Anticipate an assault on the initiative process. The usual suspects in favor of big government are trying their best to demonize those who sponsor initiatives. They cant QUITE say that the voters are no damn good, but they clearly believe that if things arent going their way, they need to stack the deck to make them go that way. Expect behind closed door proceeding to attempt to shorten time for signature gathering, require a greater number of signatures, and otherwise make the complicated and cumbersome initiative process even more complicated and cumbersome. They may preach democracy, but what they want is THEIR dogma. From the Seattle Times (and Ron Sims executive news on the metrokc website: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/exnr.htm

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/char_20000105.html

We are giving a small group of people a lot of power, and they are using the media and the initiative system to change the way we do business. Initiative 200 ended affirmative action and killed what was left of the region's innocence. Initiative 695 nearly trashed our system of government and replaced it with slogans and simplistic solutions that will create more problems. Now, the father of I-695, Tim Eyman, is trying to restructure government without running for office and being responsible for what he creates. Many of the same people who pushed through I-200 are also pushing I-695, and we still are not sure what kind of state they are trying to create. The father of I-200, John Carlson, was rehired by KVI-AM (570) and is challenging contracts to African Americans as racial set-asides or quotas. Yet, the 80 percent of the contracts going to white males are never questioned. That's why it scares me when people talk about a colorblind society because I am never sure which color they are blind to. A war is being fought to determine the direction of this region, and increasingly, King County finds itself at odds with the rest of Washington. It's an opportunity for King County Executive Ron Sims and Gov. Gary Locke to play a significant leadership role.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

We must not let any of our rights for the initiative process be erroded in any way!!!

-- roy (nannoook@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. Ralph Waldo Emerson

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Mark--way to go! A voice of reason.

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Mark wrote, "They may preach democracy, but what they want is THEIR dogma."

Of course they want their version of what is right, and good, and best for the community; as you do. The issue for me is what process is most likely to get to the decision that is reasonable, meets the needs of the most people, and does not infringe on individual or minority rights any more than is necessary. These objectives are not always in agreement. The initiative process does all right at serving the majority (though even the majority can be misled and pass a bad law like 695), but it has had some problems with being reasonable and protecting the rights of individuals and minority groups. Just so you understand, I believe everyone is in one or more minority group that occasionally needs protection from the majority. Most of us have several distinctive characteristics that, when evaluated on that basis, would make us a minoity. Two quick examples: Men are a minority in the general population, and women are a minority in the workforce. That about takes care of all but those who are not sure which they are, so that makes them a third minority.

As for changing the rules for initiatives, the change that would help the most is to permit the courts to rule on the constitutionality of initiative provisions before the petition is circulated for signatures. That is unlikely to be considered. Courts frown on prior restraint, and they don't want to waste time on something that may not get enough signatureas anyway. It would save everyone a lot of time, energy, and money though; and could have settled some of the unknowns of 695, so people would actually know what they were voting on, and what the legal effect of the initiative would be.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 07, 2000.

d-

"The initiative process does all right at serving the majority (though even the majority can be misled and pass a bad law like 695), but it has had some problems with being reasonable and protecting the rights of individuals and minority groups" It shares that failing with all other forms of government. Jim Crow laws weren't put in place by initiative, they were put in place by state legislatures. Americans of Japanese origin weren't incarcerated in Longacres and other camps by initiative of the people, but rather by doctrine of the government. "Zowie" recently put up a George Washington quote about government being naked force, whoops, here it is "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. " And I believe that is true. The initiative process is almost a year long, with obstacles all along the way. A large number of people must be convinced that the proposal is meritorious, just to get it on the ballot. A majority must be convinced (after months of debate) that it is meritorious to pass it. You and I have BOTH seen off-the-wall pork barrel projects and special tax exemptions or subsidies sneaked into critical legislation in smoke filled rooms as the price for getting the bill out of committee that were never exposed to any kind of a process other than abuse of seniority derived position. Warren G. Magnuson was outstanding at such ploys (look at the UW Health Sciences Center).

I realize that the OUTCOME of I-695 was not what you wanted, d, but I think you are honest enough with yourself to realize that the initiative process is no worse than much of what happens in the standard political process.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

"All politics are based on the indifference of the majority. James Reston in New York Times, 1968 "

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Zowie! Now I see where you got your name.

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Craig:

I would say the initiative process is no better than the legislative process, and I am less impressed with the, "obstacles all along the way." It is said that the easiest thing to do in the Legislature is to kill a bill. If the majority leadership in either party, or the governor, believe it to be a bad idea it dies. The commmittee chairmen just don't hold a hearing or report it out of a committee on time. The initiative process is (almost) naked majority rule. A bad idea that may be attractive, or can be stated in a way that seems attractive, will get the necessary signatures and be on the ballot. People will sign a petition to put a bad idea on the ballot for no other reason than they think anything should be given the opportunity for an up or down vote. At that point, it is a matter of sound bites and spin; and in the case of 695, which lies on what side of the arguement the majority of the public will believe. No better than the legislative process, and worse in the sense that a bad idea has a much better chance of getting through to become a law. I am not talking about laws that create little problems, like pork projects. I am talking about big problems; like those that are being created by 695, and the bigger problems that would be created by the property tax "son" initiative.

As for your examples of legislative mistakes, or administrative blunders, I believe we have matured as a nation in tha last 220 years. When we had that short war with Irag, citizens with that ancestry were not put in detention centers. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were exceptional leaders for that age, but the politics of today would not find them acceptable candidates for office without some major attitude adjustments. I will simply note that today, most americans are somewhat ashamed of the examples you cited, but at the time they were considered resonable actions. Without the rule of law the majority would probably have acted worse than did the government, and some individuals did anyway. What kind of initiatives could have made it to the ballot on the west coast right after Pearl Harbor, or in the south soon after the Civil War?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 08, 2000.

"leadership in either party" should be "leadership in either house"

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 08, 2000.

The very shameful part of this whole thing is that we shouldn't HAVE to be using this initiative process...Thank GOD we, unlike some other states have it...if at least, for lack of a better phrase, disciplinary purposes.

If potitcians read the constitutions and worked on defending it (that is our rights) we would not need initiatives.

I'm for an initiative demanding that gov't servants, ESPECIALLY JUDGES, enforce the constitutions-that is the LAW we already have, instead of serving special interests and their "careers".

We are ALL guaranteed by the common law which our constitutions and "codes" were written in harmony with...LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Common sense tells us that if we interfere with someone else's rights to those things-THEN and only THEN are we guilty. If there's no damaged party-there is NO CRIME! Here's a test:

Is wearing no seatbelt really a crime? No, it is an "infraction" invented by the state to create revenue. But if you get hurt because you didn't wear one, don't beg for medicade(as if there should be a medicade anyway).

Is using drugs a crime? If you are only hurting yourself-NO, if you hurt someone else as a result of using the drugs, YES! But let's really punish instead of giving a smack on the hand. I know several people who have had 3 DUI's and are still driving. Again, is the state interested in serving and protecting or serving and collecting? They get a few grand every time drunk drivers get a "deferred" or whatever its called. You get a dead child because of a smack on the hand.

How about speeding? Was anyone hurt? Then why did you get a 75 dollar speeding ticket? ....Hmmm...revenue for the state. Speed doesn't kill. Speeding in bad weather may, and wreckless idiots kill (same goes for California stops).

By the way, does the state have the right to force you into a contract? No. Therefore, they cannot force you into getting insurance. Any idiot knows that not everyone drives with insurance and to assume that if someone hits your car they'll be covered is rediculous. If we're really worried about it, shouldn't we cover ourselves fully? Another way for the state to collect $450 (for no insurance coverage) AND assume the citizen's responsibility for covering themselves.

While we're on the subject of "contracts", does the gov't have the right to interfere with contracts? NO. But do they? YES. Consider the Marriage contract. Do we have the right to marry? Why do we have to beg gov't for a license to do it? More revenue, and control of the products of the marriage, assets, children-divorce court-we all know what that costs. Common law marriages are not only a couple living together for 7 years, but whatever that couple chooses through "their own" written or unwritten CONTRACT. That is their right. Even though I do not agree with homosexuality, they also have a right to "marry" if they choose. The problem is that they should not beg the state to "let" them do it AND they have no right to force business or insurance companies to "cover their spouses" if the owner of those businesses don't want to. -I know I'm in trouble with that one. P.S. The state is quick to "assume" a couple living together is married-The Office of Support Enforcement makes a habit of stealing from the bank account of a "live in"- It happened to me a while back. Open your eyes. Are you a conservative who wants gov't to legislate YOUR perfect state, even if it means giving up some of our rights? What about when the other party gets in there and legislates ITS morality (see past and present legislative, executive, and judicial branches)? We need to eliminate all this overly extensive gov't AND live by example, and help those in need instead of complaining about the gov't's lowsy job when it does it. Depending on gov't to do it is the lazy way out, and if you're a Christian-YOU are called to be a light to the world. Stop being lukewarm!!

-- Paula (eagleross@pioneernet.net), January 08, 2000.

Paula:

I have noted before that your expectations about the limits of appropriate governmental action and authority, are not the norm today. Your description better fits 1900, rather than 2000. Since the Great Depression, New Deal, WWII, the Great Society, Brown vs. Board of Education, Viet Nam, etc. etc.; government is expected to do more to manage everything for the benefit of the entire society, from interest rates through the Federal Reserve, to the stock market through trading curbs and regulations, to fair treatment of disabled workers through the Americans with Disabilities Act. Some countries still operate on a more hands-off manner, but with increased freedom of action comes some consequences that have been judged unacceptable at this time in this country. In Mexico you can buy presciption drugs without a prescription at very low prices; but without government inspection and regulation, you have a higher probability of not getting the correct dose in each pill, or even the correct ingredients. I don't live in a third world village by choice, and I don't want anti-government zealots turning this state or this nation into third-world living conditions.

I agree that use of the initiative process should ordinarilly not be needed, and the fact that it is available should be mostly a warning to the Legislature to be responsive. We are all better served if the Legislature deals with legislative issues, and makes the use of the initiative process rare and unusual.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.free.net), January 08, 2000.

"In Mexico you can buy presciption drugs without a prescription at very low prices; but without government inspection and regulation, you have a higher probability of not getting the correct dose in each pill, or even the correct ingredients." Actually d, the vast majority of these "pills" (tablets and capsules, actually. Pills are rolled rather than compressed. I'm not sure anybody makes pill these days) roll off the same assembly lines at multinational drug manufacturers (Merk, Parke-Davis, Sandoz, etc.) that ours do. We pretty much pay for R&D for the rest of the world, and our FDA certification and product liability costs are higher. But there's little question that when someone has a patent on a medication, they pretty much charge what the market will bear. Having said all that, the advancements in pharmaceuticals in the last 50 years have truly been astounding, and probably worth even the inflated prices we pay, in most cases.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2000.

Craig:

The problem is that what you buy may not be from, "the same assembly lines at multinational drug manufacturers (Merk, Parke-Davis, Sandoz, etc.) that ours do." They may look the same, and have similar packaging, but be from unregulated sources.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 09, 2000.

PS:

"Dumping": The disposal of products by sale in the third world, that would not be approved for sale in the U.S.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 09, 2000.

Well d-

I can't speak for EVERYWHERE, but I have been in Saudi Arabia, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the U.K., Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Morocco, Mexico, and Canada, and they all came off the same assembly line. But historically, you are right. Parke-Davis came out with their patented "Kap-seals", a method of banding gelatin capsules so they couldn't be re-opened without destroying the contents, because they had once had trouble in Latin America with people emptying out the medications, and selling the capsules refilled with lactose while repackaging and selling the real medications. This was DECADES ago, however, before the advent of the post-Tylenol/cyanide mandated tamper evident packaging. The big companies, being private enterprises, do experience economies of scale, and can sell most of these widely used drugs quite cheaply. It always amused me that the US military, which always bought generic, would almost invariably wind up getting the brand name at the reduced costs. Little generic pharmaceutical manufacturers just couldn't produce medications as cheaply as Lilly, Squibb, Sandoz, etc.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2000.

d,

You posted "As for your examples of legislative mistakes, or administrative blunders, I believe we have matured as a nation in the last 220 years" I would have to say ignoring the unpopularity of MVET is a good example of a mistake and blunder. So much for maturity.

You posted "I agree that use of the initiative process should ordinarilly not be needed, and the fact that it is available should be mostly a warning to the Legislature to be responsive. We are all better served if the Legislature deals with legislative issues, and makes the use of the initiative process rare and unusual."

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the Governor and the Legislature DID NOT HEED the warning on MVET. I-695 is the result. We may have been better served if they HAD dealt with it, but they chose not to. Now they have an even harder job. Too darn bad. If they have a problem dealing with the fallout and fixing collateral damage, (budget) we will replace them in November.

An attack on the Initiative process will only make us "anti government zealots" (gee thanks) more determined to *maintain control of*, not eliminate our government. That was the point of having initiatives in the first place. You don't want us zealots to attack the institution of government with initiatives, and you think it's OK to disable OUR constitutional rights? You sound down right anti American d. Next I expect you to tell us the Constitution is an outdated, uneccessary document and should be replaced since it came from the 1700's.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

Being in politics is like coaching football. You have to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it's important. Eugene J. McCarthy, 1968

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Marsha writes:

"Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the Governor and the Legislature DID NOT HEED the warning on MVET. I-695 is the result. We may have been better served if they HAD dealt with it, but they chose not to. Now they have an even harder job. Too darn bad. If they have a problem dealing with the fallout and fixing collateral damage, (budget) we will replace them in November."

With all due respect, I think you're being a bit unfair. Clearly people were pissed off about the MVET, as 695 shows. But there's also a bit of hindsight being 20/20 vision in your statement.

Eyeman and others had tried before to get an initiative on the ballot regarding the MVET, and all attempts failed. Unless these people were also bombarding their state representatives with emails, letters, phone calls, etc. regarding the MVET, it's hard to say that there was a warning the politicians should have heeded.

Then instead of using the gas tax, there was massive outcry to come up with a plan to build roads without raising taxes. R-49 was born, which essentially was a vote to use the MVET to fund road building over a long-term period. It passed.

So then what message were elected officials supposed to heed pre- 695? That they should do away with the MVET, thereby going against the will of the people as expressed in R-49?

Or should they have heeded the only vote taken on the subject, and kept the MVET in place, as the people requested by voting for R-49?

See the problem? Pre-695, if the legislature did away with the MVET, they'd be going against the only vote taken on the MVET, which said use it to build roads. Post-695, they're being tagged as not listening to the people because they didn't do away with the MVET, even though the only vote ever taken said use it to build roads over an extended period of time.

The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much that Olympia has trouble heeding messages sent by the public. If people get hacked off enough, they'll figure out what to do. It's that the messages the public are sending by the results of initiatives are often contradictory, making it hard for them to figure out what the will of the people really is.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Marsha:

We disagree an a few points. I don't think the legislature refused to be responsive. They didn't hear the message. I didn't see much about the need for the MVET to be changed in the news media or from legislators or lobby groups until AFTER the initiative was filed. They can't refuse until they are clearly asked. I have always stated that the pro-695 side could and should have obtained much of what they wanted, without some of the errors in the new law, working through the legislative process.

I have not suggested changing the initiative process, except in suggesting that if court review could be done early it could save everyone a lot of trouble. I did suggest that it the above process is used, initiatives should be rare and unusual, and that would be preferable to legislation through initiatives. I have suggested no changes to the state constitution.

I hope that clears thing up.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 10, 2000.

BB,

Sounds good to me if the Governor and Legislature had no idea. Trouble is, The Governor did, and so did most of the Legislaters, if you can believe qoutes and interviews in the press. MVET was unpopular for a long time. As far as I-49, one could assume that voters wanted more road building, not that they were content with MVET.

d,

Previous Initiative attempts regarding MVET should have been enough for a message to be heard. Many admitted to the knowledge that taxpayers were unhappy with MVET. It is human nature to hear only what you want to. Even after gaining knowledge that I-695 was imminent, no *real* alternative was offered. Only a promise to look into it. You could shout in some of those Legislators ears with a bull horn and they still wouldn't hear a clear message. They heard I- 695, and some still resist the idea that voters felt MVET or taxes in general were too high. I guess we pro I-695 folks got tired of waiting for Legislative relief.

If I mistook your position on a change in the Initiative requirments, it was due to the overall tone of your post. I apologize for my anti american remark.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

dbvz,

You stated: "I have noted before that your expectations about the limits of appropriate governmental action and authority, are not the norm today. Your description better fits 1900, rather than 2000. Since the Great Depression, New Deal, WWII, the Great Society, Brown vs. Board of Education, Viet Nam, etc. etc.; government is expected to do more to manage everything for the benefit of the entire society, from interest rates through the Federal Reserve, to the stock market through trading curbs and regulations, to fair treatment of disabled workers through the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Are you, therefore, saying that since the existing government is the norm we shouldn't do anything to change or even replace it, even if it has become the antithesis of what was originally created.

As an example: Communism was the norm until 1989 in Poland. Should the people have accepted that norm? Lech Walesa and the Polish people might disagree with you.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), January 10, 2000.

d-

"Are you, therefore, saying that since the existing government is the norm we shouldn't do anything to change or even replace it, even if it has become the antithesis of what was originally created."

Actually, initiatives are by world standards an incredibly polite and low-key way to change the course of a government that the majority believe is not doing something correctly.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000.

My comment about historical changes were addressing an impression from Paula about her expectations concerning government services. It had nothing at all to do with the use of initiatives. Governement changes all the time, usually and most productively through the legislative process.

As for initiatives being relatively polite, I agree. They are still not as likely to produce a resonable law, or adequate concern about minority positions. As a last resort, it may be necessary to use an initiative; but the normal legislative process would work if people put just a small portion of the effort into that, as they put into the initiative campaign. And the result would be better law.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 11, 2000.

"As a last resort, it may be necessary to use an initiative; but the normal legislative process would work if people put just a small portion of the effort into that, as they put into the initiative campaign. And the result would be better law. "

d-

You may be right. But even if so, it's irrelevant. Transit, in theory, could be more efficient than HOVs, but in practice it isn't. Communism, in theory, is vastly superior to capitalism. But in practice, it can't even feed itself. Socialism, in theory, is Communism with a heart, but in practice it shares the same failings. I think the onus is on the legislators (who after all, are the employees) to seek out rational disinterested voters (employers) rather than just hearing from the special interest groups, and if they fail to do that they aren't doing their jobs. And I think an initiative (at least, a successful initiative) is an indicator that they HAVEN'T done a good job. No one is ENTITLED to be a political leader. If they aren't willing to work hard at the job, they ought to find an easier one.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. Frank Zappa

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.

AFoshe seemed upset at my comment about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington being unacceptable candidates for office (as compaired to say Bill Clinton). I agree William Jefferson Clinton is no Thamas Jefferson. At the same time Jefferson was the product of his times. I suspect his opinions about many subjects would alienate most voters, unless they were brought "up to date" by a significant emotional event. Slave owning is out of fashion, as an example.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 14, 2000.