Was the Seattle judge's decision based on politics as usual? What can you do to help insure all of I-695 is upheld by both the supreme court and the legislature? Consider the following and then you make your own decision.

Prior to Judge Alsdorf's decision, the Attorney General ruled that I-695 is constitutional. The judge is up for reelection this fall and his Seattle overwhelming voted against I-695. The judge ruled all but one of the I-695 sections was unconstitutional. Did he have an agenda before listening to the arguments? Does he want to assure his reelection this fall? The supreme court has agreed to hear the case in June but they do not expect a decision until November (after the election). Three supreme court judges are also up for reelection.

The Attorney General has appealed the judge's decision. Gov. Locke and the Democrats are running for cover. They plan to give us one-half of I-695 by keeping the $30 tabs portion. They hope voters will forget about the "voter approval" portion by election time. The Republicans on the other hand are pushing for keeping all of I-695 in tact.

The battle lines for the fall election are being drawn. The question you must answer is: "How can you keep the heat on the politicians?" We have given this a lot of thought and have talked to many supporters. We have decided the best course of action is to redouble our efforts. I-722 repeals the unfair taxes imposed with out voter approval from July through December 1999. If I-722 makes the ballot all politicians must answer the question about "voter approval" during their reelection campaign. If I-722 passes, it means you will also get relief from property taxes.

Will you "put your shoulder to the wheel" and help push this effort along by redoubling your efforts? Involvement in a worthwhile cause to serve your community brings joy to your heart. The opposition is hoping YOU will get discouraged "thinking all is lost." They hope you will quit gathering signatures. The only way we lose is if YOU quit. Right now our cup is half full! It's not half empty! With work we can win but it will take time and patience. Look at the progress we have made! Are you better off right now than you were last year? Your efforts have helped change the nature of the political debate over taxes. Join the campaign leadership and all those we have personally talked to and commit to redoubling your efforts in getting signatures for both I-711 and I-722. If you lead, others will help!

Sincerely,

Tim Eyman, Monte Benham & Jack Fagan Sponsors I-695, I-711 and I-722

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), March 19, 2000

Answers

Monte writes:

>>Prior to Judge Alsdorf's decision, the Attorney General ruled that I-695 is constitutional.<<

The Attorney General did no such thing. She issued a memorandum detailing her OPINION that the initiative was law. It was essentially a brief to the court, not a RULING by the AG.

The State AG does not issue RULINGS determining the constitutionality of anything.

If this statement is contained in a mailing you are sending out, you either are: 1. lying; or 2. have no understanding of the legal system. In any case, it's a pathetic attempt to mislead the public. You should be ashamed.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

"The opposition is hoping YOU will get discouraged "thinking all is lost."

The opposition is also trying to discredit these efforts. They are worried.....as they should be.

The person who should be "ashamed" is the one who is trying to prevent me from having a right to stop taking more of my money. This year, we paid more than 50% of our income in taxes. Are we rich? Heck no. Most of that money went to the State of Washington. The amount I had paid in sales tax alone would have built a three car garage. So what did I get for all that money? Not much. My MVET on a seven year old car was a drop in the bucket.

I vote "FOR" school levies. I vote "FOR" EMS levies. I am intelligent enough to see a need. But these greedy liberals want more than they are entitled to.

Count me in Guys!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

To add to what BB said, the AG was REQUIRED to say that 695 was constitutional. THAT'S HER JOB! That's like issuing a press release saying that Johnnie Cochran thought that OJ Simpson was innocent.

So I'm curious Monte, was the same legal dream team that drafted 695 the one that shot itself in the foot in the courtroom two weeks ago, and the one that drafted 711 and 722? If it is, then might I suggest that you use some of that campaign money to hire better lawyers? Perhaps ones that have cracked open a copy of the constitution?

Otherwise you might want to issue a disclaimer: Please help us out, but don't get your hopes up. We don't really know what we're doing, and we've already made the same mistakes again with I-711 and I-722. But trust us, if our ignorance is showcased in the courtroom again, we'll just blame the government again, get you all stoked up over it, and then hit you up for money again!

Wow, what a great con game. Tap into the people's anger about the government taking their money. Offer them a snake oil gimmick that gets them to volunteer their money to you. When it turns out that the gimmick doesn't work, blame the government again and repeat the cycle.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 19, 2000.

I say we split the State of Washington into two new states: North Washington and South Washington.

Those who favor I-695 will live in South Washington. They will pay NO car tabs. No sales tax. No property tax. No school levies. No taxes whatsoever. In addition, South Washington will have no government to speak of. The only recognizable form of government will be a little old man who lives in a cabin. He is the governor of South Washington. The governor will only come out once every few years to show people that he's still alive. The rest of the time, he will live on $100 per month and eat beans and rice for dinner. Aside from this "governor," there is no government in South Washington. Not even county or city governments. Think Lord of the Flies, only without the Lord.

Those in SW will be unable to build roads, fund schools, pay for police protection, or even monitor development. The economy of SW will come to a screeching halt. There will be little if any commerce. Cities will empty. Factories will become dormant. Children will dumb down. Banks will close. Welfare will become the state's primary employment. Think Arkansas only without the bustling economy. But dammit, they don't pay taxes, heh heh!

Those opposed to I-695 and its sequels will live in North Washington. They will pay sales tax as usual, property tax, and vote on school levies. They will have a governor and state reps and senators as usual. North Washington will be pretty much as we see things now, only with half the land size and a smaller population. Free of the Eyman factor, North Washington will continue its course to become one of the most livable states in the Union.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

Tim, Monte, Jack:

As Patrick correctly states, the AG has to defend voter approved initiatives. Surely you knew that already.

You must also know that the Legislature cannot make I-695 constitutional by enacting it all over again. It's either constitutional or it isn't fellas. Why aren't you able to explain to us why the judge's decision is flawed? If you can't do that, you need to try to amend the constitution.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 19, 2000.

Monte:

If 722 passes, it will have the same fate as 695. Don't you get it? If you want to pass an initiative that will actully be constitutional, you need to get some better legal advice. I agree with Patrick. They should at least read the constitution. I seem to recall an entire thread that discussed all this months ago, and you had your head in the sand then about your chances of passing constitutional muster. Read the decision and learn something. Then read 722, and dump it or rewrite something that has a chance of being approved.

You can't change the state constitution by the initiative process. Don't blame the judge for doing his job. Take responsibility for doing YOUR job of presenting an initiative that conforms to the state constitution.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 19, 2000.

Tim, Monte, Jack-

Let's be brutally honest about initiatives. The politicians hate them, the lobbyists hate them, and the cards are very much stacked against them. The judicial "fine-tuning" of the title of 711 is a good case in point. You have an idea. but it must get through the Secretary of State's Office, pass judicial revue, get enough signatures, get on the ballot, get passed by the electorate, and then again be subjected to judicial review. Then, even if it survives all this, it can be defined out of existence by politicians who hold differing political philosophies (the paycheck protection initiative comes to mind).

So why bother, you might ask? Let me explain why.

BECAUSE IT'S WORKING, THAT'S WHY! Initiative 200 has redefined the issue of affirmative action/preferential treatment. The bureaucrats are still passive-aggressing the issue (H**l, some are actively resisting it), but the momentum has changed. The same has happened with the growth of government in the state of Washington. The "given" is no longer last year plus inflation plus the historic rate of growth plus new starts plus more transit and fewer roads, and taxes that increase when the politicians want them . The given is now that the MVET is gone, that transit and ferries must rejustify themselves, that privatization ought to be on the table and that new taxes are off the table for awhile at least, while we decide just how much the public needs to bless future tax increases (if any). In the meantime, let's give everybody a property tax break, just to keep the natives from getting too restless.

So I think that you've been tremendously successful. Despite the odds stacked against you, the money on the other side, the unions fighting you (although not necessarily the union membership), REAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE.

But what is even more important is that the leverage has been reversed. Not only is the "given" of increased government by and for special interests no longer applicable, but they are now having to devote their resources, not to win, but merely to slow the pace of their losses. This is a huge step toward taking OUR government back from the special interest groups. Let's keep things moving in the right direction.

t

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 19, 2000.

FYI Craig, the instance of a court "fine tuning" I-711 was in reality, a court tweaking the ballot title given to it by the AG's office. The ONLY time that the government touches the actual text of an initiative is when the Code Revisor's office reviews it and makes suggested changes to the sponsor. The sponsor can then make the changes if he wants. There is NO judicial review before the initiative hits the ballot, and "getting through" the Secretary of State's office means forking over a $5 filing fee.

As for your givens, the state is funding the ferry system at nearly the same level as before, and transit will most likely receive the same treatment. In the mean time, increased taxes FOR transit are the only things hitting the ballot, and if Grays Harbor is any indication, privatization is NOT something the people want to consider. Oh there might be a review of the role of transit, but just how happy will it make you if, again, using Grays Harbor as an indicator, the people say resoundingly that they DO like subsidized transit?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

"As for your givens, the state is funding the ferry system at nearly the same level as before, and transit will most likely receive the same treatment." And you have a SOURCE for this, since the budget is not approved, and the leaders of both parties are currently saying they will not be able to restore either ferry or transit funding to what it was before, although they may ease the transition somewhat on a short term basis.

"In the mean time, increased taxes FOR transit are the only things hitting the ballot, and if Grays Harbor is any indication, privatization is NOT something the people want to consider. Oh there might be a review of the role of transit, but just how happy will it make you if, again, using Grays Harbor as an indicator, the people say resoundingly that they DO like subsidized transit? " I'd MUCH rather the people who are in the areas that actually derive some benefit from transit get taxed to provide these services, rather than taxing those of us who do not live anywhere near those areas, and are content with a more basic system. It is interesting to note, however, that after raising taxes to the point where they drive industry out of an area, these same locales then establish enterprise zones, tax loopholes, and taxpayer subsidies to bring employers back in. Kind of looks like there is an economic Darwinism of the market that the social engineers just can't get around, doesn't it?

-- the Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 20, 2000.

And the citizens of Grays Harbor County will expect the money to be spent wisely. It's will be a whole lot harder waste any. Darn!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

"And you have a SOURCE for this"

Oh I admit that it's an educated guess. But seeing as the budget has to be approved by the Democratic controlled Senate, and they've made it very clear in their budgets that the ferries and transit will receive as much funding as possible, I'd say that's a pretty good guess.

"I'd MUCH rather the people who are in the areas that actually derive some benefit from transit get taxed to provide these services, rather than taxing those of us who do not live anywhere near those areas, and are content with a more basic system."

Sounds like a GREAT argument against at least half of I-711. I agree that if people want to tax themselves to provide for a mass transit system in their area, then they should be allowed to do that. So what if at least a portion of the tax the people of Grays Harbor County overwhelmingly passed to support transit was required to be diverted to road construction? Supporters of 711 have tried to get mileage out of the Sound Transit issue. But what if in the future the state doesn't provide any transit funding, and as a result, a local community wants to raise its sales tax to keep its transit system running. I-711 may in fact prohibit that from happening.

Tell me Craig, or anyone else who has an answer, why would I-711 be such a great idea if you profess to believe that people should be allowed to pay for more than just a basic system if they want to? 711 would in effect, take that right away from the people. As I've said many times before, this completely destroys local control. How can you honestly contend that this is a good idea?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.

"Tell me Craig, or anyone else who has an answer, why would I-711 be such a great idea if you profess to believe that people should be allowed to pay for more than just a basic system if they want to? 711 would in effect, take that right away from the people. As I've said many times before, this completely destroys local control. How can you honestly contend that this is a good idea? "

Because this is a bogus argument. I lived in suburban (then RURAL) King County when various initiatives including the KingDome got voted down, all because the people of Seattle didn't want to fund it themselves, only to be resurrected by the same people with a wider tax base (the whole county, or the whole state) so the true beneficiaries of the project didn't have to foot the whole bill themselves. They are not willing to fund the project locally (Seattle Commons comes to mind) but have no trouble working their political leverage to fund it at the state level (a recent stadium comes to mind).

If you are willing to take ALL transit money out of the state budget, I'll campaign against 711, but the Seattle crowd has been making this dodge work for way too long. One of the reasons that Sound Transit is having so much trouble aligning resources with needs is that the voters wouldn't pass the package until it was made part of the contract that money spent in one area would be used ONLY in that area, because people were still upset over Seattle reneging on previous deals for "regional" projects.

If this were just about people in one locale using their resources in a manner I find wasteful, I could live with it. But the reality is that these projects wind up being paid for by the taxpayers of the whole state, and as long as those taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for these subsidies, they ought to get a vote. And if I get a vote, it sure won't be to further expand the transit systems that have already been expanded well beyond their niche of reasonable cost- effectiveness.

"Oh I admit that it's an educated guess. But seeing as the budget has to be approved by the Democratic controlled Senate, and they've made it very clear in their budgets that the ferries and transit will receive as much funding as possible, I'd say that's a pretty good guess. " I'll admit you've made a guess.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 21, 2000.

"Because this is a bogus argument. I lived in suburban (then RURAL) King County when various initiatives including the KingDome got voted down, all because the people of Seattle didn't want to fund it themselves, only to be resurrected by the same people with a wider tax base (the whole county, or the whole state) so the true beneficiaries of the project didn't have to foot the whole bill themselves. They are not willing to fund the project locally (Seattle Commons comes to mind) but have no trouble working their political leverage to fund it at the state level (a recent stadium comes to mind)."

Actually that is a bogus argument. Both stadiums are being paid for by either King County taxes, state sales tax credits on revenue that comes from King County, or voluntary contributions through the lottery or license plates. Nobody outside King County is paying for those stadiums unless they want to. As for complaining about how the entire county has to pay for it, it's a well known fact that the majority of the people using these facilities come from throughout the county, not just Seattle.

The idea that Seattle uses its political leverage to suck funding from other parts of the state is laughable. Seattle doesn't even come close to getting back the tax dollars it puts into the system. If it did, THEN you might have a point. But giving tax breaks for two stadiums and helping fund a little of Sound Transit doesn't even BEGIN to make up for what Seattle does for the rest of the state.

"If this were just about people in one locale using their resources in a manner I find wasteful, I could live with it. But the reality is that these projects wind up being paid for by the taxpayers of the whole state, and as long as those taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for these subsidies, they ought to get a vote."

Using this theory, you should be able to vote in well over half of the local school district, county, and city elections across the state. And if we really wanted to get technical, probably a good third of the elections in other states. These localities get what amounts to be subsidies from the state and federal governments as their tax bases don't put in as much as they receive. Just like transit funding.

Besides, what you're advocating for isn't even what I-711 does. If 711 gave you the right to vote in another locality's election every time it involved state funding of some sort, giving you the right to decide on a case by case basis if your money would be spent wisely, that would be one thing. But from your standpoint I-711 creates a presumptive veto. It presumes, first off, that state funding is being used, which, if you got your way, it wouldn't. It then also presumes that the project would be wasteful, and kills it without a vote. See what I mean? A vote on each project is one thing, because at least you can weigh each on its merits. But I-711 would make one vote in November count as a referendum for all future non-road construction transportation issues.

Craig, you're always one to take issue with how people who advocate for managed growth seem to have conflicting goals, but it seems as if you have one yourself. As you've said, you would like transit to receive the funding that its market share dictates, and you believe I- 711 would be a step in that direction. But let's say we reach your goal of funding=market share. Then the people of King County decide that they would like to try and expand transit's market share by taxing themselves (and ONLY themselves) to expand the system. But by doing so, they would cross over the 10% maximum set down by I-711. Which should win, the local voters wishes, or a statewide mandate?

And don't give me the excuse that it won't likely ever happen that way. You do this stuff all the time when you complain about how the theoretical extremes of increased transit use or growth management would end up causing the damage they're trying to prevent, so it seems only fair to use the same theoretical extreme tactic to point out how two of your beliefs turn against each other.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 22, 2000.

"Then the people of King County decide that they would like to try and expand transit's market share by taxing themselves (and ONLY themselves) to expand the system. But by doing so, they would cross over the 10% maximum set down by I-711. Which should win, the local voters wishes, or a statewide mandate? "

Personally, I'd go with the statewide mandate, same as I would for other statewide functions such as criminal law. If King County wants to SECEDE and set up their own state, I wouldn't vote against it however, although I think they ought to let "Cedar County" and others that don't want to be part of the Seattle Collective leave before they do it however.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.

"Craig, you're always one to take issue with how people who advocate for managed growth seem to have conflicting goals, but it seems as if you have one yourself. As you've said, you would like transit to receive the funding that its market share dictates, and you believe I- 711 would be a step in that direction. But let's say we reach your goal of funding=market share. " When we get to this point, then we can talk theoreticals. My personal belief is that if we devoted the resources to the SOV and to transit that each warranted, the demand for transit would go away, except for the true transit dependent and a few pro-transit zealots. The needs of the former we should support, probably through demand response services. The desires of the latter...., well, I donate to my church for my values and philosophical beliefs, I don't see why I should donat to theirs. But if you got a majority together, you could change 711 back. Don't think that'd happen though.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 22, 2000.

""As for your givens, the state is funding the ferry system at nearly the same level as before, and transit will most likely receive the same treatment." "

By this I assume you believe the Senate will reject the bipartisan House bill, and try to push the figure higher?

House wouldn't keep all ferry runs By Ed Friedrich, Sun Staff

Unlike a year ago, the split state House finally comes up with a bipartisan plan. The state House of Representatives' bipartisan budget proposal would take the sting out of ferry service reductions but fall short of keeping schedules intact.

Washington State Ferry officials say they need an extra $16.6 million a year to keep the system running as is. The House, in a budget to be released this morning, would provide $10.2 million for operations and $20 million overall, according to Rep. Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton.

The money would come from state sales tax and be available for at least five years. It also would fund a trimmed-down capital program.

The bill stipulates that half of the $10.2 million for operations be spent on car ferries and half on foot ferries.

The ferry system would determine which cuts to make within the parameters that it try to maintain peak-hour car and passenger capacity, summer tourist capacity and a fall/winter/spring presence on all routes.

The Kingston-Edmonds route would retain some nighttime sailings. Bainbridge-Seattle would change little, except for the loss of a third boat during summer. Bremerton would have two car ferries and two passenger boats. The Vashon-Seattle foot ferry would remain, Haigh said.

Most cuts would come from weekend and off-peak runs.

Now, the proposal heads to the Senate.

"We're saying this is what we want. We're throwing it in their court and seeing what comes back to us," Haigh said.

The House, split 49-49 down party lines, failed to come up with a bipartisan budget last year. The Democrat-controlled Senate peeled off a couple of House Republicans to push its budget through.

"There's no plan at this point to try to ramrod through on a 50-vote count a Senate-passed bill," said Rep. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island. "Momentum is moving in the other direction, to have a strong bipartisan set of bills and begin the process of negotiating and reconciling the two."

The House bipartisan proposal resembles the ferry plan developed by its Republicans. The Democrats sought to dip into reserves for $10 million for operations and $16.5 million for capital, which would be matched by $14.5 million in federal funds.

Rockefeller said he, Haigh and Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, pushed for $27 million for the rest of this biennium.

"I'm not particularly pleased with what I see in restoration of service in the budget they will be releasing," Rockefeller said. "There will be some restoration of service, but I think it could be improved upon."

"It's a more stable funding source. It's just not enough," Haigh said. "Nobody got everything they wanted. It's very much a compromise bill."

A big chunk of the ferry funds will be eaten up by higher fuel prices, Haigh said.

The $20 million won't replace all the motor vehicle excise tax the ferry system lost when Initiative 695 passed in November. It will fall about $10 million a year short.

Fare increases of about 12 percent could make up the difference, Haigh said. However, a waiver from the Initiative 601 spending cap would be needed. That's not expected to come out of this session.

The House budget proposal also includes the formation of a task force to explore long-term ferry funding.

Published in The Sun: 03/22/2000

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 22, 2000.

Tim, Monte & Jack. I agree with you. This judge wouldn't dare reinstate the MVET, as that would enrage even his liberal Seattle voters. They hated 695 but they surely are looking forward to not shelling out all that money this year, no matter what they might say.

I just can't believe we have judges like this. They make a ruling, and then start mouthing off about what they just ruled against, as if they're all upset, even angry. Where's the impartiality in that? Wasn't Alsdorf saying something about "...laws not men" or something to that effect under his breath? It just seemed to me he was glorying in his ruling. What an idiot. Oh please let him lose next fall.

Patrick, BBquack, et al...have a nice life paying all of your money in taxes. You sit around in here trying to be such intellectuals. Why, the very people in government you want to protect are stealing you blind and treating you as if you're a little child. Amazing.

-- Martin Yeager (myeager10@aol.com), March 22, 2000.

"They make a ruling, and then start mouthing off about what they just ruled against, as if they're all upset, even angry." ??? What are you talking about?

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 23, 2000.

The ultimate shameless insult. The swindlers who tricked people into voting for their phony moneymaking scam, using such ingeniously crafted lies as "tax relief for the little guy," "2 percent of government spending," and "6th highest taxed state," now have the cheek to politely ask their own victims for legal aid. Not content with the half million taxpayer dollars that the attorney general's office is spending to defend their fraud.

But not surprising. Expect to see more of it. A professional confidence trickster will keep smiling, patting you on the shoulder, looking you straight in the eye and repeating, "Don't be fooled! I'm on your side!" even while his tricks are exposed and his arguments are shot down. They have to keep up an image of honesty, so that they have a hope of making people fall for their new scam, which has the potential to boost their profits even more than the last one did.

Interestingly, I think that Craig is one of their well-meaning victims too, though he is determined not to see it himself.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), March 30, 2000.

So what are you saying, Craig? Hitler was no Hitler?!?!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 01, 2000.

Millions were spent to defeat I-695. Anirudh still perpetuates the lies. I was not tricked into voting for it. Nor was I tricked into defending it. The impact was far less than what the "anti" side stated. Talk about hucksters wanting my money! Talk about shameless insults! That is why they could not defeat I-695. They tried to do it with lies and insults. When he was unsuccessful in changing our minds with his "facts" (read lies here folks.) he resorts to a weak and feeble personal attack on Tim Eyman. Now Anirudh tries to warn us that we are being tricked! Maybe, but not by Tim Eyman!

I knew when I voted for it, what the impact would probably be. And my own predications were far closer to anything the thieving liberals warned of. I take full responsibility for my actions. You want to attack someone for their opinions or actions? Attack me, it would be far less cowardly.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 01, 2000.

Craig (also Brad and Marsha, and some others): I'm starting to see that some of your earlier posts, which seemed (I'm sorry to say) incredibly arbitrary and irrational to me at first, are actually quite logical and rational given what YOU believe to be fair and just.

In simple terms, here's how I understand it: You believe that certain types of government spending, such as social programs which benefit the poor at the expense of the rich, and progressive taxes such as MVET, are MORALLY wrong -- because they amount to forcibly taking the money of the productive member of society, and using it to reward the unproductive. You are not opposed to charity, but you believe it should be voluntary, not enforced through taxation. You believe money that is taken forcibly should be limited to spending on certain minimal, essential things. You believe the people in government indulge in (what you feel are) frivolous and excessive spending programs because it is easy for them to be generous with other people's money, and they have too much of it.

The fact that it's a MORAL issue explains the level of indignation and anger in some of your statements -- it's not just a matter of $140 a year to you, but a matter of justice.

You believe that if the government is given less money, it will have no choice but to cut the excesses and limit itself to the necessary. How else (in your view) could a rational, morally upright person deal with a funding cut?

Your mistake, I think, is in assuming that everyone has the same sense of fairness and justice as you. Unfortunately for you, there are others who believe that the rich, while they are the most productive members of society, are also the ones who have benefited the most from society; that they did not "create" their wealth on their own without the society's contribution; that a wealthy state should have correspondingly well-funded public services; that it is immoral for the rich to NOT contribute to the community in proportion to what they have earned; and that it is absolutely the role of government in a civilized society to enforce some level of aid to the weak by the strong.

Since we live in a democracy, the government represents those people's beliefs as well as yours, and those people's representatives will fight real hard for what THEY believe in.

Which side is right? I don't know; that's a pretty deep question, with no easy answer. My point is that I-695 didn't do a thing for either side, as it was nothing more than a FUNDING cut, and didn't say a thing about how the cut should be handled. The desirable consequences of I-695 that you list above are things that you HOPE will happen, not things that have happened. Look at what's happening in King County, for example. Legislators are not dealing with the cuts in the way that YOU think is right. Councilmember Larry Gosset is still pushing his logo change issue. The study of UW-Kirkland ferries is still proceeding. Metro transit is cutting service, not raising fares. Since funds are divided equally by district, they will cut full rush hour buses in the dense urban areas, not only half- empty buses in the suburbs, unless they get replacement funding.

You may be aghast to see them handling the cuts in this way, and you may think they are doing it because they are greedy, thieving scoundrels, or because they are out to punish the voters. You may even call for a further tax cut to force them to behave right. I think it is much more likely that they are doing what THEY (not you) believe is fair and appropriate under the circumstances, or that they are under pressure from the very same special interest groups as before.

As you've said many times, your objection is not to the amount of money, but to the way it is spent. I-695 (very cleverly) avoided said anything about how the money should be spent. It just allowed you to believe that it was whatever YOU wanted it to be. In reality, it isn't doing what you wanted from it. Patrick makes this point above; I think dbvz and others have also raised it elsewhere, and I have never seen a good response from you.

That's why I think - although it may be hard to swallow - that you, too, were swindled by the mail order salesman, even though you've been his most vocal defender on this forum.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 01, 2000.

Private work, public expense

Conservation District leaders have history of accepting favors

STORIES BY CHESTER ALLEN, THE OLYMPIAN

OLYMPIA -- By state law, Olympia City Council members can't have city park workers mow their lawns or paint their houses. Thurston County commissioners can't have road crews patch their driveways.

But past and present members of the Thurston Conservation District Board of Supervisors have a long tradition of accepting public money and bringing district workers onto their land to do work at public expense.

That was true even when it was against the law.

The rest can be read at: http://news.theolympian.com/stories/20000402/HomePageStories/52893.sht ml

Feel free to defend this practice Anirudh. But don't lecture us on hucksters and swindlers. We already know who they are.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 02, 2000.

Back after severe computer problems. . . "In simple terms, here's how I understand it: You believe that certain types of government spending, such as social programs which benefit the poor at the expense of the rich, and progressive taxes such as MVET, are MORALLY wrong -- because they amount to forcibly taking the money of the productive member of society, and using it to reward the unproductive. You are not opposed to charity, but you believe it should be voluntary, not enforced through taxation. You believe money that is taken forcibly should be limited to spending on certain minimal, essential things. You believe the people in government indulge in (what you feel are) frivolous and excessive spending programs because it is easy for them to be generous with other people's money, and they have too much of it." You've painted with an overly broad brush here. I'll attempt to respond point by point: "You believe that certain types of government spending, such as social programs which benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. . .reward the unproductive." Ummm, I don't really have a strong opinion on this matter. As a practical matter, I'm unconvinced of the efficacy of most social programs. "You are not opposed to charity, but you believe it should be voluntary, not enforced through taxation." I generally agree with this. I personally think Habitat for Humanity is one of the best ideas for helping the poor I've ever seen. Why?? Because the sweat equity requirement ensures those helped *must* help others as well as ensuring the people feel like they've *paid* for something. "You believe money that is taken forcibly should be limited to spending on certain minimal, essential things." I don't think *anyone* would disagree with the above sentence. I do expect dramatic disagreements on what constitutes "essential." "You believe the people in government indulge in (what you feel are) frivolous and excessive spending programs because it is easy for them to be generous with other people's money, and they have too much of it." I would extend what you said to include the reward system for government managers. As almost *any* type of manager (govt or otherwise), I'm rewarded by the amount of resources (staff and $$$) I control. Given governments are generally monopolies *and* they can toss people in jail, I'd like to see government managers rewarded with some percentage of their budget "leftover." Put another way, if your bonus depends on the profits inherent with negotiating a reasonable deal with the garbagemen, there is a higher probability you'll be a tough bargainer. On the other hand, if your compensation depends on: increasing the size of your staff *and* not making your boss look bad with his boss (p*ssing off labor in a Locke administration would be a career non-starter), the probability of your being a pushover is alot higher. FWIW, I understand the garbagemen aren't public employee. . .but you should get the idea. "The fact that it's a MORAL issue explains the level of indignation and anger in some of your statements -- it's not just a matter of $140 a year to you, but a matter of justice." I don't really know what justice is. For me, it comes down to several things: large organizations (public *or* private) are almost never effective.
organizational inertia -- Like people, all organizations (large *or* small) tend to do what they've been doing. Again, like people, they generally don't change unless life has given them a severe blow. In other words, I believe organizational chaos is beneficial for organizations in the long run (given it doesn't "kill" the organization. . .I-695 in any form was orders of magnitude from killing government in the state of washington). "You believe that if the government is given less money, it will have no choice but to cut the excesses and limit itself to the necessary. How else (in your view) could a rational, morally upright person deal with a funding cut?" As you and I have discussed earlier, there is evidence indicating this was starting to occur. Fortunately, most people won't take the proverbial step of removing their nose from their face. "Your mistake, I think, is in assuming that everyone has the same sense of fairness and justice as you." Y'all would be better off not guessing what I assume. Like I said before, I wouldn't claim to have a clue what fairness and justice is. As an aside, it's been my experience that people parroting concepts like social or economic justice don't either. Personally, I think it's dangerous to define justice as anything other than an even-handed application of governmental rules and procedures. Otherwise, in my experience, one person's justice and equality turns into another injustice and inequality. "My point is that I-695 didn't do a thing for either side, as it was nothing more than a FUNDING cut, and didn't say a thing about how the cut should be handled." Popular votes on tax and fee increases weren't really implemented. If they had, I suspect they would've had some effect (not so much in $$$ spent per se, but WRT the lobbying process). In any case, earlier evidence (remembering our previous discussion about planned RTA service cuts) shows you to be incorrect. Put another way, things like I-695 are important because they give cover to bureaucrats who want to effect change. With chaos swirling everywhere, a revolutionary change is an easier sell. "Since funds are divided equally by district, they will cut full rush hour buses in the dense urban areas, not only half- empty buses in the suburbs, unless they get replacement funding." On this one, y'all are gonna need to show me. "As you've said many times, your objection is not to the amount of money, but to the way it is spent." Personally, I was expecting state and local governments to get a bit of a nasty surprise. It's inarguable to say they didn't. FWIW, did it occur to you that your final paragraphs also applies to the people terrified of the changes I-695 would bring? IOW, the dreaded changes weren't nearly as bad as they said they would be. Extending your analogy, if we got swindled by a watch salesman, you got swindled by a good number of politicians, lobbyists, and the media. Anyone else remember the 70,000 cars/day figure Metro quoted?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 03, 2000.

apologies for the horrible formatting!!

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 03, 2000.

Craig: "I am a good deal less naive than you, apparently. You actually think the system is working that way."

I readily accept the possibility that I'm a good deal more naive than you in matters of American government, since you've observed government from the inside for decades, while I never cared about government matters or politics until I got involved in a government issue relatively recently. I'm not sure what you mean by "playing a partisan game". I'm still working on understanding the various American partisan issues.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that you are infallible, or that I have nothing of value to say to you. You can use the "I've been around longer, so I know better" argument for some things, but not for everything.

I'm not naive enough to fall for Eyman's snake oil sales pitch, as some of the pro-695ers on this forum are. His sales pitch works by pushing the emotional buttons of the majority in this state. Perhaps it's easier for me to see through it because I grew up in a different culture, and I have different buttons.

If you can admonish me for my greenness, I can caution you (and others on your side) about some potential pitfalls of your strong moral convictions. Again, perhaps it's easier for me to spot these things than it is for a native because I don't have the inbuilt biases that are common in this culture (i.e. I have a DIFFERENT set of biases). There are 3 that I think are worth mentioning.

Firstly, while you have insight into what goes on, it is likely to be distorted by your accumulated rage from years of watching immoral and inappropriate use of public funds (with the complicity of the people in charge); and this can cause you to be prejudiced about any reports of government spending. Witness, for example, your knee-jerk reaction of indignation at a brief newspaper report about the UW- Kirkland ferry study - mistaking the study's findings (of the high cost of service) for an actual *proposal* to spend the money, without knowing the background that led to the study. Or how readily you mistook a Tribune report about King Co. Metro transit cuts to mean that 30% of the buses are nearly empty.

"You actually think the system is working that way" and [from Marsha] "Feel free to defend this practice Anirudh."

My previous post might have given the impression that I think every legislator is well-intentioned. I don't think that at all. I grew up in a country where the government is MUCH more corrupt than in the United States. I'm sure you've seen plenty of corruption here too at many levels. My own brief experience with American bureaucracy has already shown me how easy it would be for the system to hide, and perpetuate, its own flaws.

I'm saying (and this is the second pitfall) that you may ALSO be mistaking some legislators' GOOD intentions for immorality, simply because THEIR moral system doesn't match yours. Your conviction in your own moral system is so strong that you seem to think it is THE only valid moral system. (e.g. in your remark, "Actually, it is not a deep question and the answer is easy," you seem to be dismissing every philosophy of taxation other than the conservative one. I don't think the question is that clear-cut. I think it boils down to how you believe people should treat each other when they live together, and that probably depends on how you were raised.) That can (maybe it hasn't, but it can) lead you to wrongly condemn well- intentioned people.

Marsha seems to have fallen into this trap, when she refers to liberals as "greedy" and "thieving". I think most (of the non- corrupt) liberals believe they are acting out of generosity, not greed. If liberals were acting out of greed, then liberal Seattle would use its strength in the state legislature to milk the rest of the state for money. In fact, Seattle heavily subsidizes rural WA.

(Liberals make the same type of mistake when they call conservatives "selfish" for killing social programs. Conservatives aren't necessarily "selfish"; they just believe charity should not be enforced through taxation.)

The third potential pitfall of your moral convictions is to assume that anybody who attacks this immoral institution, the government, must be a good guy, with the same good intentions as you. Marsha seems to be on her way into this trap too. She says, "don't lecture us on hucksters and swindlers. We already know who they are" -- but she thinks that Eyman isn't one of them!!! THIS is a VERY DANGEROUS trap, because it can make you fall for his NEXT scam, which may not coincide with your moral beliefs at all.

You (Craig) have not fallen into it. In your post above about Hitler, I think you are saying that yes, Eyman was a liar, but that's not a big deal because

(1) It's the people's own fault if they fell for the lies; and

(2) He lied for a just cause. (More precisely: the results of his lies happened to closely coincide with something that I, Craig, believe to be morally correct.)

Personally, I heartily disagree with both excuses. Do you believe the people who didn't carefully check the facts, and were tricked into believing the "2% of government spending" figure, had a right to know what they were really voting for? Does your moral system condone the achievement of results by fraud?

Anyway, it seems that your reasons for voting for I-695 had nothing to do with Tim Eyman. Fine. (I liked the point that the bureaucrats have no pressure (or excuse) to cut pork unless there is a funding cut. You seem quite confident that they will start eliminating pork once the surplus runs out. That gives me some reassurance, since you ought to know. But I'm concerned that the funding cut also made it harder for those with LEGITIMATE needs to get funds. They are still in competition with the special interests.)

"And if the politicians continue to make worse and worse decisions (eliminating full buses to run empty ones, for instance) they ultimately will undermine their own credibility even more."

BTW, about the policy of dividing up King Co. transit funds equally by district, regardless of density, I personally think it is a poor one too. But interestingly enough, it was done (just a few years ago) at the insistence of the suburban (and conservative) Eastside, who wanted to get an equal share of the county transit budget so that they could build bus ridership. I seriously doubt that a funding cut is going to motivate the Eastside to be generous enough to give up their own transit funds for the sake of Seattle.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

Anirudh, my friend

I'm saying (and this is the second pitfall) that you may ALSO be mistaking some legislators' GOOD intentions for immorality, simply because THEIR moral system doesn't match yours. Your conviction in your own moral system is so strong that you seem to think it is THE only valid moral system. (e.g. in your remark, "Actually, it is not a deep question and the answer is easy," you seem to be dismissing every philosophy of taxation other than the conservative one. I don't think the question is that clear-cut. I think it boils down to how you believe people should treat each other when they live together, and that probably depends on how you were raised.) That can (maybe it hasn't, but it can) lead you to wrongly condemn well- intentioned people.

I think you are confusing morality with good governance. I know from long observation the ease with which good intentions can rationalize bad (or less judgementallyerroneous, ineffective, or inefficient) actions with public resources by both elected officials and the legions of non-elected bureaucrats even less accountable to the public.

I am interested not in abolishing government, but in getting government that WORKS and is not oppressive. Anyone can make government work (at least for the short term) by making it totalitarian although this ultimately demoralizes the people and ruins incentive and long term viability. Anyone can make government work (at least for the short term) by running inefficiently totalitarian although this ultimately demoralizes the people and ruins incentive and long term viability. Id like a government that does the things that need to be done in an efficient manner at a reasonable cost.

But I'm concerned that the funding cut also made it harder for those with LEGITIMATE needs to get funds. They are still in competition with the special interests 

And I AM philosophically opposed to dealing with government on the basis that special interest groups must be paid off before the common good. If the politician or bureaucrat must first provide favors to the special interests or first grease the palms of a corrupt bureaucracy, this too will demoralize people and decrease the long- term viability of any society. I HAVE traveled and lived in other lands with other cultures and know that many governments that are much more corrupt than ours, and that they have harmed their people by being that corrupt. That is a reason to have continued vigilance by the citizens to preserve our relatively non-corrupt and efficient government, not an excuse to say we neednt worry about it. I know of nothing more tragic than the plight of many good people in countries like Mexico that have a tradition of abusive leadership that dates back to the Conquistadores who cant even feed their families in that environment, but thrive when transplanted to the US. And that applies no matter if the local tradition is patronage, cumshaw, or whatever. We are an immigrant nation and the immigrants, for the most part, do far better here than they did in their native countries precisely because our government does work with more efficiency and less corruption.

So forgive me if I continue to insist on responsible and limited government THAT WORKS. Im doing to maintain the environment that provides you with the opportunities that you have here, just as it provided my immigrant ancestors with their opportunities 150 years ago.

The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 05, 2000.

"BTW, about the policy of dividing up King Co. transit funds equally by district, regardless of density, I personally think it is a poor one too. But interestingly enough, it was done (just a few years ago) at the insistence of the suburban (and conservative) Eastside, who wanted to get an equal share of the county transit budget so that they could build bus ridership. I seriously doubt that a funding cut is going to motivate the Eastside to be generous enough to give up their own transit funds for the sake of Seattle. "

Anirudh-

I don't think you understand the history well enough. This applies to RTA/Sound Transit, but does not apply to Metro Transit. It was put in place after two forward thrust initiatives were voted down and one previous RTA proposal was voted down, precisely because of a long history of proposals strongly favored by Seattle that provided for county-wide taxation with Seattle reaping all the benefit. Read up on the histroy of the late-lamented Kingdome where the Seattle interests reneged on an agreement to let the location of the Kingdome be decided by a disinterested committee of experts that had been made as a condition of passage of the Kingdome vote (on the second or third attempt). Don't be so quick to criticize restrictions that are the result of experience, without at least reading up on the history that lead to those restrictions. The RTA would not have passed (in fact, had already been turned down) absent this restriction, and it was put in by RTA advocates because they knew this was the only way it woulf be accepted, given the well-earned mistrust of the rest of the county for Seattle.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

"That is a reason to have continued vigilance by the citizens to preserve our relatively non-corrupt and efficient government, not an excuse to say we neednt worry about it."

To clarify: When I said "I grew up in a country where the government is MUCH more corrupt than in the United States," that wasn't to say that the government here is just fine. It was to say that I've seen how corrupt government can get if left unchecked. It's good that so many folks here are constantly vigilant about what the government, the police force, etc. are doing.

At the same time, it's amusing how many people's suspicion of their own government makes them such easy targets for con men, who make a halfway believable case that they are saving you from "The Politicians," and then use that to get you to buy into their own self- serving schemes.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

Anirudh,

For some time now you have made accusations that Tim Eyman and Co- sponsors are liars, con men and that they have self-serving interests and worse. Besides the fact that most peoples interests are self- serving, (in my opinion), you have provided no proof of your accusations. I have previously asked, and will ask again, provide your "proof" to us. I want to see the "personal gain" they have received. Expose for us, this money making scheme.

We are not interested in your biases, and attempts at character assassination, just give us your "facts". What are these "facts", and why have they not been widely circulated by the press?

If you try to use the feeble 2% argument, it is not valid. As I stated before, millions were spent to persuade us otherwise, so the opposing view was readily available to the voting public to make their own comparisons. If this is the only "fact" you have, perhaps you only have a prejudice. I did not vote for I-695 because of the size of the affected budget. I considered all of the provisions of I- 695, and knew what the impact would be in my community. It was well publicized. Sorry, but the gloom and doom just hasn't happened. I am not displeased with the results either. Budgets were much more closely scrutinized, and major changes occurred. It also made the public more aware of local budget needs, which I think is a very positive step.

I also notice that you avoided a response on an example article that I posted that supports MY position. I think your only response was [from Marsha] "Feel free to defend this practice Anirudh." I presented the article, and I do know who the liars and thieves are. Yes, there are some good liberal folks out there, but too many who have the desire to take away rights and freedoms for the public good. I don't give a rats a** if they have good intentions or not. I value my freedom, and I oppose anyone who wants to curtail it.

The fact of the matter is, I am fully capable of making up my own mind about "Tim Eyman" and his initiatives. If his "Initiatives" do not "exactly" reflect my position, I ask myself if I feel they are taking us in the "right direction" and if the answer is yes, I support the Initiative unless something better is presented. Believe it or not, I am capable of weighing the benefits and pit falls and making my own decision. And for the 56% who approved I-695, you are insulting every one of us when you say we were taken in by a con man. I wasn't, and you should be ashamed for this nasty attempt.

I don't particularly care if you personally do not like Tim Eyman and want to think of him as a con man. But when you present your opinion as fact in a public forum, I expect you to have some "facts" to back yourself up. So far, I have seen nothing. You dropped out of posting to previous threads, including giving us your stay tuned, part 2.

As far as I am concerned, you have no credibility here. Even Patrick and Matthew come up with an occasional "fact". So far, they have not fallen to the depths you have.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

"I have previously asked, and will ask again, provide your "proof" to us. I want to see the "personal gain" they have received. Expose for us, this money making scheme."

Well I know your love of me offering information on questions you've asked other people, but if it's facts you want...

There was that $25,000 that Eyman received from the American Conservative Union. I believe Eyman said he was going to buy an SUV with it. Now I certainly don't make as much money as Eyman does, but I have to think that $25k is a fairly sizable personal gain for him too.

This is also a bit hazy, but according to the most recent PDC reports, the $30 Initiative Campaign spent $154,472 less than they received, which means they only spent about 65% of what people donated. Perhaps they're using this for the legal defense. But then again, Tim was out campaigning for defense money AFTER these reports were filed. Unless there was a lot of I-695 spending done AFTER the election, the campaign has a very healthy reserve. Yet again, Tim is still out begging for more money....

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.

Patrick,

I guess I am looking for some sort of wrong doing, according to Anirudh's statements. The $25,000 was certainly legitimate in my opinion. I believe the "watch salesman" worked very hard on I-695. I have no problem with such an award. He had no way of knowing in advance that he would receive the award for his part in the passage of I-695.

As far as the legal defense fund is concerned, please tell me, is there currently a suspicion of fraud by authorities? If there is, by all means, let us know. But IF it is based on Anirudh's faulty assumptions, and there are no facts to support such statements, then I would say this attempt by Anirudh is just sour grapes due to something far more personal than he has admitted.

You have added nothing more than incomplete information. What I am looking for are facts. I want to see legitimate information that fraud HAS been committed. So far I see none.

So I conclude that there is no such information and this is just a smear campaign.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

"There was that $25,000 that Eyman received from the American Conservative Union"

Yup, and Mother Theresa spent her life working for the poor just to get the Nobel Peace prize set up by that dead dynamite salesman.

Patrick, you're reaching for excuses to demagogue against him to the point of irrationality. Attacking his ideas is OK (except of course that a majority agrees with him), attacking him personally, well, if you have any credible evidence he's diverted donated funds to personal use, tell the IRS. If you don't have credible evidence, why are you spouting off?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

Patrick--"This is also a bit hazy, but according to the most recent PDC reports, the $30 Initiative Campaign spent $154,472 less than they received, which means they only spent about 65% of what people donated. Perhaps they're using this for the legal defense. But then again, Tim was out campaigning for defense money AFTER these reports were filed. Unless there was a lot of I-695 spending done AFTER the election, the campaign has a very healthy reserve. Yet again, Tim is still out begging for more money...."

Umm, you don't 'spose he wants $$$$ to help his two new initiatives get onto the ballot.

In any case, the paragraph above reminds me of "have you stopped beating your wife?" Unless you're attempting to fill the void created by the departure of maddjak or Tony, you're gonna need to do better than this.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 06, 2000.

Marsha: You seem to think that if I oppose Tim Eyman, then I must be defending corrupt government supervisors who use public money to improve their personal property.

What led you to that conclusion?

(BTW, I will have more substance to present in the next few days.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Anirudh,

You say Tim Eyman is a con man. I say prove it. You either have the information, or you don't which is it? Stop stalling.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Marsha,

Do you want an example of where Eyman and co. blatantly lied to the public? Prior to the election, they claimed in the media that local governments had a $3 billion surplus, to try and make it look like there would be absolutely no impact from the funding losses caused by 695. Turns out that it was not a surplus, but tax money that has already been appropriated for future spending and is invested after it is collected, so that it'll earn interest until it is spent.

When called on it, Eyman said this: "We 100 percent stand behind that $3 billion figure. We do not back down an inch off of that statement."

He was told what the money actually was, and you can see what he said. Are you telling me that he wasn't lying to the public when he made that statement? If he wasn't lying, the only other option would be that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Marsha asked for evidence of "personal gain" (her quotes) that Eyman has received. As she has done in the past, she has significantly narrowed her definition after being presented evidence in order for her to be able to ignore that evidence. The fact remains that he did receive that award money. I am certainly not saying that he got into this under the assumption that he would receive this money. But with his "I'm going to buy an SUV with this money" comments, he is definitely showing that he'll take personal gain from the results of his campaign. I think that a certain shadow can be rationally cast on his actions, as he did say that he was going to get out of politics for a while a the time of the election, and he has obviously gone back on this. But had he donated it to the campaign, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Brad, I am glad that you are concerned about the possibility of me trying to make up for the absence of maddjak and Tony. I can assure you that I have no intention of doing so.

I'm not entirely sure what the public disclosure laws say about initiative political committees, but for candidates, there are strict laws about the use of surplus funds. They either have to: return the funds to the donors, transfer the surplus to the candidate's personal account to make up for wages lost during the campaign, transfer it to a political party, donate it to a charity, give it to the state General Fund, or hold it for use in a future campaign for the same office. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that unless the "30 Dollar Car Tab Initiative" committee filed as a continuing committee, it can't be using that money for other purposes (such as the two new initiatives). This is a very good law, as it protects people's money from being donated for one cause and being used for a completely different one.

Now I haven't seen the expenditure reports for I-695 (they're still working on putting the 1998 reports online and I have better things to do than digging through a whole bunch of paperwork), but here's one thing you can do that is perfectly legal. You can take time off work to campaign for an issue. During this time, you can have things like travel, lodging, and meals paid for by the campaign if you are working on the issue. After the campaign is over, you can take surplus money from the campaign (with permission from the treasurer) to reimburse yourself for the wages you would have earned had you not taken off time from work. In theory, ending up with a whole lot more money left over at the end of the day than you would have had you not been involved in the campaign. Now keep in mind that this entirely legal. Whether or not you agree with the idea is up to you. But it can and has been done, although it is rare. Usually because most campaigns break even or are in debt by the time the election hits.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

Patrick,

I say again, if you have evidence of fraud, I would like to see it.

Since the $25,000 WAS after the fact, I don't see how it even could be considered in this discussion. Personal gain after the fact, that he had no way of anticipating, tells me nothing in regards to fraud.

The accusation has been made, yet there is no evidence forthcoming.

By the way, I guess you had better put me in the same category as Mr. Eyman. I personally gained $90 after I-695 passed. So this makes me a huckster, con-artist and guilty of fraud? Unless you continue to remit your 1999 license tab amount to the state, you also personally gained and are in the same category.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

BB,

Anirudh wrote "The ultimate shameless insult. The swindlers who tricked people into voting for their phony moneymaking scam, using such ingeniously crafted lies as "tax relief for the little guy," "2 percent of government spending," and "6th highest taxed state," now have the cheek to politely ask their own victims for legal aid. Not content with the half million taxpayer dollars that the attorney general's office is spending to defend their fraud.

But not surprising. Expect to see more of it. A professional confidence trickster will keep smiling, patting you on the shoulder, looking you straight in the eye and repeating, "Don't be fooled! I'm on your side!" even while his tricks are exposed and his arguments are shot down. They have to keep up an image of honesty, so that they have a hope of making people fall for their new scam, which has the potential to boost their profits even more than the last one did.

If this is not an accusation of fraud, what is it? "Boost their profits?

You posted "He was told what the money actually was, and you can see what he said. Are you telling me that he wasn't lying to the public when he made that statement? If he wasn't lying, the only other option would be that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about."

I am telling you that it is probably neither. He may have a different interpretation of that figure that you do.

This is hardly evidence of fraud or even lies. It is evidence of two differing points of view. We are covering the same topics now, that we did prior to the passage of I-695. None of this is new information. I am beginning to think none of you even know what constitutes fraud or what is considered evidence. If you truly had such information, I am sure you would have given the information the proper authorities instead of posting accusations in the I-695 forum.

I ask again, if you have proof of fraud, please provide it. So far, I have seen nothing credible.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Marsha writes:

>>I am telling you that it is probably neither.<<

Then you are wrong.

>>He may have a different interpretation of that figure that you do.<<

There is absolutely nothing to interpret. It is not a surplus. Eyman claimed that it was, and as you read, did not back down when he was told that it was not a surplus. That either makes him a liar or clueless, as I have already stated. There simply is no other possibility, despite what you'd like to believe.

>>This is hardly evidence of fraud or even lies. It is evidence of two differing points of view.<<

You clearly do not understand. There aren't two points of view to have; there is one, and only one, interpretation of what the money is that Eyman was talking about. By refusing to acknowledge this, Eyman was either lying or showing that he had no idea what he was talking about.

>>I am beginning to think none of you even know what constitutes fraud or what is considered evidence.<<

I didn't claim that there was fraud, I claimed that Eyman lied.

But just for fun, here's the black letter definition of fraud: "A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act." Yes I do know what fraud means; do you?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

And again Marsha, you didn't say "fraud" to begin with, you said "personal gain." I showed you personal gain, and then you changed your request after the fact. I never claimed that he committed fraud, just that there is a distinct possibility (even without the award money) that he came out with more money after this campaign than he would have had he never submitted I-695.

And so we are on the same page, I consider "personal gain" in this case to be money over and beyond what you had to begin with. So you wouldn't be in the same boat as Eyman. That $90 you saved was your existing money that you just didn't have to part with.

Now to repeat, you said:

"I have previously asked, and will ask again, provide your "proof" to us. I want to see the "personal gain" they have received. Expose for us, this money making scheme."

Perhaps you said the word "fraud" in another thread, but here your clearly didn't. "Fraud" and "personal gain" are two VERY different terms. You can claim that I'm not providing you with evidence, but that's only because you're being intellectually dishonest by altering your request after the fact. If you want to debate his "personal gain" that is one thing, but right now you're just playing a game of dodging the answer.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

Patrick and BB,

BB wrote "There is absolutely nothing to interpret. It is not a surplus. Eyman claimed that it was, and as you read, did not back down when he was told that it was not a surplus. That either makes him a liar or clueless, as I have already stated. There simply is no other possibility, despite what you'd like to believe."

"did not back down when he was told that it was not a surplus."

Who told him that? Was it someone he should have found credible? You haven't provided me enough facts to form an opinion on this issue, and without hearing from Eyman himself on what his position and interpretation of the figure was, I am not about to call him a liar or clueless. Nice try though.

BB also wrote "I didn't claim that there was fraud, I claimed that Eyman lied." You made this statement even though you made another statement acknowledging there was another possibility. Since you acknowledge two possibilities that tells me you do not really know anything at all.

Since you know so much about liars BB, would you please explain why so many elected officials and bureaucrats made specific predictions on what would happen if I-695 passed THAT HAVE NOT HAPPENED? I am anxious to know what you think of these people who told us ____ people would be fired, or _____ service would be cut, and then a few months later, "revised" their stories? Surely some of the predictions came true, but far more did not. These lies were meant to confuse and alarm voters and in my opinion, were far worse than anything Eyman has been accused of. Where is your outrage at them?

Patrick,

This is an excellent example of an interpretation:

You wrote "And so we are on the same page, I consider "personal gain" in this case to be money over and beyond what you had to begin with. So you wouldn't be in the same boat as Eyman. That $90 you saved was your existing money that you just didn't have to part with."

I consider my $90 in this case to be "personal gain." If not for I- 695, I would have HAD to pay it. I gained $90 due to the passage of I- 695. I suppose I could have not registered to save the money, but not bloody likely.

"Perhaps you said the word "fraud" in another thread, but here your clearly didn't. "Fraud" and "personal gain" are two VERY different terms. You can claim that I'm not providing you with evidence, but that's only because you're being intellectually dishonest by altering your request after the fact. If you want to debate his "personal gain" that is one thing, but right now you're just playing a game of dodging the answer."

Gee, I already acknowledged the personal gain. I guess you missed it. The $25,000 "AWARD" was a legitimate personal gain, and not wrong doing. You have not provided evidence of personal gain regarding the legal defense fund.

Now that we have THAT out of the way.....

Please provide evidence of fraud, or do you want to play a game of dodging the answer?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.