We voted for this, it passed and now should become the law of the land. Does anyone disagree? I welcome all opinions, pro or con.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 02, 2000

Answers

to Rolex: I voted for I-722, and I definitely want to see property tax increases limited to 2% a year.

As for refunding previously passed taxes and fees, I'm not sure this is practical. I'd be satisfied if they had an advisory election asking the voters if it was really necessary to turn the clock back on every little nit-picky tax and fee. Just the fact that they thought to ask would mean a lot. You know the old saying: "Ask and ye shall receive".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

Well seeing as it's most likely unconstitutional, no, it should not become the law of the land just because the citizens voted for it.

If someone offered an initiative that re-established slavery and the majority passed it, should that become the law of the land?

The fact of the matter is that there are some laws that are more fundamental than others, and are thus included in our constitution. The most basic principle of our form of government is that there are certain overriding laws that form the foundation on which other laws are based upon. It's the whole reason why this country has lasted as long as it has, and why the US is considered to be so stable. And when other laws are passed that do not match with the foundation, the foundation must be the one that is followed.

To do otherwise is to invite chaos and risk destroying what we've spent 224 years trying to build.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 04, 2000.

Wake up , informed citizen.

Our great country reached its zenith in the late 60's. It has been downhill ever since. Ever since the words, Politically Correct, danced across our nations politics, everything has gotten worse.

You asked a question of slavery. Let me put it this way. If the people's vote does not count and will be blocked by the powers that be, when THEY do not like it, what kind of Democracy do we really have. We have an illusion of Democracy. An illusion of Independence. America is fast becoming a hollow illusion of the greatness the founding fathers envisioned.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 04, 2000.

I believe folks are confusing direct democracy and unconstitutional initiatives with the right of citizens to limit tax increases. If you read the dissenting opinion, you will see many references cited there, that claim we do. There are many cases in which that very thing has been upheld.

As BB would say, you are comparing apples to oranges.

For those of you that claim we don't have that right......you are seriously mistaken. If none of you have learned anything by now, you should have learned there are many differing positions held by the courts. Some day, I predict Tim Eyman WILL get us a constitutional initiative limiting taxes. Cheer up Rolex!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

Marsha, I believe one day tim will be able to write such an intiative. BB says this will never be the case, but he keeps arguing about it , because secretly, he is afraid that it will happen.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 04, 2000.

Rolex,

Part of the problem with the arguments in this forum, is that the opposition keeps claiming that we don't have the right in a representitive government to limit taxation, and that to allow us to do so, would make us a direct democracy. This is B.S. and they know it.

We are not seeking to change our system of goverment. Only control it better. Just because you can't articulate as well as they can, does not mean they are right. You are morally right to try and contain an over bloated goverment. In fact, I believe it is your responsibility as a good citizen. We can't pass this burden onto our children. In order for them to live in a free democratic society and not under socialism, we have to do the right thing now!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

Actually Marsha, what you just said is BS. If you'd look at what BB and I have been saying, there are several ways already in existance that limit state and/or local taxes. Most, if not all of these were voter approved limitations. We're not saying that the people should not or cannot have the right to limit taxation, only that the methods attempted by Eyman and Co. are both ill advised and unconstitutional.

Control and responsiveness of our government are good causes to fight for, but the way you fight for them can be even more important than why. All of the efforts I have seen from Eyman have been of the "cut off your nose to spite your face" variety, which are more harmful then the problems they are trying to cure.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

BS huh? I said control it better.

I really don't care how much you dislike Tim Eyman, or his methods. He has done more to effect change than you have. My tax burden declined this year through his efforts. What the heck have YOU done towards that end. NADA!

If I wind up paying an equal amount of tax in gas and other transportation fees and taxes, at least this time I will have a say and input (albeit minimal), according to Locke.

It depends on your perspective. From my perspective, I am better off than I was last year. I pay less tax, and have aquired a tad more say. Did the Blue Ribbon Commission address "efficiencies?" That concept was no where to be found in the days of MVET.

Tim's efforts changed the political climate.

"but the way you fight for them can be even more important than why." Better tell that to Old Al.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Oh yeah, one other point. Would you stop associating me with Rolex's comments? I knew all along I-722 was unconstitutional. I read the dang thing!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Uh Marsha, check again. I never said you thought that I-722 was going to be constitutional. I have a hard time believing anyone thinks I-722 will survive (and you know, it hasn't been found unconsitutional yet). I don't know where you got that from.

"What the heck have YOU done towards that end. NADA!"

Hmm, you don't know who I am or what I've done in my life, but you're willing to assume that I've done nothing to affect change. I'm not even going to get into how wrong you are in that statement. It's just rather ammusing that you're willing to make that assumption based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever!

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

Nope, I sure don't know. You are right that I have no idea what efforts you may have put forth, since you can't even use a real identity, like Rolex and I do. That would make you a ******

Gee, should we all hide behind some initials?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Folks:

Let's face it. If Tim is honest about his intentions, he is not the brightest bulb on the string. How much of the tax base has been spent on litigating his obviously unconstitutional offerings?

Now if you want these inacted, find someone who actually understands the law and can write an acceptible proposal.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 09, 2000.