I have read a few posts that show people believe requiring any government level in our state giving a mandatory vote for new or any tax increase is bad. Examples such as are given:

The library wants to increase Copy Machine Prices from .10 to .15 cents: First where is it written that the price on the copy machine isn't just the cost, but NOT a tax? I have problems believing that the price on the copy machine is a real tax, not just a lame argument.

Every day from the day you are born to even after you die the government WILL take money from you in 'Taxes.' New taxes are being added, and current ones being increased to add to their coffers, however you feel that giving the people the right to go to the ballots and say no is bad? Why is it bad? What is it about allowing the Citizens of this country stating NO and making it a reality a bad thing? Are the people who complain about this communist? Let the government have it and any way they wish, so they can own everything?

There are only two facts that I will agree with at this point 1. We pay too much in taxes & 2. I am a citizen of the USA, my voice will decide what this country does just like every other citizen.

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 05, 1999

Answers

I heard on KVI radio that Ron Simms, chief exec. of King Co. wants to paint murals of Martin Luther King on ALL transit busses at a cost of millions of dollars. Probably take a FEE INCREASE to pay for all that painting. For all of you who object to voting on tax and fee increases;wouldn't you love to vote on THAT increase? Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 05, 1999.

Well there is a reason they want to do this... you see the name 'King' in King County is from a man that in history owned a few slaves. A few organizations DO NOT want any association with slave owners so they want the County to change the name of the County... they suggested 'Martin Luther King.

There is more cost to this then painting a few busses, there is also the cost of changing every King County Logo... so cards, paper such as forms, County Vehicles, etc would all have to be either thrown out or repainted. The cost for such a project is mind-boggling.

I personally am against the change mainly because of the cost, I could care less who this guy owned considering the era he lived in. In his time it wasn't wrong and they weren't educated against the idea of owning human beings... so in that respect he wasn't a deviant nor was he doing anything wrong.

I suppose it would be like me saying that the city of Rome should change its name and any product such as Roman Meal hot cereal should change their names because they fed people to the lions.

Racism is wrong, so is slavery... but so does costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions to eradicate non-harmful things because of non- harmful history.

-Tony

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@giftspot.com), October 05, 1999.

Tony--"hundreds of millions"

A bit too much caffeine.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 05, 1999.

Brad,

If you have something of value to add fine add it. However you seem to be unable to comprehend the large amount of dollars something like this would cost. You have not only the new paper stock items to replace, or the road signs to replace, but you have to dispose of the 'old' stuff which does cost as well.

On the news they were talking about how much it would cost just for the county to get rid of all the paper, business cards, etc and its was in the millions... That isn't even replacing it.

Who do you think is going to repaint all the logo's on the hundreds of county vehicles? A congtractor, and it will be expensive. Laugh if you like but I can prove to you that all government projects overrun initial estimates.

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 05, 1999.

Tony-

If you are ONLY talking about the county logo, I believe the estimates were $3-4 million range. If you are talking about changing ALL political incorrect names (Squaw Valley, Washington Redskins, Washington (slaveowner), etc., you may be right.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Well you can pretty much assume that if all the private copy machines are charging $.10 a copy, and a library is charging $.10 too, then odds are that there isn't any hidden tax. Besides, wouldn't it be a little unproductive to attempt to add extra funding to the coffers by raising the copier fee a couple cents? As someone pointed out in another thread, library fees and fines don't exactly make up a sizable portion of a library's budget.

By definition a fee is something you pay for a service. A tax is something you pay IN ADDITION to a payment you have made for goods or services.

"Are the people who complain about this communist?"

Although this has been discussed before, it probably doesn't hurt to bring it up again. This country was founded on the principles of representative democracy, the idea that we elect individuals who dedicate some or all of their time to make decisions in government. If we don't like the decisions our representatives are making, then we vote them out of office. The fact that our country's form of government is the longest standing form in the modern world seems to hint at it's success.

People here have stated that 695 is a vote of no confidence in our government. In reality it is a vote of no confidence in our own ability to select the proper people to represent us. The problem, as many people have stated, is that those in power are taking too much of our money and not giving us quality service in return. To completely solve the problem we should logically replace those people with individuals who won't take too much of our money and who will give us quality services with the money that we do provide them. I've heard a number of excuses as to why we can't do this: the right people don't run, when they do they get changed into one of the bad people, my representative is good but everyone else elects bad people. Again, all of these excuses revolve around our own lack of confidence in our own abilities.

If you think 695 will stop what you consider stupid projects and wasteful spending from happening, then you've got another thing coming. It may make it a little bit more difficult for the politicians to do these sorts of things, but hey, they're professionals, they'll find a way. We'll have more direct control over the money by way of public votes? And you base this on our ability to elect the right people to represent us? (I'd like to note that I'm not doubting the ability of people to vote "correctly," but it certainly seems like a lot of people imply this when they complain about how our representatives don't represent us.)

And Tony, a little civics lesson: The general philosophy behind communism is that the citizens as a community make all the decisions, making the need for a government obsolete. In essence, 695 is much more of a step in that direction. Opponents are defending a system designed by people like James Madison. Supporters are calling for a system designed like something Karl Marx would like. Interesting, no?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

Ricardo-

Hey George! Hey George! Ooo! Ooo! Guess what George? I heard on KVI that... uh... duh...

I cant 'member egzactly what it was...

but..duh, It must have been sumthin' important

cuz doze guys is smart, huh?

-- Big ape (cromag@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Patrick,

You said:

- This country was founded on the principles of representative democracy, the idea that we elect individuals who dedicate some or all of their time to make decisions in government.

First off America is a Republic not a Democracy by true definition. I also have no problem with decisions being made, however there is a line that isnt to be crossed, that is the government freely spending out of my pocket as they see fit.

- If we don't like the decisions our representatives are making, then we vote them out of office.

Fine, great, dandy, vote them out. However you fail to understand that those elected officials DO MAKE CHANGES that we have to often live with after they are gone, there is a process for fixing the mistakes that are made, and voicing our opinions one of those ways is an initiative.

- The fact that our country's form of government is the longest standing form in the modern world seems to hint at it's success.

If you want to base it on how long we have been here then the above statement is wrong, you forget that we were founded long after most modern day countries. You also use the word Modern to simplify and exclude civilizations that existed longer then us then vanished. Length of existence doesnt mean youre on any track.

- In reality it is a vote of no confidence in our own ability to select the proper people to represent us.

Has nothing to do with believing whether the person we voted for is able or responsible. I could care less if Jesus Christ ran for office; I would have the same expectations in the passing of 695. The government isnt supposed to run everything, its suppose to be a representative of the people not their leader, commander, and parent.

- If you think 695 will stop what you consider stupid projects and wasteful spending from happening, then you've got another thing coming.

Give me an example of where I stated it would stop stupid projects? You have no examples because I stated no such thing. Dont attempt to bash me with arguments I never made. Come up with something creative that wasnt spoon-fed to you.

- It may make it a little bit more difficult for the politicians to do these sorts of things, but hey, they're professionals, they'll find a way

Didnt you just state that we shouldnt be electing people that will just find a way to do what ever they want? It sounds as if you have simply given up even trying and would rather walk in line with the mindless.

And Tony, a little civics lesson: The general philosophy behind communism is that the citizens as a community make all the decisions, making the need for a government obsolete.

Try and hand out all the lessons you like however it appears you could use a bit of a lesson yourself before you attempt to teach me anything. In fact I wont tell you, here is a direct definition of the word.

Main Entry: com7mu7nism Pronunciation: 'kdm-y&-"ni-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Based on your views it would be easy to assume you yourself are a communist. If this is the case, you can wish all you like that what I own isnt mine but everyones, and is distributed by the government as it sees fit. I would be happy to send you a 1 way ticket to Moscow, because at the rate its going Russia might revert and you would be a happy camper.

-Tony

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 05, 1999.

Patrick--"The general philosophy behind communism is that the citizens as a community make all the decisions, making the need for a government obsolete. In essence, 695 is much more of a step in that direction. Opponents are defending a system designed by people like James Madison. Supporters are calling for a system designed like something Karl Marx would like. Interesting, no?"

It's not interesting if you see the analogy as flawed. For this one part of government, a much more accurate analogy would point us towards ancient Athens.

At the risk of embarassing myself here, it seems to me that Marxism's defining precept focuses on the inherent class conflict (wasn't Hegel Marx's mentor?) between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. IIRC, Marx's solution to this struggle was to "dissolve" the bourgeoisie via nationalization of a nation's productive assets. In a Marxist society, these assets would then be used to provide an equal benefit to all members of society. To pay for the benefit, people are expected to contribute to society to the best of their ability.

Unless I'm completely in left field (pun intended), in order to make I-695 interesting to a Marxist, one needs to frame the debate as a struggle between the bourgeoisie (politicians&&bureaucrats) and the proletariat (populist supporters of I-695). . .square peg. . .round hole.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 05, 1999.

Brad, I would agree with you that probably a much better analogy is ancient Athens. One could debate the effectiveness of a system designed to work on a city-state level on a U.S. state level, but we can save it for another time. You did make a fairly good analogy as to the way Tim Eyman often portrays the campaign in a Marxist frame, the so called little guy (proletariat) vs. big everything (bourgeoisie) though.

See Tony, Brad seems to know what he's talking about when the term "communist" comes up. You, on the other hand, give me a definition that tends to support my argument. Try reading the "c" part of the definition again. You know, the one that says that it is the final stage in Marxist theory where the state has whithered away leaving the people to control their own destiny. The term you should be using to define someone who wants state control over everything is "socialist." I can't say that I'm too offended by being called a communist by someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of what the word even means. Not that it will convince you, but I don't consider myself to be either. I happen to like capitalism quite nicely. Especially when payday rolls around.

As for the rest of your comments: There are quite a number of countries that were founded well before the US that still exist, but not with the same form of government. And generally yes, I would have to say that duration is a pretty good indication of success in any given time period

Actually, a republic means that the country is governed by someone other than a monarch, and that a certain group of people (not necessarily ALL people) elect that government. For example China and North Korea are republics. A represenative democracy (note: not JUST a democracy) is a form of government that is made up of representatives elected by the general population. To be fair, both the term republic and representative democracy can be used to describe the U.S.

"Has nothing to do with believing whether the person we voted for is able or responsible. I could care less if Jesus Christ ran for office; I would have the same expectations in the passing of 695. The government isnt supposed to run everything, its suppose to be a representative of the people not their leader, commander, and parent."

I didn't say that it DID have something to do with believing the person is responsible (although this would probably be a good thing). What I said was that if the people we elect aren't representing our views as how government should perform, then A: isn't it at least partially our fault for electing the person in the first place, and B: shouldn't we elect someone who WILL represent our views next time around? This seems to me to be an excuse of "well we can't seem to elect the right people, so let's just keep the wrong people in place and change their jobs a little."

Actually, I never claimed that you did say that it would stop stupid projects. That was pretty much an open comment to several supporters (including Ricardo who posted such an item in this thread) who seem to hold on to this belief. Further, my comment about the politicians finding a way was an attempt to be in the mindset of these supporters, who, seem to think that most politicians have the only goal of finding new and more expensive ways to waste our money. If that's the way these supporters think, then I can't see

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

Patrick, There are some points that you say that I don't argue with however there are a few points in your thinking I simply can't agree with. I do have one question, what political group do you associate with? Your obviously not a conservative, and don't appear to be much of a liberal either.

- See Tony, Brad seems to know what he's talking about when the term "communist" comes up. Brad seems fairly intelligent, however I can see that he really isn't arguing anything with you, what is your point?

- You, on the other hand, give me a definition that tends to support my argument. Try reading the "c" part of the definition again. Yes one part of the definition is "c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably." The problem with this Patrick is that once a government of any form is in place no one will simply give it up, there is no possibility that the government could distribute all it has evenly then just go away. You are basically talking about pure anarchy. With nothing in place to represent the interests of the populace, no form of protection or law. Please point out in history where the 'C' portion of the definition was reality? - I can't say that I'm too offended by being called a communist by someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of what the word even means. I have taken it directly from the dictionary, you can argue it all you like. My point is simply you are against the people having the right to say NO to new taxes or tax increases. Currently the government does what it wants when it comes to our pockets. He who has the gold makes the rules, how much gold should the government have? Depends how many rules you want them to impose. - What I said was that if the people we elect aren't representing our views as how government should perform, then A: isn't it at least partially our fault for electing the person in the first place Does it really matter who's fault it is? For the most part its very difficult for anyone to be sure that who they elect is a proper canidate for office. - shouldn't we elect someone who WILL represent our views next time around? This seems to me to be an excuse of "well we can't seem to elect the right people, so let's just keep the wrong people in place and change their jobs a little." You seem to miss my point that an initiative is a way for the people to voice their oppinion as well as make changes they can not directly affect by simply ellecting someone. An ellected official can't do anything, and often times they face a majority against something that would be more helpful then harmful. The people are here to more then just vote for a political figure like they would cheer on their favorite sports team. The civilians of this country are suppose to play a role in government... to many lose sight of this and leave it up to their elected officials like you do. - Actually, I never claimed that you did say that it would stop stupid projects. That was pretty much an open comment to several supporters (including Ricardo who posted such an item in this thread) who seem to hold on to this belief. As far as Ricardo, I have no idea what he is going on about. You may not have directed it to me, however you posted a response to me, perhaps next time put a 'To Everyone' in your posts unless its not a direct response to me? Would save us some confusion. - Further, my comment about the politicians finding a way was an attempt to be in the mindset of these supporters, who, seem to think that most politicians have the only goal of finding new and more expensive ways to waste our money.

It's not that they really think up of ways to spend money, the problem with government is everyone who is in it has their idea of what a great 'program' would be, since they feel strongly about it they do what they can to put it in place. Once a program exists its near impossible to remove it. The IRS is a prime example, its very costly and a huge muscle that applies pressure to more then just the tax payer. Lots of politicians as well as civilians want to remove it... but how? Its not just as easy as stating, ok get rid of that. When you have 100's of politicians all with their own ideas of great things to use our money for you end up with a large government spending our money. Anyways, like I said, I do not believe any politician gets a joy from sticking it to the populace, but they all enjoy seeing their programs put in place.

-Tony

-- Tony (baddog@nwlink.com), October 06, 1999.