The Democratian continues to protect Jim Moeller: In Our View: ‘Yes’ On I-1107

.
Look, I'm a "yes" on 1107 as well. Using any excuse to jack up any tax in the midst of a horrific recession is unacceptable... much like the Democratian's efforts to shield the moron behind the reason for this initiative in the first place. And this clown is PROUD of it.

Proposed tax on candy is complicated

Beyond usual policy discussions, how would confections be
classified?

By Kathie Durbin
Columbian Staff Reporter

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver

Rep. Jim Moeller wants to make this clear: He has nothing against candy.

In fact, he loves candy. Especially Almond Roca.

“It’s my favorite candy,” he says. “No one hates candy in this Legislature.
We fuel ourselves on coffee and candy.”

But one of Moeller’s top priorities — adequate funding for the state’s public
health departments — is languishing due to the state’s budget crisis.

So the Vancouver Democrat has stirred up a tempest by introducing a bill that
would levy the state’s 6.5 percent sales tax on candy and gum sold in
Washington. The tax is expected to raise $17 million in 2011 and $30 million
annually thereafter, with all the revenue dedicated to funding public health
programs.the first place.

More here.

Now, as I've pointed out in the past, I've got no problem with the rag's position on this issue. It was a stupid idea from a monumentally arrogant jerk. As stated, any tax increase in these economic times is moronic. A huge increase by volume such as this even more so.

The problem I have is that in the several times they've pounded the tax, I have yet to see where they ever mentioned Moeller as being behind it, and the Democratian's support of I-1107 AGAIN fails to mention that this dillwad is behind the tax in the first place.

Why?

Because he's a leftist. Because he is a major supporter of the steaming crap pile known as the i-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail project. Because he also voted to cut the Democratian's B&O tax. Because, while he's dropped a turd with this bill, he typically carries Brancaccio's water like Gunga Din.

It is this kind of thing that makes our local paper garbage, and an embarrassment as a news source. There is no excuse for covering for Moeller... none. But it's the kind of thing these slime balls do.

And there is no doubt that, even in the face of his "Candy Man" idiocy, these morons will endorse him again... for the general... this November.

Just sayin'.
.

Is the Clark County press release about state initiatives a violation of state law?

.
Here's the Clark County Commissioners Press Release (Typically leftist, I might add, given the selective fact set they use) on the upcoming initiatives:

9/9/2010

County sees potential losses due to state liquor ballot measures

Contact

Mary Keltz, Public Information Outreach Phone: (360) 397-6012 ext. 3 mary.keltz@clark.wa.gov

Vancouver, WA -- Initiatives on the November ballot could further erode local services as the measures take a toll on state and county budgets, Clark County budget staff told the Board of County Commissioners Wednesday.

Here is how the measures could affect Clark County:

- I-1100 would eliminate state-owned liquor stores and the state’s centralized distribution center, cutting county funding by $1 million in 2011-12 and $1.4 million every two years starting in 2013.

- I-1105 would eliminate the liquor excise tax and state Liquor Control Board revenue, cutting county funding $1.2 million in 2011-12 and $2 million every two years as of 2013.

- I-1007 would repeal the recently implemented soda, candy and bottled water tax and reduce sales tax for certain food processors, cutting up to $300,000 a year from county revenues.

Budget staff presented that preliminary assessment as part of the September monitoring report on county revenues and expenses. The Board plans to take a closer look at the local impact of state initiatives during an upcoming work session.

The monthly report shows a delicate balance between county revenues and expenses through the end of 2010. However, the outlook for 2011 and 2012 is becoming increasingly uncertain due to continuing weakness the job market, retail sales, construction and housing.

August sales tax revenues were down 6 percent from August 2009, the first significant decline in six months. If sales tax revenues are flat through 2012, the county would receive $2.5 million less than expected under slow-growth scenarios.

A $3.7 million cut is easily sustained: a 20% reduction in salaries and benefits for all county workers makes it a simple task. And supporting Moeller's idiotic "is it is, or is it ain't" candy tax doesn't get them any sympathy from me.

That said, there doesn't seem to be any mention of sales tax from the sale of liquor. Does the county commission believe that the sale of liquor would be tax free?

Of course not.

Then why isn't there any mention of the sales tax revenue from the sale of liquor after these initiatives are adopted in this county sob story?

If you're going to tell "the facts," then tell ALL of the facts... and in this case, that means including the sales tax revenue from non governmental sales... a figure strangely absent from the self-serving pap put out by our county government.

It is a violation of state law to use public resources to support or oppose an initiative. By failing to address all of the issues, including the failure to provide the projections of sales tax to make up the difference in "lost" revenue, one wonders: is this press release such a violation, since it reads more like a campaign hit piece then an informational summary?
.

More on I-1098, the income tax scam: massive tax increase.

.
The scum behind this rip off, including Bill Gates, Sr and the state employee unions, know it will pump an additional 2.3 BILLION dollars a year into state coffers. As The Times put it: "It's not a tax cut" it's a massive, horrific tax increase in the midst of this terrible recession.

Don't be fooled.

Winner of a 2010 Pulitzer Prize

Editorials / Opinion

56°F

Originally published September 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM Page modified September 14, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Comments (57) E-mail article Print view Share

Initiative 1098 is not a tax cut

Don't believe the hype of Initiative 1098 proponents, who are selling the proposal as a "tax cut." Yes, some other taxes are trimmed, but the income tax proposed would total $3 billion by 2014.

PREV of NEXT

THE proponents of Initiative 1098 are pulling a fast one on voters by not calling I-1098 what it is: a tax increase.

Proponents for the tax hike have puffed up their argument like piñatas full of cheap candy talking about two taxes the initiative would cut, hoping to blind voters to the big tax increases I-1098 supporters really want.

By 2014, the state income tax created by I-1098 would be collecting more than $3 billion a year. Property taxes would be cut by $403 million and business taxes by $261 million. These are not the opponents' figures. They are the state's. And what they mean is that for every dollar of state income tax collected, the state expects to hand back 13 cents to property owners and 9 cents to business owners.

The state's ballot title has it right. It says: "Initiative measure 1098 concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes."

That is what I-1098 is. But it is not how its supporters describe it.

Consider their first TV ad. In it, Bill Gates Sr. disingenuously says, "1098 will cut state property taxes 20 percent." But state property taxes are only one-fifth of all property taxes. The actual cut in people's bills would be only about 4 percent. The people selling I-1098 know this and will admit it if you corner them. But they won't put it in their ads.

Nowhere in Gates' folksy ad does he utter the electric words "state income tax." Gates is a lawyer. He knows what kind of tax it is.

In the Voters Pamphlet, now available on line, the pro-1098 salesmen do use the words "income tax," but only after they have softened up the prospective voter with the sweet phrases "lower taxes," "cut taxes," "reduce taxes" and "tax cuts."

Initiative 1098 is not a tax cut. The $3 million that has been raised to sell it on television is mostly from state employee unions. They are not for tax cuts. They are for tax increases — which is what I-1098 is.

Let's call it by its right name.

Another example of why it's wrong to confuse The Columbian with "journalism."

.
In what must be their fourth story of the issue, the idiots at the bridger/looter Pravda Columbian paper have, once again, whined and snivel about the moronic "what is and what isn't" candy tax.

They've done it before, and they'll most like do it again.

What did they leave out?

The moron who is behind this law. The simple idiot bent on jacking up our taxes in the midst of a horrific recession. The fringe-leftist whack job that this rag has supported since he first climbed out of his "screw the people" hole.

Jim "The Candy Man" Moelller, (Socialist 49th District).

If these morons were true "journalists," isn't it obvious they would have pinned the "credit" for this complete stupidity where it most properly belong? They obviously know he's behind it: why are they protecting him?

This tax didn't develop in a test tube. Saying

"Others say Washington is not the first state to separate candy from baked goods for sales tax purposes, using the pivotal ingredient of flour. The language, drafted by the multistate Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, aims to makes sales-tax rules more uniform across the nation.

“At least 24 other states have this definition,” said Mike Gowrylow, a spokesman for the Washington State Department of Revenue.

If EVERY other state adopted this stupidity, that wouldn't justify ANYTHING. It's pretty clear these leftists are making a concerted effort to spin this for their fellow travelers so it isn't used as yet another in the series of excuses to bludgeon these morons at the polls in November.

But the quiz question today is this: why are the scum at the Columbian so bent on protecting Moeller? Why aren't they telling the whole world who is directly responsible for this garbage?

Well, I think we know why, don't we?

For more on the background, check out Lew Waters on the Candy Man.

The left's fascination with taking more of our money.

Few individual legislators have raped the taxpayers personally and ripped us off generally more than Jim "Molehill" Moeller.

Molehill is a state representative, but I hesitate to apply that title to him given how little he represents anyone but himself.

He jacks the taxpayer for undeserved per diem, routinely claiming it when he's not up there and not needed.

He lies about how, without per diem, he couldn't even BE a state representative.

Molehills a fringe-left nutter: THAT he lies is a given.  But in the economic disaster zone of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, aka the Vancouver Soviet, Molehill, who would sell children into slavery to jack us for his programs, keeps getting re-elected... legislative lies notwithstanding.

His take on the issue of stealing our money?  His peculiar fiscal fetish?

Sniveling about his repeatedly rejected demand for a state income tax.

“Washington has the MOST regressive tax system in the nation,” he wrote. “Those that can pay the least pay the most.

That's a lie, of course.  This clown lies like people breathe.

Those who BUY the most, PAY the most.

Obviously, self-delusion is a major part of his shtick. 

The tax system in this state is a pig (with lipstick) as it is. We try and make it fair(er). For example, the largest tax exemption is on food, and we try to mitigate its recessive nature by providing services to the poor, and at the same time encourage investment and job growth by creating tax ‘exemptions.’ It’s madness and unsustainable!”

 Here's the thing, Molehill: Oregon HAS a state income tax, and they're a trainwreck.

One wonders: if a state income tax solved so many problems... then why is it people living here wouldn't be caught dead living in Oregon?

Perhaps best known for being the author of the roundly lampooned and subsequently overwhelmingly rejected-at-the-polls "what is, what isn't" stupidity of his "candy tax," Molehill is an acolyte of the Steve "I only speak for Steve" Stuart school of thought; Molehill has sued his own constituents to overturn their demand that 2/3rds of the legislature vote for tax increases.

With the neo-communists like Moeller, there is no amount of money that would ever be enough.

Ever.

Like union thug teachers who go on strike while they lie about it being "for the children," Moeller is one of those who, as his per diem scam shows, looks out for himself first and only secondarily will he kowtow to the special interests that own him like the 13th Amendment didn't exist.

As an alleged "representative," his only question SHOULD be: what does my district want on this?

Well, as far back as I can research, his district has always been opposed to the rip off he advocates.

I suppose that if he doesn't like it, he can always do us all a favor and resign in protest.

And Greg, when you write:

In the meantime, I’ll remain grateful that I’m not the one who has to come up with the answers.

You're not the only one.  God forbid that we'd have TWO Jim Moellers shafting us.

Columbian does another piece on Jim Moeller's candy tax; again fails to mention Moeller is behind it.

.
So, the local cancer on our community did another article on Communist Representative Jim Moeller's tax increase which will, of course, make our economy worse while, like the cigarette tax increases, drive SW Washington consumers over the bridges into Oregon to make these purchases.

The idiocy of such a bill is, of course, self-evident. But that's perhaps a subject for another post.

The idiocy of the Pravda Columbian's coverage of that bill and it's implementation? That's why we're here today.

The Columbian has done an editorial "jeering" the tax in question. But in that editorial and today's article, what did they FAIL to do?

Why they FAILED to mention who was behind this tax increase... one Jim Moeller (Socialist-49)

Yeah, this tax is indefensible. Like his buddy Pridemore, there can be no doubt this is an attempt... but only an attempt (there is absolutely no way this tax will raise the projected revenue. People will buy these products in larger quantities in both Oregon and Idaho, or they won't buy them at all. But who ever put reality and Moeller in the same room?) to "balance the budge on the backs of the poor and the powerless."

How they can babble about this tax and its impacts without also naming the idiot behind the whole thing?

Well, they certainly don't want people like me to come along and remind them that they, in fact, have repeatedly endorsed this clown ever since his political shadow has darkened our doorway.

I'm sure it was just one of those deliberate oversights that the rag will set right at some point, aren't you?
.

Brancaccio is guilty of a hell of a lot more then wanting to shove another tax down our throats for a ballpark.

.
So, Brancaccio pleads guilty to wanting to shove yet another tax or fee down our throats so 99% of US pay for something HE wants.

What he's NOT "guilty" of is volunteering his rag to be taxed to pay for this waste of money.

So what if you don’t like baseball or don’t plan to go? Could that still be a win for you?

Some would argue no. Fair enough. I respect that view. But I’d argue yes. There simply are certain things — like this ballpark and a professional baseball team — that show a certain coming-of-age aspect to the area. That would be good.

But what about this needed tax support to help build it? Aren’t we cutting back just about everywhere?

Yes we are. And that’s a valid point. But that’s the beauty of an entertainment tax. Essentially, only entertainment would be taxed.

You buy entertainment, you help pay for entertainment. Unlike a sales tax that impacts everyone, this impacts only those who use entertainment.

Gee.  What a surprise.... Moron.

Where have we seen that before?

How about this, instead:

You buy newspapers, you help pay for the newspaper.  Unlike a sales tax that impacts everyone, this impacts only those who buy a newspaper.

I sure don't see him volunteering HIS rag to help pay for this.  Why not?

While Brancaccio's babble is frequently bereft of sense, this kind of self-serving garbage is just that: self serving garbage.

What this REALLY means is that like every other downtown mafia type, he believes that this means their ability to steal our money for their uses has "come-of-age."

Of course, that also makes him guilty of being a hypocrite.

As a permanent member of the downtown mafia, Identity Vancouver types, Brancaccio is guilty of a wide variety of things.

He's guilty of a rank leftist bias.

He's guilty of doing the democrat's bidding like they were paying him by actively covering up Jim Jack's misconduct, pre-resignation, from the legislature.

He's guilty of using his position as editor and the column that position gives him to beat the hell out of those who are wise enough to oppose his utopian view.

He's guilty of running a paper that lies, exaggerates and avoids every tenet of journalism to push a position.

He's guilty of other rank hypocrisy: demanding that we pay yet another tax after his newspaper received a tax cut while the rest of our small business taxes were increased.

He's guilty of wanting to bury us under billions of debt for a bridge and loot rail that we do not want, do not need, and cannot afford.

He's guilty of slamming bloggers when THIS blogger has scooped his exulted rag on a few major stories, namely the fake Baird death threats, the Bittner arrest,and the Jon Russell, fake college degree scam.

He's guilty of demanding "civility" that he uses whenever HE feels like it, all the while unleashing his pit yorkie of an editorial page editor, my mentor, John Laird, who taught me everything I know about attacking opponents to an agenda.

He's guilty of a MASSIVE democrat bias in endorsements.

He's guilty of continuing to lie about the rag's lack of bias.

He's guilty of censoring and banning those from commenting on the paper's frequently pathetic efforts to slant the story... and an institutional failure to include the opposition to his positions in the paper.

He's guilty of shilling the lie that replacing the bridge will "ease chronic congestion."

He's guilty of failing to understand and seek out the opposition to his bizarre views on the massive waste of a bridge replacement until the level of hatred towards his view became so overwhelming he COULDN'T ignoring it any more.

He's guilty of running what amounts to fake polls and using their pre-ordained outcomes to support a false conclusion.

He's guilty of full-out public relations and damage control efforts on behalf of those he supports, such as rehabing Brian Baird's image after Baird's fake death threat, Nazi, Brown Shirt nonsense; a long term project that ultimately failed for him.... and that he continues in his efforts to rehab Leavitt over his months long, multiple lie-campaign on tolls.

He's guilty of shilling Baird's bogus 72 hour scam, never once holding him accountable for routinely violating his own rule.

He's guilty of failing to hold Baird accountable for voting on bills he hadn't read.

He's guilty of attacking the veracity of bloggers when his own is MORE than under question, like he did Koski over his paper's failure to report on Baird's bogus death threat nonsense.

He's guilty of failing to hold Tim Leavitt accountable for his fraudulent election and subsequent lies.

He's guilty of using double standards in endorsements: one moment, talking about a candidates experience or the lack thereof, the next moment, not even mentioning that experience, like they did in the Mielke-Brokaw race... as he endorsed the completely IN-experienced Pam Brokaw... twice.. over experienced candidates... who happened to be, you guessed it, Republican.

Coincidence, to be sure.

He's guilty of supporting a corrupt, gerrymandered C-Trans vote, both in the past and in the future, where tens of thousands of us will be cut out of the vote... but not paying the tax... all while his paper enjoys the largess of the democrats he supports so strogly and often through the B&O tax cut they're still working under.

He's guilty of failing to hold candidates who don't bother to vote, even thought THEY'VE been elected (Leavitt) or those who have NEVER voted (Janet Seekins, Van Nortwick's opponent) accountable in any meaningful way. 

He's guilty of using this blog as a source for stories, and then failing to credit the blog or me, or link to this blog as the source.

He's guilty of protecting Jim Moeller by refusing to remind people that Moeller (and his unbelievable arrogance) authored the moronic "some things are, some things aren't" candy tax, destroyed at the polls last November.

He's guilty of using the Storro story as a campaign piece for TV Tony Golick.

He's guilty of attempting to professionally destroy Brent Boger, Peter Van Nortwick, and, well, me.

Brancaccio is guilty of a long list of crimes to this community.  And to that list, sadly, we can add theft, as he works to steal our money to pay for his ballpark under nebulous crap like that published in his despicable propaganda sheet that would put the fricking Nazi's to shame.
.

Our state initiatives.

.
We have an unusually large number of initiatives to ponder this go round. Generally, every initiative supported by the left should be opposed; every initiative opposed by the left should be supported.

Generally, every initiative opposed by the left cuts revenue or leftist work force (That is union) numbers. Of course, in the midst of this Obama recession, any measure accomplishing those two goals is likely sound and a natural response to the economic circumstance of debt and confusion the left have brought us to.

Generally, every initiative supported by the left increases an already unnecessarily bloated state budget by increasing, or more easily allowing the increase, the extortion of the hard earned dollars from an increasingly smaller pool of tax payers who are finding themselves increasingly responsible for paying the bills of the left.

With that in mind, here are the initiatives and the correct votes on them all:

Initiative Measure 1053
Concerning tax and fee increases imposed by state government.

.

This is Eyman's latest effort. It requires a 2/3rds vote to jack up our taxes in the legislature.

.

The left hates it. Unions hate it. Clearly, we need it desperately.

.

This is a yes.

.

Initiative Measure 1082
Concerning industrial insurance.

.

The point of this exercise is to privatize Labor and Industry insurance.

.

The left hates it. Unions hate it. Clearly, we need it desperately.

.

This is a yes.

.

Initiative Measure 1098
Concerning establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.

.

Obviously unconstitutional in our state, shilled by those ashamed to even call this a state income tax, it's class warfare at it's worst. A classic "camel's nose under the tent flap approach," anyone buying into the obvious lie that this number won't plummet to far below the $250,000 these scum shill as the ceiling for this tax (The lowest ceiling in America for states with an income tax anywhere else that has it is $13,000... does anyone really believe that it won't take long for this money vampire to stick it's fangs into every one's jugular?)

.

No one has yet to be able to point out where imposing this fiscal slavery has made any state "better," any government "stronger," any people "better off." Make no mistake: the sole purpose of this idiocy is to give the government cow bigger teats for the left to suckle.

.

The left loves it. The unions are paying for it they love it so much. It's obviously a disaster, because if a state income tax was the problem, then why are Oregon and California such horrific train wrecks?

.

This is an obvious and absolute "no."

.

Initiative Measure 1100
Concerning liquor (beer, wine and spirits).

Initiative Measure 1105
Concerning liquor (beer, wine and spirits).

.

I put these two together since they both address the long overdue privatization of liquor sales in this state.

.

There is no reason for the state to be in the consumer goods sales at all. Period.

.

Privatization of many state functions as a part of fiscal reform should be front and center in the next legislative session. Removing the yoke of oppression of state employee unions; dramatically cutting their numbers, pay and benefits to reflect the economic reality those of us paying the bills face every day... these things should be done immediately.

.

The differences (or some of them, anyway) are laid out by the TNT here:

.

1100

.

1100 allows liquor to be sold anywhere beer and wine are sold and it eliminates price controls... meaning larger retailers (Costco) will get volume discounts (You know, like they do for everything else?)

Allow retailers to negotiate with manufacturers and distributors for volume and other discounts on liquor, beer and wine. Currently, restaurants and other retailers pay the same price for products. If a Washington retailer buys something from a California winery, the winery has to make that same product available at the same price to all Washington retailers.

Let producers pay for shelf space in stores. Some retailers, including Costco, do not take that kind of payment in states where it is allowed.

Permit distilleries, wineries and breweries to give gifts to retailers. Currently, only small gifts of little value such as coasters and T-shirts are allowed.

Allow liquor, beer and wine manufacturers and distributors to extend credit. Currently, they must take payment on delivery.

Let retailers centrally warehouse alcoholic beverages, like other products.

Remove a law that requires retailers to pay the same price whether a distributor delivers to them or they pick up their product from the distributor.

1105

Backed exclusively by two large liquor distributors who ponied up $2.2 million, it would allow retailers to receive volume discounts on liquor, but not beer and wine.

What bothers the state’s small grocers about I-1105 is that it would prevent them from buying liquor directly from manufacturers. Small stores often buy from small wineries and breweries that are too small for distributors.

The left hates these, as do the unions, for entirely self-serving reasons that make no sense.

.

Deregulation means smaller government. I don't even drink, so I don't have a financial dog in this fight. The principle of this thing, however, means that every state taxpayer has a dog in this fight, no matter the outcome. And I support shrinking government under any circumstance. The lack of deregulation in 1105 means, to me, that it's much more smoke and mirrors than 1100.

.

I, personally, am a "yes" on 1100 and a "no" on 1105.

.

Initiative Measure 1107
Concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.

.

This initiative has been the subject of many posts here on CCP, and is the result of Jim Moeller (Communist-49) jacking up our taxes on certain candies and soda pop. Of course, in Moeller's world, some candy is candy, and some is not... which is a perfect example why. The Democratian's efforts to protect Moeller by deliberately failing to tie this tax to him directly notwithstanding, the Candy Man should be fired this November and his tax dumped with him.

.

The Left loves it. Unions love it. It's an obvious crap pile done to feed the insatiable appetite of the leftists in government who never met a tax they didn't love.

.

I'm a yes on getting rid of this turd.

.

Referendum Bill 52
Concerning authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in schools.

.

This bill requires yet another half-billion in state debt.

.

The Left loves it and the unions love it. We can't afford it.

.

I'm a "no" on this.

.

Senate Joint Resolution 8225
Concerns the limitation on state debt.

.

The Seattle Times says this about it:

Under a new program, Build America Bonds, the federal government pays 35 percent of the interest on taxable state bonds. It is an alternative to making the bonds federally tax-free, and for the state it is a better alternative for short- and medium-term bonds. The direct subsidy allows states to borrow more money to
build roads, ferries, buildings, etc., with no extra cost to state taxpayers — not now, and not ever. From a state's point of view, it is free money.

There's a catch.... there's always a catch. First of all, our state ALWAYS views our money as "free money."

.

What they're leaving out is that it adds to the debt.

.

The Left loves it. Unions love it. And that's why I'm a "no" on it.

.

I'm a "no" on this.

.

Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220
Concerning denying bail for persons charged with certain criminal offenses.

.

Leftist hate this. Unions hate this. I'm for it.

.

Vote "yes."

See, it's simple, really.
.

The Columbian fails to master cause and effect: They endorsed Moeller, condemn his idiotic candy bill...

... fail to understand that it was THEIR guy that pushed this idiocy...

... and then failed to mention idiotic stick in their rant:

Jeers: To the state’s new candy tax, which takes effect June 1. Even someone without a sweet tooth can find something to hate in this new tax, recently enacted by the state Legislature as part of a package of budget-balancing gimmicks. One of the biggest problems is defining “candy,” which, according to the state, is made with “sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings and formed into bars, drops or pieces. …”
Clear on that? Three Musketeers chocolate bars are taxed. Starburst fruit chews, too. But, wait. Nestle’s Crunch is exempt, along with Milky Way bars and Twizzlers. They all contain flour, so they aren’t candy. To figure out which sweets are taxed, the Department of Revenue has examined the ingredients of 3,000 food items, placing some on the tax rolls and others on the exempt list. We wonder how much that cost, even as we wish lawmakers remembered what our mom always said: Candy isn’t very nutritious.

Lew Waters has the low down.

How weird is this? How unethical? How much of a tank job is it when this paper condemns legislation without mentioning the one responsible for it?

THIS PAPER ENDORSED THIS CLOWN.

They not only fail to mention that MOELLER SPONSORED AND PUSHED THIS BILL THEY HATE SO MUCH, they naturally fail to mention that he's a democrat, representing the district where this paper is located... or that they've endorsed him for every election he's run.

These chickens are coming home to roost, and this kind of pap is the best this cancer on our community can do?.

Brown leaves and Moeller snivels; Columbian forgets additional 6 legislators representing Clark County.

In yet another of the thousands of signs that the Columbian sees only what they want to see, they served up yet another editorial today that was at least in part factually incorrect.

The anonymous writer (I still find that odd, given the rag's bogus phobia over "anonymous" letter writers and the nonsensical requirement that Facebook users "use their real name" when many who post there every day... and Jon Russell, for that matter, have and are using fake Facebook accounts on the Columbian web site... EVERY DAY.) of today's incompetence writes this:

In the 17th Legislative District, Democratic state Rep. Tim Probst is challenging incumbent Republican State Sen. Don Benton.

Meaningless play on the seniority front; Probst loses and he had no real seniority or position in the House... he won't be missed.

In the 18th, Republican state Rep. Ed Orcutt was moved out of the district by the decennial redistricting process.

And is the odd's on favorite to pick up Gary Anderson's seat in the 20th... a seat that will STILL "represent at least a portion of Clark County" meaning that Orcutt's departure is also meaningless on the seniority front.

In the 49th, Democratic state Sen. Craig Pridemore is leaving that seat to run for state auditor.

And how is that a loss?  Pridemore has no more chance to get this job then he did to get a congressional seat, and you'll just be cycling one fringe-leftist nutberger out for another.  Pridemore leaving won't be missed.

And then there's the 15th District, which replaces the 14th in redistricting, all seats held by the GOP.

Why the fishwrapper continues to ignore or forget about the fact that, on January 1, or whenever redistricting kicks in, Clark County will have FIFTEEN legislators (15, 17, 18, 20, 49th districts... Likely 12 of them Republican....) isn't really a mystery to me:  incompetence is a major part of any bankruptcy.

But that 6 representatives were ignored... and the newspaper acted like Orcutt, who was only redistricted out of one district that represents Clark County into ANOTHER district that represents Clark County would n longer represent us is the kind of lack of competence our daily democrat is known for.

And then this nonsense from Neo-Communist representative Jim Moeller (Socialist - Soviet of Vancouver) as a result:.

Jim Moeller · Top Commenter
"On the other hand, Clark County could gain clout when it comes to legislative leadership. State Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield,... Zarelli has perfected smooth and collaborative aisle-crossing skills and works reasonably well with Democrats. With Brown, the Senate majority leader, retired, Zarelli’s stature no doubt will grow." So is this the kind of "clout" we want? More cuts to education? More cuts to the social safety net? Eliminate Washington Basic Health, Eliminate Disability Lifeline medical? More cuts to workers benefits? Unwillingness to address tax fairness with taxpayers, with Oregonians! Unwillingness to address the regressive nature of our tax system were those that an least afford it, pay the most. I like Joe personally, but his politics stink!
Reply · Like · 49 seconds ago

"So is this the kind of "clout" we want?"

Well, yeah... although a great deal of the time, I wish Zarelli would cut a great deal more than he has.

"More cuts to education?"

Yup.  A nice, big, fat 25% pay cut for teachers... decertification of the thugs at the WEA.... Charter schools... Sounds ideal to me.

"More cuts to the social safety net?"

Absolutely.  Any efforts to eliminate the illegal alien expenses, the scammers ripping us off on welfare, reducing the unemployment vacation that communists like you and Obama love so much.  Sounds like a GREAT plan.

"Eliminate Washington Basic Health, Eliminate Disability Lifeline medical?"

Of course.  Here's a clue, moron: OUR ECONOMY SUCKS.  Your efforts at stuffing millions into the CRC SHOULD have been better directed by funding these precious programs that YOU want, Moeller.  How come you put the bridge/loot rail rip off ahead of these precious programs of yours?

So, if you want to ferret out those responsible for slashing your precious social service scams and your health care rip offs, go find a mirror, if you can stomach the sight.

"More cuts to workers benefits?"

As long as they're union slime?  YOU BET.  Get rid of collective bargaining and cut their pay the same 25%.  Sounds PERFECT!

"Unwillingness to address tax fairness with taxpayers, with Oregonians!"

I suppose it's kind of like YOUR unwillingness to "address" reality.  Or your IDIOTIC candy tax, or your MORONIC efforts to get rid of the Oregon tax exemption... and your spastic lawsuit to throw out an initiative that limits your ability to rip us off even MORE... a suit your communist side HAS ALREADY LOST, ONCE.

"Unwillingness to address the regressive nature of our tax system were those that an least afford it, pay the most."

Really?  never mind that those who PAY the least also USE THESE SAME SERVICES THE MOST.

See, in the leftist, regressive, socialist income redistribution fantasy you live in, you believe YOU shouldn't have to pay anything when you're ripping us off.  For example, you getting per diem when you were wasting our money by not even being in Olympia... because you regular job pay hadn't kicked in like the fact that you, apparently, can't plan or save with your OWN finances allows you to rip us off as a result.

And why are you engaging in rather cowardly code speak for a state INCOME TAX?  Does the vote mean ANYTHING to you?

Your sort had your shot at the polls last cycle when you put together a campaign of lies and class warfare to achieve a "camel's nose under the tent flap" approach to starting a state income tax for those who actually HAVE money.

And how did THAT work out for you?  And since that nonsense was slaughtered at the polls, how come that result doesn't make any difference to you leftists?

"I like Joe personally, but his politics stink!"

That's OK, Moeller.  I can't stand you personally and YOU suck... as do the fringe leftist politics you represent.  Rank, leftist, hypocrisy and double standard.

The next two years could be very, very long for you.

Have you considered resigning in protest?  Seriously?

Who I'm voting against in the general and votes on initiatives and referenda.

The short list.

Murray and Rossi

I don't believe either one should be in the Senate. I believe that Rossi has run a terrible campaign; that he started way too late and will ultimately lose and I have no intention of rewarding arrogance with my vote.

I believe that Murray is as dumb as a plank, has wrongly scammed veterans into think she gives a damn about us, has helped the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House spend us into oblivion.

I will write in someone here.

Herrera

My cocker spaniel has spent more time in this district over the past 13 years (and he's a puppy) and with Herrera having everything handed to her on a silver platter, from the conspiracy that gave her the appointment to the state house where she did absolutely nothing besides co-sponsor and support SEIU legislation while selling us out to the left by emptying the last of our state emergency fund to help them spend our money to the despicable campaign ran by those who own Herrera, she has proven herself to be the worst we have to offer, and not the best. I will not reward an empty-suited puppet with my vote.

I will likely write in either my dog's name or Chris Boyd... though I'm leaning to the symbolism of my dog over the obvious substance and integrity of Boyd.

Probst and Stonier (If I were in the 17th)

Probst, while claiming to be a fiscal conservative, is unfortunately for him, a vote for the fringe-leftist whack jobs that run the House who helped jack our taxes up some $800 million during the last session... and that matters a great deal more than his individual positions.

Stonier was an Obama delegate at the National Fringe Nutter Convention. She supports the income tax and every other leftist item on the agenda if she supported a whack job like Obama. As a result, she's unfit for elective office and she would also join with Probst in returning the fringe left, screw the people tax and spenders to House leadership if she were elected.

Moeller and Jacks (If I were in the 49th)

Moeller is as far left as we can possibly imagine. HE IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANDY TAX... a fact that local rag wants to keep from you. There is no tax or fee increase he does not support, and would do all he could to expand funding his various leftist causes. Both he and Jacks also support the unnecessary, unneeded and hugely expensive loot rail project. Both support the state income tax. Both oppose privatization. Both are wrong on all of the initiatives.

Jacks does not APPEAR to be as far to the fringe... but the one measure that matters is his voting record: and it mirrors that of Moeller, where in hundreds of votes, he seems to have only disagreed with Moeller on 4 votes. Four. That makes Jacks as much a fringer as Moeller.

Electing either also amounts to yet another vote for the fringe leftist, Seattle-centric leadership that has spent us into another multi-billion dollar deficit. Neither should be elected.

Kampe

Kampe supports the bridge and tolling. He supports all of Moeller's positions. He is a mirror on the initiatives of the democrats in the 49th.

He dresses himself up as some sort of fiscal conservative, but no fiscal conservative could support a multi-billion dollar increase in revenue to the state like Kampe does. He should not be elected.

Stuart

Stuart is the most obviously corrupt politician locally. He supports the I-5 loot rail project, has no problem stuffing tolls he won't have to pay down our throats on BOTH bridges; he opposes a county-wide advisory vote (as does fake Republican Marc Boldt) has the wrong positions (leftist) on the initiatives and is only in office because David Barnett bought him outright when he ran against Tom Mielke 5 years ago.

He's unfit for any elective office.

Seekins

Seekins, a leftist democrat, only ran because Linda is too sick. Until now, she's never bothered to vote in her entire life... and she's now 53. Is the rag going to do or say or write about this?

Seekins disrespects the process even more than Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who also frequently blew off voting. Neither are fit for elective office, but Seekins in particular should withdraw from the ballot for that stupidity alone.

And Democratian... we're waiting for the story. (Finally done.)

Lew Waters has the details.

Lasher

Is a democrat who has had the job for two thousand years. It's time for him to go, period.

Parker

Parker is a union thug's wife who has benefited directly from that connection. Her insistence on again arrogantly ignoring the sign laws, even after being warned by the state shows she's unfit for office. Combine that with her party (democrat) and she's toast.

Golik

Golik is a union thugs, and his support comes from union thugs and bail bond companies who want an in. I'm not impressed with either his positions or those of the rag who nonsensically tell us that he needs to be elected because he's a prosecutor now.

Bull. He's always been about the Benjamins, and electing someone who will immediately sell out to his union buds to pay them back, while failing to explain why criminal prosecutions are off 30% tend to show he's also unfit for office. Combine that with his election use of the Storro case... and, well, he shouldn't be elected crossing guard.

Initiatives

Initiative Measure 1053 Concerning tax and fee increases imposed by state government.

.

This is a yes.

.

Initiative Measure 1082 Concerning industrial insurance.

.

This is a yes.

.

Initiative Measure 1098 Concerning establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.

.

This is an obvious and absolute "no."

.

Initiative Measure 1100 Concerning liquor (beer, wine and spirits).

.

This is a yes.

.

Initiative Measure 1105 Concerning liquor (beer, wine and spirits).

.

This is a no.

.

Initiative Measure 1107 Concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.

.

This is a yes.

.

Referendum Bill 52 Concerning authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in schools.

.

This is a no.

.

Senate Joint Resolution 8225 Concerns the limitation on state debt.

.

I'm a "no" on this.

.

Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220 Concerning denying bail for persons charged with certain criminal offenses.

.

Vote "yes."

.

There you have it. Ain't democracy grand?
.

The delusion that is Lou.

It's got to be tough to captain the sinking ship that is the democratian. In it's own way, it's kinda like being Obama.

Every morning, you wake up and you realize that you face another day of fail. Obama looks around and sees failure everywhere. NOTHING he's tried has worked. In every area, from domestic policy to the economy to health care to foreign policy, this empty suited, anti-American racist bigot has become the world's joke... and our nightmare.

Much like Brancaccio and that rag he runs.

Every morning, he wakes up and realizes that he's just that much closer to failure. He's in charge of an increasingly obsolete and unresponsive media mode that has just barely survived bankruptcy... for now... and it's getting worse every day.

Still smarting from the ass-kicking he took over his lame effort to Rule 5 Brent Boger, this clown continues to cheer lead even though his team is down 56 to zip with 1:20 left in the 4th quarter.

The problem with the self-delusional is they truly do share in Dr. Goebbels' philosophy that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, it crowds out the truth.

Thus, when Brancaccio babbles:

• Our faithful staff that continues to bring our readers the best of what Clark County has to offer.

It's not because it's true, because it's so far from truth that they don't exist in the same hemisphere.
The best does not include Brancaccio's sniveling brand of bullying.

Subscriptions are off... advertising revenue continues to shrink... most everyone to the right of Stalin despises him and his sidekick, Mugsy Laird. Brancaccio tries to convince himself that the abysmal numbers are only a result of the recession, when, in fact, they're the result of the product he dumps on the street every day... a product which insults our intelligence when it's not insulting us directly.

It does not include patting himself on the back so long and so hard that he needs Tommy John surgery. It does not include letting, if not encouraging a total scumbag editorial page editor insult and belittle the vast majority who are both wise enough and knowledgeable enough to disagree with his crap pile column.

It does not include lying about the bridge project, covering up for and attempting to rehab the public persona of low life scum like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

It just... doesn't. And that's the record here... while Brancaccio moronically tells us that this equates to "the best."

Which, of course, perfectly explains why they had to tuck tail and move back out of the new city hall palace across the bone yard from the current city hall building.

Or this:

• Our faithful readers that stick with us as we all grind through this horrendous recession.

That ever shrinking number that can't seem to afford the internet, you mean?

Those that "stick" with the democratian typically do so because they have little alternative. But in a county of 430,000 or so, the rag's circulation is pathetic... and that is a reflection of the product.

Even the con job about perhaps THE most arrogant government official outside the White House today, Jim Moeller.

I hadn't seen Moeller all that much in the past several years. He's the guy responsible for ripping off taxpayers when it comes to non-veterans getting county veteran funding.

He's also the guy responsible for those idiotic tax increases on soda and some of what is, as opposed to what ain't, candy, that we just got done trashing at the polls, AKA I-1107.

Yes, Jim Moeller was the sponsor of the candy/soda tax bill. The rag repeatedly whined and bitched and moaned about that series of tax increases, but after Moeller dropped the bill in January, the rag never again mentioned that he was the sponsor of that bill that I could find.

There's a reason for that. Moeller was, perhaps, the safest politician running for re-election anywhere in leftist land. That's why he got the assignment to jack up our taxes in the midst of this horrific recession... because he was safe and SOMEBODY had to do it.

So yeah, the democratian allegedly endorsed Craig Riley. But in all of their disdain for that tax, they didn't mention who was behind it when the voters were paying attention.

They didn't write, for example, "As an example of what an out of touch leftist Moeller is, here's just one of the many bills he's introduced which have caused far more harm then good... the massive tax increase on whatever is defined as candy and soda pop... kind of a non-alcoholic, non nicotine sin tax."

Nope. Very few knew that the debacle resulting in 1107 was Moeller's baby, start to finish. And the rag made sure you didn't know it, either. Even now, Brancaccio can't bring himself to tell you that Moeller was the prime mover behind that garbage... just that he "believed" in it.

Moeller's arrogance is only exceeded by his ego. I attended a Christian Chamber of Commerce forum a few months back where Moeller lied his ass off, on subjects like Budget cuts and the like. Reporters were there. Nothing I can recollect was mentioned about Moeller's self-serving situational memory of the economy of this state.

So, I believe the rag's endorsement of Riley was only one of those pseudo-endorsements. Compared to the trashing they did to crucify Peter Van Nortwick or Brent Boger, the rag essentially did nothing to oppose Moeller.

And Brancaccio knows that. So does Moeller. Brancaccio walked him on 4 pitches, an act done to polish Brancaccio's non-existent bi-partisan street cred, and a lame effort to stem the flow of subscriber bleeding.

His column today is eye wash to play to that.

It's to remind those who don't pay close enough attention that they didn't endorse all democrats for open seats this time like they did in 08... although the overwhelming majority of their endorsements DID go to democrats... just like always.

But they don't want you to remember that, because they keep running this bogus "we're fair" scam. And some out there actually believe it if they don't know any better.

When Brancaccio writes:

The Columbian is a lot like me from the standpoint of being moderate. Being able to move based on circumstances.

He is, of course, lying again. Compared to the democratian, Moeller is a complete flip-flopper.

The rag's stands on taxpayer financed downtown redevelopment... all done without asking... completely intractable. The rag's support of the city actually suing it's citizens into silence? Screw the people, start to finish. The rag's stand on the horrific, unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge/loot ail project? Facts and public opinion be damned.... completely intractable.

Koenninger's moronic positions on the Gorge and his persecution of the Beas? Intractable.

Brancaccio's efforts to damage the reputation of those who oppose him and his agenda?

Wolves don't go for the throat with less ferocity.

Well, until he tried it with Boger and got swatted across the nose and stuck out in the back yard like any other non-housebroke mutt.

And that's part of the problem. Brancaccio is an unabashed liberal. That he won't admit it... that he won't address it.... that he won't change it... doesn't make it any less the case.

So, when Brancaccio goes on to spew:

How else do you explain our being able to twice endorse George W. Bush and then
Barack Obama?

That one is easy: stupidity. And let's remember... that was the cycle where Lou and his winged monkeys endorsed democrats and only democrats for any open seat in the area from president on down.
All the while proclaiming, as he does today, what a moderate he, and by extension that despicable cancer on our society rag he works for, actually is.
And this:

How else do you explain our being able to endorse Jim one year and not endorse
him two years later?

That one's even easier.

I'll answer that question WITH a question:

How could they endorse Moeller's opponent, and then endorse his seat mate, who had the SAME VOTING RECORD, save for 4 votes?

Moeller was the throw-away non-democrat endorsement. After hearing from me for so long, and seeing their record of left wing support spelled out year after year, they HAD to do something.

Endorsing in a democrat race where the GOP had no chance (In the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver, it's best not to hold your breath waiting for a Republican to get elected to anything. If we'd had a video of Moeller committing axe murder on a girl scout troop, he still would have been re-elected.) was an easy call, done so Brancaccio could trot this lame act out... again... and say "see? we do TO endorse Republicans!"

Read between the lines. It's easy if you try.

Cross posted on Lou Brancaccio Watch.

The Columbian's Moeller problem.

.
Lately our local cancer on our community, the paper, has done a series of articles on the moronic candy tax that just went into effect.

They've editorialized about it, shown the stupidity of it and the hardship of it.

What they've also done for the last several months is deliberately fail to mention the sponsor of that bill, one State Representative Jim Moeller, (Socialist 49).

I've mentioned that on a few occasions; it goes to the pattern of their leftist bias and their efforts to help their political allies by lying through omission at all levels, like their despicable efforts to rehabilitate Brian Baird's self-shattered image.

Compare and contrast that failure on the local rag's part with this effort in an article today concerning the re-implementation of the license scofflaw squad and efforts to identify those who live here while licensing their vehicles in Oregon to avoid the sales tax and other fees; a laudable goal to be sure.

But said story also included this little tidbit:

Early this year, state Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, persuaded lawmakers to restore the program, which brought in far more money than it cost. Rep. Jim Jacks, D-Vancouver, was a co-sponsor.

It's not particularly rocket science to figure out why the scum at the Columbian cover for Moeller when his stupidity is on display and people would actually hold him accountable for his moronic "candy is not food" garbage.

It's because these leftists want to protect him.

It's just the tiniest bit odd, don't you think, that they not only mention Moeller as the prime sponsor of this bill, but Jacks as a co-sponsor? Obviously, when it comes to a bill most people would like while they REPEATEDLY fail to mention that it was Moeller's ability to "persuade lawmakers" that taxing candy and providing yet ANOTHER reason for us to shop in Oregon actually made sense, this rag will stop at nothing to keep the light of day from shining on these types of bills.

Why do you suppose that is?

Despicable scum.

Not Moeller. As a socialist, he can't help taxing everything in sight to help pay for his union thug buddies.

No... I'm referring to the paper, where they shamelessly huckster for fringe leftists at the expense of telling the truth... ALL the truth... and doing what they can to make sure they make it harder to hold the fringe leftists they like accountable. But then, I'm sure that Moeller was also one of the bigger cheerleaders for the B&O tax break these slime arranged for while the rest of saw our B&O taxes went up.

I'd say at this point that these slimeballs ought to be ashamed of themselves... but it's fairly clear that they're incapable of that ability.
.

Local gas tax insanity;

If someone had asked me before this past session, "Hey, you wanna bet that the GOP State Senate will slam us with a gas tax, allow the Lieutenant Governor to scam us on the GOP Super Majority rule, cave on promised reforms to get it, lie about Inslee's bogus carbon tax threats, slap a fake emergency clause on it and refuse to put a referendum clause in it?"

I'd have bet my house that they'd never do such a thing.

But that's exactly what happened.

Of the 4 local Republican Senators, 2 sold us out.

Sen. Curtis King (R-14) and Sen. Ann Rivers (R-18)

Vancouver's Hobbit, Sen. Annette Cleveland (D-49) naturally flipped when it mattered and provided a "yes" vote on this travesty as well.  After all, the 49th is getting most of the few crumbs in this rip off that Clark County is begging for ($98 million) to waste on a CRC intersection project that's a complete, unneeded waste of money... so why not?

Sen. Don Benton (R-17) and Sen. John Braun (R-20) were the GOP senators who, well, acted like GOP senators.

Meanwhile, the GOP Senate will now undoubtedly lose control of that body in 2016 because frankly, they've eliminated any reason to vote them.

I know I will not be voting for any Republican running for the state senate in the next election, incumbent or otherwise.

I will not reward the GOP Senate with my vote for this rape of the people.

And then, this insanity: One of the local paid liars, Mark Brown (Who makes major, 6-figure money to lie to support his causes representing local governments, including the Vancouver Soviet) tells us THIS whopper:

"This is a damn good package for Clark County," said Mark Brown, a lobbyist who represents the region in Olympia.

That's a crock, of course.  It's a lie based on a lie.

First, the promised reforms, getting rid of prevailing wage and ending the sales tax on these projects so that a huge percentage of these funds are not shifted from transportation to the general fund... are gone.

But then, you knew they would be.  And so, we get screwed out of billions right there, money wasted that will not make one inch of transportation improvements.

Second, Clark County stands to get right around $200 million of this package.

Out of a $15 BILLION pot.

That's right, gang, those voting for this crap pile sold us out for around 1.3%.

And Brown tells us this is a "damn good package for Clark County?"

Yeah.  And Rachel Dolezal is black.

Let's review the bidding to set the stage, shall we?

For months before session, Inslee babbled about... and everyone ran in horror from... his fake threat to implement a tax... unilaterally... without legislative approval... on carbon emissions.  That, of course, was the set up for everything that happened after; pure political cover for the GOP Scam.

The corruption on the part of the GOP Senate began implementation with the widely spread-by-the-media decision by Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen that the newly implemented GOP Senate Rule requiring a super majority to increase taxes or start new taxes was "Unconstitutional."

I said at the time that was a crock, that he had no such right to make such a ruling and that, unless a deal had been cut, the GOP Senate, who IMPLEMENTED THE RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE, would appeal the decision through a simple up or down vote to overturn that "ruling."

They, the GOP Senate, did nothing.  No effort was made to overturn the Owen ruling.

And that's when I knew it was over.  That this gas tax was GOING to happen because the GOP... The REPUBLICANS... WANTED IT TO HAPPEN.

And then I saw where those SAME REPUBLICANS, had SLAPPED AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE on this bill and had MADE NO EFFORT TO ALLOW US TO VOTE BY PUTTING A REFERENDUM CLAUSE IN IT.

And to JUSTIFY this "out-democrating the democrats" scam, we were lied to using the meme, previously set up with Inslee to provide the GOP with political cover... that Inslee was going to wave a wand and do something he had zero legal authority TO do: implement a huge (As much as $2.00 per gallon) carbon tax increase and that they HAD to jack our gas tax to keep that from happening.

What a fricking lie.

Here's the thing: there are a wide variety of ways to stop that from happening.

None of them need involve jacking up the gas tax.

But taking it a step further, what we were being told was that by screwing us for an almost 12 cent gas tax increase, that somehow would keep the governor from arbitrarily implementing a TWO DOLLAR GAS TAX, which would be the equivalent of pulling a political gun, sticking it next to the head of most every democrat in this state and then, pulling the trigger?

How does THAT work?

Yeah, yeah... I know all about the bogus, unconstitutional language in the bill: if Inslee does X, then Y will happen to the gas tax revenue... at least until the Court throws the bill language out since monies once bonded CANNOT be withheld.

And the LAST thing the Republicans could do was allow a mere pittance like the Will of the People to get in the way of all that... could they?

After all, what if we said "no?"

So, here's today's quiz, boys and girls.  Name the governors of this state who have EVER unilaterally, without legislative approval, implemented a tax or a fee.

Go on... I'll wait.

(Tick, tock.  Insert Final Jeopardy music theme here.)

Give up?

The answer is:  NONE.

It's NEVER happened.  The authority to unilaterally implement a tax or a fee without legislative approval DOES NOT EXIST.

Much like the ability of the Supreme Court to force the Legislature to go along with their idea of school funding: THAT AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST.

THEN, we fast forward to the general fund/operating budget.

And guess what?

That SAME Lieutenant Governor REVERSED HIMSELF, and the previously UNCONSTITUTIONAL Rule is suddenly and inexplicably, well, CONSTITUTIONAL again!

LEGISLATIVE MAGIC!

"There's no place like home, no place like home..."

You remember back when Owen killed the rule and how that got so much coverage by the local media?  Well, they didn't seem to have anything to say about Owen reversing himself for the General Fund Budget.

Wonder why?

Where have you heard about that... except here?  Why wasn't declaring the rule constitutional given as much coverage as declaring it UNconstitutional?

Aspiring gubernatorial candidate and GOP Chief Budget writer Sen.Andy Hill (R-45) was like a kid in a candy store as a result.

He could take all these leftist votes and make all these leftist amendments to the budget that he KNEW were not going to pass... even with 29 votes (30 were needed under the GOP Super Majority rule) and Hill was, frequently, the 29th vote.

And that garbage will look GREAT on a campaign flyer, won't it?

Now, the GOP Senate, having screwed us without even the benefit of lubrication, has provided all the cover local pols need to follow suit: watch now, as cities left and right jack the tab fee without asking and find various other insidious ways to hurt our wallets even more.

After all, they're only doing what the GOP Senate has done, so who can get mad?

THIS is the microcosm of why I am out of campaigns, permanently.

THIS is the kind of crap the left is known for.  The GOP is SUPPOSED to be BETTER than that.

And those I believed in... worked so hard to get elected... many of them have thrown it all away.

I am simply too old for this... and I'm done.  And when asked "why," this is what I am going to point to.  My personal betrayal and the betrayal of the people of this state by politicians who view their vision as supreme and who look down on us because they believe we simply can't understand, or they feel compelled to exhibit that nonsensical "leadership" word that's kicked around whenever they intend to bend us over.

The problem is that many of us DO "understand."

All too well.