Is it possible to craft a law that would prioritize state spending? Is it possible to craft a law that requires state agencies to use "zero base budgeting" instead of simply asking for a percentage increase each year? Seems to me to make infinite sense! Make these leeches justify that they in fact need the funding and what exactly they plan to do with it.Wouldn't this be a good way to identify waste?

-- Ed Wolf (Edwinkle99@aol.com), November 07, 1999

Answers

Ed Wolf:

Most budgets DO identify exactly what they intend to do with the money, in detail. Budget hearings are all about justifying to the elected officials what the staff is recommending, in front of the public. All you need to do is get involved, and make YOUR priorities known.

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

Not necessarily true (or at all) that the public can get full knowledge of where the money goes once it leaves the taxpayer's wallet. Haven't you read the bills forced on the public in detail? What do you think "...and for other purposes" means? Not a lot of detail there. How about State money that goes to Washington DC in lump sums? Where's your itemization list where that gets spent? How about money to the United Nations? Or to other foreign countries? When was the last time you read just who IS the United Nations, how many people work there, what are their names and titles, what are their salaries...the list goes on. Ever wondered why people in foreign countries are still starving when the U.S. supports their governments with billions of dollars? Who gets what in those cases? Not the people, for sure.. then who does? Where's that informed list? Well, that money is coming from all of us and I've never seen those breakdown. It's not on their own website: http://www.un.org either. Anyone who thinks that just getting "involved" is the answer to finding that accountability...hasn't really done so himself. I've been there done that and found those critters in office are way ahead when it comes to lying, cheating, stealing and concealing.

-- Judy Kimball (judyusa@uswest.net), November 07, 1999.

Judy:

We were talking about budgets within the state, but even the federal budget is available for review if you want to look through the thousands of pages that outline where the money goes. I am not talking about program authorization bills, that outline what a program is intended to do. I am talking about the annual (or bi- annual for the state) budget, that actually funds individual FTE positions and the resources for that staff to do their work. If you take the time and look, every state agency and local government has that information and it is all in the public record. If it is in the public record, it is open for discovery and comment, as has been done on this site extensively. My point is that resetting the priorities of government is not done by approval of the initiative. If you have a program issue to support or oppose, you need to be involved in that process.

Your response seems to indicate you don't believe you can do that, or the elected officials will lie to you about their budgets. That's an excuse to let them do it, and complain about the results. If you don't want to be involved in the decisions, you get what you get.

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

Hi Dbvzzvdbzvdbzv,

Did you enjoy the post "no on I-695" socialist workers party in Pioneer Square with Patrick and the rest of your comrades? If as YOU say "My point is that resetting the priorities of government is not done by approval of the initiative." then explain to me why your comrades, Ron "tax to the max" Sims and Gary "Un-Locke the state vault" are doing just that. Both are indicating cuts will have to oocur in basic services when those of us who HAVE actually looked at the state budget know that cuts in basic services are not necessary.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 07, 1999.

You guys are missing my point,I don"t wish to disrupt the gov't. Simply put Zero Based Budgeting is nothing more than starting your budget at $0.00 and forecasting your projected costs from there as opposed to just inflating last years budget by a certain percentage. By starting at zero it should be much easier to identify waste and redundance.I think that we all know that there are duplications of service throughout the buearacracy,what a simple place to eliminate waste!This should also end the practice of quickly spending any surplus funds for fear of not getting like funding next year.

-- Ed Wolf (Edwinkle99@aol.com), November 08, 1999.

Ed- I was in the FEDERAL government when President Carter tried to institute this. IMMEDIATELY, his own party turned against him, the press turned against him (remember the attacked by a rabbit while jogging story?), the entire establishment did everything possible to destroy him (and the Democrats OWNED Congress then, you might remember). If you think that the political establishment fought against I-695, let me assure you thet they will fight to the death (yours, if possible) over zero based budgeting. Definition of a "cut": I didn't get (what I spent last year)*(my SWAG for program growth)*(1+inflation)+(FTEs*average annual salary increase/FTE)+ (a few more FTEs) Definition of SWAG: Semi Wild A**ed Guess. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 08, 1999.

Craig, Got your e-mail ,I do remember those times that is why I'm suggesting doing it through the initiative process. In Washington State we have that option open to us. Unlike on the federal level where it could only be done legislatively and we all know that they would never allow that to happen. If the support could be raised from the citizens to the level of 695 the politicians could not stand against the power of the people! Craig, it has to start somewhere, if it doesn't soon, it will be unrepairable. I think that the mere thought that this could be the next step will scare the HELL out of them.!!! We all know that the next step for them will be to tamper with the initiative process in this state to prevent any futher erosion of their power. We need to be very watchful for that. It's sad that in this country we have had a steady erosion of our rights for so many years now that the people have become apathetic to it. Our constitution provides that the power comes directly from the consent of people and not from the government. Every so often I think that our politicians need to be reminded of that.

Ed

-- Ed Wolf (Edwinkle99@aol.com), November 08, 1999.

"I think that the mere thought that this could be the next step will scare the HELL out of them.!!! We all know that the next step for them will be to tamper with the initiative process in this state to prevent any futher erosion of their power. " Ed- I'm not QUITE as sceptical as you are. I don't think that politicians are inherently corrupt, although I think that the system does tend to corrupt them. I believe rather that they take the line of least resistance. As long as people rolled over, it was easier to stick it to them than to give up the benefits that paying off the special interest groups gave them. But look at the RECENT statements by Locke, for example. The man doesn't want to fight with taxpayers, he wants to be Vice President, and someday President. As long as it furthers his goal to raise taxes and make the special interests happy, he'll do so. Now that the taxpayers have become more of a threat, he'll sell them down the river in a heartbeat. He knows it, and they know it. He regards I-695 as a MISCALCULATION on the part of the political elite (himself included) as to what was the line of least resistance, no more, and no less. However his political philosophy really started out, he is now in the pragmatic mold of the career politician. He'll do whatever it takes to get to the next rung on the ladder. OUR JOB is to make it easier politically for him to screw the special interests, than to screw the people. If that happens, he'll turn on them in a millisecond. There are a FEW politicians who might be truly malicious, but most are just opportunists. And you're right. Periodically we need to remind them who is boss. The crooks know they are crooks, but they'll do the right thing if it's easier than doing the wrong thing. The bigger threat is the apologists for the political establishment. They are the people who use phoney arguments to try to seize the moral high ground, while pushing their own agendas. These are the ones that never found a government program they didn't love and any cutback threatens essential services. They are known by their catch phrase, It's for the CHILL- dren!

+

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 08, 1999.

Tony:

I don't know where you get these ideas. Cutting will be necessary. Whether something is "essential" is a subjective judgement in most cases. Whatever is proposed for cuts will be considered an important service to someone, and nothing that will be cut will wipe out civilization, so what does that tell us? Get involved in making your priorities known to the politicians. Since the initiative lacked any specificity, and made no targeted cuts in programs to match the cuts in revenue, that work is still ahead of us. That was one of my concerns about the initiative from the beginning. No one could know what they were voting to eliminate or reduce.

Since the initiative left that work to the politicians, that is where your energy should be expended. Nothing you write here will convince Locke or Sims to change their priorities, and the initiative vote has already been counted. Others are advocating for their program priorities. If you wait to see what happens, your next choice will be when they are up for election again.

You call me a socialist because I believe the initiative is poorly worded, bad law, and should not have been approved. That you may not get what you want in the cuts is hardly unexpected, since no cuts were identified. From my perspective, that just proves the point. Most people will probably regret passage of the initiative before the March, 2000.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 10, 1999.

Socialist; a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, managed or controlled by the government. Socialist; a person who favors or supports socialism. Statements in this forum written by dbvz.

As a nation we now favor a more free trade environment and funding by a progressive income tax. -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 31, 1999. I pointed out elsewhere that if we replace most of the non- deductable taxes with a state income tax, 15 - 39% of the state taxes would be offset by a reduction in the federal income tax. Since it is a deduction that reduces the taxable income, it comes off at the highest tax rate you are in. -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 31, 1999. We get services for our taxes that create the social economy you live in. -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 29, 1999. You can't expect to agree with every decision of your government  The current system does work, and should not be changed. -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.free.net), October 31, 1999. The point of taxes is that everyone pays a fair share, and sufficient funds are generated to do a job for us. -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 26, 1999. I believe we should replace most state taxes with a state income tax that is fixed at a percentage of the federal income tax; be deducted as earned  -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 26, 1999. I advocated a graduated income tax that is exactly a fixed percentage of the federal income tax,  -- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 27, 1999.

You decide. Is dbvz a socialist?

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 11, 1999.

Quoting out of context... Cute!

-- C. George (---@---.---), November 11, 1999.

Tony--"You decide. Is dbvz a socialist?"

Not by any definition I've ever seen. Perhaps you're redefining the word socialist to fit your view of the world. . .on my planet, I'd call that dishonest.

FWIW, even if he was, why would it matter? All you've done with your post is provide our fellow readers with a boring example of an ad hominem argument.

Before you flame. . .don't ask a question if you don't want the answer.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 11, 1999.

Does it matter if someone is a socialist, a liberal, a democrat, a republican, or a communist? People had reasons to vote for it and people had reasons to vote against it. I-695 was passed by the majority of the voters. Now we must all live with it.

If you think that your representative doesn't do what you want or is making decisions just to punish you, then will have the opportunity to elect someone else. But that does not change any decisions that he/she may have made while in office. If you want to influence those decisions, then the next step is to work within the 'system' to get what you want. You may not like our representative system of government, but that is what we have.

Please remember, the government still has some flexibility to move the budget around to fund what they want. They only need to submit any tax increases for voter approval. If you want to monitor how they budget and prioritize items, then you need to get involved.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 11, 1999.

C. George, Brad, Gene:

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure why this is an issue here. I note that my statements presented as evidence, are primarily those in support of what has been the status quo in this country for some time. If the point is that, as a nation, we now expect more social responsibility than was the case 50 or 100 years ago then I guess nearly everyone is a "socialist". Some of that may result from the fact that the world population has doubled, and we bump into each other more often and in different ways.

For the record, I vote Republican on most issues and candidates. Sometimes the Republicans fail to find a good candidate, and on 695 they were divided on the issue. Some of what was intended in 695, I agree with. That did not, and does not, overcome the problems with the way it was done, the poorly worded provisions, the unintended consequences, and my concern for the preservation of tested representative institutions.

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

I didn't see an answer to the question from any one. Only more questions. So now that they are talking about cutting ferry services and bus route hours how can we make sure they lose their jobs if that's how they choose to serve the tax payers? How can impact those decisions they are making on how to cut the pie? I would like to make sure regular folks don't lose jobs because the politians make poor choices with the tax money we have taken from the coffers. Does any one have a constructive game plan now?

-- Vickie Griffith (mentlwrd@gte.net), November 12, 1999.

C. George, Brad, Gene and dbvz,

Lighten up boys! I call them like I see them and if you think the status quo is worth defending that is your right, however, be aware that you are defending a state government almost completely removed from the supreme law of the land. "THE U.S. CONSTITUTION". The "Declaration of Independence" says Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not say Life, Liberty and ferry transportation, bus transportation, swimming pools, parks etc.. Now if you are unable to comprehend any solutions to the issues raised with I-695 other than government solutions, then I don't care if you are a Republican a Democrat or an Independent you are still a Socialist, PERIOD. Let me say that one more time; if you are unable to comprehend solutions other than government solutions you are a socialist and if you are a socialist, I want you as far away from my money as I can get you. The "Declaration" also says that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We have altered government with I-695, however, it is just a small victory in a bigger battle to return government to it's roots and make it more like the founders intended it to be.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 12, 1999.

crackpot--"Lighten up boys! I call them like I see them and if you think the status quo is worth defending that is your right, however, be aware that you are defending a state government almost completely removed from the supreme law of the land. "THE U.S. CONSTITUTION". The "Declaration of Independence" says Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not say Life, Liberty and ferry transportation, bus transportation, swimming pools, parks etc.. Now if you are unable to comprehend any solutions to the issues raised with I-695 other than government solutions, then I don't care if you are a Republican a Democrat or an Independent you are still a Socialist, PERIOD. Let me say that one more time; if you are unable to comprehend solutions other than government solutions you are a socialist and if you are a socialist, I want you as far away from my money as I can get you. The "Declaration" also says that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We have altered government with I-695, however, it is just a small victory in a bigger battle to return government to it's roots and make it more like the founders intended it to be."

Sheesh. . .imagine my surprise as I get called a socialist. I believe you've entered jacqueloon territory.

Mind if I call you a crackpot. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 12, 1999.

Brad,

Pay attention! I said "IF you are unable to comprehend solutions other than government solutions you are a socialist and if you are a socialist, I want you as far away from my money as I can get you."

Do you have alternative solutions that don't require government intervention? If you do, then join us in battle against those people who want to maintain the status quo.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 12, 1999.

Vickie,

You should make your opinions known to the decision-makers (e.g. phone, e-mail, personal visits, etc.). You should also get those that agree with you to also contact the decision-makers. The decision-makers need to have as much input from the people as they can get. In the current system, this is the best method available to you to influence how the government cuts the pie.

If you do not agree with the decisions made by these politicians as they deal with the impact of I-695, then you will have the opportunity to vote them out of office.

If you are looking for a constructive game plan, you will have to look very hard, because I do not believe that one exists. I-695 did not provide a game plan on how to deal with the reduction in taxes. It basically told the government, "The people have cut off one of your budget sources - deal with it!" So now the government is dealing with it.

So, if you want to influence these government decisions, YOU WILL HAVE TO GET INVOLVED.

Tony,

You are correct that the Declaration of Independence does not address ferries, buses, swimming pools, etc. But no place in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution or Washington State Constitution addresses a freedom of taxation. Both the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions address taxation as necessary to provide for public purposes. I understand that you want the government to stay away from your money (no one likes to pay taxes), but that is how our government is structured - it requires taxes to provide for the public. If you do not like what it provides or how it is provided, then that is a different issue. If you believe that my faith in this government makes me a socialist, then I must be a socialist (to you).

The current form of government allows you the opportunity to help our government representatives to come up with budget solutions that are acceptable to you. If you still do not agree, you have the opportunity to elect someone who will be much more acceptable to your views. If you want to influence these government solutions, YOU WILL HAVE TO GET INVOLVED. In any case, the solutions belong to all of us because we have the opportunity to affect them. If you don't make use of this opportunity, that is your choice.

The status quo is the result of our choice of representatives and how we made use of the opportunity to influence them. This system of government allows you the opportunity to change the status quo.

However, if you still do not care for this system of government, I wish you luck in finding one better.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 12, 1999.