Many well-meaning voters who supported I-695 are surprised at all the fuss being made over a mere 2 percent cut in the state budget. They indignantly demand to know where the other 98 percent of the states money goes.

All they really need to know is where the 2 percent figure came from.

Tim Eyman, the sponsor of I-695, is a professional mail order salesman, and we must read his words carefully. Tim didnt say the license tab revenue was 2 percent of the state budget. He said it was 2 percent of "GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN THE STATE." In that amount, he included all federal, state, county and city government spending in the state, combined!

Now Tim knew that he was wiping out a STATE tax. Why did he choose to give us an amount including FEDERAL spending? Did he perhaps think that the US Navy, the Army, the Post Office, etc. would all cut back their Washington operations by 2 percent after I-695 passed, and donate the savings to our states transportation budget?

And how could Olympia cut, say, everyones city sewage spending? Has Tim been visiting neighborhoods crying, "Youve got to generate 2 percent less sewage this year! Its the will of the people!"

Tim repeatedly told us we needed a state tax cut because Washington is the "6th highest taxed state." Ever wonder why he didnt say what the state tax rate actually was?

Because he WASNT comparing state tax rates. He compared the total tax AMOUNT per person collected in each state -- including FEDERAL taxes. Of course we rank high by this measure. Since we have higher INCOMES than the US average, we pay more dollars in federal taxes. Thats what makes us the "6th highest taxed state!"

Now why did Tim need to sneak in federal taxes, giving us a bogus comparison of our state with others? Did he think we dont know the difference between Washington State and Washington, DC?

Perhaps because our state tax rate was really not much higher than others. The overall state and local tax rate in Washington was 11.979 percent of income. The average for all states was 11.299 percent! Maybe thats why the "6th highest taxed state" claim was necessary. We might not have been too impressed by a more truthful, "Our state tax rate is NEARLY 0.7 PERCENT HIGHER than the US average."

The last state budget showed a "$1 billion surplus." Tim told us that was proof that we were way overtaxed.

In reality, "surplus" is the word used in the states biannual budget for funds that are not planned for spending in that 2-year budget period. The perfect word to make it sound like the state overtaxed us. That $1 billion was the result of a decade of savings, and had been set aside for specific upcoming transportation projects and unforeseen natural disasters. Is a mail order salesman a natural disaster?

Still, many lower- and middle-income Washington citizens do feel overtaxed, with good reason. Washington has the MOST regressive tax system in the nation (meaning that the poor pay higher tax rates than the rich), mainly because we have no state income tax. State and local taxes amount to about 4% of income for the richest 1% of the population, 10% for the middle, and 17% of income for the poorest 20%. No wonder they feel overtaxed! Even though the average tax rate in Washington is about the same as in other states, a bigger share of it is on the shoulders of the poor than anywhere else.

Think Tims motivation was "meaningful tax relief for the little guy?" Tim didnt tell you that theres more to your license tab payment than the $30 fee and the tax that he wiped out. For 40% of car owners, I-695 saved less than $10 per year! Almost an insult to the little guy.

The license tab tax, though flawed, was one of the few ways the rich paid more than the poor. Thanks to I-695, the poor now bear an even bigger share of the states tax burden than they did before!

Moreover, the other part of I-695 made it harder to change the tax structure. That guaranteed that the poor would stay stuck with their high tax rates for a long time to come. Meanwhile, Tim lives on a golf course, and drives a $40,000 Saab. His co-sponsor, Marty Rood, owns a car dealership! I-695 has certainly helped him and his fellow car dealers. What he wanted was to sell more expensive cars (to the rich).

Over the coming months, as our state fights over how to recover from one of the biggest tax cuts in US history, everyone is sure to be displeased at what happens. Its hard for people to admit that they were fooled. Some of Tims brainwashed followers will put the blame on "incompetent politicians who cant handle a 2 percent budget cut in the 6th highest taxed state."

But others will start to open their eyes and see how they were tricked. A curious feature of democracy is that a swindler who fools enough people can have the attorney general defend him, at taxpayer expense, instead of being prosecuted for mail order fraud. If hes good enough, he can get his own victims to contribute to his legal defense fund.

"Dont be fooled" by what Ive said. I might be just a "politician" using "threats, lies and scare tactics!" Check the information sources yourself at http://www.jeffounet.net/transport/post-695.htm.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000

Answers

Well, that about wraps it up for me! The liar HAS been exposed, and it is Anirudh!

Notice this excerpt from his webpage;

"One of the few public officials who spoke out against I-695 before the election was the state treasurer, Michael Murphy:"

Few?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I won't bother wasting anymore time on this idiot.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

Onw would think, grasshopper, that before you would stuff your foot in your mouth up to the knee that you would get your facts straight.... or do facts concern you?

First of all, if you would look at the proposed budgets from this session, as I understand it, spending is INCREASED $500 million or so, depending on which budget you use. Now, I'll be the first to admit that some cuts were made... but the doom and gloom predictions of those who bought into the unsubstantiated predictions of those such as yourself are, well, wrong.

Secondly, the figure for "Federal spending" in this state has absolutely nothing to do with programs that are not state-related. To that end, you need to get a clue and understand that "Federal spending" figures for purposes of Washington State concern issues such as matching funds for road construction, welfare block grants and the like. NO ONE ever suggested that the monies spent on the military or other Federal institutions were figured into the 695 debate... no one until now.

The entire basis for 695 was to give the voters a voice. One example was the recent vote in Greys Harbor County, where the people voted to make up the transit shortfall by increasing their sales tax 3/10's of 1 percent, a decision both within their capability and the capability of every other community effected by 695, if that is what the PEOPLE wanted.

Your imagination in attempting to explain what Tim did, or did not do, is only exceeded by your ignorance as to what actually happened; what the real effects are, and what the true picture is. You lost. Get over it.

The poll at komo.com says that the people still support 695. As a suggestion, you would be well served by doing more research into your subject... as opposed to this effort here.

Iggy

-- iggy (iggypop1@juno.com), April 10, 2000.

Few, Many, All, None. . .

So WHAT if the actual number was more "many" rather than "few"? Is that the ONLY thing you can find wrong with Anirudh's report? Is his report so rock-solid, Marsha, that the ONLY flaw you could find is one instance of poor word usage? If only ALL our reports were as sound!

BTW, I'm still laughing at the empty stare that glazed over Tim Eyman's face when he was asked a direct question at the meeting several weeks ago. Looking at his picture, the word "Duhhh!" still comes to mind. I guess Eyman never stopped his signature-gathering activities long enough to actually READ his own propaganda!

But Anirudh DID read it all, and trounced Eyman's propaganda most accurately!

I'll check back on this board in a FEW hours. . .or do I mean "many"?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

CS,

Looks like Anirudh lies about lies!

Is this a lie?

"Since government officials arent allowed to express opinions on ballot issues, they appear helpless."

Or what if you call someone a liar and then make a statement that they didn't lie?

"The politicians were bogeymen invented by Tim, and the 2 percent figure was a shameless **lie** designed to cover up one of the biggest tax cuts in US history. A moneymaking scam designed to help its sponsors sell more cars is not a political issue."

"Whats more, since none of his statements were actually **lies**, and since he successfully convinced more than half the voters in the state, the attorney general has to defend himat taxpayer expense instead of prosecuting him for mail order fraud!"

And of course, we still have to "evidence of fraud." Only lies about lies.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

It was interesting perusing the root directory of the above article: http://www.jeffounet.net/transport/

Quite a bit of propaganda, especially the "Rethinking HOV lanes" article.

I also note, that I'm the 34th visitor. Hope the other 33 had as good a laugh as I did.

Looking forward to the next posting (maybe a few hours, maybe "many" from Chicken S...., er, uh, I mean, Common Sense.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

to zowie: Actually, Anirudh's write-up about Hwy 520 is quite correct. Not that I'm particularly concerned, for if I-711 passes, one of the many potential modifications to the initiative by the state legislature will include exempting Hwy 520 from the law. Alternatively, the legislature will simply vote to turn the 3rd lane on Hwy 520 back into the shoulder it once was.

That's the thing that gets me. Neither the pro-711 or anti-711 side are really debating the issue for what it is. It's about whom you trust. Do you prefer the politicians in Olympia spending your money, as long as they're forced to spend it on roads (but not necessarily on road projects in the Puget Sound)? Or, do you prefer having local governmental agencies spend the money (necessarily on projects in the Puget Sound), mitigating congestion through buses and rail?

Personally, I believe "bird in the hand" is better, so I'll vote against I-711, knowing that I'll get some mitigation of congestion. Whereas, if I vote for I-711, I have no guarantees of what I'll get.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 10, 2000.

Marsha, the more you write, the less sense you make. What's up with that?

Matthew Warren, your last posting hits the nail squarely on the head! Right on, brother! As I've pointed out in another thread, the issue of local vs. state control is one of the primary reasons to vote AGAINST 711.

-So if you love BIG GOVERNMENT, than vote FOR 711.

-But if you hate big government, and prefer local control of your hard-earned tax dollars, than vote AGAINST 711!

I think the choice is obvious.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

to Common Sense: Thank you for you enthusiastic endorsement of my comments.

A major flaw with promoting more road construction is that the decisions are made by folks in Olympia. If there was a Puget Sound Department of Transportation, then I-711 would be much more attractive.

I am concerned, though, about the quality of the debate. I believe that many opponents of I-711 are relying on fear and misinformation as their weapons. I keep reading how if the HOV lanes are abolished, there will be much more congestion. This is not necessarily true. If the HOV lanes were to disappear tomorrow, my vanpool would not instanteously dissolve. Likewise, I don't buy into the pro I-711 argument that traffic will suddenly flow so much better if the HOV lanes are open to all. The HOV lanes I use are fairly heavily utilized.

Personally, I don't think congestion will change dramatically, initially, but I can buy into the argument that there will be an erosion of ridesharing, which, eventually, will lead to worsening congestion. Of course, the pro 711 folks may be partially correct, and the worsening congestion could be offset by the increased road capacity. But, then, the bottom line is that congestion will not have really changed.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 11, 2000.

I enjoyed reading these responses. Especially, the ones that show how determined some people are to believe in anything that Tim says.

Marsha, your skepticism is entirely appropriate. If several people accuse each other of lying, one should be very suspicious of all sides.

However, did you notice that the reasoning you gave yourself boiled down to: "Look! I found some inconsistencies in the language of a draft that Anirudh wrote. Therefore, Anirudh must be a liar. This proves that everything Tim said was true" ?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

Matthew, you're asking the question, "How many HOV riders would switch to SOV commuting if HOV lanes were eliminated?" It's possible to do some calculations related to that question based on the DOT data too. I'll start a separate thread on this later.

Also, note that if the HOV lane on 520 was converted back to a shoulder (i.e. closed entirely), the traffic increase would be just as bad as if it was opened up to all traffic.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

A.S.

"However, did you notice that the reasoning you gave yourself boiled down to: "Look! I found some inconsistencies in the language of a draft that Anirudh wrote. Therefore, Anirudh must be a liar. This proves that everything Tim said was true" ?

Again, you come to a faulty conclusion. You merely proved that you are capable of doing the thing you are accusing Eyman of. It certainly doesn't make your assumptions correct. You believe the majority was suckered. I believe intelligent voting adults based their decisions on personal opinions, and experience, not Tim Eyman's opinions and actions.

So where is your proof that these voters were so stupid they couldn't make up there own minds?

You made a lot of accusations, and so far, all you have are conclusions based on a very opinionated view. No evidence of fraud, just popularity of an Initiative. You accuse him of lying, and then you admit they weren't actually lies.

CS, try to keep up; I know it's hard for you, but we wouldn't want you to be left behind.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

Anirudh--"Also, note that if the HOV lane on 520 was converted back to a shoulder (i.e. closed entirely), the traffic increase would be just as bad as if it was opened up to all traffic."

It's my impression that closing the HOV lanes on 520 would actually *improve* traffic flow. Currently, vehicles merging from the HOV lane create a significant traffic bottleneck. Bottom line: I'd bet you a nice bottle of single malt that getting rid of the HOV lanes in that area would lead to fewer accidents and better vehicle throughput during rush hour (partially, but not wholly caused by the fewer accidents).

FWIW, drivers have a similar problem at the 167 and 405 interchange.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 11, 2000.

"Matthew, you're asking the question, "How many HOV riders would switch to SOV commuting if HOV lanes were eliminated?" It's possible to do some calculations related to that question based on the DOT data too. I'll start a separate thread on this later"

As a former logistician, I look forward with bated breath to seeing just how you assess this based upon the existing DOT data since the DOT data doesn't provide ANY insight as to how many HOVers are family groups, are car pools, etc., and EVEN IF IT DID, that information would tell you nothing about the elasticity of demand for HOV riding in terms of availability (or lack of same) of HOV lanes.

Don't keep me waiting too long, Anirudh, I can only hold my breath for a short while.

FWIW: I think Craig is right, you must be a sociology major.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

Whoops, sorry. He said that about Gene. What WAS your major, Anirudh?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

to Mark: The affect of an HOV lane on carpooling depends on the HOV lane. For me, removal of the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge would remove my incentive to commute riders from the Peninsula.

However, other HOV lanes, if heavily utilized, offer no real advantage over the GP lanes. Hence, opening them up to all comers would probably not make a huge difference. Opening an HOV lane which is underutilized might significantly affect a vanpool or bus. But, then, if the HOV lane is underutilized, then it should be opened up.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 11, 2000.

Anirudh

You say the people that voted for 695 were mislead. How come no one is mislead when we vote for tax increases and get nothing? Maybe we dont get to vote on them, they are just shoved down our throats. You can live cheaper in almost any other state, people voted for 695 because they wanted the state to do more with less, instead of doing less for more which they are very good at. Perhaps best in the nation. 1 in every 22 people in this state work for the state. Near the highest ratio in the nation. We have been paying taxes and paying taxes and what have they done with it, gave us the 4 worst traffic congestion in the country. I-5 hasnt changes since they built it. I use to commute from West Seattle to Redmond for years, at one time every major exit was under construction, when they were done (2 years) it wasnt any better, thats what people are sick and tired of. You are stupid if you keep paying for something and get nothing.

-- ERAmerican (william.reagor@guidant.com), April 11, 2000.

The idea that Mr. Eyman somehow "tricked" the public into voting for Initiative 695 is absurd. Professional politicians have been lying and deceiving the public for years. It should come as no surprise that private citizens are compelled to use these same tactics to compete with professional politicans and their manipulation of truth and the public. Who cares if a private citizen uses similar, if not exact, tactics to get their agenda heard? Mr. Eyman simply followed the examples set by politicians. Any complaints about Mr. Eyman's behavior should focus on what he supports and not just his personality.

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

Brad: You're talking vehicles per hour, not people per hour. I'll start a separate thread about 520 tomorrow.

ERAmerican: You've expressed one of the sentiments that Eyman is trying to take advantage of. People (including myself) feel strongly about the traffic mess, and are angry that the government has let it get so bad; which is why it's easy for a skilful manipulator to tell them that the traffic is the fault of "The Politicians" and then pretend that what he has to offer is better. Is it really? Keep watching this forum, and check out all the claims carefully before you buy!

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

Marsha,

I think you're offended because I sound like I'm putting down your ability to make an intelligent, independent decision. I am not. Take another look at my post at the top of this page. There is nothing in there that attempts to criticize or refute ANY of YOUR reasons for supporting I-695. You were angry about all kinds of waste and overspending of public money that you've seen during your years in government, you wanted those practices to be curtailed, and I-695 made it harder for those practices to continue. I didn't try to deny that.

I'm attacking the most famous reasons that TIM gave for supporting I- 695. Those were the "2%," "6th highest," etc. None of those figures were actually FALSE; but when you look at how they were arrived at, and the context in which they were presented, it's blatantly clear that they were deliberate, calculated attempts to deceive the public about what they were voting for.

You say, "I believe intelligent voting adults based their decisions on personal opinions, and experience, not Tim Eyman's opinions and actions." I've no doubt that YOU researched the truth more carefully and had your own independent reasons for supporting I-695. In fact I've seen enough posts to convince me that most of the pro-695ers who are still active on this forum had reasons for supporting I-695 that had nothing to do with the bogus "2%" and "6th highest" figures.

However, judging from the volume of letters that were published in Seattle newspapers reciting those figures ("Why are those POLITICIANS whining about a TWO PERCENT budget cut in the SIXTH HIGHEST taxed state?") -- one or two nearly every week, for several months, in the Seattle P-I and Seattle Times -- it's clear that a huge number of voting adults, many of whom were intelligent enough to get a newspaper letter published, DID base their decisions on those lies. Those people were, indeed, fooled.

Regarding "no evidence of fraud," I notice that you're narrowing your definitions of "evidence" and "fraud" more and more, as more and more evidence is presented. If the above isn't enough for you, remember that one of the reasons the initiative was struck down in a court of law was that it repealed several Washington laws (no less than 44 of them) by citing only their RCW section numbers, let alone their titles, in direct violation of the constitutional requirement that an initiative text must quote the full text of any law that it repeals. If that isn't an attempt to hide from voters what they are voting for, I don't know what is.

Now, here's the important thing to notice. I have the impression that you (and a few others) are trying really, really hard to deny that there is anything wrong with Eyman's methods. Why is that? The defenses have ranged from "You have insufficient evidence" to "So what?" to "He opposed the bad guys, so he must be a good guy" to "He's just using the same dirty tricks that other people use." If your reasons for supporting I-695 REALLY are independent of him, then why should a criticism of HIS methods make YOU defensive? You are not responsible for his lies. You should just be pleased that I-695 passed, and think, "Pity it had to be done through deception, but it's good that it's done."

[To all the Eyman fans out there, not just Marsha:] Are you sure it's not just the trap of thinking, "Somebody who opposes my enemies must be my friend" ? In this case, a swindler's interests may have happened to coincide with something you wanted; but tomorrow, his interests may not coincide with yours, and if you're convinced that he is your friend, you may not realize what's going on until he's gone ahead and fooled a whole bunch of other people. Look at his past record, and the sincerity that he seemed to have when he made deliberately misleading statements. Some folks may hide their heads in the sand, and continue to find excuses for him; others can accept that they voted for his idea, not for him, be aware of his deceptive methods and tricks, and give themselves the chance to evaluate his next idea objectively. It's up to you.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

":] Are you sure it's not just the trap of thinking, "Somebody who opposes my enemies must be my friend" ? In this case, a swindler's interests may have happened to coincide with something you wanted; but tomorrow, his interests may not coincide with yours, and if you're convinced that he is your friend, you may not realize what's going on until he's gone ahead and fooled a whole bunch of other people."

Let me say that I think the second sentence up there is utter nonsense, Anirudh. He's a car and watch salesman who has passed two initiatives, both that addressed issues that had widespread popular support, but that the politicians couldn't bring themselves to change. In the grand scheme of things, Eyman really doesn't have that much power.

But I would like to say a little more about the first subject. because it's something that has troubled me greatly for years, something I have agonized, and something upoon which I have come to a reluctant but final decision.

YOU ARE RIGHT THAT POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME WIN AT ANY COST. I have watched for the last several decades as those who have insisted on integrity and values in politics have lost ground to those who wanted to win at any cost, to those who would manipulate through the bureaucracy and through the courts to control issues that they could never win in an up/down of either the electorate, the legislature, or Congress. I used to give my opponents credit for the integrity of their convictions, even if they disagreed with my opinion. But that started to change when I saw these allegedly honorable groups demonstrate that winning was the only thing they cared about. When NOW, after decades of decrying workplace sexual harassment by senior executives, basically says "boys will be boys" when it comes to criticizing the President that they feel will best promote their agenda, it is clear that many groups have decided that winning is winning, and the heck with playing by the rules.

So I have decided that I'm tired of being the only one to play by the rules. I'm tired of losing. I too will pressure my representatives, push initiatives that support my agenda, use all the political, bureaucratic, and administrative leverage possible to harass and defeat my political adversaries. They changed the rules, I didn't. But I can play with the new rules too, and I intend to do so.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), April 12, 2000.

Mike--"YOU ARE RIGHT THAT POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME WIN AT ANY COST."

Bruce Ramsey's piece in "The Seattle Times" touches on this today: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/rams12_200000412.html

Personally, I think reflexively playing hard politics tends to backfire. To use a current example, Wayne LaPierre recently played Clinton and crew masterfully. If you understand the administration was putting pressure on Congress to pass any (I imagine actual content wouldn't have mattered) gun control bills, it's simple to frame LaPierre's words as a strategic feint designed to relieve pressure on Congress.

WRT I-695, the thing I found most fascinating was the debate of the "costs." Both sides were at polar extremes of the debate--Tim Eyman and small crew were framing them as minimal and the Governor and large crew were them as disastrous (from my perspective, this isn't exaggerated; if you think it is, feel free to explain why).

Framed in this manner, it should be pretty obvious who deserves the deceptive label.

It's always fascinating when people take the argument that belongs best to their opponent. I saw David Broder speak recently about initiatives and he complained about how they were more private than law making via the legislature. His rationale:

1) they wording is crafted in the privacy of a group of people

2) the promoters don't have the same campaign finance requirements as politicians

3) citizens vote in private

With the exception of #3, the above are irrelevant complaints about the initiative process. Even casual observers understand that #1 is *no* different from the origins of laws. I was curious about his rationale for #2 so I asked him about it. He brought up Ward Connerly paying for education ads during the I-200 and how he won't disclose how much he spent. I asked him if these were the same as the so-called "issue ads" that were widely used in the '96 presidential campaingn. He quickly answered yes. Interestingly enough, he just smiled politely at the next question--were groups running issue ads for Clinton/Gore required to report their spending?

FWIW, I got the impression Broder's true complaint about initiatives was their ability to deal with divisive issues that make career-oriented politicians run screaming (ie Oregon's physician assisted suicide).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), April 12, 2000.

I don't know if I agree with Mikey or not, but it's clear that special interest advocates have long pushed their agenda, against a fairly passive populace. Often they did this by claiming the moral high ground, much like Anirudh's assertion that the rich owe it to the poor to help them, and Calavo's attempts to play on sympathy. The more aggressive, in your face attitude of these people, coupled with the P***-poor results of the programs that seem to be designed to engender dependency and create a permanent underclass, are certainly mobilizing these people's opponents in a way that I havn't seen in the past. I think that there is going to be more and more resistance to these agendas, hopefully peacful, but increasingly assertive. And I think that the only way to continue to justify the level of government (and taxation) that these people advocate is to have performance reviews that demonstrate these programs really do work, and work reasonably efficiently. Otherwise, to paraphrase our perpetrator-in-chief, the era of big government may indeed be over.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

The framers of the Constitution, if you have read the Federalist Papers, had a health (heck, almost paranoid) fear of the power of government. Most of the arguments that framed the Constitution involved this fear, and the checks and balances built in to control the executive, legislative, and judiciary (they did not at that time have an entrenched bureaucracy) were to address these concerns.

I think the founding fathers would be amused to hear that someone believes a couple of car salesman meeting around the kitchen table to plot initiatives somehow pose a threat to the power of the state, rather than the other way around.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 12, 2000.

Anirudh,

You said I think you're offended because I sound like I'm putting down your ability to make an intelligent, independent decision. I am not. Take another look at my post at the top of this page.

Oh really Anirudh? Care to change your story AGAIN to suit the argument?

Your comments from the thread Will you help protect I-695?

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

So which is it? We either made up our own minds, or we were swindled?

Your next point "I'm attacking the most famous reasons that TIM gave for supporting I- 695. Those were the "2%," "6th highest," etc. None of those figures were actually FALSE; but when you look at how they were arrived at, and the context in which they were presented, it's blatantly clear that they were deliberate, calculated attempts to deceive the public about what they were voting for."

And millions were spent trying to refute his claim. The voting majority either did not believe the anti position, or they did not care. You just admitted the figures aren't actually false. You go on to say I've no doubt that YOU researched the truth more carefully and had your own independent reasons for supporting I-695. In fact I've seen enough posts to convince me that most of the pro- 695ers who are still active on this forum had reasons for supporting I-695 that had nothing to do with the bogus "2%" and "6th highest" figures.

However, judging from the volume of letters that were published in Seattle newspapers reciting those figures ("Why are those POLITICIANS whining about a TWO PERCENT budget cut in the SIXTH HIGHEST taxed state?") -- one or two nearly every week, for several months, in the Seattle P-I and Seattle Times -- it's clear that a huge number of voting adults, many of whom were intelligent enough to get a newspaper letter published, DID base their decisions on those lies. Those people were, indeed, fooled.

Again you jump to conclusions. Just because a citizen quotes a bogus 2% that is actually not false in a letter to the editor, does not mean that was the basis on which they cast their vote. But the fact that they felt strongly enough about defending the initiative by writing a letter to the editor tells me they took the subject seriously.

Regarding "no evidence of fraud," I notice that you're narrowing your definitions of "evidence" and "fraud" more and more, as more and more evidence is presented. If the above isn't enough for you, remember that one of the reasons the initiative was struck down in a court of law was that it repealed several Washington laws (no less than 44 of them) by citing only their RCW section numbers, let alone their titles, in direct violation of the constitutional requirement that an initiative text must quote the full text of any law that it repeals. If that isn't an attempt to hide from voters what they are voting for, I don't know what is.

The last sentence is indeed factual. You don't know what is. You again make an assumption that I-695 text was written deliberately to mislead. You don't know that.

As far as my narrowed definition, you are again wrong. I have demanded since the beginning of your accusations that you provide us with your evidence of fraud, and you have only provided your assumptions and conclusions based on a serious lack of evidence. [To all the Eyman fans out there, not just Marsha:] Are you sure it's not just the trap of thinking, "Somebody who opposes my enemies must be my friend"? In this case, a swindler's interests may have happened to coincide with something you wanted; but tomorrow, his interests may not coincide with yours, and if you're convinced that he is your friend, you may not realize what's going on until he's gone ahead and fooled a whole bunch of other people. Look at his past record, and the sincerity that he seemed to have when he made deliberately misleading statements. Some folks may hide their heads in the sand, and continue to find excuses for him; others can accept that they voted for his idea, not for him, be aware of his deceptive methods and tricks, and give themselves the chance to evaluate his next idea objectively. It's up to you.

Gee, Anirudh, do you suppose debating these issues in a public forum gives us the chance to evaluate his next idea objectively? Do you suppose giving us this forum to debate these initiatives is a trick too? In fact, one of the articles posted on your webpage has lead me to believe that Tim Eyman is INDEED sincere.

Of course, in your last reponse I was able to make an intelligent decision, but next time I may not be able to?

I think it is you who have his head in the sand. You cant seem to grasp the reality that I-695 is what the majority wanted. You keep looking for excuses. First we were all duped, now it was the rest of them that were duped. You said he lied, then admit they werent actually lies. Now its the bogus 2% is actually not FALSE!

What you call evidence is purely conjecture on your part.

In conclusion, I have responded to your posts NOT because I am defending Eyman. I am defending your original accusations against me! You said we were swindled. I asked for evidence. Does that not make sense to you?

I hope you NEVER represent yourself in court.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

"I hope you NEVER represent yourself in court. " I, on the other hand, think it would be amusing if he did. ;-)

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

Thanks Anirudh......Now I know how to identify the real swindlers...whether they are our representatives or other Tims'.....

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), April 12, 2000.

Sheesh.... I just read Marsha's post, and I'm shaking my head. We seem to be talking past each other.

"I have responded to your posts NOT because I am defending Eyman. I am defending your original accusations against me! You said we were swindled. I asked for evidence."

I said who was swindled? To be clear:

I said that the people who bought into the 2% figure, and the various other lies, were fooled. I believe I've provided ample convincing evidence of that, as well as reason to believe that there were plenty of people in that category, and I stand by it. You've confused the message quite a bit by taking my words and quoting them out of context, but I think the original is not hard to understand.

I said above, explicitly, that I believe you (Marsha) were NOT one of those people; that I believe you made up your mind based on other factors. And yet you want me to produce evidence that you (Marsha) were fooled? How can I provide evidence that you were fooled if I don't believe that you were?

Apparently, I said something earlier that made you think that I was accusing you of being fooled, and that offended you enough to provoke the posts above. Whatever it was, I'm sorry that it offended you so. (I just looked over my earlier posts, and I'm guessing it must have been my post of April 1st, because it began with, "Craig (also Brad and Marsha, ...)" and ended with "That's why I think ... that you, too, were swindled...". That post was really meant for Craig. He didn't seem to have a hard time understanding what I was getting at, and he provided me with enough convincing input for me to change my opinion that he was swindled. If you thought that it was directed at you, and you didn't see that I had changed my opinion, I can understand your taking offense.)

Anyway, this discussion has descended into quibbling. I think I've made my points clear enough for most people. Those who were fooled by Eyman's statements will recognize it after reading the above, although of course I don't expect them to post responses announcing that they were fooled. If you're determined, for whatever reason, to believe that he had no intention of fooling anyone, that's OK by me.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 14, 2000.

"Often they did this by claiming the moral high ground, much like Anirudh's assertion that the rich owe it to the poor to help them,"

EXCUSE ME?? I did NOT make that assertion. I said that there ARE some people who believe that, followed 2 sentences later by, "Which side is right? I don't know; that's a pretty deep question, with no easy answer."

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 14, 2000.

This is one of the most interesting threads on this bboard. Looks like just about everything Tim Eyeman said to sell I-695 was a lie: $30 license tabs, 6th highest taxed state, 2% budget cut, tax releif for the little guy, etc etc. I had heard those figures but did not know this was how Eyeman came up with them. Anirudh Sahni, thanks for pulling all this data (and the references) together. I will surely pass it along to others, I think they will find it interesting too.

Marsha your rant was pathetic and Anirud was way too polite to you. It seems you were trying to nothing but get him back for something that hurt your feelings 10 days ago. You sound like a 6 yr old crying because somebody called her names. You cant find anything wrong with his main points so you harp on the difference between "lies" and "not false" instead (That too in a 7 page doc clearly labeled DRAFT)? I had no trouble understanding what was meant by those terms. At least some of the other 695 supporters are honest enough not to try and defend Eyeman's lies.

-- George (gjenks@uswest.net), April 15, 2000.

Anirudh, I'm just a simpleton, but it seems two percent savings in government spending is more than two percent savings in state spending. And correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have a state income tax. Maybe I am missing something, but if we don't have a state income tax then why does it matter if we have higher incomes in our state than in other states? Isn't that like saying since I may make 50k per year, and someone else in say Idaho or Mississippi for that matter makes 12k or 25k that I should pay the difference in taxes? Some of us put money away in a bank, or contribute to charities etc. or even set aside funds so we can afford to pay our taxes. It takes dicipline sometimes. I don't think 2% is that unreasonable. So I guess my question is WHATS YOUR POINT? I mean Do you work for the government or what?

-- Sig Landoe (slandoe@bentonrea.com), April 18, 2000.

George,

What is pathetic is that you have very little idea what you are talking about. I would think all you "anti" Tim Eyman types would be disappointed that Anirudh's accusations were based on "half truths" and that you would be hoping he had the "goods" on Eyman.

What IS Anirudh's main point? Obviously YOU didn't comprehend what it was. Remember, he bases his accusations on a 2% figure that he says is bogus in one statement and then says the figure is actually not false. His very comments are as deceptive as those he accuses Eyman of. I guess you are not quite "sharp" enough to see it....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 18, 2000.

Actually I think George did get my main point. Its exactly what he said in his first paragraph above. Just about every fact that the salesman presented to support I-695 was a deceptive statistic, carefully and deliberately chosen to create a false impression. Even the Queen of Denial, Marsha, seems to have seen this by now.

As with most mail order scams, each of the deceptive statements was designed so that it was not a FALSE statement if taken literally, but was cleverly worded and presented so that most readers would interpret it to have a meaning other than the literal meaning.

For example, consider a sequence of statements like, Politicians will tell you I-695 will cause huge cuts to state-funded programs. Dont be fooled! MVET is less than 2% of government spending in the state. Politicians will simply re-prioritize Because of the context, a huge number of people mistook, MVET is less than 2% of government spending in the state (a true statement) for MVET is less than 2% of the state governments spending (a false statement). Thus, they were fooled into believing that the hit to the state budget was much smaller than it really was. Similarly, many readers took Washington is the 6th highest taxed state (which, by one peculiar measure, is true) to mean, Washington has the 6th highest state taxes (which is false by any measure). By using these clever techniques, the car salesman was able to fool people into believing falsehoods, and still claim that he made no false statements.

(Side note: I included a pointer to my abandoned draft article only so you could check the information sources for my post at the top of this page. However it looks like that draft confused Marsha so much that she thought *I* was deliberately trying to deceive her. Well I'm not about to revise that whole draft now, but Ive rewritten the not lies sentence at the end to (hopefully) make it less confusing to people such as her.)

If you voted for I-695 because you fell for one of those deceptive statements, as many people did, you should be outraged at having been tricked. If you voted for it for other reasons, and you believe it was a good thing, you should probably be happy that the car salesman tricked other people into voting for it. You can perhaps even admire his talent for lying convincingly, in a voice that sounds completely sincere and honest. But you can NEVER trust a person who uses such tricks to act in your interests in the future. It is much more likely that he was acting in his OWN interests, or in the interests of somebody who was paying him. This time, his interests may have happened to partly coincide with yours, but next time, they may not.

The only way to be sure whether his future proposals really serve your interests is to be aware of his modus operandi, recognize that his statements are the words of a talented liar, scrutinize them carefully for the use of such tricks, check his information sources, check the logic of the arguments he gives you, and form your own opinion. As you will see, just about every claim he has presented in favor of his next scheme is a lie, as well.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

P.S. A perfectly fair question is, how do you know you can trust ME, when I present facts? Well, if you dont want to, you dont have to. Check the information sources I point you to, check the arithmetic yourself, and form your own opinion. You may find errors in my writing (e.g. Marsha found inconsistent usage of the words lies and not lies), but I think you can see for yourself that they are not intentional attempts to deceive, and in any case, have no bearing on the main point.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

". Just about every fact that the salesman presented to support I- 695 was a deceptive statistic"

Once again you continue your paranoia against salesmen, Anirudh.

And as I said, your models are suspect, and your "sources" are even more suspect. But everyone should indeed look at your sources. Better yet, go to the root directory and read ALL the articles http://www.jeffounet.net/transport/default.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 24, 2000.

Pay particular attention to the re-examining HOV article. It's my personal favorite. It suggests eliminating 2+ car HOV lanes with the eventual conversion of GP lanes to HOV lanes and ultimately HOV lanes to transit only.

Now I have no particular problem with transit only lanes, as long as they are fully funded by the transit riders.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 24, 2000.

FYI, some people seem to think that web server is mine. It is not; it belongs to somebody who wanted to host some things I wrote. I'm not responsible for whatever else is there, other than a couple of things that have my name on them. I haven't even read the "Rethinking HOV Lanes" article that Craig is referring to.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 24, 2000.