Why do leftist politicians HAVE to lie about issues they oppose? Brokaw on 1033.

.
Chicken Little ain't got nothin' on a leftist.

Here's Pam Brokaw's LTE on 1033:

I-1033 reduces economic recovery

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community, we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033. Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy. Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment. Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts. Keep Clark County a quality place to live and do business. Vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Pam Brokaw

Vancouver

Now here, locally, Ms. Brokaw is known best for two things: Getting around $100,000 in tribal money as a result of David Barnett's efforts to buy her in two elections (state representative back in 04 and county commissioner here last fall, where she ran such a terrible campaign that even though Clark County voted for Obama, they then turned around and voted for conservative Tom Mielke in a close one (requiring a recount)) and secondly, having the "tinnest" ear in politics (did you REALLY thing partial birth abortion and gay marriage were planks to win on in the 18th?)

And now... we get a different version of that moron's statement that people will DIE when this thing passes.

Everything she wrote in her letter, in one way or another, has been used as an attempt to stop every fiscal control we've ever been given the option to vote for.

Remember I-601? I-695? I-747? These measures in one form or another reduced revenue to state and local governments.

Remember the responses from the leftists and their paper, here?

Well, let's take a look at this one.

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community,

Who? I never heard of you. By the way, do you get any government funding that might be at risk when this passes?

we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Because GOD knows you can't think for yourself.

Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy.

"We're all going to DIE!"

What a crock.

The idea that our "great Pacific Northwest way of life" is a product of the unfettered ability to tax and spend our money without our say-so is lunacy... but to a leftist, the will of the people is anathema, so they have to respond with moronic rhetoric like this.

Like most leftists, Brokaw is incapable of viewing this situation from the front end, in this case, from the perspective of those of us actually paying the bills. Her concern will NEVER be the one's paying... only the one's receiving.

Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

"We're all going to die!"

This, of course, is an outright lie on it's face. Why leftist opponents HAVE to lie... pathologically have to lie, to oppose a measure that reduces the orgy of government spending is beyond my comprehension.

Of the pap in the paragraph above, it would be entertaining for Brokaw to note precisely HOW we would no longer be able to raise families or enjoy our amazing natural resources once this passes.

Again, she seems to believe that the ONLY reason people want to live here or "do business" here is so that we can pay... more.... taxes!

So, she spills this crap, but provides absolutely NOTHING to indicate how any of her conclusions are true.

Because they're not.

I can see it now: 1033 passes next Tuesday, and starting Wednesday, Clark County becomes a ghost town because of the mass exodus of people to that utopia to the south... Oregon... which doesn't have a 1033 in place, yet is an economic train wreck.

When people in politics start spewing this garbage, unsupported by either the initiative's language or any other fact (see the Time's analysis, below) then you know it's all about keeping any controls off government... a government so OUT of control that spending increased an ASTOUNDING 33% over the past four years at the state level.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment.

Well, the fact is that I don't need, or want, YOU doing ANYTHING about MY environment. And my guess is that like most sniveling leftists, what you're REALLY committed to is making sure YOUR stream of money from the taxpayers remains uninterrupted or reduced.

After all, to read YOU, "we're all going to die" when this thing passes.

We have elected officials to do the very thing you claim your little group does.

So..... GO.... AWAY.

Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts.

Well, when this passes, you can always move away. Then you won't have to worry about it.

Second, I would venture to say that what we've been doing ain't been working out all that well, either, and

Third... you note how NONE of the whiny little leftists have offered ANY alternative?

Of course not. To them, it's all about the Benjamins.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if those in opposition stuck to the facts and left the hyperbole out.

1033 will do NONE of the things this whinny, snvivelly, "don't cut us off from the trough" letter claims.

The FACTS are below. Unlike a leftist, I'm not going to tell you WHAT to think... I would just ask you TO think.

Read the information below, and form your own opinion.

*I* am voting for 1033 and urging everyone I know to do the same. Because *I* know that ANY time we get the opportunity to rein in spending, the left will ALWAYS give us lies (like the one's in Brokaw's letter) and that IF this doesn't work, our courageous legislature can get rid of it on the first day of the next legislative session, in mid-January.
.

Two perspectives on 1033: the Columbian and The Seattle Times... the liars, and those who are actually journalists.

.
As we all know by now, the fringe-left rag this community is cursed with has come out against and, in fact, has actively campaigned again, I-1033, the initiative designed to rein in out-of-control government spending at every level from the state on down.

Of course our local paper's main concern is government; "people" rarely figure into their radar screen, as illustrated by the bizarre headline they used to shill their efforts against 1033:

"In our view: ‘No' on I-1033
Eyman's latest initiative might sound good, but governments would be denied recovery"

That this is a fringe-left government shilling waste of wood pulp is confirmed with this headline.

Is the focus on the fiscal blood-letting we've suffered in this state, with a 33% increase in this state's budget with more tax increases to come?

"GOVERNMENTS" would be "denied recovery."

Why is their focus on "government," and not on the PEOPLE?

Obviously, there's no accounting for self-imposed, ritual financial suicide.

That said, the endorsement of the "no" position appears to have been taken, word for word, from the scum trying to scare us into voting against this badly needed initiative by a campaign that has out spent the "Yes" side something on the order of 86 to 1 for their campaign.

Our despicable rag has run several quotes from state and local government employees that fear pay cuts and some such when 1033 passes. They've run, essentially, nothing from the tens of thousands of us who actually support this thing. In fact, they went so far as to quote some blithering idiot who said we would DIE if this thing passes.

What a surprise.

But taking it a step further, like the rest of the scum campaigning against 1033, the Columbian has re-printed the Colorado lie:

But it's the same kind of scheme that backfired in Colorado when a one-size-fits-all formula was passed by voters in 1992. In the next few years, the quality of public schools and health care plummeted. Health insurance problems also mushroomed, and numerous other public crises arose.

In 2005, Colorado voters decided to stop their suffering. They repealed the law.

Why this rag feels to engage in such lazy, leftist lying is just beyond me.

Here's the TRUTH from a frequently journalistic newspaper, unlike the crap pile we're stuck with:

Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what could happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Opponents of Tim Eyman'sInitiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights tosee what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.

In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR,and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

Much MORE truth here:

So... who do we believe? Note the complete absence of ANY alternative from our local version of Pravda?

A newspaper like the Seattle Times that actually did the work and who's analysis puts the lie to morons squeaking about how 1033 is Colorado's TABOR in sheep's clothing?

Or a fringe-left rag that seems to have looked no farther than the "No on I-1033's" web site of lies, copied it and pasted it in their own newspaper? A newspaper with columnists who lie (Yeah, I mean YOU, Laird) and who take positions using fake polls while they do everything they can to shut the people up while they're trying to ram a horrifically expensive, unneeded and unwanted project that THEY will not have to pay for down our collective throats.

Gee. That's a toughy.

Hopefully, those from our local despicable rag reading this (and I know you do) will correct their list of lies they use to oppose this effort...because, after all, the truth is out now... and in this case, the truth is that this rag's concern only extends to feeding government so they can try and get more and BIGGER tax breaks from the government teat their collective mouth is glue to with rivets.
.

Brancaccio asks the question: Do they (Pollard and/or Leavitt) like the casino?

.
Well, do they?

I published a moronic email from right wing nuts questioning Sen. Don Benton's commitment to Republicanism because he didn't engage in their peculiar brand of communist thought control and endorse whoever these ignorant clowns wanted him to endorse.

One of the more idiotic lines out of that filth was this:

You must have forgotten what your mother said happens when you "lay down with dogs."

The moron that sent that out is apparently possessed of a double standard, because he's failed to do a "flea check" on the slimeball HE is supporting, one Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

We all know about most of the "fleas" these right wing whack jobs are ignoring: the dreaded "endorsed Obama" flea; the horrific "lie about tolls" flea; the despised "tax everyone to build a bridge we don't want or need along with loot rail" flea, the "manipulate the politically ignorant hispanic lobby" flea, and finally, the "bought outright or otherwise owned by the casino developer" flea.

Odd, isn't it, that both the far left and the far right can be such rank hypocrites in their double standard that they blindly apply to everyone else... going so far as to THREATEN politicians that are smart enough to disagree with them.

That said, Brancaccio's column in this instance dug... it just didn't dig enough.

As The Liar has proven, he can and will SAY anything to get elected. He has, after all, been lying about tolls on the bridge since he started.

There can be no question as to Pollard's position on the matter. Initially, he was sucked in by tribal liars and seemed to support the development of that cancer on Southwest Washington.

But as time went on, he began to see the true character of the Seattle/Olympia scum trying to ram this crap pile down our throats... and came to the best conclusion possible for us all: that the organized crime effort of building this horrific economic black hole had to be stopped... so he has had his city set about to do everything it could to stop it.

Part of the reason I support Pollard is embodied in this effort. There is no question that Pollard will continue to devote a major effort to derail the scum-sucking slime who want to put their peculiar brand of cold sore on the lip of our community.

Leavitt? Not so much.

Leavitt has surrounded himself with the most highly placed casino sell outs in our community, starting with Steve "$100,000 in cold, hard, cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, who wouldn't BE a county commissioner if the megacasino developer hadn't laundered $100,000 into his election at the last minute.

Stuart has never forgotten that "favor," which he knew about over 2 months in advance, and he has done everything he reasonably could to repay that "favor" since... his most recent effort being to tie the county to the tribe's bogus "gambling ordinance" by language in the rescission agreement of last April... language the tribe's local lawyer called a "contract."

The other questionable member of the campaign is one Betty Sue Morris.

I don't know what got into Betty Sue. But she sold us out in a heartbeat for no discernible reason.

She gave the casino developer everything he wanted and got, essentially, nothing in return.

Each year, the Mohegan Tribe (our local megacasino financiers) has to pay Connecticut FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Betty Sue didn't ask for cab fare in comparison.

Both of these rabid casino supporters are in/on Leavitt's campaign.

Why? Why are they so rabid in their support?

Coincidence? They just aren't AWARE of Leavitt's so called "opposition" to the casino?

Hardly. Like everything else in Leavitt's campaign, this is the lie de jour... the "say anything" of the moment to get elected.

With Pollard, there's no question. With Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, there's nothing BUT questions... and for the morons on the right supporting this clown... nothing BUT fleas.

.

My self-imposed NFL Boycott: Week 2

.
Linked by such august publications as the "Village Voice" (Yes... THAT "Village Voice") my self-imposed boycott continued on into it's second week as I, once again, engaged in life without the NFL.

Of course, it's not that particularly difficult under any circumstances when the team you've supported so much over the past 3 decades or so is the Seahawks... it's kind of like boycotting a molar extraction... without the Novocaine.

But if the 'hawks were undefeated, that would make no difference.

Bigotry is one of those peculiar tenets of life that does not lessen over time. The NFL's bigotry in failing to support Rush Limbaugh's effort to gain a minority ownership position in the forlorn St. Louis Rams has staked it out as just another leftist outfit, where anyone with a perspective to the right of Lenin is to be shunned; where ideas and their broadcast supercedes the criminal acts of many of the thugs wearing a helmet.

The NFL's rank hypocrisy is the thing, you see. To allow players with CRIMINAL records to get MILLIONS of dollars while instituting a double standard against someone because of their words is no less excusable now than it was last week. And it will be no less acceptable next week, or next season or 100 years from now... leftist double standard notwithstanding.

I say "leftist double standard" because we don't even have to BEGIN to discuss what the left would be doing if one of their more communist icons had been kept from buying a piece of an NFL team.

So, the boycott continues. For me, today, it's up to the shop to organize my tools for starting the thrid gen drag racing project.

It's amazing how much time this has freed up... I should have, perhaps, done this years ago.
.

Seattle Times nails "No on 1033" ; "No" campaign has been lying scum all along.

.
Speaks for itself.

Originally published October 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM Page modified October 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Comments (85) E-mail article Print view Share
Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison
Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what would happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Related
Eyman's I-1033: Complex measure's impact is unclear
I-1033 could hit higher ed especially hard
Hospital execs: I-1033 hurts health plan

Initiative 1033 and TABORColorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is far more extensive than Washington's proposed I-1033. Here are major provisions in both:
TABOR

• Limits increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Requires excess revenue to be sent back to taxpayers.

• Applies to the state and all local governments, including school and fire-protection districts.

• Initially created a "ratchet" effect where every time tax collections dropped during a recession, it permanently lowered the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future. Voters eliminated this provision in 2005.

• Requires voter approval of all tax increases.

• Prevents changing any other limits on revenue, spending and debt without voter approval.

• Is in the state constitution and can only be changed with voter approval.

Initiative 1033
• Would limit increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Would require excess revenue to be used to lower property taxes.

• Would apply only to state, city and county governments.

• Would create a "ratchet" effect, where every time tax collections drop during a recession, it would permanently lower the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future.

• Could be changed by the Legislature with a two-thirds vote within the first two years, and by a simple majority vote after that.

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights to see what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.
In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR, and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

Steve Johnson, a former Republican lawmaker who spent 12 years in the Colorado General Assembly, said "TABOR has been a nightmare for the state. Fixing it is even more of a nightmare."

On the other hand, Barry Poulson, a University of Colorado economics professor affiliated with the conservative Independence Institute, said the law "has created one of the best business-tax climates in the country."

Even voters seemed mixed on TABOR.

A poll done in September by a Republican firm, and paid for by a conservative-policy group, shows two-thirds of voters support a provision in TABOR requiring voter approval of all tax increases.

However, a majority of the people polled also supported repealing the entire law.

Sean Tonner, executive director of the Colorado Policy Institute, which paid for the survey, thinks it shows people want to keep some parts of the law and dump others. "We'll be the first to admit TABOR can be tweaked," he said.

Impact on education

That seems to fit a pattern in Colorado. They tweak on a grand scale there, making fundamental changes to the state's constitution through initiative — something that can't be done in Washington state.

It's led to a budgeting process in Colorado that bears little resemblance to what happens in

Olympia, and complicates comparisons between TABOR and I-1033.

For example, Eyman's opponents argue that funding for K-12 education in Colorado has plummeted since TABOR was passed. But they don't note that Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2000 that essentially exempts state funding for public schools from the revenue limit and mandates annual increases in spending.

Colorado state funding for education has steadily increased for several years. Several national rankings put per-pupil spending in both Colorado and Washington below the national average. However, Colorado is generally shown as close to or higher than Washington in those rankings.
Deborah Fallin, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 40,000 educators, argued that TABOR has hit schools hard.

But when pressed for details, Fallin said it's not a case of schools doing poorly — they need additional money to improve. Simply doing "OK is not good enough for the 21st century," she said.

The most recent eighth-grade math and reading scores were similar for Washington and Colorado in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and both were slightly above the national average.

That's not to say TABOR has had no effect in Colorado.

The amendment was approved during an economic boom. The revenue limit led to big tax rebates because a lot more money was coming in than the state was allowed to spend.
So much money was being sent back to taxpayers, in fact, that the General Assembly permanently lowered both the state sales tax and income tax to reduce the amount of revenue being collected.

Then the dot-com bust hit early this decade and sent revenues plunging. Lawmakers had to cut state spending.

Because much of the budget, including K-12 and Medicaid spending, was protected, the General Assembly had to cut other parts of the budget, such as higher education.

Tuition was increased to help make up the difference. Between 1997 and 2007, resident undergraduate tuition increased about 98 percent at four-year institutions in Colorado, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. However, undergraduate tuition in Washington increased nearly 103 percent in the same period.

TABOR did force Colorado to apply the growth limit using the new lower, recessionary level of tax revenue during the dot-com bust. This is often called a "ratchet" effect, because every time tax collections drop during a recession, it permanently lowers the base used to calculate how much revenue can increase in the future. I-1033 shares this provision.

As a result, concern mounted in Colorado that TABOR would prevent state spending from recovering with the economy.

In 2005 voters approved Referendum C, which suspended TABOR for five years. It also removed the ratchet effect. Once the suspension expires, state revenue will be allowed to grow based on the highest amount of revenue collected in a fiscal year during the timeout, adjusted by inflation plus population growth for each subsequent year.

Effects of economic downturns

Charlie Brown, director of the Center for Colorado's Economic Future at the University of Denver, said it's difficult to separate the effects of TABOR from economic downturns. It could be argued that most of the budget cuts happened because of recessions, not because of the constitutional limit, he said.

Lawmakers probably would have been forced to make budget cuts because of TABOR in recent years, Brown said, but Referendum C helped alleviate the problem by allowing the state to keep any increase in revenue while the timeout is in effect.

Perhaps the biggest effect was when lawmakers reduced tax rates because of TABOR. That lost income would be worth about $500 million annually now, Brown said. Colorado cannot restore the taxes to their previous levels without voter approval.

Brown said TABOR could become a problem in the future, once the timeout expires, because it's expected that mandated state expenses such as K-12 education and Medicaid will increase more rapidly than the TABOR limit can handle.

There's already talk in Colorado about making more changes to the constitutional limit.
And therein lies one of the biggest differences between Eyman's proposal and what's happened in Colorado.

Voters in Colorado put TABOR in their constitution, making it very difficult to change or remove.
I-1033, if approved, would become a state law that can be changed by a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature within the first two years. After that, it would take only a simple majority vote of lawmakers.

There could certainly be pressure on the Legislature to not mess with the initiative. After all, in another two years we'll be in the middle of another big election cycle with a governor's race.
But the restraints here are nothing compared to Colorado.

Andrew Garber: 360-236-8266 or agarber@seattletimes.com