For BB and others who value representive government over populist government.....

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

A number of those critical of 695 are critical of the concept of populist government. It is better, they say, to let the "professionals" who we have elected handle the issues that are simply too complicated for the average voter, that the average voter is too self-serving, lacking in expertise, or lacking in patience to deal with effectively. Here are quotes from today's newspaper about how these "professionals" are handling the budget:

Rep. Tom Huff, the House Republican budget writer, criticized Locke for not offering any money for transportation in his original budget plan in December. "Had he come out with a strong transportation plan in the beginning, this would all be behind us," said Huff, of Gig Harbor. Huff said he hasn't seen details on Locke's plan but said that what he's heard so far sounds "doable." "All of us want to get out of town - the sooner, the better," he said. Regardless of the support or opposition to Locke's plan, it could be the deal breaker simply because lawmakers are sick of waiting. They've been on standby for more than a month as they wait out talks that have already pushed them into one overtime 30-day session. "I don't know what Locke's plan is, but I know I like it," said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. "He needs to be the broker and use his bully pulpit on us. The business of being in the Legislature is compromise."

I DON'T KNOW WHAT LOCKE'S PLAN IS, BUT I KNOW I LIKE IT? ALL OF US WANT TO GET OUT OF TOWN - THE SOONER THE BETTER?

Excuse me, but it doesn't look like there is either leadership nor even willingness to make any decisions in our legislature. My prediction is that we are going to see more and more citizen's initiatives in Washington, just as they have in Oregon and California, to get past the legislators that are hamstrung by their debts to the special interest groups and subservience to the state bureaucracy. About time, too, IMHO.

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 16, 2000

Answers

to Craig: Maybe we'll get a synthesis of the Oregon & California initiatives. For example, there'll be an initiative to legalize doctor-assisted suicides, but another initiative to tax suicides (like the cigarette tax in California) in order to fund suicide prevention programs.

Of course, here in Washington, we pass initiatives to end affirmative action as well as increase the minimum wage. Hey, we're annoying both the left and the right. Hooray for the citizens.

Upcoming are initiatives providing universal health care and guaranteed inflation adjusted pay raises for teachers.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 17, 2000.


"Excuse me, but it doesn't look like there is either leadership nor even willingness to make any decisions in our legislature. My prediction is that we are going to see more and more citizen's initiatives in Washington, just as they have in Oregon and California, to get past the legislators that are hamstrung by their debts to the special interest groups and subservience to the state bureaucracy. About time, too, IMHO."

I don't doubt that this could happen, but I'd place the odds of it actually being any better than what is going on now at close to zero.

The interesting thing about Craig's comments is that it's a big feedback loop. He's identified the problem of the legislature being unable to handle the budget problem. However, the reason behind there being a budget problem is the fact that the voters passed I-695 in November. Had 695 not passed, it's fairly safe to assume that the legislature would have adjorned within the original 60 day session.

Of course the legislature might have had an easier time dealing with I-695 had the House not been in a 49-49 tie. Pretty much every legislator agrees that even being in a substantial minority is a better position than being in the current tie. The reason for this tie? The voters created it (although not in a conscience effort) in November 1998. I'm in no way absolving the legislature, because clearly they are failing at their paramount duty. But the voters also share a significant portion of the blame.

As I said, placing more responsibility in the hands of the voters is not exactly going to help out. There are volumes of data to showcase just how seriously the public takes its current responsibilities. Whereas most people will complain about how bad government is, a vast majority of those people can't tell you who their representatives are in government, nor can they describe the issues that their representatives are currently debating beyond a vague reference that might get 90% of the issue wrong. There are also scores of polls out there that will show people for affirmative action but against racial preferences, against partial birth abortions but for late term abortions, and the classic for lower taxes and for increased government spending.

Does this make the general public stupid? No, just more concerned about the issue more pressing to their own lives, and less concerned about spending the time to research the pros and cons of corporate welfare to develop a reasoned opinion.

But by placing more responsibility on the voters, you also eliminate that responsibility. When an elected official makes bad public policy decisions the people can remove his responsibility by removing him from office. When the voters make bad public policy decisions you can't exactly get rid of them now can you. One of the bedrock principles in our culture is that when something goes wrong there has to be someone to put the blame on. That's what Tim Eyman is tapping into. The age old idea that government is the problem. And since it's an easy stereotype to believe, most people won't even question it.

But again, legislating through initiative removes the blame from everyone. The passage of I-711 will have a MINIMAL impact on traffic problems, but who will get the blame for that? Currently we can still blame the government for a lot of the problems created by initiatives. It wasn't the voters' fault that the Seahawks are getting a new stadium, it was Paul Allen and the legislature for making the voters vote on it. It's not the voters' fault for removing the funding for billions of dollars worth of road construction, it's the government's fault for not finding the money to replace it. But sooner or later, the government stops being the prime scapegoat once the initiatives take over. Then the cycle really becomes vicious. Initiatives will start blaming previous initiatives and their authors for making a problem worse. Those authors will counter-claim that the new initiatives are trying to cloud the issue and will make matters worse. The end result will be the same system of back stabbing and ineffectiveness. But instead of having the government to pin the blame on, the voters will either have to blame themselves (not likely) or blame the initiative drafters, who can't be held responsible for their actions. So you wind up with a system stripped of checks and balances.

The consequences of such a system can be dramatic. With no one to blame for the problems that are occuring, the people will turn towards increasingly sweeping changes, often going from one extreme to another attempting to solve them. Sound like fun? The problem is that the people NEED the government to be there as the scapegoat. Someone always needs to be there to blame, and even if the people do take away the powers of the government, they WON'T want to take the responsibilities for their actions. And THAT, IMHO, would just open up such a big can-o-worms that the people would at some point demand that the government take back the powers stripped from it and quite a bit more. Not exactly a welcoming thought.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.


Craig writes:

>>It is better, they say, to let the "professionals" who we have elected handle the issues that are simply too complicated for the average voter, that the average voter is too self-serving, lacking in expertise, or lacking in patience to deal with effectively.<<

Holy strawman, Batman!!

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 17, 2000.


Sorry BB. Obviously should have used Patrick for the example, from his above posting.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 17, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ