34°Quick links: Boys ranch moves assets • GU basketball • WSU basketball • Kendall Yards plan • Swine flu
Election predictions, anyone? I think Ref. 71 will pass and Prop 4 and I-1033 will fail.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2009, The Spokesman-Review
gmorton on November 03 at 2:55 p.m.
I'll stick my neck out.
All three will pass. Prop 4 and I-1033 will pass because they both promise free lunches. Who doesn't want a free lunch?
To vote against 4 the voter would have to consider the fiscal implications to the City and the implications for the local economy, neither of which he or she is prepared or inclined to do, or the moral implications, which the average voter is even less prepared to do. Most of them will consider nothing beyond the ballot summary.
It could fail if turnout is very low. The larger the turnout, the larger the “yes” vote.
Ok, neck is stuck out.
Flag as inappropriate
justbob on November 03 at 3:10 p.m.
I'll say Prop 4, 1033 and the Fire bond all fail and 71 will pass.
McLaughlin, Allen and Waldref will win the council seats.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 03 at 4:15 p.m.
Unless Prop 1 requires a super majority, it'll pass, barely. SFD has't had any recent scandals, and the voters have short term memory.
Prop. 4 won't get much over 30%.
I-1033 will fail, but it'll be close, 51-49. It will barely lose in the City, pass overwhelmingly in the total County vote.
R-71 will pass statewide, 57-43, will barely break even in the City, and County-wide will not get a majority.
McLaughlin will win handily. That's OK, those anti-science types are fun to mock.
Waldref has run a strong campaign, little Eyman, not so much. But the rabid teabaggers and Ron Paul Revolutionaries will be out in force, 53-47 for Waldref.
It's the rare talented politician the public will forgive for breaking a promise, as Allen did. Yet, he's likable and has run a strong campaign. But I think Jon Snyder has run an even better campaign, and he will squeak out a win, which probably won't be clear until the wee hours of the early morning or tomorrow.
G-Preps running backs and ball carriers will use some super sticky stuff on their hands, and eke out two wins tonight to clench 3rd seed 4A.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 04 at 3:41 a.m.
From the vantage point of the day after:
- I'm sorry to see R-71 shaping up to be such a close decision. I would have expected intelligent people to see through the blatant fear tactics of its opponents and instead see that legislation for what it truly was. Still, if it passes, that will be enough. Perhaps when reasonable people see that Western Civilization didn't collapse in smoking ruins as a result of granting equal rights to 'scary people', the fear mongering will be that much less effective next time.
- I-1033… I voted against it, but I admit it was a tough decision. The fundamental concept - limiting government spending - was undeniably the right one. But 1033's methodology is a proven failure. (Yes, I believe the government taxes too much and spends too much and needs to learn to live within its means just like the citizens that compose it. I know there are some folks around here who will be agog over the fact that a person like me who believes a government exists to service the needs of its citizens nevertheless also needs to be fiscally responsible.)
- Prop-4… Again, some of the goals were the right ones. But the way it proposed to go about realizing those goals was a nightmare. W-a-a-y to ambiguously stated. W-a-a-y to long on grandiose agenda and w-a-a-y too short on actual nuts and bolts mechanism and who pays how much for what.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 04 at 9:53 a.m.
<<Who doesn't want a free lunch? >>
Restore your faith in humanity?
Looneh, very good, on the politics, that is. Sports, not so much.
Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on November 04 at 9:57 a.m.
jeff gray wrote: Yes, I believe the government taxes too much and spends too much and needs to learn to live within its means just like the citizens that compose it. I know there are some folks around here who will be agog over the fact that a person like me who believes a government exists to service the needs of its citizens nevertheless also needs to be fiscally responsible.)
The citizens that “compose it” are just as much in hock, if not more than the government. Haven't you ever borrowed money or paid for “stiuff” with credit? Please, why do you deny that behavior to your government? I share some of your concerns with government scope and size but I think you missed the larger picture with I 1033. The initiative would have used 2009 as a baseline for future state revenues. Anyone can see that would have been disastrous since this year the state will experience a sharp decline in revenue. All the cuts in state services caused by the recession would have been made permanent with this action, including the thousands of teachers who received pink slips (with nary a word from the WEA who has collected money from me for twenty two years and didn't protect our jobs).
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 04 at 10:46 a.m.
spoketucky,
–— I share some of your concerns with government scope and size but I think you missed the larger picture with I 1033 … Anyone can see that would have been disastrous since this year the state will experience a sharp decline in revenue.–—
I agree completely. That's what I meant by, “But 1033's methodology is a proven failure.”
The fundamental objective - reducing government's spendthrift ways - was right. But in my opinion the proposed method of achieving that objective was fatally flawed.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 04 at 2:04 p.m.
So now we can go back to “business as usual” where there are no benchmarks for limiting taxation or spending or the growth of government.
Besides; any excuse will do. This year we couldn't do it because … revenues were down. Last year we couldn't do it because … “needs” were up.
And next year we can't do it because … oh hell, we have plenty of time to figure that out; surely the conditions will not be absolutely perfect again next year.
Mr. Wishy, meet Mr. Washy … “Yep, I really honestly do believe in the principle of small government; why I have always believed in a “penny saved is a penny earned” by golly. It just makes sense to me and it always has… but I just don’t think it is the right thing to do this year, by golly-gee – even though I do believe in the principle of it – it is just that this year just isn’t an ideal year to do it … “ But I sure do believe in it!
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 04 at 2:10 p.m.
Vote for the low tax/low spending candidates.
(Here come the excuses for why this isn't fair)
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 04 at 2:22 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,
“Restore your faith in humanity?”
Somewhat. :-)
“Looneh, very good, on the politics, that is. Sports, not so much.”
Second that. Looneh nearly aced it.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 04 at 2:32 p.m.
Richard,
So we just mindlessly chant some tea-bagger dogma and then cut taxes no matter what the consequences?
Colorado followed that approach and they're still hemorrhaging tax dollars trying to fix the damage.
I'm not going to apologize for refusing to just lemming-leap off a cliff with the rest of the herd because someone shakes their finger at me and snarls 'Taxes are too high!' I know they are. *I pay them too.* That's why if someone proposes a workable solution to reign in government spending, I'll vote for it. But I-1033 wasn't a workable solution. Experience has shown that it would have broken more than it fixed.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 04 at 2:54 p.m.
Be interesting to see how many candidates choose the Conservative label, rather than Republican, in the next state election.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 04 at 6:10 p.m.
Jeff, you are right; you didn’t follow the pro-1033 lemmings of the cliff, you followed the anti-1033 lemmings,. You even got the propaganda and talking points correct.
“If not now, when?” is the battle cry of those pushing the public option in health care. “If not now, when?” Jeff, do we - the people - tell tax and spend legislators enough is enough?
Who and what took this state from 1 billion dollars in the black, to how ever many billions we are in the red now? And before you start your lemming-like chatter about how the Dems inherited Bush’s economy, remember that the Dems have been running this state for decades. The surplus in this state was spent by Gregoire and the Dems before the recession hit. She has run this state for 5 years you know.
So, Jeff; if not know when? I can answer that by looking at past efforts of the people to place limits on the growth of government in this state. In every instance, Oly, the media and the wishy-washy amongst us always say it is not the right time.
If not know, when?
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 05 at 6:12 a.m.
Richard,
Let's remove this from the high emotions that attach to taxation and try to view it in less charged way.
If I have a problem and I see someone else with exactly the same problem as me attempt a solution that not only doesn't fix the problem, it actually makes matters worse…
Don't you think it's *at least arguably* reasonable for me to say, “Well shoot! I don't think that's something that I ought to try”?
Colorado tried something very similar to what I-1033 proposed to do and it turned out badly. It turned out so badly that the citizens of Colorado finally repealed most of what they'd previously enacted and - as I say - they're now spending more money trying to clean up the mess. California had a similar experience. And those aren't 'talking points', Richard. They're easy to check facts.
Now look, I grant you that if someone was desperate enough, I suppose they could say, 'Well, it doesn't matter. This is a crisis and we have to do *something*! So maybe the fix that has failed miserably for everyone else will work better for us.'
But that doesn't seem like a wise way to proceed for me. Maybe it's a hold-over from my Navy days. There they taught us that when you've got a crisis situation, the *worst* thing you can do is panic and just try the first thing that comes to mind. More often than not, that only makes the crisis worse.
So call me wishy-washy and indecisive and a dupe for the pundits. I'll just shrug because I think by now you know that your opinion of me doesn't carry a lot of weight. Nor does it probably matter to you that I think it's you who's a dupe to a bunch of pundits with their own agenda to pedal. An agenda that is driving you to pounce on a dangerous 'solution' that will more than likely cause far more problems than it solves.
What does matter is that enough people have looked at the solution proposed and have said, 'No. That's not what we want to try. You have to come up with another solution.' As a result of that, I'm genuinely hopeful that Eyman will go back to the drawing board and come up with something that accomplishes what needs to be accomplished without breaking more than it fixes.
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on November 05 at 10:37 a.m.
We had a chance to put a restrictor valve on the spending habits of government but as usual the folks in Washington love giving money to government. Yes thank you, Mr. Government here take all my money so I can’t eat or have heat.
I am with Richard we need to control their spending some how, and rather it is a good time or not fiddles sticks. It needs done. I am a firm believer in just doing it even if it hurts in the long run things will be much better.
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on November 05 at 10:44 a.m.
The main problem as I see it, Washington has too many government workers. They always vote for more spending and against any spending restrictions because their paychecks depend on it.
Well after the still employed private sector dwindles down to a few, the government worker will be in the same boat as private sector. And quite rankly I am waiting for that day with baited breath. It really upsets me that we are supposed to care that government is going to have to lose some employees and we need to pay more while private sector is expected to just keep loosing and loosing jobs with no end in sight.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 05 at 10:50 a.m.
<<If not know, when?>>
When voters agree. How else should it be determined? It's not just state government that would've been affected. It would've been all governments.
Why should voters statewide put the brakes on spending in Spokane Valley? Does a voter in Spangle know enough to say that Cle Elum needs to put the brakes on spending?
Why return money via the property tax? Is it comparatively high? No. That would be the sales tax. Are renters second-class citizens who don't need to heat their homes and eat?
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on November 05 at 10:56 a.m.
Anybody besides me angry about the latest volley by police? Where are the debates about stray bullets finding their way into private homes? Where is the decision of why two cops fired upon a suicidal man that was holding a pellet gun? Are we so used to the lawlessness of our police in Spokane that nothing phases us anymore?
Last summer we had two city cops drill a young man six times with bullets, after he was already down. Anyone of those bullets could have easily ricocheted since they were fired at a man sprawled out on the ground. This latest shooting one of the officers had a shotgun.
What ever happened to informing the neighbors or portioning off the area to protect the citizens? Instead they start a firefight in your front yard as you watch TV, with your family.
They check child seats, railroad crossings, crosswalks, to protect us they say, while they fire guns in our front yards while our children sit on the curb and watch.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 05 at 11:00 a.m.
I'm beginning to think you don't like the police, Lewis.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 05 at 11:04 a.m.
What tax increases were passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in the last legislative session?
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 05 at 11:26 a.m.
Lewis,
Same question for you as for Richard: If Colorado tried it and it didn't work, what's the logic in repeating the mistake?
Look, all this rhetoric about how voters must be idiots just because they don't vote the way you want them to is starting to wear a little thin. I can't speak for others, but I'm actually not some drooling idiot who just randomly marks my ballot. I thought long and hard about how I was going to vote on I-1033. It was a *tough* decision and I tried to be as informed as possible before I made it.
Part of what informed my ultimate decision is something that I'll say again, and it's something I'm going to ask both you and Richard to hear. As someone who owns my own home, *I PAY TAXES TOO!* Okay? So I have just as much of a stake in this as you do. And like you I firmly believe those taxes I pay are *too damn high* given what I feel I get in return for them! So if I thought that I-1033 would have reduced my taxes by forcing some responsibility on the government's spending habits - **without causing more harm than good** - I *promise* you I would have voted for it in a heartbeat.
*I damn near did vote for it* even with the knowledge that the same concept has failed at least twice before. As I said to Richard, I can understand someone being so at the end of their rope that they'd give the I-1033 concept one more try in the hopes that the third time might be the charm. As I say; I flirted with the idea myself.
But in the end, I couldn't do it. The risks are too high. The potential for making the problem only that much worse are too high.
Lewis, maybe you can go with, 'Damn the consequences! Just do something! Anything!' But I simply can't. And evidently there are more than a few intelligent, informed voters out there who can't either.
For what it's worth, I will promise you that if Mr. Eyman & Co. can rework I-1033 so that the formula for setting the limit on taxes doesn't hold the potential for disaster that in my opinion it did, I *will* vote for it the next time around. I will vote for it because I think that the fundamental concept is a good one - it's just the proposed mechanism that has proved to be unsound.
Fix the mechanism and I will vote for it. And you can cut this out and save it and show it to me next time it comes up for a vote.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 05 at 7:04 p.m.
Perhaps you couldn't hear me.
WHAT TAX INCREASES WERE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION?
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 05 at 8:42 p.m.
Jeff, you really don’t know anything about the Colorado initiative, do you? You don’t know what the fiscal situation was before - or after - the initiative, do you? I suspect you just picked up that rhetoric about Colorado and then used it, without any foreknowledge of the facts; any truth to that?
You don’t know the differences or the similarities between the tax structure and the tax rates in Colorado or Washington; do you? You don’t even know what the specific reasons why the initiative passed in Colorado; what conditions led the people to say, “No more,” do you?
In fact that comparison is totally meaningless because you have no information or facts to support the “notion” that it was the initiative which is to blame for whatever fiscal problems they have in Colorado, do you?
For all you know, the current fiscal problems may be even worse without the initiative; is that correct?
You claim that a similar initiative in California is the root cause for the horrendous fiscal shortcomings they are experiencing; but again, you don’t know the facts of how that state became - to borrow an appropriate phrase from Loone’ - a “basket case economy,” do you Jeff?
I guess you don’t realize the tremendous red ink that was caused from huge deficit spending by a very “progressive” legislature, do you? Or the eerie similarities of the governance of California with what Obama and the “progressive” Democrats in congress are proposing at the national level; do you?
But you misread my interest in your voting patterns, Jeff. I am very pleased you voted the way you saw it. I am very pleased that you perform that civic duty.
But I am not at all impressed with your response to my question: “if not now, when?” It was a dodge because you don’t have an answer. You said you would vote for it next time, “It’s just the proposed mechanism that is unsound.”
Really? How so, Jeff? You offered a non answer because you have offered no rationale for saying the “mechanism was unsound.” That statement is a meaningless opinion … that you read from your voter pamphlet or in the newspaper by someone who opposed it.
Correct?
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on November 06 at 12:50 a.m.
Jeff it just surprised the heck out of me what the people of Washington vote for. It seems a lot of people love to pay taxes. And as I have stated in the past I don’t mind paying my fair share as long as I get the services they pay for. But in times like this when money is already tight I really don’t want to watch my government waste money many will need for heat in the coming winter. Our government has always had an open check book. I just think it should have a limit.
You seem to like to just sit back and see what happens. That was your position on the police issues. Sit back and talk intelligent while the problem just gets worse. I am all for intelligent conversation but give me some facts about what you thought wouldn’t work on 1033. I realize it wasn’t perfect but it was a start. I only voted for it just to see what would happen. And if my comments about idiot voters upset you maybe you should look with in and ask your self why that statement would bother you.
And yes Gary I have questions about the actions of our police that no one else seems to care about. Time to crawl back into my hole and close the lid.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 06 at 3:38 a.m.
Richard,
Contrary to your usual ad hominem, I studied the Colorado TABOR experience rather closely. I saw the demonstrable, measurable damage that legislation did to Colorado's infrastructure. But most telling of all, I saw that the Coloradans who initially said, 'No more!' do an about-face and repeal most of it.
How do you explain that, Richard? How did the people who were initially wise enough and informed enough to say, 'No more!' suddenly become dumb enough to turn away from what you insist is the right answer? What happened? How did once smart people ('smart' being defined as 'agree with me') become stupid ('stupid' being defined as 'disagree with me')?
Furthermore, and again contrary to your standard 'attack the messenger' methodology, while I do realize that Colorado and California are 'there' and Washington is 'here' and 'there' is not identical to 'here', I researched the matter enough to know that when we're talking about *fundamentals* as we are, there's not nearly enough of a difference to justify a blithe, 'Oh, I'm sure it'll work here even though it failed miserably there.'
Again, Richard - if I see someone try something to fix a problem and that something doesn't work to the point that they give up on the attempt, why should I attempt the same thing?
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 06 at 4:01 a.m.
Lewis,
–— It seems a lot of people love to pay taxes. –—
Really? You really believe that? Assuming that isn't the case - that even gullible idiots eventually object to endlessly shelling out money - then why would they nevertheless reject something like 1033?
Could it be that they actually had a reason?
As to what that reason might be… Well, do what I did. Google 'Washington I-1033' and see what you find. If your search engine works the way mine does, you'll find some good fact-based arguments on both sides of the issue. On *BOTH* sides. For me, the arguments were too persuasive against I-1033 for me to vote for it. (Though, as I say, it was a close decision.)
–— You seem to like to just sit back and see what happens. […] I only voted for it just to see what would happen. –—
I'm cautious. You're impulsive. You're not going to change my fundamental approach to life any more than I'm going to change yours. You're certainly not going to persuade me to change by calling me an idiot. A little tip for you, Lewis: most people will react when you call them an idiot. And they usually don't react very positively.
The bottom line in all of this - both for you and for Richard - is that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they're stupid, gullible or ill-informed. It can sometimes mean that they have what they believe is a good reason to disagree.
Again, maybe it's the fundamental differences between us at work, Lewis. But in my case, if more than half the voters in Washington turned something down, I - for one - wouldn't be too comfortable just stamping my foot and snarling, 'You're *all* idiots!' I'd find myself scratching my head and saying to myself, 'Can that many people really be that wrong? Maybe I'd better go back and check my facts again.'
The burden of proof is always on the proponent, Lewis. If so many people say, 'We've checked and we don't think it would work because of this…this…and this…', if you want to argue for something, *you* have to step forward and say, 'No, here's why that..that…and that *aren't* a problem.' 'You're an idiot!' is an insufficient reply.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 06 at 10:16 a.m.
<<Jeff, you really don’t know anything about the Colorado initiative, do you? >>
The people in Colorado do. They answered your “if not, when?” by voting for TABOR. Then their opinions changed. By the time, it was gutted or parts of it were repealed, the state went from Republican-controlled to Democratic-controlled.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on November 06 at 11:34 a.m.
Some of us don’t think that taxes are particularly high for what we receive. Property taxes are moderate, there is no state income tax in WA, but WA sales taxes are too high and are too regressive. The WA business excise tax is high and is levied on gross receipts, which is a strange way to levy a tax, but as a friend of mine once said, I can always afford to make more money.
Some of us like public libraries, good schools, police and fire protection, good roads, river/sea ports, clean water, and safe food. Many of our businesses and farms draw great benefit from those roads, irrigation projects, and other infrastructure (mine does). 55% of personal federal income taxes go to the Dept of Defense and the V.A. Do conservatives want to cut defense and V.A. spending? Some conservatives sure hollered when Pres. Obama cut several billion from defense projects a few months ago. I think some people underestimate the cost of all the services and benefits that they receive from their tax dollars (including educating the work force and providing good places to raise families so that good workers want to stay).
Granted, we do need to get rid of waste, fraud, theft, and earmarks - even a couple percent of a trillion plus dollars adds up to real money. And, if we don’t reduce deficit spending (and fast), we will be in trouble.
Of course, the double-digit annual increases in health insurance costs are creating an increased burden on governments and costing more and more of our tax dollars, which is why we need insurance reform.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 06 at 12:13 p.m.
Chip,
Another point that I didn't make but that goes along with some of what I'm understanding you to say is this:
It seems to me that I-1033 is routinely defended with the assertion that by reducing the funds available, it would force government to spend more wisely.
I question the logic of that assertion.
The proponents of I-1033 seem to start from the basic (and perhaps to disagree with you a bit) not altogether unfounded belief that our elected representatives are not to be trusted to make financial decisions that are in the best interests of their constituents. Instead, they will make whatever decisions they feel they need to make in order to advance their own interests.
And yet what's the fundamental principle of 1033? 'We'll give them less money and they'll have to serve our interests.'
What's to say giving them less money won't just result in even less money being spent on our interests while the same amount still gets spent on theirs?
What's the direct casual link? How does 'A' (less money) *necessarily* lead to 'B' (better financial decisions)? If they're not to be trusted in the first place, what's the logic of basing the workings of a proposal on trust?
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on November 06 at 12:45 p.m.
Jeffrey, that makes sense.
At a local level, I think our politicians do a pretty good job being good stewards of the taxpayers’ money, but it is not always that way. It is easy to hold local politicians accountable and vote them out if they are doing a poor job.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 06 at 1:08 p.m.
For one thing, they have to balance budgets. It's the law. The feds don't have to do that, nor do I think it would be wise if they did. There are times when it makes economic sense to run deficits.
If the feds couldn't do that now, they would not have been able to funnel aid to states, which would've meant even more cuts, more unemployment and fewer avenues to stimulate the economy. Plus, if you believe Bernanke, the lack of government intervention would've meant a depression, rather than recession.
Notice that the Balanced Budget Amendment is no longer touted, because Republicans discovered that doing that is really hard. So many have signed no-tax pledges, that the only solutions are to cut services or borrow (which is a future tax). They generally opted to borrow.
It's the same reason they ditched pay-as-you. That would've meant tax hikes to finance the wars and Medicare Part D and service cuts to finance tax cuts.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 06 at 10:12 p.m.
“Jeff, do we - the people - tell tax and spend legislators enough is enough?”
In the face of a major downturn in tax revenues, the “tax and spend liberal Democrats” that “have controlled the state for decades” not only did not raise taxes, they cut spending.
So much for ranting and raving.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on November 07 at 6:11 a.m.
I've been thinking about this more last night and something occurred to me.
There has been a lot of righteous indignation and charges of 'moral bankruptcy' and 'theft!' leveled against 'those damn socialist liberals!' and their policies. (I know the persecution complex long ago lost the ability to distinguish between anything other than 'us hunkered down in the bunker here' and 'the whole rest of the world out there'. So I know it's pointless to try and distinguish between… oh, say a true socialist or a liberal or a centrist moderate. There's just 'us' versus 'them'. Anyway…)
'If you vote to increase spending, you're *stealing* from me!'
Okay, first off and as I've said before - twice now: There's no special tax break given to 'socialist liberals'. It's not that 'we' are voting to increase 'your' taxes. 'We' pay the same taxes 'you' do. So if we're stealing from you, we're stealing just as much from ourselves.
Maybe this is the reason why the derogatory labels come out so fast. Maybe, deep down, we all know that we're all in this together and so the only explanation for anyone to do anything that's just as much against their own interests as anyone elses' is because they're stupid. It just *can't* be a considered decision. It just *can't* be because that would mean that maybe there's more than one side to all this and reasonable, well-informed, intelligent people can reasonably disagree about things. And then where would some of these absolutist agenda be?
Furthermore, and with respect to all this lofty sanctimony and these claims on the moral high ground, 'You're stealing from me!!':
What if something like I-1033 had passed and funding for a lot of things had - of necessity - been cut?
If I wanted those things that were getting the axe and I was willing to pay my fair share of the bill to get them, by denying me that chance… by making the decision that roads aren't going to get repaired as well as they might or snow isn't going to get plowed as frequently… by saying that there are going to be less policemen and firemen and the ones that are left are going to be less well equipped… by increasing the class-room size for my kids and thus reducing the time their teacher has to devote to them…
By the questionable logic that seems to drive all this couldn't I fairly claim that by doing all that, *you* are stealing from *me*? Or does this all solely depend on who is howling in protest?
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 07 at 10:18 a.m.
Jeff_Grey, not being as an Idahoan much into Washington Politics, none the less, I'll weigh in. What you describe now is a radicalism as opposed to “conservatism.” Yes, actually these people who pushed 1033 because they saw the promise of “reduced taxes” thus GMorton's statement which I do agree with (don't have a heart attack now) as a free lunch. And yes, such a free lunch would have come at the expense of many in Washington state as a matter of reduced services and etc. Apparently, the “free lunchers” want those services without actually having to pay for them and thus become the latest in welfare recipients. And to further refer to GMorton's “by force” argument, that the fire dept, police and etc. will work “for free” to protect the free luncher from crime and his property from fire. Good luck with that!
Your point was excellent and well taken.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 07 at 12:35 p.m.
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house…
If you all really value your Democratic/liberal control at every level of government right now (local, state and federal), you really should discount the spinning of Robert Gibbs, Nancy & Sluggo, and media; and take the time to digest and understand the train wreck to the Obama.Nation this week.
The message was about as loud as it could be! 100 million dollars couldn’t keep the train on track. Perfectly staged visits from Barack Obama couldn’t avoid the oncoming crash. Young voters, black voters and Bush-disenchanted independents refused to respond to Hope & Change.2. Smug and high-flying unions couldn’t buy a single victory this time in the most union-corrupted and controlled state in the nation. Promises of more and more “free-lunch” entitlements could not entice even Democratic voters away from sound fiscal policies. Class warfare tactics of “soak the rich - they can afford it” fell on unbelieving ears. None of the charm of “Yes, We Can!” prevented the resounding NO to expanding government to monolithic proportions.
But continue with your views that more taxes [or refusing to consider less taxes] is the solution to 10% -and climbing - unemployment rates. Read and believe that employment “always” lags in a recovery [when we have never seen an administration want to add 1 trillion dollars to the price tag of government while attempting a recovery - plus whatever the price will be for Cap & Trade].
Continue looking to DC to solve and salve your angst for ensuring that “everyone can have everything” - even those who produce little. Continue to believe, I guess, that the wealthy can and will keep their wealth invested in an economy that stifles returns and confiscates ever more. Jump up and down and scream [BAD COMPANIES!] when corporations increase their moves to foreign lands to find better conditions to compete. Believe that Washington State is immune to the fiscal issues plaguing the industrial portions of the country.
Continue to ignore the lessons of California and New York and New Jersey. Read and believe that the “basket case” conditions in these states were the results of “citizen initiatives” to limit government and taxation. Continue to discount that the economies of these states were teetering on the brink even before the housing crash. Continue to discount the fact that these states have the highest taxes in the nation. Ignore the proven relationship between high taxes and decreased revenues. Continue to believe that health care reform will “stimulate” the economy. Continue your careless views that government is mostly exempt from the same accounting and fiscal responsibilities and realities that every family must obey or perish
Continue your “Party On!” view that the people are “tax units” [as we were recently referred to by an Obama appointment] and that we will [all] dutifully continue to give more and more entitlements to those who are not “tax units.”
And when you finish reading Krauthhammer's prognosis and you angrily discount it as another “right-wing” rant - just as you did with the Tea Parties and the Town Halls - just remember that next November is really not that far off, and that it will be here in a mere hop, skip and a jump.
See you in 2010!
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 07 at 9:42 p.m.
Richard's touting the baby killer enabling Krauthammer again?
How odd.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 08 at 6:29 a.m.
“Richard” forgets that a Dem ran away from Obama and lost, the GOP engaged in internecine warfare and lost and a governor was wildly unpopular and lost. So?
Basing his entire opinion on Krauthammer's rants when Krauthammer has simply become more scream than reason. Yeah, we'll see by 2010 what does happen.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 09 at 6:29 p.m.
Like I have always said about some on these pages … you confront them with obvious truths and all they can muster is blatherings, “stupid liberal tricks” and … well, I think that covers it. Nothing else.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on November 09 at 7:46 p.m.
If you don’t believe the truth Krauthhammer-style, then how about the truth, Newsweek-style. You would be very hard pressed to call Newsweek a “right-wing” magazine.
“Why Republicans are winning in the Age of Obama” . . .
is filled with some very sound advice for the ultra-liberal Democrats who have the impression that America is a left of center country. It isn't and they best learn it sooner than later..
http://www.newsweek.com/id/221607
Read it and weep again
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on November 10 at 12:34 a.m.
Richard touting Ural Levin. Now that's funny!
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 10 at 10:02 a.m.
I haven't picked up a Newsweek in ages and wouldn't regard Newsweek as “liberal,” “Richard.” I also wouldn't argue that the Dems (what ever their political stripe) are the reason why the GOP are “winning.”
Rather, I'd make the argument thusly. It took 8 years to burn down the house. The people who watched their house burn down under GOP watch NOW want to put back into office, at least in local elections THE VERY PEOPLE who burned down the house. WHY? Because the people who were elected to REBUILD the house aren't doing it fast enough.
In the age of now and instant gratification… What gives these people the idea that after the house got burned down that it can be rebuilt over night? Someone forget that Obama never did make that kind of promise? And incidentally, the GOP have not made that kind of promise. I'd have to say that if there is a delusion here, it is on the side of the electorate.
Flag as inappropriate