The salary for a king county council member. Yet one more reason to vote yes.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 27, 1999

Answers

So how much does noted 695 proponent Westin make every year?

Is it "relevant"?

Well, since the poor confused government-hatin' guy works for, um, the government (excuse me while I chortle), well, yes, I suppose so, Jethro!

-- Darth Chomsky (chez@u.washington.edu), October 27, 1999.

Is it relevant that our public officials for whom a government position is NOT supposed to be lucrative? Oh, it's relevant. It's sooo relevant. Why is it relevant? Because it's a perfect example of an area which could stand DRAMATIC cuts- from the very organization (read 'the state') claims can make no cuts. Oh, and we don't hate government, we just don't like being told that we have to make 'sacrifices for ze nashun', Adolf.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 27, 1999.

Can anyone explain to me why the number is $98,287? I mean, like, there has to be some government study that shows why this is the right amount of money, right? This wasn't just some arbitrary amount that was picked out to be a catchy number, was it? If the pro- government people haven't the integrity to answer this, what else can we trust them with??? Vote NO on more government workers until someone answers my question.

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

Chaff and flares, Joe, chaff and flares.

zowie (gotcha)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

Okay Zowie and Craig,

I think everybody has heard enough about your personal problems (i.e. chaffing and flare-ups)

Apply an ointment and move on

-- Doogie Houser, M.D. (craig8@theY.yuk), October 27, 1999.

Actually, I don't know how the council arrives at its salary, and I'm sure there are studies and 'cost of living' surveys to which they pay attention. I also don't know who approves the council salaries, whether it's the larger state gov't, legislature, or the council itself (that would be scary). However, the fact is, a near 6 figure salary for a COUNTY councilmember just stuns me. I'm sitting here making less than 1/2 that amount and I'm vilified as being unfair, greedy, and uncompassionate by the same state officials that repeatedly tell us they can't POSSIBLY afford to make cuts in the budget, because by god, there just isn't any real waste out there. There are a LOT of hard working people out there, struggling to pay their car tabs, working in the, ahem, free market, and the people who are directly, or even indirectly responisble for our current level of taxation, or tax-spending, are making a very, VERY healthy living. Government is not supposed to be lucrative.

The current incumbent for king county council, who is being challenged by Caputo, (who will probably win, unfortunately) wouldn't even appear in a debate with him. Quite frankly, I'm beginning to understand why. Take me. Let's say I get elected to King County Council. My annual salary IMMEDIATELY MORE than doubles. Let's then say I'm able to stay in the office for oh, say 8 years. (That's the period the current incumbent has been in office, I believe). Now, someone makes a serious challenge at my seat- which means if I lose, OVERNIGHT my $92,000 salary, to which I've undoubtedly become accustomed, disappears. Gone, Kaput (Caputo, apparently), zero, nada... Is it not reasonable to assume that I'd be very, very afraid of losing that? You think I'm gonna head straight back into the private sector from which I came and get my old job back, which, even adjusted for inflation will probably put me back down at 1/2 that? It's just too lucrative. It creates an atmosphere of career service, instead of serving your gov't for a term or TWO, then going back into the private sector from whence you came.

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 27, 1999.

A technical correction on my post, above.

I wrote "who will probably win, unfortunately". That remark was supposed to apply to the incumbent, not Caputo. It didn't read that way.

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 27, 1999.

This is an old arguement. If a government office did not offer a "competitive" salary, then only people who could afford it (i.e. the wealthy), would run for office. And if only those people were in office, the government would be even more slanted to the rich than it is today.

As for determining what is a "competitive" salary, you need to talk to your representative about that.

But, I-695 is not lowering anyones salary. It is NOT a reason for voting yes.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 27, 1999.

So now Craig and Zowie are resorting to posting messages masquerading as me, and replying to them! Guess they're still sore about having made fools of themselves elsewhere. :-)

For the curious, see ""...I-695: Legislature won't fix the problem: By Chairman of the Republican Party..." (1999-10-25)" for the explanation for Zowie's embarrassment. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001dwK

"Why $30 and not $0 or $3?" for Craig's. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001JAZ

Flattered to see that my posts have had such an impact,

-- Joe Campbell (joecampbell76@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

What's $92,287???

Answers----

#1) what it cost for Chez education at the Dub.

#2) court cost for all of Chez names.

#3) about $80,000 a year more then Chez will make on minimum wage.

#4) 1 year cost for mental health for Chez.

Ed - I love the easy ones

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

"So now Craig and Zowie are resorting to posting messages masquerading as me, and replying to them! " Wasn't me, joe. I'd assume it was "zowie." Unfortuantely, I can't copyright either "chaff and flares" or "It's the demographics, stupid." Not that anyone on this site seems to pay a lot of attention to copyrights ;)

The Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

"This is an old arguement. If a government office did not offer a "competitive" salary, then only people who could afford it (i.e. the wealthy), would run for office. And if only those people were in office, the government would be even more slanted to the rich than it is today. "

I understand the nuances of 'competitive' salaries for elected officals.. And I'm glad you put "competitive" in quotes, because that salary is a little HYPER competitive. However, getting a gov't position isn't supposed to MAKE you wealthy. I think a salary of $50,000 would be more than fine. I consider myself middle class for chrissakes-- I live in a two income household, and BETWEEN us make a teeny bit more than 1/2 that salary ($92,000). Oh, and I struggle to pay my car tabs on our one car, a 1988 toyota.

> But, I-695 is not lowering anyones salary. It is NOT a reason >for voting yes.

No, it isn't lowering anyones salary, but it IS a symbolic reason to vote yes. Sometimes voting for an initiative isn't about 'not doing any damage to anything'. Sometimes it's a philosophical shot across the bow forcing governments to do the same with less, or simply remove a despot. In my short little lifetime on this planet, I have never heard government NOT scream when faced with a tax cut. Given that simple truth, I expect MUCH screaming for ANY tax cut. They'll survive, just like they survived, nay flourished under 601.

Oh, btw: Government doesn't favour the rich, it favours the GROUPS with the most money. Many government favours are handed out not simply because of individual wealth, but group and special interest contributions. A fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

Pablo "seriously considering a run for King County Council-- hey, I could use the money" Oss

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 27, 1999.

Everyone has the right to send a symbolic message or "philosophical shot" to the government. You may think that they make too much money. You may think that they are corrupt. You may not like how certain projects got funded or prioiritized. You have the right to see that these perceived wrongs are corrected. THIS INITIATIVE DOESN'T FIX ANY OF IT. All you are doing is "cutting off your nose, just to spite your face".

The only way (short of completely eliminating the government and causing total anarchy) is to participate in the system. Contact your representative. Gather signatures. Start an initiative addressing the issue. Start your own lobbying group.

If all you want to do is to send the government a message, then they got the message already. Gaging by the announcements that continue to come out of Olympia, you can be assured that they got the "message".

Oh, btw: Government doesn't favour the rich, not does it favour GROUPS with the most money. What it favours is those with POWER. Sometimes, money is used to influence and persuade, but money itself is just a tool. WE THE PEOPLE have the ultimate power in that we can vote the government in or out. A fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 28, 1999.

Greg wrote: THIS INITIATIVE DOESN'T FIX ANY OF IT. All you are doing is "cutting off your nose, just to spite your face".

No. No I'm not. This theme keeps coming up again, and again, and again. The notion that our prosperity is directly related to the amount were taxed is completely and utterly bogus and indefensible. Wa State gov't has failed to address the point, none of the no-campain proponents have addressed the point- that point being that if you take 2 billion, 1.7 billion, 4 billion, whatever you wish the figure to be (the higher the figure, the more it suits my argument) and put it back into the hands of the people who make this state work in the first place, that it will cause economic devastation is flat out bogus, and intellectually dishonest. Oh, and this initiative DOES address the salary issue, albeit indirectly. Let the state wrench fewer dollars from the people who produce them, the state will have to do the same service with less of those dollars, therefore fewer dollars will be left over for yet further salary increases, over the already DIZZYINGLY high salaries commanded by these officials now.

Oh and uhh, no, gov't favours those with the most money, money being a way, albeit not a gauranteed way, but a way to get into power. There being little or no distinction between power and money these days. A good example is the power that corporations are holding over the heads of our elected officials now. A power in the shape of money. That's why this particular initiative seems to 'defy convention' as Jim Lynch put it. Almost all elected officials across the board, are not supporting this initiative. Probably because the multi-billion dollar corporations are holding them hostage with future contributions. And those contributions are more valuable to them now than a few angry 'little guys' are in the future. Even we few angry 'little guys' are in the 59 percentile.

And lastly, they didn't get the message. If Gary Locke, holding up a blank piece of paper saying "I'll fix it, I promise, but I can't tell you how" when he was PERSONALLY repsonsible for the current disgusting method of the MVET is a strategic maneuver that simply doesn't wash with me.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 29, 1999.