Sorry guys, but I need to ask this...

How many of you are Clinton supportors? I would like to compare the people that say they support Clinton to those who support Eyeman.

After the Clinton sex scandal, people who still stood with him amazed me... They reminded me of those guys that follow their leader to the death, even though he is not pure at heart, has no real visualization for a future, and doesnt even have a care for them unless they have money for him.

People make mistakes, and thats understandable. I'm not saying all people who make mistakes should go to hell, not at all. But these are things that you can restrain from.

Now to Eyeman. He is the one who pointed out that Senators are using our money to travel and play golf. He is complaining that they have no right to do this, that they are wasting valuable state assets. He says this AFTER he makes a confession that hes been using supporters money for personal use.

Now tell me... How many of you DO support these hypocrits? I wont go as far as saying horses ass, but come on people, if those are the people you support, how can you even say whats good and bad for this country, this state, your county, or your city?

Curtis

CWUgirl,
I'd have to disagree with you about the "conscience" statement. I know of several ballot levies I and many others have voted for in the past - school levies, 911 levies, library levies to name a few. So I do believe that voters will do the right thing when they know the money is going to be used for the right something worthwhile and needed. Lets keep it to angling - I would guess that most of us on this board would gladly pay our yearly fishing license knowing it would go toward fishing. But since it doesn't and instead it's wasted on so many pork barrel projects, most of us are very iritated instead. On the WL.com board it was brought up that a "trout stamp" might be a good idea to promote and improve trout lakes. And if that's where the money went it would be a good idea. But we all know that the money gets sloshed into the general fund to pay for someone's office upgrade.
My point is, I think people are willing to pay when they know the money is going to be used wisely and fairly.

Poor sparkey


Some of us still love ya though!!! Keep on truckin DUDE!!!!

Voting for or against an intitiative has nothing to do with supporting the horses ass that wrote it. Some intitives makes sense and others don't. Who wrote them really isn't what I care about.

Dogfish, I agree with the funding/economic impact idea and would add that we need to have the constitutionality issues out of the way BEFORE we vote on this stuff. What's the point of approving an initiative just to have state's judges overturn it on legal appeals filed by/on behalf the state? Similar to the funding issue, why vote on it if we can't afford it?

IMO, this is the real problem with intitiatves, not who wrote them. The state needs to exclude any initiative from the ballot that does not pass the litmus test of consitutionality and funding FIRST. Quit wasting my time already!!! Maybe then, when one IS passed, the chant of "APPEAL, APPEAL" won't be the only soundbite heard on the local propaganda machine's stories the next day.

Maybe the soundbite will be, "...the people have spoken, as your leaders we respect that voice, as we are here to represent you the people". At least that's the way I was taught it was supposed to be.

Or should we throw in the towel, lower the bar some more and just go socialist? NEVER! Don't tread on me - socialist!

Mike C, I picked out your post to respond to because in disagreeing with me, you have made my point in a way. I should start out by saying, I am a political scientist. (big surprise)

Your last line "I think people are willing to pay when they know the money is going to be used wisely and fairly," is my point. We live with a complex bureaucracy, that judgement call is impossible. We are fundamentally distrustful of politicians and encounter slow and ineffective bureaucracies almost on a daily basis that scream "YOUR MONEY IS NOT BEING USED EFFECTIVELY."

The basis for the people's lack of zeal for taxation is that people vote with their wallet in mind. Do any candidates run under the banner "I AM FOR RAISING TAXES!"? No, it would not be a wise decision in any campaign. It's naive to believe that citizens will vote to raise taxes, lets say, to go to the general fund. Since you can't apply your test- knowledge of wisely spent dollars- what are the people going to do? They are going to look at the bureaucrats and politicans in disgust and vote that sucker down!

It is the job of our representative government to make the tough decisions- taxation is not a popular issue. Take the proposed gas tax hike that Gov. Gary Locke was pushing last year. It went down in dramatic fashion in the legislature when the benefit to the people couldn't be proven. The cowards sent it to a vote so it could be defeated easily because they were too afraid to make the call that there might be a need for increasing taxes. (No, I don't think Locke's plan was sound, we already have the highest gas tax in the country).

I might have some faith in representative democracy, but as I said in my last paragraph of my original post, Tim Eyeman is aboslutely necessary in the State of Washington. I won't say our State suffers from incompetent leadership, but it has suffered through years of neglect and politicans who instead of making tough calls, chose to save their necks.

Be thankful guys, if you lived in some other states, you wouldn't have any right to get initiatives on the ballot at all.

Some candidates for the Horse's Ass of the Year Award:

Gary Locke
Patty Murray
Jim McDermott
Ron Simms

If you voted for any of the above...well you know.........

Sparky sparked another one !

I agree with jim except for the part about getting down on Sparky.
Tim eymann broke no laws taking that money! The government sensationalized the incident because of there distain for the guy. All the time he puts in has got to be worth something, dont you think?

As far as people not ever voting for a tax, it has already happened since the initiatives.

This state just has to show what the money is going to be spent on and show how.
If the people want it the people will vote for it.

This state does not want to stop there pet programs we dont want, so they are
taking money away from things we do want. So they can get us to vote for taxes they want.

That is an extremely idealistic view of electoral politics. Unfortunately, reality has people abiding by what helps their pocket book rather than what will keep state government running.

Aside from the sheer impossiblity of implimentation of Eyeman's vote for taxation policy plan, think of the time and money that would be wasted during campaigns for taxation changes. Are we just going to halt government so the people, who for the most part are uninformed on initiatives (or politics in general), can vote on taxes? We have a legislature, let them do their job.

CWUgirl,
Since you chose to respond to my post, I will point out to you that in your response you totally ignored my point about people voting to raise their taxes all the time - via levies for libraries, 911, schools, etc.
You state that it is impossible for the individual to make decisions on spending issues because our state government is too complex? I patently reject that arguement as one of giving in to Big Brother. Individuals are perfectly capable of making decisions as to where our money should be spent. I find your arguement very condensending.

Using your line of logic, since I'm a nurse, when you come in for health care you should have 100% trust in what I or your doctor tell you. Don't bother to learn anything yourself because we are the "experts". And your body is much too complicated for you to understand, right? I mean we go to higher education for years to learn about how it works. So just take this pill, relax, and we'll see you for surgery in the morning...

No thanks, I prefer to think for myself.

Those taxes are trival and mainly at the local level... my arguement is at the state level.

I didn't say it's impossible for the individual to make decisions because government is too complex. Here's what I said:

Your last line "I think people are willing to pay when they know the money is going to be used wisely and fairly," is my point. We live with a complex bureaucracy, that judgement call is impossible. We are fundamentally distrustful of politicians and encounter slow and ineffective bureaucracies almost on a daily basis that scream "YOUR MONEY IS NOT BEING USED EFFECTIVELY."

My point was that we are confronted everyday with bureaucracy and news stories about the failings of state government. How can we prove we need in increase in something like sales tax or anything else that goes directly to the general fund? You cannot apply your test- there is no way for anyone to decide if general fund dollars are going to be "wisely" used.

And my logic is not at all condesending. It's practical.

Please read my entire posts before judging me as an elitist... I haved stated Eyeman is absolutely necessary in WA repeatedly. He has changed our system....I'm not sure if it was for the better in all cases... and put politicans on notice that the electorate was going to have a little more say in the workings of the state.

Ok, enough with the crap about being accountable. If that is want he really wanted he would talk about things like mandatory audits by indepentent auditdors. THAT would make the state accountable for what it spends.

Cutting the amount of money the state has and making it harder for them to raise taxes when needed only mean they will continue to cut services. I mean what do expect Olympia to do when they don't have the money they need. Locke is not going to cut his pay and nether will the state reps.

We have to force the state to spend money the way it is supposed to be spent. And right now there is not nearly enough controls to ensure that.

Eyman is not helping this state at all.

And I am a home owner just in case any wants to know....

CWU,
Nice try at trivializing. What you don't know can hurt you. I have a double degree from CWU in Biology and Political Science. The difference between you and I is 20 years of paying taxes and seeing incredible waste as a State employee for WDFW. Now I will not argue with you because I know that arguing with only book smarts is to trivial. I say all of this knowing that I don't think we are to far apart. I am done with this thread other than the fact that I think all I said about Spark was that I didn't think we would be friends. Spark if I said more...please accept my apology.

Jim

Jim...

I work for a state bureaucracy!! My other major was public policy until I decided I couldn't deal with bureaucracy for the rest of my life.

Anyway, I see examples of waste every day at work. From throwing away new supplies b/c they are the wrong color (it is illegal to give away things like binders, etc, because they are state property)....to buying excessive numbers of laptops, computers, palm pilots, digital camcorders, cameras... for the most part just to spend the money the have with little regard to where that money came from.

Obviously I can't argue that I haven't had years of experience working for the state (and I never, ever will!!). But I base my opinions on what I do have in terms of experience and knowledge. As a result, I come out with well argued viewpoints that do challenge people to think about the issues.

CWU,
I didn't say you were elitist, I said you were condensending. Which you further confirmed by your statement that certain certain taxes are "trivial". How condensending is THAT? And your statement to "please read my entire post... etc." I did, and my judgement is you are very condensending on this topic.

I never met a trivial tax. Please send whatever amount of your income you think is trivial to Olympia. They will be happy to take it off your hands for you.

Mike C.... Nahhhh, I am just realistic. :p

Hey, 22 years olds are supposed to be optimistic! You haven't been paying taxes for 30 years yet.
I think this topic has run it's course. Time to put the kids to bed. Peace.