KVI's John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur promised to back an initiative to repeal Gregoire's gas tax -- "No New Gas Tax" -- but only the condition that listeners came up with $25,000 in seed money.
Just announced on Kirby's show -- the campaign has raised $81,000 from 1,900 donors in the first 4 days, and signed up 6,000 volunteers. They've never seen such a strong response to a ballot initiative. The petitions should be available around Memorial Day, and then there will be 30 days to gather 250,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2005 08:14 AM | Email ThisHeavens knows it is needed, but....
I don't know what is more critical-
a. Send a message to Olympia that we don't mind being taxed but we want accountability;
or
b. Get some badly needed money into road building, because I don't believe it can be done with the money coming in.
And when the initiative passes, how do we get that badly needed money into roads? Do we cut back on environmental over-protections (don't we all know by now that salmon are not endangered?)? Or do we cut back Davis-Bacon or Prevailing Wage (which won't happen)? So, where do we get that money?
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2005 08:26 AMBut it looks like the people are speaking and taking a stand. Let's do it!!!
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 08:35 AMMy understanding is the "emergency" clause eliminates it from referendum, which requires about half the amount of signatures required to make it on a ballot. Another "strategy" the Olympia wrecking crew had in making that requirement is an initiative is more expensive to run so the chance of opposition is less. Looks like they "mis-underestimated" us.
Posted by: PC on May 9, 2005 08:40 AMWhen dems start complaining about this ask them ho it is the legislature can start collecting... er, confiscating money for highway projects that aren't designed yet and therefore have no budget estimates.
Posted by: Baynative on May 9, 2005 08:41 AMStill, I hope it passes. Where can I sign?
Posted by: Scott on May 9, 2005 08:46 AMYou must be new to the area. No money actually goes to "road-building", because roads are almost as evil as christian white men. The mantra around here is that it's useless to build more capacity (because that would make sense), so all our "road-building" money gets put instead into "mass-transit" boondoggles which either go nowhere, or never get built, or no one rides. Usually all three.
Further, they raised the gas tax 2 years ago by 5 cents/gallon. Where is that money going??? No one knows. The good old DOT refuses to get an independent audit. They just keep telling us that they don't have enough money. I'd like to see where the 23 cents/gallon was going before the raise 2 years ago. I'd especially like to see where the extra 5 cents/gallon has been going for 2 years. Instead, we just get the equivalent of a large man named Bubba asking us to dig deeper into our wallets.
Also, you can see from the list of "projects" this latest extortion fee is supposed to partially pay for, that it is just replacing what is already there, so it won't add capacity, so it won't make traffic better. Anywhere.
Posted by: Scott on May 9, 2005 08:52 AMTax hard and go home early, after a group hug.
Posted by: Andy on May 9, 2005 09:00 AMPut the blame where it really is -- on the horrible "tax our products but put it in terms of price increases so we don't have to call it a tax" policies of the Republican Party.
The real answer is to elect Democrats who care about the public.
Posted by: Nelson on May 9, 2005 09:02 AMThere are many freaky conspiracy websites out there. Find one.
Posted by: Greg M on May 9, 2005 09:09 AMYou also forgot to mention the policy of Gregoire which was passed (this is actually attributable to the dems of this state government - something like this would be nice when you support your contention on the Bush policy) that requires CA car standards and the extra cost that has on top of the 9.5 cents per gallon, which is on top of the 5 cent per gallon, which is on top of .... etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Fred on May 9, 2005 09:20 AMIf they got rid of just half the waste in the various State departments we'd have plenty of money for road projects. We didn't need a gas tax...we didn't need increased state spending...if they had left everything exactly the same (i.e. spent the same amount as previous year) there would have been a budget surplus.
This budget was nothing more than government pork at its best (or worst). Fraudroire is doing nothing more than lining the pockets of those who she thinks can help her ... she's buying votes as far as I'm concerned (that includes the 7% pay raise she gave troopers...and my hubby is one of them).
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 09:27 AMYou know, if we knew we were getting something really good and really responsible (read that to mean: NOT Sound Transit--see the report on how awful they're doing) we wouldn't mind paying. But the dems who run things here are so wasteful, building lanes that few can use, building silly bus tunnels, not bothering to stop the theft at the till by state union employees down at the ferry dock, and never really accomplishing anything that really says "This was SO worth it!" anymore. they ignore what most of the state wants in roads, and waste money on useless projects. So yes, we're going to send them a message. Because it's the right thing to do.
They even had the nerve to give almost a billion dollars of that tax to Sound Transit and other 'transit', even while selling it as a roads tax. Notice how you never heard about that part when this was being discussed in Olympia. They simply want us to pay and pay and pay, but traffic won't be any better. We'll have the highest gas tax in the nation, but won't at all have the best road system in the nation.
As to your paraniod delusions, please state the exact bill that Bush signed into law that increased the price of gas by a dollor a gallon? And exactly when did this become a communist dictatorship, allowing Bush to do this?
As to your apparent lack of understanding of basic economics, petroluem is a world commodity, so increased demand in another part of the world has an effect on the entire worlds's price. There hasn't been an increase in supply, but in the last couple of years, the demand in China and India has gone through the roof by someting like 5 or 10 fold as their economies really take off. Since we import most of our oil, we are subject to world oil prices. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that as a commodity becomes more scarce, its price will increase.
Honestly, most folks wouldn't mind a 9.5 tax increase if it could be justified. Give me the blueprints and an itemized list of what you're building, how you're building it and how much it costs, and I might stomach it. But smacking us with a huge increase, and saying we'll figure out how to spend it later, with only some of the money maybe going to build the SR520 bridge and the Viaduct (which was the justifications for passing it) before they've even come up with a plan-- because we in Olympia know better than you-- is simply not justifiable (not to mention exceedingly arrogant).
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2005 09:33 AM
Tim Sheldon, and Brian Sonntag are the only exceptions. Why are they the only democrats who 'get it'?
Now...I don't know about you, but this sounds like an explicit 'promise'...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours some more. As I tried to tell my hubby, the raise is all well and good, but we're going to be paying so much more for driving and for the cost of goods that it pretty much cancels itself out.
A raise for State Troopers is important, I agree. But the way it came and the attitude that came with it just disgusted me. I'd rather have no raise for Troopers (at an extreme disadvantage to my family) with controlled and responsible government.
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 09:45 AMScott... you have to understand that many people got very wealthy from these boondoggles. These people were able to retire early and buy big yachts. They are no longer on the roads in the morning and afternoon so they have helped to solve the traffic problem. Who says these dollars have been wasted?
I guess that it wasn't a waste at all. How selfish of us! I guess we should be more understanding to the Sound Transit folks then too...after all, they are earning a bunch and making no progress...except lining their own pockets. But I guess that's what these projects are really for...not the people of WA.
/sarcasm off :-)
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 09:59 AM2) Nelson - 2 years ago the people of WA voted down Prop 51, a 7 cent gas increase by a overwhelming majority. Last year the Legislature approved an 5 cent gas tax increase, then a 9.5 cent increase this year for a total of 14.5 cents increase in the last 2 years. This is greater then the 7 cent increase we voted down 2 years ago.
3) This bill not only includes a 9.5 cent gas tax increase, but an increase of other user fees. The voters of WA voted for $30.00 car tabs and Olympia has added more fees to license cars/trucks in WA.
4) I would have no problem supporting fees increases if they ACTUALLY went to project that would ease traffic around the state, but this tax does NOTHING to do that. It provides about 30% of the money required for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, 20% of the money for I-520 and we don't even know what those plans/details of those two projects look like. Not only that WA pays MUCH higher for every mile of road than other states because of the "Prevailing Wage" that the Unions have paid to get through the Legislature. These same unions have prevented ANY performance audits to be performed.
5) By gutting I-601 Olympia has continued to show that they have no regard to what the voters of WA have stated. This is only one of MANY initiatives that Legislatures have ignored or attempted to ignore. Some of the others are: I-200, Three Strikes, The $30.00 Car Tab...
6) Democrats that cared about the public...(LAUGH!!!)
Frank
*Democrats, helping the poor.........
Stay that way*
I made a mistake on the resaurant tax....
It's not $1.00 for every $100.00. It's $.10 for every $100.00 a .01% increase.
Frank
*Democrats, helping the poor......
Stay that way*
The people in Olympia just don't care about what Washingtonians want,
which is accountability.
Which ever way you look at it, this tax subsidizes the player’s salaries. If the club cannot make money paying those salaries there are three choices – 1) cut the salaries, 2) go out of business, 3) have taxpayers pick up the bill. These sports do not benefit me in anyway. They do make traffic worse for me, costing me more gas. Why should people who cannot afford to buy tickets to these sports, never mind the parking, be subsidizing them when they buy their lunch at work?
Posted by: Fred on May 9, 2005 10:25 AM I have just moments ago received a copy
of letter chris vance sent out on april 21
supporting the 7 republicans who voted
in favor of the gas tax.
If you would like a copy please email
me. I will be happy to send it to any of you.
(I'm being sarcastic, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone said that and actually meant it.)
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2005 10:44 AMWe have plenty of money now to build roads if they wanted to. The culture has to change first. Forget about the commute reduction schemes and the HOV/transit solutions that are failed social engineering debacles. Not to mention obvious violations of the Washington State Constitution. Hell, when has the Constitution ever stopped a rabid politician!
!st we need to make the head of the transportation department an elected position. Since gas tax revenue is Constitutionally mandated to go into the transportation budget, it seems ridiculous we don't have an accountable, elected head.
2nd binding independent performance audits, with indictments for the thieves.
3rd remove the onerous envirnomental & permitting regulations for road building. This is where the real money is wasted, it amounts to 30% + of total costs.
4th institute genuine competitive bidding for all projects and encourage non-union contractors to apply. Remove the 15% apprentice fraudoire payback and any union mandate that may interfere with previous sentence.
5th remove sales tax on all state transportation purchases.
And last and probably the most important, keep paying prevailing wage without the required unionization. With all the money saved with the above mentioned improvements, the road builders stay happy, they only work 9 months out of the year, can't pave in the Winter.
That policy would hurt the commy union leaders and the democRAT party in ways that make me giggle out loud when I think about it. Plus we'd have world class roads again, as it should be.
I don't mind paying my fair share for infrastructure, but when you consider what we are paying today, we are being raped.
Posted by: Encouraged Voter on May 9, 2005 10:58 AMSafeco Field was put in front of KING COUNTY VOTERS ONLY in early 1995. The rest of the state did not vote on it. And it was NOT the same financial package ultimately approved by a bi-partisan Legislature in October of 1995. If you still have a problem with this, talk to your neighbors who screamed "You can't let the Mariners leave!!!"
Please stop comparing the current gas tax hike and 601 end runs by the current Legislature to some perceived "voters spoke and they ignored us" mantra of the sports stadiums. There's enough wrong with the current Legislature and their actions without confusing the issue further with misconceptions.
And for what it's worth, I don't - and never have - supported those stadiums.
Posted by: jimg on May 9, 2005 11:41 AMIt's neither paranoid, nor delusional. It's a simple matter of Bush's inaction in a policy that he has sole ability to issue. Perfectly legal, not resulting from a "communist dictatorship."
What I'm talking about is the ability the President has (his name is Bush, by the way, since you don't appear to know much about the US government) to simply issue an executive order that would authorize the release of millions of barrels of oil from our strategic reserve.
Just the mere threat of the President doing that would dramatically reduce the price of oil in the market. None of it might actually have to be released into the market -- just the President threatening to do it would stop the high price speculation in the market.
Clinton did it (because Democrats DO care about the people; Republicans care only about the oil COMPANIES) when gas prices began running up and it stopped the gas price increase cold. Prices came down, the US bought much lower priced oil and fully replenished the strategic reserve -- and actdually made a profit for the US Treasury while doing it!
If Bush threatened that release, we might see gas prices fall anywhere from 25-75 cents a gallon at the pump. Instead, he doesn't want to do it and forces us consumers to pay a huge extra consumption tax at the pump.
That, my Republican friends, is what I CONSIDER to be an UNCONSCIONABLE GOP TAX THAT NOBODY EVER VOTED FOR!!!!!
Posted by: Nelson on May 9, 2005 11:57 AMThe strategic oil reserves are NOT for the purpose of holding down oil prices, nor is there enough oil there for even a week of US consumption. What effect is threatening to release those reserves going to have on OPEC? About as much as somebody knocking over and spilling one of a million barrels of oil...
Get a clue, and get back to us when you find one. :~\
Posted by: brian c on May 9, 2005 12:27 PMYour arithmetic is correct. But you're looking at it from the wrong direction. I correctly stated that Bush's policies have resulted in gas prices at the pump about $1 a gallon higher than about a year ago.
Because of his inaction (or, to put it another way, actions that showed the oil industry that they had a friend in the White House and consumers could go fly a kite), I fear that much of that "consumer gas tax" is now so embedded into the system that action now couldn't reverse it all.
But acting now on the strategic reserve issue could indeed drop prices 25-75 cents a gallon, so that going forward we would see a significant reversal of much, or most, of the Bush "gas tax" he has imposed.
Not perfect, but a lot better than we are now.
So instead of circulating your silly petition about the insignificant 9.5 cent highway-improvement phased-in gas tax from the Gregoire Administration, you should make your petition read to be sent to Washington, DC to President Bush to urge him to release oil from the strategic reserve and and thus dramatically reduce the price all of us pay for gasoline.
Posted by: Nelson on May 9, 2005 12:35 PMNow for some facts...
Current strategic oil reserves = 692 MB
http://www2.spr.doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html
2002 US oil usage (latest numbers = 23MB
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_Consumption.htm
These are per day numbers.
So we have one months supply. I can just see the Shieks shaking! (sorry) They are worried stiff that Bush will totally disrupt the pricing of the world oil market with TEN DAYS SUPPLY. Wow, scary!
Posted by: Fred on May 9, 2005 12:45 PMNelson prefers that the President attempt to superficially manipulate the price of oil by playing games with the strategic oil reserves (which will have no real long-term effect), while he has no problem with paying higher state taxes.
We prefer that our state legislature listen to us and stop inflating the taxes on our gas for no good nor auditable reasons.
I know which side I'm on.
Posted by: Larry on May 9, 2005 01:05 PMYou need to wake up and smell the latte buddy...
The release Mr. Clinton arranged from the Stategic Oil Reserves was nothing but smoke and mirros in action. Something he was very good at. "Ah feel yer pain"
Ya want real relief at the pumps? President Bush is already trying (against lib/eco opposition) to get it for us. Opening ANWR will help. Allowing off shore drilling will help. Cutting regressive regulations and building more refinery capacity is needed.
These are the actions that will bring down the price at the pump and lessen our dependence on OPEC.....not some phony threat by the President.
Get real and move out of the fantasy world yer livin in now.
Think positively. If this intitiative drive works that piddling 9.5 cents you save could go towards renewing your prescriptions......
Posted by: BlueKnight on May 9, 2005 01:07 PMESSB 6091
House vote on Final Passage as Amended by the House
4/24/2005
Voting Yea: Representatives Anderson, Appleton, Armstrong, Blake, Campbell, Chase, , Clements, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Curtis, Darneille, Dickerson, Eickmeyer, Ericks, Flannigan, Fromhold, Grant, Green, Haigh, Haler, Hankins, Hasegawa, Hinkle, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Linville, Lovick, McCoy, McDermott, McIntire, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, O'Brien, Pettigrew, Quall, Roberts, Santos, Schual-Berke, Sells, Shabro, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, B. Sullivan, Takko, Tom, Upthegrove, Wallace, Walsh, Williams, Wood, Woods, and Mr. Speaker.
The following is from Chris Vance in a memo he sent out on April 25th. The last paragraph says it all. You know, the 11th. commandment of "thou shall not say anything negative about another Repugnanton candidate". Got to defend those Repugnanton's for supporting the gas tax.
Thank you for your message. I understand that many Republicans are upset with the passage of tax increases in Olympia. I would ask you, however, to keep the following facts in mind on this issue:
The state of Washington adopts separate two year budgets for transportation, and for general operations.
Republicans unanimously opposed Christine Gregoire's bloated operating budget which increased spending 12% and raised over $500 million in new taxes.
Republicans also unanimously opposed suspending the voter approved requirement (I-601) that tax increases must pass with a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate.
While some Republican members of the House and Senate did support an increase in the gas tax, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted no, while the vast majority of Democrats voted yes.
Under our state constitution gas taxes can only be used to fund state highways. Therefore, none of this gas tax increase will go to Sound Transit light rail, or to any other government function.
Republicans succeeding in passing a measure requiring a performance audit of the state Department of Transportation.
This gas tax increase will be phased in gradually over the next three years, and will fund transportation projects statewide, not just in Seattle or the central Puget Sound area.
In summary, most Republican members of the legislature opposed raising the gas tax. Some, however, saw the proposal as a necessary investment in needed transportation projects important to relieving traffic congestion and improving our economy. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very controversial issue.
Chris Vance
Posted by: mel on May 9, 2005 01:20 PM
Ummm... in case you didn't notice, I refered to the President as "Bush" twice in my post. Before you start making smarmy, condiscending comments about what someone said, try reading them first and get your facts straight.
In any event, as others have pointed out, the oil reserves are just that, reserves. They aren't there so the government can start controlling oil prices outright. I don't know about you, but I personally get extremely uncomfortable when a president signs an executive order in order to start controlling market prices of a commodity in a non-emergancy.
But even if he did, in a world market, how much of an effect is that little bit of oil going to really have when it is more than offset by Asia's (particularly India's and China's) skyrocketing demand? When Clinton signed that executive order, Asia's demand wasn't even close to what it is now? Even if PRESIDENT BUSH (just making sure you could see I know who the president is) could just sell off all the oil reserves, and any effect on world prices would be minimal and temporary.
Sorry, but economics (and our government) doesn't work that way. You want oil price relief? Destroy the economies of most of Asia-- decreasing demand for petroleum. But short of doing something barbaric like that, you have to increase sources of supply, and the number of refineries.
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2005 01:37 PMI'm not reading what you are into Vance's email....Get over your blatant dislike of Chris Vance and quit hi-jacking every friggin issue with your anti-Vance soap box!
This thread is about nonewgastax.com! It's for THE people - ALL of the people - ANY party!
Yes! There are many card carrying Democrats in this state who are OUTRAGED over their D-parties sly maneuver in the legislature - to increase our taxes! OUTRAGED! This initiative is for everyone - not those of a particular party! That's why it is quickly gaining so much support!
Posted by: Deborah on May 9, 2005 01:39 PMI've never understood the anti-Chris Vance crowd. He doesn't rub me the wrong way so I guess I don't get it.
And this gas tax affects everyone...D, R, and every other party out there. And the poorest of those among us are hit hardest because they pay the exact same amount as the rich for gasoline...thus spending a much larger percentage of their income on gasoline (versus a wealthier person).
Nelson...I think what you fail to understand is that even if Bush released the emergency reserve, it wouldn't do a bit of good (as has already been discussed) and it would put our national security at risk.
It is my understanding that the reserve is NOT for regular ol' consumers like you and me. It's for an emergency of such scale that even our military would be unable to operate for lack of oil supply. It would merely be a superficial, good-PR act, to release the reserves to drop prices one or two cents a gallon. We certainly aren't in any type of horrible emergency situation to warrant this action.
And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton not only release some of the emergency reserve, but also allowed Gore to sell some of it to private companies? I don't know where I hear that (it was awhile ago) but I remember thinking how stupid that was at the time...could be just some wacko conspiracy...anyone know more about this?
Anyway, the fact is that the current gas prices are nowhere near as high as the prices in the 70s (when you adjust it for present day costs) or even in the earliest days of car use. Our incomes are much higher and gasoline cost is a much lower percentage of our expenses.
The uproar isn't so much about the amount (I agree that 9 cents over 3-4 years is not a lot) but the principle of the matter. The politicians aren't listening to those who elect them!!!
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 02:00 PMJust one point of clarification...we aren't actually a Democracy. We are a Republic. We elect those bozos in Olympia to represent our interests...they obviously are not doing a very good job.
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 02:02 PMI have heard of a new treatment that I think most of the regulars here would like you to go through. It is a Democrat Conversion program. It requires two strapping individuals to each take one of your arms and commence kicking you in the butt until your head pops out. Immediately you will be converted to a Republican as you will, for the first time in your life, be able to smell the fresh air.
Posted by: MikeFedUp on May 9, 2005 02:04 PMTime to party!!!!!
Posted by: MikeFedUp on May 9, 2005 02:13 PMNot sure what you mean by not electing anyone in Olympia. If you didn't vote I have little sympathy. I feel if you don't vote you shouldn't complain. At least vote for someone...even if not a major candidate. People who don't vote out of some sense of protest are only harming themselves.
The fact remains that they ARE our representatives...in name only. Their actions completely misrepresent the people's interests. I'm extremely disappointed in the R's who voted along with the D's for this tax. And very proud of the D's who did the right thing and voted against it (Sheldon?).
I too have thought about the Boston Tea party...I don't think dumping oil into the sound will be very effective though. :-) I've tried to think of something comparable, but haven't come up with anything environmentally friendly. LOL
Posted by: megs on May 9, 2005 02:21 PMYes of course- then the money MUST be going into the pockets of the Bush and Haliburton fortunes. This would explain the 2.50 a gallon price of gas.
China, global demand, refinery capacity and tons of other factors have nothing to do with it.
Also according to the theives in Olympia, 30 cents a gallon is just noise, nobody really notices that their gas is inflated by 30 cents a gallon.
The REAL challenge for the legislature is not running a lean government, but finding how far they can push the envelope before the entire economy is bankrupt for special interests.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY look forward to mid term elections.
Posted by: Andy on May 9, 2005 02:24 PMBut let's cut the 10% first. And perhaps the overly costly environmental protections can be reduced, too.
But, if you read the bidder's list and contracts, there are only a few companies that can bid on these large contracts. You don't think there is collusion? There is but it is impossible to prove because the collusion comes in the form of subs and knowledge of what each has bid on previous jobs.
And the risk factor? These contracts are like 33% work and materials, 33% risk and 33% profit. And then you add a safety factor. These are the reasons for the high prices.
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2005 02:42 PMEvery needs to jump on board this initiative, and also Tim Eyman's I900 while we are at it to get real performance audits going in this state that the results are actually shown to the citizens.
Anyone who thinks the Califoria emmissions she just signed into effect is not chuck full of new pork state income, should read that bill. Higer costs of cars, over charging for testing, high repair bills all equal more taxes for the queen. It has nothing to do with air quality.
Let's all show them what we think of their tax and spend over regulate legislative session.
Posted by: GS on May 9, 2005 03:25 PMIf they could trim 10% off of any operating budget they'd have teams of hundreds scrutinizing it down to the penny.
The state on the other hand has checks a plenty to write.
"and yet you're completely silent on the ONE DOLLAR A GALLON increase in gas prices foisted upon us by the Bush Administration, all of which goes to line the pockets of his oil company buddies with not one cent of it going to our roads and highways!"
If Bush contolled oil prices you may have a partial point but.....he doesn't
And, if you do the math, 1.00 increase equals 8.5 plus cents per gallon in sales tax going straight into the general fund. I don't hear Olympia announcing that windfall. Nor do I hear anyone on the left mentioning that well kept secret.
By the way, should we sell off the strategic reserve and save a penny a gallon and then have to refill it at these inflated prices?
Hell no, drill, build refinerys, give incentives to alternative fuel and conserve.
And then vote out the social engineers in Olympia and put some fiscal conservatives in their place to budget and spend wisely
Nelson's belief that the President can effectively control any industry he want's with the stroke of a pen speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2005 05:27 PMNew PI poll on gas tax.
Posted by: Norm on May 9, 2005 06:26 PM I am sorry if what I said bothers you.
Yeah your right I don't like chris vance.
But I will not rehash again why.As to the
gas tax,vance is the leader of a state
political party.
Vance should not be praising legislators
for being stupid.Instead he should be
condemning them.instead of going along to get
to get along. A good leader takes stands
as far as I can tell the only thing vance
has stood for is how to keep his job without
really doing anything except bankrupting
the party.
You've apologized to Deborah for what you've "said." And you've done the same to me on previous threads.
I don't claim complete knowledge about your p****** contest with Vance. More importantly, I don't care about your little row with Vance.
I would humbly offer this little piece of sage advice given me by my grandfather many years ago: choose carefully the hill you're gonna die on.
Posted by: Danny on May 9, 2005 08:06 PMYou remind everyone why democrats are the way they are.
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 9, 2005 08:26 PM Do really think I would say things I have
about vance If I were in the slightest bit
worried about what might happen.When you
have the truth On your side you don't
have to worry.
13 days until the trail. See what is revealed and who did what, than talk about the facts. Cus right now pal your just a bottom feeder.
Posted by: Real Men on May 10, 2005 10:33 AMMegs, correction maybe?....she's not 'buying' votes, if you cant tell, shes just paying for em, and the extra left over from any valid votes, is pocketed.
:-)
Scott
Posted by: ScottL on May 10, 2005 11:06 AMThe current state budget has 3.7%for Transportation but 6.5% for .gov overhead. 41.6% goes to Health and human services, 41.5% to education. Hell, "Special Appropriations goes 4.4%!
Transportation gets so little in Olympia because it is an obvious need, and is used as a crowbar to seperate us from our money.
Numbers from http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/lbns/2003appendix.pdf
Posted by: CavVet on May 14, 2005 02:30 AM