I must admit I'm confused by some of the comments I've read. Several people have stated cuts in budgets will only happen if the legislature choses NOT to bail the local governments out. How is this going to happen? I-695 will take affect Jan., 2000, the legislature goes into session the middle of Jan. If they are expected to help, then they will have to call for a Special Session. Who's going to PAY for that? What happens to the people who will lose their jobs before Jan. IF 695 passes? And people will be losing jobs, don't kid yourselfs.

-- R Smith (Motoe@worldnet.att.net), September 22, 1999

Answers

And your point would be?????? So people will lose their jobs. If they are not needed then, goodbye! If the big "B" says they needs more profit they layoff, I don't see you at there door telling them don't do it. waaaawaaaaa.

If we need the service, then they can ask us to pay for it.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mr. Smith

Layoffs are a fact of life. I'd rather see those layoffs in the current economic times over any other time. With what is now 3.9% unemployment (considered fully employed), now is the time.

Personally, I think we should send the representatives home. They're about to loose a very big portion of their power of this passes. So why do we need them? I'm for a complete democracy anyway and we vote on everything. We have the technology, so let's go.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), September 22, 1999.

Given the dynamic of organizational inertia, I find it unlikely that a special session of the legislature will be able to fix things in 2 months. This isn't an I-695 supporter's problem.

To be fair, I'd be extremely surprised if contingency plans aren't already put together to deal with the passage of I-695.

Look on the bright side, the funding level is still at 98% of the current level.

> What happens to the people who lose their jobs?

I get the feeling I'm answering a rhetorical question, but I'd presume they'd find another one.

--Brad

-- Brad Knotwell (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 22, 1999.

How about an example of a state layoff??

Several yrs ago the state closed one of its Dept. of Lic. offices in Seattle, there were three, one north, one centeral and one south. Somehow they determined that they could live with only two. Each office had an office supervisor who was paid more than the field inspectors, but when they closed one office they only needed two supervisors, hence one was demoted to a field posiition,BUT was kept at the supervisors rate of pay. When questioned about this the state justified by saying that" It was not the supervisors fault that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time" and that they would continue to pay him at the rate of a supervisor.

We questioned this move and offered a comparison of Boeing laying off an engineer at 50K per year, but offering him a janitors job worth 20K per year. Would they continue to pay him at the 50K per rate? Or would they show fiscal responsibility to their shareholders?

In the end the state was sure that was not a fair comparison and most likely are still paying an inflated rate for the job.

Now, this was several years ago and I do not have the printed material in hand at this time, but if someone thinks its important to have, with some time I do think I could come up the dates and names involved in this example of the state taking care of your tax dollars.

I certainly hope that there will be jobs lost and not as related above.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 22, 1999.

Your example is well note BUT.. there will be far more people losing jobs besides state employees. How many employees are affected by one person losing their job? I would hate to think that most of the people supporting 695 are as cold as some of you that have responded to my comment on people losing their jobs. For those of you living in your homes all cozy and secure, I wonder how you would feel if it was your job being eliminated, or that of you spouse or kids. 695 has a bigger impact then just $30.00 tab fees and telling the government how to spend our money.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about a Special Session, who's going to pay?

B. Smith MOTOE@worldnet.att.net

-- R. Smith (motoe@worldnet.att.net), September 22, 1999.

R. Smith asked

"I wonder how you would feel if it was your job being eliminated, or that of you spouse or kids."

I've been told I may lose my job due to I-695.And you know what, good. I'll just open up the help wanted pages and find another. Never had trouble finding one before.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.

B or R (whichever name you use... heh.)

WE would pay for a special session.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Westin

Only the finest in recycled ASCII

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.

People will lose their jobs. But it may not be for something you need. So will you approved an increase for something that someone else needs? Many elderly and disabled people rely on public transit, so that they can lead a useful and productive life. That service will be cut all across the state. The problem is that these people are a minority. Will you people support them? I think not. My impression is that most of you yes people would rather they just go away. But where will they go? I help my neighbors.....do you?

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 23, 1999.

Mike- I think that we need a basic safety net for those who, for whatever reason, can't drive themselves. But this is a declining fraction of the population. If you look at census trends, what truly drives transit is "no car" families, and these have been declining for decades. When we are spending megabucks for park and rides, that isn't going to people who are unable to drive. What is more, we have been adding tremendous amount of resources to transit for decades, well above inflation. The money gets spent, but the per capita number of rides has been flat or descending for years. If people need transportation and are otherwise unable to afford it, let's stop limiting the number of taxicabs and give vouchers to the needy to use the taxicabs. Right now, Metro transit is King County's biggest single line item in the budget. And the per capita ridership now is the same as it was ten years ago, about 48 bus trips per person per year.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 23, 1999.

> People will lose their jobs. But it may not be for something you > need. So will you approved an increase for something that someone > else needs? Many elderly and disabled people rely on public transit, > so that they can lead a useful and productive life. That service > will be cut all across the state. The problem is that these people > are a minority. Will you people support them? I think not. My > impression is that most of you yes people would rather they just go > away. But where will they go? I help my neighbors.....do you?

Given their extremely high voter participation rates, I think it's unreasonable to talk about elderly people as a minority with regards to political issues.

In answer to your other question, yes I have and will continue to assist my neighbors (locally and globally). In fact, over the last 12-18 months, I've helped them quite extensively (privacy concerns keep me from posting a list here).

To put the blame on the I-695 people for any pain it causes is misleading, this is because the legislative and executive branch of the state government have always had authority to change the way government operates. Unfortunately, they have no real incentive to do (who moved my cheese?) and organizational inertia takes over.

To elaborate, in a society with the rule of law, a complacent organization in the private sector (excluding monopolies) will eventually (shortly???) be overrun by a more competitive adversary. One can debate whether or not this is a good thing. What I can't see debating is that this leads to more effective and efficient organizations. In my opinion, the largest downfall of state and local governments is that they're effective monopolies and they've no one to compete against. WRT I-695, I think a benefit of the initiative is that it brings the equivalent of a competitive pressure (immediate cost reduction) to the public sector.

FWIW, I don't support I-695 primarily due to the $30 tab issue. I support it because the inequity in influence and resources between lobbyists for the public-sector unions, government contractors, and government employees appears (is?) overwhelming compared to the influence of lobbyists representing the individual taxpayer.

--Brad

I've helped my neighbors (locally and globally) quite extensively in the last

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.

Mike "I help my neighbors.....do you?" One thing that many people do NOT understand is that government forcibly taking money out of people's pockets is NOT 'helping your neighbors'

I could go on to explain what 'hepling your neighbors' really is but I'm sure you KNOW what that entails. You just choose to disparage people who are tired of having their hard-earned money stolen from them for the 'Good of the village'

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.

Oh Mikey,

Yes, there MIGHT be layoffs, but your full of it if you think that us "yes" people wish "they" would go away. For your info, my mom takes the bus and my sister drives one. They are both voting yes and they are very informed about what MIGHT happen. If anything does happen, we as a family will help each other and our neighbors out. And if there needs to be additional taxes then if it is justified we would vote yes on it.

As for ?? Smith,

I have been laidoff before and always found another job, anyone can, they just have too do it, instead of whining about it.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.

Yes, there will be cuts in government spending and there will be reductions in budgets; This is what I-695 is all about. We are here to expressly put restraints on government spending; not cozyup and create more and increased taxes and budgets; To hire more desk squatters, fatten more programs and entitlements with ever increasing tax burdens. To you whinners, (anti I-695ers), out there that throw out the fear mongering and dire consequences rhetoric - life is tough. You are not going get everything you want - get used to it and start living with the results of I-695 NOW!

-- Rich Henderson (grassroots3@earthlink.net), September 23, 1999.

Rich:

I agree with your assessment, that significant cuts will occur in some state programs and from the staff of some local governments. That is a different issue that saying, as some have, that it is just 2% and the loss will be relatively painless.

If you position is, you don't care what prgrams are cut and which of the services your neighbors may need will be lost; I-695 if the right tool for the job. It just cuts (both now, with the MVET, and in the future), and leaves the mess for others to clean up.

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

WELL D,

The politicians should have done their jobs in the first place and cut taxes before the people had to do it for them with I-695.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 24, 1999.

hammer:

The politicians did their jobs. The people they heard from were those that wanted highway improvements in their area, and restoration of parks, and enforcement of added environmental regulations, and a thousand other things. They tried to carefully give the state what they wanted. The initiative basicly leaves all that in place, and tells them, "We don't want to pay!" No targeted cuts, unless you assume that whatever is funded by the MVET is the target. No clear direction on a change in state priorities. As far as I can tell, the initiative indicates the state is doing what the public wants it to do; but the proponants want it to cost less. I would like things to cost less too, but sometimes you have to pay the advertized price.

I will just observe that I-695 proponents keep bringing up the 2% budget cut, to minimize what the initiative is actually doing. I beleive that to be a deception, but lets assume it is true for a minute. If it is only a 2% revenue cut for government, it is only a 2% savings to the tax payer on all state and local taxes. Hardly enough to get so excited about, and not worth all the damage the initiative will do.

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

"If it is only a 2% revenue cut for government, it is only a 2% savings to the tax payer on all state and local taxes. Hardly enough to get so excited about"

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. K'ung Fu-Tze, Chinese Philosopher, 551-479 B.C.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 01, 1999.

"If it is only a 2% revenue cut for government, it is only a 2% savings to the tax payer on all state and local taxes. Hardly enough to get so excited about"

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Confucius

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 01, 1999.