|
Printer Friendly |
No, we can't talk
Quick & Dirty
BY ERIC SCIGLIANO
No, we can't talk
This election season has brought an upsurge in what used to be a rare phenomenon:
candidates and campaigners who refuse to appear at the same forums as their
opponents. The sport fishing promoters of I-676, the "No Nets" initiative, won't
share a table with their commercial fishing and environmentalist opposites;
they insist instead on meeting separately with the Weekly editorial board,
saying they "don't want to get into a shouting match." I'm not sure who they
feared would start shouting; the opponents were calm to a fault as they argued
that banning nets would be just a dangerous distraction from the real task of
saving fish habitat.
Tim Eyman, the lead proponent of anti-tax Initiative 695, declined to visit
with the Weekly panel at all, but not because he's ducking his opponents;
after batting "a perfect 1,000--they're all against us" with editorial boards,
he says he doesn't want to waste his time. Eyman complains that, though he had
one "really fun" debate with Mike Lowry, the "heavy hitters" opposing 695 (and
there are many) aren't showing up: He wants to tilt with Governor Locke and
"they send the campaign treasurer." Maybe they don't want to elevate the upstart
Eyman by sending luminaries against him. But he's still doing well enough positioning
himself as the little guy up against all the Big villains: Big Labor, Big Business,
Big Government, Big Media.
Skipping unsympathetic edit boards may be a savvy strategy; it works for Slade.
But the no-shows and non-debaters might also take a lesson from soon-to-be-ex-King
County Council member Brian Derdowski. The Derd refused to appear with challenger
Dave Irons--and lost the primary.
The (even) darker side of 695
Eyman doesn't agree, but I think he owes a debt to the reporters who portray
his I-695 time bomb as (in The Seattle Times' words) the "$30 car tax"
initiative. You often have to wait to the 13th paragraph on the page
6 jump of a story to read about I-695's more significant provision: a requirement
that all new taxes and fee and license increases (state and local) pass a popular
vote. So much for taxation with representation, a foundation of republican
government. If you like the way our schools operate, always scraping and conniving
to pass levies, you'll love government under this scheme. It will be a nuisance
for voters (who will start to feel like school board members, always voting
on petty financial issues) and a nightmare for legislators and council members,
who will be too busy trying to pass the next playfield-fees referendum to undertake
the useful business of government. Those who think government has no useful
business to do (and Eyman seems very nearly one of them) will revel in this
outcome. It's the old Reaganite tautology: Government is bad, so let's show
how badly it can be run. But the well-greased corporate interests will still
get their stadiums and other sweetheart taxes through the Legislature as exempt
"emergency" measures.
Eyman insists this provision is even more popular than 695's better-known half
(which would end progressive taxation of motor vehicles and collect the same
$30 on everything from your $300 Datsun to my $100,000 motor home). "The opponents
tried the Trojan horse argument for a while, and it didn't work," he says. Maybe,
but they made a mistake. The way to defeat 695 is to make its meaning clear.
