More lobbying in Olympia by government agencies, including state government agencies. This type of incestuous government lobbying government increase the overhead cost of government, while diluting out input from the voters. There oughta be a law!

The transportation choices coalition is an openly anti-automobile organization. http://www.transportationchoices.org/

They are having a rally in Olympia on the 10th to attempt to influence the legislature regarding transportation funding, in particular, to ignore the road projects (prop 49) lost under I-695, and just fund transit. This is coordinated with Metro (http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/out/olyrally.htm) and other anti-auto organizations.

This is a list of their membership. Notice the large number of government agencies involved. http://www.transportationchoices.org/organizations.html

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

And from today
fs News Tribune, another validation of the PROCESS of government gone awry. Tax dollars paying, not for goods and services for the public, but rather for advantage over other parts of government, and over the taxpayers, in an attempt to keep the resources flowing to big government. Money spent for this is PURE overhead. And there is more money spent by government to lobby government, than by any other special interest group. Is it any wonder that government is simultaneously becoming larger AND less efficient? You
fre right Mark. Government has lost the normal constraints on growth that govern normal institutions. It
fs a self-licking ice cream cone.

Nobody lobbies Olympia like government Cities, counties will be out in force to recoup I-695 losses Beth Silver; As lobbyists for big companies, unions and countless associations line up in Olympia this year, the biggest lobbyist before the Legislature will be the government itself. As a group, state and local government agencies spend more money lobbying the Legislature than any other interest group, including the insurance, telecommunications, health care and aerospace industries, according to records filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission. The role and influence of public lobbyists stands to grow even more in the 2000 session, which starts Monday. As every level of government grapples with the effects of Initiative 695, the governments are mobilizing their lobbying troops. (http://www.tribnet.com/news/quick_scan/0109a11.html)

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2000.

" It
fs a self-licking ice cream cone. " No. Mark had it right on another thread. It's a cancer in the body politic.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

Mark and Craig:

Another perspective. Pro-695 advocates kept saying it was just a 2% cut in total government revenue, and no big deal if the legislature did its job and reprioritized spending. (It is not 2%, but assume it is for a minute) How is the legislature going to do that without information? Where will they get information about the local effects on 695 if not from the local governments who will lose revenue? Local governments represent their local constituents, and are expected and required to represent those local interests to get the greatest benefit they can from all sources for their community. If they sit quietly, the legislature will spend the money to deal with less important (but louder) problems presented by others; or conclude that no local help is needed, and keep the money in Olympia. Either course would not get the worst hit governments down to something like the 2% revenue loss proponents were selling to the voters.

Perhaps you will argue that all the testamoney should be presented by local residents, rather that local government officials. The legislature wants accurate information, and that comes from those involved. If a local resident gives testamony, it will be more effective if the city or county official is also at the table to respond to questions and correct any misinterpretaton of the data.

It may be overhead, but 695 made it necessary overhead. Any other course would be irresponsible, and a failure to defend the interests of the local constituents the local government is required to represent.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 09, 2000.

d-

You and I will NEVER agree on this one. I would recommend the NEXT initiative absolutley prohibit the use of ANY government funds to lobby for MORE government funds.

From the Seattle PI http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/brfs088.shtml

Group charges county illegally promoted rally

A citizens watchdog group yesterday charged the King County transportation department with improperly using public resources to promote a rally supporting transit. Citizens for Ethics and Accountability Now, also known as CLEAN, filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission. The group charged the transportation department and elected officials broke ethics laws by using public facilities, including mailing lists, to send fliers urging transit riders to attend the rally, scheduled Monday at the state capitol. The complaint, signed by Shawn Newman, CLEAN's president, included a copy of a flier, which carried a return address for the King County Department of Transportation. The flier urged people to "Make a fuss to save your bus" in the face of possible budget cuts under I-695. The complaint also named King County Executive Ron Sims, Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland, and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel, who, according to the flier, are inviting people to attend the rally. Elaine Kraft, a spokeswoman for Sims, said county officials had not seen the complaint and could not comment. Details about the mailing were also unavailable from county officials last night.

Time to e-mail your legis;lators again. http://dfind.leg.wa.gov/

e-mail them today.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2000.

You can add to the mailing lists, use of the official website: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/out/olyrally.htm

Olympia transportation rally Jan. 10

King County Executive Ron Sims, Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel along with the Transportation Choices Coalition and others invite you to join them at a public rally in Olympia.

Noon Monday, Jan. 10, 2000 State Capitol Building, Front Steps Pre-rally briefing event: 10 a.m., United Churches, 100 11th Ave. S.E., Olympia (across from the Capitol Building campus). Join us to tell the Governor and Legislature that people care about transit, transportation choices and the environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

King County Department of Transportation Link to: Department Contact Information

Updated: January 4, 2000

Planning | Roadways | KCDOT In the News

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2000.

"It may be overhead, but 695 made it necessary overhead. Any other course would be irresponsible, and a failure to defend the interests of the local constituents the local government is required to represent." As I recall, dbvz, you are the same individual that defended the cynical ploy by the King County Council to fund their public health works for 3 months, fund their police services for six months, while increasing their funding to the Art Commission. You are also, as I recall, the one who excused King County putting Medic 1 services on as an extra levy, after using all their regular tax money for things that were far less necessary. Don't these positions, and the bureaucratic double-talk you use to justify them, ever embarass you even a little bit? If not, don't worry. I'm embarassed FOR YOU, just reading your postings.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 09, 2000.

And the beat goes on..........

Tax dollars were used to mail ``Make a fuss to save your bus!'' fliers last week to 20,000 addresses, sent by King County's Transportation Department. The flier called people together for a noon rally on the steps of the state capitol.

Playing host to the rally are County Executive Ron Sims, Snohomish County's Bob Drewel and Pierce County's Doug Sutherland. Each face lost transit funds from Initiative 695 and are listed on the flier along with the Transportation Choices Coalition.

The cost of the mailing was $7,500.

`` When you consider that 695 wiped out $106 million of bus service (in King County), it's not out of line to spend $7,500 to let our customers know what's at stake here,'' said Dan Williams, spokesman for the county Transportation Department. (http://www.southcountyjournal.com/Homepagedocs/topnews/rcm73831.html)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000.

"It may be overhead, but 695 made it necessary overhead. Any other course would be irresponsible, and a failure to defend the interests of the local constituents the local government is required to represent."

695 did not make it necessary, the lawmakers failure to recognize and respond to the will of the people did. Had lawmakers really been in touch with the common man (after all, it was the common man who passed 695), then they would've realized that we were at the breaking point and would've taken measures to reduce spending themselves. Instead, the arrogant bastards assumed that the common man was kidding when he said he was paying too much. Thus 695. And if these same arrogant politicians think they can legislate vindictively because we cut some of they're funds (they assume it's theirs, they still don't get that it is ours), they have to face us themselves in November. Woe unto them.

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinmrmcd@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Mike wrote, "Don't these positions, and the bureaucratic double-talk you use to justify them, ever embarass you even a little bit?" NO.

Kevin: My comment was that passage of 695 requires the state to reprioritize STATE spending, in order to get closer to the objective of a "2%" cut of ALL government revenue. They need to hear from local governments to do that, and that is lobbying. Necessary lobbying.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 10, 2000.

Mike: Check back. I didn't defend the county budget for 2000. What I did was defend the concept of looking to the state for recovery of some of the lost MVET money so they can get closer to the "2%" revenue loss that 695 proponents kept talking about in the sales pitch. The tactic the county used was wrong, and should not get them any more money than any other county. It should not get them any less either. The citizens of the county lose, if the county does not get a fair share of whatever the state determines to be appropriate replacement funds for the loss of the MVET. I continue to believe the EMS levy is the proper funding source for that optional additional service of county government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 10, 2000.