Nobody likes cutting vital county services that are supported by the MVET. So the legislature can reallocate funding to restore those funds. But where will the legislature cut? Please submit your answers to this question. My ideas are to cut the Paris, Tokyo, Taipei, Shanghai, Mexico, and Russian offices of the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. These are expensive extravigances. Corporate Welfare. And did you know that the Washington State Dry Pea and Lentil Commission isn't even located within our state? It's in Moscow! Holy cowbells!

R-49 and other legislation (yes, R-49 was written by the legislature) allocated the MVET to dedicated functions and took funds away from the general fund that the legislature could allocate by need. It isn't the fault of I-695 that important rural county programs are cut.

Please suggest boondoggles that can be cut to restore vital services that are currently funded by the unfair and onerous MVET. There must be many. I'm not talking about cutting out help for the poor, but do we really need a corporate welfare office in Paris?

I want to be overwhelmed with your suggestions.

This is a question that wants many answers.

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 07, 1999

Answers

I'd axe light rail for seattle. $2 billion for a line from the UW to Sea-Tac? 21 miles and 20 stations? Give me a break. USDOT has studied public transit riders to death and have real good data to demonstrate that, even in locales with FAVORABLE weather, people won't typically walk over one-quarter mile to a transit stop. I doubt if they'll do much better in the Seattle area. Let's see..... (1/4 mile) squared times pi times 20 stations gives us about four square miles. Since the Seattle metro area has 330 square miles, the new light rail will serve the commuters that live in 1.2% of the metro area who happen to work in the same 1.2% of the area, excepting of course those individuals who live closer to their work than to their light rail station who will just walk to work instead. This will, of course, have a trivial and unnoticeable effect on traffic, but is a $2 billion windfall to the construction industry and union. We could cut this in a heartbeat, and lose ve

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 07, 1999.

Let's take the excess money away from King County that they want to use to subsidize childcare services. http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/news/9907/childcare.htm

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 07, 1999.

Well we could eliminate public art. If someone would like to purchase some atrociuos piece of junk and donate it to the places where the government believes 'art' should be that would be fine.

Eliminate funding for symphonies, ballet, opera and sports stadiums. All of that is completely unneccesary. Cultural entertainment and professional sports should be completely self-sustaining like all other entertainment.

If they can't manage on ticket sales and all peripheral sales then they should be allowed to die peacefully.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.

Cut out paying for the prisoners room and board, they committed the crime, let them pay for it.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 13, 1999.

Just what is the Noxious Weed Control Board and why are we paying this entity over $500,000? That would be just one little useless entity we could cut.

-- Bill Fassett (fredschoen@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

end the drug war. drugs are cheaper now than in 1984. then the state could close down half its prisons in about five years. now that WOULD save at least a half billion per year.

-- who cares (anne@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Thank you Anne. I consider this to be the best response so far, although there have been several excellent suggestions.

While ending the drug war would save billions, we should be ending it for more important reasons. First, because it doesn't work and puts peacable non-violent people into prison ruining their lives and costing us a fortune. We need prison cells for violent offenders who would harm us or our property, not for folks who got caught with a pocket full of banned medicinal herb.

Why not end ALL state programs that have not worked? It is insane to keep doing what obviously does not work. Why not have objective criteria established up front that must be achieved in order to renew a law at sunset time? The drug war would fail such a test.

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 25, 1999.

The ferry system is subsidized %40. Ferry commuters will have extra money in their pocket due to tab reductions--let them pay their own way and end the subsidy. If I remember right, this amounts to 160 million annually. Better yet, privatize the ferry system and you'll probably lower even the current cost.

Transit systems are a waste of money, particularly outside of the city. Most people aren't willing to put up with the inconveniance and indignity of mass transit, even in the face of traffic jams. These transit programs cost many hundreds of millions of state dollars, but they're motivated by a feel-good enviro lobby that has failed to show that a bunch of largely empty, top-of-the-line buses has done anything to reduce congestion or air pollution.

Don't forget, dumping a half-billion dollars into consumer hands generates a lot of sales and B&O tax. (I find it hard to believe that business groups oppose this initiative, there's a lot of big money in highway building, I guess) This will offset the "cost" of the initiative.

Speaking of highway building, when you talk TIB grants etc., what you're getting is mandated Cadillacs, when many times a Chevy will work. A TON of money is dumped into these city and county projects for engineering, sidewalks, drainage, fancy this and that stuff. It's all very nice but EXPENSIVE. An expert could tell us how the costs of highway projects could be streamlined significantly---hundreds of millions involved here.

What about prevailing wage? I don't know how exactly it works, but get on a State job and you're in the money (in the Spokane region anyway). Seems like a union political payoff thing. Why shouldn't workers on State jobs get market wages?

Is there a State share in Safeco field? Sell it.

How about all those politicians wages that just went up? Cut them back.

Teacher's raises? Cut them back.

Let Mary K LeTourneau out. I'm tired of paying for her 3 hots and a cot, and I'm sure the kid enjoyed himself anyway. If you did privatize the ferry system, those boats gotta be worth something--big chunk of cash there. Sell off the liquor stores too.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 25, 1999.

Greg, there is another wasteful government practice when it comes to construction projects. It's called 'Cost Plus' what it means is: You go ahead and spend whatever you want to get the project done and we will cover that and give you so much above your cost as your profit. What it results in is paying extra high wages, buying extra equipment (which is not taken care of and usually ends up in the workers' private collections)and purchase of unneeded supplies which go on to other projects or are used on personal projects for the govenment officials who facilitated the construction to begin with..

Don't tell me it ain't true because I've been there and done that. It's not the exception. It's SOP and the taxpayers are SOL..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Not only that, but these State grants to local entities rarely go unspent in their entirety. There is no incentive to keep cost down when you're not footing the bill.

Another place to cut--higher education students don't seem to value what they're being given (if I remember correctly, tuition costs are 2/3 subsidized). As a taxpayer, I'd rather not pay for drunken riots and partying by students who aren't serious about their education. Lower the subsidy on higher education; maybe if they pay more, they'll value the opportunity they're being given. Millions of dollars at stake here.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 26, 1999.

Another place to look at is bike paths. Unless a bike path is put in a right of way, it usually cost more for a mile of it than a mile of road. Because the government has to buy the right of way from some one. Plus no funds are collected from bike riders for use of the path (i.e. tabs, gas tax, weight fees), so this money comes from monies that could be used for roads. Another area is saving the salmon. Richland wanted to put in new street lights on a main street that is used by the majority of the citizens of three cities. But it was held up while the state and feds decided if they would have an impact on the salmon. I guess when the lights changed to red the salmon would have to stop swimming and let the boats pass.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.

End taxpayer subsidy of Evergreen Hospital. Evergreen is a great facility, but it is successful and requires no subsidy. (The subsidy is only a tiny portion of Evergreen's budget -- AND this is the same org. that gave its CEO a 40% pay raise recently.)

These hospital districts and subsidies may have been good and neccessary 100 years ago, but Evergreen is no longer a RURAL hospital, it no longer needs help, and we should no longer be paying for it.

-- Rachel H (RaeHawkrij@alt.net), August 30, 1999.