From the SouthCounty Journal:

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/20530

History, yes; police, still no It's so delightful to hear that the King County Council has come up with $100,000 this year for a new program to help preserve local history. Historical museums could use the money, no doubt. And maintaining records of our rich heritage certainly adds to our quality of life. But that same $100,000 also represents one-fifth of the money the county says it doesn't have to keep the Regional Justice Center open 24 hours a day. Executive Ron Sims ordered the center's booking unit closed during night hours because of budget cuts prompted by Initiative 695. That means that South County police officers will have to travel to the county jail in downtown Seattle to hand off prisoners. The additional travel time means that those officers are not on patrol in our communities at night, slowing response times to crimes and calls to 911. Some County Council members have vowed to challenge that decision by Sims, but so far nothing has changed. No one has found $500,000 in the county's $1.7 billion operating budget to re-open the booking unit. Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars available to start a pilot program for historic preservation --- a worthy, but non-essential government program. County officials ought to be ashamed.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 26, 2000

Answers

Craig,

We have been around this tree a few times already. The budgeting choices are not about what is essential and not essential. They are about which marginal adjustment in services is most important, given the current local economic situation. Essential is food, water and shelter when you are living in poverty in a third world village with dirt streets and no electricity, or are homeless on the streets of Seattle. Not every requested program under the banner of public safety, is always more important than any other program that may be proposed. Sometimes the marginal cost of a little history preservation wins, and in a hundred years your great-grandchildren may think that was very farsighted.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 06, 2000.

P.S. Cities and county police precincts often have holding cells, where a prisoner can be held until transport can be arranged.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 06, 2000.

d-

The response is about as convincing as it is timely.

What this is about is using up the tax funds available on things that will buy the votes of special interest groups, then going to the voters and saying we need more money or we can't fund the essentials.

It was a scam when I saw it done as a program manager, and it's a scam when this generation of politicians have their program managers do it.

Politicians need to wise up.
We are seeing anti-government feelings and activism (sagebrush rebellion, shovel brigade, etc), on a scale that hasn't occurred for generations. They need to understand that they've pushed too far, just like they did trying to hold on to the MVET after it was apparent they'd lost the support of the voters.

Reining themselves in is likely to be less Draconian than the alternative, and they need to address the issue. The path we are going down with "business as usual" by the politicians is pleasing fewer and fewer people, and the usual techniques of more taxes by extortion and class warfare are playing out.

If they don't start maneuvering for a "soft landing," there's going to be a crash, IMHO.(BR>

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 06, 2000.

Craig:

Timely? That is how long it has been since I was looking at this forum. We still don't agree on this issue. As I said before, you can carry this "essentials" mania to the extreme. What about wasting money on landscape work on public property, and what makes a park "essential"? It's not, but no one wants to live in communities that only fund the bear essentials - no parks, no public landscaping, no non-essentials. If that is your idea of responsible government, that hut in a third world village is available cheap.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 06, 2000.

d-

Answer this straight out. Do you deny that politicians extort money from the populace by offering up services widely believed to be more important (since you quibble over the word essential) for elimination AFTER first funding services less widely believed to be important? Can you truthfully say you've never seen such a thing?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 06, 2000.

Craig,

I agree I have seen some creative tax proposals that are structured to be attractive to the voters, and in every case voters can point to several programs or expenses of government that they consider of a lower priority. So what? You have mentioned your program management experience before, and should know that no budget results from a simplistic ordering of priorities - not in a government, or a business, or a family. Some expenses are undertaken because we are convinced we should, or because that is what we (or the public) want, in addition to those that we know are necessary. In government budgeting some of the "should" and "want" groups are going to be of a lower priority in some minds, than other expenses that require a popular vote. That's not bad government, it is just how life works.

We have debated the tax levy for Medic One services several times, and it is a good example. It is not essential, because most of the state and most of the nation does not have such a service - but I agree it ought to be a very high priority. Why doesn't the county provide that service as part of the basic list of services provided for the county taxes it collects? The same reason the county does not provide fire protection services out of the basic county revenue. Neither fire protection nor Medic One are among the services the county government is expected by law to provide, and in both these cases the choice to fund these additional services requres a separate additonal tax authorized by a popular vote. I consider both fire protection and Medic One to be higher priorities than most of what the county government does, but it does not follow that the county should fund these services before it should do any of the jobs it was created to do. Why pick on the county? Fire protection and Medic One are higher priorities than most of what the Port of Seattle does, so should they fund fire and medic one services before they can do any of their responsibilities? Or the water districts? Or the sewer districts? Or the state? Not likely.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 07, 2000.

"Why pick on the county? Fire protection and Medic One are higher priorities than most of what the Port of Seattle does, so should they fund fire and medic one services before they can do any of their responsibilities? Or the water districts? Or the sewer districts? Or the state? "

Since you ask, YES!

But since you yourself admit that there's a lot of gamesmanship going on in these budgets you shouldn't be surprised if this leads to anti-government cynicism, and a backlash against the politicians.

. That's not carrying "this "essentials" mania to the extreme", it is just how human nature works.

If you can't live with that, that hut in a third world village is available cheap.
;-)

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 07, 2000.

Craig wrote, "Since you ask, YES!"

Clear that up for me, please. Do you mean to say all the local govenments I listed (and others) should contrubute from the revenue the legislature has dedicated to their specific responsibilities to assure that fire and medic one services are provided first - and without a levy proposition for fire or medic one? Just how would that work?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 10, 2000.

"Just how would that work? "

Doesn't sound any more difficult than 1% for art on construction projects, and a heck of a lot higher priority.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 10, 2000.

Craig,

That is not an answer.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 10, 2000.

Sure it is. If 1% for art can be deemed a general obligation of otherwise unrelated government capital construction funds, 1% for Medic One as a levy on all other government spending certainly can.

Dang, I might put together a levy on that of my own. Who could turn it down, taking money away from special interest groups to fund something that everyone actually supports. I'd start with the biggest line item in the King County budget, that would be.............. oh yes, transit!

I can see the campaign now. Are we going to let people die of heart attacks so Patrick can have his light rail? I don't think so!

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 10, 2000.

"Dang, I might put together a levy on that of my own" Sorry, meant initiative, not levy.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 10, 2000.

Craig:

You still did not answer this question:

Craig wrote, "Since you ask, YES!"

Clear that up for me, please. Do you mean to say all the local govenments I listed (and others) should contrubute from the revenue the legislature has dedicated to their specific responsibilities to assure that fire and medic one services are provided first - and without a levy proposition for fire or medic one? Just how would that work?

You throw out bogus responses that don't connect to the realities of the state law and the responsibilities of local governments as they have been established by the legislature and implemented over the last several decades. Your comment seems to be just a political statement, rather than any kind of serious proposal. For example, it the county or the port should be responsible for EMS and fire protection because they are a higher priority than art, what are the fire districts in existance for? Details.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 16, 2000.

"You throw out bogus responses that don't connect to the realities of the state law and the responsibilities of local governments as they have been established by the legislature and implemented over the last several decades."

Well gee, d, that would be why were having all these initiatives, wouldn't it? To do something different than the Legislature has been doing for the last few decades.

"Your comment seems to be just a political statement, rather than any kind of serious proposal. For example, it the county or the port should be responsible for EMS and fire protection because they are a higher priority than art, what are the fire districts in existance for? Details" As I indicated, you levy a certain surcharge on everybody's budget line for "essential services." That reverses the extortion. It funds essential services first, at the expense of the nice-to-haves, rather than having the money all used up before it gets to essential services.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 16, 2000.

I have the solution! We make government workers like, DB, take a 50% pay cut and then make them work twice as hard. Nowhere do I here about government entities cutting their staff. They will cut anything except their jobs. See you at the ballot box in November!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), July 16, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>As I indicated, you levy a certain surcharge on everybody's budget line for "essential services." That reverses the extortion. It funds essential services first, at the expense of the nice-to-haves, rather than having the money all used up before it gets to essential services.<<

For all your talk of how our taxation system is screwed up, I figured when you explained your own plan to reform taxation it'd be better than this joke. You want us to go from one dedicated funding stream for "essential" services (i.e. fire district, ems) to hundreds of different sources of funding, and expect this system to somehow run better than the current one?

I always suspected that when pressed on what government should do differently to fund itself you'd not be able to come up with anything substantively better than our current system, but I never thought you'd come up with anything this laughable.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

Craig,

"It funds essential services first"

Out of curiosity, what WOULD you define as essential, in such a proposal. EMS, Fire, Law Enforcement, even Schools?

Hope this isn't too "tongue in cheek". You may actually have something here. I think voters are really tired of a Levy for this, a Levy for that, on services we define as essential, yet being forced to fund things we don't give a rats a** about.

I think the main reason so many Levys fail is because it's the only time we get to say NO!

If you ever get serious, the checkbook is open and the clipboard is ready....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

"For all your talk of how our taxation system is screwed up, I figured when you explained your own plan to reform taxation it'd be better than this joke. You want us to go from one dedicated funding stream for "essential" services (i.e. fire district, ems) to hundreds of different sources of funding, and expect this system to somehow run better than the current one? "

Actually, BB, this model works in the real world. I've been in a number of large companies where, when you were preparing your bids for new contracts, you included internal overhead into the bid. You needed to not just make enough from the contract to cover your marginal costs, but your pro-rata share of the corporate fixed expenses for the services of the corporation that you used (legal, budgeting office, HR, etc). It actually is one of the most common ways to account for overhead in contracting, and universities do a very similar thing with their grant applications (used to be on a group that evaluated grant applications).

The fact that you dismiss the idea out of hand as a "joke" suggests to me that you've spent a long time in the relatively sheltered economic environment of the bureaucrat, and very little in the real world.

This proposal also was less about "reforming taxation" than merely ensuring appropriate prioritization of tax revenues. "Reforming taxation" is a different subject. This was just deterring extortion.

Marsha- Yes, I'd place police services, fire protection (including EMS), public health, and schools in priority positions. Until essential needs in these were funded, I'd hold up all nice-to-haves.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 18, 2000.

I believe that everyone agrees that essential services needs to be funded. But how much of an essential service is enough?

One cop per 5 citizens? per 10 citizens? per 1000 citizens? How many fire stations per square mile? How much EMS?

Who gets to decide what the correct ratio should be? You? Me? Tim?

How should these items be funded? Who decides that?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

All very pertinent questions, Questioning.

But as I indicated, my concern was the practice of funding non-essential things first and then extorting additional money through levys for things that clearly are important than those things already funded.

Your questions are relevant regardless of whether or not we make this change. They are not a good reason not to make the change, nor a good reason to make the change.

Introducing them here should not change the issue at hand, should a mechanism be devised to compel politicians and bureaucrats to fund essentials first, rather than funding things that they know they'd never get 60% for on a levy, and saving the high priority "family jewels" to compel yes votes on the levy?


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 18, 2000.

OOPS:
But as I indicated, my concern was the practice of funding non- essential things first and then extorting additional money through levys for things that clearly are

LESS

important than those things already funded.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 18, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>Actually, BB, this model works in the real world. I've been in a number of large companies where, when you were preparing your bids for new contracts, you included internal overhead into the bid. You needed to not just make enough from the contract to cover your marginal costs, but your pro-rata share of the corporate fixed expenses for the services of the corporation that you used (legal, budgeting office, HR, etc). It actually is one of the most common ways to account for overhead in contracting, and universities do a very similar thing with their grant applications (used to be on a group that evaluated grant applications).<<

This model indeed does work in the real world. This model is also a totally faulty analogy to what you were describing earlier. When you prepare contract outlined above, the party you're dealing with expects all of these overhead costs as part of the services you will provide, and expects you to include their cost within any contract.

On the other hand, when people vote to create a water district, or parks district, or cemetary district, there is ABSOLUTELY NO expectation that a portion of the money raised by that district to pay for water or parks or a cemetary will go towards fire protection, or EMS, or police. These costs are NOT part of what is expected by those paying for the service, and are totally unrelated to what that district does.

Your model would have United Airlines paying Boeing to provide planes for American Airlines.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

"On the other hand, when people vote to create a water district, or parks district, or cemetary district, there is ABSOLUTELY NO expectation that a portion of the money raised by that district to pay for water or parks or a cemetary will go towards fire protection, or EMS, or police. These costs are NOT part of what is expected by those paying for the service, and are totally unrelated to what that district does"

However these districts clearly utilize police and fire services too.

But what difference the intent. These are societal overhead costs, and whatever funding scheme is used to pay for them is ultimately arbitrary. Prior to the revocation of the MVET by the legislature, it was used to pay for passenger only ferries, for crying out loud! Currently, there is a charge on myu phone bills to connect libraries and schools to the internet! We recently lost a telephone tax that was put in place to pay off Spanish American War debt!

You have vividly demonstrated with your multiple quotes about senior and junior taxing districts how arbitrary and irrational the current system is.

And you claim that my method would be arbitrary and irrational?

All it is is a "flat tax" on non-essential government services to support essential government services.
Yet you have previously defended 1% of art, a flat tax on all public works projects to fund starving artists, which I would contend is a flat-tax on the essential (if the politicians and bureaucrats are doing their jobs) to support the non- essential.

Methinks your hypocrisy is showing!


-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 18, 2000.

"Your model would have United Airlines paying Boeing to provide planes for American Airlines. "

Gee, when we made a profit on UAL aircraft we did by capital investment equipment and gain economies of scale that let us make a lower bid for an AL contract. What's wrong with that? Happens all the time.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>However these districts clearly utilize police and fire services too.<<

So? We're not talking about use. We're talking about funding fire and police services directly out of the budget of a district that was not created to fund them.

Paying for use and paying a portion of the budget outright are two different things.

>>But what difference the intent.<<

All the difference in the world. Why don't parks districts fund the military? BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO DO WHEN THEY WERE CREATED. Intent makes all the difference.

>>Prior to the revocation of the MVET by the legislature, it was used to pay for passenger only ferries, for crying out loud!<<

There was no expectation when the MVET was implemented that it would pay for any specific services, like a park or water or cemetary or weed control or fire district. Yet another faulty analogy.

>>Yet you have previously defended 1% of art, a flat tax on all public works projects to fund starving artists, which I would contend is a flat-tax on the essential (if the politicians and bureaucrats are doing their jobs) to support the non- essential.<<

I have NEVER defended 1% for the arts.

You are claiming I've said things that I've never said, then attacking that position and claiming victory. Try to stick with the facts instead of making it up as you go along.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

"I have NEVER defended 1% for the arts. " My apologies, had you confused with d for a minute.
Notwithstanding the error, you have presented no coherent reason why the plan couldn't work. If the legislature initiated such a plan (or if it were put into effect by initiative), the INTENT would obviously change. As the examples I've given show, there have been all sorts of funding schemes that were initiated (the internet access tax on phone bills) or continued (the Spanish American War surtax on phones) with the INTENT of just being a revenue source, much like the MVET.

My somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal is no less rational than the one you are familiar with, just different.

INTENT is the most fungible of commodities. It can change on a whim. Historical lack of intent for there to be a mechanism to ensure that top essentials are funded first, and the taxing authorities stop their shenanigans is not an argument against implementing such a mechanism, it's virtually an argument for such a mechanism.

If the taxing authorities weren't playing games with the priorities to extract additional funding, such a mechanism would not be necessary. You can scarcely expect them to change their INTENT, if they are cynically benefitting from not having such a mechanism.

I ask you straight out BB, can you honestly say that you've never seen a politician play games with the budget to get a levy passed by funding less popular programs first, then asking for a levy for the more popular programs? Can you honestly ssy you've never seen that happen?

If you have seen it, I would submit that the INTENT was extortion, maybe well intentioned and sugar- coated extortion, but extortion nonetheless.

Do you have a counter proposal for a mechanism to ensure that essential services are going to be fundded first? And please don't retreat into the "what's essential to one, may not be essential to others, and how much of what's essential is really essential, and ........ and depends on what the definition of "is" is......
Just a little straight and honest talk, without quibbling or attempting to obfuscate.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 18, 2000.

Craig,

I just looked at the board again, and see we started something. This is about the only issue still active.

No surprise, I agree with BB that your proposal is a joke. You even call it, "My somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal". OK. At least it started a debate.

As for a better system, doing away with special districts and dedicated levies isn't it. They are the only ones the local voters can actually control where the money goes and for what purpose. Does your fire district need $140/$1000 Assessed Value to provide the level of service you want? When they propose a levy you vote yes or no. Does your county need 29 cents/$1000 AV to provide the level of EMS services you want? You vote yes of no. With special districts and dedicated levies, you don't vote for better fire protection and get parks instead. The fire district doesn't do parks or art or flood control.

On the other hand, if fire, EMS, police, etc. are "essential", and are funded from this scheme of yours; how do local voters determine how much of a good thing is necessary or affordable? Does every area get the same rate, even if they don't need it and would not want the funding level offered? Some fire districts that only respond to fires in rural areas of the state, are all volunteer and operate very well on about 50 cents/$1000 AV. Others in urban areas that provide EMS and hazardous materials response to industry have trouble operating at the statutory maximum of $1.50/$1000. The same variation exists in each type of local government that must adjust the levle of service to the needs of the area served. How does that happen if the funding falls from the sky, as your proposal suggests.

Prioritization of funding for essential services is what happens when the Legislature allocated funding authority to each form of local government, and then left it to the local voters to control the level of funding they approve within that authorized levy rate. Counties are prohibited from elimination of funding for EMS and fire protection (though they could cause it to be reduced for fire districts by their senior status), because those levies are directly controlled by the voters and allocated as dedicated revenue to those purposes. The county can't cut funding for schools and divert that to other purposes at all. That is off limits and dedicated. If you want to prevent the general purpose governments from spending their levy authority on low priority projects, you should be for more dedicated levies and not less.

You don't like being asked to fund EMS and fire districts, because cities and counties waste some of their general purpose revenue on projects you consider non-essential? Your solution is to have the general purpose goverments provide funding for services now provided through dedicated levies? In effect, that is what the legislature has done. If no fire district or library district existed, cities can levy $3.60/$1000 AV. If a fire district is authorized that levies $1.50 in the city, the city is authorized to levy $2.10. If a library district is authorized to levy 50 cents/$1000 AV in the city, the city is authorized to levy $1.60. These special districts require the city to give up some of the revenue they would otherwise get to support services the public determines they need, at the funding level the public determines to be adequate.

I wish the legislature made it work the same way for county levies, but up to now it doesn't. Counties get the same revenue, whether or not a fire district or library district are formed on the theory that in most counties of the state a library or fire department has been considered an urban service not necessarilly needed (much less essential) in a rural area - and the county was not expected to provide it. Cities are expected to provide these services, so if a special district does it for them the city will get less revenue.

On the same basis, as I have noted before, EMS is not required to be provided by a county in this state, and in 37 of the 39 counties it is not. Those that do, have a dedicated levy authorized by the voters to add this "extra" service; just as they have fire district levies to add fire protection services where voters feel that extra service is needed, and they have library district levies where voters feel that extra service is needed.

I have noted before that initiatives seem to thrive on simplistic "solutions" that just don't deal with all the issues effectively. Your trial balloon seems to fit that same description.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 19, 2000.

I note that those who have found their niche in an established system, no matter how irrational, ineffective, or Byzantine, will defend it to the death. This has happened everywhere from the historic featherbedding of the railroad unions to the European social democracies. These systems get more and more inefficient, until they finally break, and newer, more streamlined systems need to be put in place. I never met a bureaucrat who didn't think that the answer was more bureaucracy.

Do you really think we need 1200 linear ft of shelf-space in the Library of Congress for the US tax code, or would something simpler do the job, with less overhead in tax lawyers, accountants, and politicians?

I have to admit that over the last year or so as I've been posting here, I've become less and less tolerant of self-serving bureaucratic pronouncements in the name of the public interest. And like many people, I'm becoming convinced of the real public issue served by "simplistic" initiatives that slice through the self-serving of the political and bureaucratic ruling classes.

By breaking the current system, maybe we can force a more efficient system.

Postings such as tyours, d, make me willing to take that chance.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 19, 2000.

Craig wrote, "By breaking the current system, maybe we can force a more efficient system. Postings such as tyours, d, make me willing to take that chance."

Again you don't address the issues, and just make your political statement without a rational explanation. While you are content to break the current system to make your point, what about the necessity providing public services during the chaos your proposal would create? Your point is stated to be to assure funding for what you believe is "essential", but what you propose would not assure that while the mess is sorted out.

A definition of a political anarchist is one willing to throw a bomb into the works. A conservative will preserve what is working until convinced something better is available. A liberal thinks every idea ought to be tried by government. You seem to be on the anarchist end of the spectrum.

As for my defense of the current system, show me something better and I will support it. Your "joke" isn't it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 19, 2000.

It doesn't take an anarchist to realize that entrenched bureaucrats are the problem, d. The loss of the MVET obviously hasn't been the disaster that either you or BB predicted. You forcast doom and gloom if it occurred, not much different than Ms. Ruth Fisher. I don't see those disasters happening . (Don't see her resigning either, dang it!)

I don't think that your defense of the current system would have been any different, regardless of what proposal was made. Because basically it's obvious that you desire a system that can extort a few extra shekels from the rubes who aren't part of the insider game.

You badly miscalculated on the MVET and ultimately the politicians folded, knowing that even if the courts continued to rule in your favor on I-695, the tax revolt that would surely come if the MVET were reinstated was going to be worse than learneing to live without the MVET.

Now I'm going to give you a little bit of advice, although I don't expect you to publicly acknowledge the issue in an advocacy forum; You are over-reaching again.

Bycontinuing to justify transparent insider games, you lose your own credibility, and ultimately you will cause the very type of backlash that will create the political anarchists that you use as a boogie man now.

Ultimately, the most precious resource of any government is its credibility. Politicians are squandering that resource right now, and continuing to fight for "the system" rather than for the people will ultimately cost them dearly when that backlash develops.

Right now, the system is the joke. But if carried on long enough, the cynicism turns to anger and the backlash begins.

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 19, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>Do you have a counter proposal for a mechanism to ensure that essential services are going to be fundded first? And please don't retreat into the "what's essential to one, may not be essential to others, and how much of what's essential is really essential, and ........ and depends on what the definition of "is" is......<<

Unfortunately, you start with a faulty premise, which is that there is some definition of "essential" floating out there that is universally accepted.

You simply can't define an "essential" service without stating that what is essential to one may not be essential to others. Transit isn't essential to you or me, but it may very well be to somebody else. A police helicopter may not be essential to somebody else, but it is to me. An irrigation system may not be essential to people in Western Washington, but it is to farmers in Eastern Washington.

As much as you don't want to admit it, there is no such thing as a universal definition of what is "essential." And since there is no real consensus as to what is totally "essential" and what isn't, it's impossible to criticize people for funding/not funding essential/unessential services.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 19, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>The loss of the MVET obviously hasn't been the disaster that either you or BB predicted. You forcast doom and gloom if it occurred, not much different than Ms. Ruth Fisher.<<

Once again you claim that I've said things that I've never actually said, then attack a position I don't actually hold.

If you want to sit here and argue with yourself, why don't you just say so? Let us all know beforehand so we won't have to worry about reading anything you write.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), July 19, 2000.

Craig writes,

"The loss of the MVET obviously hasn't been the disaster that either you or BB predicted."

BB writes,

"Once again you claim that I've said things that I've never actually said, then attack a position I don't actually hold."

Uh, can I call your attention to the following thread?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001YO8

It seems to me that both (initials for a name) people were predicting gloom and doom. Now, I don't recall Craig describing specific gloom and doom topics in his last post. Someone is not being very honest!

BB, cut the crap.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.

Craig:

1. I don't need your advice.

2. You still have not addressed any of the basic problems with your proposal or demonstrated it will even work, much less be an improvement over the current funding system for services funded by dedicated levies.

3. My recent comments were not justification of transparent insider games. What I did was ask you to defend the "joke" you posted here.

4. I am not the government, and don't speak for government. If I am losing credibility with you, fine. You have already lost it with me so we are even. I though we could still have a dialog.

5. As for political anarchists, you put yourself in that group by admitting you had no reservations about destroying the current funding system that enables governments to provide "essential" services. You still have not justified the need for such an extreme action.

6. If you want to restore some of YOUR credibility, go back to the July 19 posts, and actually try to address the issues.

7. Since you gave me advice, here is mine for you. If you think the current funding system is the joke, try to devise something better and defend it. Proposing something worse, and ignoring criticism of the proposal, will not accomplish much beyond venting your frustration.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), July 20, 2000.

Is it fear that drives people to cry anarchy whenever they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint? Has I-695 led to anarchy, as some predicted?

d, your record in regard to gloom and doom predictions is not exactly sterling. After reading some old posts this morning, it is obvious you were over reacting to I-695.

While you may not like Craig's joke, he has identified an issue that many people feel needs attention. You lose the credibility when you refuse to acknowledge that this issue may actually need some sort of resolution.

Of course, none of us has ever read any news stories regarding the frustration of those impacted by failed levys.

So go ahead and avoid the issue. Call Craig's proposal a joke. But as usual, when there is an issue, you pretend it isn't valid, (like property taxes) and refuse to submit something more to your liking. Seems to me you are good at criticizing other peoples ideas, yet can't think outside your bureaucratic box long enough to come up with any ideas of your own.

If you want to restore your credibility, give us a better solution!

The current government planning can be improved without leading to anarchy, so drop the inference.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.

d- RE: I don't need your advice. That would appear to be mutual. demagoguing issues you don't agree with is an old tactic. I'm sick and tired of politicians doing it.

It matter not if you accept the advice or not. As the politicians tacitly acknowledged when they voted to make the MVET go away, they had over-reached. If I were truly they anarchist of your McCarthy-like claims, I'd be hoping they lost more credibility with the public, not trying to stop it.

There is an external reality, and it does not comport with your smub bureaucratic system. The politicians ignore that reality at their peril. They created Eyman and his initiatives, I didn't. the craigster.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 20, 2000.

Marsha,

Here's the scenario that I proposed earlier:

Day 1, the City of Tacoma votes to fund "essential" services. Funding happens to be 50% of last year's budget, but essential services have been funded. Day 2, the politicians use the difference to increase arts or transit spending.

In this scenario, the politicians have followed Craig's proposal as you have defined it and still have gotten what they wanted, because a MINIMUM level of "essential" services have not been defined.

You asked why would it be any different under Craig's scenario? And the answer is...IT WOULDN'T! And if there is no difference, why implement Craig's proposal?

Unless a firm number is identified for essential services, the only thing that Craig's proposal does is require an essential services budget that is voted upon prior to any other budget item. (Just think what those bureaucrats could do with two budgets.)

You're right, it's not that hard!

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

From the Eastside Journal:

OUR VIEW

When county voters agreed to tax themselves to build the Regional Justice Center, county government promised to operate a full-service courthouse and 24-hour jail. Now, King County officials are reneging on their end of the deal.

The debate over fully funding the Regional Justice Center in Kent has reached a critical juncture. The County Council on Monday will debate an ordinance that would re-open the overnight booking unit. It's time for county officials to keep their commitments.

Some members of the County Council are using I-695 as an excuse for the cutback.

Democrat Dwight Pelz, who represents South Seattle and west Renton, says people are getting what they deserve after voting overwhelmingly to reduce the amount of vehicle license fees. ``Some of those commitments that were made to the people of south King County will be broken because the people of south King County decided they didn't want to pay taxes.'' The Eastside's Louise Miller, a Republican, says ``there are consequences from willy-nilly erasing huge portions of revenues for basic programs; not frills, for basic programs.''

What these two politicians won't tell you is that the county's general fund this year increased more than 10 percent over 1999 and property tax rates were bumped 3.5 percent -- both above the rate of inflation. Nor will they tell you that they refused to cut government overhead by a significant amount. Or that they voted to spend $1 million to subsidize the wages of child-care workers in the private sector. Or that they increased funding for arts and cultural programs by $246,000 over the amount requested by County Executive Ron Sims. Or that they continue to spend $400,000 to provide free bus service for county workers.

The debate over fully funding the Regional Justice Center is not about the impact of I-695. It's about priorities. It's about cutting existing public safety services while collecting more local taxes and spending the money on what many feel are less-essential programs. Monday's decision by the County Council will tell voters loud and clear which members have their priorities straight.

""Lets kill all the lawyers." Henry VI

Wonder what Shakespeare would have thought of today's politicians? Same thing, probably.


zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 23, 2000.

Craig--was the bold in your last post an added editorial note or was it in the original op-ed piece and you just added the emphasis?

FWIW, I realize I could go look myself. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), July 24, 2000.

"Democrat Dwight Pelz, who represents South Seattle and west Renton, says people are getting what they deserve after voting overhelmingly to reduce the amount of vehicle license fees. ``Some of those commitments that were made to the people of south King County will be broken because the people of south King County decided they didn't want to pay taxes.''"

Ahh, my illustrious councilman. . .moved to the district only so Sims could appoint him to a vacant seat. Not that it really matters, in my district, a Democrat could probably walk down the street, grab randomly chosen breasts, be convicted of a crime, win the general election in a landslide, and, after winning, be a featured speaker at the Seattle radical women's hall in Columbia city.

Sorry 'bout the hyperbole, I've spent too much time reading seattle.politics.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), July 24, 2000.

Brad-

that was my editorial comment to the editorial, just for emphasis. I should have mentioned that. On the other hand, it looks like zowie is even more upset than I was.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 25, 2000.

I wrote on July 20:

"

Craig:

1. I don't need your advice.

2. You still have not addressed any of the basic problems with your proposal or demonstrated it will even work, much less be an improvement over the current funding system for services funded by dedicated levies.

3. My recent comments were not justification of transparent insider games. What I did was ask you to defend the "joke" you posted here.

4. I am not the government, and don't speak for government. If I am losing credibility with you, fine. You have already lost it with me so we are even. I though we could still have a dialog.

5. As for political anarchists, you put yourself in that group by admitting you had no reservations about destroying the current funding system that enables governments to provide "essential" services. You still have not justified the need for such an extreme action.

6. If you want to restore some of YOUR credibility, go back to the July 19 posts, and actually try to address the issues.

7. Since you gave me advice, here is mine for you. If you think the current funding system is the joke, try to devise something better and defend it. Proposing something worse, and ignoring criticism of the proposal, will not accomplish much beyond venting your frustration."

Craig responded:

"d- RE: I don't need your advice. That would appear to be mutual. demagoguing issues you don't agree with is an old tactic. I'm sick and tired of politicians doing it.

It matter not if you accept the advice or not. As the politicians tacitly acknowledged when they voted to make the MVET go away, they had over-reached. If I were truly they anarchist of your McCarthy-like claims, I'd be hoping they lost more credibility with the public, not trying to stop it.

There is an external reality, and it does not comport with your smub bureaucratic system. The politicians ignore that reality at their peril. They created Eyman and his initiatives, I didn't. the craigster."

I have still not seen any reasonable defense of the proposal you made here. As for your comment that I had predicted doom and gloom about I-695 - remember that it was declaired UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The most significant impacts of I-695 that I expressed concern about have not, and will not be implemented. Even at that, some cities have been hard hit by the loss of the MVET revenue since the judge let that portion stand pending appeal. I wrote several times that the MVET loss was the minor issue in the initiative. The real concern HAS NOT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE COURT STOPPED IT.

Marsha, this is a discussion forum. The point is to discuss options. I asked Craig to defend his proposal, and so far have seen nothing that begins to do that. The current funding system is not perfect, and I have made suggestions for improvements; but any change needs to be evaluated against what is working. You may not like how it is working, but until you have something BETTER to offer it at least keeps the "essential" services functioning. Craig offered what he claimed was an improvement, but will not defend it against some basic questions.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 01, 2000.

Craig,

Still no response?

This forum seems dead. Is the debate on the current initiatives happening on some other site? Or are those left on this site those, like me, who don't know where (if?) it is?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 06, 2000.