Thursday, August 11, 2016

Interesting Facebook post from a Rivers supporter.

Debbie Peterson shared a post from Liz Pike that laid out many of the impacts of the jacked up gas tax.

Peterson asked if this was the tax increase Rivers supported.  I pointed out that it was.

That resulted in this:

Cyndi Segrin Since you are blaming Ann Rivers again for this and campaigning against her for this, then I take it that it passed by only 1 vote and there for it is all her fault?
LikeReply16 mins
Debbie Peterson No, but she made promises. One of the was not to raise taxes. And....The WaDOT wastes so much money. Millions of dollars - and they don't care. I wish she would have gone after WaDot to uncover waste instead of rewarding them with additional income.
LikeReply14 mins
Kj Hinton Nope: here's what you can "take."

Do you think... for one second... that had she ran for the House in 2010 against the other 5 Republicans claiming that she SUPPORTED these massive increases, that she ever would have survived the primary?

Does it matter to you that she gave her WORD that she would oppose both gas tax and tab fee increases, claiming that we had spoken and she had "listened?"

Do you care that her district voted 70%+ AGAINST this tax increase, or that even her own house voted against it in the advisory vote?

Does it matter to you that she COULD have kept her word and it would have passed anyway?

Does it matter to you that she yoked every man, woman and child in this county in excess of $1500 in the form of a tax bill that when she ran, she had pledged to oppose?

Does it matter to you that she then lied about WHY she did it, claiming that had she voted "no," instead of the people of this county only owing $700 million, we would have owed $7 BILLION?

Tell me, Cyndi: when are we supposed to believe her?

How do we separate her lies from the truth?

Does it matter to you that she lied?

It was, she said, a "business decision." This county stands to lose $500 MILLION, in part, because of her decision. ANd if the ONLY reason she's up there is "business decisions" instead of implementing the will of the people she allegedly "represents," then she can be replaced by accountants who know basic math and who won't screw their constituents sideways in the process... like Rivers did.

She made no effort to hang a referendum clause on this to allow us to vote on it. And the reason for that is clear: she has zero interest in listening to the voters when we might... just might... vote against her agenda.

Since you asked.

LikeReply4 minsEdited
Kj Hinton Well, Cyndi... don't keep us in suspense...
LikeReply6 mins

Needless to say, when presented with all of the facts, there was no response.

There rarely is.

No comments: