Specifically, I object to 2 things.

1) Limited service pregnancy centers are unjustly singled out.  Comprehensive centers should be held to the same standard of medical information and service disclosure as limited centers.  If centers that do not offer abortions or abortion referrals will be required to disclose that upon the first contact with a person seeking services, then centers that do not offer adoption assistance or referrals should be required to disclose that information immediately as well.

2) Section 2 constitutes an incredible cost burden to agencies that are for the most part non-profit, and are supported solely by charitable donations.  Requiring a 30 point font on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, on the door of the office, inside the office, on the agency’s website, and in any promotional materials represents a significant cost for organizations that often times already hang by a thread.

A more balanced law would prohibit the dissemination of false or misleading information, rather than requiring obtrusive disclosure of information that is in all likelihood obvious to women seeking services.  Let’s face reality, when a woman goes to a crisis pregnancy center, she is almost certainly aware that they do not provide abortions.  Furthermore, if the woman seeks an abortion, it’s a simple question that such an agency would answer “no” to.  This law would place an additional, unnecessary and unjust burden on those agencies (which again, are largely non-profit, charitable organizations) providing limited services.  The bottom line is that this law is less about protecting women and more about directing women toward clinics that offer abortion, at the expense of clinics that do not, when both have an entirely valid place in our communities.

If HB 2837 or SB 6452 reach the floor of your respective chambers, I urge you to move to amend it such that it will not single out limited service facilities, by including all clinics that are not primary care facilities, such as hospitals and doctors’ offices (shouldn’t comprehensive facilities be held to the same standard of medical accuracy and information privacy?), and to be prohibitive of false or misleading information as opposed to actively requiring disclosure in an obtrusive way.  If such amendments are not made, I urge you to vote “no” on the bill should it reach the floor.

Thank you for your time, and your representation.

There has been a lot of talk over the last couple months, but not a whole lot of action, hence my silence.  There’s been a lot of talk about health care reform, but no cohesive legislation for one to comment on (and I’d like to point out, no proposed legislation from the White House – just empty rhetoric).  There have more recently been developments around missile defense.  And of course, there’s always chatter about the economy.  As was coined during the Clinton administration, “it’s the economy, stupid”, but that’s a big enough subject, I’ll leave it for another day (plus, my position is pretty clear, I would think, given my past articles).

What I want to touch on today, however is the National Endowment for the Arts.  The NEA is a federally funded agency “dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.” [link]

According to CNSNews, some Republicans in the House have raised an eyebrow to the content of a conference call the White House, NEA and Corporation for National and Community Service held last month.  Apparently, during the call, Yosi Sergant, Director of Communications at the NEA said some thing which could be construed as coercive.  According to federal law, it is illegal for federal funds to be spent encouraging people to support or oppose political agenda items, so the raised eyebrow may not be unwarranted.

Here are some quotes:

…help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and the environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.

I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.

Take photos. Take videos. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink.

Now, I may be reading too much into this, and I’m probably allowing my personal bias through, but I wonder how enthusiastically the NEA would support an artist who wanted a grant to make something that protested health care reform.  Sergant never explicitly encouraged artists to make things that support the White House’s agenda, but it’s not much of a stretch to pick out a bit of a subtext.

Based on the 3rd quote, it seems pretty clear that Sergant wants artists to “make a stink.”  The question comes down to whether or not he wants artists that do not support the White House’s agenda to make as much of a stink as those who do.

Given the demographics of those in the “art community”, it may be a reasonably fair comparison to compare Sergant’s statements to someone encouraging KKK members to “make a stink” about race relations.  You may not explicitly encourage them to go lynch people, but the reality is that plausible deniability only goes so far.

The Communications Director of a federally funded agency that gives monetary grants to artists encourages artists (who I would contend have a predilection toward more liberal viewpoints) to “get the word out” about one of the “key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.”  It doesn’t take a paranoid mind to see through the veil.  If I were an artist, I could very reasonably think that if I create something that goes “get the word out,” that perhaps my chances of receiving a grant would increase.

Again, none of this was explicitly said in the conference call, but few things in politics are.  It’s all about being able to discern the subtext.  To read between the lines.  I’d love to know why Sergant has been removed from the position of Communications Director since then.  Perhaps to give the administration deniability?  No, politicians would never do that…would they?

I may be biased, but it sure looks to me like the NEA was trying to get people to make art about policy issues, knowing the demographically, most of them would create art that supports the White House’s agenda.  If that’s the case, it may well be illegal.

Of course, if I want to be fair, Occam’s Razor could apply.  It could be that Sergant has a personal bias, that he allowed to shine through during that conference call, and it could be that he was removed from his position for it, or for some completely unrelated reason. Both the White House and the NEA said that Sergant had acted improperly, after all.  However, I have to wonder if it’s case where they’re sorry it happened, or whether they’re just sorry he got caught.  There does come a point, when there are enough isolated incidents, enough circumstantial evidence, that discussing the tree is pointless in light of the forest before you.

During her 18-minute speech, she bounced all over the place, which I can only assume was at least partially due to being visibly nervous about the announcement.

On the one hand, she talked about the vicious scrutiny with which many people looked at her family.  On the other, she was hitting all the touchstones as if she was trying to lay a foundation for a Presidential run.  The reality is this, if you quit your job for reasons that even look dubious, you’re going to have a hard time getting a new one.  What if Palin did run for President?  She’d lose in the primary when her Republican opponents would throw down the “you couldn’t even handle it during your first term as a Governnor; what makes you think you can handle the Presidency” card.  And they’d be right to do so.

The reality is that, right or wrong, when you’re a public figure, you are under scrutiny.  Now, my readers know what I think about how harsh the media was to Palin, while glossing over Obama’s faults, but that’s not really the point.  The point is that when you’re the Governor of a state, you will be subject to scrutiny.  If she runs for President, she’ll lose in the primaries.  If the Republican party chooses her to run against Obama, they will guarantee him a second term.

Having said all that, part of me is glad she’s stepping down, even if only for her family’s sake.  Hopefully, the Palins will just get left alone at this point…

As much as I want to think this is all part of some brilliant plan where Palin rises from the ashes like a phoenix, it’s just not feasible.  I’m sorry to say it, but her political career is over.  Time to make the rounds on the lecture circuit, maybe?  We already know she fills rooms more readily than Joe Biden, so maybe there’s an opportunity there?

I’d go see it.

I agree with Rep. Tiahrt.  When guns are more difficult to legally acquire, law abiding citizens are more deterred from purchasing a gun than criminals.

A person’s willingness to pay for a gun is a function of two key variables:

1. Their desire to control a violent confrontation.
2. Their likelihood that they will find themselves in a violent confrontation.

I make the assumption that all people want to be in control of a hostile situation, so variable 1 is effectively constant for both criminals and potential victims.  As a criminal, I want to control the situation, so I can rob someone.  As a victim, I want to control the situation, to prevent my property from being stolen, and to protect myself from bodily harm.

That being the case, the variable to consider when evaluating a person’s desire to acquire a gun is their relative likelihood of being in a hostile encounter.  I argue that a criminal is more likely to be in a hostile encounter — they seek it out, in fact.  A potential victim is only as likely to find themselves in a hostile encounter as their local crime rate.

So if a criminal is more likely to be in a hostile encounter, then a gun is more valuable to a criminal.  The more value a person places on a gun, the higher price they are willing to pay to acquire one, and the greater hassle they are willing to endure.

Whenever the government imposes regulations, they inhibit that particular market from operating at optimal efficiency, which generally increases the cost of the end product.  More specifically, a mandatory 7-day waiting period to buy a gun, concealed weapons permit fees, and trigger lock laws increase the hassle that a law-abiding citizen must endure and the price they must pay in order to purchase, own, and carry a gun.  This causes less law-abiding citizens to be willing to go through the hassle, so less law-abiding citizens carry.

Criminals on the other hand place a higher value on the gun, so they are already more willing to endure higher prices and greater hassles.  Add to this that a criminal is less likely to buy their gun from a licensed seller, less likely to have a concealed weapons permit, and in general less likely to care about following gun control laws, and the result is that criminals are less likely to be impacted by government regulation, and will be impacted to a lesser degree than law-abiding citizens.

What this means is that increased government regulation of guns means that the scales are tipped further in favor of criminals.  The phrase “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is to say that outlawing guns only stops people who follow the law from having them, so all that is accomplished is that the people who are armed are already predisposed to breaking the law.

Rather than trying to make us safer by making it harder for responsible people to have guns, I propose that we would be safer with less or no government regulation.  Specifically, consider the effect of repealing the law requiring citizens to carry a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a gun on their person.  If it is easier to carry a gun without breaking the law, more people will carry guns.  This means that when a criminal is selecting a victim, he is less certain that the would-be victim is unarmed, which makes the criminal less likely to engage the would-be victim.

Also when something happens like the Virginia Tech shootings, if students were allowed to carry their guns on campus, perhaps someone could have stopped the gunman before he had killed so many (or any) people.  There is a reason most criminals won’t try to rob a gun store full of customers in the same way that they’ll rob a bank while it’s full of people.  (by the way, in most states, it’s illegal to carry a gun into a bank, so it’s an easy target for a criminal)  Maybe I’m biased, but it seems to me that a room full of gun-toting people is a more effective deterrent to criminals than a room full of security cameras.

That’s one example of how decreased government regulation can make us safer, but anything that makes it easier to lawfully buy and carry a gun helps even the odds between criminals and potential victims.  If everyone is carrying, then everyone is on even footing, and no criminal in his right mind would try to attack someone.

That still leaves room for criminals that are crazy, but I’d prefer crazy criminals (who will exist regardless) to insane gun control policies.

According to a press release from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), projected state revenue for the 2007-09 biennium is $27.89 billion.  The current revenue projection for the 2009-11 biennium is $27.95 billion.  The state forecasts increased revenue for the state in the upcoming budget period, over the current period, and yet, all we’ve been hearing is talk about deficits and shortfalls and the decreasing distance between the earth and the sky.

I have one question: If you make the same income this year as you did last, then how is it possible for you to have a budget shortfall?

Answer: When you want to spend more money than you receive.

In mid-November, the number reported by the Seattle PI for the projected budget deficit for the 2009-11 biennium was $5.1 billion.  But if the projected income between this budget cycle and the next is basically the same, then the only way to have a deficit of $5.1 billion is if the state wants to spend more than they’re projected to take in.  A lot more.

According to a story on Crosscut.com, the state auditor made specific recommendations that, if implemented, would save the state $4.1 billion in costs over the next 5 years.  Assuming that savings is accrued uniformly over those 5 years, then the state could save $1.64 billion in the 2009-11 budget cycle.

The Washington Policy Center blog has a transcript of State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s tesimony before the Senate Ways and Means Committe, which I will quote here:

Certainly, this budget period is extraordinarily difficult. I respect and value the responsibilities you have and the tough decisions you must make.

I recognize that our Office along with every other state agency must share in the pain of those decisions.

But the budget you have proposed goes beyond funding reductions or a one-time sweep of our cash balance. To take more than half of the revenue that voters permanently designated for performance audits and use it to fund other programs undercuts the performance audit authority that citizens directly gave to their independent State Auditor.

That change contained in Section 927 of the budget and the precedent it sets is absolutely unacceptable.

It is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to citizens who in such a time as this look to us more than ever to ensure that government is accountable and transparent. They recognize this Office is uniquely positioned to be part of the reform the governance change that everybody talks about and wants.

According to the blog entry, the committee had no questions for Mr. Sonntag.  Also, according to Mr. Sonntag’s testimony, the ratio of savings that the auditor’s office recommendations would realize vs the cost to perform the audits is ten to one.  That’s an incredible margin.  Deep cuts into the auditor’s office seems a bit like cutting the high school football program before the swimming team.  (generally the football program is the only athletic program at a school that generates positive net revenue)

Also in the Crosscut.com story linked above, it’s reported that when California performed the same kind of state performance review that Sonntag has been commissioned by the Governor to perform, the recommendations would save $32 billion over 5 years, which I’ll wager is significantly more than the California auditor’s budget.  The point is that it doesn’t make sense to reduce the ability of the auditor’s office to make recommendations that would save more than the office’s entire budget.

The state budget isn’t so much a belt-tightening, as Olympia would love for us to think.  It’s more a lack of belt-loosening.  I get that some costs increase year after year, regardless of income.  Providing medical insurance to state employees gets more and more expensive every year, and the state has no control over that.  However, there are all kinds of ways to cut costs without hurting things like schools.

To go on a little tangent here, a not insignificant portion of the proposed 2009-11 budget includes capital improvements, and a good deal of those capital improvements are in public schools.  While I support the idea that we need modern schools, I wonder if it really makes sense to build and renovate more schools while laying off the teachers that would work in them.

I don’t envy our legislatures on this one, because if I agree with Chris Gregoire on anything, it’s when she wrote the following in the introduction to her budget:

A wise man once told me that I needed to love my budget since I was going to be spending so much time on it. There is no way I can love this budget. We have to give up or shrink too much. There is something for everyone to not like in this budget.

I’m not entirely certain what the right answer is on this one, here are some thoughts:

• Implement the auditor’s recommendations (and don’t slash his budget!)
• Cut subsidies for in-home care in favor of institutionalizing folks, where it’s less expensive to care for them
• Get tougher with welfare benefits which, without proper enforcement, provides an incentive to do nothing
• Offer parents a voucher for a portion of the per pupil cost of public school to help defray the cost of sending their kids to private school, thereby decreasing education costs for the state, which would ultimately result in more money being available to public schools, so that maybe we wouldn’t have to lay off teachers.  (At the risk of being seen as pandering to a specific audience, shouldn’t any layoffs be based on merit/performance, rather than seniority?)

All in all, I admit it’s a bad situation, but it’s not nearly as bad as Olympia wants us to believe, and there are real solutions that for one reason or another, the legislature refuses to implement.  If government expenditure is to grow, it needs to grow at a sustainable rate, rather than grossly outpacing revenue growth.  The State of Washington can’t print money like the Feds can, so we have to budget wisely, and in the good years, we need to plan for the bad.  When we emerge from this rough patch, I hope we learn from our mistakes.

^Z

I thought Glenn presented the concept very well.  This whole notion of liberal and conservative, of left and right, they’re all so far away from what the founders of our country intended, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the other.

The gentlemen who wrote our constitution intended for there to be only enough central control as was needed to hold the union together.  In the early days the federal government didn’t even have much of an army to speak of.  You hear about groups of fighting men like the 20th Maine Regiment, which fought at Gettysburg during the Civil War.  In those days, the states were responsible for providing the soldiers, and federal control was loose to say the least.

In the not so distant past, there was hardly any federal income tax, and the federal government was comparatively miniscule.  States were responsible for the welfare of their citizens, and more than that, individuals were responsible for themselves.  I’ll come back to this.

It’s only in the last few decades that government spending has really shot through the roof.  At the same time, people have taken less and less responsibility for themselves.  As people disclaim responsibility, they must shift that responsibility elsewhere.  This elsewhere is the federal government.  Parents no longer raise their kids, and expect public schools to do it for them.  People have premarital sex, knowing the risks, then expect someone to come to their rescue when they get pregnant.  People buy homes they can’t afford, then wait with their arm outstretched, waiting for someone to cover their losses.

People refuse to look after themselves.  They have no sense of personal responsibility, and bit by bit they ask the government to take care of them, so they don’t have to take care of themselves.  But every time we, as a nation, hand over our responsibilities to the government, we also hand over our rights.  You see, according to our founding fathers, rights are things granted to us by our Creator (to use their term), and the government has no right to take those rights from us — we can only give them away.

We have these God-given rights, and those rights are inalienable, but that doesn’t mean they come without strings attached.  We have the right to express ourselves freely, but with that right comes the responsibility to do so respectfully (for example, to refrain from shouting “fire!” in a crowded movie theater).  We have the right to life, but with that comes the responsibility to protect the weak.  We have the right to pursue our dreams, and with that comes the responsibility to do so fairly, and without depriving others of the right to pursue theirs.

Every time we claim to not have responsibilities, or that we shouldn’t be held accountable for our actions, we shed some of our rights like dead skin cells.  The problem is that, unlike skin, our rights don’t magically regenerate themselves.  One day we’ll turn into the frog sitting in a pot of water that has been slowly heated to a boil, pleasantly bathing in the warm bath of no responsibilities, unaware or uncaring that our complacency has cost us the very freedom we tried to exert when we claimed to have no responsibilities.

I don’t want to see that, and I don’t think most Americans do.  What remains to be seen is how long it takes us as a nation to notice that the water’s heating up, and whether or not we notice in time to turn off the stove.

^Z

Not surprisingly the Vatican and the National Right to Life Committe have condemned the order [link] as a violation of sanctity of life.  And naturally many people with ailments that embryonic stem cell research could help treat are ecstatic.

President Obama said the following:

At this moment the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated, but scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.

Translation:

We shouldn’t overstate how cool this stuff is, but come on, guys, it’s the GREATEST STUFF EVER!!

The Associated Press is also reporting that President Obama said that the nation owes a debt of gratitude to people like Christopher Reeve, who with his wife, Dana, created a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries. [link]

Spare me the hero worship.

I don’t mean to urinate on the memory of the late Superman, but caring about Stem Cell Research only after you become afflicted with something that it could possibly cure doesn’t exactly qualify a person for “debt of gratitude” status.  It’s pure, unenlightened, self-interest — not all that impressive.  And frankly, the only reason he got as much attention as he did, was the irony of Superman being paralyzed.

Seriously, that would be like me only caring about testicular cancer if I have it.  Or welfare recipients lobbying for increased welfare benefits.  Don’t get in front of cameras and say “Hey, guess what?  I’m in favor of something that would directly benefit me!” because a) it’s not surprising, and b) you’re not some wonderful philanthropist for it.

If you want to be impressive, support a cause because it’s the right thing to do.

Finally, President Obama vowed that only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed.  I suppose that depends on your definition of “ethical,” doesn’t it?  I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, the last thing this country needs is our politicians telling us what is and is not ethical.

Author Justin Webb said “The repudiation is of a policy but also of a way of life, that puts faith above science.”  [link] That’s right, we’ve decided that science is ultimate pursuit, over all else.  We’ve now put the overwhelming desire to fiddle around with the building blocks of human life ahead of our conscience.

Not exactly what I call “progress.”

^Z

I want to point out why there are so many earmarks in these spending packages the legislature is passing. Democrats are going to pass the spending packages, because they’re all competing for the honor to tow the party line, and support Obama’s agenda.

So the legislation is going to pass, pretty much no matter what.

So if you’re a congressman, and your distinguished colleague from the state of whatever adds earmarks to the bill, which is going to pass either way, are you about to stand by while every constituency EXCEPT yours gets something specific out of the bill?

Of course not.

If I were in congress, I’d add my earmark, so that my constituents are covered when the bill passes, but then I’d vote against the package. Why? Because I think the bill sucks, but if it’s going to pass anyway, and everyone else is getting money for their districts, I’m not going to get left out.

It’s really not any more complicated than “well if you’re gonna go have ice cream, then I want some too!”

^Z

The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, if it hadn’t been shot down by the Senate, would have put in place a presidential designee, who would have the power to tell the car companies they must produce “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market”.  The remove the doublespeak, there would be a government entity that could tell the car companies what cars to make, and how much they can be sold for.  We’ve socialized banks, and now the government wants to socialize the bloated auto industry.  Fantastic.

According to GM, the average factory worker makes $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, and Democrats say “I think they [the UAW] have made plenty of concessions” (McCaskill, D-MO).  Really?  Let’s tally up what the UAW has conceded:  They offered to delay (that’s delay, not discontinue) company payments into a union-run trust fund that will take over retiree health care costs starting in 2010.  They agreed to end the controversial “jobs bank” program in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits after unemployment pay runs out (translation: a program where people who aren’t working are still getting paid — this is how much extra money the UAW has laying around!).

The Detroit Three are going bankrupt because they can’t make cars cheaply enough, or sell them expensively enough to make a profit.  Those UAW workers that make $29.78 per hour…that comes out to almost $60,000 per year.  I don’t make that much with my college education!!  Guess what, folks — you’re overpaid!!  But that’s right, they’ve made enough concessions.  They shouldn’t take a pay cut from their $60,000 a year jobs. 

Fine, UAW, you don’t want to be part of the solution?  What kind of wage are you expecting from a company that goes bankrupt?  If the car company dies, your job goes away, so it might be in your best interest to, oh I don’t know, lift your little finger to help.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told CNSNews.com he does not believe it is the government’s role to tell companies what they must pay their employees.  Really?  It’s not the government’s role to tell companies how to do business, but it IS the role of government to float private enterprise a loan that will never be repayed, when private enterprise fails to be competitive?  I’m confused about which government interventions into private enterprise are okay, and which aren’t.  Can you clarify it for me, Senator Conrad?  Or is it really that several Democrats are so obviously bought by the UAW that they might as well be on the payroll?  If you really believe that the government shouldn’t tell companies what to pay their employees, Senator Conrad, would you support abolishing the federal minimum wage??  I’ll bet my next paycheck that you wouldn’t.  If you really believe that free enterprise should be free, then why do you support spending taxpayer money to cover the losses of those enterprises??

Unions had an important role in protecting workers.  They lobbied for the 40-hour work-week, minimum wages, workplace safety standards, and fair treatment, all in their time.  Nowadays, however, unions play an important role in strongarming employers into contracts that are so bloated that the companies can’t afford to stay in business.  Yeah, that’s a great long-term strategy — price yourselves right out of a job, then refuse to bend when the company can’t afford you anymore. 

Let the companies go into bankruptcy.  Let the workers lose their jobs.  Let the UAW run out of money, then maybe they’ll understand the err of their ways.  The problem is that won’t happen.  One way or another, the federal government is going to float the auto industry. 

So my only remaining question is this: when do I get a fat check from the government, or am I just a revenue source meant for bailing out ineffective companies?

I’m disgusted.

^Z

The full text of the initiative can be found in PDF format here.

To put it bluntly, the initiative is a bad idea.  More after the jump.

I-985 it tries to do too much.  There are parts of it that I don’t mind, and would vote for, if it were not for the rest of the initiative.  It just feels like there are a couple things that the initiative’s author, Tim Eyman, wants to do, and has thrown in some other things to sweeten the pot.  Eyman said on a talk radio show that his goal is to force the state government into realizing that transportation is a priority for Washington residents.  He’s attempting to force the government into fiscal responsibility by funneling funding into specific areas.  This is similar to his initiative to abolish vehicle excise taxes, in favor of a flat rate.  The result was a huge drop in revenue for the state.  Strongarming the legislature rarely helps things.  The initiative is just too broad, requires too much, and does it all in the wrong way. 

First, I-985 would open all HOV lanes during “non-peak hours”.  What does this really mean?  From the full text of the initiative, carpool lanes “are high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including express lanes, lanes like those established under RCW 47.56.403, off-ramp bypass lanes, and on-ramp bypass lanes on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state.”  Such lanes would be made open to all traffic during “non-peak hours”, which are defined as 9a-3p Mon-Fri, 6p-6a Mon-Thu, and 6p Fri-6a Mon.  Peak hours are 6a-9a and 3p-6p Mon-Fri, according to the initiative.

• An independent group of traffic engineers reported that given the stipulations of the initiative, opening the HOV lanes under these circumstances would actually hinder traffic flow.
• Evening rush hour is does not begin at 3p, nor does it end at 6p.  To open HOV lanes while still under peak load, slows all lanes to a crawl.
• The purpose of carpool lanes is to encourage carpooling.  Carpooling reduces pollution, and prior to this initiative, decreases point-to-point travel time.  Removing the travel time incentive will inevitably reduce carpooling, increasing the amount of cars on the road, making traffic worse.
• Transit buses use carpool lanes to get to their destinations.  If these lanes are opened up to all traffic, mass transit will become less efficient, decreasing ridership, and again increasing the volume of cars on the road.  This is bad for traffic and bad for the environment.
• It’s not that I’m opposed to opening HOV lanes, is that the timing is wrong.  Seattle has morning and evening rush hour periods that are longer than 3 hours each, and while theory would suggest that adding a lane would help traffic flow after 6pm, the reality is it will have a chilling effect on carpool and mass transit usage that will ultmately make the problem worse.

I-985 would also shut off the tolls on any High Occupancy Toll lane during non-peak hours, and it directs any tolls collected which exceed the cost of construction and operating of the toll lanes, to be funneled into the “Reduce Traffic Congestion Account” (hereafter RTC Account) created by a later provision.  This defies the purpose of the HOT lanes.  The purpose of the HOT lanes is to maintain an average speed of 45 MPH or higher in the lane by using a variable toll.  The notion that the highways with HOT lanes are only busy between 6 and 9am and 3 and 6pm on weekdays is just naive.

Secondly, 985 would require city, county, and the state government to synchronize traffic lights on arterials within their jurisdiction.  Obviously, accomplishing this task places a burden on local governments.  The initiative proposes to allocated funds from the RTC Account to assist local governments.  More on this in a moment.

Thirdly, Initiative 985 calls for increased funding for emergency roadside assistance, encouraging governmental entities to contract out services to private companies, including towing companies.  Maybe I’m not well-versed on this particular point, but it seems like when there’s a blocking disabled vehicle, that government response time is already very good.

Fourth, I-985 reallocates 15% of the taxes collected on retail vehicle sales to the RTC Account.  My only issue here is that we already face a budget deficit.  The last thing we should be doing is narrowly allocating funds that otherwise would be going into the state general fund, to pay for things like schools. 

Fifth, this initiative mandates that revenue from red light cameras be allocated to the RTC Account.  There is an extra $20 fine for running the red light.  Currently, $8.50 of this goes to the state treasurer, and the remainder is deposited into he the city or county current expense fund.  I-985 says that revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund “shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.”  This effectively takes money out of the pockets of city and county governments!  To relate this back to the traffic light synchronization provision, do you see what’s happening here?  The initiative wants to take red light camera money away from the cities, the reallocate it back to them as the state sees fit for synchronization.  You can bet that a lot of the red light camera money won’t be going back to the city it was taken from though.  And synchronizing traffic lights is more or less a one time expenditure, whil red light revenue will continue to be funneled into the state’s RTC Account.  I ask one simple question here.  If someone runs a red light in Silverdale, why should part of that money go toward anti-congestion projects in Bellevue???  Local revenues should stay local!!

Sixth, I-985 removes a provision that states that out of appropriations for the construction of any public building one-half of one percent is allocated to the Washington State Arts Commission, for the acquisition of works of art to be displayed in or around public buildings, on public land, be part of a portable exhibition, or be loaned for exhibition in other public buildings.  This half percent would instead be allocated to the RTC Account.  That’s right, we’re going to sacrifice some culture for the sake of making more pavement!

Lastly, Initiative 985 mandates that any toll collected, except by the Ferry system, “that exceed the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and new capital improvements to highways, freeways, roads, bridges, and streets, shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.”  TIm Eyman is trying to strongarm the government into fiscal responsiblity by narrowly allocating revenue from tolls into congestion projects.  This money otherwise would go into the general fund to pay for things like schools, but Eyman wants to put this money into congestion.  The problem is that this doesn’t work.  If you take that money out of the general fund, the government isn’t going to reduce their expenditure, they’re going to raise taxes on something else.  What happened when the vehicle excise tax went away?  The gas tax increased.  My point is that taking away taking away a child’s candy doesn’t make him want it less.  It makes him look for a different way to get it.

The bottom line:  Initiative 985 won’t help traffic flow, it places an undue burden on local governments while at the same time pulling the rug out from under them, and will lead to increased taxes on a state that is already one of the most highly taxed in the nation.

I encourage Washington voters to vote “no” on Initiative 985.

^Z