From The Columbian

http://www.columbian.com/opinion/eleci722.html

In Our View: Thursday, Sept. 28, 2000

Son Down

Eyman's 'Son of 695' is a scam -- and like its daddy, probably unconstitutional

You've got to hand it to the watch salesman from Mukilteo: He has found voters' anger button, and he knows just how to push it.

But that makes Tim Eyman a propagandist, not a lawmaker. And both his talents and his shortcomings are on vivid display in Initiative 722, another pretend-populist ballot measure that would end up hurting the people who can least afford it.

By its ballot title, I-722 sounds superficially appealing: "Shall certain 1999 tax and fee increases be nullified, vehicles exempted from property taxes, and property tax increases (except new construction) limited to 2 percent annually?"

Eyman proudly dubs this new creation "Son of 695," recalling his earlier initiative, approved at the ballot box last year, that repealed the motor vehicle excise tax and mandated voter approval for all future tax and fee increases. It's worth remembering, though, what happened to I-722's daddy: It got hauled into court and was found unconstitutional, a decision likely to be affirmed by the state Supreme Court any day now.

If anything, Son of 695 is even more likely to end up in the judicial shredder. Like its predecessor, I-722 seems to deal with more than a single subject -- last year's tax and fee increases on the one hand, future property tax increases on the other -- in violation of the state constitution.

Moreover, the provision limiting property tax increases to 2 percent annually almost certainly violates the state constitution's uniformity clause, which requires all taxes on the same class of property to be consistent. In fact, the state Supreme Court just two years ago struck down a portion of Referendum 47 over this very issue.

This is no legal technicality; it goes to the very heart of a fair taxation system. Under Eyman's scheme, property tax increases would be limited to 2 percent, regardless of how much the value of a particular property goes up. Tax rates in areas where property prices are rising quickly would, over time, fall farther and farther behind market values; tax rates in places where property values are stable would continue to be hit for the full market price.

In other words, those whose homes are appreciating rapidly -- primarily residents of Puget Sound, maybe even a guy whose house is on the Harbour Pointe golf course in Mukilteo -- would get a tax break. Those of us in other parts of the state, places like rural Clark County and much of Eastern Washington, will get stuck holding the bill.

There are a lot of other reasons to dislike I-722: the fact that it tries to patch up I-695's deficiencies by meddling in local decision-making and repealing fully legal tax and fee increases; that it forbids local governments from postponing a tax increase, which will only encourage them to impose increases as often as possible; that it bars property taxes on cars, an action the Legislature has already taken.

State lawmakers deserve to be chastised for failing to provide much-needed property tax relief. But such a tax cut must be fair. Initiative 722 is anything but. Even if it survives the courts, Son of 695 will benefit some and stick it to the rest of us. That's reason enough to vote "no" on Nov. 7.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000

Answers

"In other words, those whose homes are appreciating rapidly -- primarily residents of Puget Sound, maybe even a guy whose house is on the Harbour Pointe golf course in Mukilteo -- would get a tax break. Those of us in other parts of the state, places like rural Clark County and much of Eastern Washington, will get stuck holding the bill. "

It used to be that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. Now it's pushing the class warfare button.

It's the collosal arrogance of politicians that is seeing the average voters turn to the initiative process to put these self anointed Mandarins in their place.

Understand this: It's my tax money, not the bureaucrats tax money. All govenrment authority derives from the consent of the governed, and I'm not consenting to have arrogant politicians and bureaucrats play their insider games and divisive campaigns to work their social engineering any longer.

I-200, I-695, I-722, I-745, are just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to keep initiatives rolling until you, BB, and the other politicians and bureaucrats either get the message or find some vocation that doesn't involve being an agent provocateur and a leech upon the general population.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000.

And the message is...

We Want It ALL and we don't want to pay for it!!!

or is it...

We Want the politicians to stop listening to those people and to start listening to ME!!!

or maybe...

Kick those politicians out of government and replace them with...oh?

Never mind...

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), October 24, 2000.

the answer is...

:I don't need much from goverment, and I don't much care for paying them to hold the hands of others who want to be baby carriaged thru life

:I expect to be listened too, you don't have to agree with me, and I expect an honest attempt at prioritizing, not blowing my hard earned money on half billion dollar stadiums, and then saying we need to raise taxes to pay the teachers or pave the streets

:Last one is easy no career politicians for me thanks, I'll take an citizen of this state who can balance a checkbook,and has never filed bankruptcy...see how easy that was....

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

"Understand this: It's my tax money, not the bureaucrats tax money. All govenrment authority derives from the consent of the governed, and I'm not consenting to have arrogant politicians and bureaucrats play their insider games and divisive campaigns to work their social engineering any longer."

The alternative to consent of course is "no consent", ie open revolt. Is this what you want? fine... My constitutionally legal (albeit grandfathered) AK-47 is always itching and ready, just say the word. BTW Mark, along with this lovely extension of my fist, I also have my handy list of I-695 addresses (copied and pasted from the yard-sign list on this website -- good move Timmy). So go ahead and act-out on "no consent" -- and I'll see you in hell!

-- Jimmy Jones (fireandbrimstone@hotmail.com), October 27, 2000.

>>All govenrment authority derives from the consent of the governed, and I'm not consenting to have arrogant politicians and bureaucrats play their insider games and divisive campaigns to work their social engineering any longer.<<

Well, if you don't want to pay taxes to "arrogant politicians and bureaucrats" you're welcome to elect somebody else. Alternatively, there are also many third world countries with little to no government, and little to no services, with little to no "social engineering," where you could be happy paying little to no taxes.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 27, 2000.

and don't forget 3/4 of a million voters favorite...the initiative...how about one to abolish the property tax completely..:)

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 28, 2000.

>>and don't forget 3/4 of a million voters favorite...the initiative...how about one to abolish the property tax completely..:) <<

Abolishing the property tax would do away with cities, counties, fire districts, water districts, sewer districts, and on and on and on. If you don't want to pay any taxes, and don't want to have any government, why don't you just move to a third world country that already has neither? Try Rwanda or Cambodia, they seem to fit the bill for you.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

No career politicians? We have a part-time legislature for that reason. They are in session part of the year, but they are in the work force like the rest of us most of the year. Which means, if you don't like what the Legislature is doing vote in someone else next time or run for office yourself. The solution is not government through the initiative process. Direct democracy sounds good, but works poorly. Fortunately for all of us, the founders recognized that and chose representative democracy at both the federal and state level, and also at the local level in all but a very few cases.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

come on BB, don't ya think Ole Gary will give me a little proprty tax relief...just before Nov.7 of course...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

Rwanda, Cambodia....no I-5 thats a plus...oops no Second Amendment...no thanks....:)...I like it here just fine thanks...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 30, 2000.

No career politicians? Ha! These legislators want three things out of their career in Olympia: 1: To get rich. 2: To get power. 3: To keep the status quo, and to say they will fix things at some distant, future date. (Hopefully, when they have retired fat and happy and can blame the next crop of legislators). We do not need to elect more of them. We need to "instruct" them through initiatives, as to exactly what we want: No tax increases without the vote and majority approval of the washington residents. They will get the message sooner or later.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 30, 2000.

>>Rwanda, Cambodia....no I-5 thats a plus...oops no Second Amendment...no thanks....:)...I like it here just fine thanks...<<

I see. If you like it here just fine, why are you still complaining about taxes? Why don't you just admit that you want all the benefits of government protection paid for by taxes, but don't want to pay for it?

>>These legislators want three things out of their career in Olympia: 1: To get rich.<<

Rich?! Hardly. You haven't actually checked to see how much legislators make, have you?

>>We need to "instruct" them through initiatives, as to exactly what we want: No tax increases without the vote and majority approval of the washington residents.<<

You can do all the "instructing" you want through initiatives on the issue of voter approval of tax increases, but it will never become law. You haven't actually read the decision the Supreme Court just handed down when it threw out 695, have you?

Let me put it in capital letters for you, so you'll understand clearly: VOTER APPROVAL OF TAX INCREASES REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. YOU CAN'T DO IT THROUGH THE INITIATIVE PROCESS.

>>They will get the message sooner or later.<<

If they are to get any message, it will not be through the initiative process. It will be through the legislative process, which is where you should have been directing your energy all along.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 30, 2000.

BB, you are misinformed and an IDIOT... I do not know which is the worst trait in a person. You obiouvsly no nothing of politics or how the process really works behind closed doors. The best liar in the world, is the man who absolutely believes he is telling the truth; when in reality, he is telling a lie. Quit lying to yourself and smell the coffee. Wake Up!

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 30, 2000.

>>BB, you are misinformed and an IDIOT... I do not know which is the worst trait in a person. You obiouvsly no nothing of politics or how the process really works behind closed doors. The best liar in the world, is the man who absolutely believes he is telling the truth; when in reality, he is telling a lie. Quit lying to yourself and smell the coffee. Wake Up!<<

So since you didn't specifically address any of the points in my post before resorting to name calling, should I assume that you're admitting I was correct?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

BB,

You would be incorrect with the following statement. "If they are to get any message, it will not be through the initiative process. It will be through the legislative process, which is where you should have been directing your energy all along."

The Governor and Legislature did indeed get the message with I-695. Just because it was found unconstitutional doesn't mean they weren't paying attention. I guess lowering the amount for "tabs" escaped your notice, and the dialog that occurred about lowering taxes (well covered by the media) also escaped your attention.

It matters not, how you think the process SHOULD be. What matters, is that through the Iniatitive Process, Voters are getting Legislators attention on issues the majority want action on. You sound as if the Initiative process itself isn't Constitutional. You may not like it, but it works, and it's our right. Get over it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), October 31, 2000.

This is great. Last year at this time I was hear argueing the validity of 695. This year I am here supporting 722 and 745. What new initiatives will I be supporting next year,on this website,a week before the election? While my detractors, like BB and Db, are annoying,(because I am never wrong), without them, life on this website would be boring. All I know is I bought a car last summer and paid 30$ instead of and extortornistic amount of $800 a year for tabs. Your telling me the initiative process does not work. Come on.....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 31, 2000.

Rolex,

You argued the validity of 695 last year, it is unconstitutional, and you are never wrong? Great logic.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotamil.com), October 31, 2000.

your right BB I have to admit all those state run ferries, liquor stores, stadiums, DSHS judgements, "WOOPS" nuclear, and sound transit studies and oops all the free street light I can enjoy...great. Oh and I provide my own protection, thanks anyway..

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

BB,

I will have to agree with Marsha on this one. Initiatives whether they are constitutional or not, are sending messages to the government. I-695 said to get rid of the MVET, ignoring all of the things that went with it (including transportation funding). I-745 says "Oops, made a mistake...we actually do want transportation funding". I-722 says "Oops, another mistake from I-695... got to void all of the tax/fee increases made before 695 passage and include a cap on property tax increases at the same time".

Initiatives force government decisions and constraints without consideration of the consequences. That is the biggest problem with this string of Eyman initiatives. They try to fix a perceived problem without considering any of the ramifications.

It really isn't surprising why Eyman doesn't want to run for office. It is so much easier to pull the pin on a hand grenade and to throw it into a locked room, than it is to be in the locked room and having to deal with it.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

I guess it comes down to whether you think goverment that governs best governs least or not. I personally need next to nothing from state and federal goverment, my only contact has been to pay my taxes, answer that stupid census and write, call, and e-mail my reps to express my opinon. So as a taxpayer and a citizen of this state, let me say this loud and proud, I don't need your " PROTECTION " or my hand held, stay out of my life and take the very least amount of my paycheck from me, I don't need any help spending it...

-- no chance (kingoffols_99@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Marsha:

>>You would be incorrect with the following statement. "If they are to get any message, it will not be through the initiative process. It will be through the legislative process, which is where you should have been directing your energy all along."<<

I wasn't referring to 695 when I said that. I was referring to voter approval of all tax increases. You can pass a million initiatives saying you want it, but the only way there will ever be any voter approval of tax increases is to work through the legislature to get a constitutional amendment. Using the initiative process regarding this issue will do nothing but waste time and money, because voter approval of tax increases via initiative will never become law.

Questioning:

>>Initiatives force government decisions and constraints without consideration of the consequences. That is the biggest problem with this string of Eyman initiatives. They try to fix a perceived problem without considering any of the ramifications.<<

Exactly. Initiatives ask easy, yes or no questions. The problem is that once you do a thorough examination of things, it's often not really possible to answer "yes" or "no" to the questions that initiatives ask, because the issues are more complicated than that.

For example, clearly people didnBt want to pay the MVET; I donBt think anybody could argue that there wasnBt majority support for that. But in not paying the MVET, there are other decisions that must be made: namely, what gets cut. This is where the initiative process is ineffective, because it asks the easy question about the MVET, but doesnBt ask the harder questions about what gets cut. The legislature is then stuck with the difficult job of answering the question of what gets cut.

>>It really isn't surprising why Eyman doesn't want to run for office. It is so much easier to pull the pin on a hand grenade and to throw it into a locked room, than it is to be in the locked room and having to deal with it.<<

It's fairly clear that he needs to portray government as the enemy, otherwise he wouldn't have a career. But he probably wouldnBt get elected to anything anyway. Initiative writers have a tendency to get slaughtered when they decide to run for office. Look at Monte BenhamBs 36% in this yearBs Republican primary, or Bill SizemoreBs overwhelming loss in Oregon a couple years ago for just two examples.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

BB,

The second part of my response was not directed at you, but toward the 'Eyman Fan Club'. They are forcing our government representatives into a reactionary mode, jumping from one issue to another without consideration to the problems that they cause.

What we need is a government that works toward a 'win-win' situation. Unfortunately, Eyman and his fan club make this highly unlikely.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

Db, according to me and 750,000 other washington voters, 695 is valid and constitutional. You claimed last year it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court. You were right; I will give you that one. That does not make the will of the people any less valid in their quest for tax relief. So I am right. Apology accepted...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 31, 2000.

Rolex,

You and 750,000 others don't get to decide if 695 is constitutional. Those in black robes do, and did. You may still think it is a great idea. I don't. But if you do, you need to go about it through another route. You can't change the constitution through an initiative, no matter how many times the people vote for it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

>>BB, The second part of my response was not directed at you, but toward the 'Eyman Fan Club'.<<

I know, I know. I just wanted to express my agreement and expand a little on what you were saying.

>>They are forcing our government representatives into a reactionary mode, jumping from one issue to another without consideration to the problems that they cause.

What we need is a government that works toward a 'win-win' situation. Unfortunately, Eyman and his fan club make this highly unlikely.<<

Agreed 100%.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

>>Db, according to me and 750,000 other washington voters, 695 is valid and constitutional.<<

You never took a basic civics/government class, did you?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 31, 2000.

You never took a civics class-Ha! Do you ever wonder BB, why it has come down to initiatives to get anything done in Olympia? Maybe our legislators should take a civics\taxpayer respect class... I earned my Doctorate on the Street. Where life really matters. Not in some Ivory Tower where a naive student is taught the laughable course of civics. Then he\she graduates to find they have been lied to, by tenured professors who only interest is to further their own careers. How tragic for such young, innocent minds. You can keep your civics course....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), October 31, 2000.

yes I-695 is unconstititional by THIS state supreme court...having said that justices are not immortal, and the court makeup changes. Who's to say in the future that a different minded ( Sanders, etc. ) might not find I-722 or some yet to be named initiative to be legal. Every time one comes up the dice are rolled.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

<>

Uh oh, no chance... Where back to you and yer ol' "I'd rather live in Rwanda/Biafra/Bosnia" libertarian complex. Theres no denying that the system is imperfect (show me one that isnt), but its definitely better than the alternatives. God bless the Supreme court for that!

PS, If you want to see what happens in an initiative-run society, look no further than the life of Socrates.

-- jimmy jones (pieinyereyeman@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.

I know..... call me a minimalist, but a day hasn't gone by where I found myself saying .." ya know I need more goverment in my life, I think goverment is too small" I think people in this country are pretty self sufficient, most if not all the " help " I need, could be provided by the great state of Washington. Maybe later in my life it will be more of a factor, but isn't that what family is for, if you have family, cuz I know for some that is the reality...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.