I've done a bit of highway driving the last few weeks, but my most recent trip to Seattle made me notice far more 2004 election bumper stickers than I had before. My message to the still-stuck: We voted in November. Move on.
I don't know which is more pathetic: the Nethercutt for Senate stickers or the Rossi for Governor stickers. I mean, the first was a complete rout and the second is like hanging on by a thread. I would point out that the folks with a Kerry-Edwards sticker on their Volvo wagon or hybrid car are just as bad. Wallowing in defeat, even when you know your guy should have won, does not excuse you from getting out there with some solvent and a soft rag to get that strip of plastic off your car's rear end.
The people with the "W04" stickers can probably get a short-term pass from me. I mean, to the voctors go the spoils, and that includes bragging rights, too, I guess. But those stickers should be removed by November 2005.
Christine Gregoire had the right idea: Make plastic "static cling" signs that people can place on a variety of window areas and not risk damaging car parts. Perhaps since she actually won her election and is the governor, she should have made her stickers more permanent. Of course, we may need to re-apply our "clings" if the R's finally get their way. Unlikely, though. Will they keep until '08?
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
"Perhaps since she actually won her election..."
She did?
Yes. She won. Read my posts from January and February if you need a refresher in how an election works. Unless a judge (and probably the state's Supreme Court) overturns the election, she will remain the governor.
An aside: She's doing a good job, too.
-- L.
Anonymous sounds bitter...
You know, it's one of those deals where the "activist judges" are forcing a burden of proof. They want this to go through proper procedures (just as the recounts were properly handled according to the law). Shame on them!
I think bumper stickers in general are stupid. It's just asking to get your vehicle vandalized. Hell I didn't even have a sign in our front yard, but a couple I graduated with who opposed my views left a sign in my yard that said "No Bush! No War!" (probably from some pathetic anti-bush rally).
For those who do have signs and bumperstickers, take them down. If your candidate didn't win, don't be a sore loser, and if they did, there's no reason to gloat.
It'll be funny to still see Bush/Cheney stickers around in 2008!
I agree with you...TAKE THEM DOWN!
I have an answer to the first question...Gregoire "won" and is now the so-called governor.
King County found 85 or so more uncounted ballots. Can we count those along with all the other supposedly new or miscounted ballots? Just checking.
P.S. I just saw a Mondale bumper sticker while driving over the pass. It was right next to one that said "I'm a Lefevre believer" (reference back to the old Mariners manager of the late 80s and early 90s just before Pinella). Ha!
Walter Mondale...lol what a joke! His liberal ass couldn't even get massachusetts!
It's hard to tell, but I think Adam might not like liberals...
I highly disagree with their views on life and the way people should be governed. I'm 20 years old, so don't expect me to be too sophisticated. I have a lot of liberal friends and I give them a hard time as much as they give me a hard time, but I am still friends with them. It doesn't make them bad people.
An aside: She's doing a good job, too.
-- L.
How can you say that?
She was misleading with her thoughts on tax increases (I knew they'd be here soon enough). Nothing like our states budget relying on alcoholics, smokers, and people who die. What happens when everyone stops smoking and drinking? Obviously the democrats don't want that. And the death tax? Nothing like having somebody die and the government reaching in and saying..."GIMME THAT SO WE CAN DO CONSTRUCTION IN SEATTLE!".
"Gregoire was also heavily involved in the lawsuit against the tobacco industry in the 1990s and won the state a $4.5 billion share of the settlement, including a $500 million bonus for her lead role. She was critical when a large part of Washington State's share of the money went into the general budget and was not specifically ear-marked for tobacco related issues."
WOW. I'm sure she really wished people would stop smoking so that her giant budget gets under-funded! She's glad people smoked...she's made money doing it in the past, and now she's gonna be able to pay her friends more because of her taxes on cigarettes.
With as much as our state is taxed already (one of the highest in the nation), you'd think there would already be a huge surplus without these taxes...but it's never enough. Just keep making the government bigger and richer while eliminating the businesses that pay the bills.
Simple majority to raise taxes after Tim Eyman worked his ass off to change it to super-majority after he got support from 70%+ of the state (democrats and republicans).
After schooling here I'm going to look to start my career and family somewhere that isn't on the west coast.
"After schooling here I'm going to look to start my career and family somewhere that isn't on the west coast."
You mean after the good people of Washington state -- all of them, not just property owners -- have subsidized your education through their sales taxes, you will just up and leave? I don't see any complaining from you about the advantages you have had as a result of the programs Democrats have worked hard for over generations, including a fantastic and widely recognized community college system, the same one in which you are a student. And if you received financial aid, chances are, Democrats kept funding the program. Perhaps thank the Democrats for raising your minimum wage to one that you can live on.
And as for Tim Eyman, I have such little regard for that lying, selfish, pathetic person that I can't even tell you what I really think. One person has done so much to erode the wonderfully progressive government we had going. Why should there be a higher threshold to raise taxes? This is a democracy with majority rule and minority right, not mini-minority control against overwhelming majority. I don't see Eyman asking for a supermajority to pass an initiative or to reduce taxes. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
As for the Washington business climate, I think we do OK. I keep hearing that health care costs are driving up the cost of business. Small businesses, especially, are getting pinched. So, too, are municipalities and counties that can't offer services to people who get laid off. Why? Health care costs are going up and revenue is down. Whyare costs up? Corporate health care providers are raising prices. Why are revenues down? Tim Eyman and his loathsome tax cuts. Those cuts are forcing some cities and towns to basically shut down.
Sounds like we have a lot of pro-business, anti-tax conservatives to blame for the mess we're in, not (just) the Democrats who are forced to raise taxes to keep the ship afloat. Sure, we would all like to pay less; who wouldn't? But we can't expect everything we've always had or even would like to have and also that we won't have to pay for it. But, frankly, I would like to have health insurance and roads without potholes that swallow my car, and I am willing to pay a reasonable amount.
Another reality: While big ticket items such as the highways in the Puget Sound area attract attention, Eastern Washington gets more money from Olympia than it sends there. And those highways are necessary so Eastern Washington farmers can get their products to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.
So move to a state you like better. Just remember who helped you get where you are today. Think about it.
-- L.
Honestly, the reason I have lived in Washington is because my parents do, and now, because my friends and family and girlfriend live here as well. I would love to move somewhere else right now, but those things keep me here. I'm not recieving any financial aid and I have opposed every single minimum wage increase we have each year since I started working at age 16. And when I do move, I guarantee you I will be able to drive on decent roads and won't be taxed nearly as much.
Tim Eyman's early iniatives were great, providing much needed tax relief and kept us from paying outrages prices on car tabs. I voted no to legalize slot machines because I don't think we need more of that kind of crap in our cities.
And yes, he did lie about his salary one time and he did get a little cocky about I-18 and his roll in that...but those iniatives were approved by the majority of voters in Washington State...not just him.
Your economics are terrible. Tax cuts aren't hurting businesses, and corporate health-care providers are raising prices due to misuing healthcare (I have a cold, lets see the doc...cases of wasting 50,000 + dollars on MRI's...etc) and frivilous lawsuits.
I would like to see us pay less and I would also like to see us spend less. Show me proof that Eastern Washington is using more state tax dollars than it pays. And if they are, are they being spent on things that eastern washington voters would approve on? OoOoOoO...
From the April 28 edition of The Wenatchee World, in Tracy Warner's column:
"It's absolutely true that the gas tax hike is there to help pay for Seattle's "megaprojects" -- the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Evergreen Point Bridge, and Interstate 405. Those three efforts alone will consume $3.5 billion, or about 40 percent of this whopping tax hike.
But we're not being taxed just for Seattle. The Puget Sound counties pay half the gas tax the state collects, and they've never got half the money back. They usually get back about 75 cents for every dollar of tax. And this big tax hike solves some of their problems, but nowhere near all. A state study back in 2000 said that doing what needs to be done in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, to cut congestion and replace what needs to be replaced, would require a 90-cent-a-gallon tax increase."
I don't know the source, but I have heard the same basic fact enough times from sources I trust but can't recall exactly right now.
-- L.
"Skeet and Trap shooting are fairly popular sports in Washington, along with being Olympic sports. Since a competitor can expect to put out about 300 oz. of shot in a tournament, this means about $70 or more in taxes, which effectively kills the sport in this state.
All this to save swans. The bill says the purpose of the tax is to fund lead cleanup efforts and that the proceeds will supposedly go to a "wild swan recovery account." I guess swans are eating lead shot and their young aren't passing their SAT's now or something. But our informant says this is bogus, since there are already effective cleanup procedures in place."
See, this is why I lean to the right...unfair tax burdens on our free society. I keep hearing how we need to be taxed more so Washington State can finish it's projects, but I hear nothing of the alternative--spend less.
The discussion goes from actually impacting taxes to skeet and trap shooting? What the hell...?
But you're right, Adam. We do need to spend less. I'd like to start with the $383 billion already spent on Iraq and Afghanistan so far (from today's PI). How much more money can we spend to put "oily" Chalabi (spelling?) in charge of something else and another ex-oil executive in charge of Afghanistan's economy? This tax burden is dropped on states by cuts in federal funding (to states) and federal programs for states.
Locally look at what is not now funded based on the elimination of I-695 (as one example). I forget the exact figure since it was quite a while ago, but Chelan County was hit hard by this. Other sources of revenue are being sought and other services have been cut to replace these dollars. I am friends with a councilman here, and he said that the loss of I-695 dollars means we have to increase local taxes or cut other programs, but the old levels of service have decreased.
People complain about the lack of services and service time, but they don't want taxes. Can't have it both ways. We are in a craze of voting down taxes, but we must also live with the consequences.
And of course, this (and other cuts) impacts the neediest in society the most, which doesn't possess a strong voice of advocacy so few care or sympathize.
But you see, if you knew the constitution, you'd realize the federal government is there to provide a military and be invovled in foreign affairs. Nothing more...too bad that has changed. Stabilizing the middle east is something I would support with my tax dollars. And what's wrong with ex-oil executives in charge of economy in the middle east? Is it bad to have somebody experienced with the economics of oil to be in charge of the economics of a place that is full of oil?
I don't complain about any of our government funded local services. If they can't provide good service, then why do they need more money? That's not how a business works, and that's not how the government should work either.
Who, in your opinion, is the neediest in the society and deserves more? Should political parties spend millions of dollars supporting a tax increase to help the needy when they could have spent that money to organize a much more efficient private charity?
I tire of your circular arguments. You repeat yourself. Dig your heels in a bit more, but I've finished.
P.S. The Constitution does not limit itself to those two ideas.
Post a Comment