Archive for June 4th, 2010

June 4, 2010

Just In Case You Thought the Tax Happy Democrats Were Done

by lewwaters

Now that the slew of new taxes are beginning to take effect and many who don’t drink alcohol or soda, smoke tobacco, eat candy, buy bottled water, plan to open a small business or use any of the other multitude of things recently imposed with tax hikes breath a sigh of relief that they aren’t affected, get ready. You just might be next.

In order to pass off their “balancing act” in this year’s earlier special session, some $480-million in higher Medicaid payments from the federal government was included. It is now looking like the state might not receive that “Medicaid match money” after all since the house voted recently to eliminate the increased Medicaid match rate from a spending bill.

To make that a bit clearer, Gregoire and Washington State Democrats, along with sticking it to taxpayers, “were spending money they didn’t have in the hope that the money would be there,” says Seattle based talk radio host Dori Monson.

Dori rightfully notes, “The fact is – until our state dramatically reduces spending, this fiscal nightmare will not end,” just as many of us have.

The Spokane Spokesman-Review, addressing Gregoire’s acknowledgement of the possibility of not receiving the funds from the federal government quotes her as saying, “I think what the big hangup is, we’re in an election year and there’s all this talk about deficit spending, which is resonating.”

Yes, governor Gregoire, deficit spending is “resonating.” It has been all the time while you and the Democrats in Olympia sought every new tax you could, after gutting I-960’s tax requirements.

Rising taxes and deficit spending is “resonating” with taxpayers who have been facing double digit unemployment while small businesses also face increased taxes and fees.

We are tired and fed up with the out of control spending, lies about “cutting the budget” and “Cutting spending” when in reality the only thing you cut is the amount of a projected increase in spending.

As we saw in the last special session, Republican alternatives to raising so many taxes went ignored while Democrats sought only new taxes and increases in existing taxes.

Obviously it did not help as we still face a deficit and now, should Gregoire call a second special session, what do you think we will face, given the Democrats push to give us an income tax?

In justifying their inclusion of monies not yet passed by the federal government, Gregoire said, “it isn’t a partisan thing, because Republican governors and legislatures around the country also budgeted the money; some even allocated it to be spent for programs.”

Personally, I care little what any other governor did or why they did it. I don’t live in California and don’t even visit there. I live in Washington State and what happened here is what matters to me.

While a second special session is not a certainty just yet, the underlying reason why one might become necessary has been revealed and is clear that our last special session, which gave us a whole new slew of taxes that will be paid by lower income people, amounted to little more than a paper work shuffle.

Our state is rapidly headed for bankruptcy as long as Democrats continue in their bumbling of managing the state and our taxes.

We cannot manage our homes or business in such a reckless manner and remain viable.

Obviously, neither can the State of Washington.

I have no doubt that should a second session be called by governor Gregoire, budget cuts will be slight while even more items will become taxed.

This reinforces what I have been maintaining for a long time. Democrats MUST be turned out and stripped of any power in running the state and governor Gregoire should be recalled.

We cannot afford her misfeasance any longer.

June 4, 2010

National Security Is Still a Major Issue in Wa. 03

by lewwaters

After many years of lackadaisical efforts and minimal reactions to decades of radical Jihadist attacks on America’s interests overseas and within our own country, the importance of National Security slapped us right between the eyes early on the morning of September 11, 2001.

We engaged in a war against these terrorists in Afghanistan that grew into a second front in Iraq, drawing much opposition from many who actually voted for the second front.

Democrats and anti-war Republicans like Ron Paul expressed their opposition very publicly and very loudly. The 2004 candidate for president from the Democrats, Massachusetts Senator, John ‘F’in Kerry (who is said to have served in Vietnam) centered his campaign on opposing the fight against terrorists as it was finally being waged.

The 2006 elections saw Republicans lose congressional power and in 2008, the presidency as well, giving those who oppose the fight full control over the fight.

It should be noted that since the horrific attacks on 9/11, President George W. Bush’s leadership prevented any more attacks upon our soil. Sadly, that cannot be said since Democrats seized control of the government in the 2008 election.

Retiring Democrat Brian Baird, Washington State’s 3rd Congressional District is one who opposed the fight in Iraq initially, but came to see the necessity of it once the reinforcement known as ‘the Surge’ was shown to be effective. Such a change brought much opposition and outrage to him from many Democrats, but he gave the Troops the support they needed then to make ‘the Surge’ successful.

Although only 1 of 435 who serve in the House of Representatives, it remains an important task that whoever replaces him hold clear insight and positions on National Security, given that there seems to be an increased terrorist effort as our foreign policy positions seem much weaker.

There is little doubt that Democrat Denny Heck will win the nomination for his party to run to replace Baird.

On the Republican side there are 4 still vying for the nomination to succeed Baird, David Castillo, Chris Boyd, David Hedrick and Jaime Herrera.

Out of these 5 candidates we will choose our next representative for the 3rd District and it is imperative that whoever wins the seat in November have a clear understanding on National Security matters.

A quick review of Denny Heck’s campaign site reveals no mention of National Security, leading me to label him the weakest candidate on the subject. That leaves us with the 4 Republicans, 3 of whom served in a branch of the Military. David Castillo in the Navy, Veterans Administration and Department of Homeland Security, Chris Boyd in the Army as a Combat Medic in Afghanistan and David Hedrick who served in the Marines.

We also have Jaime Herrera who has no experience in Military or National Security matters and, according to a Columbian article lauding her fund raising abilities, is “being advised on National Security issues” by former Senator, 82 year old Slade Gorton, who lost the 2000 election to Maria Cantwell.

As I pointed in Nuke Scientist Defection Shows The Importance Of Reps. With National Security Experience, it is imperative that we place strong consideration on candidates ability to handle National Security with who we select to replace Baird.

We have 5 choices to select from. Two with no experience in national Security, one seeming not to care and the other who must be advised by an aging former Senator and 3 Military Veterans, all of whom have experience in various degrees on matters of National Security.

Of those 3 Veterans, any one of which displays better ability on National Security than either Denny Heck or Jaime Herrera does, one has served in a sub-cabinet position in the Department of Homeland Security as well as with the US Navy during Operation Earnest Will, David Castillo.

All 3 of the Veterans saw National Security as serious enough that they enlisted in the Military to serve the nation. Castillo, due to being a few years older, was able to serve in both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

With the Ft. Hood attack, the botched Christmas bombing and the recent botched Times Square attempt, as well as previous Attacks Against U.S. Targets, we cannot afford to ignore a candidates experience in National Security.

What we don’t need is to send someone to replace Baird that must be “advised” by aging former politicians on such important matters as National Security.

June 4, 2010

WSRP to Run Criminal Background Checks On Candidates

by lewwaters

According to the Seattle PI’s Joel Connelly, Washington State GOP Chair, Luke Esser, has said in a Memo that,

“the state GOP will run criminal and civil background checks on every serious Republican candidate for statewide or congressional office.”

Republican Party probes GOP candidates’ backgrounds

The check is labeled as

“part of the candidate vetting process,” each will be charged approximately $75.00 for an outside vendor to probe each candidate. Esser says the probe is to “determine if legal proceedings have been undertaken against a candidate, ranging from speeding tickets to serious felonies on the criminal side, and ranging from liens and collection actions to bankruptcy filings on the civil side.”

He continues,

“WSRP staff will oversee the conduct of a Background Check of criminal and credit related issues, to be performed by a third-party vendor that will include the review of multiple criminal and civil court databases for records related to the candidate in question.”

Esser justifies the background checks as, “The main desire is that the state party not be surprised. We will examine what any citizen could find in court records.”

There are those elsewhere who find this a good idea saying,

“Every Republican candidate should understand that the Democrats already know your negatives or will soon find them out. Sooner or later, the Democrats will use your negatives against you. Republican candidates who think they can keep their negatives secret are dead wrong.”

From where I sit, it seems the quest for “pure” candidates continues.

Naturally, there are some things that must be known and ferreted out, such as felony convictions, dishonorable discharges and major infractions of the law. But, just how deep will these probes go and what will be used to deny otherwise good conservatives a run for office, while young establishment moderates who will lose elections are favored?

What all questions will be on the questionnaire sent to prospective candidates is unknown to me since I am not privy to such information, unless I am able to obtain a copy.

How far back such a probe will extend is also unknown. According to Esser,

“Results of the completed Candidate Questionnaires and Background Checks will be reviewed by the executive board at a meeting to be convened by the chairman. The executive board will determine if any information reviewed during their evaluation of these materials is serious enough to warrant bringing it to the attention of the entire state committee.”

I am reminded of how the revelation of the now 17 year old DUI of Mike McGavick from another state hurt his chance of winning against Maria Cantwell in 2006.
I am also reminded of recent revelations of Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal exaggerating claims of his Military service that were revealed by those who had heard his ever increasing claims of bravado over the years. A background check did not reveal any of this as access to a Veterans Military record is restricted to only those the Veteran signs a SF 180 to grant access.

While I can see the concern over supporting the absolute best candidates possible, such a background check would not reveal whether or not a candidate that is a legislator had others voting in their place nor would it reveal their support for causes and bills that are contrary to conservative values.

Such things rarely sink a Democrat candidate, as evidenced by Blumenthal’s resurgence in the polls in Connecticut, not to mention the country embracing scandal ridden former president Bill Clinton, who although impeached by the House served out his full term.

Then again, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not seek to oust party members accused of infractions.

Much like I saw Clark County GOP’s sealed vote for selecting the top candidate for the 18th Legislative District race, should the Democrats run a second candidate, being fear driven when the GOP should be in a strong position to win elections this cycle, I’m afraid this move by the state party is also driven by fear.

I don’t know if any candidate will refuse out of privacy concerns or not. Nor do I know if the party would deny support of a good candidate if the background check were refused. As Luke Esser said,

“That’s all yet to be determined. It’s our first trip down this road.”

Maybe if the party wasn’t striving to be so pure, this wouldn’t even be necessary. After all, there have only been two perfect humans ever created. One of them fell from grace and the other was killed on a cross.

In closing I’d like to remind the party of the words of Saul Alinksy from his now famous Rules for Radicals, specifically Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

How long will the party continue falling into this leftwing trap?

See also: The Background Check: A Pathway to the Libertarian Party