Is it hypocrisy, or just ignorance? In our view Feb. 23: Washed Out, Wasted

.
I'm sure that whoever wrote today's editorial completely missed the dripping irony of the concerns expressed within.

The waste of around a half million dollars rightfully draws the ire of this newspaper. That much, at least, is understandable. But our democrat State Auditor, Brian Sonntag, has, identified the waste, the misspending and the outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars.... BILLIONS of dollars... and it has been quite some time since I've read a peep out of this paper over that.

The irony for me is that this newspaper advocates the most colossal waste of money in the history of the United States, yet they complain about the relatively and astronomically more minor loss of a few hundred thousand.

Thus, the question: is the editorial staff of this paper so ignorant that they are unaware of the waste of this project? Exclusive of the idea that the people of Clark County do not want this project, and that those ramming it down our throats would dive into a boiling pool of hydrochloric acid before they would actually allow us to have a voice in this matter; could it be that this newspaper simply is unaware that this project is one of waste and pay offs?

Or is it that this newspaper simply doesn't care? For at least the past 15 years or so, this paper has been salivating at the thought of light rail. When the question was put to the people several years ago, this newspaper acted like it was a direct part of the campaign, then as now, avoiding any pretext of fairness in their presentation of facts, perspective and opposition.

One need go no further then the recent history of this newspaper when it came to the issue of increasing our gas tax. Again, this newspaper rabidly supported jacking our taxes up, and what has been the result? Well, in a nutshell, we're getting 80 cents on the dollar. Besides the fact that the statewide project list was cut by almost a third immediately after the vote, this county, which has desperate transportation needs, finds itself subsidizing other projects around the state.

This is the curse of the liberal position. In explaining what I believe to be the main difference between liberals and conservatives on fiscal matters, I've frequently stated that a liberal looks at a situation, sees a problem, and says "we have to fix that," while a conservative looks at a situation, sees a problem, and says "how do we pay for it?"

That is not to say that in this instance, I don't commend this particular editorial, because I do. It points out that Republican State Senator Joe Zarelli (R-18) "embraced a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail."

I'm not sure, exactly, why this newspaper should express this particular concern over this project, since Sen. Zarelli merely mirrored the exact same type of process followed by our president.

Strange, isn't it? This paper holds Zarelli accountable for "...embrace(ing) a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail."

Yet the President of the United States has done PRECISELY the same thing with hundreds of billions of dollars, and this paper didn't say a word. We're buried under an entire mountain range of debt, and we've arrived here for the precise same reasons, exactly the same way.

It also, finally, gets around to explaining that, like our entire Congress, democrat State Representative Deb Wallace, who is personally responsible for wasting 10's of millions on paying for planning an unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement; voted for something she truly had no idea about.

Wallace, when confronted with this waste of money whined: ""In my mind, we were advocating for funding that would provide the fix. You're talking significant money, and why would you do something that's just a temporary fix?" Gee, Representative Wallace... that's a toughie. So, why did you do that? Why did you apparently vote for, and shill for, such a huge waste of money?

No... I can't fault the editorial for that. In fact, giving it this weeks' "Broken Clock Award," wherein much like a broken clock, the Columbian is right in spite of itself, I have to admit they're directly on target.

I do, however, question the focus on a few flowers when we're confronted with an entire National Forest of issues, waste and spending.

Cross posted on Columbian Commentaries.



In our view Feb. 23: Washed Out, Wasted
Advocacy groups, politicians, scientists must learn from failed East Fork project

Monday, February 23 6:00 a.m.

More than half a million taxpayer dollars washed down the East Fork of the Lewis River recently, wasted as a result of poor planning, and accelerated by the cruel hand of Mother Nature.

As Erik Robinson reported in Thursday's Columbian, last summer's project was designed to prevent further erosion of a cliff bank. For years, huge fir trees and valuable rural property have been dumped into the fickle stream. But three high-water events between November and January swept away the project and the hopes of its designers. Torrents took downstream $575,000 in public money that was secured largely through the efforts of state Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, and state Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver. Also lost to the rushing water was about $20,000 that property owners had committed to the project.

Even in the best of economic times, this kind of waste is unacceptable, and these are the worst of economic times. And even with the best of intentions — which motivated this project's advocates — painful lessons of such waste must be learned and heeded. There is much work to be done in saving the relatively pristine East Fork, the largest undammed river in Clark County. And when projects such as this one fail, the larger river-rescue effort suffers. When a system of large boulders and six rock-and-log cross veins cannot last more than a few months, a serious review and a fierce resolve must follow.

The chief advocate for the project was Fish First, heretofore an effective fish-recovery advocacy group that has performed yeoman's duty in numerous other endeavors. But this time, Fish First members should acknowledge that three scientists had criticized the group's broader strategy of refashioning seven miles of the lower river. The scientists' report noted: "All reviewers were uneasy over a plan that restricted the East Fork to a single thread channel that could reduce channel and habitat complexity."

Zarelli and Wallace are understandably frustrated by the project's failure. Zarelli, a ferocious fiscal watchdog, also said: "It would be a tragedy to sit and do nothing and watch that bank erode and erode and erode." The state senator also hinted that, although "I'm not a lawyer," there could have been legal ramifications if no action had been taken. Still, Zarelli embraced a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail.

More: