Many posts on this forum propose privatization of governmental functions, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of government on a business model basis. What is the purpose, and what are the functions, of government?

I believe the most important functions of government; are to do those things we believe need to be done that ARE NOT attractive to private contractors, or those that if done by a private contractor would make that service a monopoly in their service area, or those that involve the exercise of the "police powers" of government on behalf of the community. The purpose of government is to do as a community, what we agree should be done as a community.

I bring this up only because some seem to be stating that government is doing something wrong when it runs transit or ferry services that are not profitable. If government services were determined by what was profitable, why would we need government to do it? It seems to me something more is needed to determine if a service should be provided, like a public policy to provide or not provide the service. As an example, something like the locations of the public libraries could be based on an equitable distribution throughout a community, or based on where the service is needed, or based on where the revenue is derived to pay for the libraries. A private contractor could provide libraries and fund them with user fees, but they would likely not be as available where they are needed, and would not meet community needs.

So how does that relate to the other privatization discussions on this forum?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 26, 1999

Answers

Craig, I would like to see your comments on this, as they relate to transit and the ferry system. How much should be done as a public service, because the community believes it is the right thing to do? If you believe transit and ferries need to be evaluated on a purely business basis; what makes them different than libraries, or the fire department, or the police department, or the parks department?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 26, 1999.

or roads built with tax money.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), December 26, 1999.

I like that question. It does seem as if there are several people here who complain that government entities should operate in the black, but that they should also not operate with a profit. I'm assuming that there will be several "this just shows how we don't need government" responses.

I'd like to see all those roads outside the Puget Sound region torn up. Probably a good 90% of them don't pay for themselves in terms of motor vehicles passing over them. Why should I be paying for a road in Yakima County that lies vacant 23.7 hours a day?

There was an interesting little tidbit I read somewhere in today's paper. It mentioned about how England's first privately operated jail is receiving horrible reviews. Apparently, the inmates are asking to be transfered at a record rate. No, not because of the horrible conditions, but because they're being treated so nice. Guards eat with them, go by a first name basis, and generally treat them like average citizens. The inmates find this so shocking and unacceptable that they're asking to be transfered to government jails where they'll be treated more like criminals!

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

"Craig, I would like to see your comments on this, as they relate to transit and the ferry system. How much should be done as a public service, because the community believes it is the right thing to do? " In a democracy, quite a lot. if you can get an honest up or down vote on the issue. The great difficulty with the current situation, IMHO, is that way too much is done by political manipulation, rather than an up/down vote on the issue. Most people are familiar with the concept of "pork barrel projects," things added by someone who happens to be a key committee person. as their price for getting the rest of a piece of legislation through there little fiefdom. You get similar things with bundling, as was done with the MVET. By putting some public health and local law enforcement dollars in, it was possible to partially insulate the MVET from repeal in the legislature, because everyone who might otherwise oppose it had "a piece of the action." The entire political system is starting to resemble Milo Minderbinder's organization in Catch-22, which did irrational and inconsistent things (aircraft bombing their own base on contract from the Germans) because, "everyone has a piece of the action." I am particularly concerned about conflicting goals like decreasing urban sprawl to save rural America while inducing urban sprawl by subsidizing Seattle workers to live in Kingston, Bainbridge, and Southworth.

But internal inconsistencies aside, we have the same problems with charging less than market value for ferry and transit that we do with socialized medicine, controlling excessive or inappropriate utilization. It is the classic commons problem. If no one is adversely affected personally from over-use of a common resource, it tends to be way overused. Excepting the transit dependent, I honestly don't think we should be subsidizing transit or the ferries at all, personally. If the community wishes to get a discount or other economies of scale by buying these services in bulk, I guess that's OK, if the issue is voted on as a single issue (the original purpose of the bill shall have only one subject admonition in the state constitution).

But bundling issues like this, or pork barreling issues like this, tends to allow them to avoid the debate over their cost-effectiveness or inconsistencies with other policies. That's how we get, at the federal level, massive money going to smoking prevention programs while massive subsidies are going to tobacco farmers. The syndicate in Catch-22 didn't worry about these inconsistencies, and neither does government. I'm going to miss Joseph Heller.......

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

"If you believe transit and ferries need to be evaluated on a purely business basis; what makes them different than libraries, or the fire department, or the police department, or the parks department? " Because in the case of police and fire, you are in effect self-insuring against a low risk but high damage event. We have had private libraries and private parks in the past (and still do). But again, if people CHOOSE to fund them on a straightforward up/down vote, rather some ploy like King County used (fund the nice to haves first, then extort MORE money if you want police and public health services, I really don't have much problem with that. A democracy doesn't mean that your side isn't going to lose a vote, but it should mean that you got the chance to make your case in a fair way, without the cards being stacked against you by chicanery, and you simply lacked a sufficiently compelling argument to carry the day. People who perceive themselves as having lost in a fair fight, IMHO, are more amenable to making the results work, than are people who believe they lost by treachery or deception. If you win the vote, but start a revolution against the government by the manner in which you won it, you probably do everyone a disservice, your own side included.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

"or roads built with tax money. "

Jim-

People today tend to think of roads as a thing that was invented to indulge car owners. They were not. The reality, if you look at pre- auto era cities, is that roads have ALWAYS been a requirement of cities. The issue is one of simple logistics. If you want to live in an unheated unplumbed cabin in the middle of nowhere (like the mountain men did historically, or Ted Kazynski did more recently), you can get by without roads. But if you desire population densities of even a couple of hundred per acre, roads become a necessity. That was the case in pre-Christian Rome, I've walked the roads of Herculaneum, excavated from the ash of Vesuvius. They were pretty decent roads, with ox-cart tracks worn deep, from the necsessity of supplying food, fuel, water, etc., to the citizenry. Without the roads, you greatly complicate your ability to have sewers and water (and I guarantee your citizens will DIE in great numbers if you pack them in tight, without adequate sewerage) and electricity and natural gas. And these are not trivial issues. Find a military logistician, someone who needs to be capable of providing essential needs to an army in the field. These are critical, as critical as weapons and ammunition, and more wars have likely been lost from their lack, than from the lack of weaponry.

So Jim, understand that roads ARE essential services, at least to the extent that you need access routes for logistical resupply and distribution. You can argue that autos are not, but you greatly complicate your logistics if you don't have truck access pretty close to everyone. A truck or an ox-cart (and if you start using draft animals your logistics gets REAL ugly, they require a lot of logistics support at both ends), it doesn't really matter. Food, water, and fuel doesn't miraculously appear in your living room.

Now you can argue how much the cost of roads depends upon cars, but if you want to be fair, what you'll really have to argue is the MARGINAL costs of having roads for autos above and beyond what would be necessary for logistical supply regardless of whether or not autos existed. And a fair analysis pretty much demonstrates that the users of the autos, through their gas taxes and other user fees, pay their own way in this regard.

I don't have much respect for Ted Kazynski, but he was more honest than most of the anti-technology types. He lived the type of life that you need to live, if you are willing to give up the fruits of technology, and this includes the auto.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

"I'd like to see all those roads outside the Puget Sound region torn up. Probably a good 90% of them don't pay for themselves in terms of motor vehicles passing over them. Why should I be paying for a road in Yakima County that lies vacant 23.7 hours a day? " See above. If you eat Yakima fruits and vegetables, you're going to pay, one way or another. Roads existed for the purpose of getting agricultural goods to market long before there were internal combustion engines. The real issue is the marginal cost of the autos to use that road, once you accept that the road is a necessity to feed the people in the cities. To that extent, the cost really should be allocated to the cities. When we were hunter-gatherers, nor roads were necessary. Once we started agriculture and specialization of jobs (the basis for commerce), they became a necessity. Seattle drinks a LOT more coffee than it grows, and very little of it walked, bicycled, or used transit to get here.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

d,

You posted, "It seems to me something more is needed to determine if a service should be provided, like a public policy to provide or not provide the service. As an example, something like the locations of the public libraries could be based on an equitable distribution throughout a community, or based on where the service is needed, or based on where the revenue is derived to pay for the libraries. A private contractor could provide libraries and fund them with user fees, but they would likely not be as available where they are needed, and would not meet community needs." Is this your admission that maybe something does need changing?

My presence in this forum, and my opinions, are based on the fact that I think Government is going overboard with spending my tax dollars. My purpose is not to eliminate government or many of the services, but to hold the line at a reasonable rate.

If the bus ride you pay $1.00 for, actually costs ten times that much, why should you NOT be expected to pay a higher share? Just how much subsidy do you want, if you are one of only 5% using the service?

If State and Local Governments want to cut costs by privitizing, or contracting out services, they should be encouraged to do so. If we make suggestions here, to that effect, why would the "anti" side be so offended (alarmed)? Many Legislators have voiced their intent to look at the privitization issue.

Privitization may in fact WORK WELL. Why is it being condemned before we even try it? (The same argument many are using for Sound Transit, based on the build it, and they will ride thoery.) What is everyone afraid of? A better level of service? Lower costs?

I am beginning to think ALL the "anti's" are government employees.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

The point was government may need to do what is not attractive to business, and will not produce a profit. The public policy debate should determine what and how much. Privatization is not a solution, but a strategy that should be used in some limited situations. This was to call attention to the need for the debate of when and where it is appropriate, and when and where it is not. That has been answered differently in other areas. In some cities, the ambulance service is a government operation. In others, the taxi service is so strictly regulated it is almost a government operation. In others they privatize the jails.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 27, 1999.

d,

Who is posting government should be operated at a profit? Expecting them to spend my money wisely and efficiently is common sense. I don't recall anyone saying they should be operated in a for profit business environment.

Do you have a proposal to carry out this neccessary dialog, other than posts in this forum?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

The dialog happens every time a government program is evaluated, and the budget is approved, modified, or rejected, through hearings and public meetings. In King County they are considering whether to keep the levy rate for EMS at about 25 or 30 cents/$1000, or reduce it by 5 cents by charging for transports in the Medic One units (kind of like a user fee, no?) Some committee decides how much of the ferry budget should be taxes, and how much fees. Other states have good toll roads, and poorly maintained freeways (I broke a shock absorber in the Illinois area once, on a freeway driving a truck) They decided to provide a "privatized" option. How public the debate needs to be is a matter of opinion, but public policy gets made when public agencies make program and budget decisions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 27, 1999.

d,

What you say about the hearings on budgets and proposals is true. However, many people don't have the time to attend meetings, but would still like to have input. Technology may be able to assist. Many Transit Agencies posted service changes to their websites and requested input via email, as well as the traditional method.

On the other hand, I don't believe for a minute that ALL public agencies and governments take public input into considersation. If that were the case, then maybe the three Mason County Commissioners would have taken a 5% salary reduction that they proposed for the rest of the entire county operation. One did admit he had done so in prior years, so it can be done, and it was what most people were in favor of. So the dialog only works when they want it to.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

If they hear it often enough, from enough people, they must respond if they expect to be re-elected. E-mail and FAX messages do have an effect. Relatively few people take the time to do it, so each one is considered to represent many others who are silent.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 27, 1999.

I have to disagree with the issue of communication to a legislator.

Rep. Don Carlson admitted that he'd recieved 700 emails and letters urging him to vote for the WA DOMA. He voted against it.

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), December 27, 1999.

d,

As long as you bring it up. In this particular case, Letters to the Editor were overwhelmingly suggesting they take the 5% cut. Public sentiment in the hearing was also of the same opinion. (Of course it was held at 0900, when most people had to be at work.) At the present time, they have no published fax number or email address that I know of, and the link to the County website has been down since at least August. The only County Offices whom we have access to online, to my knowledge, is the Sheriff and the Auditor.

Two of the three Commissioners are not up for re-election next year, so I expect they won't be responsive for quite a while. I have less faith than you do, or I am not that naive. I have a long memory....and when the time comes, I will be sure the issue doesn't get buried.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

d,

I also wanted to ask you if you meant something different in the following statement.

I bring this up only because some seem to be stating that government is doing something wrong when it runs transit or ferry services that are not profitable. If government services were determined by what was profitable, why would we need government to do it?

Is that reference to profitable mean you think we expect government to turn a profit?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Marsha:

On your county commissioners, perhaps they do not expect to be re-elected. How long have they been in office? They may be ready to quit or lose the election.

About the ferry and transit systems, some of the Craig posts (and others) seemed to me to say that a very business basis should be used to run government services. The suggestion that they be privatized itself, indicated they are willing to let market forces determine what level of service is provided, and where, and at what rate. That was the issue I wanted to see some discussion about. Why would we want government to do it at all, if it was to be operated the way a business would run it? The point of having government do it, is to provide services in a way, and in locations, that a business would not find attractive.

Police and fire protection in some "inner city" areas, for example, cost more than the revenue derived from those areas. Some bridges built by government to serve an area, are so expensive for the number of homes accessed it would never be paid for by those who benefit, even at the highest immaginable toll. In some cities, the city bus provides transit services in areas a taxi would not go to if called. In any community, services like park maintenance and road maintenance and street sweeping and snow removal are dead losers to be done as little as possible (or not at all) if thought of as a business expense.

It is not just a matter of running government to make a profit, but rather running government using a business model rather than a service model. Governments provide services, in situations that a business would avoid.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

d,

It seems you are mixing apples and oranges to me. Selling Liqour is a business that should indeed, be operated for a profit, and Retailers would be beating down the door to help privatize it.

Most of my comments regarding privatizing also contained references to contracting out services.

We have many examples of companies who contract with Government. One example I am most familiar with is Private Transportation Companies (school bus and transit contracts) that provided bus services. In most cases, they do so at a rate lower than what a public agency would be able to provide it for and they make a profit. You are probably familiar with Laidlaw, (not exactly the best reputation). But there are many others. Paratransit Services is a local Company (non-profit, last I heard) who contracts with local agencies and has a successful record. Larson Transportation, from Oregon, probably still has contracts for school bus services in this state. They make a profit by keeping wages lower (which was NOT true, in my experience, I actually earned more!) and keeping down the overhead. (fewer support personnel, no fancy offices, centralized payroll, etc.)

Just because Government must have the responsibility for a service, doesn't mean they must also be the providers of that service.

I think Craig's points about privatizing Ferries, had more to do with operating using lower subsidies and higher fares, rather than for profit. I doubt you will get much of an argument regarding the neccessity of subsidies, only on the amount of needed subsidies.

We will still need to subsidize services, but, if undertaken properly, the subsidies would be much less than the current subsidy. You see, the savings come from companies who operate more efficiently than Government, or go out of business (or lose a contract).

The Federal Government contracts out much more frequently for needed services. Johnson Controls at Subase Bangor comes to mind. I seriously doubt the Feds would contract out if it cost them more, not less.

I am aware of studies that indicate the use of contractors is NOT cost effective. The majority were sponsored by labor unions, and hold no merit, IMO.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

d,

How convenient. The Mason County Commissioners pulled a fast one just when they were brought up as a topic in this forum.

It seems they have eliminated the position of Fire Marshal, and expect volunteers to fill the gap, (which volunteers are adamently opposed to!) No, a hearing WAS NOT HELD! And none of the District Chiefs were consulted. I guess fires will not be investigated and new buildings will not be inspected for fire safety compliance.

So, d, I think you need to modify your position that hearings are held on important government matters, or that public input is part of the process. Even those who are now expected to fill the gap weren't consulted.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

d-

I'm kind of interested in YOUR opinion regarding the roads issue that Mr Cusick raises. Do you consider roads to be essential functions, and if so, how much of the cost of the roads is appropriately allocated to autos, how much to transit, how much to trucks, how much to utility companies, etc., ?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 28, 1999.

[The purpose of government is to do as a community, what we agree should be done as a community. ]

Very dangerous premise. We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. The Primary purpose of govenment is to prevent the "war of all against all".

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), December 28, 1999.

Frank:

Your comment gets to how we determine what should be done, as a community. (Through direct democracy or through elected representatives) I made the comment in the general sense, applicable through either.

Craig:

I will need to get back to you when I have more time for the question.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

Monica:

I don't have any problem with government contracting out services, when that meets the community needs. In a contract, the community can set the public policy requirements demanded of the contractor, so that requirement is met. The community will likely pay a premium price for the service because of the service level requirements they want, and can make a judgement about the value of the service level(s) the contractor can provide. I lived in a city once that had just 4 employees, and a population over 100,000. Two contract administrators, and two secretaries. The city staff managed the contracts, and assured that the contract requirements were being met. The point is the city is still responsible, and the contracts were written to require a SERVICE level that was monitored and enforced. That was not the issue I was raising.

The concern I had, was the way business criteria were being used to evaluate government service decisions. It souded as if the public policy need to provide service, even when it may not make business sense, was being ignored. The ferry system subsidy issue is a good example. I believe the state has some obligation to assure that a reasonable level of access is available to the populated areas of the state. Reasonable is subject to subjective judgement, and the minimum population that should "deserve" publicly provided access is also open to some discussion. As a rule of thumb, perhaps 100 or more homes deserve a "public" road. What about 100 or more homes on an island in Puget Sound? Or 200? At what point should the state do what is necessary to assure some minimum level of "public" access to and from the island? Some ferry routes may need little or no subsidy to operate, but some may need to be provided by the government because no private company could operate at a profit, and would be unlikely to even try.

As for the county commissioners, it sounds like you (and they) have some problems to work out. My local experience has not been like that. What is the newspaper doing with these issues? Any discussion of a recall? How upset is the community? Do you have a vocal opposition that would provide a viable candidate to replace one or more? I still believe in getting involved, making some noise, and getting enough attention to change things. It may even take 4 years, to replace two of the commissioners; but it can be done.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

Craig:

I have not followed you discussions with Jim Cusick, so this may be out of the context of your question. As I noted above, I believe government has an obligation to provide some resonable level of access to populated areas of the state. State government connects large areas or populations together. Counties and cities connect neighborhoods and small populations together. The county governments have had something known as the "roads" levy for decades, although it is actually a levy on the unincorporated area of the county to provide the local services that would be provided by a city if the area were a city (less what the special districts provide). For most of that time, county roads and county police protection were the major services funded by the county in the unincorporated areas using the roads levy. When they collect the levy, they accept the obligation to provide the service, even when in the specific case it may not make business sense to build the bridge or repair a washout, that serves a small number of citizens.

You asked, "I'm kind of interested in YOUR opinion regarding the roads issue that Mr Cusick raises. Do you consider roads to be essential functions, and if so, how much of the cost of the roads is aropriately allocated to autos, how much to transit, how much to trucks, how much to utility companies, etc., ?"

1. Roads are about as essential as government services get; but that does not deal with the subjective questions of how good the roads should be, what criteria should determine when a public road should be provided, is gravel good enough or should it be paved, how often should it be repaired, graded, sanded, plowed etc. While roads are an essential service, the decisions about what to do with the roads are usually on the non-essential level.

2. How much of the road spending should be apportioned to autos, transit, trucks, utility companies, etc. is a difficult one to address. I believe the access route needs to be provided for all community needs, and the roads need to support the loads that any community would require. Most areas need to have roads that will support the garbage trucks and fire trucks and the trucks that deliver the roof trusses, etc., as the basic access needed that establishes the minimum construction standard. I would put a 25 ton load limit sign on all local access streets, and construct accordingly. On major arteries that are needed for bigger trucks to access businesses, etc., a higher construction standard is needed. Since the "normal" local traffic does not need that level of load capacity, the bigger vehicles should somehow be supporting the road construction and maintenance budget enough to pay the additional cost of the higher design standards they are causing. If the big vehicles provide enough tires on the road, far enough apart to minimize their impact on the road, perhaps they should get a break on the road taxes.

3. Anything that does not put more than about 18 tons on a set of doubles is operating within the normal minimum road design standards, and should not be charged any more than other vehicles for use of the roads (IMHO).

Does that address your question, or did I miss the point?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 28, 1999.

I basically agree. I just keep running in to anti-auto advocates who appear to believe that roads did not exist before autos and have no purpose but to serve autos. Just wanted a more rational and less emotional discussion with a person who didn't support I-695. The fundamentals of discussion and public debate is that the other fellow is rational and will agree with you if you make a rational, coherent, and compelling argument. The zealots on either side who adopt their positions with religious fervor and unshakeable arrogance are not as much fun to discuss things with as those whose opinion is amenable to logic and comon sense.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

d,

There you go again with that Monica thing. ;)

Actually, This Local issue was covered in the Olympian on 2 consecutive days. The Shelton Newspaper is a weekly, on newstands tomorrow, so while I expect it will be covered in that issue, it would be too soon for any reaction.

I used Bus transportation for my example, you used the Ferries for yours. You are absolutely right about degrees. I see a subsidy as something that will be required, but not at the current level. It makes no difference to me who runs the ferries, I just want it done in a more economical manner, and for users to pay a higher percentage of the costs involved for operation, than they currently do.

Privatizing has been a dirty word in the politics of this state since I have lived here. To my knowledge, it has never been given much of an opportunity.

The very people dependant of the ferries, whether for commuting or other trips, have been complaining about the rudeness of ferry workers for years. Mistakes are publicized regularly. Current safety policies are inconsistant. An empty gas can is confiscated, and stowed in a locker at the dock, (holding up loading in the process) while a boat with an outboard moter is allowed to board, reeking of gasoline.

Could the entire operation be run in a more efficient manner and even improve customer service? How will we ever know if we don't try it? (formerly known as the sound transit argument).

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

Marsha:

I am sorry about the "Monica thing".

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 29, 1999.

d,

No offense was taken, I got a chuckle out of comparing myself to a "famous" Monica both times.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.

I love the big question: "what is the purpose of government?" It would be nice if we could reason from first principles all the way down to questions of local services and subsidies. It starts with Hobbes' monopoly of force in the sovereign. Next Locke (John, not Gary) says no reason the sovereign should get all the goodies. Let's build institutions that bind the leviathan and spread the benefits from the monopoly of force around. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed with these purposes in mind. After that I like Richard Epstein's Simple Rules for a Complex World.

1. Self-ownership and the right to the fruits of your labor. 2. Right to acquire property (first possession). 3. Right to dispose of property (contract). 4. Right to protect your property (tort). 5. Limited right to use the property of others in an emergency situation (use but pay damages). 6. Government's privilege to take property for public good and pay for it in proportion to the taking (eminent domain).

Public good should meet some criteria because government is not subject to market discipline. When a business misallocates resources it goes broke, while the government just levies higher taxes. A public good should benefit everybody (nonexclusive); e.g. National Defense or a justice system. A public good should be open to everyone at low cost (accessible); e.g. roads and parks.

It is also important to look at how government pays for these things. Ideally, payment should be in proportion with benefits and vice versa. Otherwise, one faction will vote itself a benefit and hand the bill to someone else. Any group that is harmed by government action should have standing in court to sue for redress. Unfortunately, the courts are not sympathetic to challenges to government privilege these days.

Taxes should be divided into three categories: general, user and nuisance. General tax is used for the operation of government and provides for public goods. My opinion is that there should be one and only one source of general revenue; i.e. a sales tax on all consumption of new goods and services with no exceptions. User taxes should pass the disparate impact test. Thus a tax on gas should go back into roads 100%. And a tax on cigarettes should go back to smokers; e.g. health care, death benefits. Nuisance tax should be justified by the cost of enforcement when the afflicted parties are dispersed; e.g. pollution tax.

Does this get us anywhere with some of the questions raised here? Mass transit subsidies and other popular community services may be justified by broad community support even if they have a disparate impact. They should be approved by the honest up or down vote that Craigcar mentioned. If passed, they should pay for themselves as much as possible and otherwise be subsidized from local additions to the sales tax. Other political action (e.g. pork-barrel spending, special levies and regulations) should pass the disparate impact test. Any group of citizens that can show adverse impact should have standing in court and can apply for relief.

Unfortunately, we now seem to be afflicted with a government of men not laws. After all, judges are usually both lawyers and politicians. Lawyers like complicated systems. It gives them room to maneuver. Politicians like power. Judge Kathleen Learned said "The constitution does not exist to protect the public form the weakness or failings of its public officials". Silly me, I thought that was exactly what it was for.

So if judges don't understand the law or won't abide by it, what's left? The sponsors of I-695 seem to have found a wedge. Use the initiative process to starve leviathan into submission. Force the honest up or down votes on issues people care about. So far we've taken back 2% of leviathan's rations. It will be a long slow process.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), December 29, 1999.

Not 2%, and not from one entity.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 04, 2000.

Frank-

Not a leviathan, a cancer. Cancer being defined as unrestrained growth of a subset of cells to the detriment of the body as a whole. Except even cancers outgrow their blood supplies, and this is happening in Washington. When PROCESS becomes more important than PRODUCT, government ceases to work and people no longer support it. That happened in Eastern Europe, it is happening now in Western Europe, and it is happening here. Politicians ought to have a symbiotic (rather than parasitic) relationship with the voters. Once it is obvious that there is little benefit to the elctorate, they take back the resources. That has started with I-695. Either the politicians will divert resources out of process back to production, or the populist uprising will continue.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Mark[3digits]-

Your cancer analogy is interesting. In rough numbers the Feds taxes and spends about 2 trillion out of 8 trillion GDP - say 25%. WA State collects about 8% of personal income. Federal regulation amounts to a drag on the economy of about 11%. So when the cancer has spread through 44% of the body, what are the patient's chances?

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

And one aspect of a cancer is that it wastes almost as many resources as it uses.

January 5, 2000 Billions wasted by government, study shows By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A congressional study shows government programs are losing tens of billions of dollars annually to fraud, abuse and mismanagement of federal agencies, prompting House hearings when Congress returns later this month. The study, conducted by the House Budget Committee, shows the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program is losing $1 billion a year to fraud. The Medicare program made "massive overpayments" totaling $12.6 billion in one year, according to the study, obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wasted $18 billion and let public housing neighborhoods "fester with crime and drugs." http://www.washtimes.com/national/news3-010500.htm

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

Mark842 / Frank / Mark S.,

The needs of a section of the population are being addressed by one or more government services. Yes, there are losses due to fraud, waste and mis-management. Some people are greedy and some are incompetent. The government can eliminate such losses by not providing these services, but that does not eliminate the need.

So, how would you satisfy the needs of this section of the population and avoid fraud, waste and mis-management?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

"The needs of a section of the population are being addressed by one or more government services. " Maybe yes, maybe no. In many cases,the dependency is being ENGENDERED by one or more government services. I don't see the people on welfare being a whole lot better off now than they were 30 years ago, but I do see the WELFARE ESTABLISHMENT of social workers, government bureaucracies, etc., doing REAL well. Note that the recent welfare reform was NOT accompanied by any staff cuts in the DSHS. These people are the REAL social parasites, not their clients. They are quite willing to facilitate continuing dependency for the purpose of keeping THEIR jobs and feeling good about giving away other people's money.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

"The government can eliminate such losses by not providing these services, but that does not eliminate the need. " I believe that people can be helped more by non-government agencies. Since this aid is NOT an entitlement, it can be more conditional and given with more discretion. Participate in training, make better decisions, etc., at threat of losing all but subsistence help. Since it's a private gift, your vote doesn't matter and won't be bought. Since it's not an entitlement, it's a transition, not a lifestyle. And since it's not government run, the overhead won't be outrageous.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

"So, how would you satisfy the needs of this section of the population and avoid fraud, waste and mis-management? " Keep them LEAN, MEAN, and TEMPORARY. Should we have welfare? Sure. But unless you have a physical or mental impediment to working, it ought to be temporary. And this does NOT include choices like don't want to work or would rather do drugs. Should we have public housing? Sure, as a short-term 2-3 year transition to let someone get on their feet. But not generations of people born in public housing, with babies raising babies to gain their independence.

Like most people, I'm willing to support those who, through no fault of their own have a stretch of bad luck. What the bureaucracy wants me to do is to subsidize an endless series of bad choices that maintains the status quo eternally. I'm not willing to do that. Have I gotten to the point where I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Not quite. But push me a little harder and I will be.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 05, 2000.

Some excellent feedback here.

Zowie / Mike A., Just because the rules on welfare or public housing change, does not mean that those people who have to enforce those rules go away. What Welfare reform actually did was to place ADDITIONAL rules and conditions on those who need assistance.

In general, additional rules and conditions make the job of enforcement that much more difficult. And if you really want to enforce these rules and conditions so that the total number of people on welfare go down, then you may need to increase the number of those working enforcement. (Though it still doesn't eliminate fraud, waste and mis-management.)

Mark S., Support from non-government agencies is an excellent idea. That's the way things were before the Great Depression when many of these non-government agencies disappeared because to the overwhelming numbers of those in need. It may be time for legislation to end entitlement and to encourage such non-government agencies to come about. (And instead of government fraud, waste and mis-management, it is non-government fraud, waste and mis-management.)

In this case, the rules and conditions may be set by the individual non-government agency, unless you want a government agency to identify and enforce certain standards.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

"Zowie / Mike A., Just because the rules on welfare or public housing change, does not mean that those people who have to enforce those rules go away. What Welfare reform actually did was to place ADDITIONAL rules and conditions on those who need assistance.

In general, additional rules and conditions make the job of enforcement that much more difficult. And if you really want to enforce these rules and conditions so that the total number of people on welfare go down, then you may need to increase the number of those working enforcement. (Though it still doesn't eliminate fraud, waste and mis-management.) " Sounds like an apologist for big government to me!

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. Frederic Bastiat

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

zowie writes:

Sounds like an apologist for big government to me!

And I quote...

"...If you wish to DISCUSS an issue, rather than just snipe and run, why don't you start a thread. Otherwise, you're just another whiner..."

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

-- C. George (---@---.---), January 05, 2000.

not whining- just commenting. And how'd you like the quote?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. George Washington

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference. Harry S. Truman, 1962 "

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. Ronald Reagan"

Amazing how two straight-talking Presidents from different parties wind up saying almost the same thing, isn't it?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us. Leo Tolstoy The Kingdom of God is Within You, 1893

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

If men were angels there would be no need for govt.--James Madison, look up the year yourself zowie.

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 07, 2000.

If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another. Voltaire Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercionthe technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individualsthe technique of the marketplace. Milton Friedman Capitalism and Freedom, 1962

jcurtin- You're getting quite aways behind on the quotations.

-- (zowie@hoymail.com), January 11, 2000.

Kind of reminds you of Catch-22, Milo Minderbinder, ItUs all in the syndicate and EVERYONE HAS A SHARE.

http://www.djc.com/news/business/11003511.html January 28, 2000 Licata hopes to boost arts funding Journal staff SEATTLE -- Seattle City Council member Nick Licata will host a public hearing Feb. 8 to discuss raising the city's 1% For the Arts program. Licata hopes to double the rate. The program currently sets aside 1 percent of construction funds on city projects for art. "Seattle's 1% For the Arts program has not kept pace with inflation," according to Licata. "Fort Lauderdale and Dallas's Percentage For the Arts programs allocate 2.5 percent, San Jose 2 percent, while the Federal Transit Administration allows up to 5 percent to be applied to their projects.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 28, 2000.