The idiocy of local legislators and government on the out of state sales tax issue.

.
Deb Wallace represents the poor clowns of the 17th District, which fortunately (probably for both of us) doesn't include where I live, although I lived and worked for the district for 6 years.

Wallace is single-handidly responsible for wasting over $100,000,000 on pre-ordained outcomes for the CRC... and she, too, has been a major cheerleader for ramming that $4 to $8 billion or more boondoggle down our throats that none of us want and that is not needed.

The irony of all of this?

Her moronic, high-profile "hurray for me" effort in getting rid of the out of state tax exemption wouldn't be necessary if that massive waste of money was ever built.

Oregonians won't be caught dead paying for the dubious privilege of coming over here. The numbers of out-of-state sales would drop like a Hernandez curve right over the plate.

But many of our more moronic types, like Wallace, want us to buy off on the moronic idea that ending the exemption will magically raise hundreds of millions of dollars for our coffers.

That's a crock, of course. Along with local moron Pat Campbell, Vancouver city councilman and public employee martyr/bridge cheerleader extraordinaire, they stupidly think that ending this exemption will solve anything or accomplish anything, except to increase sales in Oregon boarder counties is as ludicrous as thinking we HAVE to replace the I-5 Bridge for BILLIONS just to get the unneeded and unwanted loot rail into Clark County.

It will not.

Those from Oregon who shop here will have less than zero incentive to do so without the exemption and if they have to pay an unnecessary toll for the privilege. As much as they developed a mind set over the years about shopping here, even the wide play of Wallace's asinine effort will negatively impact that curve, since both this asinine paper and Wallace have announce to the entire fricking planet that we don't WANT Oregonians spending their money here.

As Deb Wallace and Pat Campbell have shown and continue to show, intelligence isn't a requisite part of the resume' of those who con the electorate.

And to the commenter "PJ" who wrote this:

So of those of you who think public employee benefits are generous, how many of you are willing to go into a burning building? Or walk down a dark alley after a 6'6" 295 parolee? How many of you are willing to sit at a table banging out a report of vandalism while a delusional, lost my job, taxes are too high crazy person is walking into the same shop with a gun and a plan?

I tell you, not one of you.

My brief response is this:

*I* would. Every damned day and twice on Sundays.

Public employees are not supermen and women. My response to you, PJ, is this:

If the damned job doesn't pay enough? Then quit.

But stop thinking you're so damned special (You're not... you're nothing special, and you've CHOSEN to work for us.)

Don't like the pay? Don't like the massive benefit package?

The get the hell out. I'm sure hundreds would have no difficulty applying for your job, you ungrateful ingrate.
.

Is there no lie teachers won't tell when they see their pay possibly threatened? "Teachers oppose capping revenue."

.
We've seen the true colors of teachers in the midst of this horrific recession.

They whine and they snivel, pissed off because THEY might have to sacrifice like the REST of us already have.

As the despicable rag that is our local paper has already begun their anti-I 1033 campaign, we can expect a continuing series of these types of articles as they again try and ram their agenda down our throats.

I don't believe it's gonna work this time, however. This time, we're gonna FORCE teachers to feel OUR pain.

Like the lying bureaucrats the local swindle sheet quoted before, the teachers sniveling in this story ALWAYS leave out the fact that if they, or any other of the government leeches infesting us can come out and JUSTIFY their demand list, we would naturally go along with their program.

Of course, their typically greedy, gimme-my-money demands have to be run through the, even-though-the-value-of-my-property-has-dropped-like-a-rock,-my-taxes-have-still-gone-up filter... like I run my decisions to vote for or against bonds and levies through the filter of the 183 day, part-time work, full time pay schedule teachers have.

Not ONE of the teachers quoted in this stain on journalism's propaganda admitted, or even alluded to, that fact. In fact, the teacher's fall back position is to blame us parents.

Linda Peterson, an art teacher at Chief Umtuch Middle School in Battle Ground, agreed. Budget cuts this year cost teachers their start-up day at the beginning of the school year and their education improvement day.

"Our parents expect us to walk into the classroom and prepare their students for the 21st century," she said. "Students are not getting the attention they deserve because there just isn’t time."

As always, I have a suggestion for our whiny, snively, bitching government workers in EVERY position, from President on down to school janitor... including our prima-donna teachers:

You don't like it?

Then quit.

WE don't like the fact that WE have LOST OUR JOBS.

WE don't like the fact that MONEY does NOT equate to educational success, no matter how much teachers bitch about it.

There are REASONS that we have sustained a 30% or so drop out rate for decades now. And how much of that results from funding?

Weren't the guaranteed pay raises and classroom sizes SUPPOSED to have fixed all of that?

So, to teachers: stop whining, bitching, moaning and complaining. We've already seen what motivates your ilk, as illustrated by teaching scum in Kent, who held an entire district of students, parents and support staff hostage to their greed... all, of course, in the name of the children.

If you teachers band together to oppose this badly needed tax cut, then, perhaps, it's time for us to ban together to vote "no" on all bonds and levies... particularly those that result in more of OUR money in YOUR pockets.
.

Giving the leftist MSM a pass -- again: Flashback from 2005 - Giving Bush a pass -- again.

.

I did recall the whining and sniveling from the left about the costs incurred with the Bush inauguration... costs now hugely dwarfed by the coronation of The One.

Yet, when it comes to THOSE costs... why, the leftist MSM seems.... well.... utterly silent... or is it, "utterly hypocritical?"

Some media pegs the cost of this soirée at around $160 million or so. For a party.

That type of rampant cost would have resulted in complete hysteria on the part of, say, the women of "The View," or any of the media outlets that were so totally in the tank for The Messiah, if the beneficiary had been a Republican.

My God, we never would have heard the end of it.

Now, it would seem, if we were to hear anything about it at all, we have to rely on the British Press to keep us informed.

Why am I not surprised?

So, here it is.... a delightful flashback to the 2005 reeking hypocrisy that is the left. Enjoy!

Giving Bush a pass -- again
The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security.

By Eric Boehlert

Jan 20, 2005 In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor."

Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.

This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored.

More: