Does Eyeman think he's smarter than the Judge? Just because he had his attorney's review the initiative doesn't mean it's constitutional. Like I said before, you should have voted no and made him write better legislation. He insisted all the time and had you all snowed that it would stand a court challenge.

How much public money has been wasted on this initiative? I say we should send Eyeman the bill.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Nah, I don't think Tim thinks he's smarter than the judge, but he certainly could be. The judge can't see the single issue of "citizen control of taxes"; his reasons are his own, and probably he ain't talkin'. Most of us would feel that the public's money is wasted on a lot of things, including paying this King County judge who suffers from selective blindness.

-- Dave (dkerns@on-ramp.ior.com), March 15, 2000.

"How much public money has been wasted on this initiative? I say we should send Eyeman the bill. " Not a damn dollar. It isn't public money, it's taxpayer's money.

But more to the point, it is apparent that it will achieve AT LEAST one of its goals, the elimination of the MVET. Even the Democrats (lead by the Guv) are falling all over themselves to reassure their constituents that the MVET won't be reinstated. And the Republicans appear to be willing to push for a constitutional amendment to enact voter control over taxes. The Democrats are delaying, while frantically trying to see which way the political winds are blowing on this issue to see if they can stall it (like they'd like to do) or if they must embrace it (like Clinton reluctantly embraced balanced budgets) because the political fall-out would be excessive if they didn't.

In the interim, we have a renewed debate on HOV lanes (with the Guv saying, well gee, let's COMPROMISE), a renewed debate on transit and ferry subsidization, a renewed debate on privatization of state functions, and two NEW initiatives coming up that might just continue to give the special interests and bureaucrats fits.

All in all, I'd say it's a lovely day in the neighborhood (to quote Mr. Rogers). We are far ahead of where we were, and the process is continuing. For those of us who would like smaller government, this has been great. We've won some measured victories. Infinitely better than the results we get with our state Republican organization who's motto appears to be, Lose slower, with us in office.

Three cheers for Tim!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

tell me the difference between public money and taxpayer money?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), March 17, 2000.

here is a try at a definition: public money: money produced by the sale of state property, theoretical example. The state of washington sells water from a state owned forest to the city of los angeles example 2. the state of alaska sells oil from state land to British Petroleum, all of the oil at prudhoe bay is state owned. taxpayer money. income tax, mvet, sales tax, property tax

-- w brophy (wbrophy@concentric.net), March 18, 2000.