Friday, April 02, 2010

The "intellectual dishonesty" and cowardice of a Herrera supporter: Keath Huff fails to address the issues.

Yesterday, Keath Huff posted this gobbledygook in defense of Ridgefield Barbie. Why he lied about the bill and who did what is any one's guess, but he did. and I will use this space to point out each and every falsehood Huff relies on in his slavish efforts to defend the indefensible:

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

Below is the memo from Casey Bowman, the campaign manager for Jaime Herrera, explaining the “Pro Union Vote” Herrera was supposed to have taken.

I certainly understand her vote, trying to get fair reimbursement for small business owners who are getting short changed by the State of Washington. It is not unlike the poor reimbursement rates that doctors receive from Medicare and other “state run” health insurance. In the end the average consumer pays more to cover the real cost of care.

So, here we have a situation with a bill that does this:

"Collective bargaining" by it's very nature means higher costs. That means that both the taxpayer, who will have to pay the higher subsidies the bill mentions and the customers who are not subsidized will have to do what?




Any time SEIU gets involved in a bill, it's never in the taxpayer's best interests. It's only in THEIR best interests, no matter how much it costs US.

And Herrera didn't know this when she co-sponsored and voted for this monstrosity? And Huff doesn't know it now?

Of course he does. But at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter to a member of the Herrera Herd, who's slavish devotion to this empty suit is simply unfathomable.

More than a few Conservatives voted for this bill in the House and Senate, they tried to right a wrong, which is more than some have

This is a flat out lie. First of all, there wasn't a vote on this bill in the Senate. There was a vote on the Senate version, a bill that, among others, was amended to kill by making it a study. THAT is the bill voted on in the Senate. (Of course, we've already been through Herrera's efforts to throw Benton under the bus for voting "for this bill," which he had not done.

In the House, the vote on this bill was 62 to 35

"More than a few conservative in the House?" Let's see.

Conservatives like Jim Moeller voted for it. Another conservative, Mary Lou Dickerson voted for it. Is this part of the "few" Huff was talking about? No?

Except, those two; of the many democrats who voted for this bill, are hardly "conservative." They are, in fact, as far to the left as the political spectrum allows in the United States today.

In fact, I could only find TWO Republicans who voted for this garbage heap in the House: Herrera and Skip Priest. Herrera's seat mate, Ed Orcutt?

Why, he was a "no."

So.... where's this "more than a few" thing Huff was babbling about?

This was NOT a great bill, but that is often the case we you are trying to get something done while a bunch of liberals have the majority. We can fix that by electing more Conservatives like Jaime Herrera!

With "conservatives" like Herrera, why not just vote leftist democrat and be done with it?

Calling this "not a great bill" is like calling the Titanic a "small boating accident."

As always Jaime is a candidate with a voting record, you can see what she has done and will do for yourself. Her voting record can be found here:

Huff babbles this one a great deal. The only trouble with this garbage is that what records is what happened when the buttons are pushed. Unfortunately for those of us in the 18th, OUR "representative" was frequently gone, out fundraising for her congressional run and ditching us, her constituents.

So, yeah. There's a voting record. And it certainly keeps track of the votes from the button in question. Unfortunately, it's close to worthless here because Ridgefield Barbie has admitted that she's had others vote in her place while she is gone. Here's the whiny, sniveling little "Memo" in question:

From: Casey Bowman, Campaign Manager, Jaime Herrera for Congress

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

It won’t shock you to learn that there’s a false accusation being made in the race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional Seat, but you might be surprised at just how off base the claim is that Rep. Jaime Herrera is a big union supporter.

It might shock you to know that even Herrera refered to herself during the appointment process as a "friend to organized labor."

Just exactly what was that supposed to mean?

I KNOW! I KNOW! It means she'll co-sponsor and vote for SEIU-backed legislation!

In 2008 Jaime was endorsed by every major business group in Washington state, including the Association of Washington Business, NFIB, Independent Business Association of Washington, Washington Restaurant Association and others. She has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. She is a strong opponent of “card check” because she has seen the excesses of union leaders and is fully aware of the threats and intimidation that card check would inflict on workers.

HHHmmmmm..... I missed the part about any legislation in this state concerning card check, or any vote on that subject. Why mention it here, except to deflect from the issue at hand?

And had they known of Ridgefield Barbie's SEIU affiliation, as they'll know now, would they be so quick to endorse? I think not.

To prove the false claim that Jaime is a big union supporter, her detractors point to legislation, HB 1329, she supported involving child care centers. Their claim is that the legislation forced “compulsory” unionization of child care workers. That simply is not true.

So, was Herrera lying THEN when she called herself a "friend to organized labor?" Or is she lying NOW?

I dunno. That's a toughie, given her bizarre co sponsorship and support of SEIU legislation.

What to think.... what to think....

Here are the facts:
Let me help you with that. "Here are the 'facts'" SHOULD read: "Here are SOME of the 'facts.' We left out the ones we don't like."


Odd, isn't it?

Neither Huff NOR Bowman included THAT fact.

I wonder why?

· Washington state reimburses child care centers for care of kids under the state’s sponsorship. Many of these business owners believe that they should receive a better reimbursement rate from the state for caring for the most vulnerable children.

Many others exercise their right to refuse children who cannot pay whatever they charge. It's called "choice."

What "choice" did Herrera give us? You know, the ones paying the bills?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that collective bargaining WILL make child care MORE EXPENSIVE.

So, if Herrera's efforts had been successful (They weren't, thankfully) the costs of daycare, along with the subsidies for day care that WE pay, would have gone up with the wages.

That means taxpayers would have to pay more for subsidizing day care, and those using NON-subsidized day care would be out of pocket more.

If those running day care centers don't like the subsidized rate, they can always refuse the kids in question.... right?

· The bill allowed child care center owners and workers to choose to have SEIU represent the business in negotiating better reimbursement rates from the state.

Another flat out lie, since day care owners ALREADY HAD THAT ABILITY BY BECOMING UNION SHOPS.

Here's the language from the bill summary:

“Solely for purposes of collective bargaining, child care center directors and workers are ‘public employees’. The directors and workers are employees who work on-site at licensed centers that have at least ONE SLOT filled by a child for whom they receive child care subsidies. as well as owners who work on-site at these centers.”

Do you see anything about "choice" in there? I don't.

. The bill said nothing about unionizing the workforce. Child care enter workers wouldn’t pay union dues or fees and wouldn’t be forced to join a union, at any time. The bill was at the request of the small business owners of day care centers.
Which explained perfectly why so many of those day care centers were so opposed to this, right?

Those are the facts about this legislation. Again, Jaime has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. That is why she is such a fervent opponent of card check. If the facts don’t sound anything like the claims of those attacking Jaime and her voting record, then you should ask them why they are spreading these false claims.

OK... I'll bite. Why ARE you spreading these "false claims?"

Under the bill in question day care centers with ONE CHILD getting state subsidies HAD to be represented by the SEIU.

Look. I'm always willing to be corrected... so feel free.

Just provide me with the language allowing day care centers with subsidized kids in them to opt out of this bill, and we can take the mandatory unionization off the table.

For a much more technical and complete recitation of all the lies this "memo" contains, I invite the reader to head on over to Lew Waters' blog. He nails it.

In closing, what neither the "memo" OR Huff do is mention that Herrera COSPONSORED THE BILL. An oversight?

Hardly. Nor do they mention any of the carefully researched aspects covered by Lew on his blog.

There's a reason these people don't want you to know the WHOLE truth.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

1 comment:

Lew Waters said...

I am left wondering about the GOP's of Cowlitz and Pacific County that rushed to endorse Jaime over all other candidates, months before we have reached the cut-off date for candidate filings.

What I wrote about took maybe a half and hour to collect and skim.

Jaime may have supported and voted for some good bills, but she can't hide that she has taken some terrible positions that will just add to the states economic troubles.

When caught on them she reverts to a childish stance of "well, so and so voted for it too."

There was even a person posting on FreeRepublic who saw her KOIN 6 early appearance the other day and stated Jaime reminded them of another Maria Cantwell.

I'm left with the impression she can't wait to get back to the D.C. party circuit, this time earning 6 figures of our tax dollars and travelling the world on our dime.