There was a new appointment at the University of Washington the other day, an appointment that recieved very little ink.

Yet another indicator of the political incest in this state... the University hired another lobbyist.

And guess how much they're paying him?

Have you guessed yet?

Do you have any idea?

Even a clue?

$150,000

Imagine... a state agency paying a lobbyist probably more then any governor in the United States.

You would think that those who actually run these agencies could speak for themselves. But the fact they can't sends a message.

BTW, down here in Clark County... guess how much they're paying THEIR lobbiest?

Well, I'll end the suspense and tell you that its $100,000 plus per diem during the legislative session of $80 per day.

Doesn't it seem just the tinniest bit odd that a University feels compelled to pay more money then a county of over 300,000 people to do the same thing?

And of course, the fact that the ol' UW hired him away from the Governor's staff is equally meaningless, I'm sure.

Yeah, the city of Vancouver ALSO spends in excess of $100,000 for lobbying services, with two people doing the job.

Imagine this expense being multiplied at various places around the state... and all on taxpayer money.

Now, then... do ANY of you think that these people and/or wages will be reduced after 695 passes?

Do any of you think they should be?

Westin

Government seems to be a wonderful thing... if you know the right people.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 08, 1999

Answers

Westin wrote, "Now, then... do ANY of you think that these people and/or wages will be reduced after 695 passes?"

695 has nothing to do with programs of any kind, even this one. If you want to propose that governments and agencies are more restricted in how they influence the legislature, you can probably find several legislators who will sponsor a bill. They have already required reporting, and placed some limits. But that is not about the merits, or not, of I-695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

d

You wrote, "695 has nothing to do with programs of any kind, even this one" I think your wrong. It has everything to do with this and other waste of our money just like this.

It has been asked in several posts to point out examples of government waste, well I thing Westin has done just that.

No I-695 does not address this use of taxpayer money or any other programs in its language. What it does say is because of this type of frivolous spending by our elected and non-elected officials we are sick and tired of them taking our money.

Ed - thinking that course in politics and American Government ($100,000 to $150,000 for lobbying services) wasn't as big a waste of time as originally thought.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

Ed:

You have presumed that the expense for lobbyist services is a waste of taxpayer money. I don't know that you can make that judgement fairly, on the information you have. Is it one lobbiest, or a firm? Do they lobby the state, or the federal government, or foreign governments on behalf of the agency? What was the reasoning that caused elected officials to conclude this was in the best interests of the people they represent? What kind of successes has the lobbiest achieved?

All of that is probably worth looking into, if you are concerned about the expense; but based on what was presented it does not constitute an arguement for 695, even if 695 did something to end the practice (which it doesn't). It could just as easily be an arguement against 695, if the efforts of the lobbiest generated jobs and business in the state that resulted in a million or more in revenue, and therefore a net "profit" on the effort. Loss of that kind of activity could be a bad idea, but we don't know that from the information provided.

If we get more information, I may agree it is a waste of money. I may agree that program should be cut. Since 695 does not do that, a program I don't agree with is still not an arguement for the initiative. The lobbiest could be retained, even if 695 is approved. The place to change this is at the meetings of the elected officials who authorized it, after hearing their reasons for doing it in the first place. 695 is the wrong tool for that job.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

By all means, I'll be a little more specific.

First of all, taxpayer-paid lobbyist "services" are just that: a waste of money. No politician or agency head's time is so precious, no matter how obscenely high their pay check (What's the prez of the UW making now? $250,000?) that if the issue is important enough, they couldn't get their butts up (or down, or over) to Olympia to make their case.

If they are unable to communicate well enough that they require the needs of proffessional spin-meisters, then they're in the wrong business.

Secondly, EACH of the costs I've named are for FOUR people.

The guy hired by the UW: $150,000 The guy hired by Clark County $100,000 plus per diem The guy hired by the City of Vancouver (around $80,000... with a drop- dead gorgeous assistant at around 45,000) These are not "firms." These are individuals that have a work year of between 2 to 5 months per year. Yup... we're paying these people as much as, if not more then, we pay a brain surgeon at the UW Medical Center.

Third. Are you being disingenuous about "who they lobby?" Their entire reason for being is to lobby the legislature.

Forth. What on earth makes you think "the best interests of the people" had anything to do with hiring these folks and paying them the outrageous amounys of money that are not only going out the door in this instance, but in dozens, if not hundreds, of others?

Fifth. Success? Well, the first level of success has been to relieve the taxpayer of the burden of having millions of tax-paid dollars, exclusively for their pay-checks. The second level of success boils down to the fact that almost everything they do is designed to cost taxpayers MORE money... leaches on an overleached system.

Actually, it DOES constitute an argument for 695... as does every mention of government waste and mismanagement.

You know... like DOT'S now infamous registration letters? Cost us... what was it? $200,000 to mail out those redundant registration notices to people who had already paid?

Heard anything about what happened to the individual(s) responsible? Have they been fired? Are they paying back the tens of thousands they wasted?

Well?

The presentation that 695 doesn't "do" anything to fix this is specious at best. With the dramatic cuts it will entail, the FIRST people who should go are these blights on the taxpayer. For your fantasy conclusion as to all the "good" these people do, particularly at the absolutely unsupportable amounts of money we pay them is not borne out by the facts.

These people are hired by bureaucrats with one goal in life: Empire building. Do you think it possible, for example, that ANY government lobbyist has EVER went to the legislature and told them "Gee, my agency has too many people, or too MUCH money?"

Not likely.

As previosuly stated, 695 does not specifically address that issue... but in the prioritizing that will follow, the corps of mouthpieces for the empire builders should be the first to go... at EVERY level of government.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 09, 1999.

Westin:

And as I stated, the place to do that after 695 is the same place it could have been done before 695. The initiative does nothing to change state and local priorities. It just reduces the funding available to accomplish them.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

" It just reduces the funding available to accomplish them. " Even if true, this is more than enough justification to vote yes.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

D

I have presumed nothing. To have even one lobbyist hired with taxpayer money is a waste, if that lobbyist is working for a city, county, or other entity of this state. If the people who are elected to represent us at the local level aren't doing it why?

If it was for lobbying the federal government, then why don't these all knowing people pool our money and do it together. Instead of separately. And why the hell would they be lobbying a foreign country. If you answer the last with "so we can sell our products over there or bring jobs here" that would not be correct. All of the produce growers and the big manufacturers pay into a fund (voluntary) to lobby states, feds, and foreign governments. That's their job. Not this states, or city or county.

D

I don't know why you reply to most of the post on this site as most of your replies are "Since 695 does not do that, a program I don't agree with is still not an arguement for the initiative" I'm not saying you can't post, just wondering why?

I guess spending $100,000 on a skateboard park and I don't know how much on a concrete wall for graffiti is money well spent.

Ed - lobbying the state for better looking flag women

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Ed:

Why post? I am beginning to wonder about that myself. No one here is changing any opinions. It seems that accurate information is no more persuasive than inaccurate information, when the readers all have their minds made up in advance.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

"Why post? I am beginning to wonder about that myself. No one here is changing any opinions. " The difficulty with this,d, is that you have too many non-facts, too much dogma, and too little in the way of a convincing argument. Of course, to correct these failings, you'd have to change sides in the debate. ;) The Craigster, watching the election get closer while I-695 continues to hold a serious lead in the polls.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

Dogma? Non-facts? I think I have presented as much factual information as most who post here, but most of this is opinion and interpretation of facts. It's hard to change an opinion, when even the facts that are presented are bent to fit the arguement.

If you mean I have the same kind of fixed opinion I am complaining about, I confess. Call it dogma if you want, but the desciption would fit most of what I have seen on this forum. A somewhat unproductive use of our time, from all I have seen. I expect I will keep looking and posting. It is kind of addictive. I may just cut down on the frequency, and the length of the comments. Perhaps I should write a set of stock responses, and just post something like "Comment 12 applies here." or "See comment 16, which deals with this error in the initiative." It could save some time.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.