I thought his complaint was that it was a political ruling, but during the show he actually got mad that the judge had taken a legal rather than a political stance.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 31, 2000

Answers

Howard,

I watched Town Meeting, and I was generally disappointed with the behavior quite a few people in the crowd on both sides of the fence, but that's usually the way it works at events like that. A lot of yelling, a lot of emotion, and very little substance.

Tim Eyman was very evasive. Ken Schram could rarely get him to directly answer any question. It usually took him at least a couple of tries to get Eyman to answer even the simplest yes or no question.

To add to your comments, I found Eyman's accusation about the judge amusing. I think he's just confused, but that appears to happen quite a bit. He's pretty consistently wrong about most everything he talks about. (2%, $3 billion local surplus, 6th highest taxed state, 695 is constitutional, etc...) A general rule of thumb: when Eyman uses his catch phrase "the reality is...", any statement following soon after is usually the opposite of reality.

I also found it interesting that some in the audience attacked Mike Vaska (no on 695's spokesperson) as a liberal; they obviously don't realize that he headed up the campaign for R-49, which was a Republican-sponsored referendum. Apparently they're also confused.

And I laughed when Vaska asked Eyman if he'd be willing to have a non- partisan panel of constitutional attorneys/scholars review Initiatives 711 and 722 *before* they got put on the ballot, and Eyman refused, despite his claims that they are constitutional. If he's so certain that they're constitutional, why not have some experts on the subject render their opinion?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 01, 2000.

Craig writes:

"the reality is, as we saw from 695, that successful initiatives push the agenda even if they are subsequently ruled unconstitutional."

Yes and no. Seen any action on term limits lately?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 02, 2000.

Yes and no is still batting .500. Without some impetus for change, the bureaucracy will just get fatter. I'm not a Zealot. I appreciate every improvement I get, even if less than a full measure. No step is a bad step if it's headed in the right direction. Sometimes they're small steps, sometimes there are two steps forward and one back. But the progress is appreciated, however meager.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 02, 2000.

It is very interesting to read the semi-hysterical bashing of Tim Eyman that is being done by the "big government more taxes" types. While you read their posturings, just consider what Tim has accomplished.

1. The $30.00 tabs are now law. And the other part of 695, the voter approval for all taxes, is certainly not dead.

2. The demise, at least for part of the time, of the HOV lanes is now being seriously considered both in the legislature and the governor's mansion, merely because of the threat of one of Eyman's upcoming initiatives.

3. The beginnings of property tax reduction is now being seriously proposed in Olympia, again primarily because of another proposed Eyman initiative.

Does anyone really believe that anything like this would have happened except for the efforts of this much maligned "mail order salesman"? One of the nost difficult things to do is to actually get the attention of a legislator, which Mr. Eyman has done in spades. His is a textbook case of what one fed-up citizen can do. As far as I'm concerned, he's done infinitely more for this state than any number of Paul Allens.

How about John Carlson for Governor, Tim Eyman for Lieutenant Governor! I can hardly wait to read the editorials in the Times and the PI on this one.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), April 02, 2000.

>It is very interesting to read the semi-hysterical bashing of Tim Eyman that is being done by the "big government more taxes" types.<

Yes it blows my mind, that is why I'm convinced they are state government employees or they benefit from high taxes in some way... maybe they are "special interest" people who got deals going with the state gov so they can sell their stuff at 10 times + above the real market... like a $500 hammer.

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), April 03, 2000.

....or maybe they are members of the intellectual "elite" of colleges and universities who have been brainwashed into the cult of Socialism.

-- Steve (nospam@earthlink.net), April 03, 2000.

Albert, Steve,

It probably feels good to call every opponent of 695 a "big gov't socialist". In reality, the stereotypes don't hold up very well. Seattle voters--who have been described by many on this board as "liberal Seattle voters"--can hardly be accused of routinely voting for higher taxes. If I correctly recall the vote on our new stadia, the majority of Seattlites voted no.

As I've said elsewhere on this board, 695 may be a populist cause, but populist doesn't mean conservative. The issue is more complex than these simplistic stereotypes.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 03, 2000.

Yeah, I get a deep belly laugh every time one of Eyman's minions calls me a "Big Government Socialist" just because I'm against 695. Yet if you ask them to explain the logic behind 711, they just stare at you with an empty gaze.

I loved the look on Eyman's face when he was asked direct questions (none of which he could answer) the other night. Kind of like a deer caught in the headlights. Hee hee.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), April 03, 2000.

CS,

My take on Tim Eyman is about the same as yours. About all he (and some of the studio audience) got out of their civics courses was the phrase "majority rules". Do they think that slavery could be reinstated through an initiative if a majority favored it? The tape of that Town Meeting would be an exhibit to my argument for remaining a republic rather than a direct democracy.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 03, 2000.

CS--I enjoyed watching town meeting as well.

All things considered, I think Tim Eyman did pretty well. He certainly knows more than most politicians about staying on message.

Personally, I'd like Schram to get someone more interesting on the no-695 side than Mike Vaska. I think Rick Bender would be a better choice. That being said, he may have been one of the labor types in the audience.

Did anyone else notice the wackjob who spoke near the beginning of the program? He was anti-695, balding on top, and had long hair in the back. Furthermore, he appeared to spend a good portion of the show talking to himself. Does anybody know his story???

As an aside, the most remarkable thing I saw during the program was the assertion that I-695 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ummm, how???

Wonder if Rudy is reading this. . .

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

BB--"And I laughed when Vaska asked Eyman if he'd be willing to have a non- partisan panel of constitutional attorneys/scholars review Initiatives 711 and 722 *before* they got put on the ballot, and Eyman refused, despite his claims that they are constitutional. If he's so certain that they're constitutional, why not have some experts on the subject render their opinion?" If I were in Eyman's position, I wouldn't bother doing this either. If you make it to the ballot, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose nor does it matter if you're untimately found constitutional. This is what Vaska either doesn't understand (unlikely) or doesn't want to discuss (likely). I think the legal battle is irrelevant. If you frame initiatives as a 400lb. gorilla (pun intended) tactic in a war of attrition, I-695 comes out a winner even if it loses at the ballot box *or* is struck down in court. Even if it had lost at the ballot box, there is still $2.2M and innumerable lobbying hours (remember: this must, by law, be *private* money) than cannot be spent to work on sweetening the public trough. Put another way, if you want to render Tim Eyman ineffective, you better hope his initiatives stay off the ballot. AFAICT, there are two ways to do this: 1) get rid of the initiative process (IMO this solution would only appeal to tyrannical types)
2) quit lobbying politicians for causes that are obviously goofy or self-serving (ie circus animals, logo changes, or baseball stadiums) to the overwhelming majority of observers Don't bother calling me Machiavellian. Framed in this manner, the *process* contains both the ends and the means.

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

Ack. . .the horrible formatting. . .sorry 'bout that.

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

Brad,

The legal battle is irrelevant I suppose if the desired effect is achieved. However, do the "true believers" support this cynical exercise as a means to an end or do they at some point decide they've been conned?

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 04, 2000.

Howard--"The legal battle is irrelevant I suppose if the desired effect is achieved. However, do the "true believers" support this cynical exercise as a means to an end or do they at some point decide they've been conned?"

What question are you really trying to ask? I ask this because your two "alternatives" are incongruent.

"a means to an end". . .sheesh, after I told ya to not get all Machiavellian on me. If you frame the tactic as I did, process *is* the end. If you think this framework is ridiculous, you might want to start preparing apologies in several widely used languages.

Returning to my earlier point, L. Ron Hubbard (a wacko in most ways but brilliant in one) understood this implicitly with his motto "always attack, never defend" (did this originate with Mao??). This is why I find Tim's name for his organization--Permanent Offense--fascinating.

As an aside, I believe the Hegelian model (synthesis / anti-synthesis struggle for power) is *extremely* dangerous for groups that aren't "in power." Unfortunately, their leadership often uses this model to garner support from their target constituency (the easiest way to solidify your organization is to define who *isn't* in it).

3 paragraphs and only a barely common theme. . .ouch!

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 04, 2000.

Brad,

I suppose my question was whether people will still support any particular interest group's initiative efforts if they feel they haven't been let in on the real agenda. In other words, if the whole process is just intended to send a message because the sponsors don't really think the initiatives are constitutional, can the sponsors still expect to get popular support? Or, a related question, do the sponsors just think the general public can't figure the game out?

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 04, 2000.

Howard--"I suppose my question was whether people will still support any particular interest group's initiative efforts if they feel they haven't been let in on the real agenda. In other words, if the whole process is just intended to send a message because the sponsors don't really think the initiatives are constitutional, can the sponsors still expect to get popular support? Or, a related question, do the sponsors just think the general public can't figure the game out?"

I don't particularly care about the overall agenda. I'm reminded of the current silliness with Bellevue refusing to accept *free* (worth around $15k I think) trigger locks provided by a pro-gun group. From what I heard, they refused to accept them because they thought it was inappropriate given they "didn't know the groups full agenda." If Bellevue officials think trigger locks are a good thing, why should they care why the group is providing them?

Using an on-topic example, I know a couple of enviros who voted *for* I-695 for one simple reason--they didn't want any more $$$ spent on roads. I don't particularly agree with their agenda, but the 695 wagon had alot of room.

As an aside, given how unlikely it is that legislators know the "full agenda" of their *fellow* legislators, it's ridiculous to expect voters to know the full agenda of people sponsoring initiatives.

Out of curiousity (you brought it up), you might want to explain to us what you believe Tim Eyman's hidden agenda is.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 04, 2000.

Brad,

I thought I was following-up on your comments--whether Machiavelian or not. I actually don't think Tim Eyman has a hidden agenda--unless some future personal political aspirations qualify. No, to the contrary I think he is genuinely obtuse--a quality that is hard to fake. I've seen people ask him direct and thoughtful questions, and if he is acting, I can only compliment him on how completely he has mastered that glazed look.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 04, 2000.

CS writes:

>>Yeah, I get a deep belly laugh every time one of Eyman's minions calls me a "Big Government Socialist" just because I'm against 695.<<

The fascinating thing to me is that 695 and 711 are both *very* anti- local control. I'm a big believer that the more local and small government is, the more effecient and responsive to the needs of its citizens it is.

Yet both these initiatives have the voters of all the state telling the voters of local governments that they don't know what they are doing, and that one rule fits all instead of allowing individual areas to make choices by themselves. Doesn't really fit the conservative motif, does it?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

"Yet both these initiatives have the voters of all the state telling the voters of local governments that they don't know what they are doing, and that one rule fits all instead of allowing individual areas to make choices by themselves. Doesn't really fit the conservative motif, does it?"

Well maybe it doesn't fit the theoretical conservative motif, but the ACTUAL conservative motif these days seems to be "you can have local control as long as we like how you're controlling yourself." I reference the recent US House vote to ban late term abortions even thought the people of Washington voted quite clearly against it and a previous vote that was a direct attempt at overruling the voters' approval of assisted suicide in Oregon.

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

Paraphrasing Ayn Rand, a more fundamental difference between people than the "conservative" and "liberal" lables is whether they are more inclined to believe in central control or liberty. The political spectrum, afterall, is really more like a circle--totalitarians of the "left" and the "right" are barely distinguishable.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), April 06, 2000.

BB writes:

>>"The fascinating thing to me is that 695 and 711 are both *very* anti- local control."

Excellent point, BB! And thus the reason for my deep belly laughs every time one of Eyman's minions calls ME a "Big Government Socialist." That's the pot calling the kettle black!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

""The fascinating thing to me is that 695 and 711 are both *very* anti- local control." " Might concede your point on 711, but why do you think that 695 is anti-local control. The MVET was a statewide issue. The popular plebescite on tax increases was only to be directed at (or will only be directed at, if the Supreme Court rules against the current interpretation) insuring that the taxpayers paying increases would get to approve them. It did not, for instance, mean that King County taxpayers would be voting on utility tax increases in spokane.

Please explain this with regard to 695 in a little more detail if possible.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 06, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>The MVET was a statewide issue.<<

Agreed.

>>The popular plebescite on tax increases was only to be directed at (or will only be directed at, if the Supreme Court rules against the current interpretation) insuring that the taxpayers paying increases would get to approve them. It did not, for instance, mean that King County taxpayers would be voting on utility tax increases in spokane.<<

But what it did do was allow King County voters to determine whether voters in the City of Spokane were forced to vote on utility tax increases, and vice versa. If the voters of the City of Spokane want to have the authority to vote on tax increases within their city, then they should decide to do so, but only the voters of the City of Spokane, NOT THE WHOLE STATE.

A statewide vote on whether government should be able to increase taxes and fees should only apply to the state government. If you want a fire or water or sewer or park district to raise taxes and fees only with a public vote, then you ask the voters of that district, not the whole state.

Even in Colorado, where they enacted voter approval on tax increases (with some leeway allowed for inflation and cost of living increases), they allowed all local governments to opt out of this requirement, as long as their voters approved. What I am talking about is an opt-in requirement, where if you want local governments to go to the public to ask for tax increases, then you have to have each and every local government get the approval of its voters. 695 had neither, and that's why it restricted local control.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

"If you want a fire or water or sewer or park district to raise taxes and fees only with a public vote, then you ask the voters of that district, not the whole state. " So you are suggesting what, a thousand mini-initiatives, or one big initiative requiring a one-time opt out or opt in requirement?

I sure didn't see much public (as opposed to politico) objection to the vote requirement. We apparently require such a plebescite for some things already (school levies, and those with a supermajority requirement). I personally don't see this as a big intrusion in local government. I understand where you are coming from at least, and if I twist my perspective around enough, I can almost see a coherent argument, just not impressed greatly by that argument, I guess.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 06, 2000.

BB--RE: local control

I generally agree with your argument that I-695 did take local control away for this *one* subject. Taking it a step further, there was another part of I-695 I didn't like--the inclusion of fees. Even with its warts, I cheerfully voted for it anyway.

About now, you're might be wondering why I voted for something I didn't agree with completely. I don't expect to get everything I want. As I have previously done on this forum, I'll paraphase Warren Buffett, "80% of something is better than 100% of nothing." In other words, sometimes you take what you can get knowing the wrinkles (eg the inclusion of fees) will get ironed out later.

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