JayB

Which, for a record, I don't agree that that is the root cause of the problem. So the problem was caused by the economy shitting itself and staying that way due to deregulation, tax-holidays, offshoring, wage stagnation, and excessive credit, etc. BUT the problem is not going to get solved by looking into any of that shit, it's going to get solved by cutting the wages of bus drivers. OKEY-DOKEY! I think it much more likely that bus-drivers holding out for wages that lead to dramatic service cuts will reverse the tides of history. I'm surprised to hear this kind of happy-talk coming from a dialectical materialist. The specific problem is that the economic output at the state and local economy are no longer sufficient to pay for the total cost of the public sector as its currently configured, without raising taxes. Once you tether yourself back to earth and stop drifting around the heavens of Rootcauseland, a coherent response to a budget shortfall at the state and local level (from someone of your persuasion) would be to argue for tax increases. Or you can pretend that contemplating the plight of a $70K a year bus driver taking a 5% pay cut is going to inspire Chinese migrant workers to stop being so danged competitive or, better yet - even 5% of the registered democrats in the Seattle metro area to buy a GM, Chrysler, or Ford vehicle. Et....cetera.

If you could supply a coherent argument, And don't rewrite history, you first refused to answer my argument, until you finally conceded that the King COunty deals has essentially no impact on the budget shortfall and then you made up some weird stuff about fiscal responsibility. King of the moving goalpost. "Yeah but those budget concessions will have no impact on plate tectonics, so...."

Rippie?

If you could supply a coherent argument, I'll listen. When the dialog slips into the typical vocabulary of demagogurey, jack-booted thugs, knuckle-draggers, and facists, well then that's not an argument. You're just a post away from achieving Regressive status.

Here here, comrade. Public sector efficiency is the last refuge of the so-called liberal....

When the liberal end of the spectrum starts asking for more fiscal responsibility the pols better start paying attention. Yup. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-20-2010/working-stiffed

Hear bleeping hear. Still think my strategy of legalizing drugs and using the tax revenue to fund public sector pay and benefits has some legs, particularly in Washington. You make the civil liberties side of the left happy with the end of drug prohibition and the folks who deify the public sector happy in one go, and probably rope in some regressive zealots like myself.

Woah! What have we here? Jim is clearly not a full-time Regressive like myself, but there seems to be a situational regressive syndrome percolating up in previously uninfected quadrants.

Blah: "In March last year, the Oakland port agreed to turn over operation of some of its terminals to a private investor, Ports of America, in exchange for $686 million over the life of a 50-year deal. Oakland got $60 million upfront, plus annual payments starting at $19.5 million. The port had been getting $18.9 million a year in rent from berths, according to the San Francisco Business Times." Blah: "Port of Galveston seeks private partners" http://galvestondailynews.com/story/154815 Blah: rru.worldbank.org/documents/publicpolicyjournal/193somme.pdf

Meanwhile, in Seattle, the Regressives at The Municipal League have this and quite a bit more to say about port operations: "Due to its very broad mission statement, the Port has over the years wandered into numerous activities that are peripheral to its core mission. Having the luxury of a non-voted tax levy and few mechanisms for holding the Port accountable for its use of public resources, the Port has gradually increased its reliance on the tax levy and has entered into investments and contracts that do not consistently generate a positive return. According to the Port’s own figures, the Seaport lost money in five of the last 10 years. Without the subsidy from the tax levy ($65.8 million in 2007), the bottom line for the Seaport and Real Estate Divisions would likely have shown a loss in all 10 years -- even if we assume that some of the levy-funded activities would not have been undertaken in the absence of levy funding. The extensive Port land holdings are not on the public property tax rolls and the economic benefits of Port activities are not always easy to determine. The graph indicates that the Port of Seattle currently collects more than four times the annual tax levy revenue than is collected by the Port of Tacoma even under similar millage rates. Since the Port of Tacoma’s TEU container traffic is comparable with Seattle’s, one would expect that the corresponding taxpayer contributions would be somewhat similar. Although the two ports are not perfectly comparable and Seattle’s business is more diverse than Tacoma’s, the magnitude of the difference suggests that the Port of Tacoma may be dramatically more cost- effective in the economics and management of its seaport assets. We are troubled that the levy process lacks transparency and that the levy itself resembles a general subsidy to cover shortfalls across the Port's activities. We believe that the Port uses the tax levy to offset the fact that revenues in the Seaport and Real Estate Divisions continue to be insufficient to cover on-going capital costs and expenses. We do not think taxpayers should be satisfied with the general assertion that the levy is justified because the Port contributes to economic activity. We believe the levy should be used for those activities and investments of the Port that cannot reasonably be made self-sustaining by sound business practices and that are justified by specified benefits to the community, (and only after those activities and investments have been analyzed to ensure costs do not exceed benefits). The Port’s tax levy revenue, most of which is devoted to non-aviation activities, has in recent years increased significantly faster than business activity or job growth. The levy has increased by 136% since 2001, an average annual increase of 11% -- this also far exceeds tax levy revenue growth at the Port of Tacoma." http://www.munileague.org/2009PORTREPORT.pdf

Yes. Dig up the data and we can take a look at things like taxpayer input for unit volume, etc, etc, etc. What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream. Um - it's not like you have presented any data either, compadre. Here's some evidence to suggest that Ports don't all require taxpayer subsidies to operate: "LOS ANGELES, Oct. 12— The State of California has found a sugar daddy to help bail it out of its financial hole. The State Legislature, facing a $10.7 billion budget gap, passed a measure last month that for the first time allows cities to draw on the profits of their ports, which have become the busiest, fastest-growing and most profitable in the nation.... "Using no tax money, the California ports have built themselves into the country's most important gateway for world trade," "

Next example - Metro. Not enough money to fund existing operations. Which does the progressive favor cutting - services or pay and benefits for Metro employees?

Yes. Saving $70 million a year and actually generating money for the city would certainly aggravate those structural issues.

On the flip side if you're arguing for such a change you could present a privately run Port that is pulling in a profit without proping up from public resources and is meeting it's environmental regulatory responsibilities - and is in the U.S. and is at least as big as, say, the Port of Vancouver. Yes. Dig up the data and we can take a look at things like taxpayer input for unit volume, etc, etc, etc.

Jay's more likely to be found at the Hilton giving talks to corporate weasels like himself on how they can take advantage of the budgetary crises created by the economic downturn to pick up public assets for a song and gouge taxpayers turned "customers". I wish! In reality I'm far more likely to be found crashing in the back of my truck in Walmart parking lots. You wish? Well brother, I recommend checking out "Making Sociopathy Work For You" from your local library. Cash in on your antisocial tendencies and repressed fears! I heard that public sector unions bought out the entire press run but I'll check it out when I get a chance.

None. If some car companies can sell cars to consumers for more than it costs to build them, then that's all that I need to know to demonstrate that we shouldn't use public money to subsidize those who can't. If you can demonstrate that all ports rely on tax subsidies, rather than operating revenues to fund things like infrastructure improvements or environmental mitigation then that will make your case quite a bit stronger. That would be strange, as it would imply that every Port in the world, public or private, is underpricing their services - but who knows.

Jay's more likely to be found at the Hilton giving talks to corporate weasels like himself on how they can take advantage of the budgetary crises created by the economic downturn to pick up public assets for a song and gouge taxpayers turned "customers". I wish! In reality I'm far more likely to be found crashing in the back of my truck in Walmart parking lots.

Agreed. It's clear that their much happier getting ripped off to the tune of $70 million a year for infinity by the Port itself. Negative $70 million * X is much more palatable than positive $500 million times one.

Yeah, probably that the citizens of Seattle don't want to get ripped off by the likes of the Carlyle Group to the tune of a few billion dollars! But hey, when isn't it a good time to take a backhanded stab at longshoremen, you P.O.S.? I think the nation would be money ahead by offering every longshoreman in the country an immediate retirement at 100% of salary for life, and making up the difference and then some through increases in automation and efficiency - but that's really neither here nor there. For reasons that are unclear to me, the public has seen fit to allow them a degree of control over port operations that would start riots if it was brandished by the likes of Walmart - but that's not likely to change soon, and anyone running the ports will get stuck dealing with them and transfer the costs of doing so onto port clients, and by extension, the public.

Depends. Lease-concessions seem to work on major traffic corridors, generate money for the state to spend on other priorities, gets the liabilities associated with maintaining it off the books for the duration of the lease, and you can assess fees on semis that are commensurate to the amount of wear-and-tear that they put on the roadway if you want.

Might want to try something a little more recent. Damn, you're a slimy motherfucker! Good article. Sounds like it had more to do with the sellers not liking the price than it did the absence of willing buyers. "The bids, therefore, are not considered reflective of the value of the terminals based on the past investment made by the commonwealth and their anticipated value as the economy recovers. ...Another of the three proposers also expressed continued interest in the port. "If the new administration decides private investment in the port benefits the state, Carlyle will look forward to participating," Christopher W. Ullman, a Carlyle spokesman, wrote in an e-mail. Officials at CenterPoint Properties could not be reached for comment. The announcement Friday did not close the door on other port privatization options. During the next year, the state will evaluate the Port Authority and its operating affiliate Virginia International Terminals Inc. "to determine the advantages of privatizing all or part of their operations in the future," according to the Port Authority's release."

I posted the budget numbers above. Nowhere does it show the port is losing money. It appears that you don't know what you are talking about. That's great news. Then they can stop assessing taxes on property owners and give all of this money back, or turn it over to the city to use on other priorities! "For 2010, the tax levy amount is assumed to be $73,500,000." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the King County Council, State of Washington, be notified that the specific sum herein mentioned being a total of $73,500,000 is necessary to be raised by taxation to meet the payment of bond redemption and interest on Port of Seattle General Obligation Bonds, of future expenditures for acquisitions and capital improvements, and of costs for such general purposes allowed by law which the Port deems necessary, as set forth for the period January 1, 2010 and thereafter; that said King County Council be respectfully requested to make a levy in said amount for the aforesaid purposes. 2005 Regular Levy 62,748,329 2006 Regular Levy 62,748,329 2007 Regular Levy 68,813,857 2008 Regular Levy 75,899,369 2009 Regular Levy 75,899,369 2010 Regular Levy 73,500,000" http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/about/2010_Statutory_Budget_1.pdf

The only way to determine whether that's true or not, in reality, is to put it up for sale or long-term lease. "As Va. mulls port privatization, Baltimore dives in. The state is tight on money, but the region needs roadwork and the port is figuring out how to pay for a needed expansion. Sounds a lot like Hampton Roads, but this state, region and port are about 170 miles north, or a day's steam up the Chesapeake Bay. On Jan. 12, Maryland closed on a lease of the Port of Baltimore's primary container facility, Seagirt Marine Terminal, to a private operator for 50 years. The deal is expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the state, which plans to use some of the money to pay for an array of regional road and bridge projects. The state of Virginia and the Virginia Port Authority face a similar decision: whether to cede operational control of the port of Hampton Roads for a long time in exchange for a lot of money. Three companies have submitted proposals to operate the state-owned cargo terminals. Maryland officials say they're elated over the lease of Seagirt to Ports America Chesapeake, an affiliate of New Jersey-based Ports America, the largest independent port operator in North America. It does business in Hampton Roads as a 50 percent partner in the stevedoring firm CP&O. The agreement is estimated to be worth as much as $1.8 billion over time. The Maryland Transportation Authority is getting $140 million in upfront cash that it plans to use on eight projects, including improvements to Interstate 95 and bridge upgrades...... ....In March, CenterPoint Properties, a Chicago-area industrial real estate firm, filed an unsolicited proposal to lease the Virginia Port Authority's terminals for 60 years in a public-private partnership. Executives at CenterPoint, which also plans a large warehouse development in Suffolk, said the deal could be worth $3.5 billion - in today's dollars - to the state over the 60 years. Four months later, two other private groups - The Carlyle Group, a Washington investment firm, and a partnership of terminal operator Carrix Inc. and investment bank Goldman Sachs - filed similar proposals. The three preliminary proposals offer upfront cash ranging from $250 million to $700 million, profit-sharing plans and varied levels of commitment to fund a fourth marine terminal at Craney Island, which the Virginia Port Authority wants to build to accommodate future growth in trade...." Maybe there's something uniquely unappealing about operating a commercial port in Seattle that would keep bidders like these at bay.

Ahh, good ol' Jeff Bozos, proving you don't have to be even mildly intelligent to get incredibly rich. The same dumbass that was spamming constantly how the segway scooter was going to change the course of human history and have "cities redesigned around it." Then there is Steve B, who has done a great job proving that Microsoft without BillG isn't exactly the same as the Microsoft that made lots of us good money. Have you seen Bezos' X Prize losing rocket? LOL Nope? We might need a link to that. I am still amazed he hasn't somehow been forced out of his leadership at Amazon. It speaks highly of the other people at that company (some I know to be very smart people) that they succeed in spite of him. I can't think of many big name tech people I'd consider more overhyped and overpraised than Jeff Bezos. He seems rather friendly and happy go lucky though, and maybe that counts for something... I'm not sure that having a highly developed technical skill or getting a high-score on the GRE necessarily correlate with entrepeneurial ability. Somehow the guy managed to build the most successful online retailer in the world while god knows how many competitors - most of them headed by "very smart people" crashed and burned. I've worked with "very smart people" for quite a while, and have sometimes gone weeks without interacting with anyone who didn't have a PhD, and MD, or both - and a significant percentage of them would have a hard time managing the third-shift at a taco-bell on the basis of their interpersonal skills alone. If he's so terrible as CEO of the company that he created, then it should be a pretty simple matter for the people that you speak of to open their own competitor and drive him out of business using their superior intellects.

Spare us the sanctimonious drivel. Educating myself to answer reducive soundbites about an issue that JayB is very likely little informed about is just not a priority. BUt you can start learning about the port budget, and let us know in comprehensive term whether or not there is any substance to what JayB is saying (not likely at first sight): "The 2010 budget proposes operating revenues at $479.0 million and operating expenses at $282.8 million. Net Operating Income is $196.2million. Depreciation Expense is budgeted at $158.6 million. Net Operating Income after Depreciation is $37.6 million. The total capital budget for 2010 is $410.0 million and the five year capital improvement program is $1.4 billion, which reflects the Port's continuing commitment to promoting regional economic activity through the investment in the development, expansion, and renewal of Port facilities that supports the Port’s Business Plan and Green Initiative." http://www.portseattle.org/about/organization/2010budget.shtml It's much easier than that. The only relevant question to ask when there's not enough money to fund everything the government does is to ask whether or not a given function is something that only the government could provide. Legislation, courts, law-enforcement, etc - yes. A commercial port - no. End of discussion. When push comes to shove, you sell or lease the Port to someone that knows how to make money doing so - rather than losing $70 million a year, and use both the funds from the sale or lease and the $70 million to fund the things that only the government can do. I'm thinking that a good functional definition of a regressive is someone who thinks that the public sector exists to serve the public, and a progressive is someone who has concluded the opposite is true.