Well, in a way. Jerry Cornfield covers Eyman's latest initiative, calling it a "big dose of democracy." Cornfield correctly captures, I think, that Eyman is trying to do an awful lot with this initiative.
There is a compelling case to be made for the requirement that 2/3 of the legislature approve a tax increase or send it to a public vote. Democrats in Olympia have brought such matters on themselves with their profligate spending. But the other points of the initiative seem an excessive effort to micromanage the rules of procedure for state government.
Whatever their individual merits, mandating that the Legislature send out press releases at certain times or approve even the most basic increase of fees by a government agency does not seem to rise to the level of an initiative, originally intended to be an outlet for the citizenry in time of need, not a regular means of governance. And don't get me started on the "advisory vote" issue. Do we really want more of that after the Viaduct fiasco?
If Eyman had simply kept the initiative to a simple discussion of large legislative majorities or public approval for tax increases he'd have an easier pitch. As it stands, he seems to be cramming too much into one initiative - something that hasn't turned out so well in the past.
UPDATE: Tim Eyman points out in the comments that it is the Office of Financial Management, not the Legislature, that would have to put out the cornucopia of press releases and public notices the initiative proscribesprescribes. Pardon my error. But regardless of that point, the information in question is still largely available to the interested public - as Cornfield points out in his column.
I'm not sure when it became prudent to micromanage government process via initiative. Tax revolts are one thing. Detailed mandates of when press releases should be sent out, to whom, and with what information seem excessive and unnecessary.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 15, 2007 01:29 PM | Email ThisThis columnist has come the closest to identifying what we're trying to accomplish with I-960 -- he still got some things wrong but that's to be expected.
As to the length of the initiative, I-960 amends several existing statutes/laws/RCWs that are very lengthy. Our changes only take a few words. This is where I-960 is closing loopholes put in I-601 by the Legislature in recent years.
Opponents paint I-960's public disclosure requirements as either excessive or unnecessary. Neither is true. The reality is that lobbyists for special interest groups are spoon-fed legislative info -- the press and the people are not. I-960 requires the state budget office (Eric wrongly said it was the Legislature) to send regular email updates (no paper, no expenditure of tax dollars) to folks in the media and interested citizens which will report on any progress on legislative bills increasing taxes or fees. The emails will contain an all-in-one, easy-to-read one page which includes the bill's 10-year cost to taxpayers and identify legislators by name who are sponsoring the bills and how they're voting on them. Each email will include legislators' phone numbers and email addresses. Under I-960, the media and the people will be kept informed on efforts in Olympia to increase the taxpayers' burden. The Office of Financial Management sets up an email listserver and anyone who signs up to receive the email updates will receive them automatically on their computers whenever a revenue bill "moves". This is exactly what happens when the state supreme court issues rulings; people on a listserver automatically receive an email of the court's opinions whenever one is issued. If the courts can keep the people and the press updated, so can the state budget office.
If politicians know that every tax hike and fee increase bill they sponsor and vote for will be widely reported to the media and the people, along with their long-term costs and legislators' phone numbers and email addresses, they'll be thinking of the taxpayers more than they do now. They won't just be influenced by the lobbyists for the special interest groups, they'll consider what the voters think. And voters will have a chance to contact their legislators and provide them with constituent feedback during the legislative process. How's that anything other than a good thing?
Finally, the columnist's point on the fees is important: the people are powerless when unelected bureaucrats jack up fees. The Legislature loves it when unelected bureaucrats confiscate the taxpayers' money because it allows the politicians to spend the money without taking the heat for the increase. It removes public accountability; I-960 restores accountability.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 15, 2007 05:34 PMAll the provisions in I-960 relate to taxes and fees in state government; they have rational unity and are germane to one another. I-960 is simpler than I-601 and I-601 survived all court challenges. I-601 contained spending limits, emergency reserve requirements, taxation limits, exemptions for intangible property, and more. I-960 simply closes loopholes in I-601's taxation limits and requires more cost analysis and public disclosure of bills proposing higher taxes and fees.
Eric, will you vote 'yes' or 'no' on I-960? You previously wrote in an email to me that you'd be inclined to support I-960 if it qualified for the ballot. As with any politicians' legislation or citizens' initiative, do you like its overall direction; do you like the thrust of it; does it, on balance, move the state in a more positive direction?
If you decide to do your own initiative someday, then you can include only what you want and exclude everything you don't. To all of us who helped draft it and sponsored and promoted and qualified it, I-960 is a symphony of policies that would be off-key with any part removed.
Each provision compliments, enhances, and fulfills its overall mission -- which Cornfield identified: "With this measure, the people intend to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people?s money."
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 15, 2007 06:12 PMWhich provisions are "plain silly"?
Your comment, of course, begs the question, when/how did you read the text of I-960?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 15, 2007 08:40 PMI'm still debating the issue in my own mind. I do like the 2/3 requirement for tax increases given events in Olympia in recent years. But I still deeply dislike using the initiative process to achieve the other mandates you're including.
It comes down an rudimentary issue in political science we've discussed in the past. What you keeping trying to move us toward is more of an Athenian style democracy where the people vote on everything. I much prefer the representative democracy/republican system established by the Founders and generally respected by our state constitution as well. The former system you seem to be inclined to favor would be a very dangerous tool in the hands of liberals should they ever figure out how to utilize the initiative process as you have (and as they have already done by imposing unfunded spending via I-728 & I-732).
As for this initiative, I have huge problems with the advisory vote issue, which are a colossal waste of time given their non-binding nature, and I really don't like the whole notion of the Legislature approving every fee increase. I don't recall that last point being part of our previous discussion on the initiative. It just reeks of micromanagement of government in a way that doesn't seem to have any real benefit besides being a wrench in the works.
As I said, I think you're trying to do way too much with this initiative. So count me in the undecided column for now.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 15, 2007 08:45 PMI'm all for it....if they had to send a press release every time the emergency clause was tagged on proposed legislation, would they be so cavalier about it? The way that clause was bandied about is like calling 911 everytime they need an aspirin.
Also it smells like a cosmic karma backfire on the legislature trying to limit the use of the initiative process by putting all kinds of bogus restrictions on the process.
How is it ok for them to restrict voters on having a say on increased spending, but not ok for the voters to restrict their say on how THEY increase spending?
You wrote: "What I've read makes me think that this would move us closer to a representive republic rather than further away."
Congratulations - you're the first one to figure that out. Very astute. It's not representative democracy to let the Legislature get away with allowing unelected bureaucrats to take more of the people's money - I-960 ensures that only representatives make those decisions.
Representative democracy doesn't work unless legislators hear from constituents. And constituents can't communicate without contact information being readily available. And constituents can't make intelligent decisions on who to vote for and who to vote against if they don't know how legislators vote.
Politicians would never impose these requirements on themselves. Politicians benefit from their voting records being difficult to access, from contact information to their offices being limited, from low-turnouts at legislative hearings. Eric Earling thinks it's just horrible to tell the voters at the next general election which legislators voted to impose higher taxes on them.
Eric is all worked up about the advisory vote but that's what provides voter attention to the general election voters pamphlet which lists by name the legislators and how they voted on any tax increase. Eric, you know what happens at a general election? Representatives are chosen by voters. It's nothing but a good thing for the voters to read in the voters pamphlet on page 38 a list of the 'tax hike' legislators and a list of the 'no tax hike' legislators so they can then read page 12 about which person they should vote for as their representative.
But, frankly, we don't think there will be a lot of advisory votes because we think I-960 will encourage legislators to simply spend the existing (and sizeable) tax revenue more cost effectively rather than increasing taxes. We think many legislators will get the message from the passage of I-960 that the people want their representatives to exhaust all other options before even considering adding to our state's already crushing tax burden.
mykela is exactly right: I-960 is a lubricant for representative democracy; it helps the Legislature abide by the laws they've imposed on themselves (closing loopholes in I-601) and informs the press and the public about the progress on bills increasing taxes.
Eric, what's wrong with the voters being told how their legislators voted at a time when the voters are deciding who should represent them?
Eric, just grow a pair and support I-960 because opposing it means you support Olympia continually circumventing I-601, continually declaring "emergencies" without consequence, and continually voting for tax increases without feedback from the taxpayers.
"Eric, what's wrong with the voters being told how their legislators voted at a time when the voters are deciding who should represent them?"
Isn't that what we're supposed to do in campaigns? Make the case for our candidates, and for or against the incumbent? If you give me a choice about getting some more fine print in the voter pamphlet or actually expending some energy on communicating with voters about candidates I'll take the latter.
I've said before and still maintain that if you spent half the time you've expended on initiatives actually helping get Republican elected we might have more durable legislative influence that could defend the ideas you keep trotting out in initiatives.
As it is, even if an initiative survives a court challenge it can still be easily amended by the Legislature in a few years. That's why elections matter.
So, I'll tell you what. I'll "grow a pair" when you do the same and run for office. That's where the biggest action is anyway. Deal?
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 15, 2007 11:35 PMPublic disclosure is most definitely a good thing, because Politicians do like to work in the dark. Give them the light of day and they at least change their approach. Even if it only resulted in a little less arrogance it is a good thing.
As to the growing a pair spat my thought is that running for office does not necessarily show any such thing. If it did we would have a legislature full of cajones. Anybody arguing that we have such a legislature?
Posted by: Dick on July 16, 2007 08:07 AMPublic disclosure is most definitely a good thing, because Politicians do like to work in the dark. Give them the light of day and they at least change their approach. Even if it only resulted in a little less arrogance it is a good thing.
As to the growing a pair spat my thought is that running for office does not necessarily show any such thing. If it did we would have a legislature full of cajones. Anybody arguing that we have such a legislature? Arrogance, not Cajones, is the dominant characteristic.
Posted by: Dick on July 16, 2007 08:15 AMThat being the case, the thought that they might have to convene the legislature to allow some 50 cent increase in a parking fee really doesn't bother me much.
What goes around, comes around.
Posted by: George Hanshaw on July 16, 2007 08:36 AMThe devil is in the details. Passing shoddy initiatives because you can't be bothered to read them is the worst form of democracy.
I rarely agree with Tim Eyman (mainly cause he's a tool of whichever industry pays him the most money [see I-745]) but I do take the time to read his initiatives no mater how inane they are.
Tim Eyman is exactly correct in his analysis, and his expertese and hard work are a God-send for the people of Washington.
If Tim Eyman was not doing a true patriot's work he would not have enjoyed the outstanding success that he has.
I say, thank God for Tim Eyman and the great work that he is doing.
Posted by: Paul on July 16, 2007 11:34 AMUmmm...yeah...I'm not the one dressing up in Darth Vader costumes during press conferences decrying how the Govt. is doing me wrong.
The Govt. does everyone wrong but allowing slot machines at the local tavern and expanding roads is not always the answer. I'm sure I'd love to have my property taxes capped at 2% every year, but inflation goes up faster that 2% a year (heck my home value went up by way more that 2% last year according to Zillow).
While I agree with the 60% vote on raising taxes, I think Tim's initiative is flawed as many people including Eric have pointed out. Again the devil is in the details.
You didn't respond to any my earlier points. You're trying to change the subject -- don't. address the points I've made.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 16, 2007 01:02 PMYou wrote: "If you give me a choice about getting some more fine print in the voter pamphlet or actually expending some energy on communicating with voters about candidates I'll take the latter."
It's not either/or, it's both. Candidates make points during the campaign but they also put information in the voters pamphlet. Under your logic, the voters pamphlet should be blank because 'that's what campaigns are for.' I-960 won't replace campaigns, it will augment them.
Politicians need to know that when they jack up taxes unilaterally, by imposing an 'emergency' tax increase, for example, they'll be identified by name in the next general election voters pamphlet and they'll learn how the people feel about that tax increase, both by the people's vote on the measure but also by which legislators are elected/unelected. But, again, identifying tax hike politicians by name will discourage overuse of the emergency clause and encourage the Legislature to use existing (and sizeable) tax revenues more effectively, rather than simply raising taxes. That's nothing but a good thing.
Several points were made in my earlier posts to you (#3 and #9) that you didn't respond to. you instead tried to change the subject. don't. respond to this post and the earlier posts without changing the topic.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 16, 2007 02:31 PMA photo shoot paid by the Tax Payers.
The state paid $260,000++ for Sunday's party; private contributions covered more than $100,000 of the TOTAL.???????? Most went to the event consultants, bus service, police and insurance, so there were few decorations or performances.
What happened to the days someone cut the ribbon and that was it???????????????????
hello? still waiting for your response to #19.
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 16, 2007 06:06 PMKeep your pants on. I don't sit around monitoring the blog all day, especially outside of the weekend. And I'm certainly not at anyone's beck and call to answer questions in the comments.
Now, if you're actually serious that I'm trying to "change the subject" I really can't do much more to help you. Between this original post, our conversation in the comments, and our past email exchanges I think I've clearly stated my position on just about every significant point of the initiative in question. Just because I don't take the time to do a line-by-line response to every re-hashed reiteration you pose on issues within the initiative doesn't detract from the fact I've been clear and direct in stating my position, not to mention dealing with your questions at some length...especially in our May exchange of emails.
I've told you what I don't agree with. No amount of "but don't see the importance of doing this..." type arguments are going to change my view that aside from the 2/3 or a public vote requirement for tax increases the rest of this initiative is superfluous micromanagement of government. Have your initiatives really come down to the importance of mandating press releases and the inclusion of fine print in the voter's pamphlet?
Listen, I admire your passion but I don't agree with you on all the points I've previously stated. If you don't get that by now there's no amount of additional explaining that's going to fix that.
Beyond that, I leave my previous offer left standing.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 16, 2007 06:26 PMsince you have made up your mind, how will you vote on I-960? you only get two choices, yes or no. again, voting no means you don't mind and openly endorse the Legislature and Governor continually ignoring I-601's provisions, continually declaring emergencies without consequence, and continually increasing taxes without the voters being informed. Yes or no?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 16, 2007 06:45 PMI said I have clear thoughts on the different components of the initiative. I also said at #6 I'm undecided at this point on whether or not to vote for the initiative itself. Since last I checked this is July and I don't have to cast my ballot quite yet, I'm not chomping at the bit to make up my mind this second.
But since you mentioned it, you've oversimplified the implications of yes versus no. One could simply vote no because one believes your initiative is overkill, that includes a host of issues aside from a direct and necessary restraint on taxation.
That and I'm still fascinated by this notion that you believe voters will be left uninformed if your initiative doesn't pass. As Cornfield noted, this is all largely public information anyway. In theory it should be used by interested candidates seeking to defeat the pro-taxation legislators you seem interested in highlighting.
This gets to one of our most fundamental points of disagreement. I believe in elections are the most important way in which we control legislative bodies. You seem to believe government by initiative works better. We're highly unlikely to find a lot of common ground based on that starting point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 16, 2007 07:27 PMyou keep trying to make it either/or (initiatives or candidates). it's both. we should continue to try to pass initiatives that move the state in a pro-taxpayer, pro-free market direction and we should continue to try to elect candidates that move the state in a pro-taxpayer, pro-free market direction. are you so one-dimensional that you can't accept that you live in a state that gives the people the right to initiative? That our state gives the people the right to elected candidates AND vote on initiatives?
yes, Cornfield highlighted that some of information required by I-960 is already available - so what's the downside of making it more accessible and timely?
And no, I didn't oversimplify the implications of voting yes or no, I've simply listed them. If I-960 is approved by voters, then I-960 will close loopholes in I-601 - if I-960 is defeated, then Olympia will continue to circumvent I-601. Which do you want?
The language of I-601 will not change from now until November. Watching you follow the 5 d's of dodgeball (dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge) when it comes to making a decision on I-960 is pretty bizarre. You've made up your mind about its provisions, you're uninfluenced by cogently presently arguments on it, yet you're undecided? yeez.
are you so one-dimensional that you can't accept that you live in a state that gives the people the right to initiative?
This is supposed to be a serious argument? I've said repeatedly initiatives are best employed when used sparingly. I've also stated quite clearly you and I disagree on that front.
In terms of I-960 I think the 2/3 or a public vote requirement on tax increases pases the test of what merits an initiative. The other stuff you're including doesn't in my view. Thus, I'm still weighing the matter in full. If you want a simpler answer from me, perhaps you should have kept your initiative simple...like saying simply affirming I-601 instead of including all the rest.
Now, on to more serious matters. Does your Dodge Ball reference mean we can expect you to come out for your next costume stunt wearing the S&M outfits the Average Joe's team got stuck with for one match in the movie? Or how about even one of White Goodman's workout outfits?
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 16, 2007 10:50 PMso you do have a sense of humor. who woulda thunk?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor Taxpayer Protection Initiative, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com on July 17, 2007 08:22 AM