There is a little common sense in the news today, from a DEMOCRATIC King County Council member. It's a back to basics approach. Government ought to pare to essential services. Notwithstanding the "what's essential to you, may not be essential to me", yada yada yada of some postings, I think there is a broad consensus of what is essential. That should be funded FIRST (including medic one) and the debate ought to be on the level of "Nice-to-haves" that we should fund. Anything else is holding health and safety hostage to the special interests. I like the Arts too (Went to see Les Miserables last night, in the Fifth avenue theater (which was rebuilt with PRIVATE donations), an excellent performance, highly recommend it, but I wouldn't put subsidizing it ahead of Medic One). From the Eastside Journal:

It's important that county and city officials not overreact to the loss of MVET revenue by quickly cutting essential services once funded by car tabs. Punishing voters will only worsen the political climate. What's needed is a serious re-examination of total government spending to make certain that essential services -- including those once funded by the MVET -- are protected. County Council member Magia Fimia, a Democrat from north King County, has proposed a sensible framework for making these decisions:

Define the mission. Decide what are core government services and do them very well.

Reduce the cost of government through hiring freezes, attrition and efficiency.

Make sure funding of programs and capital projects is based on sound analysis of long-term costs and benefits.

Commit more dollars for prevention, whether it's road maintenance, medical problems or public safety. King County government should focus its attention and budget on public safety, transportation, sewage treatment and public health. All other services -- including administration, parks, libraries, environmental protection, public assistance, permitting and animal control -- need to be pared carefully. Salmon protection cannot be pushed to the side because of the potential of federal intervention. However, the federal government should be the principal funder, followed by the state. South County cities need to go through the same exercise. Core services include public safety, transportation, utilities and permitting. All else should be funded after these essential services, not before. http://www.eastsidejournal.com/Opiniondocs/edits/dkr86225.html

+

It's important that county and city officials not overreact to the loss of MVET revenue by quickly cutting essential services once funded by car tabs. Punishing voters will only worsen the political climate. What's needed is a serious re-examination of total government spending to make certain that essential services -- including those once funded by the MVET -- are protected. County Council member Magia Fimia, a Democrat from north King County, has proposed a sensible framework for making these decisions:

Define the mission. Decide what are core government services and do them very well.

Reduce the cost of government through hiring freezes, attrition and efficiency.

Make sure funding of programs and capital projects is based on sound analysis of long-term costs and benefits.

Commit more dollars for prevention, whether it's road maintenance, medical problems or public safety. King County government should focus its attention and budget on public safety, transportation, sewage treatment and public health. All other services -- including administration, parks, libraries, environmental protection, public assistance, permitting and animal control -- need to be pared carefully. Salmon protection cannot be pushed to the side because of the potential of federal intervention. However, the federal government should be the principal funder, followed by the state. South County cities need to go through the same exercise. Core services include public safety, transportation, utilities and permitting. All else should be funded after these essential services, not before.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 08, 1999

Answers

Oh mon, dv-guy isn't gonna like you saying this.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), November 08, 1999.

Zowie:

Actually, Craig said most of what I believe should be done. While I disagree with the terminology of "essential services", the process outlined is what is needed, and what the No people need to get involved in.

Where we may disagree, is the extent to which the "core services" need to be done so "very well" before the other functions of government should be funded. As I noted before, that should not mean that any request of the police chief is approved, and any request of the parks department is rejected. It is the same process of balancing priorities that existed before 695, but with less money to address them. And if you didn't like the choices made before 695, you may not like them after. You need to get involved in the process if you really want to change the priorities of the elected officials, because 695 didn't do that for you.

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

"You need to get involved in the process if you really want to change the priorities of the elected officials, because 695 didn't do that for you. " I think your are deceiving yourself, d. Just as you give your analogy that not every desire of the police chief needs to be given priority over the parks department, as the money available decreases, these departments won't get pro rata cuts, I know it, and you know it. If resources got slim enough, the parks department would be eliminated altogether to retain minimal police services. Some things are generally acknowledged "nice-to-haves," some essentials. Even Seattle is cutting back on the skateboard park disproportionately to their cutback on police and fire services. If even the Seattle Public officials can tell what's least essential, I'm sure you can too. ;) The Craigster

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

Craig:

Elimination of the parks department to preserve minimal police protection, has not been the issue here; and we hope will not become the issue in any community. The real issues are the marginal benefits or losses due to incremental changes in the budget or resources of an agency. In a zero increase budget, with a growing population; will a 5% increase in police staff be more beneficial to the community, than the 5% reduction in the parks department budget that may be necessary to pay for it? Perhaps the parks cut would impact some programs that keep youth out of trouble with the police.

These are the real choices that must be made, and the rhetoric about essential and non-essential does not help. If you disagree, I believe YOU are deceiving yourself.

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

"These are the real choices that must be made, and the rhetoric about essential and non-essential does not help. " If you lack the capacity to determine essential from non-essential, I don't know how your paycheck lasts to the end of the month. It isn't that hard, d. MOST OF WHAT WE GET FROM GOVERNMENT is "nice to haves." We can argue about that interminably. We could certainly fund the truly essential on 50% of current revenues, even post I-695 revenues. The pro-MVET people lost their credibility by pretending that losing the MVET was akin to Armaggedon, the end of the world. So fund the truly essential, and let everyone else fight it out for the nice-to-haves. Losing nice-to-haves can get their issues (preferably one issue at a time, not bundled) up for a vote. If it's a "nice enough" "nice-to- have," presumably it will get a majority. If it isn't, small loss.

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