogma is that it is derived from the overly simplistic belief that if you leave me alone, i will leave you alone, and that that will somehow create a stable society.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 11, 1999.

Concerned Wa Parent.....

Watch the vacume................ it might vacuum you and yours up.... then there will be no one to vote NO......

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), October 11, 1999.

"My animosty towards the libertarian dogma is that it is derived from the overly simplistic belief that if you leave me alone, i will leave you alone, and that that will somehow create a stable society. " As opposed to the Serb-Albanian model of I'm not going to leave you alone, you're not going to leave me alone, and eventually the group that extinguishes the other wins stable society model?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

concerned WA parent--

since you actually responded after posting, i'll concede that you aren't mike. FWIW, you and he would probably get along quite famously. . .even down to consistently (literally and figuratively) mispelling Libertarian.

"third -- One mans froth, is anothers frosty mug of root beer. A have no particular animus towards Libertarians in particular... I have a number of work buddies which espouse that philosophy, and we get along just fine. It's just that the philosophy, while noble, is just as fataly flawed as communism, and for the same reason. Communism works wonderfly in small groups where everyone actually believes in working together for the common good. Everyone works for the good of the comm unity, and takes only what it needs. In large practice, those at the top become corrupt, and while those at the bottom of society are living in an egalitarium society, it is one of enforced minimal existance."

Where to start?

If I understand you correctly, you just asserted that Communism and Libertarianism are doomed to fail for the same reason. If I understand your position correctly, it seems ludicrous due to their diametrically opposed views on private property. While it is true that Communism has led to an "enforced minimal existence," I would say this has everything to do with obvious disincentives to labor and innovation found in a system where *no one* owns productive assets. Given Libertarian views on property rights, it seems unlikely this situation would occur in a Libertarian society. That being said, it's possible this situation might occur in a Libertarian society *if* there was an extreme concentration of productive assets across a small number of owners and there was no way for people to "save up" the funds necessary to purchase property.

WRT an "enforced minimal existence", I don't think this has much to do with Communism *or* Libertarianism per se. If you look at India, you'll see an example of a functioning representative democracy that has a population living a "minimal existence." There are probably multiple reasons for this circumstance, but India's entrenched bureaucracy probably deserves most of the blame. Their bureaucracy is legendary for stifling innovation and retarding the progress of new business ventures.

FWIW, while there are valid reasons to be oppose Libertarianism, I don't see that you've just shown us one.

"Liberatarianism has never really been practiced on a large scale, because it would be nearly impossible. Either nobody would pay taxes, and therefore infastructure, and the common defense, would be non-existant in any sort of public form. The vacume would be filled by those who are hungry enough for power to grab it, and the result would be *less* liberty, not more."

I'm not a Libertarian so I don't know definitively, but it's my understanding that Libertarians don't want to abolish government. I think they want government to deliver a minimal set of services, ie national defense and contract enforcement.

Although I know even less about Anarchism than I do Libertarianism, it seems to me that the position you stated above would be more consistent with their viewpoints.

"My animosty towards the libertarian dogma is that it is derived from the overly simplistic belief that if you leave me alone, i will leave you alone, and that that will somehow create a stable society."

For the sake of argument, I'd be curious how this wouldn't lead to a stable society.

Perhaps you really meant to say you believe it's unrealistic to assume "you'll leave me alone and i'll leave you alone." This would be a more reasonable statement.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

--Brad-- Yes If everybody left everybody alone, we wouldn't have many problems, but that is unrealistic as Rodney Kings "Can't we all just get along?".

While I do of course understand that Libertarianism and Communism are oposite extremes, it is the very fact that they are extremes that I have a problem with. And also their extremity that creates their flaw. Their holy grail of "Property Rights" creates as many problems as the "Property is Theft" position of the left. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. To state that everyone should have the right to do exactly what they please with their property, wether it is land or otherwise, totally ignores the affect that such a policy would have outside the boundaries of the said property. If someone has a meth lab on their land, do you let them make all they want, and only step in after it has hit the street, or caused a toxic, explosive cloud on his neighbors "property"? Do you let him drain the streems that are running through his land, leaving none for his downstream neighbors? On a global scale, do you let the environment go to hell for the sake of profit, without regard to how it affects everybody else?

30-35 years ago some cities in America had days when it actually wasn't safe to breath the air without filtration systems. The problem has been largly solved by regulating the hell out of industry, to reduce toxic emmisions. Policy like that drives libertarians absolutely nuts.

In the end, I believe, Libertarian policy of property rights and laissez-faire (don't bother correcting me, I know it's probably wrong) capitalism would create deep problems that would not only foment revolution of the have-nots against the haves, but also create an unliveable environment.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.

Brad -- To Clarify, I linked Communism and Libertarianism because both philosophies seem to believe that the dogma faithfully followed will always yield the desired result. As a professional in a science related field, I have a deep distrust of extremists of any flavor.

No on I-695 (just to be topical).

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.

concerned WA parent--

In general, I didn't find much to disagree with in your last post. However, I am curious about one thing.

What's your reason for believing that property rights and a laissez-faire economy would "create deep problems that would not only foment revolution of the have-nots against the haves, but also create an unliveable environment?"

FWIW, I already understand your reasoning for the unliveable environment part.

The part I don't understand is how laissez-faire capitalism leads to a fight between the haves and have-nots. The only places I'm aware of with anything close to this form of economy would be Hong Kong and Singapore. It's my and many others perception that participants in both economies do quite well as a whole. I've no idea whether this supports the assertion that laissez-faire capitalism leads to a strong economy, but it appears to provide good counter-examples to the assertion that laissez-faire capitalism leads to an "enforcement minimal existence" and promotes a revolution between the classes.

Of course, if you don't believe HK and Singapore are the "free-est" market economies in the world then my reasoning falls apart. Similarly, it also falls apart if you don't believe HK's and Singapore's economies do a good job for a large portion of the population.

BTW: although I've previously seen the quote, I've not heard the reasoning behind "property is theft" argument.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.

Hi Brad,

To take these in reverse order, "Property is Theft" is the communist argument that no "person" should have the right of ownership of anything. All material possesion is owned by the collective, and is to be used only in a fashion that benefits everyone. To assert control over any property in affect steals that property from the collective. As you have stated earlier, and as I believe as well, this kind of policy kills initiative, since any benefit derived from hard (or clever) work is dilluted over the entire collective. Conversly though, when it is dilluted over a *small* group or commune, it may encourage inovation, since there is more tangible benefits in addition to the brownie points scored with the group.

Why I believe laissez-faire capitalism would lead to class warfare, to be mellodramatic. Laissez-faire capitalism rewards nothing except greed and ambition. Serving your fellow man is secondary, except insofar as the good publicity gained can be looked at as a "good investment". Take Bill Gates as an example. He just recently set up his $1 Billion scolarship program for disadvantaged students. This was undoubtedly a "good thing". But how much towards his "good PR" bottom line do you suppose old Bill was thinking about? MS is widely despised in technology circles outside of WA, and to a fair amount inside WA. The US congressional delegation from WA are *very* outspoken amoung their collegues in their defense of MS. Bill made as many gains from this act of charity as gave up (about 1% of his wealth). Would this have occurred if Bill wasn't worried about Federal Regulators and the Courts? It is an unanswerable question.

I admit that I know next to nothing about the HK and Singapore economies. But I think the proof in the pudding would be how well off the lower rungs of their society is when the inevitable cycle of recession hits. People are always laid off during reccession and depression. What kind of commitment does the government make to these people? Under a Laissez-faire system, there is no obligation.... If you didn't save for such a contingency, then tough luck. If you just went into deep debt to finance a college education, and there are no jobs to be had, well tough luck to you too and better luck on your next roll of the dice.

I don't believe any system can gaurentee a strong economy. There are too many variables, from brain power, to mineral wealth, to global conditions. A strong society IMHO is defined by how it handles the lean times, not the prosperous times.

-- Concerned WA Parent (xxx@yyy.zzz), October 12, 1999.