What about the other funds that the state has? If I-695 is really going to be as bad as opponents say, why don't we use some of that money. What about the state investement board or the general fund? Why don't we use that money if we don't have enough once we, the people, get some tax RELIEF for once.

Thank you, Sonia

-- Sonia (sonia_900@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999

Answers

some one correct me, but don't taxes make up only 68% of state income, not sure where I saw that, but I think thats correct

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Good question. The answers in this thread are going to depend on how the posters are going to either tell you how it can be or simply scare and confuse you into voting no. I have seen this on just about every thread here.

The people FOR I-695 will explain in simple terms how the government must prioritize the state programs and only fund those first that need to be funded (police, fire, Medic One, etc) and the rest can be decided on if they need to be dropped and the money shuffled to another program or simply cut some of their funding. New taxes and fees would come to a public vote only if the elected officals have no other choice but to since they cannot prioritize their programs and balance a budget like any reasonable Fortune 500 company. Remember, we are only talking 2% of the entire states revenue from car tabs. Something tells me that there has got to be some funding from the other 98% the money goes to that can make up for the lost tab fees.

But on the other side, the people that want you to vote no will confuse you with hearsay, personal thought, figures that were pulled from budgets years ago, and other scare tactics like "You won't have a policeman or fireman and you'll have to pay a state income tax (which could never happen in this state)."

These people will also repost and repost the same information from other boards to the point where that is all they say. The same thing. If you vote Yes on this, you will be doomed to cut services, programs and other vital services. My answer to all that is: "Jan 1, 2000 is coming. Will the world end? Probably not. If I-695 passes, will we really not see a bus within 10 minutes? Maybe. If 695 passes, will we not see a four lane highway cut down to two lanes for two months just to improve an exit ramp and then see no difference than it was before? GOD I HOPE SO!!

The state will not come to an end if 695 passes. Life goes on. Why shouldn't the Government ask you first to give them more money?

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Sandy you are talking my language! I have a question about the investement money that the state has. If that is the state's investment why not invest it in US, the taxpayers? This money that just sits there can help pay for stuff when this passes in November and we, the little guys, will finally get a break. VOTE YES ON 695!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Sonia (sonia_900@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Sandy writes:

"The people FOR I-695 will explain in simple terms how the government must prioritize the state programs and only fund those first that need to be funded (police, fire, Medic One, etc) and the rest can be decided on if they need to be dropped and the money shuffled to another program or simply cut some of their funding. New taxes and fees would come to a public vote only if the elected officals have no other choice but to since they cannot prioritize their programs and balance a budget like any reasonable Fortune 500 company."

You are either misinformed, or do not know what you are talking about. As has been rehashed over and over again Medic One systems are universally funded by levies. Any increase in the total amount collected by this levy would appear to require a public vote based on 695. So apparently any levy that has a longer than one year term does so in name only.

Because there is *always* new construction pretty much everywhere where Medic One systems exist, there will *always* be an increase in total revenue, meaning that voters will *always* have to go to the polls every single year to be asked if they want to fund something they've already said they want to fund.

Special districts will have to ask the public to vote on their funding every single year, because their total amount of revenue collected always increases. The measures placed on the ballot will not be just new fees and taxes. Because of the way our system of special districts is set up, they will have to have their budgets voted on each and every year.

Sonia writes:

"I have a question about the investement money that the state has. If that is the state's investment why not invest it in US, the taxpayers? This money that just sits there can help pay for stuff when this passes in November and we, the little guys, will finally get a break."

Again, you are either misinformed or don't know what you are talking about. Any money that the state invests is money that has already been directed to fund something. This is not excess money that just sits there forever; it is in an investment account temporarily to get some interest before it is spent.

By putting tax money that has already been collected into investment accounts that earn interest, the state is being *smart* with our tax money. Isn't this what you want?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Can't speak for the rest, but what I want is to be taxed the very least possible, and for goverment not to "waste" what they bleed out of me. Sound extreme, just look at Safeco (taxpayer) Field, and remember after 2 no votes, an emergency was declared to fund it, so much for priorities, and I want change if that is supposed to be taking good care of my money.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Like BB said when you reprioritize money in the budget, it does have to come from somewhere else. And this is something that the Yes campaign finds uneasy to talk about.

At the very heart of the matter is that no two people have the exact same idea of what a priority should be in spending. Sandy would like to think that it is simply a matter of doing the main priorities first (police, fire, medic). Well that begs the question, just what things should be funded there? Does that cover outreach programs like DARE and gang prevention? How much fire protection is enough?

I suppose I'm trying to confuse the issue here. But actually it really is quite a bit more complex than what Sandy would like us to believe. Offer a list of 10 things and ask people to pick their 3 top priorities, and odds are over half of the items will be listed as a priority by a majority of the people. So if the time comes to cut items in a budget there isn't going to be some easy list of throw away items.

To think that important items like fire and police services will escape untouched is not being realistic. Is keeping these services fully funded important? Sure. Important enough to completely eliminate another department like parks or planning? Not to most people. So most of these cities faced with double digit losses are looking at across the board cuts. It makes everybody absorb some of the cuts but ensures that non-vital, but extremely useful services remain at least semi-functional. After all, when Boeing has to trim 5% of their workforce they don't eliminate just one entire division.

And Sonia, to explain the Investment Board, about 80% of the money it works with is retirement funds and 16% is industrial insurance. It really isn't the taxpayers' money to begin with, but the state workers who earned it and the companies who pay into it in case you loose a finger on the job. "Investing" it back to the taxpayers would be like Ford cashing in all of it's employees' 401k plans and giving the money to its stockholders.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

"At the very heart of the matter is that no two people have the exact same idea of what a priority should be in spending. Sandy would like to think that it is simply a matter of doing the main priorities first (police, fire, medic). Well that begs the question, just what things should be funded there? Does that cover outreach programs like DARE and gang prevention? How much fire protection is enough?

I suppose I'm trying to confuse the issue here. But actually it really is quite a bit more complex than what Sandy would like us to believe. Offer a list of 10 things and ask people to pick their 3 top priorities, and odds are over half of the items will be listed as a priority by a majority of the people. So if the time comes to cut items in a budget there isn't going to be some easy list of throw away items. " This is true regardless of whether or not I-695 passes. If the state had a windfall $140 million appear (as from money saved through welfare reform) this would still be true concerning where to apply the windfall. If I-695 fails, there will still be a need to balance off these priorities. Those who support I-695 obviously believe that they can be balanced at 98% of current total funding levels. Does that mean that 2% will go away? Well, yeah. That's the idea. "It makes everybody absorb some of the cuts but ensures that non- vital, but extremely useful services remain at least semi-functional. After all, when Boeing has to trim 5% of their workforce they don't eliminate just one entire division. " Actually, sometimes they do. It's called getting back to the core business, and such divestitures occur real often when companies have over diversified into areas that are only vaguely connected to their primary business. Current management theory as taucht by MOST MBA programs is not only that this does happen, but that it the PREFERRED way to downsize. This is what the Department of Defense is trying to do. Close bases, privatize non-core functions, get rid of marginally efficient operations. Your option, called straight-line or non-programmatic reduction is generally the WORST option.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Mark wrote, "Your option, called straight-line or non-programmatic reduction is generally the WORST option."

A programatic approach to addressing presumed waste in government is exactly what is needed. 695 does nothing but cut the funding, without regard to the programs, and gives no guidence about what to do about the losses. No one can debate the relative merits of the programs to be cut, and everyone can ass-u-me that their pet programs are clearly among those that should be high priority. What this will do is leave it up to the politicians that the supporters of 695 don't trust, to make the programatic cuts. I-695 is a non-programatic reduction in the state budget. I agree with you, that it is the worst possible use of the initiative process.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 07, 1999.

db--"I agree with you, that it is the worst possible use of the initiative process." Out of curiousity, I'm wondering if you could show us where he said that "this is the worst possible use of the initiative process." I'll make it even simpler, just show us where he *implied* it was "the worst possible use of the initiative process." I hope you're not offended that I won't hold my breath.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 07, 1999.

Well Sonia as you can see by the replys to not only your question, but also my post, that the Noers are weaving their web here too.

Let's play out this senario and compare how an average family is to how the government is:

The Jones family's total annual income is $40,000. First taxes take out at least 15% of that leaving $34,000. Then the family must PRIORITIZE how the rest needs to be spent for the rest of the year. There could be rent, insurance, utilties, food, gas, entertainment, christmas presents, etc. In the end their may be only $200 for the whole year after they have budgeted their entire year's income....which may not leave any money at all for tabs. But the family needs more income so what needs to be done... they get a second job, but that may not be enough, that may just cover everything that the $34,000 covers. The family knows they must priortize what to spend their money on for what is needed and not simply wanted. They also must be able to tell their children "no" when Mommy and Daddy simply don't have the money for their child's band camp weekend because they have to pay $800 in car tabs for the year.

Now the Government works like this: The government taxes or levies the people for income to fund programs. When a new program comes up and needs funding, they may or may not look at other ways to fund it, but common sense tells me that they just say "Hey, let's hike the gas tax up .1% and that will bring in a cool million or two to fund the program.

How do these compare? The family must prioritize what it can and cannot pay for. If the family can't afford a new Barbie doll for little Suzy at Christmas because the family hasn't made enough for the year, the little Suzy's out. Whereas for the government, when it wants a new Hot Wheels car, it simply raises a tax or fee to help pay for their new toy, normally the red car they got last week is still brand new and just as shiney, but they want the new blue one too.

Lesson learned in all this: Make the government prioritize what toys they need vs. what toys they want! Otherwise the government may turn into that spoiled little brat that will grow up being hated.

Ask yourselves and other this when they are confused how to vote on 695: Why shouldn't the Government ask you for more tax money?

Vote Yes on I-695! The red car is just fine!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Patrick, BB, and Mark:

Instead of picking small inconsistences in our posts and saying we are wrong or misinformed, think about the samples you post.

The Yes people say that the Government should prioritize the programs. Has anyone ever seen the movie "Dave"? True, it's only a movie, but you can see how there are programs out there that don't need to exist. I'm no longer giving examples because you Noers always point out those instead of talking about the issue of how the government should prioritize.

But you all also say we avoid answering just how we would prioritize. WELL HERE'S MY POST ON IT SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOU GUYS SAYING WE DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW TO DO IT!! Let's see, call a meeting and have a list of all the programs and how much funding they each get, then get a rep from each program present at this meeting and virtually plead their case why they need all their funding. It's how businesses do it, why can't the government?

The problem is nobody has the balls to do such a thing. Everyone is scared of... believe it or not... the banking industry and big business. (I know I'm going to get hammered for this in this post but I will say it anyway) Politicians get money from big business, in return big business wants action, their way. Again, have you seen the movie "The Distinguished Gentleman". Don't try to tell me I live in a fantasy movie land or something. These movies are meant to teach us how we should be doing things and also how the real world works!!

All those who say that movies can't teach us anything, shut up and color. Those that believe that the world can be changed, vote Yes on I-695!!

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Sandy-

"Patrick, BB, and Mark: Instead of picking small inconsistences in our posts and saying we are wrong or misinformed, think about the samples you post."

I am pro-695. I was objecting to comments made by those who are anti- 695.

You probably want to read the threads in a little bit more detail yourself.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Sandy--

Before I start, I'd like to you to know I'm a strong supporter of I-695.

"Instead of picking small inconsistences in our posts and saying we are wrong or misinformed, think about the samples you post."

For what it's worth, Mark appears to support I-695.

I look at this differently. In my opinion, we collectively benefit when people identify inconsistencies in our arguments. If people carefully pay attention, their critical reasoning skills will (over time) become sharper.

"Has anyone ever seen the movie "Dave"?"

In making the point that certain programs can be eliminated (FWIW I agree), we're supposed to consider the movie "Dave" as proof?

For those who've never seen the movie, it's comedic movie where a presidential lookalike becomes president after the real president croaks while doinking his secretary. He and the first lady then fall in love.

"The problem is nobody has the balls to do such a thing. Everyone is scared of... believe it or not... the banking industry and big business. (I know I'm going to get hammered for this in this post but I will say it anyway) Politicians get money from big business, in return big business wants action, their way. Again, have you seen the movie "The Distinguished Gentleman". Don't try to tell me I live in a fantasy movie land or something. These movies are meant to teach us how we should be doing things and also how the real world works!!"

Again, I understand and agree with your apparent point--that politicians haven't the political will (AKA cojones) to work against the groups (big business and labor) that get a significant portion of their funding (either directly via contracts or indirectly via union dues paid by government employees) from government. On the other hand, using the "The Distinguished Gentleman" to support this is just plain silly.

Again, for those who've never seen the movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman" is a story about a con artist (Eddie Murphy) who's working a party where he hears a congressman (James Garner) talking about graft in government. When James Garner's character dies right before an election, Eddie Murphy runs for the open seat (they have very similar names). Eddie Murphy wins on "name recognition" alone and he and his cronies head to Washington for all the loot they can grab.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 08, 1999.

Thanks Brad for the concerns. The only things I guess to mention is how the two movies were a part of my point (which I think you may did not know which parts I was referring to)

In "Dave", Dave must cut (I think) $600 million from the Federal Budget to keep some shelters open. To do this he called a Cabinet Meeting and went through a list of programs like why the government was spending money on a program to prove to the American people that the car they just bought is good. Dave was asking why would we spend money to market the product's features after they already bought the car. There were others, but in the end, the $600 million or so was raised simply by cutting uneeded programs that continued to get funding. The scene in this movie showed how by prioritizing the programs, the money that was not needed was used to fund a program that was needed. That is what our state, nay, nation should do.

As for "The Distinguished Gentleman", the point to reference in this movie was how Big Business uses its "influence" ($$$) to get politicians to vote or do things that favor them and litterly saying without saying, "Hey Senator, vote this way or else. I don't care about measly power lines and how they might be harming children."

Those were the two references I was using from the movies. They were meant to stir a little "Hey, this is how things work, do you like this?" type thinking.

With I-695 approved, the people who pay to fund these programs with fees and taxes will have a better say as to what and how the government does it's business.

Was that not the original idea of our founding fathers to have a government that does what the people want?

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.