Just something for you uninformed voters to chew on while you party on and spend your savings on a case of lucky.

The Senate and Governor have both said that this is an MVET problem only, therefore the cuts will only be distributed among programs or departments relying on MVET. The State will not cut evenly throughout the whole state like your hero 2% Tim told you. This leaves Transportation, Public health and Safety, public transportation and sales tax equalization dependents fighting to stay afloat. They will not get money from anyone else, and the cuts that government promised will be real.

This government cutting initiative actually gives the Federal Government money. 378 million to be precise. that is the amount of money that Washington State State taxpayers deducted from their federal income tax last year that they won't deduct this year. Would you rather have a large federal government or State government, looks like the voters have spoken.

Another side note: Eastern Washington gets back approx $1.23 for every gas tax dollar they spend. Now because the west side will be taking such a hit, the legislature has said that the tax allocation will have to be revisited. Looks like we won't be subsidized anymore, and will have to pay our own way. Can you say goodbye to your job mr. Sped Bridges maintenence worker for Richland.

P.S. you will all go out and study the intricacies of taxation, government etc. so you can vote every time right. Isn't that what we pay our electeds for?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 11, 1999

Answers

good now we can talk about privatizing most if not all of those departments/ programs, along with state liquor stores, school vouchers, and from the sound of it higher education too.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

"This government cutting initiative actually gives the Federal Government money. 378 million to be precise. " Actually, no. They already HAD this money, due to federal taxes. But you are right, we need to get to work paring down the federal taxes as well. We need to get our Senators and Representatives to work against federal matching programs that subsidize you to make a bad decision that you wouldn't have made if you were paying the full price, by deceiving you that the subsidy didn't ALSO come out of your pocket. And we need to get the state AG up off her cigarette manufacturer-suing arse to join with the AGs of the other states that do not have state income tax and sue the IRS under the equal protection clause because we are being discriminated against in favor of states with state income taxes.

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

Here again we get to witness another Liberal's "displaced aggression". Blaming the voters for the way in which our elected officials are CHOOSING to deal with I-695. From above:

"The Senate and Governor have both said that this is an MVET problem only, therefore the cuts will only be distributed among programs or departments relying on MVET"

Why? There is simply no reason for this. It was predictable, however, that they would make stupid decisions such as this one. We'll have to take care of that in the next election.

P.S. Theman - Don't blame the voters for government incompetence.

-- DW (tux@tro.com), November 11, 1999.

Speaking of eliminating taxes and subsidies, is there a move on to eliminate the gas tax? It's always struck me as unfair that my gas tax dollars get spent in places that don't benefit me. However, other than having EVERY road a TOLL road, I wonder what the other options would be?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 11, 1999.

Good. Let them cut. Let them cut deep. Let them keep skateboard parks, special interest counseling programs, bloated agencies, high salaries, let them keep it all, and cut the visible stuff. It only hurts them in the longrun, because it proves that our elected officials can't govern. It proves that they've lost their ability to act as a representative government. The state just admitted yesterday that they're bilking people from eastern washington to run a ferry system from seattle to bremerton. Ooopsy, that wasn't their intent, but that's the way it came out. They claim they may have to scrap the whole system altogether.

Let's make the only logical conclusion: When I cross the ferry to visit my sister who bought a house in Silverdale because housing costs were cheaper, and her hubby works out of the house, so location wasn't 'important', I pay a fee to drive or walk my little butt onto the ferry. When I drive back, I pay another fee. So does every other car driving on to that ferry, both ways- all day long, all year long. 695 comes along, and they now say they may have to 'scrap the whole system'. Hmmm, this means that the tolls that I pay to cross that puget sound are NO WHERE NEAR covering the costs of the ferry system. It is a COMPLETELY AND BLATANTLY bloated and inefficient system which can't even cover its most basic costs from user fees. It further means that there's a family, somewhere in eastern washington, who may never venture far out of Yakima, paying $1000 on their vehicles so that I may tool across the beautiful puget sound and see that same sister who moved to silverdale so she could get an extra 800 square feet on her house for the same price. And Jim Compton concluded that taxes were fairer than ever before. Ahhh yes. The press.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 11, 1999.

"I pay a fee to drive or walk my little butt onto the ferry. When I drive back, I pay another fee. So does every other car driving on to that ferry, both ways- all day long, all year long. 695 comes along, and they now say they may have to 'scrap the whole system'. Hmmm, this means that the tolls that I pay to cross that puget sound are NO WHERE NEAR covering the costs of the ferry system. It is a COMPLETELY AND BLATANTLY bloated and inefficient system which can't even cover its most basic costs from user fees."

As a matter of fact, user fees of this system cover all of 14 cents on the dollar according to the federal transit administration. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF Can you spell PRIVATIZE, Mr. Locke???

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

thewuz

No I won't say goodbye to my job. The city council has found it in their hearts to keep me on. Although they did downsize my lawnmower. Now I have to turn a key to start it, instead of using to remote starting device.

Ed - quess I'll have to use up some of my sick leave during the cold days.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

Say Theman;

"The Senate and Governor have both said that this is an MVET problem only, therefore the cuts will only be distributed among programs or departments relying on MVET. The State will not cut evenly throughout the whole state like your hero 2% Tim told you"

Did you figure the equasion by what is said or told or is it fact?

Do you really think our elected politicans will let important vital services fail because of a 2% change in budget. Very Doubtful! Its bad enough the Gov. Locke will not be re-elected because of his failure to properly see what the public wants. OK You see I'm asking you another question. That is what is taxation without representation. Your problem is that the whole underlying idea of 695 and more to come its been based for Two things: 1) If our Government fails to re-group their budgets for 695 and improperly re- distributes monies certain services will fail 2) If these vital services fail our current elected representatives will be replaced. Do you get the picture yet? 695 will and should get the messege to our representatives that they must do their job. NOt sit on their ass!

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), November 11, 1999.

I get the picture, I'm only trying to tell you that 695 is not doing what it is intended to do. There will be cuts in vital service. that is something that none of you want to live up to. I admit it is wrong that our electeds won't step up to the plate and use the general fund to backfill, but they don't have to. this initiative was written to cut the MVET only, so why does everything not directly linked to MVET have to pitch in. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with 695 if it were aimed to the general fund and written with fewer loopholes. Hopefully the courts will throw 695 out and force someone to write better legislation.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

Paul Oss:

I thought this was discussed before, and eastern washington gets back more than western washington in projects. When you consider all the miles between cities on the east side, it is not surprising that the cost of transportation projects is higher on a per capita basis. By your arguement, the Bremerton resident who uses the ferry, should be complaining about the highway money being spent on the east side, if they have no reason to go through Yakema.

Mr. Bill:

I am not sure what you are talking about, when you refer to "taxation without representation". You have representation, elected to the Legislature and the Governorship, and the city or county council/commission. Any taxation approved by your representatives is taxation WITH representation. That phrase was written when England was imposing taxes from London, with no colonial representation at all. Our system of government was devised to make that rare.

Craig:

I believe I made the observation before the election, that the initiative is not about MVET funded programs, and you can't count on the cuts coming only from those programs. I also noted that when the legislature works over the budget, the intent of the initiative is unclear, and some will take the position that it WAS about the MVET programs. They will be reluctant to cut other programs if the voters really intended to cut transit, the ferry system, and tax equalization, etc.

One of the consequences of making the debate about the meaning and purpose of the initiative, based on the "fat" in the programs funded by MVET, is that the courts and the legislature will use that as evidence that voters thought this was about the programs. Craig should remember I repeatedly argued that before the election was the wrong time and the wrong place, to propose program cuts as the basis for the vote. Much of the discussion on both sides seemed to make the MVET programs the issue. A majority of legislators may find it hard to ignore that, at least in the short term. I believe they should, and 695 was not about the programs; but I can understand why some will not see it that way.

This will be a rocky period for all levels of government within the state, and some elected officials will be dealing with the consequences of it with little applicable experience. They will make some mistakes. They are accountable to those that elect them to office.

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

DBVZ: "Paul Oss:

I thought this was discussed before, and eastern washington gets back more than western washington in projects. When you consider all the miles between cities on the east side, it is not surprising that the cost of transportation projects is higher on a per capita basis. By your arguement, the Bremerton resident who uses the ferry, should be complaining about the highway money being spent on the east side, if they have no reason to go through Yakema. "

While technically true, as I can only assume that this occurs because there is more mileage of roadway per person, I don't believe the situations are comparable. In fact, let me say this about the ferry system. I don't mind so much that it's subsidized by people east of the cascades. It's the disparity of ferry income from user fees, vs the total cost to run the ferry system. Roads are going to universally cost more in rural areas due to longer distances vs density of population. Therin lies the rub. The ferry system is a short, point to point transit system, serving two areas with a high density of population. I might complain as heartily if there was a bus system running in Yakima which 86% of which was not paid for by users in Yakima. Now, go tell me there's such a system, I dare ya. If you do, you only strengthen my argument more-- fortifying my position that these agencies on an individual level are highly over bloated. If you tell me no such system exists, then you also further my argument proving that somewhere, somehow, a localized transit system CAN be run more efficiently.

I'm as anti-taxation as they come, but I don't mind having to subsidize a roadway, or group of roadways in eastern washington due to their length and difficulty in supporting. I would mind heavily supporting a highly localized transit system in Spokane, however. I can only assume that much of the bitternes of people in Eastern Washington is only made more so by the fact that they feel as if they're paying higher state taxes so I can ride my ferry.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 13, 1999.

Paul Oss:

What the "feel" they are paying, and what they are actually paying, are not identical. You seem to feel that whatever information that may be provided would support your position. I suggest you make your case to the Department of Transportation, and not here. They can actually do something about it. No one here can.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 14, 1999.

dbvz wrote:

What the "feel" they are paying, and what they are actually paying, are not identical. You seem to feel that whatever information that may be provided would support your position. I suggest you make your case to the Department of Transportation, and not here. They can actually do something about it. No one here can. "

While true that there may be disparity between what they feel they are paying and what they really are paying still makes no difference to the undeniable fact that the Ferry system is so bloated, the user fees are only covering pennies on the dollar. Oh, and I, and many people in Eastern Washington did make our case heard on Nov. 2: Gov't overbloated, cut it. We can get into a pissing match all day about whether 14 cents on the dollar from user fees and overbloated government are things that we may be willing to forgive because we might believe the rewards are worth it. I'm clearly in the camp which believes they're not, you seem to be in the camp that believes they are.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 14, 1999.

I am "in the camp" of those who believe this is still our state, and it needs to operate efficiently and effectively to maintain an acceptable quality of life. 695 makes that harder, but not impossible. It will take some time to correct the problems the initiative has caused, and we will waste a lot of time and money in the process. You think it will be worth it, and I doubt it. Whatever happens now, we all live with the results.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 15, 1999.

theman,

when i pay my taxes and fees i don't have the power to designate where my money goes....i just have to pay. Now the powers that be in olympia are designating mvet programs only. this is not a game, this is serious business that we have elected these people to handle. I don't care how creative they get with the "intricacies of taxation" it still sounds like they are out to punish.

i figure that the told budget is $37.5 billion (i'd love to see a copy of it)and you honestly believe that there isn't any fat to be cut to take care of these so called mvet programs that are being affected by the passage of i695.

november 2000 is not that far away and i plan to keep this issue placed squarely in front of those people i know and help in anyway i can to get the revenue programs of this state under control.

-- max o (dennish@olympus.net), November 18, 1999.

Ditto, What is needed is a Site to keep track of hikes in taxes and fees by locality and the names of Elected Officials doing the deeds.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 18, 1999.