Have you written/e-mailed your state legislator yet to tell them no state money to reward extortion by King County?

For those of you who need the background, Rob McKenna is a King County council member. He was one of the few who stood up against the cynical ploy of holding basic services hostage to political pay-offs to the interest groups. Rather than cut nice-to-haves that were important to special interest groups, the King County Council purposely engineered a fiscal train wreck by funding their essential programs at the needed levels for ONLY THE FIRST SIX MONTHS while allowing the nice-to-haves to continue business as usual, or even increase in some cases.

The reason for this is to EXTORT (there is no more accurate word) money from the state government to cover their profligacy under the guise of being unable to fund essential services. They have pulled this scam for years with Medic One on their own voters, now they want to do it with the rest of us.

Time to tell your representatives to tell King County not no, but Hell no (and youre an SOB for asking!).

Doing a hatchet job on the county budget by Rob McKenna Special to The Times There's no mystery about the proper response of local government officials to the passage of Initiative 695. Our duty is to prioritize spending to maintain core government programs like public safety and public health, minimizing I-695's impact on those vital services. Unfortunately, our state's largest local government refused to fully prioritize its spending in that way. King County rejected millions of dollars in potential savings and efficiencies. It deliberately chose to cut funding for essential services instead of further tightening its fiscal belt and reducing funding for far-less-important programs. The County Council and executive consciously chose to fund several programs in our Sheriff's Office - including the only law-enforcement helicopter in King County - for just the first six months of 2000. A number of public health programs and services, including primary health services at county community health clinics, were given just three months' funding. The budget passed 11-2, with Councilman Chris Vance and me voting no. The county's stated intent is to lobby the state Legislature for money to replace the lost car-tab revenue, inappropriately arguing that it is the state's responsibility to fund those public health and safety programs for the remainder of 2000 and beyond. Yet, public safety and public health are among the most basic, core services that county governments have the responsibility to provide. Sadly, the county's 2000 budget essentially uses cops and public health clinic patients as human shields for our Olympia lobbyists. We could have fully funded public safety and health for the entire year, but the executive and a majority of the council chose not to.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/kena_19991213.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 13, 1999

Answers

...and these people get paid $92,287 a year.

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

Excluding the issue of how King County elected to budget for the first 6 months; was it not your understanding that the state was expected to replace some of the MVET losses to local governments, with money from the state "reserve" funds, and budget cuts? I thought I saw several posts about holding the legislators feet to the fire, if they didn't minimize the losses at the local level with state funds. It was only to be a 2% funding loss, but that only occurs if the state does a balancing act, and quickly.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), December 13, 1999.

"Excluding the issue of how King County elected to budget for the first 6 months; was it not your understanding that the state was expected to replace some of the MVET losses to local governments, with money from the state "reserve" funds, and budget cuts? "

Well d, we went round and round on the issue of Medic One and I guess we'll do it on this too.

Now I would assert that the passage of I-695 was not merely about selfish greed on the part of the electorate, but about a growing alienation of the electorate from their elected officials. I believe that the polling data that indicated that the provision for a plebescite on tax increases had even greater support than the $30 cap on excise tax demonstrates this.

The POINT of this post was not that King County was asking the state for funding to offset some of what they lost from 695, but rather the MANNER in which they were doing so. By attempting to use what amounts to extortion they further the cynicism being directed at politicians, as even the politician-author of this editorial CLEARLY understands.

Any bum off the street can come into an establishment and ask for a donation, but when Luigi and Guido come into your restaurant and say that there have been a lot of fires on this block and they believe your place would be a lot safer if you donated $200 a week to their fire protection benevolence association, I think that probably goes over the line

Are you just playing games with a strawman argument here, or can you truly not see a difference between simply asking the state legislature for help in an honest straightforward manner and playing this game?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 13, 1999.

"Excluding the issue of how King County elected to budget for the first 6 months; was it not your understanding that the state was expected to replace some of the MVET losses to local governments, with money from the state "reserve" funds, and budget cuts? "

Other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

What kind of bull is this, D? Other than the MAIN POINT OF THE THREAD, is there something I can bring up to distract the argument against what even a fellow insider found unconscionable? What would it take to get your dander up about excessive or inappropriate government actions? Is there anything that would??

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), December 13, 1999.

Craig and Zowie:

You always seem to put the worst possible interpretation to anything I write. I agree the tactic seems wrong. What I was asking, and did not get an answer to, was if the objection to local funding from the state was a general position or limited to King County because of the tactic they used. I can infer from your comments that it is limited to King County, but that was not stated.

The next question is, how would the legislature be able to provide discriminatory relief to local governments, based on the behavior of the local politicians? And then, why would King County residents want the state to provide relief to other counties to a greater extent than to King County? Even if the County Council used bad judgement in their tactics, why should the legislature "punish" the residents of King County by withholding what would otherwise be the fair share of relief that would be due to the county under whatever scheme they eventually devise? Whatever relief is not provided to the county by the state, will result in either reduced services to the public or a local tax proposal to make it up. The public gets the penalty, one way or another, and not the County Council members responsible for the budget vote.

I agree the tactic should not constitute a justification for more relief than other areas of the state, but how would it work for the legislature to provide less?

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

You always seem to put the worst possible interpretation to anything I write. In fairness, you whizzed right by the main point d, and seemed to be attempting to ignore that point by rather condescendingly implying that I was naove in not expecting the local governments to ask for relief from some of the effects of I-695, which of course we have all been predicting would be necessary the entire time Ive been posting on this site.

I agree the tactic seems wrong. Good, sort of. With the Medic One issue which to me is an exact analogy, you seemed to believe holding public safety hostage to higher taxes while protecting various special interests was acceptable. I note with some concern your use of the word seems. Given that the definition of seems includes to appear to be I take it that you will at least concede that this has the appearance of impropriety, although this seems kind of an unseemly quibble compared to just saying, Yes, if thats their tactic, that would be WRONG.

What I was asking, and did not get an answer to, was if the objection to local funding from the state was a general position or limited to King County because of the tactic they used. I can infer from your comments that it is limited to King County, but that was not stated. Clearly the issue here was King County. You and I have discussed tax equalization in the past. I am not convinced that tax equalization is a good idea, no matter if funded by the MVET or by (what would intuitively appear more appropriate) sales tax. I believe the state should tax its citizens in common for those things that are commonly required by the citizens of the state. They should not tax the citizens in common for money to run University Place. If the voters of University Place (or Silverdale) believe that the incremental gain of incorporation exceeds the incremental costs for another layer of government, THEY ought to fund it through increased local taxes. If the voters in University Place dont believe they are getting value for their state sales tax dollars, they ought to vote to lower the state sales tax rate and devolve increased taxing authority for sales taxes to their city. Now having said that, since the previous policies of the state got University Place (among others) INTO this mess, I believe it is appropriate for the state to provide some measure of support, diminishing rapidly over the next 2- 3 years to nothing, to allow them to transition back to unincorporated status, if that is their wish, or to vote to raise local taxes, if they wish to continue the current level of services.

The next question is, how would the legislature be able to provide discriminatory relief to local governments, based on the behavior of the local politicians? Well, I suppose the same discriminatory way they were able to decide that some cities got 2% of their revenue from the MVET, while others got 30%.

And then, why would King County residents want the state to provide relief to other counties to a greater extent than to King County? One would assume that they wouldnt. But since Im not a King County resident the better question in my opinion would be, why would a non- King County resident want the state to provide relief to King County to provide a higher level of services than to other government entities that HAVE NOT attempted to extort money by this mechanism? Why on earth would I want the state to REWARD such behavior?

Even if the County Council used bad judgement in their tactics, why should the legislature "punish" the residents of King County by withholding what would otherwise be the fair share of relief that would be due to the county under whatever scheme they eventually devise? Why should I, a non King County resident, encourage the state to immunize the King County residents from the poor management of their elected representatives? If their elected representatives make inappropriate resource allocation decisions, why should I have to pay through my state taxes to offset this. If the King County council decides to spend the money that could have provided essential services for adding a dollar an hour to people who do childcare in the city, why should someone not in King County pay for that? If the King County Council decides that 1 and =% for Art is more important than public safety, why should I be expected to provide a different county with basic services?

Whatever relief is not provided to the county by the state, will result in either reduced services to the public or a local tax proposal to make it up. The public gets the penalty, one way or another, and not the County Council members responsible for the budget vote. And who DESERVES the penalty for voting in County Council members that will do such a thing, the people of King County who were able to vote in the elections that placed these Council members in power, or the people in the REST of the state that had no say in putting such people in positions of public trust? Why should we insulate the people of King County from the consequences of their electoral decisions? Why should we enable their continued poor choices?

I agree the tactic should not constitute a justification for more relief than other areas of the state, but how would it work for the legislature to provide less? Easy! For the next 2-3 years you provide grants to ensure that, when combined with local revenues, all cities will have adequate resources for ESSENTIAL services. By essential, we mean police, fire, public health, public safety. You provide these grants the same way that WA DOT has been providing grants for transit services. These grants have never been provided on an equal per capita basis, equal area basis, or any other recognizable distribution formula. You put in a proposal and if the proposal is accepted, you get the money. Id have every local government that lost money under 695 submit their requests. Those who had done everything reasonable to minimize the impact would be granted what was needed to get them up to the statewide standard. Those who had decided the daycare workers and other nice-to-haves were their priority would have backed out of their grants the amounts that could have been used to offset the cuts, since this constituted a CHOICE to fund non-essential services, not a consequence of I-695. Id then give them local taxing authority (subject to popular vote) to raise taxes in King County as high as the locals would allow.

I am growing tired of subsidizing Seattle stupidity, and thats really what we are talking about here. If they are going to put people in power who make dumb decisions (Lets invite the WTO, lets invite some protesters, lets tell the police how to do their jobs, lets not let them do their jobs, OMIGAWD< CALL OUT THE NATIONAL GUARD!) they need to suffer the consequences of their bad choices, not try to share them equitably with the rest of us.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 14, 1999.

I agree with Craig. There needs to be consequences for actions. If a given city or county council does something that is inappropriately profligate, and people from outside that jurisdiction bail the local voters out, they have not only enabled their bad choices for representatives, they have in fact subsidized them. Because you elected spendthrifts, you spent all of YOUR money and got some of OURS. This makes fiscal prudence a liability and profligracy an advantage, which is of course what the pro-big government people like D desire.

At the federal level, this is done through matching grants, which are a bribe by the federal government to raise your taxes at the local level. The bias is clearly for MORE taxes and MORE spending. If you raise your taxes to provide your match you are raising your local taxes to pay for something that you, oftentimes, wouldnt have been willing to pay full price for. If you do NOT raise your local taxes to provide the match, you are forfeiting the federal taxes that you have paid to those who are less fiscally prudent.

But thats the gimmick, in both cases. The strategies are DESIGNED to further the growth of government.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 14, 1999.

We seem to be talking past each other again. My point was that whatever scheme is devised for state relief, King County should still be able to apply on the same basis as any other county. They may not qualify for much relief under some scenarios, and that is fine with me as long as the criteria are the same for every county. I believe most of any state relief money ought to go to the small cities and transit districts that were hurt the most by the loss of MVET anyway. My questions about your view of the King County situation were to understand if you really wanted to "punish" the county for a poor decision by their elected representatives. You answered that. We disagree.

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

"My questions about your view of the King County situation were to understand if you really wanted to "punish" the county for a poor decision by their elected representatives. You answered that. We disagree." By which I can only assume that you wish to punish them. I do not accept the liberal notion that failing to protect people from the consequences of their action constitutes me punishing someone.

I absolutely support the right of the King County voters to elect the people of THEIR choice, regardless of whether or not they would have been the candidates I would have voted for. I absolutely support the right of the King County Council to do thing that are, in my opinion, dumb As long as it is not criminal activity, they shoul;d be answerable only to the voters that elected them. I see no reason for them to modify their administration to make me happy, and their voters have adequate recall authority if they do something that their constituents find sufficiently inappropriate.

But I feel absolutely no obligation to fund them out of common state monies to offset the results of decisions that more frugal local governments chose not to make. And I reject your assertion that my refusal to approve the use of state taxes to offset local funding shortfalls that, with more conventional funding decisions would either have not occurred or at least been less severe, constitutes "punishment."

Everybody makes decisions in life. When they make bad decisions, there are consequences. When you vote into positions of authority people who administer poorly, things aren't going to be as good as when you vote in people who administer wisely. Is this news to anyone?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 14, 1999.

Craig wrote, ""My questions about your view of the King County situation were to understand if you really wanted to "punish" the county for a poor decision by their elected representatives. You answered that. We disagree." By which I can only assume that you wish to punish them. I do not accept the liberal notion that failing to protect people from the consequences of their action constitutes me punishing someone."

Now you confused me. I do not favor any form of discriminatory treatment of King County, or any other local government. From your earlier post it seemed that you did. Now it seems you don't.

As for protecting people from the consequences of their actions; the consequences for the King County Council should be their tactic didn't work, they get no more than they would have before they tried it, and they lose some more of their credibility. Beyond that, the consequences would fall on the citizens of the county, which I believe would be as wrong as the County Council action.

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

"Now you confused me. I do not favor any form of discriminatory treatment of King County, or any other local government. From your earlier post it seemed that you did. Now it seems you don't. " What I favor is to not fund the portion of the shortfall that could have been funded by the County Council had they made decisions more in line with those of the average government. Due to the fact that they are continuing to "burn" their funding line at the normal rate in non- essential services, this would result in either a more severe cut in the non-essential services than would otherwise occur, or a cut in what I would consider to be essential services. I view this as extortion, literally holding their own citizens hostage. I personally would not bail them out should this occur. As I stated, I do not regard this as punishment. I regard that as letting people suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 14, 1999.

Craig,

And so have you written/e-mailed your state legislator yet? Just wondering.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 14, 1999.

"And so have you written/e-mailed your state legislator yet? Just wondering. " All three of them. For those of you who do not know your legislator's e-mail address (or who they are for that matter) here is a handy-dandy site (Sorry, been watching Blue's Clues videos with my two year old grand-son): http://dfind.leg.wa.gov/

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 14, 1999.

Craig:

Your comments appear to assume that the legislature will establish some kind of needs based evaluation of local government funding, before they replace any part of the loss of MVET revenue. That would require the legislature to substitute their judgement (through a committee or staff) for the judgement of the local officials, concerning priorities and programs. I doubt they would do that, or that it would be a good idea if they did.

Let me predict that if they replace MVET funding they will do it much more simply, so that it is more automatic and they are not second guessing local governments. Something like a progressive withdrawl of MVET funding over 3 or 4 years. 80% year 1, 60% year 2, 40% year 3, 20% year 4, for example.

Efficiency, and the priorities of each local government, are first of all the responsibility of the local elected officials and those that put them in office. The legislature will not want to get in the middle of that.

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

Speaking of the outcome of the KC budget meeting, does anyone know if there's anyone planning on opposing Dwight Pelz when his term is up for reelection?

Based on his reaction in the budget meeting--"fighting back against these little right-wing punks trying to take back the government," I'd be willing to send some money to his opponent. I'd even be willing to work for his opponent (Pelz covers my district).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 14, 1999.

d,

The responses I have received from 7 Legislators do not indicate they are considering replacing MVET funding in the manner you suggested. I think your percentage estimate is too high. And I doubt Transit will see much help at all. What are you basing your prediction on?

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 14, 1999.

Marsha:

The prediction was they would devise a simple system. The percentages and method were an example. Based on nothing at all.

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

"Efficiency, and the priorities of each local government, are first of all the responsibility of the local elected officials and those that put them in office. The legislature will not want to get in the middle of that. "

Too bad. It's what they are getting paid to do. If the state legislature is not going to ensure that funds raised through taxation they mandated are efficiently and appropriately disbursed, what IS their job? Why should we let them tax us, if they aren't willing to take responsibility for the money once it is collected?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 15, 1999.

Craig:

The legislature has a responsibility to manage state government, but not each political subdivision of the state in the kind of detail you suggest. They authorize local governments to tax, and let them manage the money. Regarding the MVET, they collected the money and distributed it to the local governments responsible for managing it. In both cases they leave local spending priorities to local politics, with the expectation that the locals are best able to determine how to get the most for the money. I believe the most responsive governments are those that are local, with the elected officials accountable to their neighbors. I would much rather have spending decisions about local issues made at local meetings I can attend, than at legislative hearings in Olympia.

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

d,

Under normal circumstances that's how it should work. I disagree with your statement that "They authorize local governments to tax, and let them manage the money. Regarding the MVET, they collected the money and distributed it to the local governments responsible for managing it. In both cases they leave local spending priorities to local politics, with the expectation that the locals are best able to determine how to get the most for the money."

Not entirely true. When it is earmarked for certain functions by the State, it means that Local Governments don't have any discretion on those funds. Money for Economic Development must go to Economic Development etc.

It is not always a good idea to make the money available to Local Governments. MVET and Transit is a perfect example. Limited funding for Metro, Pierce, Intercity, etc was a good idea. That same level of service is just plain stupid in rural areas. Of course the voters in rural areas said yes to transit. They were losing out on a big chunk of MVET that they paid. But was it a good use of the money? Not in my opinion. I'm sure there are many more examples of this type of stupid spending.

I doubt this next session will be handled in a "business as usual manner". I think in this instance, due to passage of I-695, we will see smaller County/City Governments being helped more than say King County. I would not be suprised to see only specific funding for certain essentials, but not to the extent Local Governments will say they require.

In addition, the Legislature seems intent to grant more power to Local Governments to generate voter approved revenue, as a means to deal with the long term effects. Which will translate into no new revenue where I live. I can live with it.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Marsha:

I agree that money with "strings" can cause problems. Still, even with the strings, local governments get much of the pass-through money with a lot of discretion about how it is spent. Your comments indicate the value of fewer strings, not more as Craig would have it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 16, 1999.

"Your comments indicate the value of fewer strings, not more as Craig would have it. " Not my intent at all. I have no problem with the state granting additional taxing authority to the local governments, subject to voter approval. I do object to your assertion that the taxpayers paying the taxes in common with the other citizens of the state have no business telling the local governments what they can or cannot do with the state provided money. If you are taking my tax money you better expect I will want a say in how it is used. If you are gathering local taxes that I am not contributing to, you have a rational argument to tell me it is none of my business. Basically, if you don't want my input, don't ask for my money.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

Craig:

Where we disagree is that I consider the pass through money, like sales tax equalization, to be giving back to the local government the sales tax they should be entitled to - - - their money. What you described are still strings, and likely to create local problems.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 16, 1999.

If it's "their money" then the state shouldn't collect it in the first place, the local government should. Old saying, If you take the King's gold, you are the King's man. If you want local autonomy, ask for the right to raise your own taxes, don't ask me to not care about what becomes of taxes that I pay. As Ronald Reagan once said, "It's my microphone."

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

Craig:

We went through this before. All sales tax goes to the state first, and is returned. I believe it should substanitally return to where the buyer lives. Your comments indicate you want it to go where the seller is in business. It is the tax payers money, and should go where it benefits the tax payer, and not only the tax collector (retail business).

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 16, 1999.