January 03, 2013
Senator Tom Switches Back

The 2013-2014 Washington State Legislature convenes Monday, January 14, 2013 in what was to be a typical Blue State climate - Democrat Governor and Democrat control of both houses of the legislature. However, thanks to two Democrat state senators, a touch of Red State rain fell on the D's parade. Former Republican but now Democrat State Senator Rodney Tom and conservative Democrat Senator Tim Sheldon joined with the Republicans to take effective control of the State Senate by one vote, 25 to 24. Tom becomes Majority Leader and Republicans get majority control of key committees controlling taxes, spending, K-12 education and healthcare. Tom, Sheldon and Democrat Senator Jim Kastama, perhaps in a dry run of today's coup, sided with Republicans on the budget in the 2012 session. Republicans gained one senate seat in the last election making the new coalition likely despite Democrat concessions to prevent it. If it holds, Washington State may avert its own fiscal cliff by frustrating the tax and spend Democrats who were salivating for billions more spending on K-12 and higher education, transportation, healthcare etc. These may all be good desires but constraint is needed lest we become California. To that end, I say welcome back Senator Tom.

Posted by warrenpeterson at January 03, 2013 07:18 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I'm for it. This time maybe the Ds won't dogpile all over service businesses, and will leave the sunsetting B&O tax-increase alone. We're tired of being forced to subsidize their waste and abuse while they skate free.

Posted by: Michele on January 3, 2013 11:43 PM
2. .... Coming back obstinately with a delicious "bitter satisfaction", actions:consequences OFF TOPIC.

They seem so utterly stunned ... when, in fact, we repeatedly WARNED them.

Can/will WA learn the same lesson?
To that end, I say welcome back Senator Tom. (I tied it to the post, Warren!??)


Happy New Year! Our Christmas doesn't come down until Epiphany, the 12th Day of Christmas - darn those boy scouts who insist on ignoring that tradition and pick up trees as a fundraiser too early.

Our son gave us tickets to Tut so were (sigh) off to Seattle (/sigh) today.

*sigh for having to actually GO to Seattle

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 4, 2013 10:30 AM
3. Rags -- Why would any Democrat be stunned by a duplicitous Republican or a Democrat of the Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman variety?

When it comes to this Rodney Tom character, you guys had better be holding on to your own wallets.

As Dubya wisely instructed the nation: "Fool me once ............. uhhhhhhhhh .............. uhhhhhhhh ......... Won't git fooled agin!!"

Posted by: Daphne Dunderhead on January 4, 2013 02:55 PM
4. Uh, actually, because of Tom, we won't need the armed guards for our wallets that fringe-left nutters like Ed Murray would force us to hire.

Posted by: Hinton on January 4, 2013 04:22 PM
5. So, if Nancy Pelosi now gets elected Speaker of the House via similar methods, you guys would be all for that, right?

"...billions more spending on K-12 and higher education, transportation, healthcare etc"

Next up, Warren's cranky posts about how the kids today know nothing, how bad roads are driving up his car-repair bills, and how much his hypertension pills cost. (He'll blame the Democrats for all of that, no doubt.)

Posted by: tensor on January 4, 2013 08:00 PM
6. #5 - It is dishonest to promise what we know is unsustainable. Every program and budget item that is not paid for and adds to the debt or unfunded liabilities is dishonest.

Posted by: warren peterson on January 5, 2013 12:15 AM
7. #5 Given what the stupid party is doing, how exactly would having Pelosi as speaker be any different? It wouldn't make any difference. This
won't make any difference on the state level.

Posted by: Dave on January 5, 2013 06:29 AM
8. "Every program and budget item that is not paid for and adds to the debt or unfunded liabilities is dishonest."

An admission that just about everything Republicans have done for over three decades has been dishonest, particularly America's unfunded, dishonest wars under the last Republican administration. Then there's your unfunded drug program. Those were pretty much over the top when it comes to the concept of "unfunded liabilities", wouldn't you say? It kind of begs the question, Warren. After decades of Republican deceit and dishonesty, why on earth should anybody in America trust you now?

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 5, 2013 08:05 AM
9. Every program and budget item that is not paid for and adds to the debt or unfunded liabilities is dishonest.

Sorry to be rude, but that's just stupid. State debt is generally issued to finance capital projects like roads, schools, waterway improvements, etc. It's funded by future tax revenue, tolls, user fees, etc. and it's no different than individuals taking out a mortgage to purchase a house (paid for by future income) or businesses issuing bonds to fund expansion.

It's this kind of simplistic financial analysis that causes me to largely tune out fiscal advice from the right.

Posted by: scottd on January 5, 2013 10:27 AM
10. # 8 - I agree, Republicans share the blame as do we voters who can see the imbalance between income and out go but close our eyes to the unsustainibilty and the inevitable financial collapse.

# 9 - My comment applies mainly to the federal government since most states have a requirement to balance their budgets. However, under funding of future promises like state pensions, health care etc. is dishonest. Also, I did not say all debt is bad. Obviously, roads, schools and other capital projects are fully funded. If they were not, no one would buy the bonds used to raise project funds.

Posted by: Warren Peterson on January 5, 2013 12:14 PM
11. ..because the Democrats in DC have done such an outstanding job on gaining control of the massive spending problem they have. NOT.

Posted by: Princess Leia on January 5, 2013 12:21 PM
12. Also, I did not say all debt is bad.

Actually, you did. Here's what you said:

" Every program and budget item that is not paid for and adds to the debt or unfunded liabilities is dishonest."

I don't see any exceptions, except maybe the nonsensical notion of a program that is paid for but adds to the debt. But then, you seem confused on what the notion of "paid for" means:

Obviously, roads, schools and other capital projects are fully funded.

Obviously, they are funded by debt. So, according to you, projects are bad (dishonest) if they are not paid for and add to the debt, unless they are paid for by added debt. This is obviously circular reasoning.

If they were not, no one would buy the bonds used to raise project funds.

The debt is funded by the promise of the govt (state or federal) to raise the necessary taxes and fees to make the required bond payments. So, state bonds are no different than federal bonds in this respect. However, by your metric of the willingness of others to buy the bonds, federal bonds would be proven even more solidly funded, because buyers are willing to pay a premium for those bonds vs. state bonds. And yet, you say that federal debt (which has many more willing buyers) is somehow worse than state debt.

Sorry Warren, your statements on debt are just more right wing nonsense.

Posted by: scottd on January 5, 2013 01:14 PM
13. "Sorry Warren, your statements on debt are just more right wing nonsense."

American authoritarians never, ever tire of lecturing the rest of us on how we need more discipline, self-control, austerity, whatever -- they love to prescribe painful punishment to others, perhaps in an attempt to compensate for their own abject failures in all of the areas upon which they pontificate.

In Warren's defense (OK, not really) as Dr. Steve noted, above, the ways in which Republicans spend our money are worthless or worse -- repeated tax cuts for Paris Hilton, sending our soldiers into The Graveyard Of Empires with no clear objectives or plan, blowing away Iraq because of a transparent pack of blatant, obvious lies -- that they just project their own miserable failures onto us when we advocate useful spending. As you've described, Warren can't even make sense on his own terms, and even he has admitted he keeps voting for Republicans, after their repeated failure to do what he claims to want.

It's bad enough that guys like Warren vote, but when they smugly lecture us to do what they want -- and seem to expect actual thanks! -- that's where I draw the line. Write risible nonsense, expect mockery.

Posted by: tensor on January 5, 2013 06:39 PM
14. Scottd,

Is not selling bonds "paying for" the project?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 5, 2013 10:58 PM
15. Dan -- it's a reference to Warren's nonsensical use of the phrase. As your question notes, the correct answer is "yes", but Warren's answer is "no":

"Every program and budget item that is not paid for and adds to the debt or unfunded liabilities is dishonest."

Since issuing bonds, by definition, adds to the debt, Warren is claiming the project so financed was not "paid for." As scottd notes, that's just stupid. (It also shows how little Warren understands the topic he saw fit to address.)

Posted by: tensor on January 5, 2013 11:18 PM
16. "I agree, Republicans share the blame as do we voters who can see the imbalance between income and out go but close our eyes to the unsustainibilty and the inevitable financial collapse."

No, Warren, it appears to me that you do not agree. I wouldn't say that you're lying. Well, maybe you are lying, but I wouldn't judge as as such as your associate Pudge seemed to do to anyone who simply disagreed with him. And then banning them, of course.

You write of imbalance but look at the imbalance of your own post and this site. Look at you, dissing the "salivating" Democrats with not one negative word about the Republicans who have also always fail to deliver. Not even a word of doubt. There's no balance there, Warren. Rather, it's "Welcome back", like you're some very cheap party shill.

No, your "Republicans share the blame" comes off as only an arm wave intended to deflect any real discussion of shared blame as well as of a shared way forward. Sorry, but I've seen that too many times from your side to fall for it from you. If you're different then you can just blame those on your side who preceded you for any lack of condidence I might have in your sincerity.

As an aside, Warren, those Dems certainly have issues and I'm sure many would love to put them on the table for discussion, including me, but your side really needs too drop the tired "Surrender to Zod!" act before we see any real progress in that arena.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 6, 2013 09:13 AM
17. "*sigh for having to actually GO to Seattle"

Well, this afternoon it'll be "Go Seattle!!" for Republican Seahawks fans. Hmm, there are Republican Seahawk fans, aren't there?

I'm glad to see that you're back and I hope that your husband coninues making good progress!

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 6, 2013 09:20 AM
18. Is not selling bonds "paying for" the project?

Gold star for you, Dan!

So how can a project or program be "not paid for" and "add to the debt" if selling bonds (ie, adding to the debt) pays for the project?

Posted by: scottd on January 6, 2013 09:36 AM
19. Thank you Steve, I hate with every fiber in my body having to drive to and in the city. Hells bells, my closest pals called and offered to drive me to Swedish. I bucked up and Lu, my dependable GPS, got me there with only a slight rise in my blood pressure. Of course it was 8am on Sunday morning...

Yes, we are all cheering the Hawks. My best ever cheer the Seahawks story comes from when we were parishioners at St Jude's in Redmond. The pastor was begged not to come to the games because they always lost when he was there, however the other priest was loved dearly by the team. We always knew when they were home because a one hour Mass lasted 40 minutes and his final blessing was ALWAYS "and God bless our beloved Seahawks".

I am still loyal though and my default cheer still has to be "Go Browns". Sigh. I know.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 6, 2013 12:01 PM
20. Oh and by the way ...

So what lessons can we learn? Well, if you look at this map, you'll notice that none of the states without an income tax are death-spiral states.
And if you look at this map, you'll see that there's no overlap between death-spiral states and states with the lowest tax burdens.

Sadly, my Ohio (Go Browns!) is a death spiral state.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 6, 2013 12:06 PM
21. @20: Well, if you look at this map, you'll notice that none of the states without an income tax are death-spiral states.

Correlation =/= causation.

I'm surprised that these folks are taken seriously when their motives are blatantly clear...

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 12:59 PM
22. Correlation =/= causation.

Oh its own, now state tax is not the only reason for death spiral.

Clearly you didn't read or perhaps just didn't grasp the totality of the article.

Eleven states make our list of danger spots for investors. They can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers. The list includes California, New York, Illinois and Ohio, along with some smaller states like New Mexico and Hawaii. ...Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is whether it has more takers than makers. A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector. ...what happens when these needy types outnumber the providers? Taxes get too high. Prosperous citizens decamp. Employers decamp. That just makes matters worse for the taxpayers left behind. Let's say you are a software entrepreneur with 100 on your payroll. If you stay in San Francisco, your crew will support 139 takers. In Texas, they would support only 82. Austin looks very attractive. Ranked on the taker/maker ratio, our 11 death spiral states range from New Mexico, with 1.53 takers for every maker, down to Ohio, with a 1-to-1 ratio. ...The second element in the death spiral list is a scorecard of state credit-worthiness done by Conning & Co., a money manager... Its formula downgrades states for large debts, an uncompetitive business climate, weak home prices and bad trends in employment. ...A state qualifies for the Forbes death spiral list if its taker/maker ratio exceeds 1.0 and it resides in the bottom half of Conning's ranking. It's easy to see how California got on our list. It has pampered a large army of civil servants while using every imaginable trick to chase private-sector jobs away, the latest being a quixotic scheme to reduce the globe's atmospheric carbon.
Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between the top states in the Moocher Index and the death-spiral states.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 6, 2013 02:37 PM
23. Senator Tom welcomed back; I just heard a number of liberal progressive exclaim; "how can this be ? followed by the sound of heads exploding !!

On the other hand, the GOP should be grateful, after their misguided past, but Rodney Tom has been a DINO as is Tim Sheldon and Brian Sonntag was. These are among my favorite pols in this state.

Posted by: KDS on January 6, 2013 03:19 PM
24. @23: 23. Senator Tom welcomed back; I just heard a number of liberal progressive exclaim; "how can this be ? followed by the sound of heads exploding !!

Well, the senator lied to his constituents, to his party, and deserves to be thrown out of office immediately.

And note that if this were a Republican that defected to the Democrats immediately after an election, I would expect that there would be death threats again him and his co-conspirator.

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 03:39 PM
25. Clearly you didn't read or perhaps just didn't grasp the totality of the article.

No, unlike you I've read extensively on this topic. I can also make my own arguments, unlike folks that seem to think that cherry-picking articles that supports their point-of-view is an "argument".

Still, what you posted to isn't an analysis -- it is simply a biased and simple-minded attempt to argue against any sort of taxes whatsoever. I prefer assessments of policy from an organization that doesn't quite state what their conclusions will be before they even start the research.

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 03:51 PM
26. And note that if this were a Republican that defected to the Democrats immediately after an election, I would expect that there would be death threats again him and his co-conspirator.

Posted by demokid at January 6, 2013 03:39 PM

What death threats ? Do tell...

Posted by: KDS on January 6, 2013 04:24 PM
27. @24 - You ass-ume too much for your own good. Low information voters like you do this and are unable to discern truth from fiction. You are blowing smoke again.

What about when Charlie Crist switched from R to D in Florida ? I did not read of any death threats, or when the late Arlen Specter switched from R to D either. They survived just as they did before, except under more justifiable scrutiny. Rodney Tom will be facing similar raised scrutiny, except that he is still a Democrat and was originally a Republican.

Posted by: KDS on January 6, 2013 05:04 PM
28. @27: What about when Charlie Crist switched from R to D in Florida ?

I must have missed the part where he switched immediately after an election, subverting the will of the voters that thought they were electing a Republican.

Rodney Tom will be facing similar raised scrutiny, except that he is still a Democrat and was originally a Republican.

He's no longer a Democrat. If this defection continues, the state party should bounce this liar and ask him to refund the money he defrauded from them.

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 06:12 PM
29. You did miss the Crist defection - it happened close to the November election. Tom is still a Democrat, but he is a DINO. The state party has no authority to bounce Tom or Sheldon, just to demonize them as the WSDC chairman has already done. They have to switch themselves.

Now you understand how partisan Republicans felt about John McCain (although he had a distinguished military career) with his political leanings with the Democrats (McCain-Feingold - a despicable piece of legislation), Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee before they both switched from R to D.

Posted by: KDS on January 6, 2013 07:41 PM
30. One more try. There is a difference between debt secured by a hard asset like a building or an income stream like a toll and debt backed by bonds the Treasury Department sells to the Federal Reserve. The latter is a form of printing money and will eventually result in a "tax" called inflation. Nor is it like an under funded program or pension. Of course the Treasury bonds can be redeemed and the unfunded liabilities can be covered by inflation, economic growth, reduced spending in other areas, higher taxes and balanced budgets in the future. My concern is that the debt/unfunded liability number for all government (primarily Federal) is approaching $100 trillion and we have no plan to pay it or even stop adding to it. Yes, those bonds sold by Treasury to the Fed are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. But the United States is technically broke. Our economic system will correct itself (default, hyper inflation) unless we manage the needed reforms. Think Argentina, Greece and pre war Germany if you opt for letting the system fix itself.

Posted by: Warren Peterson on January 6, 2013 07:51 PM
31. Warren - we can never pay off the unfunded liabilities - understood, but still have to keep that debt below a certain level (probably a certain % of the GDP) to avoid default or hyperinflation. It seems like there should be research on this, as it has been a pressing issue for quite a while.

Any reliable information or insights into this would be helpful and informative.

Posted by: KDS on January 6, 2013 07:58 PM
32. @29: You did miss the Crist defection - it happened close to the November election.

He became an independent BEFORE the November election. The voters had a chance to select Crist as an Independent, or Rubio as a Republican. Voters in the 48th had the chance to choose between Esser (R) and Tom (D), and voters that wanted a (D) in the office have been disenfranchised. Tom has pretty much been a Democrat In Name Only since elected, and effectively defected back to Republicans the second it was to his advantage. He's a hack.

Tom is still a Democrat, but he is a DINO. The state party has no authority to bounce Tom or Sheldon, just to demonize them as the WSDC chairman has already done. They have to switch themselves.

WSDP can certainly withhold funding for reelection, and run candidates against them. Tom can say that he "Prefers Democratic Party" for as long as he wants, but Pelz is going to make it his personal mission to obliterate Tom and Sheldon.

Now you understand how partisan Republicans felt about John McCain (although he had a distinguished military career) with his political leanings with the Democrats (McCain-Feingold - a despicable piece of legislation), Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee before they both switched from R to D.

Party switching isn't a new thing. Politicians have moved in both directions. Bipartisanship isn't quite the same thing either... McCain may have been independently minded and worked with Democrats, but he never handed control of the Senate to the Democrats for his own gain.

Heck, the only case in the recent past that is even remotely similar is Jim Jeffords, but he at least didn't have the gall to still call himself a Republican when he handed control of the Senate to the Democrats.

Tom has taken full advantage of the (D) label next to his name to get elected, even going so far as to take money from the state party, while actively working to screw over the Democrats after getting elected. He lacks character, and it is telling when Republicans are lauding this gutless move.

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 09:38 PM
33. Tom has taken full advantage of the (D) label next to his name to get elected, even going so far as to take money from the state party, while actively working to screw over the Democrats after getting elected. He lacks character, and it is telling when Republicans are lauding this gutless move.

Or maybe Tome was a Democrat in the traditional sense JFK sense of the word and has taken Obama's word that he has been left behind by FAR LEFT liberalism. I suspect he isn't the only restless native.

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving "fiscal cliff" bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president's re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy "1 percenters," you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.


Look forward to more of these unhappy campers in the coming pay days.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 6, 2013 09:55 PM
34. @33: Or maybe Tome was a Democrat in the traditional sense JFK sense of the word and has taken Obama's word that he has been left behind by FAR LEFT liberalism. I suspect he isn't the only restless native.

In what particular universe does a "traditional Democrat" start off in the Republican Party, defect to the Democrats to win an election, and then operate like a Republican during his term?

Seriously, are you completely deluded?

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 10:03 PM
35. @33: Look forward to more of these unhappy campers in the coming pay days.

Never mind, of course, that if it were up to the Republicans these folks wouldn't have received a payroll tax break to begin with.

Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 10:06 PM
36. I love trying to untangle the mindset of lefties who won and are still so angry.

I also enjoy goading them and the hysteria that inevitably ensues.

You kiddies are never happy. Look forward to more of these unhappy campers in the coming pay days.

Actions:Consequences

Way to go HAWKS. Fun game to watch but I do feel bad for RG3.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 6, 2013 10:10 PM
37. DK @ 28:

I thought people voted for the candidate, not the party. Silly me!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 6, 2013 10:21 PM
38. There is a difference between debt secured by a hard asset like a building...

State bonds are rarely secured by hard assets like a building.

... or an income stream like a toll and debt backed by bonds the Treasury Department sells to the Federal Reserve.

State bonds that are paid by a specified income stream (like tolls) are called revenue bonds. State bonds secured only by the promise of the state and the state's general taxing authority are called general obligation bonds. According to your theory, investors should prefer revenue bonds as being more secure. But you're wrong on this. The yield premium investors demand for revenue bonds is generally higher than what they demand for GO bonds. That's because investors consider the GO bonds to have lower default risk.

And, of course, they demand the lowest premium of all for US Treasury bonds.

Warren, the market of steely-eyed bond-trading capitalists says the opposite of what you are saying.

The latter [Treasury bonds] is a form of printing money...

No, it isn't. Issuing Treasury debt is no different than issuing other bonds. Selling a Treasury bond, in and of itself, does not create money because the buyer provides his money in exchange for the bond.

... and will eventually result in a "tax" called inflation.

When will that happen, Warren? Inflation has been steadily declining for 30 years while the amount of debt issued by the Treasury has steadily risen. Once again, the evidence suggests you don't know what you are talking about.

But the United States is technically broke.

That's just wingnut economics. Has the US stopped paying its bills? Not being able to do so is my technical definition of being broke. What's yours?

Posted by: scottd on January 7, 2013 12:40 AM
39. as the US stopped paying its bills? Not being able to do so is my technical definition of being broke. What's yours?

Having to BORROW 46 cents of every dollar to do so.... while incurring interest on the loans.

Do you use your Visa to pay your American Express?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 7, 2013 10:48 AM
40. Welcome back, Ragnar.

The US does not borrow 46 cents of very dollar it spends. I don't see much point in debating if you can't get simple facts straight.

If your point is that the US is "broke" because it borrows money, then I guess the US has been broke for a long time because we've borrowed money for 60 of the last 75 years -- and yet, we've always paid our bills. So, your definition of "broke" is just meaningless hyperbole.

Posted by: scottd on January 7, 2013 12:17 PM
41. If we can not - and we can't - repay our debts, we are broke.

If we must borrow - and we do - to sustain necessary spending, we are broke.

If we continue to spend - and we do - If we continue to increase our spending - and we have - without the certainty we can repay it - and there is absolute certainty we can't - WE ARE BROKE.

The US revenue is $2,459,656,200,000
Our National DEBT is $16,434,005,000,000
Our DEBT held by other countries is 5,446,746,900,000
Our TOTAL debt is 58,075,200,000,000

What part of broke don't you understand?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 7, 2013 12:59 PM
42. Ragnar: So, by your definition, we've been "broke" for at least the last 75 years.

Must not be such a bad thing...

PS: What makes you think we aren't paying our debts when they are due? Have we missed any payments?

Posted by: scottd on January 7, 2013 03:30 PM
43. Just to amplify on my previous post...

Ragnar, you say that the US is "broke". When I asked you to define the term, you said US govt was broke for the following reasons:

- It borrows money
- It owes money
- It owes money to foreigners

If that's your definition of broke, then the US has been broke for most of the last 100 years. And yet, the country has grown and prospered over that time and has paid its debts when due -- so you have a strange definition of "broke". Either that, or you just like using extreme language with no regard for whether it makes sense.

Posted by: scottd on January 7, 2013 03:42 PM
44. The FEDS (you know your party running the government) announced if they cannot raise the DEBT ceiling (you know the money they borrow) by March 1, they will NOT be able to meet the government's obligations.

We are B R O K E.

If we are not broke, which you claim we are not, please explain their comment. Please explain why we must borrow MORE. Please explain why Obama is (again) threatening Republicans if they don't raise his ability to borrow money you seem to believe we don't need and yet upon which we are paying interest.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 7, 2013 05:02 PM
45. Hi Warren Peterson,

Sorry I'm late to the party here. I see most of your absurd assertions have been addressed by others, but like your other front page colleagues at (un)SP you are capable of dishing out a whole lot of stoopid in a few words, so let me just point out one other factual error of yours.

You said:

These may all be good desires but constraint is needed lest we become California.

What is it about becoming like California you disagree with?
- Democratic super majorities in the legislature along with a Democratic governor?
- A a budget surplus of more than $1bn for the 2014-2015 fiscal year because the Democratic governor managed a two decades budget problem by overcoming Republican obstruction and getting Proposition 30 passed by an overwhelming margin?

You see Warren, the economic problems which plague our state, other states and our nation have been caused by and the solutions to the problems obstructed by Republicans.

California is on its way to resolving its problems precisely because Republicans in CA are no longer relevant. Tom's & Sheldon's post election conversion won't stop that from happening here either.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 7, 2013 05:04 PM
46. Hi Rags,

Sorry I can't take you seriously.

Please explain why we must borrow MORE.
Really? You don't know why we need to borrow money?

Please explain why Obama is (again) threatening Republicans if they don't raise his ability to borrow money you seem to believe we don't need and yet upon which we are paying interest.

How about you explain why the English language is so hard for you?

What is Obama threatening? Are you sure it is Obama who is making threats regarding the debt ceiling?

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) the #2 Republican in the US Senate:

The coming deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain. President Obama needs to take note of this reality and put forward a plan to avoid it immediately.

Yeah, Cornyn forgot to say "or the economy and the American people get it!"

Broke? Republican brains have been broken for a long, long time.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 7, 2013 05:14 PM
47. @45 Rags,

Speaking of 'threats', who can forget this:

While President Obama "Seemed To Speak For Revolted Americans" During Debt Ceiling Debate, McConnell Said The Default Issue "Was A Hostage You Might Take A Chance At Shooting...It's A Hostage That's Worth Ransoming." "After it was all over, Obama seemed to speak for revolted Americans -- the kind of people who always want a new Washington -- when he described the government as 'dysfunctional.' But at the Capitol, behind the four doors and the three receptionists and the police guard, McConnell said he could imagine doing this again. 'I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,' he said. 'Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this -- it's a hostage that's worth ransoming.'" [Washington Post, 8/2/11]

I hope the Republicans don't decide to shoot you in the head for a greater purpose Rags.
But you can never know with your side.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 7, 2013 05:26 PM
48. California is on its way to resolving its problems precisely because Republicans in CA are no longer relevant. Tom's & Sheldon's post election conversion won't stop that from happening here either.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 7, 2013 05:04 PM

It is ?? I challenge that assertion. They may be close to treading water, now that they have raised taxes significantly. However continues to increase more rapidly. I would not trust you or your accountant in budgetary matters.

Is CA better off than when Ahnold was Governor ? Nope. Why ? The unions continue to rape this state and there's little if anything the government can or will do about it. Bring some numbers to the party next time and it can be discussed intelligently for a change. You don't really want that to happen though. After all, you Democrats are owned by the Unions.

"I hope the Republicans don't decide to shoot you in the head for a greater purpose Rags.
But you can never know with your side."

Similarly, your side would shoot you in the head in CA if they found you were funding and maybe even supporting any Republicans.

Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2013 06:33 PM
49. Re: CA It is ?? I challenge that assertion. They may be close to treading water, now that they have raised taxes significantly. However SPENDING continues to increase more rapidly.

Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2013 06:35 PM
50. Michael Savage sees no use for the current Republican party - I concur at least in part with this; (excerpts of his recent interview with Aaron Klein)

During an interview on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on Sunday, conservative radio host Michael Savage said that the United States needs a third, nationalist party.

"There is no Republican Party," he said in remarks first carried by the WND political news site. "It's an appendage of the Democrat machine, as we've all just seen."

Savage criticized the current leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, calling Speaker John Boehner "drunk" and President Obama a "quasi-pseudo-crypto Marxist," according to BuzzFeed.

During the interview, Savage pointed to the tea party as a candidate should there be a "charismatic leader" as well as party restructuring. ( I don't really agree with that)

According to his website, "The Michael Savage Show" is heard by 10 million listeners every week, making him a "multimedia icon in the conservative movement." Even so, at 70 he says he's too old to take on the task of leading the new nationalist party.

"I could do it if I was 20 years younger. I would do it right now. But I'm not 20 years younger and I don't have 20 years left in me. This is going to require enormous resource and enormous energy," he told Aaron Klein.

"Nationalism is the only thing that can save America, and a new nationalist party that has a very strict firewall that does not permit the radical fringe of racism," he said. "Borders, language, culture - it defines every nation on the planet, the flag, the language, the borders. And what is it the internationalists do? They want to dissolve the borders, they want to introduce multiculturalism, they want to introduce a Tower of Babel of languages."

If the staunch conservatives here take offense with this claim this is blasphemy, I would like to hear your suggestions. Face it - the GOP in DC are losing it - they clearly need new leadership, to at least salvage part of the damage that has been done since 2000. They have been inconsistent and hypocritical with their pledges to cut spending and for smaller government. As a result, the internationalist party has the upper hand. The GOP that morphs into a third party - could present more than only one choice, which exists now. Just sayin'

Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2013 09:35 PM
51. ... to the unsustainibilty and the inevitable financial collapse.

But the United States is technically broke. Our economic system will correct itself (default, hyper inflation) unless we manage the needed reforms.

We are B R O K E.

As a liberal, I feel your pain, and being the bleeding-heart kind of liberal, I am willing to engage in self-sacrifice to help you relieve it. If you have US Treasury Bonds in your portfolios, the "inevitable financial collapse" will certainly render them worthless before they mature. Therefore, I generously offer you an immediate payment of $1, in cash (or gold) for every $25 of such bonds you now hold. You're welcome.

(Rags, in your case, this could enable your promise, as yet tragically unrealized, to "go Galt" and leave us liberals to our own devices -- an event we anticipate even more eagerly than do you. And all you need to is to exchange worthless paper for gold! Certainly a business-owner of your ability will immediately recognize such a great opportunity?)

Posted by: tensor on January 7, 2013 10:58 PM
52. The left side forgets that Lincoln (R) used similar tactics to pass the 13th Amendment and thankfully so. Sometimes it is necessary to reign in your fellow Americans.

Posted by: Leftover on January 8, 2013 04:39 AM
53. @53 - this go Galt stuff is based on a novel. Such a tactic would be harebrained.

The current GOP is deficient in messaging and even though they have a potential winning argument, they are incapable of effectively making it to the increasingly dumbed down populous. Educationally, this country has slipped into the abyss and public schools in a number of urban areas have become "peaceful madrasses", controlled by the NEA and its appendages. Follow the money continues to be the cry of the day - as it was during the decline of the Roman Empire. Conspiracy ? Say what !

Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2013 09:38 AM
54. Scottd@41
"...because we've borrowed money for 60 of the last 75 years..."
Actually, we borrowed money at the very beginning of our nation (1700's) to pay for the Revolutionary war. At that time, it was from the French.

See, I can bring the French into the argument. That is got to be a sure winner with the conservatives here at SP. :-)

Posted by: tc on January 8, 2013 10:26 AM
55. "@53 - this go Galt stuff is based on a novel."

So is Rags' screen name. You can go talk to her about both.

"The current GOP is deficient in messaging and even though they have a potential winning argument..."

MORE RAPE PHILOSOPHERS PLEASE

Or, better yet, you could go full Wingnut:

Educationally, this country has slipped into the abyss and public schools in a number of urban areas have become "peaceful madrasses", controlled by the NEA and its appendages.

Perfect!

Posted by: tensor on January 8, 2013 10:30 AM
56. "Educationally, this country has slipped into the abyss and public schools in a number of urban areas have become "peaceful madrasses", controlled by the NEA and its appendages."

Full wingnut - LMAO !! The truth hurts dude...

To elaborate further; you and your ilk don't have a problem with self esteem, but what you fail to understand is that self-esteem by itself is WORTHLESS - that's why you on the left have very little substance. Self-esteem with self-respect means something though, but the public education system does not emphasize that - political correctness (a suppression of free speech) is what the NEA is all about to mold young minds like yourself into low information voters...

or you could expose yourself as a bigoted low information voter...

MORE RAPE PHILOSOPHERS PLEASE

Perfect !

Tieing one party to two ignoramuses who both ran for US Senator and lost and happened to be Republican. It is the fault of the NRSC for having these slobs run in the first place. Being a bigot vs. the GOP because of 2 people is the trademark of a low info. voter. What happened to voting for the candidate instead of the party ? It has gone the way of the whooping crane...

Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2013 10:57 AM
57. "Tieing one party to two ignoramuses who both ran for US Senator and lost and happened to be Republican."

Oh, hardly. The Democrats simply used those two to hang a plank of the Republican's own party platform around their damned necks. And to wingnut dismay everywhere, it worked! Thanks for sharing how much it sucks for you.

Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 8, 2013 11:32 AM
59. Well, Rags, once the government goes broke, those bonds you're holding will be totally worthless, correct? You'd better unload those scraps of paper on me now, while I'm still paying. (Yes, the price has dropped, to a penny on the dollar, but you'll need whatever gold you can get when you "go Galt", no?)

Posted by: tensor on January 8, 2013 01:16 PM
60. No bonds. Why would I, why would anyone ever buy bonds in failing local, state federal, international governments? Oh wait. You want to buy them. I have started selling our securities... loads of them before the end of 2012 and the beginning of new taxes... kind of like Gore.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 8, 2013 01:36 PM
61. @63, so if the US does not default are you saying we are not broke then?

Posted by: observer on January 8, 2013 02:17 PM
62. so if the US does not default are you saying we are not broke then?

Of course not! Doomsday nuts don't reform when the Big Day passes without event -- they just move on to a new dingbat theory and start waiting again.

Posted by: scottd on January 8, 2013 03:53 PM
63. "I have started selling our securities... loads of them..."

In a down economy. And the best part of all is, you actually believe we liberals ignore your fiscal advice because we don't understand the hard realities of capitalism. Priceless!

Posted by: tensor on January 8, 2013 04:24 PM
64. In a down economy.

Wait. you loud lefties are always screaming the economy is just fine. When did that change? Wjen it became convenient for your narrative?

In a down economy.

Didn't change my profit but by a few dollars. I hit the markets on up days. I've held 'long' so there was little danger of losing original investment or profit. And what few dollars I dropped, I'll save in denying it to the great big tax mouth that are the democrats.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 8, 2013 04:37 PM
65. "Wait. you loud lefties are always screaming the economy is just fine."[citation needed]

Actually, classical liberal economic policy says the government should issue bonds and build stuff when the economy is down, and then reduce debt when the economy is better. (That's not exactly a secret to anyone who has observed American politics over the past eighty years or so.)

And personally, I think we need more government infrastructure projects right now, partly because I'm an engineer and it might benefit me and my colleagues, but mostly because your politicians cheated public maintenance budgets to finance tax cuts for their wealthy masters. As we are in a down economy, now is the time to rebuild.

Posted by: tensor on January 8, 2013 05:38 PM
66. No Deposit Casino
free casino

Posted by: free casino on January 9, 2013 01:46 AM
67. So, I learned something today. I did not enjoy learning it.

I can't imagine anyone, Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Independent will.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 9, 2013 11:36 AM
68. @70: So, I learned something today. I did not enjoy learning it.

Knew you had a fear of learning. Ahh, well.

National public debt is predicted to stay at about 75% of GDP for the foreseeable future. Not outstanding, but the current situation has been due more to:

a.) ageing of the Baby Boomers + increases in SS and Medicare
b.) increased defense spending in the 1980s
c.) the meat grinders in Iraq and Afghanistan
d.) inopportune tax cuts

than any support of the poor. Of course, the perspective of conservatives is somehow that cutting the social safety net and addressing loopholes will solve EVERYTHING, while taxes can be cut even further and military budgets can rise.

Posted by: demokid on January 9, 2013 03:43 PM
69. National public debt is predicted to stay at about 75% of GDP for the foreseeable future.

Would but that be true. The current debt is at 102.9% of GDP and predicted to rise to 105.6% in 2013, 107.5% in 2014, 109.4% in 2015 and just in time for the election 119.9% in 2016. "causing the U.S. to gain the dubious distinction of having the fifth-worst ratio in the world."

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 9, 2013 04:16 PM
70. @72: Would but that be true.

It is true. National debt isn't the same as state or local debt. If you're going to talk about a video that describes problems with national debt, stick to the same metric.

Posted by: demokid on January 9, 2013 05:12 PM
71. Your inability to read is striking.
Anyone who even half paid attention to current even ts knows we hit and passed the 100% of GDP almost a year ago. Too bad your liberal sites don't tell you that. Y our search engine might be your friend should you care to use it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/total-us-debt-soars-1015-gdp


Took me all of 4.5 seconds, demo-living-in-denial.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on January 9, 2013 05:26 PM
72. @74: Your inability to read is striking.

Your inability to get the right number is striking (although you have plenty of company). Although, mea culpa, I should have used more precise language.

You're quoting the *total* debt, which includes intragovernmental debt. Publicly-held debt is the more relevant figure. The US government buying its own securities may have impacts on the market, but including it in total "debt" ignores the asset value held by the government on the other end.

Again, national debt isn't the same thing as state or local debt. The State of Washington or the City of Seattle aren't buying bonds from themselves. Treating an entity that can create its own money exactly like a small company or a family with a credit card is foolish.

Along the lines of your logic, I could become a millionaire overnight... I would just need to give myself an IOU for 1 million dollars!

Posted by: demokid on January 9, 2013 05:59 PM
73. Well, actually... I guess a state or municipality could buy their own bonds in some cases (e.g., state pension funds). Likely rare, though, and even in those cases, my point still stands.

Posted by: demokid on January 9, 2013 06:11 PM
75. Greeting to www.forex.cd- Your own exclusive guidebook of forex information and reviews.
forex online http://www.forex.cd/

Posted by: forex online on January 10, 2013 02:38 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?