What are your stances on welfare? I see a lot of liberalism in here, and I wonder how you feel about your tax dollars going to welfare checks. Don't feel sorry for the college student? What about the people who don't have an education?

I'm against welfare because it benefits only certain people. Public transit is just that, PUBLIC. Maybe if more people rode the bus, they would feel the pain too, and the traffic problems would go down in the Seattle area, and the pollution would go down...

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999

Answers

I am absolutely 100% in favor of welfare as a short term transition for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the resources to take care of themselves. I might even cover people who have screwed up, realize the error of their ways, and wish to make things right with their lives through a new start. I support maintenance funds for people who are physically unable to care for themselves. I am adamantly opposed to subsidizing people who are in a bad situation because they have made bad choices to CONTINUE to make bad choices. I believe that there should be a particularly warm spot reserved in southern Hell for the politicians and bureaucrats (and alleged advocates for the poor and downtrodden, I won't mention anybody mucking around in Illinois by name) who have made a good living out of ENGENDERING DEPENDENCY and creating what threatens to become a permanent underclass. They deserve universal condemnation.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 22, 1999.

Actually, if more people rode the bus, we probably wouldn't feel the pain. The system would be less overbloated that way, and thusly, more justifiable. The system is highly inefficient right now, because not enough people ride the bus.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 22, 1999.

Actually Paul, the deciding factor in transit use winds up being demographics. There are valid reasons that people make a reasonable informed decision not to ride the bus. There are also many areas where the per passenger cost of providing the service is unreasonably high, just due to the demographics. The bus service that MetroKC is cancelling had less than nine passengers boarded per hour. Since operating costs are over $100 an hour (not counting capitalization costs) the AVERAGE passenger for one-third of the system was getting a $10 subsidy. The less efficient half of the runs being cancelled were REALLY money losers. Had I-695 not passed, the intention was to add even less cost-effective runs. Would you vote for a school levy to add more buses if the current buses were only carrying nine kids an hour? Why would you want to do it for transit? It's still the demographics.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 22, 1999.

Craig, perhaps some legislation could have been written to affect only those transit systems with low ridership. This would hammer 3/4 of the transit systems statewide, but would keep intact those that have the demographics to somewhat support them. As it is now, every transit gets nailed. maybe this could be called daughter of 695

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 22, 1999.

theman-

ALL of the transit systems have pushed beyond their appropriate niche. Sims is cancelling about one-third of the MetroKC runs next year (1.1 million hours out of 3.3 million). The average use rate of the cancelled runs was 9 boardings an hour, and King County is the most populous county (and highest population density) in the state. ALL of these transit programs needed pruning. Many needed to be cut off to basic services to support transit dependent only.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 23, 1999.