The Whatcom Transportation Authority’s two-tenths of 1 percent sales increase is still failing, and the margin between ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ votes has increased.
That margin is now 930 votes, for a failing percentage of 50.9 percent to 49.1 percent, according to the Auditor’s Office elections page.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:04 PM
A $250,000 poll. Who knows how much expensive time was wasted on top of this expense?
It would have been cheaper to poll the public before this expensive ballot issue was authorized. Clearly somebody’s personal and unscientific poll, was off considerably, and now WTA has wasted a quarter of a million dollars, of the taxpayers hard earned money.
Maybe now is the time to get some fresh blood on the WTA Board.
Maybe someone with business experience, rather than an all government officials.
Paying $35 per ride for Paratransit is more expensive than a taxi.
It is also time that WTA survey the compensation packages for private bus drivers, compared to their drivers.
We don’t have the money to waste. It is time that WTA did smart things. WTA needs to be fair to the taxpayer too. When you enjoy a 90% subsidy, the taxpayer is the “Golden Goose” that needs care and feeding too.
The Board of WTA has to be responsible for this wasted expense. We all make mistakes. Let’s hope this is a lesson taken to heart, and real changes come to WTA, not just lip service.
The public did not support increasing the tax subsidy enjoyed by WTA and its ridership. Please remember that the public still supports WTA everyday, with their tax dollars, and sometimes it helps to say “Thank You” to the public for their continuing support.
This “Thank You” seemed to be overlooked, in this debate.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Doug, tell us what you really think!
Now let’s see if these public servants raise fares, cut schedules, do both….or trim their own budgets like they should have done in the first place.
That is what every Bellingham family has had to do with this economy, unless maybe they are one of those who average $77,000 a year in job-and-benefits boys driving and fixing busses. With a nice, really nice rest station for drivers in the new building on RR. I’m envious I don’t have a rec room to relax in during work hours.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Fred,
You are correct. We place our taxes in their hands, and we trust them to spend it wisely.
They should not overpay for tires, or bus drivers.
Some folks who work in government are under-paid and some are over paid when all the normal variables are accounted for.
It is time that we have a policy on what government should pay emplyees, when compared to their neighbors who are paying the taxes ,and doing similar jobs.
When WTA complains that public bus drivers compensation cannot be compared to the compensation of private bus drivers, this is simply a cop-out for doing the hard job of managing, which includes, saying no sometimes.
When we trust public officials with our hard earned tax dollars, we have a right to expect that they will treat our monies with respect, as this is hard earned money.
This is only fair, to the taxpayer. Money doesn’t grow on trees, and neither do taxes.
The practice of taking campaign contributions from public unions is a conflict of interest.
If elected, how does a new offical bargains with these unions bosses, after you have begged them for cash.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Doug,
I’m sick and tired of your half truths, innuendo and insinuations. When you talk about polling the public, this was a poll of the voting public. It was the responsible thing to do. If you were paying attention you would know that the WTA took drastic budget cuts through several rounds just as the city of Bellingham has done this last year. We also increased fares. To say that riders only pay 10% is to conveniently ignore the fact that they are tax payers too. That takes issue with your golden goose comment. Those that have lived here a long time remember when we had private transit that where riders paid all costs. We had buses that ran in frequent routes, they were often seen beside the road broken down. It was a terrible system that didn’t provide any level of realistic transportation to our citizens. As far as I know, all, ALL transit systems are subsidized. In this case riders are not getting a “golden goose”, they are tax payers too.
It wasn’t that long ago that private jobs paid much more than any public jobs. All we public sector employees had was benefits and pensions, neither of which were worth much until the private insurance companies have driven health care costs through the roof. As a response to those increased costs, all public employees pay an increasing share of their benefits costs. Meanwhile union busting and outsourcing of jobs have hurt the private sector to the extent that for the first time in my lifetime, public sector jobs are worth having and keeping. Talking about salary policies shows your ignorance that these employees are represented by unions and they negotiate contracts in good faith. To that extent, most unions this year received no increases in recognition of these economic times. WTA has cut positions as has the City of Bellingham. At the city we’re down almost 10% of our workforce, so I’m sick and tired of hearing and reading these comments about how all government knows how to do is raise taxes.
As far as your criticizing the WTA board, I’ve never seen you bother to attend WTA executive committee meetings where all of these issues are debated to the fullest extent. Presenting this proposal was the right thing to do as the closeness of the election is testament to.
BTW, if you think being on the City Council is a golden goose, I’m happy to have you step up and actually work to get yourself elected. This job has to be earned and believe me, serving is a full time job for less than half time pay. We often meet all afternoon and all evening and, the big box issue itself generated more than a thousand communications to Councilmembers. Throwing out empty, undefended comments on Blogs is easy, Doug. I invite you to jump in and see what the water actually feels like. I’ve always admired your intellect but these recent posts don’t stand the sniff test. Now the board is tasked with cutting 14% out of the WTA budget which will bring significant pain to those that depend on us for their transportation needs. I expect Doug that your life won’t be impacted beyond saying, “see, I told them so and they didn’t listen”.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Stan,
Take a deep breath.
It is my opinion that Doug’s opinions are clearly grounded, and I support his positions.
Your post is full of emotion, and I’m sure that this is a difficult time to be in city government, but the taxpayers in the private sector, on whom government entities depend for funding, are feeling extreme economic pain.
You ran for election, and you have some tough choices to make.
Make them, please.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:25 PM
I don’t ride the WTA but I recognize that a strong public transportation system is in the best interests of all the citizens of Bellingham. I was inclined to vote YES but, in the end, I couldn’t do it. The WTA is in crisis brought about by a struggling economy. This is an emergency situation. However, before I’ll commit my money in the form of higher taxes, I want to see every stakeholder come together to aid the WTA. I want to see the riders shoulder their share in the form of higher fares. It doesn’t have to even approach a one-to-one with the tax increase, just SOMETHING to show that they’re pitching in. The same with management - I want to see them take voluntary pay cuts to recognize that we’re all in this together. And the unions; I noticed that they were willing to forgo future pay increases. Well whoop-di-do. How about if I, as a non-riding taxpayer do my part by forgoing future tax decreases? No, I saw no inclination on their part to shoulder any of the burden. I’d settle for any sign that they see a need for cooperation in this emergency - it doesn’t have to be much - how about giving up one paid holiday? All the parties needed to get together on this but, in the end, only one stakeholder was asked to shoulder the whole burden. Sorry but NO, it wasn’t going to happen.
April 29th, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Having met Stan Snapp more than a few times (he’s my neighbor as well as my council member) , I must wish the best of luck to anyone who would chose to characterize him as needing guidance in emotional control.
Particularly on the blogosphere.
I refer Davesix to the landmark case of Pott v Kettul.
This photo-finish voting result suggests that this was not some landslide rejection of the WTA levy. To characterize this as a waste of time and money ignores the fact that this appears to have been decided by about 1,000 votes.
This question was clearly worth the trouble it took to ask it.
If the percentage of returned ballots had been low or the vote had been overwhelmingly against the levy, then perhaps Mr Karlberg’s characterizations (”WTA has wasted a quarter of a million dollars, of the taxpayers hard earned money.”) would be correct.
This was not a no-brainer. The outcome was not obvious, even with the benefit of hindsight. It was not a waste of time or money.
This matter appears to be settled by the electorate.
When we settle matters by a direct vote of the electorate, it is characterized as a waste of tax payer money by the very same people who cry foul when these matters are settled by the vote of elected representatives.
Mr Karlberg wasn’t happy with the County Council filling the vacancy left by Bob Kelley. That should have been handled directly by the electorate.
Mr Karlberg wasn’t happy with the WTA putting this levy decision to a vote. That was a waste of tax payer money. If the County had voted for the levy, I’m guessing that would have been not okay because it should have been handled directly by the electorate.
Are you guys libertarians or contrarians? Or am I repeating myself?
April 29th, 2010 at 5:39 AM
The smell test Stan?
“I’ve always admired your intellect but these recent posts don’t stand the sniff test.”
Would that stinkey monatary contribution from Gillig Coach also pass your smell test Stan?
April 29th, 2010 at 5:52 AM
Since I don’t know any of the people involved in this thread personally, I can be totally objective.
I for one am sick to death of the nonstop carping criticism by Karlberg, whose whining is often louder than one of those buses he hates. I agree with Stan Snapp: Doug, either get involved in a productive, meaningful way for a change or just STFU!
April 29th, 2010 at 5:58 AM
And the stinkey hamster cage, with their specialists in half truths, innuendo and insinuations.
Like that hamsters Planning Department, or Park Developement Case, with the stink, hidden by the local Superior Court Judge?
Or was it the hamsters hairdresser’s case, we like the full truth, the $5.5 million dollar model with the Superior Court Judge from Skagit?
Skagit Transit, the bus you take to reality, after you’ve filled up your hamster cage?
11. You may not board the bus at Skagit Station if the driver is not present.
12. If you fail to follow these rules, or any instructions from Skagit Transit personnel, you may be denied the privilege of using Skagit Transit property and buses.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:06 AM
Liberty on a stinky tirade. Karlburg still rabidly chasing buses nipping at their tires. That I get, but Dave playing reasonableman? That’s a stretch. All we lack from the Holy Trinity of Naysayers Plus one, is a flea bitten mutt yelpin in pigeon doglish.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:27 AM
This vote in my opinion was a no confidence vote by the shareholders (taxpayers) of how the Board of Directors of the WTA are running things. Personally if I was on this board I would consider doing one of two things, change my ways or resign.
Oh, we can talk about how close the election was, but make sure you mentioned that the special interest (those who reap the harvest of the million upon millions spent by the WTA every year) financed their campaign with their profits from their reaping which led to a 400% advantage over their opposition in this election.
There is some good news everyone should agree on, at least in this vote, money didn’t buy an election.
So I hope those of you on the board who decide to stay follow the lead of the majority of the tax payers in this election by not being a lap dog to the special interests but instead you become a lead dog in making decisions that are truly beneficial for our mass transit system and not just mainly for the benefit of those special interests who really were the ones rejected by the voters!
Your actions will surely tell us all who you mainly listen to, the majority of the voters or the special interests!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 29th, 2010 at 8:39 AM
So the mutt would parlay a narrow defeat (nearly 40% also voted in favor of the tax)into a call for resignations? Typical delusions of grandeur.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:45 AM
That should have been nearly 50%. Aargh
April 29th, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Seems unfair to so misrepresent poor AFY’s message. (especially as he actually adopted the native tongue in this instance!) It was “change your ways or resign.”
With all respect to Stan and the others struggling to maintain this public service, one which is not likely to be sustained by simple market based approaches, the assertion that the public management of this utility has led to excessive costs seems to have trumped the more generously funded message of the proponents of increasing taxes.
Changing their ways would seem to mean either reducing the costs, or overcoming the perception that the costs are excessive.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:10 AM
WTA did trim their budgets. I believe by millions of dollars, prior to then offering up a cuts plan, which the board rejected so they could first seek the thoughts of voters by asking if they’d be willing to increase their portion of the sales tax.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:20 AM
My dear GHK, we do agree!
If all the board says only to us voters, service will be cut, that would appear to be a message of vengeance to those who opposed them.
However if this board was to say, everything is on the table, how we spend, where we spend, open new negotiation with the union (there should not be any more cola’s, steps, etc, so as to reduce service cuts, and the union share of benefits should be in line with the private sector so as to reduce service cuts, IMHO) service could be cut but only after a pubic review of our service and EVERYTHING else!
As I was working out this morning, a fellow worker outer, who felt the failure of the WTA vote was correct, explained how recently he was at a medical center, where there were three senior citizens waiting for their bus pick up, he watched as three different buses (the small buses) came and picked up the three, taking them to their locations, heck as far as he knew they could have been going to the same locations, something is not right here, methinks, it’s like we are running a taxi service. It sure would be nice if those on the board would be saying there are things not being done the best at WTA and we are going to find out why and fix it! Instead what we hear from this board, we can’t do anything different due to union rules or this or that, our hands are tied, so the only choice we have is to cut service!
I believe they do have choices if they have the guts to even investigate them and not just roll over to the special interest.
Also if the board did overcome the perception that the costs are excessive they might be able to win in another vote.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 29th, 2010 at 9:21 AM
The Ultimato, delusional grandeur at it’s finest.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:24 AM
Understand, Sam. Was simply opining that the “perception” remained that cost management was inadequate. The huge difficulty in operating within so direct democracy is the voters’ level of understanding.
That is why so much time, effort and money goes into creating perceptions.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:24 AM
AFY - part of what you’re saying seems to be a lack of understanding about what occurred in the first place.
The board was already considering cuts prior to going to voters. They’d already slashed some millions out of their budget due to the recession, and the staff was bringing back a budget proposal for more cuts. The cuts were large, though, and that concerned the board, so they decided to ask voters if they’d approve a tax increase.
Cuts were always on the table. Cuts were on the table before a tax increase was considered.
The cuts weren’t simply a threat to convince voters for the tax, they were literally already being considered, and the board said to the public “Hey, we’re probably going to have to make cuts, would you be willing to provide more funding?”
The public just said by a slim margin that they aren’t willing to increase the funding at this time, and so now the cuts proposal — the proposal that was literally already out there — is back on the table for the board to consider.
And they want public comment in the future on that proposal.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:42 AM
ST, maybe what that slim margin of voters, after having 60k thrown at them by the special interests, are saying is the cuts were not enough or even in the right places, maybe that is my (mis)understanding!
Or maybe what that slim margin of voters after having 60k thrown at them by the special interest are saying is that this board is doing a great job and that is my (mis)understanding!
What I’s do understand is even after having the special interest bankrolled their campaign (or maybe I was (mis)understanding that this was a campaign that this board didn’t get in bed with the special interest) a slim majority of voters ain’t buying what they were selling!
Heck I don’t have no problem to admitting to being wrong but the real question is; does this board? The answer will be found in their actions, methinks!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!
April 29th, 2010 at 9:49 AM
AFY - can you tell me what the cuts proposal was and in what ways the cuts weren’t in the right places?
April 29th, 2010 at 10:14 AM
ST, as you must know, my criticism has been one of the wages/benefit ratio of the WTA employee versus the private wage earner average that pays the taxes.
Like for example the benefit package where if you work for the WTA and insure your family your share of costs are substantially below those in the private sector. In today’s private sector we are not seeing steps or cola’s, we are seeing cuts. Oh, you can say that scam that was create to make everyone believe that the union wasn’t taking any raises for a year as if (but still taking steps or colas?), as if, if they got this multiyear tax increase didn’t mean the union wasn’t ever going to take another wage increase, maybe even the following year, yeah right.
But let’s just get right down to the red meat of it all, the board who had their face all over this campaign allowed the special interest who would benefit the most from this campaign to increase taxes, bankroll them, makes you wonder, what side of the bed the board gets up on everyday, don’t it? Now please don’t tell me, many of the board wasn’t even in that bed!
But it is a new day, I’s say forgive and forget, for the benefit of that small majority who was not convinced by the special interest bankroll, why don’t the board on this day try getting up on the other side of the bed or better yet maybe even think about making their bed somewhere else, and tell the special interest that they will be more independent in their decision making & actions in the future.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 29th, 2010 at 10:27 AM
delusional graunder Shaun?
Fly like an Eagle, or Holy Trinity Pigeon Dung?
Just be part-time, and you too can get the employee assistance program?
http://www.skat.org/
Skagit Transit offers a benefits package for all employees regularly scheduled to work at least 20 hours per week, including medical, dental, vision, life and disability insurance, 401(a) and 457 qualified deferred contribution plans, employee assistance program, Flexible Spending 125 Plan and an employee bus pass.
Shown best in Athens Greece, the public employee riots, where the free ride is now over!
April 29th, 2010 at 10:28 AM
There were ten in a bed and the little one said,
“Roll over, roll over.”
So they all rolled over and one fell out.
There were nine in the bed and the little one said,
“Roll over, roll over.”
So they all rolled over and one fell out…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
There was one in the bed and the little one said,
“Good night!”
Maybe it is time for the board to say goodnight to special interests!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 30th, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Stan, I understand your frustration, and your need to kick a Doug today. You Snapped.
I am sure you are disappointed, and you are now faced with the task of cutting the budget at WTA. I honestly feel for your struggle, and respect your positions. I disagree with them, but do so respectfully.
The taxpayer has and continues to support WTA as we speak. I never saw one word from WTA thanking the community for this ongoing support. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am correct that in this debate over raising taxes that WTA never publicly thanked the taxing public for their years of support, then you know this is flat wrong.
The inability to say “Thank You” is sign of arrogance and entitlement creeping into WTA. The taxpayer right this minute continues to subsidize 90% of each bus fare.
You would think that WTA could choke out one “Thank You”.
You are correct that bus riders are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are bus riders. You seem to have missed the significance of this distinction.
You have publicly accused me of using half-truths, innuendo, insinuations, and throwing our empty, undefended blog comments. Those are strong accusations and I am not going to leave them undefended.
First, you give not a single example of a half-truth that I have told. In fact from your laundry list of accusations, you provided not a single example to back up your claims.
By precise definition, your claims are baseless. I always suspect those that debate by throwing out a laundry list of accusations, without any specifics. Get specific, and rest assured that I will respond with facts, as Stan contrary to your opinion of me, I do my homework, pick my words carefully, and never intentionally misrepresent the facts.
Specifics to back up your accusations, would be a fair debate, and I am up for it.
Are you?
In my opinion, the truth is far simpler. You simply do not like my positions, and frankly you don’t like many of the facts.
Bus drivers are over paid, when compared to their private counter-parts locally. I know this because I researched it very carefully. Have you ever researched this? If so detail to us what sources did you use for your research. Did you actually contact local private bus companies and ask them what their bus driver compensation packages are?
I contacted WTA’s and they confirmed that WTA has never surveyed the compensation packages for private bus drivers.
I know WTA has never researched private bus driver compensation, and I doubt that you have either? Talk about baseless accusation. At least I did the research.
In my opinion, WTA and yourself doesn’t want to know how much they are over paying the union, versus private bus drivers.
My research shows that average private bus driver compensation are approximately $16 an hour for wages and another $5 an hour in benefits, for a total cost of $21 an hour. WTA in comparison pays most bus driver $24 and hour and another $11 in benefits for a total of $35 an hour in compensation costs. Here is the math ((35-21)/21)= 66% higher compensation for WTA bus drivers than they would make if they had to get a job from a private company.
One state database, one Federal database, phone calls to two private local bus companies, and a phone call to the school district. It really did not take long. Why don’t you try it and report back to us.
Be honest Stan, have you even made any attempt to ascertain what private bus drivers make locally at all?
I never even quoted the 66% over payment, but used the lower number of 50%, just to be safe.
As a WTA Board member you have a 100% obligation of loyalty and due care to the taxpayer. Not to the union or the riders. You sound more like a union rep, that a WTA Board member protecting the taxpayer.
You appear to be defending the union, before the taxpayer. If you think that it is absolutely fair to the taxpayer, who you are obligated to protect, that WTA bus drivers be paid 50% more than the same bus driver in the private sector, then step up to the microphone and say that you support paying them 50% more, but there is no excuse for not researching the disparity at all, and then attacking those that have done their research.
It used to be there was a trade off with public service paying lower wages, and far batter benefits. Today WTA bus drivers have better benefits and better wages, the historical bargain has been broken.
The job security and benefit packages available to public workers is virtually unavailable to private workers, and it is very, very expensive. We have major cities and municipalities that have gone bankrupt over these benefit packages. Virtually all economists are warning about this financial time bomb. Bellingham has struggled with the previous firefighter retirement packages, and we now have a surcharge on our property taxes just to pay for promises made long ago, but not paid for. The truth is that today, we know that many of public benefit packages were worth significantly more money than was recognized at the time. Stan because of this simple fact, I am not so sure that in pre-historic times, public employees were really significantly under-paid. I think you just have a bias that way, and the facts are not going to get in the way of your bias.
Stan you have a propensity to defend public unions, which is understandable considering your career in public service, but please try to remember that there is a big difference in obligations between being a firefighter, and being a WTA Board member. Your obligation is to the taxpayer, and not the union.
I am not anti-public employees, nor anti-union, but I do believe there has to be a balance between what a private bus driver makes and a public bus driver makes, or it will produce resentment in the greater taxpaying community.
We do not have the luxury of doing things that are inefficient, and paying $35 per ride on ParaTrasit, is inefficient. Why don’t you fix this?
WTA flushed a quarter of a million precious dollars down the toilet. You should have done a better job of polling the public, to ascertain the chances of this ballot measure. Use the Internet if you have to, but you would not have gambled your own pension on this ballot measure, and I don’t know why it is different, if it is the public’s money.
The taxpayer is the Golden Goose, and WTA is making the Goose angry, and now you have wasted $250,000 of the Gooses hard earned money. Time to stop making excuses and buck up and fix some of these problems, and regain public support, because you clearly do not have overwhelming support for the way WTA has been managed.
That is a simple fact.
The WTA Board is imbalanced with all government employees. It is understandable that they should avoid doing the hard things like telling folks no to pay raises, but it has to be done. Wasting $250,000 of the taxpayers hard earned money is no excuse for avoiding the hard decisions.
The WTA Board needs experience from the private industry on it. Fix this.
While WTA should get credit for cutting its budget 10%, characterizing these cuts as “drastic” is an over statement. Wake up and look around you. Americans are hurting and as too many households know, 10% cut is not drastic, compared to some of the cuts they are making.
By the way, I can recite the WTA budget backwards and forwards, and I did not get this knowledge from attending WTA Board meetings.
There are other ways of becoming knowledgeable, than attending meetings. My guess is that the bankers which WTA uses, also do not attend WTA meetings, and I’ll bet they understand WTA’s business well, and you do not berate then for not attending your meetings.
Fix these management issues, and I am sure that the residents of Whatcom County will support generously WTA, ad they have been. Mismanage their monies, and you will lose their support.
Government workers unions, or unions which benefit from government largesse, should not be able to give campaign contributions to those who will have influence on their wages at the bargaining table. If you cannot see the potential for abuse of the taxpayer from this glaring conflict of interest, then you have blinders on.
Go ahead and ask the public their opinion of government unions contributions to the very government officials which are tasked with protecting the taxpayers wallets. I think even you know in your gut, that you will be bucking public opinion on this issue.
It is time that you listened carefully to the critics, when they make valid points. Get defensive and stubborn, and you will waste another $250,000 of the taxpayers monies again, while deluding yourself that all is well and we don’t have to get our house in order as,
… WTA can just do the easy thing and hit up the taxpayer.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:22 AM
I think WTA should install little reproductions of that crying baby Dougie icon, Mr. K. uses, on all buses; so that it appears to be always barking at the mud flaps.
It reminded me of the little peeing brat icon on a bumper sticker, that I saw recently at a store in Seattle, that was depicted whizzing on a Tea Bag.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Doug,
What a great post!
I’m sure the “conflict of interest” crowd will be along shortly to offer support for your observations about union political contributions to persons with whom they negotiate contracts for pay and benefits.
Isn’t there also at least the appearance of conflict of interest if a present or former union member sits on the WTA or other board?
April 30th, 2010 at 9:54 AM
“It reminded me of the little peeing brat icon on a bumper sticker, that I saw recently at a store in Seattle, that was depicted whizzing on a Tea Bag.”
ROTFLMFAO!!! Hey, Shaun I gotta get one of those! Do you have any idea where to buy them?
April 30th, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Isn’t it interesting how some people who called people hateful but then on the other hand they support having hateful bumper stickers; obviously those who are truly the ones full of hate seem to be the ones that are really blinded by their own hate!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 30th, 2010 at 10:57 AM
It’s not hate AFY, it’s another H word. Humor.
Humor derived of a certain predictability. Humor at the little bawling baby icon. Humor devoid of hate.
I think the bumper sticker was at or near the Left Bank.
But to you AFY, and to Mr. Karlburg, I salute you sirs, for your tenacity and your focus, allowing the county to save itself from further encouraging or promoting mass transit– that miasmic sewer of corruption, misplaced priorities, dread “workers of the world unite” socialism, and, of course public employee greed and gluttony uber alles that we dare not encourage with another couple of cents on the dollar.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:09 AM
AFY,
Hypocrites, eventually reveal themselves.
When your debate opponents have to resort to childish name calling,
then everyone else knows they have lost the debate.
This debate is over.
It ended at the ballot box.
WTA should spend their time fixing these legitimate problems,
and I will be the first to support WTA.
WTA tried to demand public support,
Instead of earning it.
When the WTA Board failed to address legitimate issues,
the public was forced to.
This is a “no confidence” vote on the Board.
Time for some fresh blood.
April 30th, 2010 at 1:29 PM
You’re right Doug, it is over. You won. But you’re still going for the kill and that is what is becoming trite.
AFY and Doug, As for name calling, the Doug meister has commented on every letter to the editor, article, blog and gas passing regarding the WTA tax, (many comments accompanied by the little icon, that I really like actually,) and so my humor regarding the almost singular focus is apt humor. So lighten up and make some clever jokes at my expense, I could even start you out with a few.
April 30th, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I leave you guys alone for one day and look at the trouble you get into.
Now play nice and be civil. Uncle Samuel’s watching you! F
May 1st, 2010 at 3:54 PM
During this entire debate, many conservatives have argued that our transit drivers are paid too much, compared to drivers in the private sector, and others have even suggested that the WTA should be privatized. So, I thought I would do a little more research, when I came across transit-guru Jonathan Richmond’s website (linked below).
Jonathan Richmond is one of the few academics to have studied transit privatization nationally, by comparing transit service across seven U.S. cities. The results of Richmond’s study are published in his 2001 book, “The Private Provision of Public Transport,” which he researched as a fellow at the A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In his book and articles (linked below), Richmond derides the increasingly polarized and toxic political climate that has emerged in many of our cities since the Reagan–Bush era, beginning in the early 1980s, arguing that “a retreat from the senseless ideological warfare over ‘public versus private’ or ‘pro-labor versus anti-labor’ would allow the real management issues obscured by such discourse to be addressed.”
Richmond also contends that, “when ideology, rather than economics, determines the model by which public transit services are supplied, it is the passenger, as well as the public purse, who loses out.”
In short, Richmond argues that neither public transit systems nor privatization (either fully or partially) offer a magic formula for maximizing services, while minimizing costs. The trick, he claims, is to simply manage a transit system effectively and responsibly, regardless of whether it is public or private.
As for cutting costs, Richmond (2001) details what happened to transit systems that were rather forcefully subject to Reaganism, the ideology according to which “the private sector and free market invariably did things better than the public sector” (p. 153). Richmond finds that, while privatization did indeed reduce costs, privatization also has a dark side, and many of the effects were negative.
For example, he reports that Colorado Republicans wanted to reduce labor costs and mandated privatization of 35% of Denver’s transit services. However, Richmond notes that “incoming private operators found it hard to recruit staff at low wages and even more of a battle to retain them. In the most notorious case, an out-of-town firm, TCT Services, offered a starting hourly rate of $6.50 in advertisements that stated ‘no experience necessary.’” The result? TCT had to leave town, because of widespread customer outrage. In short, low wages caused turnover to skyrocket and workforce instability led to constant service interruptions and cancellations.
Furthermore, Richmond notes that, in San Diego, wages were driven so low that transit drivers were simultaneously forced onto welfare rolls. And, in Los Angeles, “the privatized Foothill Transit was pushed into existence through the efforts of a local conservative politician” (p. 158), also with the intent of cutting costs by slashing wages. However, this merely “cemented union concerns that privatization spells the end to one of the few remaining opportunities for blue-collar workers to earn themselves a decent living.” Moreover, many such cost-cutting measures across the nation led to a rash of ideologically-fueled political battles with a host of untoward consequences and negative repercussions.
Instead of coming down on one side or another of the political divide, Richmond says we should pay attention to two themes. The first is that, “nationally, it is critical to review the practical problems, as well as the ethics, of achieving cost reductions through the institution of poverty wages or substandard benefits. High labor turnover and discontent have resulted from such endeavors, producing work environments that are neither desirable nor sustainable.”
Indeed, Richmond points out that, under a system of competitive bidding, many private transit operators actually want government to impose minimum wage and benefit standards or “responsible wage policies.” Otherwise, private operators are forced to pay wages that are too low for them to attract and maintain a stable workforce.
As for the second theme, Richmond says we should be open to adopting the best that both public and private transit systems have to offer. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, and ideology shouldn’t stand in the way of making wise decisions that will benefit the public and make our cities better.
I couldn’t agree more.
Here is the link to Richmond’s website:
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/professional.html
Here’s the link where you can read the conclusion of his book (quoted above):
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/privweb.pdf
And, here is a link to one of Richmond’s articles appearing in the Los Angeles Times (also quoted above):
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/lat012101.pdf
May 1st, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Incidentally, in case anyone is interested, here’s the link to the Amazon.com webpage for Richmond’s book, which contains several reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Private-Provision-Public-Transport/dp/0970902204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272735528&sr=1-1
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Todd, that is some nice research.
I have provided a link below to more current information about privatization of bus systems.
I was astonished to learn that the national average subsidy by taxpayers of transit systems is 60%,
While WTA is currently at a 90% taxpayer subsidy.
What a dramatic difference from the national average!!
Mr Richmond does appear to be impartial, but one has to be careful which quotes of his to use.
He comes down hard on unions and their efficiency.
The simple truth is that there are some private systems that had growing pains, and there are some private systems that have provided much needed cost savings.
Much of what Mr. Richmond has reported is true, but since that time the real time experience has come to fruition. Much of what he says is dated, and some is speculation.
The real world is providing many successes, which did not exist as of his writing and research, much of which is over a decade old.
Today we know that successful privatizations of mass transit are saving the taxpayers on average 20%.
It is really hard to argue with privatizations, and their savings that have come from Las Vegas, Stockholm, Copenhagen, and London.
Much privatization has occurred since Mr. Richmond writes, and many of the successes have come to be obvious, after he writes.
London experienced a 51% decrease in costs, which allowed them to expand service.
Link: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/02/25/pro25.ART_ART_02-25-08_A7_I19E43K.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 PM
This is a bit of a diversion, but since transit is the darling of the anti-automobile planning fraternity, and since subsidies to WTA have been a subject of discussion here, I offer this quote from the Anti-Planner, in a discussion of “America 2050:”
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3037#more-3037
“In 1970, the big urban problem was air pollution, and most planners believed the solution was to get people out of their cars and onto transit. So you probably wouldn’t have predicted that the air pollution problem would be largely solved by improved auto technologies, nor that hundreds of billions of dollars in public subsidies to transit (italics mine) would do anything but slow the decline in per capita transit ridership from about 50 trips per urban resident in 1970 to 44 today.”
Perhaps there is a lesson here for apologists for increases in subsidies to WTA.
Doug is right again, of course.
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:21 AM
A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.
Collier said he hopes the study serves as a wake-up call to Americans. In conjunction with its release, the APTA is kicking off a campaign to promote mass transit with the slogan, “Take The Bus… I’ll Be Glad You Did.”
The campaign is intended to de-emphasize the inconvenience and social stigma associated with using public transportation, focusing instead on the positives. Among these positives: the health benefits of getting fresh air while waiting at the bus stop, the chance to meet interesting people from a diverse array of low-paying service-sector jobs, and the opportunity to learn new languages by reading subway ads written in Spanish.
“People need to realize that public transportation isn’t just for some poor sucker to take to work,” Collier said. “He should also be taking it to the shopping mall, the supermarket, and the laundromat.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Since Reagan, ideologically misguided Republicans have done all they could to bust unions, drive down wages, destroy pensions, reduce benefits, and roll-back the hard-won gains of organized labor. Singing the praises of corporate interests, while deriding government as inherently evil, conservatives unleashed the ravenous “animal spirits of capitalism,” which have done an unimaginably effective job of extracting wealth from the pockets of average Americans, while shipping many of our best jobs overseas. Since the Reagan-Bush era, special interests have mostly gotten their way, swarming Capitol Hill every day for a free lunch on taxpayers’ dime, while the beneficial functions of government have been crippled.
To sight an egregious example, powerful interests sought deregulation of the financial industry and Americans got predatory subprime mortgages, teaser rates on credit cards that charge up to 30% interest, pay day lenders that charge over 300% APRs, exorbitant bank fees, and the biggest bank bailout in history. Under the latest Bush administration, conservatives even tried to privatize Social Security, which would have handed large chunks of our retirement money over to the investment bankers on Wall Street!
Under Reagan, and then Bush, right-wing conservatives also rigged our tax laws to benefit the super-rich and shift the tax burden onto the middle class. They gave tens of billions in subsidies to huge oil corporations, sold our natural resources for a song, and eased environmental regulations to such an extent that coal companies are actually free to blast the tops off mountains in Appalachia, while dumping the tailings in creeks. To cite just a few examples, many of our mines are unsafe, the FDA is unable to ensure the safety of our food supply, and pharmaceutical companies finance most of the studies promoting their drugs. Indeed, the list of corporate abuses allowed or encouraged by conservatives in government is nearly endless.
The Reagan administration also repealed the Fairness Doctrine, weakened the Equal Time Rule, and started the trend toward deregulating telecommunications. Today, instead of serving the public good, our mass media has been thoroughly co-opted by the super-rich to serve corporate interests. It’s little wonder that most Americans now distrust mass media.
Corporations and the super-rich in the top one-tenth-of-one-percent funded the conservative think tanks, sponsored the right-wing political action committees, supported a host of Astroturf groups, hired the public relations firms, paid for the advertising, and donated the bulk of the money needed to elect Republican candidates. Today, the conservatives even have their own ideologically inspired cable news network, radio stations, newspapers, and internet sites, which amount to a travesty of broadcasting in the public interest and which fly in the face of ethical journalism.
The resulting wave of conservatism has spawned a host of misguided policies that have been predictably disastrous for Middle America. Wages for the bottom 80% have remained stagnant for more than a generation, while corporate profits have repeatedly set records, and the ratio of executive compensation to average salaries has gone through the stratosphere. Many Americans are now saying they won’t be able to afford retirement, and for the first time since the Great Depression, many also believe their children will be worse off than themselves.
Meanwhile, the oligopolies at the top of the Forbes list of the richest and most powerful corporations have become even larger and more entrenched. For example, the top financial institutions in America have grown “too large to fail.” Indeed, the six largest banks now have assets equal to nearly two-thirds of our entire gross domestic product, and just four banks issue half of all the credit cards in America. During the past year, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, lost their homes to predatory lenders, and lost their dignity, while the big banks are rolling in dough and dishing out exorbitant bonuses and outrageous executive compensation packages.
Let’s not forget how disastrous Republican control over the branches of our government from 2001 until 2007 has been. Across the board, regulatory agencies were either decimated or captured by those they were designed to regulate, so that they were left completely incapable of doing their job. The latest example to come to light is the SEC, which under Bush only had 24 regulators to oversee all of Wall Street, but who were instead watching porn on their government computers. Perhaps, the sorriest example is that of FEMA, which had been so thoroughly defunded by the Bush Administration that it was completely incapable of responding to Katrina in a timely fashion. And, who could forget the spectacle of industry representatives partying it up with scantily clad members of the Interior Department?
The immense damage to the nation wrought by the mantras of conservatism is incalculable and nearly impossible to fully elaborate. Conservative ideology has served the corporate elite by crushing unions, holding down wages, and reducing benefits. In major cities all across the nation, conservatives have turned the Middle Class into the working poor, while the gap between the rich and poor has ever widened. The misguided conservative ideology originally popularized by Ronald Reagan was a sham that pulled the wool over the eyes of an entire nation. Citizens have grown distrustful of government, jaded, and cynical.
Yet, The conservative ideology lives on in the minds of true believers all across the nation, for once segments of the population have been propagandized, and their minds so thoroughly infected, faulty ideas become so entrenched that they are nearly impossible to dislodge: Big government is evil; Organized labor must be destroyed! Don’t tax the rich, because they give us our jobs and their wealth will trickle down. All hail the corporation! The free market can do no wrong! If only you work hard enough, you too can be rich!
And so, here at the local level, in little ol’ Bellingham, we hear conservatives touting the Republican party line and berating the WTA for caving into the unions, overpaying bus drivers, and mismanaging the agency’s finances. They are merely touting the same old, tired party line that caused a race to the bottom and resulted in starvation wages for bus drivers all across the nation. Well, I am not buying it. I don’t want to ride on crappy old buses or jitneys operated by poorly trained drivers who are so poorly paid that they have to live on food stamps, as has happened elsewhere.
The truth is that publicly run and subsidized transit systems are often very well managed and do an excellent job of serving the public interest. Like many in Bellingham, I am proud of our outstanding transit service, which like our Fire Department, is a shining example of the good government can do. For some time now, I have watched many of the officials running our WTA, and I am repeatedly assured that the agency is being very well-managed under the most difficult of times. The current recession has dramatically reduced revenues for all levels of government, and I am extremely grateful we have such capable leaders who are willing to work in the public interest, especially given such a toxic ideological environment in which to serve.
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Methinks if a majority of voters were of Todd’s mind the special interest won’t have needed 60k to unsuccessfully convince em!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Wow, Todd you appear to be pretty upset.
Let me point out a couple of things for you to mull over that I believe are factually correct.
Since 1990 financial firms and their families have given $638 billion in campaign contributions to candidates for federal elections. This is a stunning number. Almost a trillion dollars.
52% has been given to Republicans, and 48% to Democrats. It looks to me like both parties were bought off to look the other way while the financial firms had their way with us. Since the Democrats got control of Congress the campaign cash has overwhelmingly flowed to Democrats.
In my book if you take the dough, you integrity is suspect. Obama took $1 million from Goldman alone.
What do you think Goldman expects for the $1 million dollars??
It’s not just the Republicans. The Dems like to sell their story that way, but it is really like watching a magician, distracting you from what the “other” hand is doing.
Second, Reagan did bust the aircraft controllers union, but for a very principled reason. Aircraft controllers agreed as a term of employment to not strike. Binding arbitration was used to set wages.
The union decided to go on strike, and shut down the whole nation as a hostage.
Reagan warned them that striking was against the law, and if they went on strike, he would fire and replace them. The union decided to go on strike anyway. Reagan fired them and replaced them. The union made an incredibly bad gamble. Unions are not perfect, look at how the leadership in the Teamsters unions gave away the pensions of so many hard working truck drivers to the Mafia.
Now I cannot think of any other union that was mistreated by Reagan. In fact he was the President of the Actors union, and a highly respected one at that.
Reagan was good negotiator.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I’m not upset. I’m frustrated.
I have always said the elite are playing both ends of the political spectrum against the middle to serve their interests at the peoples’ expense. But, let’s not forget that, historically, the Democratic Party has more often sought to represent the interests of working and Middle class people, whereas Republicans have consistently advanced causes more beneficial to the corporate elite, industrialists, manufacturers, and big bankers. To a somewhat lesser extent, perhaps, the same still holds true today.
Last month, conservative voters turned out in droves, primarily in places like Lynden, to defeat a very modest tax increase that would have helped WTA through these tough times. Unfortunately, those who are still deluded by the fallacious mythology of Reaganism have succeeded once again, in reducing, by another notch, the good that government can do for the people.
Mencken noted that “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,” and P.T. Barnum said “a sucker is born every minute.” Unfortunately, they are proven correct by all those who have yet to abandon the destructive and now thoroughly discredited ideology of conservatism.
Franklin said we have a Republic, but only if we can keep it. He knew that true power lies in the hands of the people. Franklin also said it is the primary responsibility of the people under a democracy to hold fast the reins of their government to be sure it continually heads in the direction of a democracy. But, now that millions of Republican and independent voters have been duped into believing the conservative charade, our democracy has become a sham, and I fear we are on the verge of losing the Republic to the special interests who own our media, finance both political parties, and dictate policy in Washington.
The Euro-American elite have long used the power of governments, as well as armies, to forcibly exploit and impoverish peoples throughout the so-called third world, and now, it appears they are turning their sites within our own borders.
The following video, entitled “US Airways Pilot Capt. ‘Sully’ Sullenberger Speaks to Congress: ‘My Pay Has Been Cut by 40%’” speaks volumes about the plight of labor under an onslaught of conservative ideology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kePiiZ8_YA
Unfortunately, airline pilots aren’t the only workers to have had their wages squeezed, but their situation has become so dire that even Michael Moore addressed low pay in the airline industry and union busting in his latest film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQJx3L_CDQ
These videos show the ugly legacy of conservatism in America, and we must do everything in our power to curtail and reverse its nefarious influence in local politics.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:06 PM
Reagan and the corporate power elite in Lynden caused the WTA tax increase to fail, when WTA has one of the highest subsidy rates in the nation?
I would think that with one of the highest subsidy rates in the nation, you would be satisfied that your eglelitarian goals were being met.
I don’t know about fixing the whole world, but it does look like with the 90% subsidy, that the tax paying public is being more generous with WTA, than the vast majority of transit systems in the country.
WTA has never said thank you, and I doubt that you will be satisfied until we bring back the Worker’s Party.
You would probably the last person that I could convince, but there are many workers who are happy without unions.
Nucor Steel is just one of these giant corporations, that has happy and well paid workers, without a union.
Oh Well, I tried. Your writing reminds me of Karl Marx. I am not calling you a communist, but seriously there is a similarity.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Todd, you are so correct in appraising the macro geo-political drft. This ranting about union bus driver compensation is a microcosmic example to underscore your point.
Doug is paradigmatic. At once he proves what you (and Mencken) understand.
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:31 PM
Todd2,
I think that this might be a good time to repeat my opinion that you’ll never win a political debate by suggesting that those with whom you disagree are ignorant, stupid, and possessed of low motive.
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:41 PM
“…After describing government accurately as a “great pox of civilization,” Mencken observed that “The fact that it [government] is generally respected – that it possesses effective machinery for propagating and safeguarding that respect – is the main shield of the rogues and vagabonds who use it to exploit the great masses of diligent and credulous men.”*
Don Boudreaux, in Cafe Hayek.
I think that comment applies to all levels of government, but is especially applicable to the Federal government today.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Government is not the problem. The problem for the people is, rather, they no longer have one.
May 4th, 2010 at 8:01 AM
GHK, you might find this interesting, methinks,
There are many ways for countries to blunder their way into big economic trouble: Kleptocracy, capital flight, or a commodity-price crash can all spark a panic or collapse…..
Most countries rescued by the IMF are marked by tight links between the business elite and the political elite. They are oligarchies. Johnson defines oligarchy as a system whereby economic power can be translated into political power (and vice versa). When you try to fix a country dominated by an oligarchy, you immediately hit a frustrating paradox: Rescue plans make the oligarchy more powerful. An IMF loan is a lifeline. Somebody has to decide which banks and industries get to use it, and which ones are set adrift. In this process, the cement company owned by the finance minister’s cousin does better than the cement company run by some schmuck in the hinterland. And it is not just that politically favored companies get the original infusion of IMF cash. Private investors can see what is going on and realize that it is “best to invest in the firms with the most political power (and hence the most assurance of being bailed out in a crisis).” So if the politically connected rich don’t pay, who does? “Most emerging-market governments,” according to Johnson, “look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/american-oligarchy
But poor Todd is so blinded by his hate for republicans he can’t see the truth cause both parties are guilty as sin, from the previous:
We can formulate a guess by looking at the 20 ZIP codes that pour the most money into the political system. (See the chart on page 23.) This list coincides fairly well with any list of the 20 richest neighborhoods in the United States. All but one of those 20 neighborhoods give the majority of their money to Democrats. (The exception is McLean, Virginia, which gives 48 percent to Democrats.) Most of them give the overwhelming majority of their money to Democrats. For example, none of the 7 Manhattan neighborhoods listed—where we can assume Johnson’s oligarchs live—gives less than 71 percent of its money to Democrats.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 4th, 2010 at 8:14 AM
Let’s not forget the guiltless public employee’s unioins!
Want an example of what union muscle and big deficits can do? Greece.
America is awash in deficit spending. President Obama and his allies in Congress are flooding the economy with funny money, but the average American isn’t seeing a dime.
But in the midst of our jobless misery, one group of workers is truly getting “stimulated.”
Federal employees are also earning higher wages and benefits than private sector workers do. The average federal worker now earns $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector, according to an analysis by USA Today. “Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months,” the paper reports — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
While the rest of the economy is reeling, government just keeps expanding. Why?
In the private sector, unions’ power is constrained by market factors. Competitive pressures limit how many people a company can hire, and the wages and benefits it can offer. If unions make unrealistic demands, their employers simply won’t survive.
But government, unlike business, isn’t constrained by market pressures
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/84264862.html?page=2&c=y
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 4th, 2010 at 8:17 AM
But the states with the highest per-capita debt all have something in common: Robust public-sector unions that have, over the years, cut sweetheart deals with politicians — usually, but not always, Democrats
Do public sector unions really protect workers from exploitation, or do they merely bankrupt the treasuries of states nationwide? And more immediately, will the states that made poor fiscal choices get a second bailout from the federal taxpayer after the 2009 stimulus package
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Public-sector-unions-and-state-debt-go-hand-in-hand-89852362.html#ixzz0myYvqW00
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 4th, 2010 at 8:21 AM
This country would be so much better off if FDR had managed to have his way and forbid government workers to unionize. Government employee unions are a pestilence, a plague. They’re worst than the baddest locust swarm you’ve ever imagined …though not nearly as smart and hard working. Oh … and government employee unions eat taxpayer money instead of crops.
Government union members know that the government is not going to go out of business. The same cannot be said for unionized workers at private companies. The government unions, then, can push their demands to the absolute limit knowing that their employer will simply have to pay up eventually. The union mentality is that all the employer - the government - has to do is just simply raise taxes to cover the cost of their new contract and expensive health and pension plans.
….so their solution is either renegotiate contracts - which isn’t all that popular an option for politicians who want to be re-elected with the union seal of approval - or you raise taxes. You know where the story goes from there …
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/04/unions-and-states.html
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 4th, 2010 at 8:27 AM
And that is why the WTA will cut service before renegotiating their union contracts, most of those on the board want that union seal of approval for their next election!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 4th, 2010 at 9:54 AM
I Think GK just called me a name, but I cannot figure out if it is a good name, or a bad name.
GK finally left me in his intellectual dust.
May 4th, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Dave,
Witness these paragons of intellectual distinction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1qdNhqiUzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
May 4th, 2010 at 8:02 PM
Todd2,
Apparently you look down on them too, and I’m not surprised. Whatever their shortcomings, I agree with them more than I do with you.