Well I guess nobody wants to discuss Colorado anymore

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Why don't you naysayers point something out that explains whay Colorado has a TAX_WINDFALL after being subjected to the oppressive and hateful 'vote-of-the-people'???

Comn guys let's hear it

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999

Answers

I'm not a naysayer, just a sober voter who honestly believes a No vote is the only responsible vote on 695.

And where did you get the idea that any body thinks a vote of the people is hateful and oppresive??? There are plenty of reasons to think that our republican form of government is superior to a populist one, you might try starting your study in the Federalist Papers.

Please, we don't need any more folks whipping up anger on this issue for the sole sake of getting a reaction...

I'm all for learning more about CO.

A person taking your claim at face value might ask is CO perchance benefiting from a booming economy? And further, what will happen in the long when hard decisions need to be made?

In general does anyone have any good pointers to analysis of the direct democracy tax levying in CO?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 22, 1999.


Maddjak,

Colorado has a surplus, not a windfall.

Billy,

Regarding Colorado, there is a few key differences between their amendment and 695. There was no cut in revenues when their amendment was passed. There is also no mention of fees in their amendment, as there is in 695.

I suggest that you do some reseach. Take a look through the archives of Colorado newspapers. You'll find that rural school districts there are facing a huge budget shortfall since their "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" amendment passed. Here's what one article says.

"The problem was highlighted in 1998 when 11 smaller and rural districts sued the state, saying the way school construction is funded is unconstitutional because it fails to provide an equal education to all public school students. The case is scheduled to go to trial April 24, in Denver District Court.

The state contributes about $2.3 billion annually for public school financing, but that money can't be used to help with the bricks and mortar. Instead, the state requires local school districts to cover those costs through property taxes. The state also requires that each district hold back $223 per pupil of state money to finance building upkeep.

But for a small, rural school district with low student enrollment or below-average property values, property taxes don't add up to much. For example, a one-mill property tax levy in Pitkin County, home to Aspen, would raise about $1.8 million. That same tax increase in rural Conejos County would net about $3,000.

According to a 1996 study, the most recent available, the state's 176 school districts need a combined total of about $2.5 billion to deal with maintenance and construction needs."

http://www.gazette.com/archive/99-09-08/daily/loc2.html

It's a vicious cycle. The state requires that construction and upkeep costs be funded through bonds. But many school districts don't have the property values necessary to fund these costs, even when their citizens vote yes on bond issues. The state is constitutionally obligated to provide for the education of its kids, so these districts have sued the state to provide funding.

Legislators are scared enough about it to consider draining a $290 million education fund to give these districts loans to cover their expenses. But this isn't expected to head off the suit.

And another thing: Colorado has a $13 billion road funding shortfall.

The bottom line is clear: Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights has hurt local districts much more than the state. The state was the target, but the arrow hit local districts. Expect the same thing here if 695 passes.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.


according to the newspaper you referenced last week (I don't remember which thread it was in) they are experiencing a windfall

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Billy-

Recommend you read the following from the Colorado budget office: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/ospb/cep698/3genfund.htm#tout

The TABOR Outlook

The state's refund has grown to $528.8 million for FY 1998, compared to $139 million in FY 1997. The voter-approved limit, known as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights or TABOR, confines the growth in state government revenue to inflation plus the annual percentage increase in population. These TABOR overages will continue for the next five years (see TABOR table). The refund estimates have been revised upward due to a number of one-time events (see the current year general fund discussion, page 5). The TABOR rebate will come primarily from the general fund, since these funds have been growing at rates that generously exceed the annual limits. Cash funds have been rising at a pace that is more in line with the population-plus- inflation limit.

Actually, the whole Colrado State budget page for the last several years looks pretty good as a source. The difficulty, of course, being that it is an "n" of one. You can only see how Colorado did with TABOR (pretty good), you can't ttell if it would have done better or worse without it. Based upon historical data, taxes would certainly have gone up more, but if you believe there's more that needs to be done by government, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Clearly, TABOR didn't cause they sky to fall, and that's about all you can say on an "n" of one basis.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.


BB- Brings up another subject, pretty much unrelated to the MVET (except of course for the fact that it involves money). What is the appropriate way to fund education )both level of funding and mechanism). Clearly, some schoold idstricts have less wealth than others. If school funding is based upon property taxes, some schools are going to have a lot more to spend per student than others. I remember as a kid being awestruck when we went to an awy football game at Mercer Island High. Our school didn't have near the stadium they had, and never would. Equitably funding education is a worthy subject for discussion, but it is only peripherally related to MVET or TABOR, unless you accept the assumption that anything that decreases tax revenues is bad, because those monies might be used to improve education. The corollary to that assumption though is that any spending on anything but education is bad, because those monies might be used to improve education.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.


Gary:

With $3.60 of the property tax collected for state support of schools, the state returns funds to district on a per student basis. Theoreticly that equalizes the funding for basic education. The big differences result of the local school property tax levy for enhancements (like a great sports facility, or drama program). I don't think you want to limit the opportunity for wealthy areas to enhance their programs, but something could be done to raise the support level for basic education from the state; but to do that under the state funding allocation would require that the added levy authority needs to be taken from some other government; or that some other tax be used to add funding.

And then we will need to talk about how more money does not result in a better education, and that some districts seem to be able to do more with the state funds than others and need less local support. Some more rural districts have fewer "urban" issues to deal with, although many of these problems don't seem confined to cities anymore. Examples are the numbers of single parent families, numbers of first generation immigrant families, income levels unable to provide some of the resource necessities, families with no reading material except the T.V. Guide, districts with a high number of transient students who do not finish a school year in any one place, etc. etc. These issues add cost for some districts more than others.

And finally, we would need to discuss how some of the private schools, and home school support programs can educate kids for 50% or less of the amount required by the public systems. Some of the "urban" issues are reduced or missing, and often what I would call the extra programs (like sports and drama) are limited or missing; but kids from those schools go on to college and succeed in higher proportions than the public schools. Can we learn anything from that?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.


"The voter-approved limit, known as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights or TABOR, confines the growth in state government revenue to inflation plus the annual percentage increase in population."

This is the KEY, KEY, KEY (I can't overstate that) difference between TABOR and 695. 695 allows for no increases in revenue without a vote. TABOR allows for increases in revenue based on inflation and population growth. TABOR seems more along the lines of 601 or the 106% levy lid with an added public vote component rather than an equivalent to 695.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.


maddjak writes:

"according to the newspaper you referenced last week (I don't remember which thread it was in) they are experiencing a windfall"

They were referring to the state's surplus. Under TABOR part of it gets refunded every year.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.


d-

This is an issue that I'd really like to discuss with people, although this may not be the appropriate forum. I would like to point out one additional possibility for " don't think you want to limit the opportunity for wealthy areas to enhance their programs, but something could be done to raise the support level for basic education from the state; but to do that under the state funding allocation would require that the added levy authority needs to be taken from some other government; or that some other tax be used to add funding" We could reallocate funds from existing priorities, rather than adding new taxes and levy authorities. But at the risk of renewing the debate that I just agreed to disagree with you about (medic one), funding priotities, I'd like to state an opinion of mine (as opposed to a fact). This may be too philosophical in nature, but here goes: I believe there is a crisis in education today. I believe that part of the problem is political. I don not believe that we can have equitable funding of education when we permit levies. I believe that funding of education is a fundamental duty of state government. I believe that the funding should be uniform (per capita) across school districts. I believe that if you permit a levy to be used to augment the state provided per capita amount, this will inevitably lead to what we have now, a base per capita payment that does not truly cover the cost of the education that we would like our children to have. The rich districts will pay for their kids, but keep the base payments low, so they don't have to subsidize other people's kids.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.


d-

This is an issue that I'd really like to discuss with people, although this may not be the appropriate forum. I would like to point out one additional possibility for " don't think you want to limit the opportunity for wealthy areas to enhance their programs, but something could be done to raise the support level for basic education from the state; but to do that under the state funding allocation would require that the added levy authority needs to be taken from some other government; or that some other tax be used to add funding" We could reallocate funds from existing priorities, rather than adding new taxes and levy authorities. But at the risk of renewing the debate that I just agreed to disagree with you about (medic one), funding priotities, I'd like to state an opinion of mine (as opposed to a fact). This may be too philosophical in nature, but here goes: I believe there is a crisis in education today. I believe that part of the problem is political. I don not believe that we can have equitable funding of education when we permit levies. I believe that funding of education is a fundamental duty of state government. I believe that the funding should be uniform (per capita) across school districts. I believe that if you permit a levy to be used to augment the state provided per capita amount, this will inevitably lead to what we have now, a base per capita payment that does not truly cover the cost of the education that we would like our children to have. The rich districts will pay for their kids, but keep the base payments low, so they don't have to subsidize other people's kids. Sorry, inadvertently sent this early. I realize that the total tax dollars for rich districts will probably be less (an incentive for them to OK a higher base budget) but the total for poor districts will probably be more. Now we then have to address other factors that lead to low efficiency in the public schools, or give them some real competition, or what you'll get is either massive home schooling, or transfer from the public schools to private schools by rich kids. But I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't believe that you can allow levies without the poorer districts getting the short end.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.



Gary:

I think I understand your point. I don't know if I agree yet, and it does not directly relate to 695, but what about this:

Assume that the base funding for education is increased, from an increase in the statewide school levy or some other state funding source (we probably don't need to address what source for this discussion). Schools get more funding per capita, and have a reduced need for a local supplemental property tax levy. A reduced need means that whatever need is stated will be marginal, for nice to have programs that are not fundamental to the education of the children.

An excess levy that was for sports and drama may have a hard time getting votes, so more school levies could/would fail in the poor districts. The nice to have stuff will still be approved in the richer districts, but they would need a reduced levy rate to pay for them since the basics are covered by the state.

I think I agree that you can't get to statewide equity in educational opportunity, as long as local levies are available to be used. I suspect it wouldn't happen if they were not available either. If Mercer Island wanted a better football stadium, and the school district couldn't do it, they could have the city build it as a city park facility next to the High School. The same with a drama facility, or other nice additions to the educational process. Some of that is already happening, partly because some of the facilities could have wider community uses.

It seems to me that the richer districts will do what they need to to get the kind of educational facilities they think their children ought to have, and they will want the community wealth to give their children an advantage. If they are prevented from providing that advantage, many parents would use that wealth to give their children those advantages in a private school.

Things can get very difficult if a large share of the population abandons the public schools. In at least one community in this state, the private (Christian) school is about as large as the public school. Approval of anything extra for the public school by way of an excess levy would be much harder if only 50% of the population considered it their school.

I think the local excess levy may be the best way to fund additions to basic education, just because it will eliminate some of the thrashing around for alternative ways to do it that would occur without a levy option. Something more could and probably should be done to specify what is included in the basic education funding provided by the state, and value it fairly.

Perhaps the scope of what could be included in a local excess levy for the schools could be better defined, and a limit placed on the percentage of the budget the excess levy can provide. Some districts suppliment the $3.60 collected by the state with another $3.00 or more of local levy. It should not be limited by levy rate, but by a percent of budget; so that if the state provides $20 Million, at a 50% limit the local levy could generate another $10 Million at whatever rate that may require locally.

And then you get to the Bond issues for school construction. Timber sales was supposed to fund much of school construction on an equitable basis, but the timber industry in a slump has reduced revenue from that source. The state should find a way to fund 100% of the construction, in exchange for a requirement that schools use some standardized plans or a state design service. District after district spends 10 or 12% of the construction money to redesign a school that is doing the same job as a school in the next district. School disricts may not see the little changes they want as very important, if the cost is that the school is their local taxpayer expense instead of the state.

These are just random thoughts. I have no direct experience with schools except as a parent, and someone will likely find several faults with these ideas.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.


d- I still don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. I think no levys must really mean no levys or the system never gets any better. If rich kids get a band, the poor kids ought to get a band. If rich kids get a football team, then poor kids get a football team. Anything else is tokenism. The Supreme Court decades ago said that separate but equal wasn't going to cut it on an racial basis. I think the same can be said for social class, and discrimination here is just as erosive of the common good as discrimination based on race.

As for your other statement: "Things can get very difficult if a large share of the population abandons the public schools. In at least one community in this state, the private (Christian) school is about as large as the public school. Approval of anything extra for the public school by way of an excess levy would be much harder if only 50% of the population considered it their school" I agree. The problem is not just private schools, it's also home schooling. Unfortunately, when you look at just outcomes, both home schooling and private (even relatively cheap religious) schools are producing a product that by the criteria of SAT scores, college completion, and long term accomplishment, out performs the public schools. Now there are a variety of reasons for that, most of them NOT related to money. I fear that if we don't first admit that the public schools are seriously amiss, and then take the actions we need to do to fix the problems, the public schools are going to be in a death spiral of decreasing market share (as studentsa are lost to home schooling and private schools) leading to decreased support leading to decreased resources, leading to decreased achievement, leading to decreased market share, etc. IMHO, if we don't arrest the decline in public school performance, we are heading for a country of very little social mobility. That's not what I want, but the politics are pushing us there. But again, I don't think you can allow the excess levy. If public schools are a legitimate function of government, it ought to be done right.

One recent alarming example. After justifying to the legislature increased funds for hiring and retaining new teachers, Tacoma teachers union negotiated a reversal of the intended additional funding to have the bulk of the increases go to the senior teachers. I know why they did it. That's what a union exists to do, help current members. But it totally undermined the argument made at the state level, and left supporters of increased funding for new teachers feeling like they'd been duped. But someone has to look to the public good, not just their interest group. I know public schools have problems that private schools (and home schooling do not). I'm not trying to minimize the difficulties. But we need to start looking at SOLUTIONS, not just excuses, or the death spiral will continue.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.


(thanks for pointers and discussion folks, I'm remissly behind in work but hope to catch up here after the weekend) Billy.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 23, 1999.

Gary:

I agree with many of your comments, but can't agree with the conclusion that school programs must be equal statewide. The state responsibility is to provide equal access to basic educational opportunity. Nothing is that equal. Some districts get greater public support and involvement in the programs. Some schools have a very active PTA groups that help. Individual classrooms have good or better teachers, and more or less involved parents. The court decisions were about equal schools for all within one school district. That is always another option, to create one statewide school district so that richer areas must improve all schools if they want the local ones to have something extra. The parents will find a way to provide the extras they want their kids to have. The state needs to provide the basic education, and let the community decide if they will help parents provide those extras. I understand that in Texas, the local high school football teams are supported by the communities as a matter of civic pride.

You mentioned a band and football team as examples. I mentioned sports and drama. We both commented on the output of private schools and home schooling as more than competitive in education and college preparation. Private schools and home schools often don't have much of a band, or a football team, or drama program. Some school districts seem to think these aspects of the program are the most important, at least in terms of the capital expenditure for the sports and drama facilities.

If the state FULLY funded basic education, communities will only need to fund the extras; including a drama program (as opposed to the occasional school play), and the sports program (as opposed to physical education classes). Many communities would still do that, but some would not. In fact, the debate about the local levy would become a harder sell, because it would no longer be a necessity to provide an adequate education, as it seems to be now.

How this relates to I-695 is hard to identify, except that whatever is proposed to fix the funding would need voter approval. School districts basicly do that now, with their local levies. Alternatives to adjust how state funding is provided, would be the real change if it is approved.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 23, 1999.


d-

"the debate about the local levy would become a harder sell, because it would no longer be a necessity to provide an adequate education, as it seems to be now. " I agree. If schools were adequately funded, a levy would not be necessary, nor should it be permitted.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 23, 1999.



Gary:

So the discussion should be, "What is adequate funding?". On that we may differ. I would not include the nice to have stuff, like a drama facility that rivals a professional stage (Skyline High School), or a football stadium suitable for college or professional sports. But what happens if I am a minority, and the community really wants a great drama program? Can't they just get the local city council to propose a bond issue to fund a performing arts center? Does it make any difference if it is a city levy or a school district levy?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 23, 1999.


Oh, what a reversal of roles.

I'm just giving you my opinion, but I believe that if you allow any locale to provide funds above and beyond what you give ALL schools, you will always place the students from poorer locales at a disadvantage, because their communities are less able to give the extra money. And I believe that the ability of the richer communities to provide extra money will allow the representatives of those communities to vote against higher levels of basic funding, knowing that their communities can augment their local schools anyway, without having to fund the increases for the poorer schools. I think that if you want to fund all schools on the same per student basis but allow individual school districts to decide where to put the emphasis in their programs, that would be fine. But otherwise, the rich districts would suffer no real loss from cutting back the basic funding to a minimal level, since they would pay less to support only their local schools, then they would likely pay supporting both theirs, and the poorer districts. You will still have to improve overall public school performance or continue to lose market share to home schooling and private schools.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 24, 1999.


Gary:

A reversal is right. I thought you wanted local voters to be able to vote on all funding issues, and now you want to limit their options. What happened to direct democracy? Actually, their options are already limited since a school district only has the property tax to propose to voters.

What you seem to be advocating, is to treat the entire state is one big school district for funding purposes, with locally managed sub- districts for spending purposes. That would help equalize access to the money, but may not equalze education since districts could still choose to "waste" some of the basic funding on non-esential programs. Some districts may spend their band money to improve their science labs, and others may spend their science lab money to improve the band or sports programs. How much do you want the state to regulate local choices?

If this is a good idea for the schools, what about everything else? Some cities have more wealth than others, and we have already talked about sales tax equalization. What about rich and poor counties, or rich and poor cities, or fire districts, or hospital districts, or sewer districts, etc. Some areas have no EMS system at all, and life saving should be right at the top of the governmental priorities. I don't think we can expect the legislature to serve a service level equalizer.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.


Again d, my opinion-

"What you seem to be advocating, is to treat the entire state is one big school district for funding purposes, with locally managed sub- districts for spending purposes. That would help equalize access to the money, but may not equalze education since districts could still choose to "waste" some of the basic funding on non-esential programs. Some districts may spend their band money to improve their science labs, and others may spend their science lab money to improve the band or sports programs. How much do you want the state to regulate local choices? " Given that, in this state, we accept providing a public education as an essential function of state government and we decide that we want equal opportunity for each kid, I think that they should be funded equally. If we allow a levy to augment that, we lose the equality.

The issue of how much local control is a real one, and there are pros and cons on each side. Clearly, many federal programs carry such a large administrative burden with them that the additional overhead eats up much of the value of the federal aid. It may or may not meet local needs. If you want the locals to have the ability to have local priorities for band versus science lab, you essentially give them the money as a capitation (so much per pupil) and let the local school board decide what the priorities are. You hold them accountable through mandatory testing. If the parents know that their school board is getting as much per student as every other school board, there is no excuse that "we don't have the resources the other schools have." For special needs students, you have a different capitation amount perhaps, but you level the playing field economically.

Once you get out of the public school arena (which I believe has been a great social mobility equalizer and particularly worthy of saving), I'm a little less enthusiastic about the state providing the money. Certain things kind of go with the territority. If I CHOOSE to live in Tonasket or Brewster (and I'm not putting either down, both are nice little towns), I choose to accept the fact that I'm not going to be real close to somewhere that can do my coronary artery bypass. It would be nice to guarantee everybody basic life support within two minutes and ACLS within eight, but that's not going to happen for much of the Okanogan unless you invent an EMS ambulance that can go supersonic. Geography and geometry just aren't amenable to concepts of fairness and equality (see my comments on light rail). Even if you give areas with low population the same per capita resources, they just don't have the workload to support a coronary care center, for example. Police services are probably different. Since crime is highly correlated with people (critters and plants rarely breaking laws), I'm not sure that a capitation system wouldn't be equitable for some such services.

-- (henrik@harbornet.com), September 24, 1999.


Gary:

You are beginning to convince me. So, how would you determine what is the appropriate funding level for education? Who decides and how? To bring this back to the I-695 discussion, this kind of change in how funding is done for education, which you agree is a very high priority, should not be done by initiative in my opinion. 695 has some unintended consequences that, if the same thing were to happen to school funding, could harm the educational process for at least one or two class years. It seems to me that a legislator should be asked to proposes legislation that attempts to address all the funding and governance issues, and the legslative process should test the adequacy of the drafting of the bill.

That is what was lacking when 695 was drafted, and it shows. As I said before, a bill with these errors would not have made it to the floor of either house for a vote; much less get passed by both and approved by the governor. It has some good ideas in it, but not enough to overcome the problems. I would not want that to happen to education funding - some kind of initiative that is sold as funding equality, but would cause some unintended funding or control problems for school districts.

P.S. The only way this would work is to substantially replace the excess levy provided by most districts, with state funding. Obviously, that would be a tax increase by the state offset by a local decrease, or a re-allocation of state funds from other programs with a net reduction in taxes. 695 already cuts transportation. What else would you cut from the state budget, to fund schools? Again, I believe that should be part of the legislative discussion about the proposal, and not done by initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.


"Obviously, that would be a tax increase by the state offset by a local decrease, or a re-allocation of state funds from other programs with a net reduction in taxes. 695 already cuts transportation. What else would you cut from the state budget, to fund schools? Again, I believe that should be part of the legislative discussion about the proposal, and not done by initiative. " This is what, when I was a program manager in government, we referred to as someone getting in our rice bowls. I'm not sure just what the etiology of the saying was. I think it is here that you and I are going to see a parting of the ways when it comes to agreement. I truly believe that we are greatly over-funding public transit, and getting very little return on our investment. King County Metro pours $400 million a year into transit planning and operating expenses, King County governments's largest single line item, but the number of rides per capita is flat or declining over the last twenty years. And we have been pouring billions more over that time period into capital improvement. Fares as a proportion of operating revenue is lower by far than the national average, and people are staying away in droves. We need public transit for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to drive. Everybody else ought to pay enough to cover their pro rata share of costs, and we don't even come close. The same can be said of the ferries. I think user fees need to cover at least half of operations. That would need to be phased in, to avoid abrupt disruptions, but it should be done. Then I think the state needs to stop the give-away programs. It is irrational to both gripe about growth without infrastructure, and then to give tax breaks to businesses to relocate here. You can't have it both ways. If companies can't be efficient enough to make a profit while covering their true social costs, don't invite them in anyway and ask the taxpayer to cover the company's costs. I think both state and local governments could benefit by incrementally putting their non- governmentt essential business (solid waste collection, power generation, etc.) up for contracting out. If the local municipal utility is low bid, great. If not, just the threat of contracting out may spur a search for economies that WILL allow them to be low bid. Certain monopolies of government can't be avoided (the military at the federal level for example, you don't really want to contract out ballistic missile subs at Bangor), but the reality is that these monopolies become terrifically inefficient. Where it is rational for the market to compete, it will help to discipline the government organization. Where it isn't, well I guess we need more golden fleece awards (if you don't get that, it's just me showing my age). All of these are hard to get through a system much more attuned to paying off special interest groups than to working for the public good, and since WE have created the perverse incentives that on the one hand try to control growth in King County to increase densification, and on the other hand subsidize urban flight to Bainbridge, Mukilteo, and Kingston, I believe we need to do this gradually in fairness to the people we've lured to do something stupid through our subsidies. But if you want to fix the situation, you've got to overcome the status quo. And you can't keep subsidizing every group that comes along, if you are going to fix public education, IMHO. Resources are finite.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 24, 1999.

Gary:

All of which is to say, what? You think I-695 and an initiative on funding education are good ways to set state policy? You have some valid criticism of transit and the ferry system, but I-695 is not about either. I commented several times that the initiative is only about funding. Half the people on this site, the supporters of 695, suggest that the state can review priorities and adjust to a budget cut of 2% (a figure I dispute). If 695 is no big deal because it leaves 98% of the budget; does that mean that 98% of the ferry and transit budget will be restored by a state that has not been given clear direction to change priorities, but only reduce costs? Or is 695 a referendum on the MVET programs, in which case the "scare tactics" of talking about those cuts are not scare tactics at all?

These ambiguities, as well as the interpretation problems that arrise out of section 2, are why I don't think the initiative process is a good way to make extensive substantive change in anything. As a way to address one limited subject, yes. As a way to require the legislature to solve a specific problem, yes. As a way to replace the legislature, and do without analysis what they should do with analysis, no.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion; without personal criticism and harsh language. Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree on the process even if we agree on the objective.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.


d-

In the case above, I'm not sure that there is a process that will work. If it'd been easy, it would have been fixed by now. I nowhere suggesteg that school financing reform be done by initiative. Unfortunately, political interest groups (and both major parties are way too subservient to their respective interest groupd, IMHO) make it terribly difficult to do throught the legislative process. I think you would either need to have a crisis or a court decision compelling universal full educational funding, otherwise I just think that all the interest groups that put their priorities above the common good will weigh in with their lobbyists to stop it. Do you truly think it could be implemented by the legislature, and if it was, the Governor would risk the wrath of the interest groups to OK it?

-- (henrik@harbornet.com), September 25, 1999.


Gary:

That is the legislative process. If it is a good idea, that is suported by the public, that is the interest group that has the most votes. Interest groups get recognition because they speak for large blocks of voters, rather than individuals. Campaign contributions also help, but when Boeing speaks for the company interests they are presumed to reflect the job and profitability concerns of their employees and investors. I would rather see a referendum proposing the idea as a concept, if it takes a popular vote to create the crisis you mentioned; and have the issue go back to the legislature to work out the specifics of how to do it. The public indicates what they want, but it is done in an orderly manner.

That would have been much better for 695 too. A referrendum on ending the MVET ( if 695 is about funding) or a referrendum about the ferry system or Sound Transit (if 695 is about programs funded by MVET), would give the legislature the opportunity to respond with a plan that would deal with all the consequences in a responsible manner.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 25, 1999.


d-

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to differ on both the role of special interest groups and upon the quality of decisions made by the politicians (of both parties) and government bureaucrats. I've seen all three up close and personal over the course of the last 20 years or so. I don't begrudge you your (presumed) youthful trust and enthusiasm in these three groups. I had it too, 20 years ago. It san aground on the shoals of reality. Burn these messages onto a CD if you can, and read them back to yourself in 2019. See if your opinions have changed by then.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 25, 1999.


Gary:

I have soon politics up close and persnal too, for about 30 years or so. My point is not that they don't make mistakes. Only that their mistakes are not as bad as the ones made in the drafting of 695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ