Posts tagged ‘David Carrier’

October 30, 2008

SRCC Files Complaint Against SDCC For Illegal Contributions to Carrier Campaign

by lewwaters

In a release today, Brent Ludeman, Executive Director of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee announced that he has filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission against the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee alleging they both “violated their aggregate contribution limit” and “making contributions in excess of the 21-day $5000 limit” to David Carrier, running to unseat Republican Don Benton in the 17th Legislative District race. (copy of email received below post)

Stating Democrats had a contribution limit of $50,633.60, the complaint states “Senate Democrats have given directly or made in-kind contributions of more than $90,605 to Carrier’s campaign.”

This is not the same $1,000 the Carrier campaign was required to return to the 49th Legislative District Democrats earlier, which Carrier explained away as his “volunteer Treasurer accepted the contribution …. without knowing this type of contribution was prohibited.”

This is a new complaint filed over the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee contributing money to the Carrier Campaign in the sum of $50,000 “after the 21-day $5000 limit had passed.”

Ludeman also alleges in the complaint that of the $50,000 contributed, “$46,605 were made as in-kind contributions that cannot simply be returned.”

A file listing these contributions has been made available here.

Carrier built his campaign around a pledge of not accepting Special Interest and PAC contributions. When it was pointed out that he had accepted such contributions, Carrier attempted to explain and justify them here. (see comments)

The troubling aspect of David Carrier’s candidacy is that his words just do not add up. Beyond the promise of not accepting special interest and PAC money, he states on his web site, “Taxes represent an investment in our future and our children’s future. They are the dues that we pay for education, public services, and infrastructure.”

Additionally he claims he will not vote to implement an income tax, yet he also claims to advocate a “progressive tax.” That means the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay.

In spite of Clark County voters rejecting the idea of Light Rail from Portland into downtown by a 2 to 1 margin, Carrier aggress with the CRC on adding Light Rail to a new bridge to replace the aging I-5 bridge. He justifies this by relying on a questionable poll that only included 104 Clark County residents.

Of late he has jumped on the bash Bush bandwagon citing, “For the past 8 years we’ve been told that the economy is fine, that free markets will take care of themselves, that we can’t afford to do anything to help working people.”

He totally neglects that our economy went south after his party gained power in both the House of Representatives and Senate and began imposing minimum wage increases, which led to increased unemployment nationwide.

Carrier claims to be an “economist,” but makes no mention of his parties complicity in the economic downturn due to requiring risky home loans be made to those lower income people who could not afford to repay them, which Congressional Democrats blocked all efforts by both Republicans and President Bush to get regulations passed to prevent the economic meltdown we are now in.

Can we afford to send someone to Olympia that ignores his party’s share of the blame for the hardships we now face?

Carrier tells us, “In general I do not support tax increases, and do not support an income tax in the state of Washington.” Yet, from his own Priorities page we see,

“This year the City of Vancouver is facing a structural deficit of over $6 million. Since 2001, city departments excluding police and fire have absorbed a combined $14 million in cuts. As reported in the Columbian, the factors contributing to Vancouver’s budget shortfall:

An estimated $40 million has been lost in the past 7 years as a result of two voter initiatives, one capping property tax increases, the other lowering car tabs to $30 each.

An estimated $67 million has been lost in 10 years as the city phased out the local business and occupation tax.

Vancouver loses an estimated $10 million a year in sales tax revenue as shoppers travel to sales-tax-free Oregon.”

He also states on the same page, “Taxpayers have a right to vote on tax increases. They should also vote on tax cuts, after being fully informed of the consequences for public safety and education. Politicians should be required to identify which government services will be eliminated…”

Am I the only one to notice that the only areas Democrats ever seem able to cut spending on is in needed community services? Does he not see that eliminating the Light Rail proposal would save billions? Does he not see that eliminating entitlements to Illegal Aliens would also save citizens massive dollars? As we all know, government spending is bloated and out of control, but Carrier can only recommend cutting needed services should tax revenues not meet the states expectations.

Don Benton has served us faithfully and voted to keep our taxes at a fair level, which places more of our hard earned money in our own pockets to spend as we see fit.

Carrier makes a lot of smoke about helping us, but when looking at his claims objectively, will end up costing us a lot of money in taxes.

Add this his violating his own oath in accepting Special Interest and PAC money and now Illegal contributions and I see someone we just cannot afford in Olympia. Since his party gained power in Washington 4 years ago, our annual budget surplus has disappeared and been replaced by a projected multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.

To be fair, I do not believe Carrier accepted any of the contributions knowing they were illegal. A novice politician, I feel he is just naïve and as such, will show up in Olympia green as can be and easily manipulated by seasoned politicians who desire our tax dollars be spent first in King County, where their votes come from.

In times like this we need experience and someone with a record of fighting to keep our taxes down and reasonable. We need someone who fights against wasteful projects that will bankrupt us. We need someone who really does represent us.

Clark County needs Don Benton back in office as State Senator for the 17th legislative District.

Copy of email announcing GOP complaint:

From: Brent Ludeman [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:38 PM
To: kyoung@pdc.wa.gov
Subject: Complaint

Kurt,

I would like to file a complaint against the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee for violating both their aggregate contribution limit and for making contributions in excess of the 21-day $5000 limit to David Carrier in the 17th Legislative District.

Despite a contribution limit of $50,633.60, the Senate Democrats have given directly or made in-kind contributions of more than $90,605 to Carrier’s campaign. I have attached an excel file with the illegal contributions highlighted.

Additionally, four of the contributions, totaling $50,605, were made after the 21-day $5000 limit. Of those contributions, $46,605 were made as in-kind contributions that cannot simply be returned. These illegal contributions have been used to further Carrier’s campaign in a way that will have irrevocable harm.

It is clear that these illegal contributions will impact the election results. The damage is done. Given the serious nature of this violation, I request an immediate investigation and for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee and the David Carrier for Senate campaign to be penalized to the maximum extent of the law for these multiple violations.

Regards,

Brent Ludeman

Brent Ludeman
Executive Director
Senate Republican Campaign Committee
Cell: 206.XXX XXX

October 21, 2008

Langston Shuns PAC and Special Interest Money

by lewwaters

By now most have undoubtedly seen the television ad hawking David Carrier’s vow and refusal to accept Special Interest and PAC money and even the Columbian’s report of his campaign initially accepting an illegal contribution from another legislative district, which was subsequently returned.

The excuse listed of the Special Interest and PAC monies he did receive come across a bit lame, in my opinion.

Discussing the acceptance of Special Interest and PAC after viewing the last Presidential Debate at Republican Party Headquarters last week, Office Manager, Cindy Langston, wife of State Senate candidate Tom Langston, came up the small group and told us that Tom accepts no Special Interest or PAC money, at all.

We all have heard Political Candidates make claims that cause us to be skeptical and initially, I took Cindy’s claim with a little skepticism too. After all, it is just too easy to find out to who contributes to the candidates by a simple visit to the Public Disclosure Commission’s website, which is updated frequently.

It was a very pleasant surprise to discover that Tom and his wife are truthful. He has indeed not accepted PAC or Special Interest money and his acceptance of the money from the 49th Legislative District is legal as he is running for office within the 49th Legislative District.

Langston PDC Report

Langston PDC Report

Tom’s opponent, incumbent Democrat Craig Pridemore, lists several PACs he has accepted donations from, including the same Seattle law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation that David Carrier states is “from an individual employed by the firm who wished to remain anonymous.”

Pridemore PDC Report

Pridemore PDC Report

Unlike Carrier, I have never heard Pridemore make a vow to not accept such donations and again, accepting from Special Interest and PACs is not illegal. They can leave a candidate beholding to such groups, as we all know, but they are completely legal to accept.

Langston, desiring a more business friendly environment for Washington State, opposes any effort to impose an income tax on us. Strangely enough, Pridemore’s issue’s page is blank, leaving the voters will little information on just where he stands on current issues affecting the state.

Langston’s page prominently displays his stand on the issues and his pledge to the voters in dealing with them.

Pridemore, not willing to make his stand known to the public on his campaign website, leave us wondering if once again he would cave in to others on an income tax since we are again facing a severe budget shortage and as he said in 2005 after voting against his stated principles in raising taxes on Tobacco and Alcohol said, “The Senate has balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and powerless,” even though it was he who cast the deciding vote in passing the legislation.

To Pridemore’s credit, he did later sponsor a tax rebate bill, but even that could face elimination with the current severe budget shortfall we face since Democrats took control of the State Government.

Langston opposes the Light Rail project across the Columbia River that the CRC desires to impose upon us, in spite of voters rejecting it. Pridemore chaired that same commission previously. Does he also advocate strapping commuters to Portland with tolls should they choose to exercise their freedom to drive their car? Does he prefer to force commuters to use public transportation; joining Portland and Vancouver’s Mayors desire to “force people out of their cars?”

Tom Langston has shown himself to be a man of conviction who stands by his word, something we saw Pridemore vote against in 2005. Could that have something to do with his rapid rise in powerful committees in the Senate?

With the serious budget shortfall we face, we need a businessman to represent us, someone who has had to work to make a payroll and keep costs down to turn a profit and stay in business. Saying we need to “trim the fat” in our budget and actually doing it are often very different. Tom Langston knows how to do it.

Craig Pridemore has shown us he is willing to compromise his own principles on our backs.

Join me in voting for Tom Langston, Senator for the 49th Legislative District. Let’s return Washington State to sound fiscal footing and get back on track to improving Washington’s economy and drawing businesses and jobs back to Washington State.

October 13, 2008

Carrier Accepting Special Interest Money After All?

by lewwaters

David Carrier, Democrat challenger to Republican Don Benton for Washington State Senate, 17th District, has maintained on his web page, “I am the only candidate for State Senate who did not accept contributions from lobbyists and PACs. My only interest is to represent the voters of this District.”

Clicking the link provided by David brings us to his page attempting to show his contributions received versus Don Benton’s expenditures, along with the following,

David also provides a link to Washington’s Public Disclosure Commissions search page for us to see how he is not accepting special interest money. It is somewhat complicated to get through, but I found by going to directly to the PDC page, searching the database is much easier. No matter, whichever way I access the page brings back the same results of those who are contributing to Carriers campaign.

For all the noise he makes about not accepting any money from special interests, I was somewhat taken back to see two contributors listed, Bergman & Frockt, PLLC of Vashon, Washington and the Roosevelt Fund of Seattle.

Bergman & Frockt seems to be a Law Firm located in Vashon that specializes on asbestos litigation. In fact, their site lists them as “The Northwest’s Leading Firm In Asbestos Litigation.”

The Roosevelt Fund P.O. Box 9100 Seattle is a Liberal Political Action Committee with a long history of collecting and distributing funds to Liberal Democrats in opposition to Republicans.

It must be said here that receiving these funds from these two special interest groups are neither illegal nor politically improper. However, they do indicate that Carrier either has decided to accept special interest money or isn’t paying attention to donations he receives.

It is David Carrier who complains about similar funds being accepted by Senator Don Benton while posting prominently on his own web page, “I am not accepting contributions from special interest groups.”

Even in articles by the near bankrupt Columbian, Carrier maintains he “has taken no money from special interest groups.”

I have previously addressed Carriers numbers and claims not adding up, here and here. Likewise, these two contributions don’t add up with this prominent claim “I am not accepting contributions from special interest groups.”

Little wonder that the financially troubled Columbian endorses Carrier over Don Benton, even to the point of misrepresenting Benton’s position of the I-5 bridge replacement proposals.

They claim, “[Benton] is even opposed to the proposal for replacing the decrepit and dangerous Interstate 5 Bridge.” Truth is, Senator Benton’s views were published by the Columbian March 2, 2008 with his article, “Third river crossing is best solution

Little wonder the Columbian is in deep financial straits. As much as they point at Senator Benton’s ability to raise funds, you would think they would have seen Carriers ability to receive funds from special interests as well.

With their inability to properly manage and profit from local news, are they sending us another mis-manager?

Either you accept from special interests or you don’t, David. You can’t have it both ways.

September 2, 2008

Answering David Carrier’s Comment

by lewwaters

Thank you, David, for stopping by and attempting to take a specific stand.

However, there was no need to take the cheap shot, I prominently linked to your campaign site in the beginning of the article. That’s what the bolded words in blue are, links back to other sites.

Let’s take a look at what you said in your comment here.

Readers may want to refer to my web site for the truth about my positions- www.davidcarrier.org. I would just like to set the record straight on a couple of items mentioned here:
1. I believe we should work for the common good because of my Christian faith, not because I am a socialist. The importance of working for the common good dates back to Jesus Christ, whose teachings and example I attempt to follow in my own life. You may recall that Jesus said that the second greatest commandment was to love one another.
2. In general I do not support tax increases, and do not support an income tax in the state of Washington. I support shifting the tax burden away from the middle class by closing tax loopholes and finding ways to make the tax system more progressive. For example, we should provide an exemption from property tax increases for seniors and people on fixed incomes.
I encourage readers to find out the truth by visiting my web site.

You say you believe in “working for the common good” due to your Christian Faith. Fair enough. You cite Jesus and claim it was his teachings that taught that. I assume you have fallen into the modern Liberal Christianity taught in many Churches today. The “Common Good” ethic Jesus taught was following God’s Word and living by it. It was a spirituality, not creation of a welfare state. Of course, since the New Testament had not been written until after his death, we must assume he was speaking of what we refer to as the Old Testament.

Granted, much in the OT is more of a historical recording, but a lot of it gives us principles we should follow, I feel. One thing the OT speaks of, and most “Progressive Democrats” ignore is found in Leviticus 19:9, 10 and 23:32.

9 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (NIV)

22 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.’ ” (NIV)

God gave the Israelites a principle for carrying for the poor and under privileged, leaving crops in the field for them. What modern man neglects in their pursuit to redistribute wealth, is that it was left up to the poor and underprivileged to go out to the field and gather the left over crops.

That way, everybody ate, but all had to work to have their own food.

The modern welfare system advocated by the Progressive Democrats does not mandate that all work, just some and then they take from those who work the hardest and are the most successful. In other words, Progressive Democrats demand not only that the farmers leave more and more of their crops in the field for these “poor,” but that they process it and deliver it as well.

The concept of “for the common good” was put to a test in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. While thousands and thousands of well meaning citizens donated and traveled to help rebuild, how many of the “poor” sat idly by waiting for something to be done for them?

Neighboring communities in Mississippi hit much harder seemed to get back on their feet without as much begging and demanding others do for them.

In Jesus’ teaching about “loving one another,” is it loving for some to sit back and expect others to do for them? Is it loving to forcibly take from some and give to others, who show little or no appreciation? Is it loving to continue to take more and more from the successful, the ones who create the jobs and provide the means of wages, often losing jobs in the process?

Why punish those who supply the products and services we need, not only for survival, but also for supporting our families?

While I applaud property tax breaks for “seniors and people on fixed incomes,” shouldn’t you have a maximum amount of “fixed income” to receive the break, since many “Fixed Income Earners” are actually quite wealthy? Perhaps you meant “seniors on a limited fixed income?”

Giving breaks to the wealthiest “Fixed Income Earners” runs counter to your claims of “shifting the tax burden away from the middle class,” doesn’t it?

I always chuckle whenever I hear Progressive Democrats talk of “cutting taxes on the middle class,” every time they are campaigning. Somehow, it rarely seems to happen. We end up getting stuck with the bill anyways as out of control spending continues.

I find it peculiar for you to say, “In general I do not support tax increases, and do not support an income tax in the state of Washington,” yet also claim to advocate, “finding ways to make the tax system more progressive.”

Do you not realize that the classical progressive tax system IS the income tax? Progressive taxes are based upon ones income.

Here again, perhaps you don’t realize it, but Karl Marx also spoke of imposing a “heavy progressive or graduated income tax” in his 1848 Communist Manifesto.

Do you not also realize the I-5 Bridge proposal you agree with comes with a heavy tax burden and most likely tolls on the Middle Class?

Since you are “interested in shifting the tax burden from the Middle Class,” how about advocating the elimination of so many entitlements and wasteful spending? Would you be willing to sign a “No Income Tax or No Tax Increase” pledge to the voters?

Continually trying to “soak the rich” accomplishes little, other than losing jobs for the Middle Class and raising the cost of goods and services as well as creating class envy.

If you are really interested in giving the Middle Class and Poor a break on taxes, are you willing to work to eliminate our high gas tax and tobacco taxes? Since the majority of those who use tobacco are low wage earners, shouldn’t they receive a break there? With high gas prices, why do we continue to pay more to government than to the actual oil companies?

Senator Benton works to cut spending and eliminate wasteful spending, which would provide real tax breaks to all. Would you?

You claim that, “conservatism does not work.” Yet, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, whatever you wish to call it, has never worked anywhere it is tried. You cannot tax a country to wealth. Redistribution of wealth only ends up robbing citizens of their basic innate desire to advance themselves by penalizing their success.

As you claim to be an economist I am shocked that a simple blue collar worker as I can know this and you do not.

Sorry if it offends you, but I stand by my original claim that you are just another “Tax and Spend Liberal.” You cannot claim to be against tax increases and advocate a “progressive tax system,” which increases taxes.

Senator Benton understands that. That is why so many support his returning to Olympia.

August 17, 2008

David Carrier: Just Another Tax and Spend Liberal

by lewwaters
David Carrier

David Carrier

Senator Don Benton

Senator Don Benton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I am not in the 17th District, I feel compelled to address the Senate race there between incumbent Don Benton and challenger, David Carrier.

Benton has served us in numerous terms and desires for us to be able to keep more of our own money, as demonstrated in his July 22, 2008 comment to the RTC Board Meeting and several votes against increasing taxation of Washington Citizens.

Carrier states on his campaign site, “Taxes represent an investment in our future and our children’s future. They are the dues that we pay for education, public services, and infrastructure.”

He goes on to claim, “I support the recommendations of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force for the I-5 replacement bridge,” which include the prohibitively expensive boondoggle of “light rail” from Portland into the Clark College area, which will result in massive tax increases and tolls for what will undoubtedly be a minimal rider ship.

To support this view he quotes a questionable poll, “Recent polls show that a majority of Vancouver residents want to replace the bridge and include public transit.” This poll was a telephone survey of 504 randomly selected households in four counties, three of which are in Oregon. Of the 504 respondents, only 104 actually live in Clark County.

Do you feel 104 accurately represents the thoughts of over 400,000 Clark County residents? Don’t forget, the last time it was brought before the voters, Light Rail was defeated by a 2 to 1 margin. And, Carrier wishes us to fall for we now want it because a majority of respondents in a shaky poll of mostly Oregon residents say they want it?

He goes on to tell us, “Washington’s tremendous wind and solar resources should be tapped to meet future demand for electricity. Wind power is already one of the fastest growing industries in the state, and it’s creating great new jobs.”

Solar resources in the Pacific Northwest? How many cloudy days of rain do we usually get a year? As for wind power, yes it is viable, but not without its own pitfalls. An August 17, 2008 CNN article warns that wind power brings both prosperity and anger to those near the windmills. It wasn’t all that long ago that Robert Kennedy Jr. visited our little community touting the benefits of wind power as an alternative energy source, but neglecting to mention that he and his famous liberal uncle, Ted Kennedy, opposed a windfarm in Nantucket Sound, their boating and pleasure area.

A British resident who recently visited America, Christopher Booker recently wrote in the UK Telegraph,

Since America has already built five times as many wind turbines as Britain, covering thousands of square miles, I checked out how much electricity all those 10,000 turbines actually produce. The answer is around 4.5 gigawatts – not much more than a single large coal-fired power station.”

He doesn’t state where his figures are from, but that is a serious charge, if true.

And, where would Carrier have us place the Wind farm? The Columbia Gorge, where environmentalists won’t allow homes to be built on private land and where the desire to for the land to be kept “pristine?”

Why does it escape the liberal mind that drilling and refining our own oil sources, while we research and develop really viable alternative energy sources will satisfy our energy needs for years?

One of the most astounding, yet predictable charges he makes is, “Climate change is real, and it’s one of the planet’s greatest environmental threats.” Perhaps he missed or disregards that 31,000 Scientists reject the Global Warming Agenda? Or, that Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who spent several years of his own life under Communist control sees that, “the global warming movement was based on shaky science, a distrust of free markets and a preference for central bureaucratic control over individual freedom.”

Does he not know that even very liberal New Jersey sees that New Scientific Data Justifies Repealing their Global Warming Response Act?

He does see that, “Our energy consumption caused [West Africans] to become ‘environmental refugees,’” joining the usual Liberal Klan of “Blame America First” for the worlds ills.

As we can expect from a ‘tax and spend liberal,’ he tells us,

As an economist, I understand that the key to economic growth and security is to invest in our community. We need to provide quality education, job training, affordable housing and health care, and energy independence.”

And how does the liberal accomplish the above? By raising taxes, of course.

Oh sure, they tell us that they will only “tax the wealthy” some more. But, how much more do they intend to tax the wealthy that already pay the bulk of our taxes? Does he not know, as an “economist,” that taxing corporations is a tax on the people through increased prices and services? Corporations and businesses simply pass along taxes and other expenses in the price of the goods and services we purchase.

Finally, he states, “Conservative ideology doesn’t work.”

Odd that it worked and elevated America to the height it has attained for nearly 200 years, before the liberal hippie mindset infected our schools and institutions of higher learning. Odder still is that the Liberal Clintons made quite a bit of money under the conservative presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Don’t be fooled by the glib words of liberals at any stage of government. They think they can rebuild the fallen Soviet Union, only better, if we all just give up our individual liberties, paychecks and lives and live as they say we should.

Carrier states, “I believe in the power of the human spirit,” neglecting that the socialism he advocates destroys that very spirit by “contributing to the common good.” Perhaps unbeknownst to him is that the teaching of “contributing to the common good” isn’t new.

It has been around since 1848 when the Communist Manifesto was published.

Let’s keep our freedoms and liberties and re-elect Don Benton to our State Senate.