As detailed by the EFF's Bob Williams, Governor Gregoire is required by RCW 43.88.110 (8) to order across-the-board cuts in allotments for a particular fund "if at any time during the fiscal period the governor projects a cash deficit" in that fund. Currently, the governor's March economic forecast projects a $48m deficit in the general fund on June 30.
This is not optional. She is required to order these cuts and has not done so.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 09, 2009 10:04 PM | Email ThisSince then, he's been holed up at something called the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, which is sort of an old folks' home for right wing wackos. Their definition of "freedom" means freedom from any kind of taxation, freedom from any meaningful regulation of unfair business practices, and the freedom to keep the wealth they have extracted from the village commons by whatever means.
In other words; him that has, gits, him that don't, don't deserve it. We call it Social Darwinism.
"Freedom" does not include freedom of choice, freedom to marry one's chosen human partner, freedom to ingest recreational drugs (except nicotine & alcohol), freedom of travel, freedom of religion, and personal privacy.
They firmly believe that the only legitimate roles of government are:
- Keep a whoop ass warrior class on hand, armed to the teeth with the latest technology for killing fellow humans, and ready to deploy at a moments notice in retribution for some perceived slight, or to extend American hegemony over the rest of the planet.
- Build highways
- Build prisons
- Keep a very close eye and ear on the populace for any sign of non-orthodox thought or behavior, and put them in prison when they find them.
Now why anyone should take Bob Williams word for anything is a bit of a mystery. Particularly when he routinely comes out with these kinds of pronouncements, and virtually nothing ever comes of them. If the law is so clear in this area, why isn't he bending the ear of Rob McKenna? Maybe because Rob has already explained to Bob that the world is not as simple as Bob seems to think.
Before reading your comments, I do remember a dustup in the early 90s that split the Republican party. I also believe Williams was involved. I also remember various Rs going around with litmus paper on who is or isn't a Republican on the issue, I believe, abortion. At that time, property rights (my cause and I still have my NO GMA button on my Dilbert boss doll) was the local issue of the day. Williams was all for property rights, so I tended to go along with his politics.
With the dustup, I was disgusted with the Republican party (not most of the issues nor the individual pols).
But, your last paragraph is certainly interesting. If the law is the law, why don't the Democrats follow the law? I don't think Williams is that far wrong that Gregoire doesn't have to do something to meet the burdens of the law. So, why don't Williams opinions be followed?
My background with electeds is as a behind the scene counsellor (no, not an attorney as you may have noticed my writing leaves a lot to be desired) and sometimes electeds don't know what to do. I think this is such a case, but is one the Democrats won't want to make a bold statement.
As for McKenna, he has other aspirations and won't do anything unless he has political pressure put on him. Also, someone has to bring the complaint to him.
Posted by: swatter on April 10, 2009 08:13 AMAnd the EFF is the most influential non-partisan, non-government-subsidied, political organization in the state. They have overturned many laws, stopped many laws, got many laws passed. And far from being an old folks' home, most of their employees are young.
And they are not against taxation or regulation, nor for Social Darwinism. And they take no position on abortion or gay marriage or drugs or guns etc.
(The only thing they've ever done on guns, that I know of, is an amicus curiae brief in the Heller case, but that was not in favor of guns per se, but in favor of a particular method of interpretation of the Constitution.)
And contrary to your claims, the EFF has been an ardent and vocal defender of free speech and expression.
In other words, Witz, you are extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. Pretty much everything you said there about the EFF is a lie.
And, as Mr. Cynical says, you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to actually advance your argument. You engage in ad hominem and straw man and red herring.
The ONLY valid way to argue in favor of Gregoire here is to try to show that the law does not mean what Williams says it means. That is it. Period. Finito. And you can't do that. (That is, even if SOMEONE could, that someone could not be you, since you are far too poorly educated.)
Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply.
I have to agree; If the law is the law, why don't Democrats (and for that matter all our elected and appointed government officials) follow it? That is true for all levels of government, local, county, state, and federal.
I believe the trouble is that there is one hell of a lot of "law" out there, much of it in conflict with itself. Which gives legal and political cover to those who like to pick and choose which portions of the law to follow. It's a lot like someone trying to interpret what the Bible says. Somehow, they generally end up picking those portions that advance their own ideology and career. Hence, your comment about McKenna.
My rather bald attack on the Evergreen Freedom Foundation was probably not fair, as Pudge so tactfully points out in his characteristically gracious comments. So if I said something about Bob Williams that is not true, please correct me.
If you want to say, "well, I suspect that there may be legal justification for her decision to not follow this law," fine. But that's not what you did. Instead, you said, in essence, "this comes from Bob Williams, so who cares?" That is an ad hominem fallacy.
Of course, even if you HAD done, that, the answer would be "it is up to Gregoire to defend her apparent violation of the law, and she is properly considered to be in violation until she does so."
I said something about Bob Williams that is not true, please correct me.
How about we go over the ONLY TRUE things you said? He ran for governor of WA. That is it. Everything else you said is not true.
WA Democrats are in their 17th year of gubernatorial control and 8th or 11th year of bicameral legislative control. The problems we are witnessing were created by Democrats, and should be fixed by Democrats.
In other words, Democrats were quite happy with the level of government they had created as of 2004. If we simply went back to that level, adjusted for inflation and population growth, the problem would be solved.
Lastly, the house of cards will come down if it is too heavy on spending and deficit and predicated on ever growing streams of revenue. Simply look South. CA has all three taxes, and they have more goodies, but they are still equally bankrupt.
Unless Democrats make some changes, they are only contributing to their future failure. It is not about Progressive style governance, it is simply about a bloated and inefficient government that when it collapses, serves no one.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2009 09:17 AMAdmittedly off topic, but a word to the wise:
If I looked like you do, sang as badly as you do, and had so little material to work with, I'd probably stop posting videos of my performances on You Tube.
Many people find them entertaining in ways that you probably would not consider flattering.
I only bring this up because I like ya'.
Hey, what are friends for?
Wow, people with IQs as low as yours make fun of me. Boo hoo.
Even if we go to an income tax, at some point, they hit the wall whereby the tax starts to work against itself and discourages earning. Most experts think that is around 50% total tax. I am sure the Dems would like to take much more than 50%. And the other myth is that they can just simply take more from the top earners. False, because even if we took 100% of the top earners money, there's not enough of them to finance the rest of the house of cards.
A ratcheting yo-yo between overspending and increased taxation, that's the WA Democrat party platform.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2009 09:45 AMDo you know about Kimball? I didn't realize anyone had ever heard of it? Talk about a burg loaded with right wing wackos.
Anyway, you make a good point, the Dem's have been in power, at least in the Guv's Mansion for 24 years.
I wonder why people keep electing them by large majorities?? Could it be that's what the polity wants? Or is it just because the GOP keeps throwing up B team players who are out of the mainstream from the rest of us?
Maybe if you dumped the bible thumpers, xenophobes, homophobes, and the neo-cons, you might have a chance at getting back that voting block that always decides the outcome of any election, the moderates.
Low, real low. But just to be sure, you've cut how many records?
One way to find a person of low IQ. They insult others when they can't win the debate.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 10, 2009 09:48 AMThanks you proved my point. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 10, 2009 09:51 AMYou mean 2004, the closest governor race in U.S. history?
Could it be that's what the polity wants?
You mean 2008, where Gregoire convinced the public with lies that we were not facing a massive budget?
Maybe if you dumped the bible thumpers, xenophobes, homophobes, and the neo-cons, you might have a chance at getting back that voting block that always decides the outcome of any election, the moderates.
Actually, neoconservatives ARE generally moderates and liberals. You don't even understand the basics of the people you're attacking. They follow a moderate-to-leftwing Wilsonian approach to international affairs, and a moderate social policy, while favoring right-wing fiscal policy.
As to "Bible thumpers, xenophobes, homophobes," I presume you mean people who take principled stands against abortion, illegal immigration, and gay marriage ... which, combined, are a clear majority of the population.
As usual, you really suck at this, Witz.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2009 10:00 AMAnd instead of continuing a dialogue, you not only went after him like a pit bull, but you went like a pit bull in heat.
Can anyone have a nice dialogue on opposite sides without resorting to attack mode?
For example, what does the Gregoire side of the equation say that she thinks she can ignore what appears to me to be very clearcut? And FYI, I tend to agree with the likes of Williams and others who are strict constitutionalists. I just want to hear the other side. Witz almost got there.
Posted by: swatter on April 10, 2009 10:09 AMBy the way, how did you find out my IQ? Did Smokie's friends and relatives tell you?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2009 10:09 AMWitz wrote a very nice long post
You already said that. Which part was nice?
I can see how some people on the other side can think of his cariacture of Mr. Williams.
OK, yes, some people can think of Williams that way. But it was almost entirely false. There's nothing nice, to me, about spreading lies about someone else.
And instead of continuing a dialogue, you not only went after him like a pit bull, but you went like a pit bull in heat.
Can anyone have a nice dialogue on opposite sides without resorting to attack mode?
Witz was lying. I called him on his lies. He EVEN ADMITTED he was "unfair" toward Williams.
I am amazed at you. You say Witz made a "nice" post, even though it viciously and -- according to both Witz and I -- "unfairly" attacked Williams. You criticize my response, even though I was merely criticizing his "unfair" attack on Williams.
Frankly, I think you only said Witz made a nice post because it was criticizing my post. You have such a dislike of me that you back insane ramblings from an idiot as "nice."
For example, what does the Gregoire side of the equation say that she thinks she can ignore what appears to me to be very clearcut?
Yes, this is a good question. And Witz avoided this and instead made a vicious, untrue, and unfair attack on Williams. So I criticized him for it.
So much for any kind "reasoned discussion" with Pudge.
If you don't see things his way, you are a liar.
If say nice things about people he disagrees with, it's because you don't like him personally.
He calls people names for calling people names.
And he never answers a question directly (see below).
Pudge isn't a "pit bull in heat".
He's more like a skunk with rabies, aggressive, but not really capable of causing too much harm, and he sure can make things smell bad.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2009 11:41 AMName one thing in my post (#4) that is not true.
Be specific and show your work.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2009 11:43 AMIf you don't see things his way, you are a liar.
That is a lie. I only call things lies when I am able to verify they are lies, and I only call you a liar if I can verify that it is a lie AND I am convinced you know it is a lie, or that you have a reckless disregard for whether it is true or false.
If say nice things about people he disagrees with, it's because you don't like him personally.
That is a lie. swatter has many times expressed that he dislikes me.
And he never answers a question directly
That is a lie.
Name one thing in my post (#4) that is not true.
Um. I already did, in in @9.
"If, for any applicable fund or account, the estimated receipts for the next ensuing period plus cash beginning balances is less than the aggregate of estimated disbursements proposed by the governor for the next ensuing fiscal period, the governor shall include in Part I of the budget document proposals as to the manner in which the anticipated cash deficit shall be met, whether by an increase in the indebtedness of the state, by the imposition of new taxes, by increases in tax rates or an extension thereof, or in any like manner. The governor may propose orderly liquidation of the anticipated cash deficit over a period of one or more fiscal periods, if, in the governor's discretion, such manner of liquidation would best serve the public interest."
Seems like a fairly wide range of discretion is afforded the Governor in dealing with deficits.
I know this isn't as interesting as the "tit for tat" discourse taking place here...
Posted by: BA on April 10, 2009 11:58 AMFar more interesting. :-)
What you quote is for the NEXT fiscal period. The RCW at issue here is for the CURRENT fiscal period.
We realize you're young and haven't always been around listening when folks like Bob were trying to get people to vote for themselves. Se we'll cut you some slack.
But I've been listening to Bob for over 20 years now and have some well formed, if not entirely correct, impressions of his thoughts on these subjects. Keep in mind this is my perception and his actual views, not your perception nor the formal position of the EFF.
Now, one more time, show me one public statement ever made by Bob Williams that refutes my characterization of him in my comment at #4.
My apologies to BA at #34
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2009 12:17 PMInteresting that the law doesn't put a time frame on the declaration of a deficit versus the necessary cuts. That could mean 1. a declaration of deficit should be accompanied with defining the across the board spending cuts to cure the deficit, or 2. the across the board cuts have to be made sometime during the fiscal period to accomplish curing the deficit during that same period.
Prudence would suggest the former, but I don't know that the latter is necessarily contrary to the law. Seems you could choose a course of spend until you run out of money and then stop - i.e. political brinksmanship.
Regardless, it seems she has not even begun this process. And that is what's troubling. Instead, she is saying "well we think the deficit will be fixed by then." That is not an acceptable course of action under the law.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2009 01:27 PMhttp://www.governor.wa.gov/execorders/eoarchive/eo81-17.htm
Unkl Witz' characterizations of EFF and its policies are entertaining, but hardly accurate. Stick to the merits of the debate, and leave personal attacks out of it.
Posted by: Mike Reitz on April 10, 2009 01:30 PMThis looks like a fairly simple math exercise, and it doesn't appear to be too hard to draft an executive order.
I don't think you have "lied" in your discussions. I do think you have embellished on the positions of said Williams. However, that is why we have politics? So one side can scream "liar" and the other side can say "Hitler"?
I don't like pudge because he believes he is a blog post lawyer and he calls everyone a liar he doesn't agree with (as if the truth was his to adjudicate in his kangaroo court)? Nyah, yawn, I don't think so.
I just know I am going to have a nice Easter comforted in the knowledge that the Democrats will not be in session either in DC or Olympia for the weekend.
Posted by: swatter on April 10, 2009 03:18 PMI don't think you have "lied" in your discussions.
I didn't say he did. I said he told lies. There's a big difference.
I don't like pudge because he believes he is a blog post lawyer
That is a lie.
and he calls everyone a liar he doesn't agree with
You are lying.
See the difference?
You might honestly believe the lie that I think I am a lawyer. However, you know -- because you have been confronted with the facts of the matter on multiple occasions -- that I do not call everyone I disagree with a liar. So when you say that, you are lying.
I only say people are lying when they, like you just did, knowingly, or with careless disregard for the truth, spread lies. And I only call people liars when they do this habitually.
Sounds like you've certainly got Pudge's number, and perhaps mine when you say I have "embellished" Mr. Williams's positions. I guess it's possible that I have overstated them or somehow mischaracterized them. But notice when I asked Pudge to post a reference to any public statement by Mr. Williams that refutes my ascribed positions, he mistakenly accuses me of asking him to prove a negative.
Hummm....
What do we call people who habitually call people liars?
I guess we'd call them a Pudge.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 10, 2009 04:24 PMBut notice when I asked Pudge to post a reference to any public statement by Mr. Williams that refutes my ascribed positions, he mistakenly accuses me of asking him to prove a negative.
I will spell this out slowly for you, because you apparently need it.
You made assertions, such as the idiotic claim that the EFF does not believe "freedom" includes "freedom of religion."
If I bothered to look, I might be able to come up with a counterexample from the EFF, but even if I couldn't, it PROVES NOTHING. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. YOU MADE CLAIMS, YOU NEED TO BACK THEM UP.
Get it? This is how logic works.
Maybe this is why swatter thought your lie-filled post was "nice": just like you, he won't back up his claims, either. He knows he can't find a SINGLE example of me calling anyone a "liar" who isn't actually actively and (in my judgment) knowingly telling lies. So he won't even bother trying to back it up.
Pathetic.
You don't have to like my use of the word "lie." I find it serves its purpose well. But swatter is lying when he says I call anyone who disagrees with me a "liar," because he knows -- as the facts have confronted him before -- that it's patently false.
And that's a damned shame. swatter often says intelligently things, and is even sometimes the voice of reason and sanity. But he dislikes me so much that he loses his head and becomes completely irrational. I don't apologize for the effect I have on him, but I do pity him for it.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2009 05:20 PMTwo suggestions:
Anger management training
Voice lessons
However, you could take some lessons in logic and truth. I've tried, but I fear I am not necessarily the best teacher for certain tough cases.
Fraid I'm beyond repair in those categories.
Too many years in Law School.
You might want to get a little more objective opinion on that anger management though. Your comments literally seethe with unresolved hostility.
Frankly, we're worried about your health Pudge.
Lose the baseball hat and polo shirt.
It makes you look like the red-neck that we suspect you are.
Logic and truth"?
Fraid I'm beyond repair in those categories.
+++++++++++++++++++++
OMG.... Yep and your the guy with all the know-how.
Please while I barf.
I'm not standing up for Pudge on this one, but Wiz.. Being right is something you LACK!
Most of all after reading, so many of your postings.
Anyone who try's to tell another about music or singing.. when you have done what??? Well it proves MY point about you.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 10, 2009 06:54 PMI have not worn a Polo shirt in YEARS.
And I don't mind being a redneck. You'll have a tough time convincing anyone that I am one, but I wouldn't mind it.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2009 06:54 PMNow you have a problem with ballcap. O-I get it, you want Pudge to hide his face like so many dem's do when they burn or brake things that do not belong to them.
I wonder, how would you know this?
Witz sounds like a redneck and they can be leftist. Actually, the Democrats are more bigoted of the two parties - want examples ? Which fits right in with being a redneck.
Posted by: KS on April 10, 2009 11:25 PM