- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 27, 2010 at 12:30 am #596795
JulieMemberThe Washington Budget & Policy Center details the effects of 1107, 1105, and 1100 on the King County budget, FYI:
http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/i-1107-liquor-privatization-measures-would-harm-local-services
This does only address the budget and not the policy issues on these three, but if you’re still undecided, you might like to take this information into account.
October 27, 2010 at 12:38 am #706496
CarsonParticipantThen I say vote no on 1107 and 1105!!!!!!
October 27, 2010 at 2:59 am #706497
JoBParticipantand 1100 as well…
the costs of increased alcohol related health and enforcement issues aside…
this bill would only cost us…
http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/i-1107-liquor-privatization-measures-would-harm-local-services
” * All local governments: $40 million to $50 million per year;
* King County: About $1 million per year. This revenue is dedicated to the county general fund, 77 percent of which is devoted to public safety and justice services;
* Clark County: $800,000 in the coming 2011-13 biennium. All of these revenues are dedicated to the county general fund, two-thirds of which is dedicated to public safety and justice services.”
that’s a cool million a year out of the funds for public safety and justice services in King County alone…. on top of the cuts we have already faced.
What services are left to cut to pay for that?
Isn’t that a pretty high price to pay for the savings, selection and personal convenience supporters envision?
October 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm #706498
CarsonParticipantWait one second. I thought 1100 was the initiative that would triple alcohol sales and require school age children to drink Jack Daniels instead of milk, and as a net result balance the state budget. JoB have you been on the up-and-up with me on this??
October 27, 2010 at 4:00 pm #706499
JoBParticipanthey carson…
just quoting the Washington Budget & Policy Center.
All those pipe dreams used as a rationalization for the economic impact of I 1100..
the income generated by increased sales that would offset lost revenue…
are just a twinkle in the eye of the legislature somewhere down a two year pipeline…
if they move quickly…
and if the legislature isn’t controlled by tax cutting republicans
tick tick…
one million.. two million.. more.
October 27, 2010 at 7:14 pm #706500
maplesyrupParticipantDoes everyone have their post 1100 emergency kits ready?
Shotgun to ward off liquored-up thugs running amok? Check.
Home-schooling materials for when the education system implodes? Check.
Helmet for when the sky falls? Check.
October 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm #706501
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
so tell me…
what county services are you willing to give up to pick up that 2 mill they lose when you can trundle down to the local convenience store to buy your Jim Beam?
Something will have to replace those dollars because the budget for police and firemen and rescue workers has already been cut to the breaking point.
You can joke all you want to about people running around saying the sky will fall..
but the truth is that this Initiative has a pretty high price tag.
I really don’t see why the rest of us should pay such a high price for the convenience of the few…
especially when the real winners here will be liquor retailers.
Maybe we can pass a sin tax on liquor so those who drink pick up the tab like they do now…
somehow i doubt that.
but in a perfect world that is exactly what would happen.
October 27, 2010 at 10:18 pm #706502
SarahScootParticipant“Maybe we can pass a sin tax on liquor so those who drink pick up the tab like they do now…
somehow i doubt that.”
I don’t doubt that at all. I assume that, if I-1100 passes, in two years our legislature will tack a significant tax on to hard liquor sales. I’m fine with that, by the way, just as I’m fine with cigarettes and soda being taxed; none of these items are necessary, so tax them as the market allows. I just don’t think it’s the state’s right to operate the liquor stores.
October 27, 2010 at 10:30 pm #706503
CarsonParticipantActually 1100 also takes the middle man distributor out of the mix, so in theory, the state could raise taxes a little bit more and the price could still be more competitive. A win win for most of us…yea, yea, I know JoB, not all of us.
October 27, 2010 at 11:08 pm #706504
maplesyrupParticipantJoB I’m pretty sure the effects won’t be nearly as dire as you’re making them out to be and I’m willing to take that risk. That’s the whole point.
Besides, don’t you think the state relying on “profits” from a retail operation in order to “fund essential services” is an indication that something is broken? When I hear that line of thinking I suspect something is wrong with our approach.
And like I’ve told you twice already, it’s not all about convenience. I even gave you a list of better reasons as to why I support 1100. But you ignored it, basically told me that you thought it was about convenience for me anyway, and keep using it as a way to dismiss the entire bill. So I guess the only thing I can do from here out is make (bad) jokes. :)
October 28, 2010 at 2:44 am #706505
JoBParticipantMaplesyrup..
you are ok with taking 2 million out of King country’s budget for police and safety?
because you think the liquor tax is a poor way to fund them?
then exactly how do you propose we fund them?
Sarah Scoot…
that will be fine if it happens in a couple of years…
but you are counting on funding from a source that might never happen..
if no tax republicans get their hands on our legislative process it’s highly unlikely…
just how much money do you think the liquor lobby will dump into defeating that idea? you’ve seen what they are willing to dump into privatization.
Carson…
the only real winners if I-1100 passes are liquor retailers and some drinkers.
I wouldn’t say that covers all of us..
would you?
October 28, 2010 at 6:26 pm #706506
maplesyrupParticipantYep. The county budget is over $5 billion, so $2 million is about .0004% of the total budget. They can find the money for “safety” (whatever that is) if they have to.
October 28, 2010 at 6:57 pm #706507
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
have you not noticed that county budget cuts are cutting into programs you care about already?
Look around you. We just closed a bridge that serviced a huge amount of commercial traffic.. sending it to city streets at the same time those same streets were clogged with construction because there was no money to fix or replace it.
The county has closed public facilities because there is no money. They have laid off staff from social services and cut programs because there is no money. They have closed community policing stations because there is no money. and that’s the short list.
there is only one pot of money. When you take 2 million out of a pot that is already overextended..
it is going to hurt somewhere.
October 28, 2010 at 7:01 pm #706508
DPMemberHi, jack!
I’m curious. Does anyone know if Seattle police are still staking out strip joints to make sure that patrons don’t come within four feet of the strippers? If we limited the undercover cops to three drinks per stakeout, and no more than, say, $50 in tips, I bet there would be substantial savings.
And to give you some perspective on the cost of fighting fires these days, does anyone recall the $13 million payout Seattle gave to “disabled” fire fighter Mark Jones recently?
Remember Mr. Jones? He’s the guy who claimed his on-the-job injury made him feel like he was 80 years old but was later videotaped (by the City) playing horseshoes like a twenty-something and jumping up and down in glee when he got a ringer.
Story here:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/100162714.html
I doubt if the city will ever see any of that $13 million again, but substantial savings could be probably be realized by firing the boneheads on the City’s legal team who decided not to surveill Mr. Jones until after the lawsuit was over.
My point here is not that policing and firefighting are not essential. (They are essential.) My point is to question this notion that the City’s police and fire departments have really been “cut to the bone.” After only one or two rounds of cuts, I seriously doubt that.
I’m for giving government all the money it needs to do its job. I’m also for government being very careful with the money we give it.
Bye, jack!
October 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm #706509
maplesyrupParticipantFunny, DP, I had been thinking along the same lines: cut the vice squad.
Anyway, looking through the 2010 King County Budget, I’m confident $2 million can be found. See for yourselves. http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/budget/2010_budget.aspx
October 28, 2010 at 9:06 pm #706510
JulieMemberTricky bit is, enough of us would have to AGREE on that $2 million.
I went through an interesting exercise recently on the county budget:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/auditor/communityforums.aspx
On the “vice squad”: I think you’re confusing City and County budgets.
I also think the argument that the state should not be GIVING away the liquor business, but rather, auctioning it to raise funds, is worth considering:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2013265256_danny27.html
October 28, 2010 at 11:10 pm #706511
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
you aren’t getting something for nothing here.
and i really have to ask why you think those of us who will never benefit should pay for the free lunch you are expecting.
No matter how big a joke you make of this… There is no getting around the fact that this will be a very expensive initiative for our state at a time when we can’t afford it.
DP…
for every poor use of police time and every bad apple on the force…
you will find countless others who never make the news but put their lives on the line every day to make this world a safer place for you.
And that goes for firefighters and rescue workers and others who show up every day willing to risk their lives… often because because someone was simply too stupid to act responsibly.
All that video of Mr Jones shows is that on one day he was able to have a good time. His game of horseshoes.. or wood chopping.. or.. had nothing to do with his real injuries.. well documented brain injuries…
but even if he hadn’t suffered brain injuries… that video doesn’t show what drugs he might have had to take to participate or how many days he was house or bed bound to play like a 20 year old long enough for that game of horseshoes…
As a person who lives with invisible disabilities every day i can tell you that disability doesn’t always look like you seem to think it should.
As for the cop jokes… Trust me… the dunkin donut jokes .. or the stripper jokes… or… get really old to those of us who worry every day a family member is on the job.
they have earned more respect than you give them by just showing up.
October 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm #706512
maplesyrupParticipantJoB, based on what you’ve written about this and other tax-related topics, if I were you I’d think twice before accusing anyone else of wanting a free lunch. Sheesh.
October 29, 2010 at 8:01 pm #706513
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
there is a huge difference between individuals who don’t need..
wanting something for nothing..
and being willing to pass the bill on to others…
and feeding those who can’t feed themselves…
or taking care of our environment in the most cost effective way.. passing the cost on clean-up on to those who pollute…
or paying for education now in lieu of paying for incarceration later…
or paying for disease prevention and control rather than paying for emergency care…
or…
I admit.. it might seem subtle at first.
But it won’t be long before you realize that you are already being asked to pick up the bill for someone else’s want..
and then i promise you..
it won’t seem so subtle any more.
Stepping away from the tube helps.
October 31, 2010 at 12:27 am #706514
maplesyrupParticipant“Stepping away from the tube helps.”
Care to elaborate on that?
Anyway, spare me the condescending lecture. I am not an anti-tax nutter and I recognize that there are many legitimate functions that the government performs. (Running a retail business is not one of them, by the way.)
In fact I am pretty confident and hopeful that the legislature will come up with ways to replace some of that lost revenue, as well as find ways to cut the budget as a result. And in the long run we’ll all be better off because I’m sure there’s a more efficient way to collect additional money from constituents than by having the government spend $100+ million dollars annually on overhead to maintain the monopoly.
October 31, 2010 at 2:34 am #706515
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
it’s funny how everyone expects the same government that just dumped people off of the state medical insurance because they didn’t have enough money to come up with a way to replace the income from hard liquor…
i don’t think that is going to be much comfort to the next group of people who are slashed from the program because the funds just plain aren’t there.
You are sure there is a better way to do things… and you think you will benefit from the change.. so to h..l with the people who depend upon state and local services to survive.
Changing the way the state handles liquor sales in the middle of one of the biggest budget crunches the state has known is just plain stupid.
I think this is one of the most stupid self serving initiatives i have encountered since i moved to Seattle…
and frankly.. it amazes me how otherwise left leaning people make a sudden right turn when it comes to personal inconvenience.
You have been sold a bill of goods my friend. This isn’t about a monopoly.. it’s about profit.. for the retail industry.
Better buy up that cheap booze while it lasts… because the same “monopoly” that sold only through liquor stores also put a cap on prices. You can kiss that goodbye.
Is that plain speaking enough for you?
November 2, 2010 at 12:23 am #706516
JulieMemberIt’s interesting to contemplate whether alcohol would even be legal if it weren’t a traditional drug. We ban or tightly control less harmful drugs:
“Overall, MCDA modelling showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack (54) in second and third places. Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual, whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others. The other drugs assessed followed in this order in terms of overall harm: Crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (eg valium) (15), ketamine (also 15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), butane (10), khat (9), ecstacy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6), mushrooms (5).”
(Source: study published today in The Lancet; itself an update of a study done in 2007. Summary here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101101162138.htm )
November 6, 2010 at 5:46 pm #706517
DPMemberAre we still in concession mode? —Good.
JoB: In retrospect, it looks like you were with the majority of Washington voters on this issue, even though you were in the minority here on the Glob. (It was you, Julie maybe . . . Anyone else?)
You stuck to your point of view on I-1100, unpopular though it was, and accepted the teasing with much good grace.
Admirable.
November 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm #706518
JulieMemberI’m not sure what you’re asking, DP–did you mean, was I with JoB on this?
I did end up deciding to vote against all three. 1107 was easy; I puzzled longer over 1100 and 1105. In the end, it was a combination of the state’s pinched budget and doubt that there’d be enough money left in the budget to enforce restrictions on the sale of alcohol–which, despite being a traditional drug, causes enormous and expensive damage.
Had these initiatives included a massive increase in the taxes on the sale of alcohol, I would likely have changed my mind. I’m not committed to the state’s maintaining a hold on the sale of liquor. I just want it carefully controlled (preferably more than it is now), and I want the state to have enough money to do the things I think it should.
November 6, 2010 at 7:27 pm #706519
JoBParticipanti am also open to a change in the way alcohol is sold… tho not for the unrestricted access that those initiatives would have created.
neither option offered addressed what i though were very real risks…
if we are going to consider opening up this market.. let’s get some bang for our buck.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.