Blue State, Red Vote

"Blackout in a Can" Banned in Washington State

2010-11-10T17:17:00.000-08:00

In a move considered a no-brainer by many, Washington State announced today a ban on so-called Alcoholic Energy Drinks (AEDs). AEDs contain heavy amounts of caffeine and alcohol, and have been packaged in a way to appear as the "standard" energy drink that is so popular with today's youth - tall cans with a vibrant logo.Media attention to AEDs, like Four Loko (pictured above) came to light a few weeks ago, when a number of students at Central Washington University were hospitalized after drinking said beverages. Now, I went to college at CWU, and during my time there, I saw my share of underage and irresponsible drinking (thankfully, I was - for the most part - a "good kid"). The reality of it is that most college students, fresh from leaving the sheltered environment of their parents' home, will experiment with alcohol. It's encoded into their DNA as a means of testing the limits of being an independent adult. Drinking things like Four Loko is a poor choice, especially if you are underage and have little to no experience imbibing alcohol, but is it grounds for the state to step in and ban such drinks? I think not.

With it's ban of AEDs, the State of Washington is pointing the "bony finger of indignation" at anyone at the marketers of those products. Those marketers specifically targeted their efforts at younger drinkers. Granted, they clearly label on their beverages how much alcohol is in their drinks, but those drinking kids are less likely to pay attention to the small print on the side of the can than someone much older and more familiar with how alcohol consumption will affect them, physically.

So here comes the state, announcing a ban on such beverages. How is it the responsibility of state government to mandate the sale of a specific item like this? Keep in mind, beverages like this are considered "malt liquor", and - as such - are not sold in state-run liquor stores. They can be purchased at any convenience store that sells beer or wine. The state has a monopoly on so-called "hard liquor" (vodka, rum, etc.), and collects hefty tax revenue from those sales. So, here we have a news story focused on AEDs, and the state says "hey, we can't tax that, so let's ban it... 'for the good of the people'".

Alright - two things here. One (and I've said this before), the state needs to get out of the liquor business, altogether. The state government's job is to uphold the state constitution, and the US constitution (as it applies to individual states). Doesn't that include protection against the hindrance of free enterprise? However dangerous these AEDs may be to young drinkers, companies that make and market them should be allowed to do so.

Second, with specific regard to AEDs, it's a parenting issue. Parents of college-age kids know their offspring will likely experiment with intoxicating substances. At least, I'd like to think those parents do. As a parent of a young adult, you would warn you kids about the dangers of irresponsible drinking as a mandatory part of the "have fun at college, don't forget to write" speech when you drop them off at the dorm on their first day at school, right? Apparently, that wasn't the case with the parents of the CWU students who chose to party it up with "blackout in a can". And if those parents did warn their kids about being stupid, it didn't take hold.

You can warn your kids about the dangers of inexperienced intoxication, and the consequences thereof, but if those kids ignore those warnings, the fault doesn't lie with the company that makes or markets the alcoholic drinks, nor does it require the state to step in to ban such beverages. The fault - ultimately - lies with the kids themselves, for making very poor decisions.

Initiative 1053 - 301 Redux

2010-10-26T17:45:00.000-07:00

Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.

This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[X] Yes
[ ] No

Simple question from a registered voter here - how many times do I need to tell the legislature, “no, you can’t raise taxes by a simple majority, and without my approval”? The last time voters raised a red flag at one party controlling the spending in the state. Initiative 301 set into place:

(1) Approval of any statewide tax increases must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the legislature – allowing lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Olympia to have a say in increasing the tax burden on the citizenry. And…

(2) Any statewide tax increases approved by the legislature must be approved by voters in the next election.

Initiative 301 was put in place specifically to keep the legislature from hiking taxes without the approval of the state’s voters. It was also intended as a stop-gap to keep any majority party in the legislature from increasing taxes to further that party’s political gains. A few years ago (shortly after the 49-49 tie in the legislature was broken by a Democratic majority), Initiative 301 was, effectively, killed in Olympia. Tax and spend Democratic lawmakers claimed the state was in such fiscal dire straits, an “emergency clause” needed to be added to the Initiative, in order to raise taxes and bring more money to state coffers. Gov. Gregoire, who campaigned on a “if re-elected, I will not raise statewide taxes” platform, welcomed the clause, and eagerly signed it into law. No voter recourse was offered.

While I think it is well worth it to approve Initiative 1053 – to send yet another measure to our folks in Olympia that enough is enough – I think a change in the political dynamic is needed as well. It’s been obvious that the Democratic majority has enjoyed a carte blanche, with no requirement to even ask the voters of the state if they want to be taxed more. For me, it’ll take voting out those who support statewide tax increases without my approval.

It's Been Too Long...

2010-10-26T17:19:00.000-07:00

It’s been far too long since my last post. Increased duties at work have prevented me from spending adequate time discussing the issues of the day. My apologies.

The 2010 General Election in Washington State includes a number of initiatives and resolutions, most of which will impact voters in the pocketbook. Here's my take on some of those measures, and how I recommend you vote on them (if you haven’t done so already).

Gregoire Flap Over Campaign Contributions Hits FOX News

2008-08-13T16:41:00.001-07:00

Greatest Session In History...According To Gregoire

2008-08-07T17:12:00.000-07:00

This one goes back to last year, but it's a reminder of the kind of politics conducted by the Democrats in the state legislature. Watch and remember come November!

Gov. Gregoire's Budget Rollercoaster

2008-08-07T17:07:00.000-07:00

Got a question for Chris Gregoire and Dino Rossi?

2008-08-07T16:50:00.000-07:00

Submit your question for Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire in the Washington state gubernatorial race!

Add your question as a video response or text comment below, and we'll pose the top 5 questions to both Rossi and Gregoire. Make sure your question is short, to the point, and focuses on the issues (both candidates must be able to answer the question). We'll give preference to video questions.

***DEADLINE is AUGUST 12th***

This is part of our You Choose '08 Spotlight series:

Between now and the election on November 4th, we're spotlighting the hottest races in the country - and giving YOU the chance to ask the candidates where they stand on the issues.

Obama TV Ad in Berlin Parody

2008-08-07T16:10:00.000-07:00

What might an Obama TV ad in Berlin look like? The following parody is our best guess.

John McCain - Man In the Arena

2008-03-26T16:14:00.001-07:00

HILLARY CLINTON BOSNIA TRIP PROVEN TRUE!!! - Actual Footage!

2008-03-26T16:05:00.001-07:00

This actual documented footage reveals indisputable evidence of the terrifying incident that was experienced during Hillary Clinton's 1996 flight en route to visit Bosnia.

Clinton Lies About Bosnia Trip

2008-03-26T15:58:00.000-07:00

Another Thing I Just Don't Understand

2008-03-25T17:19:00.002-07:00

Another thing I'm a little confused about, regarding politics, is a recent retraction by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, about her apparent attempt to convey a sense of foreign policy experience. She claimed that, during a trip to Bosnia 12 years ago, the then First Lady and her entourage were "ran with our heads down" from the plane to avoid sniper fire at the Tuzla Air Base. As it turns out, she, her daughter Chelsea, comedian Sinbad(!) and others were there as part of a goodwill trip, and video of her reception at Tuzla clearly showed her greeting well-wishers, including an 8-year-old girl. No snipers, no gunfire. Nothing. She was there as a goodwill ambassador from the United States, plain and simple.

In a foreign policy speech last week at George Washington University, Clinton used the description of a dangerous arrival to bolster her argument that she has the foreign policy experience needed to be commander in chief. Clinton has mentioned the sniper fire at least twice earlier in the campaign, including in December in Dubuque, Iowa, before the caucuses in that state. This week, when pressed by reporters with the facts, she recanted her account, saying she "misspoke". Misspoke?!?!?

Listen, dear reader. I don't think it matters at all what political party you support, or which candidate you think is best-qualified to hold the office of President. But a lie, especially during a campaign, is still a lie. And Hillary Clinton lied about her Bosnia trip. And, sniper fire or not, how does her trip to Bosnia, with her daughter and Sinbad, make her better qualified than Barack Obama or John McCain on foreign policy? How, dear reader, how? She shook a few hands, greeted some troops, and went on her way. And, instead of trying to bolster her foreign policy "credentials" by other means, her campaign office has shifted to the economy, apparently in hopes of "burying" the fact that she's apparently been caught telling an untruth to garner votes.

Now, this isn't Clinton-bashing on my part. If either of the other Presidential candidates pulled this sort of shenanigan, I'd be all over that candidate like white on rice, too. My advice is to research what each candidate says, and to recognize a lie as a lie, not a "minor blip". Candidates who lie for your vote, or who try to beef-up their credentials to get your vote don't care about you - they just want you to elect them.

I Just Don't Understand

2008-03-25T17:19:00.001-07:00

I consider myself fairly versed in the ways of politics - more than 10 years covering the Washington State legislature as a radio news reporter has given me an insight into how government works on a level that the "regular" voter may not have. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, and regular discourse with my morning show partner and others have shown me that I can still learn new things about how politics work. On the topic of politics, there are a couple of recent events that have left me shaking my head in bewilderment.

The first is the anti-war protests that have occurred in Washington State over the past couple of months, especially those after the death-toll of American troops in Iraq reached 4,000. A protest was held at the Tacoma Mall.

At this protest, there were the usual Super-Left signs and items on display - Communist propaganda, Che Guevara t-shirts, signs saying American soldiers in Iraq were killing innocent people.

What got me perplexed were signs at the protest that called for the impeachment of President Bush. It was almost like these folks ran out of angry things to say. Granted, I support the war in Iraq, but I can also respect the views of someone who does not share my opinion. But, some of these protesters just didn't seem to grasp the political process!

It's an election year, and Bush has already had his two terms in office, which means he's what's called a "Lame Duck" President. (Protesters, this means you don't have to worry about another four years of Bush in the White House.) Calling for the impeachment of a lame-duck President is not only silly, but a waste of the ink and cardboard you made the sign with. We are mere months away from electing a new Commander in Chief. To impeach a sitting President requires the selection of a special council, then a lengthy court process and following legislative vote to determine if he is no longer capable of serving.

Let's say, for example, that a move is taken today to impeach Bush. By the time the Congress and Senate votes on the matter, a new President would already be in office! And, chances are, that new President would not take the same hard-nosed approach to the War in Iraq that Bush has! If you hate Bush that much, please try to come up with something that makes a little more sense.

Are Conservatives Winning?

2007-12-05T16:16:00.000-08:00

You bet! Watch this video clip!

Dino Rossi

2007-10-29T15:38:00.000-07:00

Dino Rossi, who ran against Christine Gregoire for Governor in the last gubernatorial election, has announced he will challenge her again in 2008. Check out his web site here.

Night of the Living Democrats, Starring Me!

2007-10-16T15:34:00.000-07:00

Had to Post This Picture

2007-10-08T19:01:00.001-07:00

Low-brow humor is typically now my "thing", but I feel compelled to post this picture I received this week. Funny on a couple of levels...

Transportation Woes in the Puget Sound Region

2007-10-08T16:07:00.000-07:00

You, the visitor to this blog, may or may not be a motorist in the Puget Sound region. You may or may not be a voter in the Puget Sound region. If you are, what follows will directly affect you. If not, please take note, as this may happen to you in the future.

Over the past few years, the Democrat-controlled state of Washington (read: Democrat governor and Democrat-controlled legislature) has enacted gas tax increases on an almost yearly basis, claiming the higher and higher taxes are necessary to fix the transportation problems in the state. The tax increases were touted to fix problems across the state, from roadway maintenance to traffic congestion relief through additional lanes on state highways. The list of projects to be covered by the gas tax money is very, very long. The lion's share of the tax money, though, was earmarked to repair/replace roadways in the Seattle metro area. Voters, zombie-like, approved any gas tax increase that was sent to the voters for approval, and re-elected tax-happy lawmakers during the last election cycle.

Where has that money gone? Well, in many cases, a small share of the gas tax revenue was used to start improvements across the state. The money wasn't spent to make the improvements, merely to start the improvement process.

Now, members of the majority party in the state (Democrats) are crying doom and gloom for the state's highway system, because there isn't enough tax revenue coming in to continue the improvements that were started with the tax increases of legislative sessions past. Governor Gregoire (a Democrat) is pushing for increased gas taxes to offset what she calls a forecasted $1.5 billion hole in the state transportation budget.

The underlying problem is two-fold:

Prior legislation passed on the state and federal level demanded higher levels of fuel efficiency in automobiles. Some state legislation went so far as to offer tax incentives for purchasing vehicles that used less gasoline.
High gas prices means less gasoline use by motorists that can't afford the higher gas prices. For many households, higher gas prices means using the family car less often (for example).

People are using less gasoline, and as a result, aren't paying at the pump like they used to.

So, using simple logic and a page from Economics 101 - if you make it increasingly expensive to purchase a product (gas), and discourage consumers from using large amounts of that product, then the tax revenue you will receive from that product will diminish. Increasing the tax on that product, logically, will only serve to encourage people to use it LESS.

Now we're stuck with half-finished roadway improvement projects, ever0increasing taxes on gasoline, and lawmakers shouting from the rooftops that we, the motorists, need to be taxed even more.

From the State GOP Newsletter

2007-06-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

WA Business Execs Concerned About Gregoire Overspending

Read the story, from the Spokane Spokesman Review, here.

New Link - Buck Compton Online

2007-06-19T11:36:00.001-07:00

I've added a new link today to a great bit of audio - Buck Compton Online.

About Buck Compton (from the web site):

Agree with him or not, Buck has a lot to say, and he says it with experience. Every weekday on KLKI, Buck draws upon his experience an a UCLA All-American catcher (he played on the same college team as Jackie Robinson), a U.S. Army soldier (Buck was a member of the 101^st Airborne’s “Easy” Company, popularized in the “Band of Brothers” book and video series), a police officer, a Los Angeles County District Attorney (he was the prosecuting attorney in the Sirhan Sirhan trial), judge, and talk show host.

Buck’s commentaries cover a variety of subjects, from national politics to matters of law. His commentaries can be heard on KLKI Radio in Anacortes, Washington, weekdays at (approximately) 7:40am and 5pm.

Disturbing Images

2007-06-11T20:19:00.000-07:00

Surfing the web today for items to add to my Video Vault, I came across some very disturbing material - two video clips about IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) used by insurgents in Iraq. These devices are used against U.S. troops and other armed forces that are in Iraq, fighting against Al Qaida and other terrorist forces.

I'll save you the embedded video clips, but I want to tell you about what these clips contain - graphic footage of military and civilian vehicles (from armored troop transports to taxis) getting blown to bits by these IEDs.

Some of the footage was from a video taken by a U.S. soldier from inside an armored vehicle while his buddies were patrolling for insurgents. Much of the footage I saw was from clips taken from Al Qaida propaganda films, montaged into a single file. The scened of vehicles exploding were interspersed with scenes of giddy-looking terrorists and still images of the physical damage done to the bodies of the soldiers that those terrorists killed. I'm talking about bodies torn apart here.

We hear every day in the national news about x number of U.S. troops being killed by IEDs, and after a while, one becomes numb to hearing such news. As stalwartly for the war in Iraq as I have been from the outset, I must admit to a degree of such numbness. Seeing such imagery has brought the war back into sharp relief for me.

For folks like me, who have supported U.S. military involvement in Iraq, seeing video clips like these reinforces why we need to have a presence in Iraq, until such time as the Iraqi government can take care of itself. And, frankly, at this point, it can't. Terrorists are blowing up not only troops, but innocent civilians as well! People commuting to work, and random attacks against women and children! Every day, we hear talk shows debate Islam as the "religion of peace", yet the extremists (modern day terrorists) are killing their own in hopes that a few coalition troops get taken out in the process (and in many cases, coalition troops are nowhere near the bombings).

For folks that would adhere to the notion that we should pull out of Iraq, I would recommend watching those videos, just to remind them that the people responsible for these IEDs are not concerned with peace. They do not distinguish between a U.S. soldier and a Iraqi child. These terrorists firmly believe that they can sway the people of the United States to call for a withdrawal from Iraq if they just kill as many people as possible, regardless of if they are troops or children. These terrorists believe in this so firmly because, in the United States, the anti-war folks make the most noise at public gatherings, and the national media has a bias against the President (I'll get more into that sometime later).

And the old wheeze, "it's a war for oil"? Actually, less than 2% of the U.S. oil consumption comes from Iraq. And if George W. Bush truly wanted Iraq's oil, he would have nuked the country and claimed it for himself.

"Bush lied?" If it weren't for the fact that the anti-war protests usually include someone hoisting a sign that reads so, it wouldn't be worth going over again. For the last time, you ignorant liberals, listen up - Bush was given the same intelligence about Iraq that was given to other countries, including the liberal-led Great Britain. Would that make the leader and/or government of every other coalition country a liar to their citizens? If not, why? Because Bush is the President of the United States? Flimsy logic at best.

If we were to pull out of Iraq today, do you think that would make that country better? I say not - the seeds of democracy have already been sown there. The people of Iraq want the same freedoms given to other countries. Those that plant these IEDs are trying - literally - to bomb their homeland back into the Stone Age. That is to say, the only way they can re-establish their dominance is to revert the country to a wasteland.

While I don't agree with Islam, I respect the beliefs of our Islamic neighbors. I invite those Iraqis who wish to enjoy the availability of individual freedoms to get the hell out of Iraq. Afterward, I recommend we reduce the place to glass.

Blocked in China

2007-05-07T15:43:00.000-07:00

The government of China, the world's most populace nation, has chosen to block this blog and its wisdom from public consumption.

Perhaps I'm just a touch too conservative for the Chinese government. My other blog has been blocked, too. It means what you read on the blog is that much more exclusive to you and other lovers of a free nation.

The Speech George W. Bush SHOULD Give

2007-05-07T13:40:00.000-07:00

I can't claim credit for this piece of satire, which has been circulating via e-mail. Funny, with a lot of basis in fact...

The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'. Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means the smiling, vacuous nitwit Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, * off.

A Sad Parallel...

2007-05-01T15:42:00.000-07:00

Today is May Day - a holiday celebrated by Socialist and Communist countries, as well as by illegal immigrants and liberal politicians who, year after year, try to garner more and more Hispanic votes by screaming for immigration amnesty for (primarily) Hispanic people who are in this country illegally.

With that said, here's something that has been making the e-mail rounds...

A Sad Parallel...

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now lets see...our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be a automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: you child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English: Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

A Great Lawmaker Comes To Chat

2007-04-24T16:14:00.000-07:00

I was fortunate today to be able to speak with one of our local lawmakers today, Rep. Barbara Bailey (R - Oak Harbor).

In a "Post-Session Pow-Wow", I interviewed her on such things as the 2007-09 budget, gain-sharing, welfare reform, and her retire/rehire bill, which has been signed by the governor. It was a great opportunity to get her insight into what are elected legislators did these past 15 weeks.

2007 Session Ends... Let the Spending Commence

2007-04-24T16:11:00.000-07:00

The 2007 legislative session adjourned Sunday, with Democrats in the House and Senate approving a budget that outspends any prior budget in state history. The 2007-09 budget spends $33.4 billion, $1.3 billion more than the state takes in through revenues. It also includes:

· $2.2 billion in new policy additions

· No significant cuts to any state government programs

· K-12 public education ranks third in new spending

· Provides raises for union-represented state employees in July, while non-union-represented state employees must wait until September.

The budget includes a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would mandate the state put 1% of yearly revenue into a “rainy day fund” that could only be tapped by a 2/3rds vote of both houses of the legislature or by the governor in an emergency. All well and good, but it will be difficult to fund the “rainy day fund”, as the state spends more than it takes in, again, by $1.3 billion.

Republicans in the legislature, and the governor’s own economic forecaster warned that this budget is unsustainable, but the majority party in the legislature went ahead with this spending plan, and the governor has publicly done nothing but praise the efforts of the legislature in crafting a plan that – assuming there is no revenue downturn - would plunge the state into a deficit in two years.

The Bush Chain Gang Protests Karl Rove

2007-04-17T17:52:00.000-07:00

I simply had to post a link to this blog post from myownside.com. Read it here.

Governor Gregoire Proclaims April Financial Literacy Month

2007-04-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, the governor proclaimed April "Financial Literacy Month." In her proclamation, she encouraged "public and private organizations and the media to join together to illustrate the importance of making smart money management decisions". Read the entire press release here.

This proclamation comes during the same month the tax-and-spend Democratic-controlled legislature is to pass the state's next two-year budget. A budget, BTW, that will exceed any other in state history. That same budget will all-but deplete a $2 billion budget "surplus" that was garnered by over taxation of the people by the actions of prior, Democrat-controlled legislatures.

In the press release on "Financial Literacy Month", Rep. Tomika Santos (D - 37th District) commented that, "providing young adults with basic financial literacy skills will have a dramatic impact on their ability to make sound decisions about their financial futures. This will, in turn, help strengthen the economy and vitality of Washington." Ahem... Perhaps our elected lawmakers should first set and example by spending our tax money responsibly.

How Local Governments Suffer From "Unfunded Mandates"

2007-01-26T15:20:00.000-08:00

For a few years now, as part of my radio news job, I've interviewed members of the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), specifically, members of the WSAC Legislative Steering Committee (LSC). The LSC is made up of County Commissioners and Councilmembers from throughout Washington State. Their job is to establish a "message" to send to the legislature and the governor that is representative of the needs, wants, and concerns of the state's county governments.

Over the past few years, an underlying concern of the WSAC LSC members I've spoken to has been what's called "unfunded mandates". Unfunded mandates begin as pilot programs established by the state. The programs can cover practically anything - law & justice, social issues, ecology, etc. The state legislature (with the governor's signature) establishes a program with a limited "funding mechanism" (read: new taxes and/or state spending) that provides funding for the program for a couple of years. After that state funding dries up, counties (and cities) are required to maintain the program's level of service, but at their own expense (the state is off-the-hook to provide funding for the program). If a county (or city) is unable to provide that program's level of service, they become unqualified for other funding from the state (for other programs). So these municipalities let loose a collective groan when these new programs are created, because they know they'll get stuck with the bill before long. Hence, unfunded mandates. Meanwhile, the state takes the money they don't have to pay for those programs with to provide "seed money" for new programs the municipalities will get stuck with later. As you can see, this is a vicious cycle.

With the years-proven spending habits of the Democrat-controlled legislature (and governor's mansion), citizens of the state voted, via initiatives, to curtail ever-increasing taxes on the state level. This has left counties (and cities) to panic over how to craft their own budgets to maintain the level of service mandated by the state for those programs they're now stuck with, because the state funding they were getting for other programs are now cut shorter. Counties (and cities) end up with budget deficits, or having to either increase taxes or cut funding to programs that aren't mandated by the state.

The underlying problem does not lie with the voter who is fed up with increasing state taxes, though. The problem lies with the state legislature, and it's approach to fiscal policy. There is no mechanism in place to gauge the effectiveness of a state mandated program, so if a program is not producing adequate results, it's still in place, and the municipalities are still stuck with funding them. Nothing in place to let the counties (and cities) of the state off the hook when the legislature's "good intentions" don't pan out.

A modicum of fault must lie with the voters of the state, however, and it's merely a matter of civics education. Voters, by and large, aren't aware of how the state sticks it to the municipalities - voters merely see increased statewide taxes and react. To the average voter, the pilot programs the state start sound great, because those programs are geared toward the "everyman". At no point, however, does the state tell the voting populace that at some point, funding for said programs will be mandated to the counties (and cities), and as such, they will have to pay more in local taxes.

To you, the Washington State voter, I ask that you do three things the next time an election comes about:

New state-created programs are permanent, because there is no mechanism to quash them if they do not produce results, and you (through increased local taxes) will continue to pay for those programs.
Keep in mind the increase in local taxes, and remember why they are increasing - you can thank those in Olympia for passing the buck to your local politicians, who are doing their level-best to try to deal with an increasing fiscal problem.
Our elected legislators should treat fiscal policy in the same manner they would at home, or for their business.

If you are concerned about the fiscal responsibility of unfunded mandates in your county, contact your legislators and ask them what they will do to change the state's fiscal policy, and if you aren't satisfied with their answer, elect someone who'll do a better job at managing the state's revenue.

Republicans welcome bipartisan tax-limit bill

2007-01-26T15:12:00.000-08:00

Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, says he will support a new copy of the legislation he introduced Jan. 11 to reinstate Washington’s voter-approved limit on property tax increases.

Read the complete release here.

I cannot stress how much I feel the state legislature has overtaxed the people of Washington State in the name of "better programs" and "fiscal responsibility". A quote from the press release...

Property tax increases were limited to 6 percent annually without voter approval until Initiative 747 passed in 2001, which lowered the limit to 1 percent without voter consent. The tax limit saved approximately $1 billion before the King County court ruling lifted the lid back to 6 percent.

Funeral protest bill gains Senate approval

2007-01-26T15:11:00.001-08:00

Grieving families in Washington may soon be assured privacy to mourn, and their fallen loved ones may finally be able to rest in peace, following Senate passage today of House Bill 1168. The Washington Rest in Peace Act, which would prohibit protests within 500 feet of funerals, gained approval in the Senate, 42-1, is on its way to the governor for her signature into law.

Read the complete release here.

House approves Rep. Roach's funeral protest bill

2007-01-24T18:21:00.000-08:00

A bill prime-sponsored by Rep. Dan Roach (R - Bonney Lake) that would require protesters at funerals to remain at a distance of 500 feet or be charged with a misdemeanor under the state's disorderly conduct law was approved January 22nd in the House of Representatives, 89-5.

Read the complete press release here.

Strow Introduces Bill Addressing Internet Gambling Loophole

2007-01-24T18:12:00.000-08:00

10th District Representative Chris Strow (R - Whidbey Island) has introduced a bill that would put an end to legislation passed last year that makes gambling on-line at home a class C felony.

“While I do see the need for protecting our citizens from online gaming that may be scamming innocent victims, I do think that there is also a level of accountability, as an adult, to do as he or she chooses in his or her own home,” said Strow. “Most certainly choosing to gamble, or play a game of skill such as poker, should not have been made a crime equivalent to possessing child pornography or threatening the Governor.”

The complete press release on the bill can be viewed here.

Campaign politics - a skeptical prediction

2007-01-23T17:40:00.000-08:00

Part of campaign politics that politicians won't admit to is trying to convince voters that a candidate something they are not. In recent Washington State politics, then-Attorney General Christine Gregoire campaigned for governor on a "social reform with no new statewide taxes" platform. Once elected, she heartily approved a measure that allowed her Democratic colleagues in the legislature to pass increased statewide taxes under an "emergency clause" that killed a voter approved initiative limiting such taxes. "But SHE didn't increase taxes", he says sarcastically... "Oh no, it was the legislature!"

Gov. Gregoire has proposed a state budget that increases state spending once again, and has proposed socking a fraction of 1 percent of state revenue into a "Rainy Day Fund" (read my last post for more about that). Historically, a governor's budget has been a "guideline" as to what the following legislative session should focus on, and as to roughly how much can be spent in the budget.

As in the past two years, the Governor has advised her Democratic colleagues in the legislature not to go "overboard" with spending, while giving them a knowing wink that it's business as usual in the capitol.

Fast forward to today - with almost 2 weeks into the 2007 legislative session, nearly 1,300 bills have been introduced, most of which have fiscal notes attached to them. That is, over 1,000 bills are being considered that, if passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, would cost the taxpayers of the state more money. With a projected budget surplus of over a billion dollars, lawmakers are introducing everything they can think of against the proverbial side of the barn to see what sticks.

The 2007-2009 budget will be the last state budget before next gubernatorial election (in 2008). My prediciton is as follows (make sure to remember this for next year):

The Democrat-controlled legislature will pass a state budget that increases taxes and spending for more programs than the year before (they did that last year and the year before that). Gov. Gregoire will review the budget, and insist on less spending for a handful of programs, sending the budget back to the legislature for "tweaking". Once "tweaked", the budget will be signed by the governor. The final budget, however, will still break the bank.

Next year, Gregoire will campaign for re-election, saying that by telling the legislature to "cut back on spending", she has a "proven track record of fiscal reponsibility", and therefore, should be re-elected.

I may be wrong about this, but my predictions about the state budget were spot-on correct last year and the year before that. Just remember what I've predicted, and we'll kibitz about it once the session is over and Gregoire runs for re-election.

Rainy Day Fund

2007-01-23T16:54:00.000-08:00

In Olympia, my state's capitol, legislators on both sides of the aisle agree a "rainy day fund" is necessary. Such a fund would dedicate a percentage of Washington State's incoming revenue to a fund to tap in the event of a future fiscal downturn (i.e., fiscal emergency).

In her proposed budget, Governor Gregoire called for one percent of state revenue to be dedicated to the fund. In reaction House Republicans have proposed over 3 percent, with a caveat that a super majority vote in the legislature should be needed to tap the fund or to raise statewide taxes. Democrats in both bodies of the legislature (the D's are the majority party), have yet to announce what percentage they would like to see dedicated to the fund, but have indicated they are poo-pooing the Republican proposal (both the percentage and the caveat).

During an interview I conducted today with a Republican Representative, something occurred to me:

The majority party has a years-proven approach to fiscal matters that focuses on taxation and overall increased spending as a means to "fix all the state's problems". Assuming the Democrats retain control of the legislature in the next few years (with the exception of one two-year period, they've controlled it for decades), what's to prevent them from merely taxing the populace more to make up for a fiscal problem, while socking a small percentage of money into the fund, then claiming to be "fiscally responsible" come re-election campaign time?

I posed this question to my local Republican lawmaker, and he said, "absolutely nothing, unless a super majority is required to pass statewide taxes".

We're only 13 days into the 2007 session, so there's almost 3 months left before the legislature puts forth its budget(s), including just how much to save each year for a rainy day. I do hope my skepticism toward the majority party's spending habits this session fails to turn into budget fact. However, the fiscal attitude of the Democrats in the state legislature gives my skepticism a measure of weight. We'll see what happens...

The 2007 Legislative Session is Now Underway

2007-01-08T16:04:00.000-08:00

The 2007 Washington State Legislative Session began today. There are a number of elements to consider up front:

The state is expected to reap a $1.9 billion budget surplus (read: the citizenry was overtaxed $1.9 billion and the state’s not going to give it back).

After the 2006 elections, Democrats control the legislature by a 3-2 margin in both houses.

Democrat Governor Gregoire has already put forth her budget proposal, which would raise state spending by 4 billion dollars, and by GOP accounts, will put the state in hock in about 3 years (not including increased state spending in the next couple of years).

Now I’m saying this year will spell doom and gloom for the state, fiscally. Based on recent history, I am (however) going to forecast some tough times for the state in the next few years, with the blame to land squarely on the shoulders of the majority party.

The majority party (with the help Gov. Gregoire) was the tip of the spear two years ago to kill voter approved I-601, which required a supermajority of the legislature to limit state spending without a vote of the people. Two years ago, statewide spending increased by a record amount. Last year was a non-budget year (the purpose of the legislative session that year was to “tweak” the existing budget for emergency programs. With the I-601 spending cap a non-issue, the majority party couldn’t wait to get their hands on a projected budget surplus, and raised state spending yet again. The vast majority of the new spending over the past couple of years has been in the form of “seed” money for new programs and regulations – that is, the state starts new programs with 3 years of “state” funding, then continues those programs, with the requirement of counties and cities to continue to provide funding. The programs, thereby, are off the state books, enabling the state to spend money on other programs, while leaving others to pay for the programs already created. In short – start a new program on good intentions, then leave the fiscal responsibility to someone else. That’s what’s referred to as “unfunded mandates”.

Many voters in Washington State chose to elect or re-elect Democrats to the legislature in 2006, thus furthering the spending spree attitude enjoyed by the majority party in 2005 and 2006. I’m of the opinion that the voting public was not as aware of the “unfunded mandate” approach to government the legislature has adopted of late. I’m also of the opinion that the voting public is further unaware of how the fiscal responsibility of those mandates remain with the taxpayers after the “seed” money is gone (via city and county taxes enacted to pay for the programs the state demand they continue).

So here we are, once again, at the start of a legislative session in which the state revenue forecast is similar to that of the past two years. My forecast for the 2007 session is that the Democrats in the legislature will continue their tax and spend ways, increasing state spending on new programs in the name of “good intentions”. My forecast is also that the spin that will be put upon the new programs will not include long-term funding responsibility, but will focus on the short-term benefits, and that the voters of the state will buy such spin… hook, line, and financial sinker.

Rep. Barbara Bailey Presented with NFIB's Guardian of Business Award

2006-12-14T15:38:00.000-08:00

State Rep. Barbara Bailey (R - Oak Harbor) today was presented with the Guardian of Business Award by the Washington Chapter of the National Association of Business. The award is given to legislators who, through their voting record, have demonstrated their support of small business.Rep. Bailey was presented the award by Carolyn Logue, Director of the NFIB's Washington Chapter. During Rep. Bailey's first year in office, she was selected by the NFIB as their Legislator of the Year.

The award presentation was made at the radio station I work at, and I was able to take this snapshot...

Left to right: NFIB's Carolyn Logue and Rep. Bailey

Following the award presentation, I sat down with Rep. Bailey to discuss the upcoming legislative session - our conversation centered on a need for fiscal responsibility in light of another budget "surplus" for the state. The interview, intended to go about 5 minutes, became a 21-minute discussion.

Cato Institute Gives Gregoire an "F"

2006-12-12T17:55:00.000-08:00

The Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C., recently issued its biennial fiscal policy report card on the nation's governors. The report card's grading is based on 23 objective measures of fiscal performance. Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades.

Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire was one of just nine governors to receive an "F". Following is an excerpt from the report on Gregoire's leadership:

"Gregoire, one of the worst new governors in the nation, was elected in 2004 in one of the closest and most contentious elections in Washington history - a controversial Palm Beach-style recount made her winner of the gubernatorial race by only 129 votes.

Famous for being the lead negotiator in the $206 billion shakedown of cigarette companies known as the 1998 multistate tobacco settlement, Gregoire quickly took aim at state taxpayers upon entering office.

She's raised multiple taxes: the cigarette tax (by 42 percent), the gas tax (by 34 percent), and the state's liquor tax (by $1.33 a gallon). And she's resurrected the estate tax, too. Gregoire even helped the legislature overturn the law that required a supermajority to raise taxes in the future. All of this to fuel her spending binge, which expanded the general fund budget by more than 8 percent in fiscal 2006 alone. Gregoire was quick to propose new ways to spend the $1.6 billion budget surplus this year.

With a legislature controlled by her own party, perhaps the only check on Gregoire's big-government ambitions in years to come will be the usually feisty tax activists in the state."

First, I have to interject that the Cato Institute was cited extensively by the national media during the 2004 presidential election, when it benefited the Democratic Party. This group is not partisan by any stretch. With that said, here's my take on Gregoire's "F" grade:

This report merely mirrors what I've been saying since she got elected. She campaigned on a "now new statewide taxes" platform, mirroring the campaign promises of her Republican opponent, Dino Rossi. Thing was, though, that as soon as she moved into the Governor's Mansion, she and the Democrats (the majority party) in the legislature looked for loopholes in state tax policy in order to do exactly what she pledged she wouldn't do. And once the budget "surplus" was "discovered", she encouraged the Democrat-controlled legislature to push through a bill killing any bipartisan decision over increased taxes. At the end of her first year as governor, state spending and taxes increased. During her second year as governor, she publicly warned her Democrat colleagues in the legislature not to "go overboard" with new spending. Yet, by the end of the legislative session, taxes reached an all-time high for the state, and spending increased again.

For those of you who may have thought she would keep her campaign word, all I have to say is this: to say "I told you so just isn't enough".

2007 Session

2006-12-07T17:29:00.000-08:00

The 2007 Legislative Session will start shortly. Expect lots of postings from me at that time.

Lowering the WASL bar... again...

2006-11-28T16:27:00.000-08:00

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire and Dr. Terry Bergeson, the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, are proposing lowering the bar for students testing for the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), the standardized test that is now required for high school graduation. My frustration over this is shooting out an a few directions, and I hope that anyone else in this state who gives a damn about responsible education is frustrated, too. Here’s how the story reads on the newswire:

Gregoire says she will ask the Legislature to postpone the math portion of the WASL test as a high school graduation requirement. Gregoire says students should not have to pass the math section of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning until at least 2011. Until then students could graduate by taking alternative course work. Gregoire made the proposal at a news conference today in Olympia with state School Superintendent Terry Bergeson. The class of 2008 in Washington is the first that faces the WASL tests in reading, writing and math as a graduating requirement. About half of that class -- tenth graders last year -- failed to pass the math section of the WASL.

The WASL (which, BTW, no college or university looks at when considering a student for application) was established years ago as a measuring stick for how well the state’s public school teachers (and the districts they teach in) were doing their job. The WASL is divided into three sections, reading, writing, and math. During Governor Gary Locke’s administration, the processes were put in place to make passage of the WASL a requirement for high school graduation. Shortly after the start of the Gregoire administration, bills were passed to: give students multiple attempts to pass the WASL; the establishment of tutoring (at taxpayer expense) to handhold the students who couldn’t pass the WASL the first or second time they took the test; and, lowering the WASL requirements for the science part of the test. The Democrat-controlled legislature boasted new measures that would assess the success or failure of the WASL years after said bills became law. The message sent to voters was “we’ve made some changes, and we won’t screw with it until this ‘study’ of our changes had been cycled through the public school system”.

The lowering of the science requirements came at the same time the Democratic-controlled legislature strong-armed bills to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to establish Washington State as a mecca for high-tech industry and computer-related small businesses. So far, the incentives for high-tech businesses have been to companies in

China

and

Korea

(during the governor’s 2 trade missions) – countries that have higher test standards than Washington State.

And now, Gregoire and Bergeson want to make the WASL even easier to pass.

Now we have a WASL that’s no longer about teacher/district accountability, but rather some vague sort student knowledge test…? To me, the proposal to ease the math requirements smack of yet another attempt to “pad the books” by making WASL passage rates higher and higher. Again, colleges and universities don’t look at the WASL when considering students for their schools, so higher passage rates mean nothing in that regard.

Where higher WASL passage rates matter is in how the Democrats in the state capitol benefit come election-time, and how the Washington Education Association (WEA – the state’s largest union) benefits every time they lobby lawmakers and voters for more money, under the guise that it will go directly toward teacher salaries and smaller class size. Over the past couple of years, “helping” children pass the WASL has become a rallying cry by tax-and-spenders as a means to make children smarter by throwing money at school districts.

NOTE: Most of the increasing amount of tax funding for “education” has gone to increasing the bureaucracy and lobbying power of the WEA, NOT toward smaller class sizes or higher teacher pay.

I’ve spoken out about this before, and it seems like I’ll be speaking out about this for years to come… Every year, we (the voters) get one heavily financed campaign message: higher taxes for education. “Do it for the CHILDREN”, they say. “It’s for your child’s future!” Well, as it has been proven year after year, that’s not the case. Not by a long shot. Every year, we throw more and more money at “education”, and every year, test scores decline. Using a modicum of logic would lead anyone to conclude that spending more and more money at the schools isn’t making children smarter. And if the state continues to lower the requirements for the WASL, while continuing to make it a graduation requirement, and demands for more funding keep coming in, doesn’t it logically follow that the funding mechanisms in place for education DON’T WORK, and haven’t worked for years???

Education reform to help children truly succeed? Lets start with cutting the WEA off at the knees and giving all that WASL accountability money to the teachers, then hold the teachers directly accountable.

Guthrie Gives His Own Campaign a Loan

2006-10-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

Bruce Guthrie, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, announced this week that he is loaning his campaign $1.2 million. His campaign loan triggers the FEC's so-called Millionaire's Amendment for both incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell, and Republican candidate Mike McGavick. If Guthrie is sucessful in drawing votes away from either Cantwell or McGavick, the senatorial race will be even closer than it is now.

Queen Gregoire's campaign dinner fiasco

2006-09-27T16:09:00.000-07:00

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, the Queen of King County, was taken to task this week for has plans to host a dinner at the Governor's mansion in support of democratic Congressional candidate Darcy Burner. Faced with a looking ethics complaint for using a taxpayer-supported, official state building for political campaigning, she moved the locale of the campaign event to a private location, then complained to anyone who would listen that she was merely trying to host a dinner for a friend.

Yeah, right.

There are laws on the state's books that prohibit such campaigning, and as the former state Attorney General, she knows it. The purpose of the dinner she had planned was for campaign fundraising for Burner, who is challenging Republican incumbent Dave Reichert in November. In a press conference this week, Gregoire admitted that the Governor's mansion is "the people's house" (read: it belongs to the people, not the governor in office at the time), but she remained defiant of the distinction between having guests over and the ethical problem of selling dinners at the people's house for political fundraisers.

Does anyone really believe that it was just going to be a little dinner, prepared by Gregoire's husband, Mike, in the governor's private quarters? C'mon! It's use of "the people's house" for the purpose of raising campaign funds for a fellow Democrat. Given that half of the voters in the state voted for Gregoire's Republican opponent in the election that sent her to the Governor's Mansion, it's fair to assume that many, many voters in this state would be upset that she was using the Mansion to fundraise for someone whose political party they oppose.

During her weekly press conference, Gregoire said, "again, I ought to be able to have somebody in my own private living quarters in the mansion ... And if you're not going to let a governor do that, in the mansion, I don't think you're going to get very many governors who want to live there."

Have all the private dinners in the Mansion you want, Queen Gregoire, but if they are for campaign fundraising, please review the ethics laws before you do so.

Welcome!

2006-09-27T16:05:00.000-07:00

The plan is to post entries on Washington State politics, especially while the legislature is in session.