What would real political change look like?
The election will bring change, but the entrenched factors suggest only a few nudges. Here's an agenda for substantive change in our tax system, our spending priorities, our stalemated politics, and the post-Boeing economy.
Our county and local elections this week will create change in policy and politics hereabouts. How much change? My own guess, before ballots are counted, is that only a nudge toward change will take place, since it will take a huge effort of leadership afterward to break policy patterns of a generation.
Changing longstanding policy is compared to changing the mid-ocean course of a great passenger liner: It takes time and is not immediately discernible. But what would significant change look like? Here is my own local agenda.
Reforming our tax system. Our present tax system is destructively regressive, falling heaviest on state, King County, and Seattle taxpayers and businesses least able to pay for the costs of public programs. The textbook solution would be to shift toward the same income-tax system prevailing in most American states. Time and again, however, Washington citizens' level of mistrust about such a shift has blocked such an effort. Ordinary taxpayers and small business owners fear that elected officials will simply add an income tax to existing taxes, thus not creating "reform" but merely heavier burdens of taxation. Tim Eyman's recurring ballot measures to limit taxing and spending find public support, and sometimes passage, because of this voter perception, one which is not wrong.
When I returned home to Seattle nearly nine years ago, I thought public education and political courage could bring Washington voters around to an income tax. I no longer believe that.
But there are things we can do, short of imposing an income tax, to make our tax system more rational. First, we can do away with the b&o tax and the Seattle head tax, both of which penalize job creation. Second, and even more importantly, we can review the huge number of "tax expenditures" (subsidies and loopholes) that have been granted over the years to chosen companies and sectors. Boeing's $3-plus billion break, earlier in the decade, is a prime example. The sum total of these tax breaks amounts to three times the size of our biennial state budget. Gov. Gregoire, in her 2004 and 2008 campaigns, pledged to review these breaks. Instead, she has instituted new ones.
Other notions, such as a flat tax or a Value Added Tax (VAT), also have been floated. Both would generate huge amounts of public revenue, but both would add to the present system's regressivity.
Revising our spending priorities The present state, county, and local financial distress is forcing examination of public spending that we have not undertaken in a long time.
Over more than a decade, Seattle and King County have begun major capital projects without due regard for their costs. The prime example is Sound Transit light rail, authorized by voters in 1996. The light rail "starter line," scheduled to go from the South End to Northgate, is many years behind its construction schedule, has gone dramatically over its promised budget, and has omitted several stations promised to voters when they approved it. Despite this halting start, an all-out campaign last year resulted in approval of a $23 billion expansion that would lay track and build several fixed-point stations in King, Pierce, and Snohomish County over the next several years.
The measure authorizing the three-county expansion contains a provision allowing Sound Transit to increase spending, as conditions might change, so that the $23 billion is almost certain to be exceeded. This amounts to the largest local-level tax increase in American history — and all in regressive taxes. Seattle mayoral candidate Mike McGinn proposes to extend the in-Seattle light rail system to several neighborhoods, thus passing the price tag higher.
(Whenever I write about light rail, I receive howls to the effect that I favor roads over mass transit. That is not the case, however. I strongly favor mass transit, believing that bus and bus-rapid-transit service would take more people to more destinations, far more cheaply, than the planned light rail system.)
Our elected officials, almost certainly, will need to revisit the whole issue of three-county light rail expansion. The money allocated to it could be more efficiently invested not only in bus service but in education, job training, road and bridge modernization and maintenance, care for the homeless, and other pressing public needs.
The same holds true for the Mercer Project, which would cost Seattle taxpayers upwards of $300 million, depending on its final configuration and whether a Mercer West component is added to it. The Mercer Project would not reduce traffic congestion in the so-called Mercer Mess, but would rather increase it. I like Vulcan's plans for redeveloping the area. Over time they should enhance the quality of South Lake Union. But in these tough times they represent too large a chunk of taxpayer funds that are badly needed to meet other public needs. Mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan has said he wants to review the cost-sharing arrangement between the city and Vulcan. Given that the city is facing a $70-million-plus deficit for the coming year, Mallahan's proposed review provides a good starting point for reviewing spending priorities.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 7 p.m. inappropriate
Van Dyk subscribes to the Cattle Car Theory of Public Transportation, learned at the knee of Robert MacNamara, namely and as Van Dyk puts it so eloquently, "bus and bus-rapid-transit service would take more people to more destinations, far more cheaply, than the planned light rail system." Maybe, but bus service (I take it for 45 minutes every day each way)is not a humane way to travel. Kidneys bouncing, cell phone conversations blaring, the psychologically-challenged regaling everyone with their life stories, stalled on the freeways and the city streets, re-routes never announced so your stop changes without notice, sullen drivers who don't give a damn, a ride you can't jot a note on--it is exhausting every single day.
But I also take light rail for about 20 minutes each way. Clean, quiet, frequent, no traffic snarls, dependable, smooth so I can jot a note, stopping at clean dry stations; no freeway snarls. Expensive? Maybe more than a cattle cart. Humane? Yes. Something everyone needs--the rich and the poor.
If mass transit is to compete with a Camry and not a cattle car, it will need to meet a level of decency that is closer to a private, air-conditioned, plush transportation bubble with surround sound, even though it is destroying the atmosphere. Otherwise, the poor are condemned to their cattle cars and the rich get the roads to themselves.
You, of all people, know the DC subway system. It treats you like a human being.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 8:47 p.m. inappropriate
Van Dyk is right as rain when it comes to things like district elections for Seattle councilmembers and the naivete of non-partisanship, but when it comes to public transportation, he just doesn't get it. Perhaps if he were a full-time resident and commuted daily, he'd have a more well-rounded perspective. Yes, transit taxes are regressive, like most other WA taxes, but they are what the Legislature allows transit to use. And they are all approved by voters. Yes, rail is expensive because we have to build new right-of-way, whereas buses use existing streets and highway lanes.
He beefs about the initial segment of Link light rail, it's not exactly like it was projected when we voted on it in 1996, but the region's voters have no similar complaint -- they voted by a 57 percent margin for Sound Transit to raise their taxes even higher to build more rail transit.
Voters get it -- buses stuck in traffic, even the ones with fancy BRT paint jobs, are no alternative for rail transit.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 9:15 p.m. inappropriate
Within our little corner of the nation, as well as across the USA, there's a much greater need for a fundamental, "back to basics" conversation between the electorate and their elected officials than there is a need for this or that programmatic/policy change.
Let's face it: In the absence of a revitalized discussion of The Social Contract, America's vitality is rapidly being sapped, and we'll soon be dead in the water. "Effete," in the proper sense of the word: Spent, powerless, incapable, and drifting.
In this context, your mention of 'ballot measures' (citizen-sponsored referenda) is spot-on. In recent and current use, this device subverts the entire concept of representative government--and in fact, the instant communication tools at our disposal both threaten our 17th-century system and promise to break down old time-and-distance barriers.
The Social Contract (that little deal between qualified, invested voters and the government they choose to create, modify, destroy and recreate) is dead, in current usage--and there's no way it will ever be revived in a world of marginally qualified, issue-driven, truth-bending, venal, gutless politicians and wanna-be's.
Neither our, nor any other American, community is going to be rebuilt on this shaky, outmoded, naive and ultimately dishonest foundation, so we can all tuck our programmatic fixes back in our hip pockets and start demanding a substantive conversation.
My own naivete and stupidity wants Constitutional Conventions, right here in our state and across the Union, with alterations in our processes and in the substance of our political discourse that will revive meaning and stimulate real public investment. The savvy and realistic part of me scoffs at the prospect of sponsoring, much less succeeding with, an open process of political discussion and renewal that would demand so much of We The People.
We The People are stupid, and getting stupider with each phony election. We need to be confronted with the Big Questions again: What do we want from our governing structures, how will we allocate and balance power, what are we willing to pay, and how can we devise a system that is fairer to all, more equitable in its receipt and consideration of citizen input, and equal to the profound challenges of modern communications and those who are inordinately skilled in their use?
My comments will appear over the same pseudonym I've used since first offering comments on this site--so Ted, feel free to disregard them, or if it makes you feel a bit better, think "Publius" (Hamilton/Madison/Jay's nom de plume) when you see Seneca.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 9:52 p.m. inappropriate
There is no real tax reform movement in the state of Washington. No politician is gifted enough to promote the changes needed with any forward thrust. This is a failing of our state. We lack gifted politicians. The people with the gifts wisely choose other endeavors these days.
The political system is not tattered here, save for the lack of gifted people willing to get engaged in politics. The problem in not how we design government, but how the game plays out. Who would want to do this? The fact is that running government is much harder than running a business: no contest.
We will need to buckle down to save aerospace in Washington, hands down. That's how we save American aerospace. All alternatives are grim and unacceptable. We need to grow more people with skills and pay them well. Tax breaks will also help.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 2:10 a.m. inappropriate
Thanks for the early feedbck. Advocates of light rail should be pleased by the election of Dow Constantine, a stalwart supporter of light rail, and delighted if Mike McGinn is elected Seattle mayor. McGinn, if that is possible, is as supportive of light rail as outgoing Mayor Greg Nickels and wants its further expansion within Seattle.
Trouble is that light rail---as other past and pending public-works projects---should be required to pass a threshold standard of cost-effectiveness. I don't understand bkochis' Robert McNamara reference. As readers may know, I am a longtime and avid critic of McNamara's. Also a bit puzzled as to which buses bkochis may be riding. I ride buses here often and find their comfort and reliability far superior to that in most other places. Light rail may be more pleasant to ride in the few parts of our community in which it is available. But costa and benefits have to come into the equation somewhere. As chance would have it, I had breakfast Election Day morning with a group of Rainier Valley citizens hopping mad about light rail fares. Ridership is low in their neighborhood, they reported, because it is too expensive a ride. Ridership figures, as released by Sound Transit, did not seem credible to them since the trains they saw were running near empty. Moreover,
most people must drive or take buses to get to light rail stations---and there is insufficient parking and bus feeder service to make that work.
Light rail is cited because it is the most dramatic example of our
unwillingness to undertake rational analysis of costs and benefits before
committing to projects involving major long-term public investments.
The deep-bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be costly but, in the end, does seem to offer compensating benefits for the investment.
We know what happened with the Brightwater Treatment Plant. A performance audit had to be abandoned recently because even basic financial records had not been kept or were missing.
We made a false and expensive start on a Seattle Monorail system before discovering that it could not be built within anything approximating its advertised price tag.
The so-called Allentown Trolley, from Westlake Center to South Lake Union, is another running-near-empty transportation system. Businesses along its route were taxed heavily to build it and, additionally, bus service in outlying neighborhoods was cutback to help finance this tourist curiosity. Proposals are being made, incredibly, to extend it.
The Mercer Project, as noted, also has moved forward without the necessary reliable cost estimates, or projected sources of financing, that something of that magnitude should require. As presently configured, it will increase rather than reduce traffic congestion in the area. It should be seen, instead, as an adjunct to Vulcan's South Lake Union commercial development. If it is to go forward, Vulcan should be asked to provide a major share of its cost.
Times have been good locally over a long period. But now we are in for a several-year period of slower economic growth and reduced tax revenues,
Families and businesses are hard pressed. State, county and local officials will have no option but to weigh costs and benefits of such projects more carefully than in the past. It is not a matter of "should" but of "must."
I agree with Jan on the need for talented people to step forward for public service. We would have profited in the current election from
the presence on the ballot of more such people. I disagree, however, that
tax breaks and subsidies are the path to competitiveness. Favoring some companies and sectors over others, they fundamentally distort patterns of economic activity. If we take care of the fundameentals, the market will choose winners and losers. Taxpayers cannot and should not do it.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 2:46 a.m. inappropriate
"The deep-bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be costly but, in the end, does seem to offer compensating benefits for the investment."
And, with one sentence, Ted Van Dyk proves that he will always give freeway projects the benefit of the doubt - while criticizing transit projects as The Great Satan. Yeah, you can tell TVD is a big time transit advocate.
Same way Susan Hutchison wasn't a certified right winger. She was simply a change agent (hold your laughter - Theodore's kiss of death worked wonders on Suzy)
Why does Theodore promote Bus "Rapid" Transit? Well, for the same reason ideological transit opponents like Kemper Freeman do: it doesn't exist. Theodore learned the straw man scam from his Watergate scandal buddies. It can be effective when your audience is made up of uneducated sheep, or poorly informed angry white old guys. ( I luv u, Glenn Beck!!!)
It was another predictable night for The King of Slop.
Theodore Van Dyk did not disappoint!
Tomorrow I will prove how ridiculous (and unconstitutional) Theodore's "grand vision" really is, in regard to the notion that Teddy and his imaginary friends can amend the state constitution, and re-allocate transit money to his pet freeway projects...and education!
Theodore Van Dyk has spoiled one adage I've always held dear: respect your elders. New maxim: question your elders. Especially the old white guys who cashed lots of checks during the Nixon years.
It really is amazing anybody takes Ted Van Dyk seriously. Aside from Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, that is...
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 6:18 a.m. inappropriate
This all reminds me of some of the dishes I used to make for dinner- some good ingredients, some ingredients that sounded good or are supposed to be good for you, tempered by time and heat to a familiar, somewhat tasteless, and, sadly, indigestible mush.
Over all looms an oligarchy in which 1% of the nation's people control 95% of the nation's wealth, and a war budget chronically clocking in at over $400 billion (this year, over $600 billion) to support wars and nearly 600 bases worldwide.
Focusing on an issue like the South Lake Union Streetcar (which, incidentally, the businesses taxed themselves for with an LID) tells me more about Ted than it does about our problems.
Understandably, Ted is confused about the transit math. Most of us are. The savings come when people live close to transit (or close to where they work) and don't need cars. Then the individual saves the cost of the car and the society saves the cost of the road. Decreasing the proportion of roads increases the proportion of taxable land, and increases the opportunities for people to live close to transit.
It is a little surprising that Americans are so obtuse on this point, when the entire history of western civilization rises and falls on the accumulation of critical mass in our cities. Too much PoMo I guess.
OMG, Ted Van Dyke is PoMo!
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 7 a.m. inappropriate
My MacNamara reference was to the excessive reliance on cost-effectiveness as a public policy tool to the exclusion of other values and other tools. MacNamara, by his own admission, did exactly that and it was a human disaster. Van Dyk is doing the same when it comes to moving people; to be most cost-effective those buses will have to be standing-room only and there will have to be more of them which will only clog the roadways even more because who wants to stand for their entire commute to and from work. The logic of relying so severely on cost-effectiveness is that you treat citizens as individual bodies but not as persons. You cram them into the cheapest form of transportation you can because your pencil and paper numbers tell you to.
Of course people don't want to pay more, but we have to get over that because of what we've done with the cheapness of oil. We've been down the cheapness route and it's killing us.
Of course people don't want to take a bus to the light rail station, but they, eventually and as has happened everywhere else in the world, will move closer. We cannot serve the 19th and 20th centuries sprawled city with a transportation system that comes within one block of everyone's house. The convenience we grew up with as spoiled boomers is over and we need to adjust to new ways of thinking that do not rely so completely on someone's analysis of cost-effectiveness (I'll skip the fact that no one can accurately calculate cost or effectiveness in big, complex city projects like transportation. As As Casey Stengel would say, "In two words, im-possible."
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 9:39 a.m. inappropriate
Doing away with the B & O tax is easier said than done. At both the state and local (Seattle) level that tax is almost 20% of government revenues. A more likely possibility is to replace it with a fairer tax on business that reflects net profits rather than gross income. But that will take the active efforts of the business community, especially organizations that represent small businesses. Unfortuntely, these organizations have been captive of large corporations who prefer the gross tax and have resisted reform efforts.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 10:06 a.m. inappropriate
When Ted Van Dyk automatically deems the Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel "cost effective." And transit projects cost-ineffective. You really have to wonder what formula he's using.
Something tells me it goes something like this:
Move cars - good.
Move people - not so good.
And what happened to those "monied real estate interests" conspiracy theories he always wraps around light rail? The AWV tunnel is a MONSTER of a beautification project benefiting some of the richest real estate investors in town. But, Ted Van Dyk thinks the tunnel is being built for purely utilitarian reasons, certifying the double standard all road warriors use all the time.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 11:38 a.m. inappropriate
On the state level, I think real change would have to include taking out another "early-20th-century reformist leftover": the State Liquor Control Board and its monopoly on selling distilled spirits in Washington state. I still can't believe how former Gov. Gary Locke's much-publicized effort to wittle down state government to its "core functions" somehow overlooked this fossilized albatross. Why on earth should state government be in the business of selling booze? Economics? Private enterprise could much more efficiently collect its high-priced liquor taxes, and it would relieve the state of having to hire and fund the pensions of an army of retailers and distributors. This is one California success story that deserves to be studied and imitated.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 3 p.m. inappropriate
We have a new mayor because the process and alternatives for the viaduct were unacceptable to voters, and we have at least one new council person for the same reason. If you think that the Mercer Street project should be re-assessed, then why not a similarly questionable tunnel project that will cost at least 10 times that amount and provide less capacity than what we have now? If the solution doesn’t move at least 110,000 vehicles a day through that corridor it should be abandoned.
This current tunnel plan brings back memories of how we got Safeco Field.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 9:48 p.m. inappropriate
I agree with most of this. Change will be incremental until "significant" becomes obvious, as ours is a system of management by crises; see airline safety for exhibit A. Real estate taxation needs reform, as in King County - if that is any guide - the assessor's office only values 1/6th of the county's properties every year, and that from the outside. Improvements on the inside of the shell done without permits aren't detected. Further, the square footage of the house as well as listing of how much of it is improved, how many bathrooms it has, etc. is on the honor system, and value is a combination of recent sales and "salability," which is why owners of mega properties got sizable tax cuts last year, while those with modest but common properties got sizable real estate tax increases. The solution to income/sales tax is to use an income tax - which is far more visible to taxpayers, as it would come out of their paychecks - for providing state services such as schools, and limit the sales tax to only voter-approved local items such as transit. A massive education effort, which would need to list what's provided for by each tax and the list of the benefits of such a system, probably wouldn't overcome the certain scare campaign by those with the highest incomes, though. In the meantime, repealing tax breaks is long overdue, but even extending the sales tax to services. Re: spending priorities, our region wastes tons of money over-analyzing/discussing everything to death. Whatever Vancouver, BC is doing is what Seattle, WA should be doing, as they manage to have discussions, but after a point, whatever it is, e.g. Skytrain, gets done. In Seattle, meanwhile, we want to re-open discussions that have been ongoing for years, e.g. the Viaduct by the leading Seattle mayor vote-getter thus far and some of that city's council candidates. As a result, we get a shell of a light rail system at an enormous cost. I, too, favor BRT, but also direct access transit ramps up and down I-5 and I-405 in the metropolitan areas, such as a "T" ramp at N. 50th/Express Lanes in Seattle, and engineering out the left onramps and left offramps (which would do as much as adding a new lane). I disagree with channeling voter-approved transportation monies to non-transportation purposes. I dislike and think there's something seriously wrong with our initiative process, which has enabled a man to make a career out of filing initiatives...whether they pass or not is secondary.