Are they senseless, or just shameless, the way the Seattle Times runs two unsigned editorials the same day—the first celebrating the initiative process for giving "individual citizens a say in state policies," while the second calls for discarding three popular, union-backed initiatives. "Repeal Initiatives 728 and 732 and suspend Initiative 1163," the editors urge, once again proving that they only truly honor "the will of the people" when they agree with it.

I would have more sympathy for the editors' argument for repealing initiatives that specify no means of paying for their implementation, if only they would consistently apply that logic across all initiatives, and on both sides of the budget ledger. Tim Eyman's bevy of tax-cutting initiatives pandered to voters by putting money back in their pockets, but failed to specify offsetting service and program cuts. So why shouldn't these initiatives be repealed? Indeed, Eyman's tax-cutting I-722 was approved by voters in 2000, the same year as I-728 and I-732, and I don't ever remember the Seattle Times editorializing for its repeal (or that of its son-of follow-up, I-747), yet this is the fifth time they've editorialized for repeal of I-1163 since November!

I dunno. Just strikes me as inconsistent.

Oh, and by the way, I-1163 has been funded in all three budgets that have been released so far, so the editors' assertion that there is "obviously, no money available," is obviously and demonstrably false. Budgets are about priorities, and you either believe that voters should have a say in setting these priorities, or you don't.