Do you know why the politicians don't listen to the public? Just go to this website and see: http://web.pdc.wa.gov/42.txt

When YOU lobby them full time, buy them lunches, become part of the Olympia scene, give them money, they'll listen to YOU too.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999

Answers

Thanks Mark,

There are certainly more paid representatives letting government know whats best for me than the few reps we elect.

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999.

Thanks. I'll put this to good use.

-- Bill Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), October 29, 1999.

If they (politicians) are not on our site (to support I-695), we are not on their site ( not to re-elect them again during their next election campaign)!

-- Binh Nguyen (btn5@juno.com), October 29, 1999.

I notice the silence is deafening from the work within the system guys (d, BB, Jeff et al). Surely ONE of you could jump in and say that you think it is OK for these people to be able to lobby full time for their employers for OUR tax money, while we are too busy paying for the taxes that they are busy convincing our legislature to increase. Common guys. Someone must be willing to defend professional lobbyists.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 29, 1999.

Craig:

I already did. You are not going to end the lobby effort of special interests by objecting to it. But then, you shouldn't because you and I are part of some special interests. If you joined anything, like Sierra Club, NRA, ARP, the National Association of Book Binders, whatever; your interests are being lobbied for you by the organization. Your dues make it possible.

I think the effectiveness of the lobbyist is exagerated here, anyway. Elected officials like to see real people in their hearings, rather than the professionals. The lobbiest may help provide a knowledge of the process, and organize the testamony of someone from the committee chairman's district; but if it is only the professional talking they will have little impact.

Since I don't have time to be at the legislature through the session, I guess I better continue to contribute to my favorite special interests to do it for me. If you don't want me to have more influence than you, you better do the same.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 29, 1999.

"Since I don't have time to be at the legislature through the session, I guess I better continue to contribute to my favorite special interests to do it for me. If you don't want me to have more influence than you, you better do the same. "

Yeah, that or vote yes on an initiative that vastly dilutes their power.

Why should the voters, having been taxed once to provide for the revenue for the state, have to then higher advocates to ensure that the taxes are properly spent, and then do we higher further guardians to guard these guardians, etc. I'd rather just go to a popular plebescite. Less monkey motion. More efficient. Heck, in a few years we could make most of the decisions over the internet, and get rid of the cottage industry of Olympia Government altogether. Your in favor of telecommuting, aren't you? ;)

The Craigster

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

Corrected copy: (didn't have my coffee yet). "Since I don't have time to be at the legislature through the session, I guess I better continue to contribute to my favorite special interests to do it for me. If you don't want me to have more influence than you, you better do the same. " Yeah, that or vote yes on an initiative that vastly dilutes their power. Why should the voters, having been taxed once to provide for the revenue for the state, have to then hire advocates to ensure that the taxes are properly spent, and then do we hire further guardians to guard these guardians, etc. I'd rather just go to a popular plebescite. Less monkey motion. More efficient. Heck, in a few years we could make most of the decisions over the internet, and get rid of the cottage industry of Olympia Government altogether. Your in favor of telecommuting, aren't you? ;) The Craigster

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

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

Craig:

When I saw higher for hire, I doubted it could really be you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 30, 1999.

Craig:

This was written for Paula, but it fits here. Insufficient justification for section 2 of the initiative.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution agree that government power is derived from the people, and the D of I is very clear about the right to rebel if that power if abused. Remember that the D of I was written in 1776 to justify the Revolution, and the Constitution was written in 1789 to set up a government. Much of the Constitution was written by the same people, with the objective of making a future revolution unnecessary, with separation of powers and checks and balances. Among those provisions if the representative form of government. Proportional popular representation in the House, equal state representation in the Senate, and an electoral college for the selection of the President. It couldn't be more clear that direct democracy was not favored. That has worked for over 200 years, and should not be changed. 695 would begin to change that at the state level, with inadequate justification.

I believe most people have been apathetic about government for years, and have not used the tools they have available to influence decisions. Tim Eyman gave those uninvolved people a simplistic way to object to what those who are involved have done, in their absence from the process. That's not how this government was designed to work. And I don't believe these late objections constitute justification of a change in the operation and institutions of government.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 30, 1999.