May 03, 2012
Gregoire says something we can all agree with
Fiscally, she's been a disaster for our state.
But we can all agree with what Gregoire said yesterday: "Hopefully I've read my last bill, signed my last budget and now I'm going to go away," she said.
Let's look back to March 22, 2005.
Gregoire was the new Governor and submitted her first budget. Here's what she said about it: "I don't like it. It's not sustainable. It's what's wrong with the budget in the state of Washington," she said.
Members of her own Party ridiculed it: "Transferring funds and transferring them back to make it look like you did something - that is what is done here," said Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Margarita Prentice, D-Renton. Rep. Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, likewise said no one should think the problem has been solved. "When you're using one-time money for long-term programs, it should be a sign to most people that you're in trouble."
But what she and the Democrat-controlled Legislature did a month later really cemented our state on a path of fiscal catastrophe.
As reported in April of 2005: The Democrat-controlled Senate joined House colleagues yesterday in sending Gov. Christine Gregoire a bill that changes voter-approved spending limits and allows taxes to be increased by a simple majority vote in the Legislature. The measure changes the I-601 spending cap to say the state's budget can grow as fast as the 10-year average of growth in average personal income in the state, more generous than the original growth factor of population growth plus inflation.
Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, his party's lead budget negotiator, said, "It's a sad, sad day for Washington state taxpayers." "I fear we're heading back to the days of double-digit state-budget increases and consistent tax increases. We shouldn't be making it easier to raise taxes, we should be making it more difficult." He said voters want lawmakers to live within the state's means and stop turning to taxes. With the I-601 changes soon to be signed into law, "Those days [of restraint] are over, I guess. Now there is no reason, no motivation, for the government to spend wisely or efficiently."
But Prentice said legislators in both parties had amended the original initiative so many times it had lost meaning. "We feel the new limit will be more realistic. We believe we'll be in better shape financially in two years and we'll be able to live within our means," Prentice said.
Every year, they spent billions of dollars more than they were taking in. If they could have restrained themselves and abided by I-601's limits from 2005-2011, there wouldn't have been such a wrenching, disruptive, roller-coaster of spending in Washington state during Gregoire's tenure.
Gregoire called her 2005 budget "a legacy budget." She was correct. Her legacy has been one of unsustainable budgets cemented in 2005.
The best way to ensure this doesn't happen again? This year's Initiative 1185 which protects and extends the 2/3 vote requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes.
If we don't, Olympia will be a job-killing, family-budget-busting, tax-hiking nightmare next year (the last "2/3-less" legislative session resulted in $6.7 billion in higher taxes).
Go to our website and help us make this initiative a success.
Posted by Tim Eyman at May 03, 2012
07:37 PM | Email This
1. And Lisa Brown is leaving. Ha Ha The Rats are leaving the sinking ship
It takes a certain sort of self-willed blindness to miss the fact that Republican policies sunk the nation's and the world's finances and then bitch complain that the governor of one state isn't coping with the problems YOU created as well as you'd like.
You are like the skier in an avalanche who thinks that the only solution to the problem is more snow.
3. Okay, dorky, how do you account for the fact that red states for most part have fairly healthy or on the rise economies right now, and blue states are failing? We have had dem majorities for decades in Washington State, just like the rest of the west coast, and in case you haven't noticed, the west coast is failing. Is California your idea of success?
re 3: "Okay, dorky, how do you account for the fact that red states for most part have fairly healthy or on the rise economies right now...."
Obama's policies have caused the improvement.
Also, I did not see you source your statement that ..."red states for most part have fairly healthy or on the rise economies right now...." How did you account for it?
How do YOU account for the fact that Scott Walker's state has declined since he took office?
See. That's how it's done.
6. Why does anyone pay attention to Dorky/ IGNORE HIM AND HE WILL GO A WAY.
No, Red States Are Not Better Than Blue States, by Froma Harrop - 5/3/12
"California may be 'liberalism's favorite laboratory,' as Douthat puts it, but the Golden State is also conservatism's beloved testing ground.
The tax revolt started in California, and the state's voters recently turned down gay marriage. Fiscally, California suffers from the worst of two worlds, a liberal desire for active government and conservative restrictions on how much money it can raise in taxes. Small wonder its budget is a mess."
There's more in the article about the failure of Texas' economy -- but you can ignore that and it will just go away....
Paddy, dorky dorkman (and others) aren't saying anything (message-wise at least but not necessarily the same phrasing) that wouldn't pop up in more serious public policy debates or even in the 'debate' portion in voter pamphlets. I for one don't want people that may disagree on some points (or all...) to go away as long as they are maintaining at least the same level of civility as everyone else (which frankly, isn't all that high of a hurdle on most web forums). When they back up their statements with links (sometimes relevant, sometimes not so much) to support or at least explain their claims, so much the better.
I'd rather flesh out and fine-tune an idea by involving everyone interested than exclude all contradicting input just so as to better preach to the choir.
9. Christine Gregoire will go down as the worse governor in Washington in the past 50 years and probably the history of the State and Territory so it will be 170 years
10. Christine Gregoire will go down as the worse governor in Washington in the past 50 years and probably the history of the State and Territory so it will be 170 years
re 8: "Paddy, dorky dorkman (and others) aren't saying anything (message-wise at least but not necessarily the same phrasing) that wouldn't pop up in more serious public policy debates...."
What venue would you consider to be a more serious public policy debate than local citizens hashing out their differences on local blogs?
Does '...of the people, by the people, and for the people....' ring a bell?
Republicans started this mess..? Uh...Dork, that's just plain old stupid. Democrats have controlled Washington State budgets longer than you've been alive.
You are trying to cohesively tie together national budgets and politics and state ones. Not possible. Nor is it possible to blame Bush for this....
Dumb, dumb and more dumb. Christine led the last 8 year walk off the cliff, just like Obama is leading the National walk off the cliff now...
It takes a republican like Reagan to stop everyone from actually taking the jump.
Mitt Romney, (while not Reagan) might be just the guy, God knows he can't do any worse than Obama and Rob McKenna can surely do no worse than Gregoire...but I assure you Jay Inslee can and will if elected.
Exactly what does a partial phrase from the Gettysburg Address have to do with a privately run blog?
All you do by quoting out of context is show how really idiotic you and your "arguments" are.
Of course it rings a bell...
I think things become more serious the closer they get to actually influencing the public. Therefore, by the time an issue that may have begun with a blog (say, getting the State out of the liquor business...) gets to the point where traditional news outlets (and their websites) pick it up, or when it is debated on tv, or ultimately when it is debated in the legislature or voter's pamphlets, it becomes a more 'serious' venue. The messages become more refined, and the consequences are more real because an action one way or the other is imminent.
Basically, I have very low expectations for the level of discourse of any blog, but plenty higher for the (traditionally at least) broader and deeper venues.
The truth strikes a nerve with dorky demo kid again. It's tough when one actually examines the empirical trail of Democrat policy.
And what are Governors like Gregoire and Jerry Brown doing about the disasters they call state government? Jerry Brown is wasting tens of billions more on high speed train that won't even come close to the functionality that we already have with airplanes today. And Gregoire is hoping to get out of town before the bill comes.
Democrats have their heads so far up their asses, they can't' see or think.
re 12: A little something more substantial than your well worn platitudes would be helpful. I doubt that you've ever even exposed yourself to a serious criticism of Reagan (voodoo economics?? who said that?.
My thoughts are that state revenues have a lot to do with how the national economy is doing. You can't just put each in a separate bubble.
re 14: I have been to political how-dee do meetings at people's houses where congressional (serious) candidates have held forth with, dare I say it, influential citizens like myself to hold forth on their views of the state of the state and the nation and I can assure you that some of these candidates are as vapid and uninformed as anyone you might encounter on a blog.
If an idea can bubble up from the blogosphere and enter the mostly air-filled noggins of our 'representatives', how is it somehow transformed into the realm of the serious?
Get serious, Brian, and get out of the peanut gallery and into the trenches.
Dimo Dork, a self-proclaimed "influential Citizen", finally wrote something I could agree with when he claimed in post #17 that "some of these candidates (Dimocrats I'm certain, as dork wouldn't set foot in an R political event) are as vapid and uninformed as anyone (like the dork himself) you might encounter on a blog".
What a mouthful, Dimo Dork Child
19. And what are Governors like Gregoire and Jerry Brown doing about the disasters they call state government?
Yes. let's just be Californicated again:
California named the worst state to do business, for 8th year in a row
So much for the idea of West is best. In an annual survey, executives ranked California as the worst place to do business for the eighth year in a row.
Chief Executive magazine has only been conducting its survey for eight years. Texas has been top-ranked every year.
The survey considered responses from 650 business leaders, who graded states on factors such as taxes, regulations, living environment and more.
Texas and second-ranked Florida have the highest migration rates in the nation for 2001 through 2009. California has lost 1.5 million people over the same period.
Its 10.9% unemployment rate is only lower than Nevada's and Rhode Island's. A third of U.S. welfare recipients live in California, the report noted. High state taxes and bundles of red tape make operating a business in the state unaffordable to many companies, critics say.
Last year, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs elsewhere -- 26% more than 2010. Most chief executives in Silicon Valley said they won't expand in the state, according to the survey.
Interesting observations here. Note the performance of the red/reddish states...
Also in the top 10: North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia and Utah.
... and blue states.
California narrowly edged out New York in what the survey called "the ninth circle of business hell," sharing the bottom five spots with Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan.
I'm sure the crushing regulations and taxes of the blue states have nothing to do with their rankings whatsoever. Right?
Of course, Obama thinks today's unemployment numbers are GOOD NEWS, so it makes perfect sense that his pet sheep also confuse good with bad and up with down.
20. Small-business families were victims of the 2/3-less legislature that took a sledge-hammer to service business-owners with a 20% B&O tax increase. They'll hurt others, too, unless people help get this new law into effect. I encourage all to go over and make a donation to help the cause.
re 19: "California named the worst state to do business, for 8th year in a row...."
Do you remember who was governor of CA from 2003 to 2011. If I recall, the Governater was -- and he's a Republican.
Do you see how that undercuts your argument?
re 20: I agree with you on the B&O tax. However, one of the expenses that makes American businesses both big and small less competitive (in the case of large ones)and less attractive to potential employees (the small ones) is the fact that health insurance costs are too high.
"Like pathetic knights of another era jousting at windmills, industry shrills attack health care reform, claiming it "tramples individual liberty" and stifles "free enterprise."
Far from protecting individual liberty or promoting free enterprise, these forces uphold monopoly control of health care insurance that has a stranglehold on American consumers. And they pay huge sums to control the debate and twist legislation to their advantage."
22. It takes a certain sort of self-willed blindness to miss the fact that Republican policies sunk the nation's and the world's finances...
23. Yes, Governor "Ahnold" ran as a Republican, but he turned out to be so far from being conservative that he turned into a joke. No one in the Republican party will claim him, and you know it, Dork!
Copied from a post response
by my BRILLIANT oldest child (just substitute 'Gregoire', any 'liberal' for 'Obama'):
And, of course, the three plus years of his administration has been exactly that.
His economic policy is to redistribute from the rich and recklessly spend it (and then another $5 trillion of money borrowed on America's credit) on useless and easily-abused social programs that have no long-term benefit but complete government dependency (which is, of course, the entire goal).
His national healthcare "plan" (if you can even call it that with a straight face) isn't a plan at all - it's just raw, brute, federal power forcing the American individual to do what he says (while, of course, exempting anyone that either wields or has influence over that federal power).
His jobs plan is to cozy up to union thugs and gangsters that are the single-most inefficient and costly workforce in the history of the world, while demonizing the individual producer and bullying them through taxes and federal bureaucracy.
His energy policy is to embrace "green programs" that flat out DO NOT WORK and then, when they inevitably fail, to REFUSE to learn anything from his mistakes and continue doing the same exact thing - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME hamstringing ACTUAL energy-producing programs at the expense of both American jobs and American consumer-spending ability.
His domestic policy is to flat out ignore the single greatest document ever written - the American Constitution - in order to consolidate federal power over and against the several states and the sovereign individual in amounts unprecedented in American history; to brazenly ignore federal laws regarding immigration, voting, and state's rights; and to bully the American taxpayer in order to continue the federal gravy train that now over half of Americans take from without contributing.
His international policy is to kowtow to the most archaic and individually-oppressive regimes that still walk this planet while, without any care or concern (or even basic respect) whatsoever, throw our allies of decades to the wolves who would (and will, given the opportunity) exterminate them from the face of this planet.
Yea, I'll come right out and say it: I, and many conservatives like me DO TURN DOWN 'EVERYTHING OBAMA'. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, judge people on IDEOLOGY. And every single aspect of Barack Obama's ideology is WRONG. Dangerously so. What you fail to realize is, it doesn't matter what he does. So long as he's doing so under the edicts and tenets of a wrongful ideology, it's wrong. And it's un-American.
President Downgrade could suggest his newest plan of "Free Kittens for Orphans," and I'd be against it. Why? Because I'd be wondering exactly what collectivist/statist angle he's playing. Because conservatives deal in ideology, not on 'immediate result' as is the liberal wont.
Think of it like hiring a known child molester to watch your kids. Yea, he could say all kinds of things to you to make you feel better about it - but at the end of the day, in the back of your mind, you know exactly who and what he is. And there's not a chance in hell you'll be leaving your kids with him.
THAT'S what Barack Obama is: the child molester of the American way of life. Why you'd leave the fate of your children, and of your country, in hands like his, I cannot possibly fathom.
... I wish the harm that comes as a natural result of your beliefs and ideology. I wish the harm of starvation, foreclosure, poverty, and violence upon you that this Administration - which you support - is encouraging. That you and those like you VOTED FOR when you should have known better.
I wish upon you the harm that is the consequences of your actions. Liberals don't get that concept - "consequences of your actions."
They need a firsthand lesson. Liberals always have to learn things the hard way. I say it's high time they did.
>> And after all, we are all Americans
Then act like it. Don't you dare slander that term, "Americans," when there's clearly nothing American about what you support and what you stand for. Don't you dare pretend like the collectivism and statist ideology that is Barack Obama is anything even remotely American.
That insincere platitude is the kind of thing that, were we in the same room together, would undoubtedly earn you a punch to the face.
*Emphasis is all proud Mama's
re 23: What a handy sort of excuse! Any time a Republican is a demonstrable incompetent, well, he's not really a Republican!! He's a Democrat.
re 24: "Think of it like hiring a known child molester to watch your kids."
Which party in WA state upheld Ted Bundy as a model for young people to emulate? Hint. It begins with an 'R'.
When I look at a picture of young Ted, he even looks like a typical Young Republican -- just not as fat.
26. Nice deflection demoDorky - you're quite adept at sidestepping all the greater issues and cherry picky minutiae that fit your narrative. It is not a skill I would be particularly proud to have as it is most often associated with mind numb, say what they've been told to say talking point liberals.
From the same post, other responses...
Elise May 6, 2012 at 10:21 am ·
Not sure why it's so hard for liberals to understand that we judge an idea, a policy, a politician on the basis of DEMONSTRATED MERIT. I mean, you know, other than the fact that the concept is completely foreign to them.
Off the top of my head, I can think of one "Obama thing" that I wholeheartedly support: The decision to take out bin Ladin. Of course, that was an utter no-brainer, something nobody on either side of the aisle could possibly have objected to. But no, I don't reject "all things Obama." Just the wrong ones. Admittedly, it doesn't leave me with much to support, but there it is.
Laurel May 6, 2012 at 11:42 am ·
Liberals remind me of "The People Who Live Under the Stairs".
Liberals remind me of "The People Who Live Under the Stairs"[/SNICKER] ... Perfect imagery!
re 27: "...Of course, that was an utter no-brainer...."
Hence, something you could readily understand.
As are your utterly inane non sequiturs which are just as easily debunked, shown as desperate deflection and used for a good loud ... mocking snicker.
Liberals remind me of "The People Who Live Under the Stairs"[/SNICKER] ... Perfect imagery!
Thanks for playing.
30. @28 - And your point was, heir deflector Dorkman ?
I read a wonderful, true, sad, scary article today ... and it's simplistic enough even our pet lefties will understand it.
The Two Lefts
It is impossible to understand politics in the world today without grasping the fundamental fact that there exist two different lefts. I propose that the two be referred to by everyone as the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left.
The only thing left is to determine into which camp our pet lefties fall.
32. OOPS! I forgot to ask our pet lefties... which are YOU?
This ought to interest you, as long as you are interested in categorizing people:
"An observer of the right-wing phenomenon must explain the paradox of followers who would escape from freedom even as they incessantly invoke the word freedom as if it were a mantra. But freedom so defined does not mean ordinary civil liberties like the prohibition of illegal government search and seizure, the right of due process, or the right not to be tortured. The hard right has never protested the de facto abrogation of much of the Bill of Rights during the last decade. In the right-wing id, freedom is the emotional release that a hostile and psychologically repressed person feels when he is finally able to lash out at the objects of his resentment. Freedom is his prerogative to rid himself of people who are different, or who unsettle him. Freedom is merging into a like-minded herd. Right-wing alchemy transforms freedom into authoritarianism."
Actually I'm interested in finding out which lefty you claim to be - the dumb follower or the evil agenda driven ideologue.
You instead want to play the PeeWee Herman defection game; "I know you are but what am I?"
That may indeed work with your lefty pals, but I don't play that game; I will call you out and mock your deflection for what it is: the inability for honesty and self reflection.
Go back to the sandbox if you want to play childish games.
@32 spewee - "Right-wing alchemy transforms freedom into authoritarianism."
You project wel - More accurately substitute liberal progressivism for Right Wing anl you have it. I challenge you to read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. You will not be able to refute any of Goldberg's arguments, not because you are obtuse, but because there is truth behind them and you and others of your liberal progressive ilk can't handle the truth !
36. OOPS- I was referring to @33 and not Ragnar.
37. Rattling informative and excellent bodily structure of articles , now that's user friendly (:.