Here is the truth. This is not an attack on the MVET. It is an attack on government. I-695 is promoted by the Libertarian Party. They want you to think that they are just concerned Americans, but the truth is, they would like to destroy America. Check the webpage for the Libertarian Party. See what they stand for. If the Libertarian Party says it's a good idea, real Americans must say NO! No on I-695! How many of you people that respond often to this forum, on the yes side, will admit your with this party? Yes, this is an attack on your party! From a real American!

-- Real American (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 30, 1999

Answers

"From a real American! " Beware those who cloak themselves in the flag.

Listen "Real American." If you are going to give your "real e-mail address" you might as well give your real name of Mike Powell, a frequent contributer to these pages and known I-695 opponent. Why the nom de plume, Mike?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Or is it nom de guerre?

(You can ask Jeff what these mean, if you don't understand them. He's the linguistics major.)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

We can only hope the majority of I-695 opponents are this eloquent.

>It is an attack on government.

Perhaps you could explain to me how requiring a vote on tax increases is an attack on government.

>I-695 is promoted by the Libertarian party.

Last I looked the Republican party supported it as well.

>They want you to think that they are just concerned Americans, but the truth is, they would like to destroy America.

I'm certain you're brimming with evidence to back this up.

>If the Libertarian party says it's a good idea, real Americans must say NO!

1) Why? 2) Can you explain to me what a real american is?

Most Libertarians think the government's ability to seize assets without a trial should be restricted. Perhaps you can explain to me why this is a "bad idea" and why "real Americans must say NO!"

>How many of you people that respond often to this forum will admit your (sic) with this party?

Although I agree with a good portion of their viewpoints, I wouldn't call myself a Libertarian. As far as that goes, I don't call myself a Republican, Democrat or Green either.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Perhaps what you perceive as an attack on government is actually the first step in returning the people to control of their own lives and forcing the government to live within its means and prioritize spending to reflect the desires of the citizenry it serves. The government must be responsible with the resposibilities with which it is entrusted (not granted by fiat) or, in a republic, the people will excercise their right and resposibility to remove that power when it is abused. Clearly the 601 initiative attempted to reign in such spending but has been less that totally succesful as the politicians have exploited alternate accounting practices to continue with spending increases in excess of inflation rate. This initiative (695) is simply the next logical step in the exercise of the people's power to determine their own level of taxation and determine the amount of power (money) to be entrusted to the government.

Whle the participants in government may not like the decisions of the people, they must abide by the will of the people or find another job.

-- Dave Dupree (coralreefer56@yahoo.com), October 02, 1999.

Dave wrote, "the politicians have exploited alternate accounting practices to continue with spending increases in excess of inflation rate."

Government spending must increase faster than the rate of inflation, just to keep up with maintaining the same level of service. I have commented on this before, but a summary is:

1. Funding at the rate of inflation, lets you continue to do the same things you did last year with the same staff and supplies.

2 Every year, population growth, now homes, new businesses, new industry; add new responsibilities to state and local governments. If those governments get no more than inflationary increases, that provides no funding for these new needs. In order to serve these new needs, with no revenue increase in real buying powere, the government would need to spread the resources thinner and reduce the level of service to everyone.

3. In addition to inflation, and the new needs of government produced by growth; the people present government with proposals for needs that were not addressed last year or need to be addressed better next year. Elected officials have the job of balancing those often conflicting demands and priorities, and funding some new programs and projects or expanding the scope of existing programs and projects.

The point is, inflation does not support either the growth in the state, or the growth in the work the state is asked to do for its citizens. And it is not the measure of whether spending is growing faster than is justified by the circumstances. You actually need to evaluate those circumstances.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 10, 1999.

" Government spending must increase faster than the rate of inflation, just to keep up with maintaining the same level of service." d-

If this were true (and it is not), than the level of service must ultimately decrease or the cost of government must ultimately consume the entire gross national product. That's not a statement of political beliefs, but simple mathematics. If the governments share is increasing faster than inflation ad the non-government share decreases less fast than inflation, one (the government share) would constantly get bigger at the expense of the other (non-government share) until it was 100%. I realize that's acceptable in Communist counties. I doubt that you'll find it acceptable here.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

CORRECTION

" Government spending must increase faster than the rate of inflation, just to keep up with maintaining the same level of service." d- If this were true (and it is not), than the level of service must ultimately decrease or the cost of government must ultimately consume the entire gross national product. That's not a statement of political beliefs, but simple mathematics. If the governments share is increasing faster than inflation and the non-government share increases less fast than inflation, one (the government share) would constantly get bigger at the expense of the other (non-government share) until it was 100%. I realize that's acceptable in Communist counties. I doubt that you'll find it acceptable here.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

Craig:

Actually, it is true. Government funding does not need to grow faster than the GNP or total private and business income in the state, but it must grow faster than the CPI for the reasons given. (also mathmatics) The new people, businesses and industry make that possible, and necessary.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

d-

If you saying it were so actually made it so, that would end the debate. It doesn't.

(also mathmatics) Is that anything like mathematics? If so, cite the mathematics textbook that says your assertion is correct.

The Spellmeister

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

Read my post dated October 10. I think Freshman Algebra ought to do it. Work with a real budget for a budget cycle or two. It will become clear to you with a little experience.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

d-

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. You're still wrong.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

To Craig, The Spellmeister: In what state are the communist counties? Probably in California, right? I did not know the Communist Party was doing so well. Thanks for your input. Life is wonderful, because you learn something new every day.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 12, 1999.

Matt-

Are you saying that the government share of the gross national product is 100% in California? I don't know if you are just confused, mathematically challenged (most likely), or if your Haldol low-level light just came on. Might want to check the latter. The SpellMeister

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

To Craig: What does mathematics have to with "communist counties"? Shouldn't the subject be civics or history or maybe geography? I'm just curious as to the county or counties that are "communist". Could you please tell us the name of the county and what state it is in, oh mighty SpellMeister.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinksy@msn.com), October 13, 1999.

"To Craig: What does mathematics have to with "communist counties"? " I have no idea where you got the phrase "communist counties." My mathematics comment was related to what happens when one side of binomial function grows continuously at the expense of another over a long period of time."

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.com), October 13, 1999.

Ah Matt-

Reread my own post. Should be Communist countries. Right spelling, wrong word. A gotcha for you against the old Spellmeister. Keep it up, we'll keep score. ;)

-- The Spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.com), October 13, 1999.

Craig:

As you once stated, your assertion does not make it so. Point out an error, if you can.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 13, 1999.

Wow, what comments! Communist! Get on track. All of your comments are not worth printing! Aren't you suppose to answer the original messege, and not rant on about math and communism. I do agee the original messege definetly displays a "no vote" and this person should be honest with his e-mail name and his point of view. He should also understand that this is a pro 695 site, and not a con 695 site. Its seems quite clear he feels strongly about being a "real american", I don't agree with the fact he insinuates that we are not. Our government was formed by "We the People" Not "I". I also wonder If this person(real american, not!)works for the government, or is some how financially tied by governments' purse strings. The bottom line is getting our government to understand that its time to save and not spend.

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), October 13, 1999.