I-892, the property tax cut/gambling expansion measure that Tim Eyman launched, has failed decisively.
The opposition came from Indian tribes who wanted to preserve their tax-free monopoly on slot machines, from social conservatives and others who object to gambling, and from those who have an irrational obsession with Tim Eyman. The latter includes this blogger, who included in his post about I-892:
I never accepted the legitimacy of W’s first administration and I will never accept the legitimacy of his second. At this moment, I cannot imagine being convinced that this was a free and fair election. Quite simply, I fear for our democracy.Yeah, whatever, aluminum hat boy. But bear in mind that Tim Eyman's initiatives are not about Tim Eyman, they're about millions of ordinary voters who feel poorly served by the entrenched political establishment. They're a pure expression of democracy, which by the way, entails accepting the decision of the majority, even when you don't agree with it.
I spoke with Eyman briefly at the GOP victory party last night and asked him what his next initiative is going to be. He said "performance audits for local governments". Not as sexy or as easy to explain as, say, $30 car tabs. But it's an idea whose time has come and I think it's hard to come up with a principled objection to measuring the government's performance. Nevertheless, those with a vested interest in unaccountable underperforming government will find a way to tell us that audits are bad for the public.
I proposed two other ideas for initiatives -- "right to work for government employees" and "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" for the parents of public schoolchildren. He thinks the former would be a tough sell, but not as tough as the latter. "You want to put me up against the education establishment? What are you trying to do, kill me?" He asked and then walked away.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 03, 2004 01:38 PM | Email ThisErgo, it must happen.
I tend to dislike Eyman's initiatives, mainly because they all mess with the budget. Budgeting is a difficult task made more difficult when it's done by initiative. Performance audits, though, are a good idea, and I will support that one happily.
Posted by: Timothy on November 3, 2004 02:13 PMAsk them again, "How many initiatives has Tim Eyman passed?"
Sometimes it takes two or three times before it finally gets through.
He hasn't passed any.
Posted by: jimg on November 3, 2004 03:11 PMAs for your initiative ideas. Particularly "Right to work" Um... Why do you want to unionize government employees? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what right to work is?
Posted by: Sarah Schreffler on November 3, 2004 03:16 PMAs I blogged here at http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2004/11/2-more-developments-on-eyman-front.html in reply to this post, "Eyman is a manipulative coward, Richards is a heroic liberator and the victory of the anti-884 forces is only the beginning..."
You can go to http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2004/11/2-more-developments-on-eyman-front.html for the full commentary, WITH hyperlinks.
Posted by: Josef on November 3, 2004 05:01 PMAnd, "money isn't everything. The I-884 campaign spent nearly $3 million, dwarfing the paltry $13,000 spent by opponents. It wasn't enough to sway voters.
"In the case of 884, voters saw through the rhetoric," said Marsha Richards, education reform director at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank. She said voters didn't trust that the education tax would be spent well.
"Every year we hear we need more money for kids, and there's a disconnect," Richards said. "I don't think it can be fully explained by just an anti-tax mood."
(http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/politics-0/1099526943173870.xml&storylist=politics)
Yeah, well BRAVO sister. Figure that'd interest you all.
Posted by: Josef on November 3, 2004 07:35 PMMake fun of my genuine expression of mourning if you like, but considering the long term and dramatic impact of last night's defeat, I believe I deserve a few moments of political shiva. I appreciate that you provided a link, but it is really misleading to take my comments out of the broader, satirical context of HorsesAss.org.
As to Timmy, my obsession with him is quite rational. His initiatives are poorly written, terrible policy, and sold with lies. And, they're cowardly... as his rhetoric is designed to avoid the debate we should be having over the proper size and scope and of state and local government.
But Tim won't have this debate, because it is a debate he knows he will lose.
My goal is not simply to marginalize Tim (and let's be honest, an Eyman initiative hasn't passed the last two elections, so he's well on his way to the margins.) My goal is to help seize back the terms of the debate so that we can start talking about both sides of the equation. Tax cuts equal spending cuts... again, something Timmy refuses to acknowledge.
I think there is something we can agree on: the purpose of government is NOT to spend tax dollars... it is the purpose of taxation to fund the government services demanded by voters. But by focusing exclusively on tax cuts we end up debating the issues backwards.
As to performance audits, I've got no argument with the concept in theory, though I expect Tim's initiative to be as poorly written as usual. But I think if we're going to audit expenditures, we should audit tax exemptions as well, to make sure that they are providing the state benefits equal to their costs.
And as to your suggestion of a "right to work" initiative, I expect one is eventually coming from the BIAW. But let's be honest, right to work is all about union busting, and union busting is all about defunding the Democratic Party. Do we really need corporate control of all our politicians? How greedy can you R's get?
Posted by: David Goldstein on November 3, 2004 11:47 PMI honestly thought you are just an Eyman wannabe. Now I am not so sure. Lots of people want to run initiatives and poke fun at Eyman. You were no different with your initiative.
Please give me a good reason why you are not just jealous of the attention Eyman gets.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on November 4, 2004 10:10 AMUnderstand that the "Horse's Ass" initiative was just a joke, with no premeditated political aspirations. It was the media who ran with it and the media who gave me a podium... I, like Tim, am a media creation.
That said, I found myself with a unique opportunity to add to the public debate, and felt that if I were to use it, I had the obligation to educate myself on the issues, particularly the mind-numbing intricacies of our state's tax structure. It is a never ending process, but it didn't take long to have a better grasp of Tim's own initiatives than he did.
Now, I understand that Tim is a symptom, not the problem. But we'll never cure the rash if we keep on scratching, and we'll never have the honest debate we desperately need if Tim keeps on dumbing down public discourse. For example, look at Tim's brilliant post-mortem of the overwhelming defeat of both I-892 and I-884:
"I think voters really liked half of both the proposals. If we could lower property taxes and increase funding for education, clearly we’d have a major winner."
Well... duh-uh!
I suppose you "neo-cons" or "libertarians" or however you all label yourselves are satisfied that Eyman's ends justifies his means... after all, if we simply defund government we'll get the smaller government you want by default.
But if you are so confident that your political philosophy is right, don't you want to win this fair and square? Don't you believe you can convince the majority of voters that they want less government? Don't you trust voters to listen to both sides of the debate, and make the right decision for themselves, their families, and their communities?
Am I "jealous of the attention Eyman gets" ...? In a way, I suppose. Tim accidentally filled a void left by the incredibly boring and visionless political "leaders" in our state... what passionate, idealistic, (and modestly egotistical) activist wouldn't want to take his place?
But I am definitely not an "Eyman wannabe." You can say whatever you want about me, but nobody... nobody has ever accused me of doing anything for the money.
And if you believe personal remuneration is not Tim's primary motivation, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Posted by: David Goldstein on November 4, 2004 11:48 AMNow, in David's defense, he is arguably all about a civil response to that culture. That's what the silly Horses Ass initiative was about - making a point about a bad string of me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me initiatives and how Eyman is very manipulative.
I personally despise Tim Eyman. His arrogance, braggadocio and crap sicken me. Just see this http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/002980.html#002980 and draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: Josef on November 4, 2004 12:25 PMHowever, I discern great irony in the fate of your initiative. I agree the "Horse's Ass" initiative was a joke, and perhaps meant to not only poke fun at Eyman but at how the initiative process is susceptible to ridiculous propositions. Yet, your initiative proved the exact opposite. Because the legal flaws in your intiative prevented it from being on the ballot, one could easily conclude that the initiative process is not susceptible to any ridiculous proposition.
You criticize Eyman for poorly written initiatives, but who are you to talk? (The pot calling the kettle black?) You did try to defend your initiative in court so don't tell me it was nothing more than a joke. Based on your success with initiatives, why shouldn't the public view you as marginal?
Posted by: Tim Ford on November 4, 2004 12:36 PMI'll grant that when I met you in person a few weeks ago, you were far more reasonable and likable than the paranoia in your post linked above would suggest.
At the same time, I recall your public remarks that your opposition to I-892 was largely motivated by a desire to put Eyman out of business. Your argument was that every defeat makes it harder for him to raise money for any future initiatives.
Reasonable people can debate the merits of the individual initiatives that he proposes. But you seem to have a weird personal animus against the man ("horse's ass"? what does that mean?) that transcends any specific issue. You can demonize Eyman all you want if it makes you feel good about yourself. But that won't eliminate the root causes that motivated so many voters to support the successful initiatives.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 4, 2004 12:39 PMWhen I speak publicly, I tailor my message to the audience, and that was an anti-Eyman audience. "Horse's Ass" (which by the way, means "fool") is the horse that brung me, and I'm not ashamed to ride it as far as it will go. I'm a smart guy with a fairly sharp political mind... but people read my blog or invite me to speak because I'm entertaining.
I can't say it isn't fun to demonize Tim -- it's certainly more amusing than debating tax structure -- but it is also political useful. Tim Eyman is a flawed messenger, an admitted liar who continues to steal from campaign contributors, and purposely and maliciously misrepresents his initiatives.
You say "reasonable people can debate the merits of the individual initiatives", but the truth is they can't, unless reasonable people question Tim's assumptions and numbers. Tim Eyman is a lying, self-serving politician, and not a single thing he says or does should be taken at face value. If by "demonizing" Tim I encourage voters to view his words and motives more cynically, then I am in the end promoting a more honest debate.
And let's be fair here. Tim has made a career out of personal attacks on Gary Locke, Ron Sims and other politicians. He has exploited genuine voter anger and frustration by driving a rhetorical wedge between "the people" and their elected government. Why shouldn't I use the same rhetorical cudgel to bludgeon Tim?
The root cause of support for Tim's initiatives (and there hasn't been much support since I've come on the scene) is our absurdly unfair tax structure... by far the most regressive in the nation. But fixing it also requires fixing Eyman. So while my overall objective remains a fair and adequate tax structure, I stand by my short term goal of helping Tim fail.
(Oh... and I assure you, my opposition to expanded gambling is genuine. It is a happy accident that I could work to kill two birds with one stone.)
Posted by: David Goldstein on November 4, 2004 01:55 PMThere's really not as much irony there as you read into it. I-831 was a joke. But when hundreds of people donated over $4000, and managed to gather nearly 60,000 signatures in a couple of weeks, with no organization whatsoever, I felt I had an obligation to pursue it as far as I could go.
I don't really want to go into the AG's injunction except to say that it was the exception that proved the rule. Besides, it's kind of silly to attack me for a poorly written initiative when it was filed as a joke, with no intention of running it. Eyman on the other hand, has had years to figure out how to do this right, and still gets it wrong. Indeed, I-892 had a serious Article II, Section 19 problem, and likely would have been thrown out if passed.
Based on your success with initiatives, why shouldn't the public view you as marginal?
Well, that kind of was my whole message last year... I'm not inherently credible just because I paid five bucks to file an initiative. And neither is Tim.
After all, any horse's ass can file an initiative.
Posted by: David Goldstein on November 4, 2004 02:26 PMAs I write this, I am listening to Dori Monson talking about how the election shouldn't be allowed to fill a vacuum in people's lives. Well, I somewhat agree - because I have used politics to fill a very personal vacuum, somewhat disagree - because the state's future is so preponderant on who'll be our governor. I think you all should think about that.
As far as people hating Eyman, well Eyman is the CEO of the campaigns for his initiatives. He writes them, he promotes them, he manages their campaigns. Then (some of) you wonder why some people leap past the initiatives to Eyman personally?
Chew on that one.
Posted by: Josef on November 4, 2004 02:31 PM