1. Second Baseball team? Motion Pictures for economic development? Talk about sending in the clowns. Don't Washington's political leaders bring enough unwanted attention to this State with fraudulent voting practices, transit mishaps like the monorail and the like without shining the light anymore on our pathetic and backwards socialist ideology running the majority of office positions already? We'd be far better off sending these economic 'giants' to assist their hero 'Fidel' in his 'Shangri-La' of Cuba. We could call it a gift from the Emerald City, better known as the land of OZ, with our regards.

Posted by: Dan on January 18, 2006 01:55 PM

2. I have not yet had the luxury of reading the house bill yet. Will do so in a little bit to see what the details are.
But as a general principle, isn't attracting the motion picture industry to our state a good thing?
We all have problems with Hollywood but isn't it better to get their tax money here instead of having it go north to Vancouver, BC?
Heck, this bill might even help some of our under-employed film students working coffee shops obtain gainful employment.

Posted by: Reporterward on January 18, 2006 02:01 PM

3. A second MLB team? Does this mean a new stadium payed for by the taxpayers? I didn't read the whole bill, but if the team was to also benefit Portland, would they pitch in for the stadium?

The motion picture bill is a farce. Because of costs and other things, weren't there several movies that purported to be "in Seattle" or nearby that were actually filmed in B.C.?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 18, 2006 02:04 PM

4. The baseball bill is dumb but the movie one makes sense. Yes, movies don't come here and do go to B.C. because of costs. But, if we had a viable state film office to help filmmakers, we could attract more business. For every dollar we would spend somewhere between $10-15 come in. These people don't just bring their own people but hire locally especially in food service, craft service and film. It's a small price to pay for a good, clean industry.

Posted by: westello on January 18, 2006 03:32 PM

5. So let's see, so far Senator Craig Pridemore has dropped bills to (1) bring MLB to Vancouver, and (2) eliminate education accountability by removing the WASL requirement for graduation. Both bills, he openly acknowledges, have a ZERO percent chance of passing.

Hmm. Not very productive for his second year in office, is he? Last year his major accomplishments were the PUD appliance repair bill and WSU Vancouver's switch to 4-year university status, and both of those bills were handed to him on a silver platter with no actual work required.

Even the D's who pushed for him as their "golden boy" alternative to the "evil Republican Don Carlson" have got to be shaking their heads, wondering what's going on. When is he going to step forward and be a champion to their ultra-liberal causes?

Don Carlson was the most productive member of the senate, prime sponsoring more bills that were signed into law than any other senator. While some of us may disagree with the merits of some of those bills, the vast majority of them were non-partisan and generally good laws that benefitted the public. Pridemore, on the other hand, appears to be...well, I guess the best word is "slacker". It may be possible that he's doing all sorts of stuff behind the scenes, but judging from his legislative record it appears as if he's doing almost nothing at all.

We're still waiting to be dazzled, Senator Pridemore. Any time now.

R

Posted by: Randy Mueller on January 18, 2006 03:59 PM

6. Why shouldn't Vancouver get a "free lunch" on the public?

Seattle has the baseball, basketball and football.

Everett, Lynnwood, Bellevue and TriCities have their convention centers paid by the State (and still we wonder why we have had shortfalls) sales tax. (Ed. Note: I don't know if Bellevues and TriCities actually built theirs but the planning was in the works).

Time for Vancouver, the second largest city in the state, to belly up to the trough.

Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2006 04:16 PM

7. I agree with Westello on this one. We are not spending enough money on useless foolish projects that have no possibility
whatsoever of helping the general welfare of the state. We should "enhance our educational standing in the motion picture industry,"
so that we can be really cool man.

If we had a viable state film office to help filmmakers, we could attract hollywood people here and as Westello says, "For every dollar
we would spend somewhere between $10-15 come in." I'm not sure how and neither is Westello but if its true . . . how can we possibly lose?

Yo dude, It's all good.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 18, 2006 04:44 PM

8. Reminds me of the faux advertisements that urged us to "Buy! Buy! Buy! Save! Save! Save!"

Problem is, the way liberals would set it up we would net a dollar for every $15 we spend ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on January 18, 2006 05:03 PM

9. No, alphabet soup. You got it all wrong. In most cases, the way liberals would set it up, we would net negative dollars for every $15 or whatever we spend.

Posted by: C. Oh on January 18, 2006 05:30 PM

10. Regarding the baseball bill. It isn't far-fetched to imagine Portland eventually getting a baseball team. Were Vancouver able to somehow benefit from some part of that I would think that would be a good thing economically and for the city's civic pride. Sometimes these bills are floated for much the same reason professional initiatives are - to get a sense of the support behind the concept.

And as others here have already stated, a lot of filming is done in Vancouver, B.C. Driving some of that business south of the border would be a good thing.

Posted by: Daniel K on January 18, 2006 09:28 PM

11. I was reading where all those Hollywood starts don't film in Hollywood. They go where there is cheap labor or "sweat shops". I bet Canada doesn't have the same union chokehold as the US does.

As for baseball, I would bet Vancouver gets the call. If the players played in Portland they would have an income tax, whereas, in Vancouver, it is sales tax.

Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2006 07:59 AM

12. Unlike Amused, I actually do know what I am talking about regarding the film industry. It's interesting how conservatives are pro-business up the wazoo as long as it's businesses they like. I forgot; Hollywood and its products are very scary and are the bane of our existence. That's why we watch tv, go to the movies and have made a bundle for Apple on Ipods.

Posted by: westello on January 19, 2006 08:02 AM

13. Westello,

Only a hopelessly indolent pin headed liberal socialist like you would consider this measure “pro-business.”

The “reason conservatives are pro-business up the wazoo as long as it's businesses they like” is because they understand that the purpose of any business is to make a profit by providing a legitimate service that the public will pay for. This public subsidized Motion Picture Industry welfare program is not legitimate.

This socialist program is designed to wring money out of the hands of the public, with no possibility of providing any return. It will obtain resources from the “General Fund,” convert it into a public works apparatus for a limited number of motion picture industry elites through tax credits, carve out another haven for labor unions, expansd state run health care and retirement dependency programs, provide unregulated staff and related expenses to maintain the programs proper administration and operation, in order to promote the image of the state of Washington at unlimited cost to the taxpayer. There is no “Fiscal Note” available for the bill because its proponents know it is not fiscally viable, but they don’t care to belabor the fact.

Just like Westello, the proponents of this bill are liberals who are completely ignorant of economics. They disregard the FACT that the reason many industries (like the Motion Picture Industry) will not do business in Washington is the high taxes, burdensome regulatory obstacles, and poor infrastructure that comprise an expressly anti-business climate. Liberals ignore the FACT that lowering taxes, lifting unnecessary regulations, cutting programs that do things for people that they should be doing for themselves, subsidizing feasible transportations systems, and maintaining production capacities through substantial infrastructure would encourage business, thus increasing revenues, improving our whole economy. These FACTS are working on a national level to steadily improve our economy.

Encourage business . . . or encourage “public relations” schemes for Democrats? What a question.

Instead people like Westello want to subsidize a marginal business because it might enhance the image of the state of Washington at an unlimited cost to the taxpayer. IT'S INTERESTING HOW LIBERALS ARE PRO-BUSINESS UP THE WAZOO AS LONG AS IT'S BUSINESSES . . . THEY LIKE.

Thanks Westello; as usual you have no idea what you are talking about, but you are so willing to talk about it.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 19, 2006 01:44 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?