Question for I-695 Opponents

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

1. Can you honestly say that the Washington State government is a lean, efficient organization?

All that I hear from opponents to the initiative is how we must now cut ESSENTIAL services and life as we know it is over. What about the non-essential services? Almost by definition the word government means Inefficient. I'm so damn happy this initiative passed I can barely stand it. It certainly isn't a money issue to me. It's time for government accountability. A very new concept in our society.

-- D W (tux@tro.com), November 04, 1999

Answers

No. But neither is Boeing, Weyerhauser or any other number of privately run institutions. The public sector has no monopoly on inefficiency. I've worked for twenty years in the private sector and have witnessed intractible PRIVATE SECTOR red-tape & bureaucratic nightmares. Besides, a lot of the ineffecies inherent in government come with the territory of a democracy. Sharing responsibility for solutions to problems dosen't provide quick answers. The accountability which you mention is by no means new and often means long reviews and painful discussions. Do you not enjoy those things?

And yes, I would define road repair, emergency services AND public transit as essential. Those are the reasons we attempt to do things collectively. Just read today's papers and you'll see that the cuts in these services are real.

-- (jfloor@jps.net), November 05, 1999.


Boeing, Weyerhauser and other companies in the private sector are not spending the public's money.

It is predictable that the idiot politicians in the state will begin cutting services that the public deems essential to "teach us a lesson" after the initiative passes and force us to believe that they have no other choice. But this will all play out in elections. There is PLENTY of money to cut out of the state budget without making the cuts that they are currently making. The answer is not to fall to our knees and beg for forgiveness. This is what they want. Vote them the hell out of there and get some real thinkers in there that have the peoples best interest in mind.

Lastly, if accountability takes a few long discussions, that's exactly what I want. The alternative being no accountability at all.

-- D W (tux@tro.com), November 05, 1999.


You agree that politicians are incapable of doing anything but making idiotic decisions, and that they will cut essential services to punish us. You agree therefore that cutting essential services is a byproduct of this initiative.

Why don't we just do away with ALL government? Why not a $30 Property Tax initiative? "How would you like your property taxes to be $30 a year?" We could certainly gather more than 514,000 signatures for that. You would have thousands of dollars more a year with which to stimulate the economy.

Why not do away with sales tax? Think about how much more people could buy.

Millions of people on this planet pay absolutely no taxes. Of course they live in remote villages without water, power, sewer, medical services, police protection, fire services, parks, public art and music, and all the other amenities that represent civilization, but Dad Gummit, they don't pay no stinkin' taxes!

-- Common Sense (commonsense@commonsense.com), November 05, 1999.


The question is moot. I-695 does not require government efficiency. It removes a large portion of the MVET (budget cut) and places restrictions on how the government can recover that lost revenue. That is ALL! Like any other large bureaucratic organization, each government and government agency (state, county, city, transit, etc.) has to determine how to live with the budget cut. And like any large bureaucratic organization, budget cuts are achieved either by eliminating/postponing projects or by a reduction in headcount.

Making an organization more efficient is a great goal, but do you expect that those people who are "pork" to step up and say so? Do you expect the boss of a "pork" employee would have kept that person around if that person was "pork"? An outside agency could be used to find this "pork", but that would take additional money which is not available. Addressing inefficiency is easy, finding it is not.

When discussing ESSENTIAL services, remember, there is not a budget category called ESSENTIAL SERVICES which funds only certain items. Each of us may value these services and projects differently. How each of us values these items relative to the goals of the city, county and state also comes into play. In the end you will discover that nothing is black and white. Everything has shades of gray.

This is where our elected officials need our help. They need our input to help them prioritize items which we think are important. How can we hold them accountable if we do not give them something to be accountable to?

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), November 05, 1999.


Gene,

I agree with much of what you say above. The Pork will definitely not step forward and shout from the hillside. This is a most difficult process. But just as in any organization there is definitely "low-hanging fruit" so to speak. I.E. Spending millions and millions of dollars to change the name of a street. By anyone sane person's definition this absolutely must be deemed "non-essential". It's difficult to dispute that honoring a great man or woman is a good thing, but it doesn't feed people, keep the roads clear or provide medical facilities. If we were to examine the budget in some detail. I think we would find millions of dollars in that same category. Beyond the apparently "easy decisions" there are many difficult ones to follow. However, we elect these people because we believe they are strong leaders and can make these difficult decisions. I agree on some points, agree on others, but always enjoy the debate.

-- D W (tux@tro.com), November 05, 1999.



Essential services seems to be as subjective as affordable housing. Washington, and the United States, are a long way past the really essential services of government; and have been for a century. You need to look at a third world country to get some idea of what is actually essential.

That said, the level of service provided is always a subject of debate; even if the service itself is considered essential. So you end up with the subjective judgement of which is more important; between an incremental increase in the level of a service such as police or fire protection, and something like public art or a street name change. Those who think the police service is good enough, my opt to spend a little on public art.

How much is enough? Kind of like, how high is up.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 05, 1999.


"How much is enough? Kind of like, how high is up. " Well, I guess in the majority opinion, the current level was AT LEAST 2% too high.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

The problem is I-695 did not make any decisions. It did not set priorities. People complained that taxes were too high and cut it.

Now, these officials that we elected to make these difficult decisions, who made the decisions that got the MVET to a level that started this whole exercise is democracy, must now re-look at everything. Obviously, the decisions that they made getting us here were not decisions that everyone approved of.

I would not doubt that there are low hanging fruit. But who is to say. A project may be low on many peoples list of important items, but may also be at the top of some others. Some people think that various transportation plans are bad, while others think that they are necessary. Even the requirement for a police force has been called into question in this site.

At this point however, you can be sure that your representatives in city, county, state and whatever other government agency are looking over their budgets for places to cut or are justifying why it should not be cut. If you care about anything, then you need to let your representative know that it is important to you. Because without your input, the government will cut what it wants to cut and you do not know if your project is one of those that ends up on the cutting room floor. site.

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), November 05, 1999.


"The problem is I-695 did not make any decisions. It did not set priorities. People complained that taxes were too high and cut it. " OF COURSE IT MADE DECISIONS. It decided that a majority of people thought the current level of taxation was too high! Now the same people who argued that the voters were too ignorant to be trusted with setting priorities vis a vis the voter approval of new taxes issue, are complaining that they DIDN'T set priorities vis a vis where to make the cuts. I'd ask, "which is it really?" except for the fact that this is obviously all verbal gamesmanship.

In the meantime, Ron Sims is saying that he is taking the cuts in transit, public health, and public safety, because that's where the public told him to take them.

Chaff and flares didn't work in defeating I-695, it's not going to work now in trying to convince people (after the fact) that they were wrong. And by abandoning logic and resorting to such attempts at confusion, the pro-big government people further tarnish their credibility (as they did with their "sky is falling" campaign) and will be even LESS able to participate effectively in upcoming debates (let alone shape the debate) when people come up with additional initiatives and political movements to change the political environment. You guys have ALREADY squandered an enormous amount of political capital in this effort, let alone the $2 million slush fund. IMHO, you ought to cut your losses. What your doing now is NOT going to help you fight another day. But suit yourselves, since I'd just as soon you lost these fights anyway. Have a great weekend.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 05, 1999.


Greg wrote: "The problem is I-695 did not make any decisions. It did not set priorities. People complained that taxes were too high and cut it. "

I-695 wasn't supposed to make 'decisions' beyond the rather plain message "Cut our taxes, and ask our permission to raise them in the future". Beyond that, i695 isn't supposed to make decisions. That's like the President whining that a tax cut doesn't "save social security". A tax cut isn't SUPPOSED to save social security, a tax cut is for CUTTING TAXES.

Secondly, it's DEFINITELY not supposed to set priorities. In fact, this statement NICELY plays right into my argument that I-695 doesn't even come close to undermining our 'representative democracy'. The leaders of our fine government institutions are supposed to set the priorities. The public will simply affirm those priorities where direct taxation is at stake. I have never been more stunned by the number of people who hate freedom. There was an earlier poster whining ad nauseum about how 'we need leadership... we can't make decisions on our own'. And this, my friends, is what philosophically drives the wedge between the two types of mentalities. One group, quivering in the corner, scared, living in their reactive universe, waiting for leadership-- the other group, standing tall, unafraid, ready to initiate leadership. I believe this first group is held dear by my good friend, Erich Fromm, who wrote non-stop about returning to the trees and running away from this terrible prison of 'human reason'. Ahh yes. Y'all go ahead and whine about needing leadership, meanwhile, I've got more taxes to cut...

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 05, 1999.



I believe Paul and Gene have it right, and Craig has it wrong.

We now are faced with the real problem of what to cut, and the refrain of 'preserve essential services' doesn't help much. That surely does not mean that anything requested by the Police Chief gets approved, and anything requested by the Parks Department gets rejected.

What about city maintenance of landscaped traffic islands on main city streets? Not essential, but if not maintained they may as well get paved over. I don't think we really want to live in communities, or a state, where everything is done at the bare utility "essential" level.

One example is I-90 through Mercer Island. A lot of concrete walls were needed, and they spent some extra money to give them texture and some landscaping. They could have done it with bare concrete, and a lot of asphalt instead of plants. Los Angeles still has some old freeways that are like that. Initial cost and maintenance is likely to be more expensive, but I like it. I don't live on Mercer Island, but I pass through, and how things look is worth something to a community.

If this state continues to cut taxes at any cost, the loss of some of that non-essential expense will eventually make this state a less attractive place to live; in every possible way that can be meant.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 05, 1999.


from Gene above...."At this point however, you can be sure that your representatives in city, county, state and whatever other government agency are looking over their budgets for places to cut or are justifying why it should not be cut. If you care about anything, then you need to let your representative know that it is important to you. Because without your input, the government will cut what it wants to cut and you do not know if your project is one of those that ends up on the cutting room floor."

ANSWER: Democracy in action. I think this is very well said and sound advice. Let your government officials know what you think is important. In a perfect world, the majority would then help set the priorities. In the event that this does NOT happen, the public voice should show the officials during the next elections that they aren't welcome back. I think the process above is EXACTLY what should be happening on an ongoing basis. With I-695 we are basically saying "Our tax threshold has been passed, let's re-think our spending plans." In the event that the MAJORITY decides that he cuts are too deep, the MAJORITY will vote for an increase to restore the services, or an outcry to cut existing services that they do not believe are justified. "What a Country" (Yakoff Schirnoff 1982)

-- D W (tux@tro.com), November 05, 1999.


Janet:

I would also bet that same corporation would start hacking the useless departments with 6 figure employee salaries. Heck, I've been having budget problems of my own as of late. Cut out Pay-Tv channels, stopped eating out as often, started taking my lunch to work, and put off all video game purchases until next year. You do it, and move on. In fact, I wanna add just one thing. If I were an elected official, such as oh, Ron Simms, and I was faced with the 'tough' decisions he has, I wouldn't hold a glum, sad and dark press conference. I would come out of the chute smiling, positive and hopeful. I might say "This won't be easy, but we'll work together, and make the best of it. I will do my best to keep the essential services going. Some cuts may occur, but we'll keep them to a minimum, and we'll reroute new funding as soon as possible. And, now that the people have spoken on voting for tax increases, they can be a direct partner with government, to help us find new sources of funding for the programs that might not escape the deeper cuts." I seriously question this mans ability for leadership. He has seriously opened himself up to a challenger.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 06, 1999.


Craig and Paul --

One of the nice things about visiting this bulletin board is seeing such strong, cohesive arguments such as has been displayed.

-- Matt Greenway (mgreenwa@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999.


DW:

I wrote this for another thread, but it fits here.

We now are faced with the real problem of what to cut, and the refrain of 'preserve essential services' doesn't help much. That surely does not mean that anything requested by the Police Chief gets approved, and anything requested by the Parks Department gets rejected.

What about city maintenance of landscaped traffic islands on main city streets? Not essential, but if not maintained they may as well get paved over. I don't think we really want to live in communities, or a state, where everything is done at the bare utility "essential" level.

One example is I-90 through Mercer Island. A lot of concrete walls were needed, and they spent some extra money to give them texture and some landscaping. They could have done it with bare concrete, and a lot of asphalt instead of plants. Los Angeles still has some old freeways that are like that. Initial cost and maintenance is likely to be more expensive, but I like it. I don't live on Mercer Island, but I pass through, and how things look is worth something to a community.

If this state continues to cut taxes at any cost, the loss of some of that non-essential expense will eventually make this state a less attractive place to live; in every possible way that can be meant.

You talk about government accountability as if it were new, but that was the whole point of a revolution over 200 years ago. State and local governments in the U.S. are accountable, but only to the extent that the public is involved. A lot of people WANT some of the non- essential expenses preserved, and the city and county has been responsive and accountable for addressing those demands also.

"Preserve the essentials" and "cut the non-essentials" is not an answer.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 07, 1999.



dbvz Wrote: "A lot of people WANT some of the non- essential expenses preserved, and the city and county has been responsive and accountable for addressing those demands also.

"Preserve the essentials" and "cut the non-essentials" is not an answer. "

Alot of people WANT some of the non-essential services? This is probably true, and why we are now where we are. These people you speak of ARE the ones that have been activists and secured public funds for the things that they want. The majority, however, is now saying "SORRY, no more free rides". I disagree with your statement above that preserving essential services and cutting non-essential services is not the answer. It absolutely is the answer. Not ALL non-essential services will need to be cut. So the citizens that are politically active will have a chance to preserve their "fluf money", but some of it has to go. We can't all have the "decorative highway barrier" commute. If the public is willing to pay higher and higher taxes we can. But I-695 sent the message that we are not. This means that I'm not going to pay for a beautiful commute to Mercer Island.

-- DW (tux@tro.com), November 08, 1999.


DW:

I understand your point, but you seem to have missed mine. Nearly all of government services is "non-essential", and what to cut is a subjective choice among the options available. Can the State Patrol still do their job with a 10% reduction in troopers? Will the concrete walls still do their job if they are not decorative? Will the traffic islands still be an effective traffic tool if they are not landscaped? Will the streets still function if they repaint the lines on a longer cycle? Will the libraries still be libraries if they cut their hours of operation by 25%?

695 told government to cut. It did nothing to identify where to cut, and this essential - non-essential rhetoric does not help. You still need to get involved in setting the priorities. The initiative said you do not trust the politicians to do this for you, but complaints about their choices is not the answer. Direct democracy includes direct responsibility. Either get involved, or don't complain about the decisions that result from the activities of those that are.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 10, 1999.


"Nearly all of government services is "non-essential", " CONCUR. Demonstrating the need for further scaling back of government. Best method: Additional constraints on their revenue.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

If the "spending our money liberals" don't like it then continue to pay your 2% car tabs and save the little children. Surely they have no milk money today.

-- Steve (sps2045@netscape.net), November 10, 1999.

I understand that the liberals are AGAIN redefining aloowable income for "poverty" to justify increased control of the economy. Under the new definition, those in poverty include Paul Allen but not (yet) Bill Gates.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

dbvz-

I see where you are going now and your point is well taken. Services must now be cut and those who are involved will benefit from the process. I can assure you that I will be involved and am looking forward to it. I am sticking to my guns however,(and you may or may not agree) that this TINY 2% budget cut should by no means bring our freeways to a halt or contribute to the decay of our community.

-- DW (tux@tro.com), November 10, 1999.


DW: Time will tell. If zowie has his way we would see more cuts and greater damage to the institutions of government, and the services they provide. How much is enough, is a subjective question with a variety of answers; as we have seen on this forum.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 11, 1999.

"If zowie has his way we would see more cuts and greater damage to the institutions of government, and the services they provide" More cuts are not necessarily synonymous with greater damage or loss of services. That entails an assumption that downsizing always means damage and that the services are either needed or wanted. Those assumptions are not necessarily warranted.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

Excuse me for asking, but, is it not by virtue of the facts that $30 tabs will indeed mean an increase in state revenue. Simple economics people. Last I checked they increased sales taxes. Instead of the 2.2%, lets go for the sales tax. Well I may be no genius, but I could sure find a way to spend those extra taxes fueled by people trading their unsafe, unreliable, inefficient, and environmentally unfriendly vehicles. I sure hope the state can afford to hire revenue agents to collect the abundance of extra money. I for example plan on purchasing two new vehicles come January. I would say that should be enough time for the state to be fully staffed with hands extended. You certainly can't criticize me for not paying my share of taxes. I hope the state does not mind spending those unanticipated and technically unearned tax revenues. I guess it makes up for the 10K I paid them last year for my motorhome. Very little sympathy to give. Sorry.

-- E.W. (eaw@teleport.com), November 18, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ