On January 28, State Rep. Mike Hope sent a letter to Rep. Chris Hurst, chairman of the House Public Safety Committee, to request a hearing for HB 1724, which would increase the penalties for first-time child abuse offenders.
The legislation came out of the actions of the parents of Eryk Woodruff, who was beaten by babysitter Matthew Christiansen.
According to what Hurst told KOMO News, "the bill's timing is off ... the bill was introduced too late in the session to beat the cutoff, and there isn't much he can do."
The legislative session began on January 12th, and the hearing was requested January 28th. The 17th day of a 105-day session is too late to introduce a bill? Granted, they don't introduce new bills through the whole session, and the cutoff for this bill is the end of next week. But Hurst got the request two weeks ago.
And he obviously isn't enthusiastic about the bill, saying "increasing prison time for offenders would cost millions of dollars for the state at a time when lawmakers are looking far and wide for ways to cut costs."
That's nonsense for two obvious reasons. First, if taken to its logical conclusion, we should just not incarcerate anyone. The first and primary function of government is to protect the citizenry in its life, liberty, and property, which means keeping dangerous felons off the street. Saying "there's not enough money to protect people from criminals" is never rational, especially when these are the worst criminals that most need incarceration.
Second, changing the law now won't have any impact on any budget for several years, since it would only apply to new sentences, not existing ones. As the law would increase jail time from 8-to-10 years to 10-to-18 years, even considering parole this will take about five years to have any cost impact.
He could have scheduled a hearing two weeks ago, and his reasons for opposing it on its merits are, well, meritless. Clearly, Hurst isn't being forthcoming. Contact Hurst and let him know that you know.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 11, 2009 10:10 PM | Email This..yeah, it's unfortunate that the Governor pissed away 140 Million a year the state would have received from the tribes that was already agreed to but retracted by her. It's comforting to see that the Governors special interest groups take precedent over public safety, especially for the most vulnerable among us. Not to mention she's the former AG that has seen cases come across her desk regarding these abuse cases. Shame on the two Chris'.
Duffman: that word apparently is erased from ones vocabulary the second they ascend to an elected office. I believe it is replaced with the word "spend". :)
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 07:15 AMReactionary law creation is a big part of what is wrong with this country today.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2009 09:46 AMHe is a complete fraud, and deserves to be defeated in next year's election.
Posted by: Kato on February 12, 2009 09:46 AMOK, but that has nothing to do with this.
Nobody really cares what you have to say. This bill isn't about you, its about a defenseless 15 month old child that was nearly killed.
So shove it up your righteous pie hole.
Posted by: Steve on February 12, 2009 11:57 AMIf you want to increase penalties for child beating, fine, go for it. I have no sympathy for child abusers, especially as a dad, but don't use emotion to do it - that's no better than using Blair Holt to get a pet bill passed.
Sorry, Mike Hope is my representative and I'm glad he won, just dismayed to see him using the same tactics to get bills pushed through.
Also, the thread title is patently inaccurate. Child abuse is already illegal. They get punished (assuming they are caught and convicted, which has nothing to do with Hurst of course).
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2009 03:06 PMYou are mistaken. No such tactic is being used by Mike Hope or anyone else.
And no, there is nothing remotely inaccurate about the title. Yes, they get punished, and they are out in five years; this bill would increase their punishment.
And don't be such a simpleton Andrew. The Democrats control everything in Olympia. Whatever it takes to get a bill passed (or at the very least, a hearing). This is not a partisan issue, but the Democrats always play that game behind the scenes. Hundreds of good bills will die because there is a Republican on the first signature line. That's what Democrats do. You're stupid if you think otherwise.
Posted by: Steve on February 12, 2009 04:16 PMYes, we can personalize any issue to make it stand out. But then they all get that treatment and we're left with a race to the bottom in who can tell the biggest tear-jerker.
It's a bit disingenuous to rail about the legislature not taking the budget crisis seriously, then turn around and scream bloody murder when they don't drop everything and to deal with a great story, but something that will impact very few of us.
I'd prefer it if they just did the job they need to do without getting distracted anytime someone says "kid" or "sex". Yes it's a tragedy. But it's impact is minor in the grand scheme of things and there are a lot more urgent and potentially tragic issues that can be and need to be resolved first.
Posted by: Thomas on February 13, 2009 04:11 AMWow, you're just not paying attention.
I entertained Hurst's stated objection on its merits. I didn't say "but think of the children!" I pointed out that his objection had no merit, because it was both illogical on its face, and the fiscal impact won't hit for half a decade anyway.
And now I will point at how you're being illogical: that it impacts very few of us is irrelevant.
You've read the Declaration of Independence, I presume. The job of the government is to secure our rights to life, liberty, and so on. That doesn't mean we also don't protect our own rights, of course, but it means that this is the primary job of the government nontheless.
And here's where your argument breaks down: children are among the most vulnerable in our society, among the most lacking in ability to defend themselves, and therefore among the most in need of protection.
It's not about emotions, it's about obvious logic and justice. A government that won't defend its children and other most vulnerable people first and foremost is a government that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, should be altered or abolished.
Not emotion, Thomas. Justice.
If you truly believe getting out in five years for what happened to Eryk is justice, then speak up for that point. Most of us recognize that five years isn't nearly enough to meet the demands of a just society that protects those in the most need of protection.
My point was that with limited time and resources available, is this the highest priority? There are sufficient laws on the books to sentence him to a higher jail time. I agree that 5 years is light. I'd argue that 8 years is light, too. So why not go after the prosecutors who didn't charge him with attempted murder?
What happens in a few weeks, months, years when a father disciplines his kid, an accident happens (say a fall leads to a broken arm) and he gets charged with first-time child abuse? Will you then over-react in the opposite direction, get all huffy about a father's right to discipline is child and be clamoring to change the law again? You can't have it both ways. But I bet people will try.
I was agreeing with Andrew's earlier point that law should be objective. The problem in this instance is the charge, not the laws. There were charges that could have been brought (at least on the surface - was anyone reading this in the court room?) that would have put him away for longer. If the laws exist, but weren't exercised, then why blame the legislature?
The more I see of Mike Hope, and the more I read his press releases and the bills he sponsors, the more I feel like we elected our own special 44th District version of George "all hat, no cattle" Bush. There are much more important issues that don't have solutions. Spending time on this one, which has a solution that wasn't invoked, isn't helping anybody, including the next Eryck Woodruff.
* If you want to get into that, then lets talk about how fit the Woodruff parents were to have kids. Why doesn't anyone question their poor judge of character and willingness to introduce someone who put the child's right to life in serious jeopardy. But that wasn't my point.
I'm not arguing the merits of any one case*, or Hurst's reasoning.
Right. That's the problem.
His wasn't the most elegant of phrasing, but you can understand it from a Law-of-Diminishing-Returns point of view.
No, not at all, as he did not make an argument about diminishing returns.
My point was that with limited time and resources available, is this the highest priority?
No. Is it a much higher priority than most legislation passed this year? Yes, absolutely.
There are sufficient laws on the books to sentence him to a higher jail time.
Actually, no. He was sentenced with the maximum.
So why not go after the prosecutors who didn't charge him with attempted murder?
Because there was no evidence to support a charge of attempted murder. You need to actually prove that murder was attempted. You stated several times that they should have gone for this charge, but you provide no reason for us to think the charge could have been sustained by a grandy jury, let alone the trial jury.
What happens in a few weeks, months, years when a father disciplines his kid, an accident happens (say a fall leads to a broken arm) and he gets charged with first-time child abuse?
No, such an accident would not fall under the existing statutes. Yes, really. You have to take action that would be likely to lead to the harm of the child, and an accident resulting from another action would not fall under the statutes.
I was agreeing with Andrew's earlier point that law should be objective.
Yes, the problem was that you and he were not arguing against anyone when you said that.
The more I see of Mike Hope, and the more I read his press releases and the bills he sponsors, the more I feel like we elected our own special 44th District version of George "all hat, no cattle" Bush.
And the more I read from you, the more clear it is that you really don't understand what you're talking about, and are just looking for excuses to complain.
There are much more important issues that don't have solutions.
First off, again, no, this absolutely is one of the most important issues. Second, even if it were not very important, it's a logical fallacy to say he shouldn't spend time on it for that reason. Third, the way the legislature works, he could not successfully pass most things that most conservatives and Republicans would want passed, because of the liberal Democrat majority, so he has to pick his battles.
Spending time on this one ... isn't helping anybody, including the next Eryck (sic) Woodruff.
Tell that to the parents of the next child Matthew Christiansen harms.
I hope you can see the parallel I'm drawing here, although I fear that folks will simply ignore it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 13, 2009 04:25 PMHas anyone stopped to consider that if there wasn't evidence to convict him of attempted murder when he beats a 15 month old to within an inch of their life, that perhaps this is an attempt to implement mob justice on someone without having to provide the evidence that they deserve it?
Of course not, because there's no logical connection that you're trying to draw. Clearly he intended to beat the boy severely. That we don't know he intended to murder the boy does not mean he's not a serious danger to society who should be put away for many years.
1. Reasonable people can disagree. Important? yes. Most important? I disagree.
2. You'll have to explain the fallacy. I think its logical statement to say that, given limited time, working on the most important thing is always preferable to working on something less important.
3. So why bother going to Olympia? If anyone on either side of the aisle had a solution to the budget crisis or any of our big issues, there are plenty of outlets that would be happy to publicize that solution, forcing whoever is in power to respond. That no one has, damns them all, Republican and Democrat alike.
As for what's most important to conservatives, none of HB 2057, 2058, 2059, 2060 are good fiscally responsible bills. The way 2057, 2058 and 2060 target specific niche segments suggest Hope's not really a conservative, he just has different paymasters than the dems.
"And the more I read from you, the more clear it is that you really don't understand what you're talking about, and are just looking for excuses to complain."
Actually, I haven't complained about anything. You started a conversation on this bill's passing. Andrew was (what I thought unfairly) attacked, and I gave him some support, and explained some of my thinking as to why.
I've looked back on some of the other comment threads on this site. You clearly don't respect any opinions that differ from yours. My mistake for exposing myself to your close-mindedness and inability? unwillingness? to understand other points of view.
In this case, you're so hung up on using someone else's pain and tragedy for your own personal witch hunt against the legislature that you are unwilling to place the bill in its wider context (either in terms of limited resources being spent on greater good or in terms of why such a heinous crime was prosecuted to such a light charge).
Posted by: Thomas on February 13, 2009 07:10 PMHe IS a danger to society, but that is not why we should put people behind bars.
He should be put behind bars as consequences for his actions. He should serve his time for beating a child to the point where their life was at risk, not for the children he hasn't beaten yet.
This is what I mean by 'objective' law. You see, to a Democrat government, people like myself are a 'danger to society', because we own guns, discipline our children by spanking them, cling to our religion, or whatever other stereotypes you prefer to throw into the mix.
To a Republican government, people who smoke marijuana, view porn, have sex with their same gender, or whatever else are often painted as a 'danger to society' to some degree or other.
As you can see, we are all dangerous in our own right. However objective law requires not that we be a danger, but that we take action on that before there are consequences. Thus, he should be put behind bars for the beating, not because he's a danger to society.
To respond to the rest of your comment, you assert that there is no logical connection between my comment and the situation.
If you seriously think that this bill isn't trying to use public outrage over this beating and what some folks feel is too short a sentence for the beating of a child to actually pass the bill, then I will ask you, why is it named after the child?
I guess this is likely pointless, because you've already made your stance clear that you don't see the link between the bill name and the fact that it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion, and in every instance we've talked you've been able to rationalize your view no matter what opposing view is presented, but I hope I've at least made my opinion more clear.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 13, 2009 08:49 PM1. Reasonable people can disagree. Important? yes. Most important? I disagree.
So ... you agree with me. I too believe it is not the most important issue. You appear to think I said the opposite of what I said. This, unfortunately, does not surprise me. You tend to see only what you want to see.
2. You'll have to explain the fallacy. I think its logical statement to say that, given limited time, working on the most important thing is always preferable to working on something less important.
That isn't logical at all. If we always worked on the most important thing, then lots of things that are less important would have a cumulative negative effect greater than the positive effect of something individually more important.
I think we can both agree that there is ALWAYS something more important for our legislators to work on than shoplifting. But if they never addressed it, shoplifting would not be a criminal offense. I hope you can see how quickly and easily your attempt at logic breaks down.
Further, as I already noted and you apparently ignored, as conservative Republicans the most important things we want will not pass the legislature.
If anyone on either side of the aisle had a solution to the budget crisis or any of our big issues, there are plenty of outlets that would be happy to publicize that solution, forcing whoever is in power to respond. That no one has, damns them all, Republican and Democrat alike.
So apparently you come from an alternate universe where people listen to and follow the best ideas. If that were the case, Rossi would have been elected. He has solved this problem before. He did it. And he could do it again. And the public was told this. And they ignored it because ZOMG REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL AND I HEART OBAMA.
As for what's most important to conservatives, none of HB 2057, 2058, 2059, 2060 are good fiscally responsible bills.
False.
The way 2057, 2058 and 2060 target specific niche segments suggest Hope's not really a conservative, he just has different paymasters than the dems.
Utter nonsense. Who are his "paymasters" for 2058? PARENTS who want their kids to be well-supplied for their education? You're kidding, right? How can you have a problem with 2058?
As to 2057 and 2060, those simply recognize the unassailable fact that the slowed home and car markets, largely slowed because of the credit crisis, has had significant negative impacts on the rest of the economy. These can help stave off those negative impacts while we're waiting for the credit market to correct. Now, you may think we should just let those markets suffer, and that's fine, but to characterize trying to help the entire economy as them having "paymasters" is stupid.
And while 2059 is about something I oppose -- gov't encouraging people to "go green" -- at least it's with positive incentives rather than negative ones, like the Dems do.
Actually, I haven't complained about anything.
I won't bother pointing out how ridiculous this statement is. Everyone else can see for themselves. You've complained in every single post you've made.
Andrew was (what I thought unfairly) attacked, and I gave him some support, and explained some of my thinking as to why.
And in doing so, you completely failed to provide any reasons that had anything to do with the bill whatsoever, and instead made up things about the bill and the law and the motives for it and the case at hand that were completely wrong. And then you didn't apologize for getting anything wrong, nor rebut my rebuttals, but instead go on to re-assert your claims. Your silence is the argument equivalent of, "nuh uh!!!"
I've looked back on some of the other comment threads on this site. You clearly don't respect any opinions that differ from yours.
You're a liar. What I don't respect is people who, like you, make a whole slew of attacking and incorrect statements and then act like everyone else is the problem. Your very first comment completely misrepresented all the proponents of this legislation, using ad hominem argumentum to defend your position. I have never, and would never, withhold respect simply because of disagreement. It is your vicious and ignorant manner that offends me, Thomas, not your opinion.
My mistake for exposing myself to your close-mindedness and inability? unwillingness? to understand other points of view.
Yawn. I understood you perfectly. And I even understand why you refuse to defend the positions you've presented after I've shown them to be incorrect.
In this case, you're so hung up on using someone else's pain and tragedy for your own personal witch hunt against the legislature
See, like this. You said this in your first post. But you're a liar. My motives here are nothing more than wanting to pressure a partisan legislator into doing what you and I both believe is the right thing.
In fact, YOU are the one who is using this legislation to try to attack Mike Hope and other Republicans whom you believe (though you've given no adequate reason for this belief) to be failing your interests. This is clear: you even said you think this bill is correct, but simply "not the most important" (a straw man if ever there was one), and then you start attacking Hope for other completely unrelated legislation.
that you are unwilling to place the bill in its wider context (either in terms of limited resources being spent on greater good or in terms of why such a heinous crime was prosecuted to such a light charge)
Actually, I already, quite sufficiently, showed that both of those allegations you're making are baseless and false.
He IS a danger to society, but that is not why we should put people behind bars. He should be put behind bars as consequences for his actions.
What I am saying, I thought clearly, is that the crime itself is proof of how much of a danger he is. And that yes, the more dangerous the crime you commit, the longer your stay behind bars should be.
He should serve his time for beating a child to the point where their life was at risk, not for the children he hasn't beaten yet.
Nope. The PRIMARY function of incarceration is to keep people who have PROVEN they are a danger to society -- by actually causing HARM to people IN that society -- away from society.
You see, to a Democrat government, people like myself are a 'danger to society' ...
A completely different situation, and I am not even going to waste time responding to this. I am talking only about people who have been convicted of committing violent acts.
However objective law requires not that we be a danger, but that we take action on that before there are consequences.
Which is the obvious context and meaning of my comments, Andrew.
Thus, he should be put behind bars for the beating, not because he's a danger to society.
False. He should be put behind bars because the beating proved he is a danger to society. And such an act is the only proof possible for such a thing.
If you seriously think that this bill isn't trying to use public outrage over this beating and what some folks feel is too short a sentence for the beating of a child to actually pass the bill, then I will ask you, why is it named after the child?
Wow. That is completely unrelated to the actual comment you made, Andrew. You may have MEANT that, but it's not what you SAID. What you SAID is that because there's not evidence of attempted murder, then maybe the increase in prison time represented by the bill is unwarranted. I don't see how that's in any way connected to whether or not the bill is trying to "use public outrage over the beating." Yes, there's an element of marketing in many bills. But your hyperfocus on that is a red herring, ignoring the actual merits of the bill.
I guess this is likely pointless, because you've already made your stance clear that you don't see the link between the bill name and the fact that it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion
And now you're question-begging. Not only is this not a "fact," it's actually false. You're the one letting your emotions get in the way here, Andrew, utterly refusing to discuss the bill on its merits, and engaging in these red herrings about the bill's name.
and in every instance we've talked you've been able to rationalize your view no matter what opposing view is presented, but I hope I've at least made my opinion more clear.
No, you have not. You have not in any way explained why you keep using so many logical fallacies to attack a bill that even Thomas said is a good bill.
As Thomas said: five years for the crime of first degree child abuse is not enough. So we increase it. I don't see why this is so hard.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2009 10:17 PMEasy. HB 2058 would create a tax holiday for clothes, school supplies and computers for one weekend in August. What sounds like a nice thing is actually the worst kind of Headlines Politics an elected official can offer. It sets parents up to pay more, it hurts small independent retailers* and takes money out of the 44th.
Why parents and students shouldn't like it:
- Most stores already offer sales in July and January, These savings usually greatly outweigh the sales tax. By promoting August, it steals our attention from the real bargains and opportunities for savings.
- By choosing one specific date, stores have an opportunity to take advantage of an illiquid market, reducing their incentive to offer any real sales or discounts on this date to the people who fell for this ploy. Valentine's Day sales are a great example of this. Lots of promotions, very few sales.
- Kids grow throughout the year - one weekend won't help most of us. It definitely won't help with the expensive stuff like winter coats.
- College students typically don't know their schedules, let alone requirements for books and other equipment until after they enroll in classes - after the tax holiday. What happens next quarter or semester?
Why small retailers shouldn't like it:
- As a small retailer who offers relevant products, I have one opportunity to make the sale. And on that weekend, I have to compete solely on price with all the big boys. No small retailer can do this at a profit.
- Knowing it's for one weekend only, I have to find a way to make the effort of getting to and from my lone store or a relatively small cluster of stores more attractive than going to a mall where parents can take advantage of more choices to pick from in a concentrated area (none of which are in the 44th).
- How much will it cost to program an exception into all those cash registers? Large multi-state retailers may have the expertise. Do small and medium size businesses? Admittedly I'm guessing here, but I can imagine the cost to be prohibitive in most cases for a one of event.
Why his constituents shouldn't like it:
- How do you replace the revenue lost to the 44th? None of the big malls and few of the big retailers are physically in our district. Our local taxes go up and/or our services go down if this works on any level.
If he were serious, he would be advocating a permanent cut in the rate for educational supplies. I've lived places where printed material has no sales tax for just this reason.
Instead, this creates an anomaly in the market that disadvantages the exact people it's meant to help. And as an attempt at policy, this crude attempt at socialist market controls is definitely anti-free market.
Does make a good headline, though.
* Who are often their own worst enemy. My guess is this scheme came out of a local chamber of commerce.
I voted for Mike Hope. What a moron you are, you probably voted for Obama.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 14, 2009 09:42 AMNo, I never said it was a good bill. The closest I came to that was agreeing that assault on a child is an important issue.
If Hope feels impotent as a legislator, he would have better spent his time trying to get justice for the Woodruffs by finding out why the minimum sentence was applied, when "Statutory maximum is a term of life imprisonment in a state correctional institution (RCW 9A.20.021(1))." [Manual 3, http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Adult_Manual/adult_sentencing_manual_2008.htm]. If this case doesn't cry out for an "Exceptional Sentence", what does? [Manual 1, http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Adult_Manual/adult_sentencing_manual_2008.htm].
The law to punish him already exists. Enforce the law, apply the statutes. The bill is just grandstanding for the papers.
Posted by: Thomas on February 14, 2009 10:14 AMYou said you agreed with the direction the bill is going. You said, "I agree that 5 years is light. I'd argue that 8 years is light, too." All that this bill does is increase the jail time to 10-18 years, with a minimum of 8 years.
If Hope feels impotent as a legislator, he would have better spent his time trying to get justice for the Woodruffs by finding out why the minimum sentence was applied
See, there you go spouting off ignorantly again. The maximum sentence of 10 years was applied to Matthew Christiansen. However, he could get out in five years, on parole.
The law to punish him already exists.
Yes, and it has a maximum sentence of ten years. This bill fixes that.
HB 2058 would create a tax holiday for clothes, school supplies and computers for one weekend in August. What sounds like a nice thing is actually the worst kind of Headlines Politics an elected official can offer. It sets parents up to pay more, it hurts small independent retailers* and takes money out of the 44th.
None of that's true. It helps parents pay LESS, it hurts NO retailers at all, and it KEEPS MONEY IN the 44th.
Most stores already offer sales in July and January, These savings usually greatly outweigh the sales tax. By promoting August, it steals our attention from the real bargains and opportunities for savings.
No, in fact, parents aren't that stupid.
By choosing one specific date, stores have an opportunity to take advantage of an illiquid market, reducing their incentive to offer any real sales or discounts on this date to the people who fell for this ploy.
No, in fact, stores aren't that stupid: they know that parents aren't that stupid.
Valentine's Day sales are a great example of this. Lots of promotions, very few sales.
Except that no one has to buy things for Valentine's Day. School supplies are a completely different thing.
Kids grow throughout the year - one weekend won't help most of us.
Riiiiiiight. Saving money on school supplies won't help people who buy school supplies. Riiiiiight.
It definitely won't help with the expensive stuff like winter coats.
First, you're being extremely dishonest here, because if it DID help with winter coats, you'd oppose that too. Second, that it doesn't help with some things doesn't mean it's not good to help with other things.
College students typically don't know their schedules, let alone requirements for books and other equipment until after they enroll in classes - after the tax holiday. What happens next quarter or semester?
The same as happens now. So what?
As a small retailer who offers relevant products, I have one opportunity to make the sale. And on that weekend, I have to compete solely on price with all the big boys. No small retailer can do this at a profit.
You forgot to explain how this makes it different from any other weekend.
Knowing it's for one weekend only, I have to find a way to make the effort of getting to and from my lone store or a relatively small cluster of stores more attractive than going to a mall where parents can take advantage of more choices to pick from in a concentrated area (none of which are in the 44th).
You forgot to explain how this makes it different from any other weekend.
How much will it cost to program an exception into all those cash registers?
Very little. We already have many different sales tax exceptions and differences built-in to the system in this state.
How do you replace the revenue lost to the 44th?
Um. It remains in the pockets of the people. This is better than putting it in the hands of the government.
If he were serious, he would be advocating a permanent cut in the rate for educational supplies.
No, once again, you forget how politics in Olympia works. That would never pass. In the minority, you work for what you can get.
Instead, this creates an anomaly in the market that disadvantages the exact people it's meant to help.
You've not come close to making the case that it disadvantages ANYONE.
And as an attempt at policy, this crude attempt at socialist market controls is definitely anti-free market.
Wow. Cutting taxes is socialist market control. Does 2 + 2 = 5, too?
If the max is 10, sorry, I think that's actually enough. Just my opinion though. It is a waste of taxpayer resources to go longer IMO.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 14, 2009 01:45 PMWow. Cutting taxes is socialist market control. Does 2 + 2 = 5, too?
You're taking that out of context. You do it here too:
Saving money on school supplies won't help people who buy school supplies
We weren't talking about whether cutting taxes is a good idea or socialist. I was talking about, given all the various ways tax-relief can be applied, this methodology is closer to socialist market control regimes. In retrospect, that was being unfair to socialists, and they have enough to worry about without me picking on them.
My point was, if you wanted to offer relief according to the beliefs of laissez-faire and free market capitalists, then a broad-based, permanent tax cut should be put in place rather than a tax holiday.
This describes why better than I can: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1742.html
I'll excerpt their conclusion:
"The purpose of sound tax policy is to raise necessary revenue for programs while minimizing distortions in the economy, and interfering as little as possible with the choices of free individuals in the marketplace. Unfortunately, sales tax holidays fail this test of sound policy.
Not all forms of tax relief are created equal. Lawmakers have the ability to choose among many alternative forms of tax relief, and sales tax holidays are among the least desirable options. If lawmakers wish to reduce the burden of taxes on consumers, they should enact permanent, broad-based tax relief that avoids the costly economic distortions caused by tax holidays. "
Most stores already offer sales in July and January, These savings usually greatly outweigh the sales tax. By promoting August, it steals our attention from the real bargains and opportunities for savings.
No, in fact, parents aren't that stupid.
By choosing one specific date, stores have an opportunity to take advantage of an inelastic market, reducing their incentive to offer any real sales or discounts on this date to the people who fell for this ploy.
No, in fact, stores aren't that stupid: they know that parents aren't that stupid.
Valentine's Day sales are a great example of this. Lots of promotions, very few sales.
Except that no one has to buy things for Valentine's Day. School supplies are a completely different thing.
Kids grow throughout the year - one weekend won't help most of us.
Riiiiiiight. Saving money on school supplies won't help people who buy school supplies. Riiiiiight.
It definitely won't help with the expensive stuff like winter coats.
First, you're being extremely dishonest here, because if it DID help with winter coats, you'd oppose that too. Second, that it doesn't help with some things doesn't mean it's not good to help with other things.
College students typically don't know their schedules, let alone requirements for books and other equipment until after they enroll in classes - after the tax holiday. What happens next quarter or semester?
The same as happens now. So what?
As a small retailer who offers relevant products, I have one opportunity to make the sale. And on that weekend, I have to compete solely on price with all the big boys. No small retailer can do this at a profit.
You forgot to explain how this makes it different from any other weekend.
Knowing it's for one weekend only, I have to find a way to make the effort of getting to and from my lone store or a relatively small cluster of stores more attractive than going to a mall where parents can take advantage of more choices to pick from in a concentrated area (none of which are in the 44th).
You forgot to explain how this makes it different from any other weekend.
How much will it cost to program an exception into all those cash registers?
Very little. We already have many different sales tax exceptions and differences built-in to the system in this state.
How do you replace the revenue lost to the 44th?
Um. It remains in the pockets of the people. This is better than putting it in the hands of the government.
If he were serious, he would be advocating a permanent cut in the rate for educational supplies.
No, once again, you forget how politics in Olympia works. That would never pass. In the minority, you work for what you can get.
This was Hope's opening gambit. This is the idea he thought would best serve his constituents. He made no attempt to position this with his constituents or in the press as a politically expedient compromise. He could have at least started by standing on principle, even if he had to sit down at the table later. Compromise comes at the end of negotiations, not before they even begin.
Instead, this creates an anomaly in the market that disadvantages the exact people it's meant to help.
You've not come close to making the case that it disadvantages ANYONE.
And as an attempt at policy, this crude attempt at socialist market controls is definitely anti-free market.
Wow. Cutting taxes is socialist market control. Does 2 + 2 = 5, too?
Thank you for proving that you are just looking for an excuse to lash out at Mike Hope. Not a single word in all that had anything to do with the topic at hand.
My point was, if you wanted to offer relief according to the beliefs of laissez-faire and free market capitalists, then a broad-based, permanent tax cut should be put in place rather than a tax holiday.
And you keep IGNORING THE FACT that such a cut COULD NOT HAPPEN with the Democrats controlling Olympia. You hand-wave at this by saying "well he should have started with a broad tax," but not only is that ignorant of how the House works, but even if such a thing COULD work, now you're reduced to complaining about his TACTICS instead of his actual plan.
You say, incorrectly, that "Compromise comes at the end of negotiations, not before they even begin." It does not work that way, not when you're in the minority. If you put up a bill that has no chance of passing, it won't even get a hearing. You see how this bill, which DOES have a chance of passing, can't even get a hearing. And in FACT, if he did what YOU wanted, the bill would have even LESS of a chance of passing, because the negative perception of the original bill would be attached to the amended or replacement bill.
And so we come back to you just looking for excuses to attack Hope.
I'm not questioning the intelligence of parents
Of course you are. You said they would not gravitate toward real savings, and instead be blinded by the tax holiday.
They do it every year on the day after Thanksgiving. Ask your local retailers if they are busy that day or if people are at the malls on that day.
Nope, you're wrong again. People wait until Black Friday because there ARE real savings on that day.
His press release specifically calls out college students as one class of consumer that will be helped by this bill.
They will be.
It doesn't do them nearly as much good as he makes out.
You're wrong, of course.
If I'm time-limited (in the sense of benefit-only-available-this-weekend rather than in the I-have-a-million-errands sense), then to get the best utility out of the event, consumers will set aside time to do it and will go to places that maximize their options. If they have more time, or don't have to optimize their shopping to this extreme, they are freer to seek out alternatives.
Incorrect. A smaller retailer that is out of the way will not be visited by consumers ANYWAY, and if it is NOT out of the way, then if they are likely to go to it on any given day, they are also likely to go to it on the way to or from the mall on that given day.
say you need an extra bag - like a backpack - for a plane trip. You have to buy it today because your plane leaves tonight/tomorrow. Do you go to the mall or do you go to the local shop? Most would go to the mall because you have greater selection to choose from and a greater likelihood of it being available today. Now if I know now that I have a fishing trip planned for September, I can take my time and look for exactly what I want. I even have the option of ordering it to my specific needs (color, size, ...).
See, that's a great example: I do this all the time. I hit the local hardware store and if they don't have what I want then I head over to Lowe's or Home Depot. I do this all the time, and so do many people.
Those exceptions are "permanent" at least in terms of the IT and accounting systems. Time-based rules are much more expensive to develop.
No, they're not.
I don't think many retailers, especially small ones, have point-of-sale terminals that sophisticated.
In this state, actually, yes, they do. They need them because of the complexity of the state's sales tax system.
Also, finally, I note that you did not, in any way, come close to showing how Mike Hope is being controlled by "paymasters." You've only shown why you think it is bad policy, not that there's some group out there that is paying for and getting legislation they want, because you've not shown any group being benefitted. "Large retailers" or "retailers in malls" is not a group. Do you want to take back that libelous allegation, or back it up? It seems that too was just another of your wild-eyed attacks on Hope, looking for an excuse to tear at him, exactly like your complaints about the child abuse bill.
If the max is 10, sorry, I think that's actually enough. Just my opinion though. It is a waste of taxpayer resources to go longer IMO.
I don't see how that possibly makes any sense whatsoever. It is obviously true that keeping them incarcerated protects the public from them. How that is a waste of taxpayer resources?
You may ask, "how long is enough, then?" Life works for me. Remember, we are talking about people who "used force or means likely to result in death, or intended to kill the victim."
There is no more important use of taxpayer resources than defense of our right to life from those who would take it.
It was said earlier in this thread that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of attempted murder. Thus, we are not talking about people who "used force or means likely to result in death, or intended to kill the victim."
Unless of course you're suggesting that he should have been convicted of attempted murder; but that would make this law a long run around the existing law, in an attempt to get people for attempted murder on mere beatings, and play right into my previous comments about going for mob justice when the evidence wasn't there.
I stand by my statement that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to keep someone locked up for a mere beating for more than 10 years.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 15, 2009 10:34 AMNo, you're conflating two different things. Read it again. Evidence of intent to kill is required for a charge of attempted murder. But the other, use of force or means likely to result in death, does not. That is why both are listed in the legislation, because they're two different things. You and Thomas keep bringing up attempted murder as though it is in any way relevant, when it's not.
I stand by my statement that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to keep someone locked up for a mere beating for more than 10 years.
OK, but a "mere beating" has nothing to do with the case at hand, either the event that led to the bill or the bill itself, as a "mere beating" is not one that is likely, or intended, to lead to death.
As George Will said to Sam Donaldson in an unrelated matter this morning, "you're a pyromaniac in a field of straw men."
Rebuttals that consist of nothing more than:
No, they're not. orYou're wrong, of course. And I'm not the only one nor is this the only thread that you've exhibited this tactic. This isn't a dialogue of ideas or debate of any kind. As this is your forum, you always have the last word - just like the dems in Olympia.
Rhetorically, you seem happy to lose the war so long as you win the battle. And you encourage our reps to do the same (e.g. Bad policy is fine so long as one of our bills pass).
My disappointment with Hope is that when I voted for him, I thought he would be better than those that came before. He's not - he's using the same tactics. He just has different crosses to bear. I expect better than that from our side.
You've won the battle - I won't be back to this forum. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with my representative.
Posted by: Thomas on February 15, 2009 03:13 PMRebuttals that consist of nothing more than ...
... are perfectly acceptable as responses to assertions that are unsubstantiated. You realize you're being a hypocrite, right? You don't back up your claims, and then complain that I don't back up my disagreement with you.
And I'm not the only one nor is this the only thread that you've exhibited this tactic.
Correct. I often point out the insufficiency of arguments this way.
This isn't a dialogue of ideas or debate of any kind.
Again: hypocrisy.
As this is your forum, you always have the last word
No, it's not.
Rhetorically, you seem happy to lose the war so long as you win the battle.
Once again, YOU are the one who attacked Mike Hope on this issue just because you felt the need to lash out against him on other issues. You even by now have dropped the pretense of caring about the actual issue at hand here.
And you encourage our reps to do the same (e.g. Bad policy is fine so long as one of our bills pass).
In no way does that even come close to representing any position I've ever come close to expressing.
My disappointment with Hope is that when I voted for him, I thought he would be better than those that came before. He's not
Yes, he is.
he's using the same tactics. He just has different crosses to bear. I expect better than that from our side.
You have not made the case that there is anything WRONG with the tactics, so why should anyone care?
You've won the battle - I won't be back to this forum. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with my representative.
I didn't win any battle. I simply showed that your logic and reasoning were poor. It wasn't that hard.
And I also don't give a damn if you're happy with your representative. If you don't like what Hope is doing, write to him. Call him. Talk to him. And here's some tips: don't speak when you should be asking, and don't pretend to be talking about one thing when you're talking about something else ... like you've done a lot in here.
You obviously didn't know much about the child abuse issue, and you should have asked instead of told, and you obviously were using that as a proxy to complain about other things you disliked about Hope.
Be specific. Tell him what you are upset about, being very clear. Say what you see and what you would rather see. And then listen when he tells you why he does what he does.
That is how to make a difference. Will you do it?