For the opposition, no lie is too big... (The disappearing job trick)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

by Jim Lynch Seattle Times Olympia bureau

Radio ads begin airing statewide today, warning voters that Initiative 695 is "a road to nowhere" that will cut funding for 1,000 police officers and make 74,000 construction jobs "disappear."

But those claims could be misleading if taken literally, because the wording and the numbers are based on unlikely worst-case scenarios.

The ads are part of the rhetoric heating up in the final three weeks before voters determine the fate of the ballot measure, which would cut the state car tax to a flat $30 annual fee and require a public vote on any future tax or fee increase.

Opponents of I-695 are airing the ads on 51 stations throughout the state - including Seattle stations KOMO-AM (1000), KIXI-AM (880) and KJR-AM (950) - and timing them to coincide with absentee ballots going out to voters this week.

I-695 supporters are countering with aggressive mailings, in which initiative sponsor Tim Eyman solicits people to write a "DARN BIG" check. Eyman is counting on popular support to battle ads by the opposition, which has raised nine times as much cash to defeat the measure.

The new ads, purchased by No on 695, warn listeners that the initiative sounds too good to be true. The ads stress consequences: increased road congestion and decreased funding for transit, public health, and police- and fire-protection services.

It's known that I-695, if approved, would take away the state's fourth-largest revenue stream - about $750 million a year - and derail $2.4 billion in statewide roadwork that was committed last year when voters approved Referendum 49.

Effect on jobs is disputed

But the ads are on shakier ground when they try to project the specific effect on jobs.

"I-695 will also cost jobs, lots of jobs," says the radio voice. "Seventy-four thousand jobs will disappear from the loss of road-construction money. Funding for 1,000 police officers will be gone."

The construction-job projections come from the Associated General Contractors of Washington and another construction-lobbying group in Olympia, both of which depend on state contracts for transportation projects. The estimates are extrapolated from a University of Washington study that suggests 30.8 jobs are created for every $1 million spent on construction.

The problem with that calculation, and the way it is presented, is twofold:

First, the ad says the jobs "disappear," creating the impression that those jobs already exist, and that almost half the state's 150,000 construction jobs could vanish.

"That's not credible," said Bret Bertolin, senior economic forecaster for the state Office of Forecasting, after the ad was read to him.

Temporary jobs included in count

Secondly, the ad doesn't clarify that the affected "jobs" include projects that may last only a few weeks. Such calculations are "kind of meaningless," said Dick Conway, a Seattle economist who serves on Gov. Gary Locke's council of economic advisers.

Conway said a more-credible gauge of industry job losses would be this: About $100,000 of public road money equals one construction job a year. Using that formula, about 24,000 jobs would be jeopardized during the six years of the slated roadwork, or about 4,000 a year.

Such a downturn could chill an industry that has been growing at 6.2 percent a year since 1996. But economists also say I-695 likely would not change overall unemployment levels in the state: People would have more money in their pockets, and their increased spending would create retail and service jobs.

The radio ad also ignores the possibility that if I-695 were to pass, the Legislature and the public might find other ways to pay for desired, but delayed, road projects.

Extrapolating from UW study

Mark Funk, spokesman for No on 695, said the construction-layoff numbers are not misleading.

He said the figures reflect what could happen, as extrapolated from calculations in the 1997 UW study. He said the estimate includes the loss of jobs indirectly linked to the construction industry.

The claim that the initiative threatens 1,000 police jobs is questioned by one of the state's law-enforcement lobbies, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

"I'm not comfortable confirming that number," said President Larry Erickson, a former Spokane County sheriff. "I've been around long enough to not predict what city and county councils will do."

The police-layoff prediction came from another law-enforcement lobby, the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, headed by Mike Patrick. Patrick said he based the estimate on discussions with police across the state and surveys by the Association of Washington Cities.

"I feel confident the number is solid," he said.

Backing away from dire forecasts

But interviews with city officials throughout the state indicate most local governments are backing away from earlier, more-dire predictions on police cutbacks.

For example, the city of Yakima earlier estimated it would lose 10 police officers. City Manager Richard Zais said he since has found a way to get around that.

"There will be no layoffs here," he said.

Zais said the city might have to leave four vacancies unfilled when officers retire or quit. Beyond that, the city is prepared to cut deeper into library, parks, legal and general-administration budgets.

Other cities and counties have reached similar conclusions - that their estimated police cuts may be half as severe as originally feared. In King County, the Sheriff's Office initially reported as many as 77 officers could lose their jobs with I-695. The agency now says the number would be closer to 40.

Funk insists that No on 695 has been careful with its information, saying explicitly in its ad that the initiative threatens funding for 1,000 police officers instead of stating that they would lose their jobs.

But Eyman said the new round of ads are the continuation of a scare-tactic campaign against his initiative. **********************************************

It's a shame that the anti's have to resort to this type of underhanded tactics... after all, those here would have us just use "common sense" to vote against this.

Now, it seems, you need "common sense..." and you also need to be lied to.

Westin

"My first pledge will be to restore integrity to the White House. And I'll fire anyone who has lied to the American people or the United States Congress." - Al Gore, in a February 2, 1988 presidential debate



-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999

Answers

It sounds like law enforcement statewide has 1000 too many police officers. When you figure each officer's total cost to the state is roughly $100,000 including salary, benefits and overtime, that's $100 million dollars. I don't recall private citizens enjoying guaranteed employment. Government workers must not have an advantage at our expense. Then we would have 1000 less overzealous cops on the streets manufacturing crime to sustain their outrageous cost to taxpayers. Why isn't the number 2000 or 5000 officers, or other unnecessary government workers. This is the only area that is now producing "a loss of revenue".

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

James:

Keep this up. It helps a lot when the Yes group contradicts itself, and advocates cutting essential service.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 13, 1999.


James

Have to agree with d on this one.

Got some questions for you.

What do you mean by "overzealous"? If enforcing the laws of the city or county, and of the state is overzealous I don't want to be put in the same boat with you.

I guess Trooper Jim Saunders was overzealous when he pulled over a vehicle for breaking a traffic law and was gunned down. I guess I was overzealous when I tried to arrest a suspect who threatened to break in to my police station and rape the night clerk and was beaten so severely that it ended my career and I have to take medication the rest of my life.

Also I don't think the police are "only area that is now producing "a loss of revenue". By stopping crime or catching criminals and recovering stolen items, the police are actually reducing cost to the citizens. This would be in the form of lower insurance and the cost of replacing stolen goods.

Ed - "routine traffic stop" phrase used by those who never made one

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.


Yes, the anti-I-695 ads are quite comical. They can't explain why we have such bad conegstion, now, since we've been paying the huge fees since the early '90's. What happened to that money?

The fact remains that I-695 is not a problem for society. At worst, we defer the roadbuilding projects for one year. Then, we let the people vote in November on some proposal from the politicians. The proposal may include an increase on the license tab fees, or the gas tax, or whatever. In exchange, the proposal would delineate specific road projects, with an accompanying explanation of costs, schedule, and benefits. Finally, the voters decide.

What is so terrible about the above scenario? So we defer road projects for a year, allowing the voter to have more of a say over their own destiny. How can anybody be opposed to I-695. It makes no sense.

As for cuts in state police, I would expect funding of the police to sit well with the populace, and the politicians would be able to dip into the surplus to fund the police for one more year. After that, it would be up to the voters.

I just don't see why people have a problem with I-695. It gives the voters more say and control. How can that be bad?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 14, 1999.


The anti I-695 ads that I've seen don't seem tomake alot of sense. They say traffic will go all to hell without the funds. That the Police will be off the streets and there will be no public transportation. Let's compare that to what we have now when the "politicos" have had all this money for the last 60 years. We are way down on the Officer to population ratio. About .9 to 10,000 compared to other areas that run about 2.5 to 10,000. Traffic and roads...well it speaks for itself. Public transportation. Their only ideas are a rail system that might go only in the city of Seattle by 2020 or so. Seems to me that the BART system in San Francisco was put in in about 5-7 years and that was in the 60's!!!! It covers a whole lot more than just SF, too. It just seems to me that since our elected (and non-elected) folks can't do anything WITH the money, they need to try doing some work and prioritizing without it! California had their Prop 13. for tax rollback. Last time I was down there, they were still in business. Yes on I-695!

-- W.L. Bonar (beemer@zipcon.net), October 14, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ