March 23, 2009
Your Legislature at Work
Toby Nixon e-mails about HB 2316 (text), which is sponsored by several leading Democrats. The bill would make it illegal for any lobbyist to:
threaten any legislator, or any government official, with the relocation of manufacturing jobs including, but not limited to, jobs involving commercial airplane manufacturing, based upon the outcome of any pending or proposed legislation
As Toby put it:
Apparently, these legislators just don't want to hear about the very real consequences of their economic, tax, regulatory, or labor policies.
Rather than just put their hands over their ears to block out the undesired speech like they usually do, they now want to strip lobbyists of their registrations and fine them. Just for explaining what a bill would really do.
So much for the First Amendment and all that antiquated claptrap about petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 23, 2009
09:40 PM | Email This
1. Besides, what would Amerika be without a trillion or two going down the military rat hole every year any way?
I have a better idea. Put a bounty on lobbyists. Would be the best thing that ever happened to our country.
Open season!
2. Yoicks. "All Facts" seems to believe that all those airliners Boeing sells must go to the Military.
Say, whatever did happen to Consolidated Freights? Chubby & Tubby's? Paccar? Were they also part of the vast Military-industrial complex too?
sheesh.
The Democrats have been for a flexible application fo the Constitution, but since this election, they haven't had to pretend otherswise.
pyotr
3. I guess the legislature can be as surprised as Gary Locke was when Boeing moved their headquarters, only without the "threat."
4. Threaten to move jobs is a no-no but get caught threatening to dry up campaign contributions and hey...the state patrol will take care of that for you.
And factless, I'll bet those lobbyists know what's in every bill more than the idiots that hang them around your neck with a vote.
5. Good Post....PC
6. Hmmm, dissent was patriotic just a few months ago? Now it offends their gentle ears.
The cognitive dissonance on the left is breathtaking.
7. So No Facts fascist leanings come out of the closet. I knew this would happen with Obama's victory.
8. Welcome Back Socialism, It has died in every other country it has been tried in, it is what we in this country fought to get away from, but after 200 plus years we find we still have socialists who believe that Government provides all. While all businesses are failing, What a shame, What a damn shame that Government is still Rising.
9. Always disagreeable to see moonbats like facts crawl out from under their rock to post their sociopathic and ignorant filth.
I wonder, did Facts think long enough to realize that he would see union and environmental lobbyists hunted down as well? Naaahhh....
10. Like Earling, I think I'll take a hike. It's been nice folks.
11. We're one step closer to the state refusing to let certain people quit their jobs (USSR) and we're one closer to the State refusing to let people leave the
country.
12. After a little thought about this one, what environmental lobbyist would have the hutzpah to say "...if that bill doesn't pass we'll pack up our tree spikes and leave"
13. RE: "Shooting the lobbyists."
I think there's some merit to this idea.
Lets start with all the ones that work for the state government. They have names like 'spokesperson," "Community Representative", "Media Relations" and even "Attorny at Law."
Next time someone gives you that line about "You say cut state budget but where can you do it without hurting someone" point to these characters. There's an army of them employed by our state government and they all make a big amount of money. All they really are at this point is lobbyists for the state employees unions and it's time we clipped their wings.
14. I meant "attorney" not "attorny" in the posting above, and when I said "shoot" I meant metaphorically as in "fire."
(Except, perhaps for the lawyers. Maybe we shoot those.)
15. Directive 10-285 ;) Give it about 3 more for the big one
16. Ok, so then companies could move without ANY explanation. Lawmakers can then wonder which stupid law was the one that chased the employer out of the state...
Great law...
17. Scott, the next step by the government will be laws that prohibit companies from being able to move. They'll just use Eminent Domain to claim that the public would be harmed by company moves, etc.
You guys think I'm kidding? We've seen all of this before. Staying free of tyranny doesn't just happen either. We must resist it.
By the way, the EPA has now declared that your personal existence on this plant is a danger.
And we just sit here and let it happen.
18. The soulution is simple make it manditory that all government reps wear a jacket just like nascar with the names of the sponsors/donors writen on the back of it.
19. The soulution is simple make it manditory that all government reps wear a jacket just like nascar with the names of the sponsors/donors writen on the back of it.
Fantastic idea. Obama would have a huge GOODWILL on his jacket! Dodd and Frank, A-I-G.
20. AIG sponsored Obama as well. Over $100k.
Imagine if Bush had received money from a Texas company, and then had a Texas Senator slip in an amendment specifically permitting bonuses to be paid to execs of that company.
Just close your eyes and imagine the press heads exploding all over the place over that scenario.
The govt will seize the press last, after its usefulness is no longer required.
21. This is nothing more than Brendan Williams throwing a temper tantrum because his union goons tripped up and his leadership sold him out.
He's nothing more than a petulant child.
22. Several years ago I was in a battle with the City of Tacoma over their creative interpretation of a utility tax. Their chief tax guy decided that internet providers were really a telephone company and were subject to the cities utility tax.
At the time I was the only Internet provider based in Tacaoma. I stood before the City Council and told them I would move to Fife and would not provide service to any people living in Tacoma.
You would have thought I threatened to blow up the city. Several of them got red in the face and puffed up like old bullfrogs.
It was a pretty significant threat since my company provided internet access for the City, the libraries and LESA.
They had a hard time getting it through their heads that my business was not under their control. It literally took an act of congress to ge them to back off.
23. I'm sure the liberals will soon make it illegal for companies to move operations out of the state. Better yet, why not just have the government take over those evil, profit-seeking businesses? Surely that will be better for society...
24. Gary @ 17 and Gar @ 20, all good points and hardly a fantasy. And now? Here come the brown shirts as promised by Obama during his campaign:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
"The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama's promised "civilian national security force" intensify.
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate."
And yes, there is a provision for uniforms.
I can understand why there is a shortage of civilian ammo these days.
25. G Jiggy I'm Gar and Gary. Just can't type well. :)
Yeah, this youth thing is very disturbing. Remember the Obama volunteer this weekend promising a fight after their army is formed.
People don't think it can happen. The German people didn't know what happened until after the war. They didn't sign up for their government did,
but they enabled it.
26. I wrote on the same issue at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's blog, www.LibertyLive.org.
Just how Owellian are we going to get before they lock us up?
The Piper
27. G Jiggy, I was at the Wal Mart yesterday and all they had on the shelf was a couple of boxes of 30-30 and 45. Fortunately 30-30 was what I was after.
28. Just wait, they are pushing for an additional tax on ammo so that they can
code every round sold. Not only that, but you will be required to dispose of all your uncoded ammo by 2011. Good luck enforcing that part of the law. And I guess they don't believe criminals can steal ammo either.
29. The politicians care not what criminals can and cannot get. What they fear are Free men. That is the greatest threat to their power. That is why their laws never target criminals. Their laws are designed to depress the ability of Free men to stop tyranny.
It has ever been such.
30. Why do you speak like a Pilgrim?
31. Any such law would be blatantly unconstitutional and no judge would enforce it.
32. Vince
Great story. It is true--these weasels who love power over the rest of us just cannot stand it when someone actually uses their freedom.
So they will limit it. If you were to leave Tacoma, it might affect the economic stability of the city. So will Timmuh! Geithner take you over????
33.
I was under the impression that there was a budget shortfall, stimulus bill money to spend and tons of taxes to stick to the constituents to work on. The authors of the bill seem to have too much time on their hands this session.
What a bunch of whiners!
34. A foolish Bill written by an ignorant and pompous legislator that will be passed by a State Legislature too lazy to read it and too stupid to understand the ramifications.
One more cut among the thousand that will kill our Liberty. They seem to be coming faster and cutting deeper.
35. #30, plymouthrock. My ancestors were pilgrims. My earliest came here in 1635. I can not even begin to know what his life must have been like. But I know one thing... he fled tyranny so that he, and his descendants could live free.
36. A foolish Bill written by an ignorant and pompous legislator that will be passed by a State Legislature too lazy to read it and too stupid to understand the ramifications.
Nope. Not only was it introduced too late for this session, the D leadership sees it for what it is - a temper tantrum by a child.
37. Nothing new here, folks. The left always seeks to silence any form of disagreement or opposition to the socialist agenda. And conservatives let them, if not help the issue along, as evident in the bipartisan support for many leftist issues.
38. I have voiced my disgust with the lobbyists' influence many times, but I think this bill goes too far. What I think should be eliminated is the possibility for politicians to enrich themselves through legislation favorable to the lobbyists who buys them the most gifts, or lunches, or give them the biggest kick-back. It would be great if lobbyist associations could be limited to written presentations of their arguments either for or against legislation, including how it would either help or harm their industry, and the pols to make their decisions based on that alone, but I guess that would require most of them to either have some understanding of business or even care, and that's probably too much to hope for.
39. It appears that as goes Eric so goes the energy of this blog. Sad! Welcome to the doldrums of PI'dom.
40. Megadittoes, PI
41. jimg @ 36: I thought the deadline for new Bills had passed but wasn't sure. Glad of it. Still, I can't imagine the Party would condone such a blatently stupid Bill being introduced in the first place.
42. If you're going to suspend economic principles, you might as well outlaw the laws of physics.
Let's see now...so no more wear on my tires...oh! and my car is now a perpetual motion machine that does not use up gas...oh wait, that means no gas tax revenue to the state...
Kinda tough when you get reminded that you cannot make changes like you're in a vacuum and that it's a dynamic system, not static. While we're at it, might was well ban playground teasing as well.
43. In Philadelphia, they have banned front porch and/or front yard couches because sports fans (hooligans) have a tendency to grab and burn them after games. I guess next they will ban rocks!
It's just another example of removing all temptation and need for decision making, hoping that the bad guys won't do bad things, rather than actually punishing the bad guys. Victimize the victims.
44. katomar, that's another excellent example of how politicians use criminals to control non-criminals.
People need to snap out of it and quit blindly believing that politicians have their best interest at heart.
45. Diogenes at March 25, 2009 10:32 AM
Bills can be introduced right up until the end of session. But the committee deadline has passed, as has the originating house deadline.
And members introduce stupid bills all the time. Dropping a bill is one thing; getting 50-25-1 is entirely another.
Again, this was simply a stunt by an immature member who isn't getting his way on the 'workers rights' legislation.
It ain't going anywhere.
46. Why is it that Democrats at both state and federal levels are determined to pass legislation the stifles free speech on political subjects? All of these bills are patently unconstitutional.
Every occurrence illustrates that Democrats supporting this type of legislation have committed perjury by defying their oath of office to defend and protect the constitution.
47. Gary @ 44, I'm still waiting to see all those new jail cells get constructed that doubling the cost of a CCP was going to pay for.
48. #46, Paddy
It's because they have chosen tyranny over freedom.
They do not believe that people can live their own lives without help from the State.
49. #47, PC
You'll be waiting a long time. Their idea of doubling jail cells is releasing half of the prisoners.
50. Gary @ 49
You've got that right!
51. Wow, SP really sucks without Eric!
52. Who would trust a politician named Nixon?
