Why should'nt we expect governments to prioritize spending to cover essential services. Can any opponents to I-695 offer an explanation?

-- Kent Goodman (primalonekg@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999

Answers

REMEMBER - I-695 does NOT set priorities. It only gives the government less money to work with and restricts their ability to get that money back. Determining what is "Essential" and what takes priority is EXTREMELY subjective.

That being said...Of course, you can expect the government to reprioritize spending if I-695 passes. However, the same people and policies that set priorities and determine what is "essential" prior to I-695 will be doing the same if I-695 passes.

For I-695 to work the way it is currently drafted, will require a higher level of public participation to identify what is "essential" and what takes priority to their elected representatives.

A "higher level of public participation" is required, since the current situation is the result of the existing level of participation. Significant change will not occur unless more public input is made.

Government officials have several things that influence their decisions, one of which is public input. Assuming that the other influences are not changing, the only way to affect priorities is to increase the level of public input.

By saying "Yes to I-695", you must also assume the responsibility to increase your input to your elected officials. There are many who are already doing this. Those of you who have been complaining, but have not been providing input, need to get off the sidelines and into the "game".

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

Gene-

"Government officials have several things that influence their decisions, one of which is public input. Assuming that the other influences are not changing, the only way to affect priorities is to increase the level of public input. "

Actually, there's another way too, after I-695 passes. As bureaucrats and politicians bring issues to the polls for public approval, they will get a very real view from the voting public as to what they will willingly support, rather than the bought and paid for view of a few high priced lobbyists who are in the pay of those who will derive economic benefit from the decision at issue. These people, and a few determined activists, are the ones that pack the planning meetings now since, in the former case, it's their job, and in the latter case, it's their religion. This gives a chance for the working stiff to get his/her opinion heard on an equal basis with the zealots and the paid PR people.

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

Gee isn't 'public input' what 695 is ALL about? And I don't mean wasting your time going to some small meeting and getting shouted down by some government shill.

Those 'public meetings' don't do anything because when all is over the 'aristocracy' just goes back and says "Who a bunch of morons, they don't know what they need so ....Fuget aboudit

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

Gene:

Your post about the need for more ongoing public participation in the democratic process after 695 is an important one, especially now, and one I think is being overlooked by many on this site.

I urge everyone in favor of 695 not to think that their work has ended on election day, Nov. 2. First of all, I'd bet that there are those in government, both elected and in the bureaucracy that will want to punish the citizenry for approving 695. So they will stonewall and become less responsive and resist the need for change. The way you keep them on their toes is to always exert pressure, at meetings (don't let them be little dictators with the microphone), via mail, in the media, including talk radio and sites such as this one, and in the selection of candidates who still live in the real world. This is all the more important now, IMO, because government in the wake of 695 will be tempted to cut the basic services for which we constituted government in the first place. Our job is to see that our tax dollars are used efficiently and wisely will never end, but it can be made easier if we reduce the size of government. That makes it easier to watch.

Too many times I have run into otherwise thoughtful people who are PROUD of the fact that they don't vote anymore. They just like to complain about how bad government is. What do they expect? If they take themselves out of the process, the axgrinders and big government troublemakers will fill the vacuum. When in the history of this state has there been a better example of the power of a democratic grassroots citizens movement than the genesis and impending success of the 695 campaign? Without question, this can be repeated, but we all have to work at it in some capacity.

There is a lot of understandable cynicism about politicians, and I share some of it, but IMO, the way you regain your faith in the system is to ACTIVELY SEEK OUT the people you want to represent you. Then you watch them closely when in office and let them know your opinion on the issues of the day. Remember: Politicians don't have to like how the people want them to vote -- they just have to do the will of the people. The people are sovereign!

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Benjamin Franklin

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), October 27, 1999.

The comments expressed by "maddjak" is an excellent example of what to be wary of.

They indicate that saying yes to I-695 is all the public input that is required. It also assumes that 'public meetings' are a waste of time. Even if it does not pass, I-695 has made a loud statement that the current MVET has gone too far and needs to be cut back. But that is the only message it sends.

As I said before, I-695 does NOT set priorities. It does NOT identify what is and is not "essential". There is nothing in the initiative to tell our elected officials that their consituents think that budget items A, B & C are important and that items X, Y & Z are not.

If you want your input to be heard, then YOU NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY to get it heard. If you refuse to take that responsibility, then you have no reason to complain.

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

Gene:

Amen.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 27, 1999.

I-695 DOES set priorities. It says that it is more important to reduce the MVET than to assure continued support of local transit, the ferry system, county health programs, and sales tax equalization payments to cities. I KNOW what the impact of I-695 will be: the bus route I use to commute to downtown Seattle WILL be eliminated, and my city budget will be reduced by more than $500K. These are not decisions that will be made by "politicians in smoke-filled rooms", but are made by voters by repealing specific section of the RCW which are included in I-695.

Anyone who really thinks that government aren't already prioritizing expenditures should attend a few council meetings and see all that is NOT being done already. It seems irrational to me to restrict governments ability and fexibility to pay for services by forcing elections for fee increases, yet somehow "trust" that same government to decide what services are important. Fee systems are the closest thing we have, or ever will have, to a "free market" in services, yet I-695 makes fee systems impractical. Cutting Community Transit's budget by 35% (or more) and at the same time freezing their ability to alter fares to attempt to make up the difference to maintain service levels until the legislature fixes this mess is foolish and vindictive.

I'd like to see all you pro-695 people invest a fraction of your energy into making the system work!

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), October 29, 1999.

"I KNOW what the impact of I-695 will be: the bus route I use to commute to downtown Seattle WILL be eliminated, and my city budget will be reduced by more than $500K" Oh, so this is all about YOU? I thought pro-695 people were the ones that were self-centered and selfish!

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999.

zowie--"Oh, so this is all about YOU? I thought pro-695 people were the ones that were self-centered and selfish!"

It seems to me both groups are equally selfish.

It's just a matter of whether your selfishly trying to keep access to your own money or selfishly trying keep your access to someone else's money.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 29, 1999.

Come on, what is so selfish about "leave me and my money alone" and If you want it-YOU pay for it!! Even so, go look at the waste that can be eliminated from the budget at the governor's site! By the way, how come when the welfare rolls went down (I think it was 38%), not one welfare related job was cut?????? Can anyone anwer that???

Wake up!!Yes on 695!!!

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), October 31, 1999.

Paula:

I will just observe, again, that what you consider waste may be my favorite program, and what I consider waste may be something that could save your life. Every program has supporters. Even among the "essential" services, the quality and quantity of the service is always up for debate. You can't expect to agree with every decision of your government, unless you select yourself as Dictator - and then, of course, the rest of us would not agree with YOUR decisions. The current system does work, and should not be changed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.free.net), October 31, 1999.