I-747 is going to be on the Ballot in November- Hot Damn!

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

Tim has come thru again. I cant wait to sign up for this property tax limiting initiative. Any Opinions pro or con?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 12, 2001

Answers

1. The initiative has just been filed. It still needs a few signatures on the petition befor it will be on the ballot November 2001. Remember I-710? That bad idea had to be thrown out and re-written as I-722, and even that is now headed for the dumper.

2. Have you read the text, or have you formed your opinion with no information at all?

3. If you know where the text can be seen on the Net, post it here. I would like to read it. All I know so far is what has been written about it, and from that limited information it did not sound like they had solved the basic problem of I-695 that was one of the several reasons it was found to be unconstitutional - namely, that an effective voter approval requirement would be effectively a statutory referendum, contrary to the constitutional requirements for a referendum.

4. I note that the forum is still named "greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : Post Reply". 695 was back in 1999. We are no longer talking about the $30 license tab initiative. When is this forum going to catch up with current events?

5. Eyman has come through "again"? I have yet to see anything good he has proposed, even including those that actually passed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 13, 2001.


Who wants to go to http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/add-new-topic.tcl and create the Initiative 747 discussion?

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 13, 2001.

I would certainly like to go Db. Debating you and your faulty logic is fun and entertaining. I am sure you will say the same of me, of course. Without two totally opposing points of view, where both combatants absolutely believe they are on the right side of the issue, a debate is boring.

Eyeman has limited his intiative to just property tax this time. He proposes that local governments can only raise the current tax by one percent. Any larger amount would have to go to a vote before the people. If you get this website of yours set up, please inform me of the address and PREPARE FOR BATTLE!!!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 13, 2001.


Rolex:

>>Tim has come thru again. I cant wait to sign up for this property tax limiting initiative. Any Opinions pro or con?<<

It's another dumb idea, not that that should be any big surprise considering the source. Just to give one example, my fire district's expenses have risen by greater than 1% for as long as I can remember, at least 20 or 30 years. Their fuel costs alone last year would cause their budget to increase by more than one percent. Factor in a continually increasing demand for service, and you have increased costs year after year. They would have no choice but to go to a public vote every single year under 747.

That means that there would be no certaintly whatsoever that the level of service provided by my fire district would remain consistent for more than one year. Should the voters decide not to approve a tax increase of more than 1% in a particular year, chances are my fire district would have to lay people off, and close a station or two. My insurance rates would go up, and whatever tax savings I had received would be more than eaten up by my increased insurance costs.

Multiply this by hundreds of other jurisdictions in the state and you have a big problem. Frankly, I'd rather see my $ go to providing service in my local community than see it taken away by an insurance company, but I suppose that's just me.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 13, 2001.


BB, you can donate as much money to your local fire district all you want. These firefighters need to take a paycut and STOP going on early disability retirements. Then we should have enough money to fund them after 747 passes.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 15, 2001.


"Should the voters decide not to approve a tax increase of more than 1% in a particular year, chances are my fire district would have to lay people off, and close a station or two"

Sounds like you don't believe in the 13th amendment, BB.

You apparently believe that the taxpayers must work for you, regardless of whether they are willing or not, and you would back that up with the police power of the state.

Sounds like a political philosophy more appropriate for Germany in the 1930s than Washington in the new millenium.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

Rolex:

>>BB, you can donate as much money to your local fire district all you want. These firefighters need to take a paycut and STOP going on early disability retirements. Then we should have enough money to fund them after 747 passes.<<

Please provide specific instances of this type of conduct.

Mark:

>>Sounds like you don't believe in the 13th amendment, BB.

You apparently believe that the taxpayers must work for you, regardless of whether they are willing or not, and you would back that up with the police power of the state.

Sounds like a political philosophy more appropriate for Germany in the 1930s than Washington in the new millenium.<<

Nice strawman you knocked down there.

So now, in Mark's world, opponents of 747 are both pro-slavery and Nazis. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Goodwin's rule is in effect.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.


What is pathetic is that you say this is a strawman, BB. Re-read your own post-

"They would have no choice but to go to a public vote every single year under 747. That means that there would be no certaintly whatsoever that the level of service provided by my fire district would remain consistent for more than one year. Should the voters decide not to approve a tax increase of more than 1% in a particular year, chances are my fire district would have to lay people off, and close a station or two."

Your issue is not that elections would be expensive overhead, which I would at least concede may be the case and even agree with.

Your issue is that the majority of your citizens may not wish to be taxed to support something that you value, so the rules must not be changed to allow them to have that option.

Why do you believe it appropriate to set up a system to compel your fellow citizens to give up their resources to fund something that they don't support?

Don't you recall from your high school civics class that political authority in a democracy is derived from the consent of the governed?

So quit waah-waahing about "strawmen" and answer the question.

What's wrong with ASKING the majority of your fellow citizens for their money, rather than just taking it?



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

to BB: You're being quite silly (as usual). There's nothing in the initiative preventing communities from voting to allow Fire, Police, and other essential service to automatically increase their specific tax rates, closer to the true rate of inflation. In fact, Eyman's initiatives are not against higher taxes, but against higher taxes without voter approval. The voters are free to choose whatever methodology of constitutional taxation they so desire.

And, if there is something in the initiative, preventing communities from voting on automatic tax rate increases, the constitution permits the legislature to amend the initiative down the road.

So, your argument that the "sky will fall" remains forever weak.

The fact remains that our political representatives do not listen to us. Plain and simple. Hence, there is no alternative to the initiative process.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 15, 2001.


Mark:

>>Your issue is not that elections would be expensive overhead, which I would at least concede may be the case and even agree with.<<

I never said that I didn't have an issue with the added expense of elections.

>>Your issue is that the majority of your citizens may not wish to be taxed to support something that you value, so the rules must not be changed to allow them to have that option.<<

If the majority of citizens where I live did not wish to be taxed to support my fire district, they wouldn't have voted to create it 60 years ago, and they wouldn't move into its jurisdiction now.

If citizens do not wish to be taxed to fund something that I value, in this case a fire district, they are welcome to move to an area that does not have such a district, or vote to de-annex. They will save the tax money that they previously paid, but will pay more in insurance money (if they choose to have insurance), and will not have the same level of service as me, but that's their choice. But when people choose to move into an area that has a certain level of government service, and therefore a certain level of taxation, they shouldn't come crying to me (or you, even) about paying for the consequences of their own choices.

The fact remains that if you don't want to pay taxes, this state's system is one of the best around to allow you to avoid as much of the burden that you can. These recent changes to the system are (unwittingly, in my opinion) changing that for the worse, because oftentimes people can't see the forest through the trees.

>>Why do you believe it appropriate to set up a system to compel your fellow citizens to give up their resources to fund something that they don't support?<<

I, or the various governments where I live, have compelled nothing. Every political jurisdiction in this state was created with a vote of the people. There are many areas that are not served by a fire district, water district, sewer district, cemetery district, or whatever other special district. If you don't support these government agencies, move to such an area.

The real problem here (which nobody really wants to acknowledge) is that people want government to provide a whole bunch of services, but they just don't want to pay for it.

>>Don't you recall from your high school civics class that political authority in a democracy is derived from the consent of the governed? <<

Yes – which is why there was a public vote decades ago to create and fund every one of the governmental agencies currently serving where I live.

>>What's wrong with ASKING the majority of your fellow citizens for their money, rather than just taking it?<<

Because my governmental jurisdictions have already asked, back when they were created. You're implying that this is a question that governments have never asked; they have, when they were all voted into existence

If you want to change the rules of the game, and say that governments have to ask over and over and over again for people to approve certain decisions, that's your choice, although I think it’s unnecessary and wasteful. But if you are going to demand that government asks over and over and over again, you need to be honest about the potential consequences that do not exist in our current system, and that's what you (and Eyman & Co. especially) continuously refuse to acknowledge.

There are consequences to these choices, but when all you do is sit around and yell "the sky is falling," or call somebody a Nazi and claim that they're in favor of slavery when they point out some of these potential consequences, you're not engaging in a fair debate of the issues.

Matt:

>>There's nothing in the initiative preventing communities from voting to allow Fire, Police, and other essential service to automatically increase their specific tax rates, closer to the true rate of inflation.<<

Oh really? How do you know this? Have you read the initiative? Because it isn’t posted on the Secretary of State’s website, or anywhere else for that matter, so how do you know what it says?

>>The voters are free to choose whatever methodology of constitutional taxation they so desire.<<

The voters have already done this when they voted every government in this state into existence.

>>And, if there is something in the initiative, preventing communities from voting on automatic tax rate increases, the constitution permits the legislature to amend the initiative down the road. So, your argument that the "sky will fall" remains forever weak.<<

So the gist of your argument is, if the initiative messes things up, and people's houses burn down or they die of a heart attack when that fire station down the street is forced to close, it's okay, because it'll only last a couple of years, until the legislature fixes the problems.

Why not write the initiative so it doesn't have these problems to begin with? Isn't that a better way to go?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.



"If the majority of citizens where I live did not wish to be taxed to support my fire district, they wouldn't have voted to create it 60 years ago, and they wouldn't move into its jurisdiction now."
Translation:

My way or the highway

"If citizens do not wish to be taxed to fund something that I value, in this case a fire district, they are welcome to move to an area that does not have such a district,"
Translation:

My way or the highway


"or vote to de-annex" Translation:

We cast you out, along with your fellow troglodytes!


"The real problem here (which nobody really wants to acknowledge) is that people want government to provide a whole bunch of services, but they just don't want to pay for it. "
Translation:

The majority of the people are cheap fools



"Yes – which is why there was a public vote decades ago to create and fund every one of the governmental agencies currently serving where I live. .....Because my governmental jurisdictions have already asked, back when they were created. You're implying that this is a question that governments have never asked; they have, when they were all voted into existence "
Translation:

As far as I'm concerned, you fools gave up your rights when you established the first bureaucracy



"If you want to change the rules of the game, and say that governments have to ask over and over and over again for people to approve certain decisions, that's your choice, although I think it’s unnecessary and wasteful. "
Dang, I thought that was why we had regularly scheduled elections, so we'd have periodic refernums on the direction our government was going. This sounds like the Brezhnev doctrine, once a communist state, always a communist state.

"There are consequences to these choices, but when all you do is sit around and yell "the sky is falling," or call somebody a Nazi and claim that they're in favor of slavery when they point out some of these potential consequences, you're not engaging in a fair debate of the issues. "
Make you a deal, BB,

You stop talking like a totalitarian in training, I'll stop saying that you sound like a totalitarian in training.



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

I really wonder if BB has the insigt to understand what he is saying. It is one thing to be anti-populist, but the statements he makes border on total contempt for his fellow citizens. Hopefully he is just having a bad day, but his open disdain for the opinions of others scares me more than Mark's hyperboles and somewhat eagerated analogies.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

I'll try that again with the spell checker on:

I really wonder if BB has the insight to understand what he is saying. It is one thing to be anti-populist, but the statements he makes border on total contempt for his fellow citizens. Hopefully he is just having a bad day, but his open disdain for the opinions of others scares me more than Mark's hyperboles and somewhat exaggerated analogies.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.


Mark:

Typical. I bring up potential issues with 747 and get "translations" (the real translation: words put in my mouth) and called a communist. It's sort of ironic that one minute you call me a nazi and the next a communist, considering how diametrically opposed the two regimes were, but I expect that irony to be lost on you.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.


Zowie:

>>It is one thing to be anti-populist, but the statements he makes border on total contempt for his fellow citizens. Hopefully he is just having a bad day, but his open disdain for the opinions of others scares me more than Mark's hyperboles and somewhat exaggerated analogies.<<

How is pointing out the fact that all governments were created with voter approval disdainful for the opinions of others?

How is pointing out the fact that there are many areas in this state that are not served by a variety of governments disdainful to others?

And getting back to what we're supposed to be talking about here, how is pointing out the fact that certain rules will be changed by 747 disdainful to others?

Fact is Zowie, I'm not the one putting words in the mouths of others, or accusing them of following generally reviled (and totally discredited) political philosphies. Before you accuse me of showing disdain towards others, you may want to talk about the people who are doing exactly that by making the aforementioned statements.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.



"It's sort of ironic that one minute you call me a nazi and the next a communist, considering how diametrically opposed the two regimes were, but I expect that irony to be lost on you. "
Not at all. There is less difference in the totalitarians on both ends of the spectrum than might be supposed. Neither have much respect for the rights of the common man, or for the common man AT ALL, for that matter. Both would coerce the common man to comply with their philosophies. In your case, if popular democracy and the opinions of the people indicate a course of action different than that which YOU believe best, Well, we'll just have to make sure that the great unwashed never have an opportunity to control their government. In this respect you and totalitarians of both stripe demonstrate your contempt for the average voter and your willingness to compel the average voter to do things against their will, if it serves YOUR purposes.

The irony, is that you don't have the objectivity to realize that you're all alike, and somehow believe that your "end justifies the means" philosophy is somehow different from that found in Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or Mao's little red book. If it difers at all, it's only in degree. The underlying elitism is still there.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

"How is pointing out the fact that all governments were created with voter approval disdainful for the opinions of others? "

Come come, BB, you said much more than this.

What you actually said was:
"Because my governmental jurisdictions have already asked, back when they were created. "
"There are many areas that are not served by a fire district, water district, sewer district, cemetery district, or whatever other special district. If you don't support these government agencies, move to such an area. "
"there was a public vote decades ago to create and fund every one of the governmental agencies currently serving where I live."
"If the majority of citizens where I live did not wish to be taxed to support my fire district, they wouldn't have voted to create it 60 years ago"

Inherent in these statements is the belief that once the citizenry voted a government into existence, they became subservient to the government, they irrevocably yielded power to that government.

Now if you truly believe that, Mark is right in calling you a totalitarian. Personally, I believe that you are just so dedicated to your particular cause (in this case fire safety) that you have come to believe that people who would oppose it are irrational. But since you don't have confidence in the rationality of people and are indeed somewhat contemptuous of them:;
"The real problem here (which nobody really wants to acknowledge) is that people want government to provide a whole bunch of services, but they just don't want to pay for it. "
you come across as someone who would indeed use the police power of the state to overthrow the popular will, if you believed differently. Now many people believe that they could run the world better if they were suddenly dictator, but most at least have sufficient insight to understand the old saw about democracy actually being the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.
Even Matt, narcissistic personality disorder and all, realizes that he can't shove his ideas down everyone's throat, even if he can't understand why the rabble don't agree with him. You need to show at least equal insight. Re-read your own posting.

If you still don't get it, read your postings to a friend.

work on it a while, and you'll see the problem. Deny it, and it only makes it worse.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.

The problem is: The government wants the people to pay for all these services and the government employees do not want to provide them to the citizens. The latin translation for this: LAZY ASS, ARROGANT, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 15, 2001.

The debate above took up a lot of space, but was not very informative.

Where can I find a copy of the actual language of the initiative?

Did they solve the problem of mandatory voter approval of any tax increase being a statutory referendum without meeting the constitutional requirements for a referendum? (one of the 695 problems)

Is anyone going to set up a 747 forum? Or perhaps it should be "Permanent Offense". 695 is out of date.

I see a lot of heat, but no discussion of the actual provisions of I- 747. How about something informative here?

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 15, 2001.


"The debate above took up a lot of space, but was not very informative."

The quick answer is that if you don't like it, start your own thread.

But I personally believe that the above exchange was extremely informative in that it vividly demonstrated the basic purpose behind the initiative process.

The initiative process allows us to take back from the political class the discretion we granted them in "... a public vote decades ago" when they have proven unworthy of the discretion that we voted them.

BB and his ilk are elitists. They believe that they should be allowed to make the rules, regardless of the public sentiment, because they are a chosen elite.

Those of us who believe that governmental authority flows from the consent of the governed, obviously have a different view.

BB's mind-set is so firmly fixed to the first philosophy that he not only doesn't hide it, but doesn't understand why anyone would take issue. Like an Afrikaner raised under apartheid, it all seems rather natural to him, and the idea that someone would expect one-man, one-vote, and majority rule just doesn't seem logical to him.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 16, 2001.

to BB: You write: "So the gist of your argument is, if the initiative messes things up, and people's houses burn down or they die of a heart attack when that fire station down the street is forced to close, it's okay, because it'll only last a couple of years, until the legislature fixes the problems....Why not write the initiative so it doesn't have these problems to begin with? Isn't that a better way to go?"

Actually, BB, the initiative process is a rather weak one. No matter what initiatives we pass, the legislature can do whatever it wants, anyway. So, your beloved form of government remains unaffected.

The initiatives are nothing more than an "official opinion poll".

As I said before, the politicians do not usually listen to the people. The best chance I have to be heard is through the initiative process.

As for writing initiatives without problems, there's nothing stopping the legislature from issuing its own initiatives, presumably written in a way to protect "essential" services.

And, you are correct, I have no idea what I-747 exactly says, but I was basing my comments on Rolex's claim that the initiative would limit property tax increases to 1% a year.

I can't speak for others, but I've certainly seen my property appraisal (and, hence, my property taxes) appreciate at a rate faster than my salary. What's wrong with putting the government on a diet, if only for a little while?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 17, 2001.


Zowie:

>>Inherent in these statements is the belief that once the citizenry voted a government into existence, they became subservient to the government, they irrevocably yielded power to that government.<<

When people vote a government into existence, they expressly surrender some degree of their sovereignty or power to that government. For example, when a number of areas near me decided to incorporate in the past decade, the people in those areas gave their new city government the power to tax them at a certain level, and granted them the authority to increase those taxes by a certain level from year to year.

Now, just because governments were granted the authority to levy and raise taxes at a certain level, does not mean that they should automatically use this power to levy the maximum amount of taxes. While they have been granted the power to do so by their citizens, those same citizens may not want them to use the full extent of their granted power to tax. Those elected to the government have to take this into account, and must pay attention to the wishes of their citizens, or else they won't be elected to government for very long.

Since elected officials are aware of this, they must ask their citizens for their opinion on taxation all the time, to make sure that they are not out of step with the public. This is why governments have public meeting after public meeting, to try and determine the public's mood about taxation. The participation by the public in these meetings varies wildly, but you can't blame the government for trying to get the opinion of the people it serves.

Is the citizen subservient to government? I don't believe so. While they expressly yielded some degree of power, they still exercise a great deal of control over their government, so if they don't like the way the government is using its granted power, the voters can make a change. Have they irrevocably yielded power? I don't believe that they expressly have done so, but pragmatically I'm not so sure, mainly because the next time you see people vote to entirely eliminate a certain level of government will probably be the very first.

How does this relate to 747? It's disingenuous to claim that governments haven't asked their citizens whether they approve of a certain level of taxation. They have. They might not have asked in the way you want them to, in this case via public vote, but they ask every year when they have special budget meetings, and they ask again during elections, when different taxation philosophies are on display for the public to choose from.

If you want to change the way that governments ask their voters about taxation, that's fine. But you'd better make it very clear what the consequences of such a change are, and this is where I find fault with Eyman & Co., because I believe that as often as possible, they attempt to avoid discussion of the consequences of their proposed changes.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 21, 2001.


"Since elected officials are aware of this, they must ask their citizens for their opinion on taxation all the time, to make sure that they are not out of step with the public."
Right. And I-695 came out of left field too. Every politician in the state KNEW that the MVET was hated and didn't give a rat's ass. Locke (among many others) admitted as much, when he was plea bargaining what they would do if the voters would refrain from passing it. As soon as I-695 passed, they fell all over themselves repealing the MVET.

"This is why governments have public meeting after public meeting, to try and determine the public's mood about taxation."

This is where the politicians parade in front of activists that want more taxes for their pet projects.

"The participation by the public in these meetings varies wildly,"

Get real. Most of us have to WORK during woorking hours. Our employers don't give us time off to let us ask the government to let us KEEP our money.

" but you can't blame the government for trying to get the opinion of the people it serves."

What a crock of bull, BB. "Is the citizen subservient to government? I don't believe so. While they expressly yielded some degree of power, they still exercise a great deal of control over their government, so if they don't like the way the government is using its granted power, the voters can make a change."

However the rules are set to give incumbents an extreme advantage.

Have they irrevocably yielded power?

Not no, but Hell no!

"I don't believe that they expressly have done so, but pragmatically I'm not so sure, mainly because the next time you see people vote to entirely eliminate a certain level of government will probably be the very first. "

But every use of the initiative by the public is a pulling back from the bureaucracy of power.
How does this relate to 747? It's disingenuous to claim that governments haven't asked their citizens whether they approve of a certain level of taxation.

It is NOT> !

They have. They might not have asked in the way you want them to, in this case via public vote, but they ask every year when they have special budget meetings, and they ask again during elections, when different taxation philosophies are on display for the public to choose from. If you want to change the way that governments ask their voters about taxation, that's fine.

I'm certainly glad it's fine, because we intend to do EXACTLY that. Come to think of it, we would still do exactly that even if you didn't think it was finre, BB.

But you'd better make it very clear what the consequences of such a change are, and this is where I find fault with Eyman & Co., because I believe that as often as possible, they attempt to avoid discussion of the consequences of their proposed changes. "

As opposed to the elected Mandarins who cry doom and gloom at every decrease. Re-read the opposition to 601 statements in the Sec State site, re-read the opposition to 695 statements, hey go back and re-read the opposition to the repeal of the state sales tax on foods. It's ALWAYS the professional politicians screaming gloom and doom. What pathetic whiners.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.

There is nothing wrong in the theory behind I-747. The problem is that it does not recognize the amount of negotiation that occurs to get a funding bill passed. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has a problem with every proposal in one way or another. Currently, "Everyone" is just limited to our government representatives. If I-747 passes, "Everyone" becomes to every voter.

I understand that no one likes the wheeling and dealing that occurs to gain consensus, but you do what has to be done to reach an agreement or nothing passes. Think of how difficult it might be to reach an agreement with a hundred representatives when several options are presented, including multiple variations for each option. Now, instead of an agreement between a hundred, try to get an agreement between thousands or millions. Add an additional level bureaucracy where each agreement has to be voted upon by the general population; a population that often has not kept up with the day to day negotiations that had to occur to get to this point. The result will be - NOTHING PASSES and NOTHING GETS DONE!

Consider how difficult it might be to pass transportation improvement projects. A third Lake Washington bridge? I-90 & Hwy 520 Improvements? It's great for east side residents, but will probably not be supported by north or southenders. A Light Rail or monorail system? Not going to be heavily supported by anyone outside of the metropolitan Seattle area. Another toll-free Tacoma Narrow bridge? Free Buses? Yeah, right!

Better yet, imagine every single transportation package recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission and any other group, is put up to a vote and passes. Think of what your property taxes would be to fund $60+ billion of transportation projects all at one time!

I-747 might work well with a small group of people sharing common values and priorities. It will not work with a large number of people with varying priorities and values. Doom and gloom? It may be, but it is a distinct possibility if I-747 passes.

Zowie, Mark, Rolex - How do you see government working if I-747 passes?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.


Everyone except Mark ignored me on the other I-747 thread (good response too,) but I am not about to drop my objections yet.

This intiative has good intentions but we all know where those lead. Please tell me what is to stop a local taxing authority from reducing or eliminating essential services in retribution for having a rate increase measure turned down? Think they won't? They will fund pet projects, and give themselves another raise....but health departments, law enforcement etc. will be cut. What is to stop permits and fees from increasing to fund their pork?

I think this one needs to be tossed guys......

How about working out an intiative that identifies essential services, and funds them first, and no increases allowed for the remaining programs without voter approval?

Just a thought...

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 22, 2001.


Zowie:

>>Every politician in the state KNEW that the MVET was hated and didn't give a rat's ass.<<

In 1998, the people of Washington passed the Republican-backed R-49, directing the state to use the MVET to fund new road construction. The same year, an initiative to repeal the MVET didn't get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The state had been told by the voters to spend the MVET on roads. Are you suggesting that they should have ignored the will of the voters as expressed by R-49, repealed the MVET, and therefore not spent it on roads? What should the politicians have listened to: (1) the public vote telling them to keep the MVET and spend it on roads; or (2) the opinion of those who wanted to do away with the MVET?

>>"This is why governments have public meeting after public meeting, to try and determine the public's mood about taxation."

This is where the politicians parade in front of activists that want more taxes for their pet projects.<<

That's funny, because I've never seen any of those activists at my sewer, water, park, and fire district meetings demanding $ for their pet projects. In fact, I've hardly seen anybody at all.

>>Get real. Most of us have to WORK during woorking hours. Our employers don't give us time off to let us ask the government to let us KEEP our money.<<

My governments have these meetings at night, as do most small local governments. Where I live, the government does everything that it can to be responsive to its citizens and listen to what they have to say. Why should my responsive government be penalized?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.


Marsha:

>>Please tell me what is to stop a local taxing authority from reducing or eliminating essential services in retribution for having a rate increase measure turned down?<<

First of all, it is worth nothing that many local taxing authorities do nothing but provide "essential services," so if a rate increase measure is turned down, they'll have no choice but to cut services. If you only provide one service, there's nothing to cut but that one service when funding is cut.

Anyway, to answer your question, there's nothing in 747 to stop a local taxing authority from eliminating whatever their elected officials want to eliminate if a rate increase is turned down.

>>How about working out an intiative that identifies essential services, and funds them first, and no increases allowed for the remaining programs without voter approval?<<

What's an essential service?

This seems to be one of those things that sounds great on paper, but quickly collapses when you try to make it reality. There are something like 6 million people in this state, with 6 million different interpretations of what is an "essential service."

Even if you somehow miraculously get everybody to agree on what services are "essential," how much of that service do you then have to provide? Everybody would probably agree that cops are an essential service, but does that mean that we should then have one on every street corner? Everybody would probably also agree that schools are essential, but then how much money should they get?

Good questions, Marsha, but answers may be in short supply.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.


I don't agree that essential is difficult to define. Parks are nice, Art is nice, but neither is essential.... Police, Fire, EMS, Schools, those ARE essential.

I am concerned that under this initiative, things I believe need more funding will not only NOT get more support, they will get less. My community has the same number of Law Enforcement Officers as they had in the 70's. Yet crime has more than doubled. Response times are way up.

Criminals must make an appointment for space in the jail, sometimes as many as 4 or 5 times, before they can serve their sentences.

EMS levies for new equipment to replace worn out equipment, fail.

This community may never be willing to allow more than 1%. On the other hand, some other communtiy may raise their own taxes much higher than I am able to pay, for things I personally don't want, need or use.

I would rather see an attempt made to define essential/non essential and allow an increase equal to inflation for essential, and ask the voters approval for increases beyond that.

I don't want revenge on Government for ignoring the message of I-695. I want more responsible decisions made, and I want to give Government some guidance.

This Initiative is too simple. It will not work. Too much room for Politicians to play with fuzzy math......

I am not saying we stop supporting non essential, we just need to prioritize, and take special interests out of the game. We need to give firm guidlines to the overspending politicians, with no room to wiggle in pork.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 22, 2001.


Unfortunately, these intitiatives are the tip of the iceburg. They were bound to come along sooner or later. With the politicians total lack of concern for the ordinary citizens pocketbook, voter frustration has boiled over. The next thing Olympia will do is find a way, ANY way, to ban or curtail the Intiative Process. What has Locke done to address our issues this year? NOTHING, as usual. People are so pissed out here in the wilds of Washington, they will vote for anything that gives them just a little of their God Given Rights back.

Instead of Addressing any of our concerns, Only silence has come from Olympia. This proves that the intiative process is the only way to get out meager voices heard by these beaurocrats.

In all fairness, If olympia proposed a tax increase AND made their case point by point for the need of this increase. If I thought in all fairness, this tax increase was needed, I would vote for it.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 23, 2001.


"In 1998, the people of Washington passed the Republican-backed R-49, directing the state to use the MVET to fund new road construction."
In 1998 the cojones-less politicians after decades of ignoring transportation put up an REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE indicating that their only way of ever seeing wither more roads or ANY good from their MVET was to use it to fund roads.

"The same year, an initiative to repeal the MVET didn't get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot."

Gee whiz- inadequate organizational skills. From this we are supposed to infer something?



The state had been told by the voters to spend the MVET on roads. Are you suggesting that they should have ignored the will of the voters as expressed by R-49, repealed the MVET, and therefore not spent it on roads? What should the politicians have listened to: (1) the public vote telling them to keep the MVET and spend it on roads; or (2) the opinion of those who wanted to do away with the MVET?

The state posed the question I asked above. The state was told to fix the damn roads, which they have been resisting doing since the 60s. They are still resisting doing it, simply using I-695 as an excuse. They don't want to fix the roads. They want to be able to pay off their political constituencies through the politically correct recommendations of the blue ribbon committee.

"This is why governments have public meeting after public meeting, to try and determine the public's mood about taxation."

And can you please cite the time and places where all these pro-MVET meetings occurred over the years?

"That's funny, because I've never seen any of those activists at my sewer, water, park, and fire district meetings demanding $ for their pet projects. In fact, I've hardly seen anybody at all. "
In that case, you ought to be overjoyed that voters are getting involved through the initiative process.

"My governments have these meetings at night, as do most small local governments. Where I live, the government does everything that it can to be responsive to its citizens and listen to what they have to say. Why should my responsive government be penalized? "

BECAUSE YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHTS, NOT EVEN THE RIGHT TO EXIST. Like all other government, it derives all of it's powers, and both it's raison d'etre, and even it's very existence from the consent of the governed.

"First of all, it is worth nothing that many local taxing authorities do nothing but provide "essential services," so if a rate increase measure is turned down, they'll have no choice but to cut services. If you only provide one service, there's nothing to cut but that one service when funding is cut. "

What a crock!

Admit it BB, you just enjoy playing god (small g). You can say to yourself, "Everything I do is oh-so essential!"

You can stroke your pathetic bureaucratic ego by pretending that the world will come to an end if any reduction is made in your incredibly essential services.

Let's get this straight, BB. All bureaucrats are just cogs in a machine. They are REPLACEABLE cogs in a machine. They exist for the purpose of serving the public, not the other way around.
and you know what else? No part of the machine is really essential. Certainly not in peacetime.

But it's apparent that you will never understand this, BB. It is too much of a blow to your too highly dependent bureaucrat ego.

"Please tell me what is to stop a local taxing authority from reducing or eliminating essential services in retribution for having a rate increase measure turned down? Think they won't? They will fund pet projects, and give themselves another raise....but health departments, law enforcement etc. will be cut. What is to stop permits and fees from increasing to fund their pork? "
They will anyway, Marsha. What this is about is reining in the arrogant sense of bureaucratic entitlement embodied in BB and his ilk. We either get them back to understanding that they work for us, make things so unpleasant for them that we drive them into other fields of endeavor, or we become their slaves. I'd rather fight them with initiatives now, then in other ways later.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

Marsha,

There is nothing wrong with the initiative process per se. Initiatives are just one tool of many that the people can use to make their wished known to the government. The problem here is that the tool is being used like a sledgehammer when a screwdriver is actually needed.

If the originators of I-747 meant to address inefficiencies or pork in government, they should have written it to address those issues, but they didn't. It only addressed limiting property tax increases.

You are justified for worrying about funding for essential services being diverted to 'pork projects. It has happened before and will probably happen again. All it takes is a bad government employee. Does that mean that ALL government employees are bad? I don't think so, but it appears that Zowie and Rolex believe otherwise.

When it gets down to it, if you trust government employees to do their job, then you should let them do their job. If you don't trust them to do their job, then you should put something in place to get them to do their jobs correctly. None of Eyman's initiatives addresses the trust issue. All they do is to place pseudo-barriers that a trustworthy government employee would respect, but an untrustworthy employee would work around.

Still looking for an answer from Zowie, Mark, Rolex - How do you see government working if I-747 passes?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.


"? I don't think so, but it appears that Zowie and Rolex believe otherwise."
And from what statement of mine did you deduce that?

"When it gets down to it, if you trust government employees to do their job, then you should let them do their job. If you don't trust them to do their job, then you should put something in place to get them to do their jobs correctly."

That has the twin advantages of simplicity and stupidity. What makes you think that government should be involved in many of the current government functions AT ALL? Particularly such things as the DOT. Much of what they do could be contracted out at reduced expense. There was talk of this, even among Democrats, immediately after I-695 passed. They have now gone back to business as usual, willing to accept inefficiencies for public employee union support.

"None of Eyman's initiatives addresses the trust issue. All they do is to place pseudo-barriers that a trustworthy government employee would respect, but an untrustworthy employee would work around."

What a bunch of Nihilistic crap!

Maybe we shouldn't have speed limits because they are something a trustworthy driver would respect, but an untrustworthy driver would work around.

Maybe we shouldn't have pilot licensing rules because they are something a trustworthy pilot would respect, but an untrustworthy pilot would work around..

Maybe we shouldn't have physician licensing because they are something a physician would respect, but an untrustworthy physician would work around..

Maybe we shouldn't have age requirements for voting because they are something a trustworthy voter would respect, but an untrustworthy voter would work around.

Still looking for an answer from Zowie, Mark, Rolex - How do you see government working if I-747 passes? "

Not a hell of a lot different. Hopefully, they would be a little more frugal. But if you do nothing to require cost-effectiveness on the part of your government, it should not surprise you if they are not cost-effective.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

to Questioning: You ask: "How do you see government working if I-747 passes?"

The government will be forced to better communicate with the voters in order to get additional property tax collections.

What is wrong with better communication?

I-747 is about as harmless as an initiative can be. Don't forget the state government has various accounts, with surpluses in the TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 23, 2001.


Zowie,

>>>... from what statement of mine did you deduce that? (Does Zowie believe that ALL government employees are bad?) <<<

Here's a few Zowie quotes... >>> "Every politician in the state KNEW that the MVET was hated and didn't give a rat's ass." <<<

>>> "The state was told to fix the damn roads, which they have been resisting doing since the 60s. They are still resisting doing it, simply using I-695 as an excuse. They don't want to fix the roads. They want to be able to pay off their political constituencies through the politically correct recommendations of the blue ribbon committee. "<<<

>>> "What this is about is reining in the arrogant sense of bureaucratic entitlement embodied in BB and his ilk. We either get them back to understanding that they work for us, make things so unpleasant for them that we drive them into other fields of endeavor, or we become their slaves. I'd rather fight them with initiatives now, then in other ways later." <<<

>>> They (government) have now gone back to business as usual, willing to accept inefficiencies for public employee union support. <<<

After reading these quotes, doesn't it appear that you do NOT have a high opinion of those in government?

>>>"How do you see government working if I-747 passes? " <<< >>> Not a hell of a lot different. Hopefully, they would be a little more frugal. But if you do nothing to require cost-effectiveness on the part of your government, it should not surprise you if they are not cost-effective. <<<

That's the point. This initiative, as well as the rest of Eyman's initiatives, does not require government cost-effectiveness. If you want a cost effectiveness initiative, write a cost effectiveness initiative. This ain't it.

Look at my post dated January 22. Read my doom and gloom scenario of what occurs with the passage of I-747. Is that how you would like government to function?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.


Marsha:

>>I don't agree that essential is difficult to define. Parks are nice, Art is nice, but neither is essential.... Police, Fire, EMS, Schools, those ARE essential.<<

But that's your opinion. What if somebody else thinks that parks ARE essential, even though you don't? Who wins? Do you see what I'm getting at?

>>I would rather see an attempt made to define essential/non essential and allow an increase equal to inflation for essential, and ask the voters approval for increases beyond that.<<

Good luck defining essential/non-essential. That would be an interesting battle.

Assuming you were able to define these services, your hypothetical also assumes that these "essential" services can hold increases in their costs to the rate of inflation (or below) year by year. You seem to be familiar with law enforcement, so you probably know that more often than not, this isn't possible. If we know that the costs of providing these services are going to increase by more than the rate of inflation, why are we forcing them to spend the $ on public votes?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


Zowie:

>>In 1998 the cojones-less politicians after decades of ignoring transportation put up an REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE indicating that their only way of ever seeing wither more roads or ANY good from their MVET was to use it to fund roads.<<

Perhaps you could point out where pro R-49 statement in the voters guide said that passing R-49 was the "only way of ever seeing wither more roads."

And geez, here I thought that instead of ignoring transportation for decades, I-90 had been widened, 167 had been extended, 520 had been extended, 410 had been widened, 395 had been widened, I-82 had been extended, 509 had been widened, 405 had been rebuilt, a new West Seattle Bridge had been built, 18 had been widened, 20 had been widened, 2 had been widened, 522 had been widened, I-205 had been built, I-705 had been built, 16 had been built, new interchanges all over the place had been built, cities and counties had built a plethora of new roads, and on and on and on. But I guess I was wrong, that all these projects were really just a mirage, and the state was actually ignoring transportation.

>>”The state had been told by the voters to spend the MVET on roads. Are you suggesting that they should have ignored the will of the voters as expressed by R-49, repealed the MVET, and therefore not spent it on roads? What should the politicians have listened to: (1) the public vote telling them to keep the MVET and spend it on roads; or (2) the opinion of those who wanted to do away with the MVET?”

The state posed the question I asked above. The state was told to fix the damn roads, which they have been resisting doing since the 60s. They are still resisting doing it, simply using I-695 as an excuse. They don't want to fix the roads. They want to be able to pay off their political constituencies through the politically correct recommendations of the blue ribbon committee.<<

Why don’t you answer the question? 1 or 2?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


"And, you are correct, I have no idea what I-747 exactly says, but I was basing my comments on Rolex's claim that the initiative would limit property tax increases to 1% a year.

I can't speak for others, but I've certainly seen my property appraisal (and, hence, my property taxes) appreciate at a rate faster than my salary. What's wrong with putting the government on a diet, if only for a little while?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 17, 2001."

Everyone above keeps writing as if they know what I-747 would do. Do you? Have you read it? Where? I have not been back here for a while, and have not seen the actual language of the initiative anywhere. That may actually be of some interest to the voters, and to those of you who are advocating for it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


Oops. Just saw it in the other thread. I will move over to that one to comment on it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

to BB: You write: "And geez, here I thought that instead of ignoring transportation for decades, I-90 had been widened, 167 had been extended, 520 had been extended, 410 had been widened, 395 had been widened, I-82 had been extended, 509 had been widened, 405 had been rebuilt, a new West Seattle Bridge had been built, 18 had been widened, 20 had been widened, 2 had been widened, 522 had been widened, I-205 had been built, I-705 had been built, 16 had been built, new interchanges all over the place had been built, cities and counties had built a plethora of new roads, and on and on and on. But I guess I was wrong, that all these projects were really just a mirage, and the state was actually ignoring transportation."

I've only lived here for almost 5 years, and, on my 37-mile (round trip of 74 miles), there hasn't been much that was done. True, I-705 was completed. And, true, Hwy 509 to I-705 was completed with a new suspension bridge. However, very little to nothing is being done for I-5, and very little to nothing is being done for most of the intersections between a state highway and a federal interstate, one of the most vicious I've ever observed is I-405 southbound and Hwy 167. I don't live or work in that area, but I still feel morally and ethically obligated to acknowledge it to be one of the highest priorities.

Your analysis is like claiming a cancer patient is receiving "treatment" because a nurse dispensed some aspirin.

The point you're evading, BB, is that the state and federal government have failed to properly set priorities and come up with a plan to address them, at least in the last 5 years. After all, the federal government will have surpluses in the TRILLIONS of dollars. There are no excuses for the lack of action.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2001.


Matt:

>>However, very little to nothing is being done for I-5, and very little to nothing is being done for most of the intersections between a state highway and a federal interstate, one of the most vicious I've ever observed is I-405 southbound and Hwy 167.<<

Had 695 not passed, and all the R-49 projects been de-funded, construction would be underway on HOV lanes along north and southbound I-5 from their current end to Tacoma, and construction would probably be underway on a new 405/167 interchange.

Why can't you take some responsibility for the consequences of your own choices?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.


"Had 695 not passed, and all the R-49 projects been de-funded, construction would be underway on HOV lanes along north and southbound I-5 from their current end to Tacoma, and construction would probably be underway on a new 405/167 interchange. Why can't you take some responsibility for the consequences of your own choices? "

Gee- I seem to recall that I-695 was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and never implemented. That would make all of the above the responsibility of your precious (cojones-less) politicians and bureaucrats, not the responsibility of i-695. I thought they were the ones that you WANTED in charge?

Personally, I think we ought to decrease all taxing authority by 5% per year until all the non-essential services are contracted out to the lowest bidder.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001.

Zowie:

>>Gee- I seem to recall that I-695 was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and never implemented. That would make all of the above the responsibility of your precious (cojones-less) politicians and bureaucrats, not the responsibility of i-695. I thought they were the ones that you WANTED in charge?<<

We've had this discussion before, and you are wrong. 695 took effect in 1/2000. It was thrown out in 3/2000. 3/2000 is after 1/2000. The $ for R-49 was gone as a result of 695's implementation in 1/2000.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.


to BB: You write: "Had 695 not passed, and all the R-49 projects been de-funded, construction would be underway on HOV lanes along north and southbound I-5 from their current end to Tacoma, and construction would probably be underway on a new 405/167 interchange."

Not true. I pay close to attention to the transportation projects affecting my commute. There has NEVER been a committment to repair I-5 northbound between Hwy 16 and Fife. It should be the #1 priority, but it is not. Adding HOV lanes is irrelevant. I-5 nortbound, by the Tacoma Dome, is dangerous, in part because 4 lanes reduce to 3. Adding an HOV lane would eliminate the danger, as you would now have 5 lanes reducing to 4.

You also write: "Why can't you take some responsibility for the consequences of your own choices?"

Nothing in I-695 prevented the creation of regional transportation authorities, which could then ask voters like myself to fund transportation improvements with some combination of modest license tab fees, modest increases in the gasoline tax, or modest increases in sales taxes.

So, don't blame until I'm given the opportunity to vote on what projects I want to fund.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 29, 2001.


Matt:

>>There has NEVER been a committment to repair I-5 northbound between Hwy 16 and Fife. It should be the #1 priority, but it is not.<<

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? There certainly has been a committment on the part of the state to rebuild I-5 between 512 and Fife. Right now the state is beginning the process of tearing down one of the 17 (S. 38th) overpasses between 512 and Fife so they can widen I-5.

>>I-5 nortbound, by the Tacoma Dome, is dangerous, in part because 4 lanes reduce to 3. Adding an HOV lane would eliminate the danger, as you would now have 5 lanes reducing to 4.<<

I agree that HOV lanes wouldn't solve this problem, which is exactly why part of widening I-5 would have been doing away with the bottleneck which you discuss.

The I-5 project would've started more than a year ago had 695 not passed, and now there's no certainty that it'll be totally completed, because there isn't $ in the budget for all it as a result of 695 passing. Why can't you take responsibility for your own choice to vote to de-fund these projects, instead of blaming the state for the consequences of your own choices?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.


Matt, "So, don't blame (me?) until I'm given the opportunity to vote on what projects I want to fund."

Let’s see what happens when you and the rest of the state are given the opportunity to vote on the projects you want to fund. Assume everyone will approve of projects that provide a direct benefit to him or her and will reject those projects that do not provide a direct benefit. Here’s what could happen...

Scenario #1 - Every project proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission ballot (all $50+ billion worth) is placed on the state ballot. There are probably more people that do not receive a direct benefit from any specific project than there are that do receive a direct benefit. Because of this, no project gets enough votes for approval and nothing gets done!

Scenario #2 - Only voters in the affected area are allowed to vote on a project. Now every project is approved, but taxes go sky high trying to fund all $50+ billion of work at the same time.

Neither scenario is desirable. Of course, this would occur only if the initial assumption were correct. But the comments made by many Eyman initiative supporters indicate that their voting approval of projects not providing a direct benefit is highly unlikely.

How you see things happening if I-747 is approved?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.


"We've had this discussion before, and you are wrong. 695 took effect in 1/2000. It was thrown out in 3/2000. 3/2000 is after 1/2000. The $ for R-49 was gone as a result of 695's implementation in 1/2000. "

And how much money disappeared in the TWO MONTH period between 1/2000 and 3/2000? Certainly not enough to fund any substantial part of R-49.

BB, my friend, I'm starting to worry about you. My hope is that your inflated ego just isn't permitting you to admit that you are wrong, and that THE POLITICIANS THAT YOU CLAIM ARE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO MAKE LAWS were indeed the ones that made the MVET funding go away, and that rather than make that admission, you would simply lie.

The alternative, that you've lost your grip on reality, is a more serious alternative.

So let's have a reality check here! Multiple choice question:

What was the legal basis for the reduction in MVET collections:
a. The legislature passed a law that was signed by Gov. Gary "grid" Locke
b. I-695 passed, was found to be constitutional, and the MVET was thereby reduced.

HINT:
Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company Local News : Friday, October 27, 2000 I-695 dead; backers vow new try By Mike Carter, Susan Gilmore and Andrew Garber Seattle Times staff reporters The death of last year's tax-cutting Initiative 695, struck down with finality yesterday as unconstitutional, may help future initiative authors avoid similar pitfalls. But the decision by the Washington Supreme Court also raised questions about initiatives on this year's ballot, some of which might have similar flaws. I-695's demise - coming less than a year after voters approved the measure - left some wondering whether future ballot measures should be reviewed before they are voted on. The ruling did not affect the state's new $30 car tabs, which were the driving issue behind I-695's passage. Gov. Gary Locke and the Legislature adopted the lower fees by statute last spring, a painful concession to initiative supporters.


-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

to BB: You write: "You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? There certainly has been a committment on the part of the state to rebuild I-5 between 512 and Fife. Right now the state is beginning the process of tearing down one of the 17 (S. 38th) overpasses between 512 and Fife so they can widen I-5."

I am well aware of what is happening at I-5 and 38th St. But, my point was about I-5 between Hwy 16 and the top of the Puyallup River Bridge, not between Hwy 16 and Hwy 512.

The fact remains redesigning I-5 NORTHBOUND between Hwy 16 and the Port of Tacoma Rd. should be the highest priority. It is not. Hence, there is no sense in paying taxes, when the government has no intention of using the money wisely.

You also write: "The I-5 project would've started more than a year ago had 695 not passed, and now there's no certainty that it'll be totally completed, because there isn't $ in the budget for all it as a result of 695 passing. Why can't you take responsibility for your own choice to vote to de-fund these projects, instead of blaming the state for the consequences of your own choices?"

You are incorrect. As a result of the elimination of the license tab fee, the federal government will collect significantly more in federal income taxes, as a result of reduced deductions. If the federeal government collects as much as $100 MILLION a year more in income taxes, then, over 30 years, this equates to at least $3 BILLION. Given that the federal government will have TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS in surpluses, how much money must I pay before I can BLAME GOVERNMENT for neglecting I-5?!

I-5 ought to be the prime responsibility of the federal government. There ought to be an analysis of federal income taxes from the state of Washington. If Washingtonians pay more per capita than most other states, then Washingtonians ought to receive more federal highway funding (per capita) than other states.

Another case in point is the proposed new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Under the old license tab fee scheme, my family could expect to pay $1000 to $2000 a year for access to the currently congested highway system. Under the post-I-695 regime, my family will still be robbed of $1000 to $2000 a year. Nothing has changed. So, apparently, there was no previous commitment to use license tab fees for road building, R-49 not withstanding.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


to Questioning: You write: "Scenario #1 - Every project proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission ballot (all $50+ billion worth) is placed on the state ballot. There are probably more people that do not receive a direct benefit from any specific project than there are that do receive a direct benefit. Because of this, no project gets enough votes for approval and nothing gets done!"

This is true. The voters will never approve Scenario #1.

You then write: "Scenario #2 - Only voters in the affected area are allowed to vote on a project. Now every project is approved, but taxes go sky high trying to fund all $50+ billion of work at the same time."

If the voters of a particular region agree to pay taxes for certain projects, then I don't see the problem. I would prefer to pay a special license tab fee in exchange for a cap on tolls for a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I can deduct the license tab fee, I cannot deduct the tolls I will pay.

You also write: "Neither scenario is desirable. Of course, this would occur only if the initial assumption were correct. But the comments made by many Eyman initiative supporters indicate that their voting approval of projects not providing a direct benefit is highly unlikely."

It doesn't follow that scenario #2 is undesireable. But, obviously, people are not going to vote for something if they do not see a benefit. What's wrong with that?

You then ask: "How you see things happening if I-747 is approved?"

I don't see how I-747 has anything to do with federal or state highways.

In general, I think I-747 will force the politicians to more effectively communicate with the voters. It will also force the politicians to set priorities. For example, instead of wasting taxpayers monies enforcing drug laws or engaging in racial profiling, perhaps society will actually spend monies on PREVENTING rape and murder. There's a concept - CRIME PREVENTION!!!

In general, I would like to see the creation of Regional Transportation Authorities, whereby local communities could vote on a basket of sales taxes, property taxes, and/or license tab fees to fund transportation-related projects. The projects could include subsidized ferry service, new bridges (with some level of tolls), etc. If the voters reject the taxes, then they will pay exorbitant fees, instead. But at least the voters had their chance to make a choice.

In the end, it's about choice. People feel better when they can make their own choices. When the politicians make the choices for you, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. Expecially, when your taxes go up and you have nothing to show for it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


"In the end, it's about choice. People feel better when they can make their own choices. When the politicians make the choices for you, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. Expecially, when your taxes go up and you have nothing to show for it."

Good luck getting the People to the polls so they can feel better by making their own choices. And if the majority votes against your position, it damn sure won't taste any better, it will taste a whole lot worse.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


to Marsha: You write: "And if the majority votes against your position, it damn sure won't taste any better, it will taste a whole lot worse."

I don't agree. That's what I-695 was all about, letting the people vote on tax and fee increases.

I trust my fellow citizens. Apparently, you do not.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


Marsha-

I'll tell you what it's about for me.
I've been watching the politicians for decades. This is the stereotypical young man on his way up. After being student council president in high school, he goes off to the UW where he majors in Poli Sci. He is on every committee he can get on in his early years, and gets everyone indebted to him because of the student fee derived money he passes out as a member of these committees. His senior year, he becomes the ASUW president and gets further addicted to doing "good things" with other people's money. He goes off to law school, and is deeply involved in a political party (usually the Dems, but then there was Dan Evans....) and ultimately runs for an elected office where he can further his addiction of doing "good things" with other people's money. He becomes a master of political pay-offs, buying interest groups with other people's money. He has no interest whatsoever in doing things efficiently for the taxpayers, but rather uses the taxpayers money through public works projects (let's build a Kingdome, now let's blow it up and build something else) and grants, special legislation (prevailing wage, tax breaks for businesses), and special deals (PLAs, sweetheart contracts with United Infrastructure, increased FTEs and grade levels for the bureaucrats) to BUY HIS POLITICAL FUTURE.

We have created a disconnect between efficiency in government and the political success of the elected. We have created a class that considers themselves entitled, entitled to extract money from the voters who they respect only as "cash cows" while using that money to further their own careers.

We need to rre-establish who the boss is in this relationship. It's the taxpayer. We need to decrease the resources that these fools have to buy their careers from special interest groups first. Then, if they elect to use the reduced resources to pave the way for their own political careers, rather than for the common good, it will indeed become apparent and they will be voted out or more likely, just go somewhere else.

These individuals have ceased to be our best and brightest, they are increasingly just self-serving parasites with their eye on the next highest rung of the career ladder. I don't mind them prospering for doing the public's business well, but right now they are buying their way to the top by paying off special interest groups with public money. That has gotta stop. mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 30, 2001.

Actually, it has more to do with not trusting Tim Eyman as trusting the fellow citizens. You are all behaving like sheep.

Most voters want to do the right thing and support services and programs they feel are important. They don't have the time or desire to research every possibility. If you think they do, you have your head in the sand.

They also have a tendancy to complain about taxes and big government, but complain even louder if they have to wait in line for a driver's license.

We all want our cake so to speak. However, I am beginning to lose respect for those of you who will follow these tax cutting schemes no matter the consequences.

In attacking the most vulnerable of our governments, the local ones that provide the most services to citizens, and who are more accountable to us, you are making a foolish mistake.

Hey, don't blame me when they open the doors to all the jails, becuase they run out of funding. Don't blame me when drug dealers break into your house to get money for their habits, because we were forced to end the war on drugs. And when no law enforcement shows up to take a report, and EMS is not available to tend to your injuries, you may not be so happy Tim Eyman's Initiative attacked your local government.

I pity the Senior Citizens who use many of our services the most. If they need help, it either won't be there or they will have to pay for what Tim Eyman won't.

Someone is going to pay. These things aren't free you know. If this Initiative passes it won't be Tim Eyman. It will be me or one of you.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


Mark,

I agree with your last post 100% I just don't think this Initiative will fix any of it. It will either decrease our most needed services, or pass the cost on to someone who may be less able to afford it. There is certainly nothing in I-747 to prevent most of what we dislike. There are far fewer of those people at the local level, where this Initiative is directed. I am not against lowering taxes, I am against doing it in a manner that is least likely to yeild the results we are looking for. I say this one is a waste of valuable time and momentum.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


Once upon a time there was a used car salesman who had an advertisement that showed him holding a (water) pistol to the head of a cute little dog with the caption, by a used car from me or the puppy gets it. This was done tongue-in-cheek of course.

The problem I see with your philosophy is that we can ALWAYS be held hostage by our elected leadership. They can ALWAYS choose to cut essential services to maintain non-essentila services (and contrary to BB's constant quacking, most of us have no real difference separating essential from non-essential).

But let's be realistic. We really can't stop terrorists from doing random acts of violence either, but we recognize that we can't allow ourselves to be held hostage to threats of violence by terrorists (lest we encourage them) nor can we allow ourselves to be held hostage by politicians who may well make punitive cuts if they have what they believe are THEIR rightful taxes witheld by the taxpayers, because that's the path to despotism.

The politicians are the servants of the taxpayers, not vice-versa. It is time that we re-establish that principle. Does that stop some vindictive SOB from hurting the weakest of the taxpayers in retribution? No it doesn't. But I can't spend my whole life buying used cars to keep someone from hurting the puppy, nor can I continue to pay more and more for less and less to keep the crooked politician from "punishing me for giving him less of MY money than he feels he is entitled to.

Like terrorists, sometimes you just have to admit that you lack the power to keep them from hurting people, but you have the power and the will to track them down and punish them if they do. The alternative is to give in to blackmail, and I won't do that, as much as I truly do like puppies and people.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 30, 2001.

1) Shooting the puppy with a squirt pistol can be a very effective training method.

2) Shooting ones own foot off with a rifle because you have an ingrown toenail is dumb.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 30, 2001.


Matt,

...I-747 will force the politicians to more effectively communicate with the voters. It will also force the politicians to set priorities....

I still cannot see how I-747 will force politicians to communicate more effectively and to set priorities. The 1% cap may cover the existing budget. There may be some exercise to reallocate budget funds, but I do not foresee politicians prioritizing anything new out of the existing budget with a 1% cap. That means anything new, including transportation improvement projects, would have to be proposed to the voters.

Effective communication may be necessary if the politician was trying to sell projects to the voters. But the people who actually want the project have a bigger stake in it and should be the ones promoting the project, not the politicians. I-747 could work IF the public more effectively communicates their wants and priorities to the politicians! Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely.

It doesn't follow that scenario #2 is undesirable. But, obviously, people are not going to vote for something if they do not see a benefit. What's wrong with that? I thought that you would like Scenario #2. The hidden "gotcha" in Scenario #2 is that it ends up just like Scenario #1! Several local projects that could be stretched out over a 25-30 years time span, might be approved of at one time, resulting in an extremely large tax increase. On the other hand, county residents from one end could reject projects in the other end and vice-versa, resulting in nothing being approved.

I don't see how I-747 has anything to do with federal or state highways. Isn't that the basis for most of this entire thread? If state funds (let's ignore the Feds for now) were being used for state highway improvements, then shouldn't the project be approved by the state voters? Of course, that would result in Scenario #1 again. You are correct in that a regional transit authority COULD be put in place to develop local transportation projects and funding sources. Unfortunately, such a government entity does not exist (unless you want to count Sound Transit? Forget about it; that's a whole different thread). Should the people of the State of Washington wait for RTA's to be established before they see any transportation improvements? I don't think so!

... local communities could vote on a basket of sales taxes, property taxes, and/or license tab fees to fund transportation-related projects... If the voters reject the taxes, then they will pay exorbitant fees, instead. But at least the voters had their chance to make a choice.

Another flaw here is that voters are not given a list of funding options. Projects are presented to the voters with the funding source as a single package. The voters are given a "Take it of leave it" choice. If the voters don't like the project or how it is funded, the project is rejected.

Funding options are explored in the study phase. That is where the public needs communicate their wants and priorities to the politicians more effectively, which is highly unlikely.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 30, 2001.


Marsha-

Once you pay the Dane geld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Translation: I refuse to be held hostage or pay blackmail.

It's easier to demonstrate to the government that the citizens are the master rather than the slaves at this level of effort, rather than at the next.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 30, 2001.

to Questioning: You write: "That means anything new, including transportation improvement projects, would have to be proposed to the voters."

Sounds good to me. As even you admit, "Effective communication may be necessary if the politician was trying to sell projects to the voters."

You then go on to say: "But the people who actually want the project have a bigger stake in it and should be the ones promoting the project, not the politicians. I-747 could work IF the public more effectively communicates their wants and priorities to the politicians! Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely."

I don't know what you're talking about. In the recent election, the public clearly communicated that public education is the top priority. Furthermore, various polls indicate folks are very disgusted with congestion on the roads. Traffic and schools! What more must the public do to "communicate".

You also write: "I thought that you would like Scenario #2."

I do like Scenario #2. I have no problem with the people in a region voting on a project with taxes. The people voted for Sound Transit, indicating a balanced approach between light rail vs. express buses and HOV lanes. Unfortunately, the light rail portion is now destined to consume more than its fair share of funds.

You then write: "The hidden "gotcha" in Scenario #2 is that it ends up just like Scenario #1! Several local projects that could be stretched out over a 25-30 years time span, might be approved of at one time, resulting in an extremely large tax increase. On the other hand, county residents from one end could reject projects in the other end and vice-versa, resulting in nothing being approved."

Whatever the voters of a region decide, that's what they decide. I don't think many voters will be thrilled in approving a tax that lasts for 25-30 years.

Conversely, if county voters at one end reject a project at the other end, then that's life. An alternative might be to create a special property taxing district, which would allow the voters who wanted the project to pay for it. I pay property taxes to a school district which does not include the whole county, and, for all I know, the school district crosses a county boundary.

You then write: "If state funds (let's ignore the Feds for now) were being used for state highway improvements, then shouldn't the project be approved by the state voters? Of course, that would result in Scenario #1 again. You are correct in that a regional transit authority COULD be put in place to develop local transportation projects and funding sources. Unfortunately, such a government entity does not exist (unless you want to count Sound Transit? Forget about it; that's a whole different thread). Should the people of the State of Washington wait for RTA's to be established before they see any transportation improvements? I don't think so!"

I disagree. And, apparently, so does the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation, which ALSO recommends the creation of regional transportation authorities.

There's nothing stopping the legislature from authorizing the creation of regional transportation authorities RIGHT NOW. Why is it ok for the citizens in the Sound Transit district to build light rail, etc. with special sales taxes and license tab fees, but it's not ok for the citizens of the Peninsula to build a new bridge in a similar manner?

You then write: "Another flaw here is that voters are not given a list of funding options. Projects are presented to the voters with the funding source as a single package. The voters are given a "Take it of leave it" choice. If the voters don't like the project or how it is funded, the project is rejected."

I don't understand the problem. There's nothing stopping the government from getting public input BEFORE putting together the ballot measure requiring a public vote.

You then write: "Funding options are explored in the study phase. That is where the public needs communicate their wants and priorities to the politicians more effectively, which is highly unlikely."

This is not true. I and many others attended a variety of meetings for a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. There were no explorations of funding options besides a toll. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has a section entitled "Economic Impact", yet nowhere in the EIS does it ever state how much the tolls will be! Now, don't you think that a $10 toll would have a much more dramatic impact on the community's economy than a $2 toll?

Are you implying that the people on the Peninsula did not communicate their wants and needs when it comes to a bridge with unlimited tolls, a bridge which would not reduce congestion?!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 31, 2001.


If 747 passes, it will cause Olympia to start tightening its belt and become more efficient, or try to get the money by screwing some other segment of the electorate.

We are IN or NEAR a Recession. Is Olympia going to give us a break or credit due to the high fuel, natural gas and electric costs? Hell No. They will just say that this years tax increase won't be as large as last years tax increase. We do not need one initiative to vote on a year. We need about ten Tim Eyemans initiatives on the ballot every November, so when Olympia tries to get rid of one, we will have more waiting to go into law, in the wings.

I honestly ask all of you in this forum- What has or will be done , in Olympia , to alleve our tax burden this year?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 31, 2001.


Rolex,

How about SB 5216, a proposal to reduce the state property tax levy by 60 cents /$1000?

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), January 31, 2001.


Rolex,

How is I-747 going to make Olympia do anything? This Initiative is directed at the local level. If energy costs go through the roof for us, why wouldn"t they also increase for Government?

I want real tax relief, and if we support any and all attempts, even those that are bad ideas, we are just going to look like a bunch of crackpots.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 31, 2001.


DB, you can have your .60/ $1000.00 dollars. I will take my 1% limit and keep on voting for initiatives the rest of my life.

To you Marsha: Genius and Insanity walk a fine line. I am proud to be a Crackpot, thank you....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 31, 2001.


to Marsha: As I responded to dbvz on another thread, there is no problem. Governmental agencies will raise a variety of fees to make up the shortfall. Or, services previously provided by the government will be provided by the private sector.

I don't see the harm in either case. What are the advantages of higher taxes over high fees? What are the advantages of bloated government monopoly vs. private companies competing for your business?

I can appreciate your concern for seniors. But how much does society spend on seniors when totalling federal, state and local programs?

I-747 is a harmless initiative. It could result in some outsourcing of government-provided services to the private sector. This is a good thing, as the "taxpayers" will become "valued customers".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 01, 2001.


The problem is: The government wants the people to pay for all these services and the government employees do not want to provide them to the citizens. The latin translation for this: LAZY ASS, ARROGANT, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 15, 2001.

Oh, But there is a root to this problem as well, Rolex. The latin translation is this: LAZY ASS, ARROGANT, BARCO-LOUNGER, INITIATIVE- BASED, LEGISLATION.

Its an endless cycle that warrants nothing: vote, pretend like you have done something significant, then sit on your fat ass, and complain... which leads to another vote, and the god-awful cycle starts anew.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), February 01, 2001.


If it warrants NOTHING, then why are you so worried about it , Nate? I enjoy signing up and voting for these harmless, annoying, initiatives. If every initiative is thrown out after they become law, then what harm is it? You must be Afraid of Something. What could that be......?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), February 01, 2001.

Afraid? Worried? Hardly.

Annoyed? A bit.

Entertained? Absolutely.

Where exactly in my post did you pick-up a sense of worry? You just informed us about a problem that YOU were concerned about, and I only mentioned that it is YOUR problem... hence the endless cycle.

"I enjoy signing up and voting for these harmless, annoying, initiatives."

...And I enjoy watching morons at work.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.


The problem is: The government wants the people to pay for all these services and the government employees do not want to provide them to the citizens. The latin translation for this: LAZY ASS, ARROGANT, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!! -- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), January 15, 2001.

The problem is, SOME of the voters want to cut taxes without regard for the consequences, and they still expect the services to be provided anyway. Others are just mislead by the misrepresentations and downright lies the initiative sponsors have been feeding them.

Matt Warren,

You may have responded to me that I-747 is not a problem, but no one who looks at the facts would agree with you. It will create huge problems for local governments unless they run annual lid-lift elections that pass. Long term service delivery planning, and attraction of good staff, will become almost impossible. Those governments that are only authorized the property tax as a funding source have no options. You expect the legislature to grant alternate taxing authority to fire districts and library districts, etc? Not likely. Talk to any of them for five minutes and you will find they are resisting tax increases of any kind, including authorizing local option tax authority to local governments. What I- 747 will do is cut services, reduce staff, and throw out any planning for future service needs. You may not consider that a problem, but I do.

It is a problem with a possible solutions, however. I-747 may not get the needed signatures and not be on the ballot. Eyman and Co. may reconsider the initiative as they did I-710, and rewrite it with a more reasonable inflation number like 4%. If it gets to the ballot, voters may actually vote their true long-term interests and defeat it. If it actually becomes law, some smart lawyer may yet find something unconstitutional in it; though I don't see it. If it is actually implemented, local governments will be forced to run annual lid-lift elections, and fill the voter's pamphlets with propositions that take just a 50% yes vote and no validation to pass. Voters may get smart and repeal the initiative by a replacement initiative, or through the legislature. The problem, is that the intended purpose of the initiative as it is written, is to cause a significant REDUCTION in the level of public services throughout the state. Not smart. Not smart at all.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.


dbvz

The sky didn't fall when the MVET was repealed and it won't fall when I-747 limits property tax increases to 1% per year.

City staff's may quit harrassing the people and wasting our money when I-747 is passed. For example the city of Kennewick stated they are broke and needed to raise taxes to the max to fix a park. Then they hired 11 more people (and claimed they did it without raising taxes). Then created a public facilities taxing district so they can tax us with out accountability. They moved a beloved duck pond to put another convension center with attached hotel in the park.

dbvz you never respond the the waste in government as numerous examples are presented.

The sky is not falling. We are winning. There are more of us than there are of those who whant to waste our money. Yes we want city government to get smaller.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), February 03, 2001.


Monte,

The "waste" you describe is often presented with little explanation and no comment from those that pushed hard for the expenditure - also tax paying citizens of the local government that spent the money. Nearly every expenditure of government can be considered waste by someone who does not agree with the program or purpose being supported. Drug dealers probably think the police budget is a waste from their point of view, as an extreme example.

Every budget item was approved by an elected board whose job is to balance the needs and wants of a community against the reasonable revenues derived by taxation. Not every project gets passed by a unanimous vote, and it is not surprising that many of these projects get the lable "waste" from the point of view of some. So, I don't respond to comments about government waste because:

1. You have not provided all the facts, but just your distorted version.

2. Neither of us is in a position to complain unless we are tax payers within the local government being discussed.

3. If we were taxpayers in the local government, we should not expect to agree 100% with all the decisions being made - just a reasonable majority of them.

4. Waste in one local government, or even several, does not justify a wholesale revenue cut of all local government budgets, without regard to the consequences.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.


Whine on db-

Or add your vote to those in Olympia trying to limit the initiative process>

Because Monte's right. We ARE gradually taking back our government from the special interests and the politicians who (though supposedly representing us) are in their pockets.

And we are going to continue. Sometimes we'll lose but sometimes we'll win, which is one more victory than we would have if we didn't keep trying.
And when the special interests use their money to fight us, well that's that many fewer dollars that they'll have to buy more politicians, even if the initiative is defeated. And when we win, that's a little less power the politicians and bureaucrats have to extort more bribes from the special interests.

So you see, the trends are on our side, dbvz. When we win, we've made progress, when we lose, we've cost our opponents time, money, and influence, and we are no worse off than if we'd done nothing (and may well have gotten more people informed and ready to vote for the initiative the next time.
So

Get used to it, dbvz. The initiatives are going to keep coming.



If the politicians and bureaucrats don't like that, they can find some other occupation (and good riddance it will be, IMHO).

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

Matt,

The initiatives are going to keep coming. If the politicians and bureaucrats don't like that, they can find some other occupation.

It doesn't matter how many initiatives you send in. The same group of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats that you complain about are responsible for implementing each initiative. If politicians are corrupt, how can you trust them to implement these initiatives as they are intended?

Why should a corrupt politician find another occupation? It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to elect those people that we can trust to represent our interests and it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to get rid of those that abuse that trust. Don't expect on the initiative process to clean out corruption and don't expect corrupt politicians to voluntarily leave.



-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.

Mark,

And your comments have nothing to do with the issue I was addressing with Monte. I have no fundamental problem with the initiative process, but I do have an objection to it being used irresponsibly. The initiative should not IMHO be used to "send a message" with no regard for the consequences. I also feel it is illogical to blame local governments and judges when the courts rule against them.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.


dbvz on this thread:
" I have no fundamental problem with the initiative process, "

dbvz on another thread:

". I don't think the citizen is always wrong, but I think the statewide voter is often uninformed about how the initiatives will actually work in all the local communities across the state that they know nothing about. "

Excuse me, but it would appear in the second statement that you are saying that you believe there is a fundamental problem with the initiative process.

Or am I missing something here?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

dbvz on another thread:

"I don't think the citizen is always wrong, but I think the statewide voter is often uninformed about how the initiatives will actually work in all the local communities across the state that they know nothing about. "

Mark:

"Excuse me, but it would appear in the second statement that you are saying that you believe there is a fundamental problem with the initiative process.

Or am I missing something here?"

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

Aim a little lower db. Your point went over his head again.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), February 06, 2001.


Ah, another voice heard from- Get back to the WHOLE posting, CG:

dbvz on this thread: " I have no fundamental problem with the initiative process, " dbvz on another thread: "I don't think the citizen is always wrong, but I think the statewide voter is often uninformed about how the initiatives will actually work in all the local communities across the state that they know nothing about. "

Are you saying that you DO NOT see a contradiction in these two statements?

Or was this just a drive-by posting to chnge the subject?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

Mark,

Again, read my entire comment. The process can be good if used properly by informed petition writers and informed voters. In the case of Eyman's initiatives, we have petition writers that seem to be intent to create problems rather than solutions, don't care about consequences, and when they admit they have written a bad law they simply rely on the legislature to fix it for them later. The statewide voters IMHO ought to leave as much local decision making as possible to the local voters and elected officials, as a matter of principle. They are the ones that know the local issue, the local consequences, the local level of service expectations, and the local politicians. They also know their local tax bill and how much more (or not) they are willing to pay for quality public services. Eyman and Co. seem intent on imposing their view of what local governments should look like on everyone, even if the locals want more and are willing to pay for it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.


I ask again:

Do you truly see no inconsistency between these two posted statements?

Come on db, how about a reality check. These weren't taken out of context.

One indicates "no fundamental problem with the initiative process" and the other indicates that statewide voters (and the initiatives ARE statewide) are too fundamentally ignorant of local issues to appropriately vote. Which is it?



If you don't see a contradiction inherent in these two statements, what would it take to be a contradiction, in your humble (?) opinion?

If you DO see a contradiction, are you now RETRACTING one of these statements? And if so, which?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

And now we'll have a brief pause while BB and dbvz explain to us all that initiative writers are ignorant yokels who make lots of mistakes that the judges must turn over, while are legislature and Guv are seasoned law-writers who never make mistakes:

I-695 OVERSIGHT: Judge rules transit due money, but ruling could be short-lived 02/07/2001 Joseph Turner; The News Tribune When Gov. Gary Locke and the Legislature abolished the state car-tax last year amid great fanfare, they apparently didn't do it right. A Thurston County judge has ruled that about one-third of the state motor vehicle excise tax is still on the books, and the state should collect it and give it to transit agencies. Last year, that would have amounted to about $220 million - slightly less than one-third of the estimated $750 million the state collected annually before Initiative 695 prodded the Legislature into the tax repeal. It's unclear whether the transit agencies are owed the money retroactively. "I'm certain that's what our attorneys would argue - and rightly so," said Don Monroe, chief executive officer of Pierce Transit. "We're encouraged by this, but there will be numerous appeals."


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 07, 2001.

Mark,

I retract neither, and they are not in conflict. The initiative process is not the problem. It is how the initiatives submitted by Eyman and Co. have been written that is the problem. Both the initiative process and laws passed by the legislature are subject to judicial review. That is where the check and balance occurs. Sometimes voters make mistakes, and that occurs on initiatives and in the legislature. That is not a fault with the system. I will add that my often stated preference is for legislatively passed laws, whenever that is possible. The initiative process gives you just an up or down vote, with no opportunity for refinement of the proposal. The legislature, if presented with a bad bill, would discuss it in committee, take testimony, and make amendments until it made better sense. Initiatives should be short and relatively simple issues, since they do not have those ways to find and correct errors.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 07, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ