It seems like time for a survey:
News and Pointed Commentary on Political, Business, Social, and Other Topics of Interest in the Western Puget Sound Region. By Lary Coppola
Saturday, February 20, 2010
How Our Local Electeds Voted on Suspending 1-960
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Video About The Banks And The FDIC
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Death Knell For Transparent Government
The Chicago-style backroom deals that have been done over the healthcare bill, and have become the hallmark of the Obama adminstration, are enough to make you lose permanent faith in honest and transparent government. Meanwhile, here at home, taking its cue from the "leadership" being shown on this issue in other Washington, the Democrat-controlled State Legislature blatantly introduced in your face legislation to undo the will of the people — Senate Bill 6843 — which negates Initiative 960.
I-960 forced our legislators to reveal how much new legislation would actually cost the taxpayers. Last year, under I-960, we learned that some proposed bills were shown to cost billions. The bottom line is, while some of that legislation sounded really nice, we didn’t have billions to spend. Once the actual cost was attached to a bill as required by I-960, it often — and rightly — failed. If Senate Bill 6843 becomes law, that kind of transparency will be gone forever.
I-960 also required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature — or a simple majority vote of the Legislature along with a vote of the people — to increase taxes. In other words, we demanded the legislature live within our means! Through blatantly arrogant political maneuvering, legislators are now trying to ram this bill down our throats without allowing we taxpayers to even read the bill, or comment on it.
The legislature's absolute arrogance in flaunting our will is appalling beyond belief.
Supporters of the bill whine and carp about how Tim Eyman has done our state irreparable financial harm. However, in my view at least, if the legislature cared about what the taxpayers actually think or want, Eyman wouldn't be a factor in their lives. The bottom line is, if SB 6843 bill passes, you can bet there will be a continuing series of large tax increases for all of us, while giving the legislature the ability to spend without restraint or oversight, as our state continues down the road to permanent insolvency.
Finally, just remember, the entire state legislature is up for re-election in November.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Rossi vs. Murray?

In a survey of 500 registered voters in Washington done on Jan. 24-25, 45 percent of the respondents said they would vote for Rossi, who twice lost the election for governor — the first time in a highly contested 2004 election considered by many to this day to have been fraudulent.
Forty-three percent said they would vote for three-term incumbent Patty Murray, while nine percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Moore added that the poll is a snap shop in time of the voters' mood — which right now appears to have some dark clouds on the horizon for many Democratic incumbents. Asked which party's candidate they would vote for in a race for the U.S. House of Representatives, voters were evenly split at 35-35 between Democrats and Republicans. The rest were undecided.
"The last time I saw these kinds of numbers was back in 1994" when Republicans took control of Congress, Moore was quoted a saying in a published report. "Democrats are not as popular as they were in 2008 and the Republicans have a real chance to pick up some seats."
In spite of the closeness of the poll, Rossi claims he isn't running — but he didn't exactly slam the door shut either.
Asked if the poll results, coupled with the current political climate would tempt him to mount a political comeback, Rossi gave his usual semi-denial: "I never said I would never run again for public office."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
President Obama's "Report Card"
The Obama presidency is very much a work in progress, and to be fair, his record pales in comparison to the extraordinary expectations of the people who swept him into office. His performance must also be accurately assessed against the huge challenges he inherited — two wars, record deficits, and the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.
But Obama alone is responsible for his choice of priorities, which in my view should have been summed up in three words — jobs, jobs, and jobs. Reviving the economy should be Job One — not squandering time, energy and political capital on a national health care plan the majority of Americans don’t want, or trust the government can run cost-efficiently. That time and energy would have been much better spent on helping small business create jobs, and helping U.S. employers compete internationally. Tuning the economic engine that keeps America working must be his first priority. Good public policy — including health-care coverage for all Americans — is rooted in a strong economy, and the economy is never stronger than when America is at full employment.
Sure, Obama called for creating jobs in his State of The Union speech, but let's see if he walks his talk and puts the drive for socialized medicine on hold to actually focus on jobs and economic recovery.
Obama gave us an economic-stimulus package his administration claims saved 1.5 million jobs. Unemployment however, has obstinately hovered at 10 percent, with the numbers soaring among younger workers and minorities.
Given our own state’s self-created financial difficulties, I’d be interested in seeing an accounting of how the stimulus funds we received were spent. How many new jobs were actually created? It doesn't appear that stimulus money has been applied to new job-creation in Washington — other than those the Governor created for additional state employees — instead funding existing jobs in a shell game designed to close last year’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit.
Jobs should have been Obama's focus his first year — not cap-and-trade, job-killing taxes, handing over a major multi-national corporation (GM) to its union while wiping out millions of stockholders, creating massive new regulations, unrestrained earmark spending, and the attempted take-over of one sixth of our economy with a trillion-dollar healthcare plan our grandchildren will pay for long after its been proven a failure. Meanwhile, unemployment has increased every month Obama has been in office, adding to the burden shouldered by the already broke states — with no end in sight.
To make matters worse, the President has chosen to leave the details of rescuing the economy and achieving the Democratic Party’s holy grail of socialized medicine, to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — two people who have routinely abused the public trust, and are especially clueless about how the economy actually works. Their answer was the so-called “stimulus” bill, which looted the treasury for the benefit of Democratic Party constituencies, while employees in the private sector were laid off or relegated to part-time status. A shining example of their blatant partisanship was setting aside two billion “stimulus” dollars for “community-stabilization” organizations — meaning the criminal conspiracy called ACORN.
Pelosi and Reid have also used their political power to heap revenge on the Republicans for eight years under Bush. Ironically, it would have been easy to secure support from the hapless Republicans because many saw what they believed was the future, and wanted to climb on board the Obama Express. But Pelosi and Reid blatantly denied them the opportunity, virtually guaranteeing those inclined to articulate principled critique of the health care and stimulus bills, a nationwide constituency.
The Democrats never anticipated the Tea-Party Rebellion — but should have. It caught the Republicans, who were slow to grasp its relevance, flat-footed as well, and they have yet to fully capitalize on such a political bonanza.
Backroom deals using taxpayer dollars to enrich one’s supporters are sadly, an age-old Congressional tradition. However, it’s quite another thing to do them on such a massive scale, and in such a blatantly transparent manner, when so many are facing exceedingly hard economic times. The American people can be fooled — but not by Chicago-style skullduggery as obvious as that practiced by Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Obama administration.
Everything that’s happened regarding healthcare has reinforced the suspicions about Obama. Polling data makes it exceedingly clear the American people don’t want healthcare rationing; don’t want Medicare gutted; don’t want a middle-class tax increase under any circumstance; and they find Pelosi and Reid’s special backroom deals such as the Cornhusker Kickback, reprehensible.
And, if as reported, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have agreed to exempt union members and other Democratic Party friends from the 40 percent excise tax on health insurance, while imposing it on traditional opponents, and if at the insistence of the unions, provisions were inserted in the bill designed to drive non-unionized construction firms out of business, the proverbial excrement will come into direct contact with the oscillating rotor this November.
On the plus side, the president strongly believes in education, earmarking $4 billion to encourage innovation and creativity in teaching and school management. He’s an unabashed supporter of charter schools and access to higher education. He has called attention to, and generated public outrage over unearned and undeserved executive bonuses and pay.
The president gave himself a B+ in a conversation with Oprah Winfrey. Ralph Nader gives him an F. Open-government advocates rate him at C+. Twelve months into his administration, I give the president a D+.
I cannot think of another moment in American history when a President and political party squandered opportunities as promising as those afforded Barack Obama. They’ve handed the Republicans a golden opportunity to convince voters that Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats are conspiring to take almost complete control over every facet of their lives — property, money, labor, and healthcare — literally, bureaucratic power over life and death.
Had Obama chosen a more moderate course, governing as a centrist, keeping his promises regarding bipartisanship while reining in the radicals controlling the House and the Senate, insisted on transparency instead of tacitly approving the corrupt Chicago-style backroom deals that have become the hallmark of his administration, and focused on the economy and jobs, he would have proven himself a leader people want to trust. He also may have been able to accomplish much of his agenda, and done so with overwhelming support from the American people, instead of the divisive distrust we have come to embrace.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Obama's First Year: The View from Europe
By Susan Easton
When it comes to great headlines, no publication beats the (UK) Daily Mail. Wednesday morning's edition featured a classic which dovetailed the first anniversary of Obama's inauguration with the election of Scott Brown. It read: "Happy Birthday, Mr. President — here's a bloody nose!"
The description of Brown's victory in the Mail article, in fact those among all the 10 greater and lesser UK nationally published daily newspapers, are very telling. Scott Brown's election was characterized as "a devastating blow," "a stunning embarrassment," "a mortifying loss." They warned that "the Presidential agenda could be derailed," that the "election shock threatens Obama's reforms," and that "Obama (is) facing a crisis."
There was an exception in the Telegraph. "Obama still has reasons to be cheerful," one reporter meekly suggested. But the general tone is unmistakable. Brown's win was seen as a direct body blow to Obama — a sucker punch which knocked the light-weight President off his pins. If you notice, party politics have nothing directly to do with any of these characterizations. They are about Obama alone and this speaks to the current general perception of him across the pond.
Gerald Scarfe, a major political cartoonist for the Times of London, began — at Obama's inauguration — depicting the new President as a promising Superman. By the middle of last year, these images had devolved into a Superman whose biceps and pecks had disintegrated and whose cape hung limply from shriveled shoulders. In the August addition to his series, Scarfe shows Super Obama having a face first collision into a brick wall labeled "Health Care."
Scarfe could easily reprint that cartoon this week with the wall now labeled "Scott Brown." Or perhaps Super Obama, rather than being faster than a locomotive, could be drawn being mowed down by a runaway train called The Tea Party Express.
The European printed tide seems to have turned against Obama when he was given The Nobel Prize for Peace. This prompted a Scandinavian news agency to run a commentary entitled "The End of Obamamania? Europe's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Nobel." The article's author, Soeren Kern, noted how many European newspapers (he chronicled many examples) reacted to this announcement with "incredulity and skepticism." Kern continued: "Almost without exception, newspapers across the continent — and political spectrum — are saying the award to Obama is premature and undeserved. For many people, that conclusion seems perfectly reasonable. But coming from Europe's sycophantic media establishment, which has spent the last two years worshipping Obama as a messianic figure, such a reaction represents a sea change in sentiment toward Obama." Kern concluded that Europeans are trending back to generally negative reporting "about America, its people, and its President."
Negative hardly seems a strong enough description of the headlines out of France in the last few days. Less than a week after an earthquake leveled the former French colony of Haiti, French President Sarkozy accused Obama of having imperialist tendencies and a desire to occupy the destroyed half of the island of Hispaniola. Of course, these two have been on the outs for some time now.
Sarkozy was the first European leader to turn on President Obama in 2009, describing him in an interview as "naïve." He had good reason to feel that way. Early in his Presidency, Obama had sent a letter to the French President going on about how well he envisioned them working together. Alas, the letter was sent to the former French President, Jacques Chirac — not Sarkozy. The news of Obama's diplomatic faux pax was widely reported in Europe, but not by the hypnotized American media. This incident was followed by a bungled dinner invitation in which both Sarkozy and Obama perceived themselves as snubbed by the other. Needless to say, the French media are no longer dazzled by the American President and they think even less of Michelle Obama's fashion sense.
Yes, safe to say, this week's first anniversary clippings from the British papers are not likely to be pasted into the Obama family scrapbook. Just look at the headlines. The Financial Times: "The real missed opportunity in Obama's first year." The Independent: "So, one year on, has Obama delivered?" Also from The Independent: "On Human Rights, Obama's first year has disappointed." The London Times: "Barack Obama floundering a year on after wave of goodwill crashes."
But Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph will surely have to gate crash his way into the White House from now on after penning his opus: "10 Reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama." Since David Letterman is unlikely to read this top ten list, we've printed them here for your convenience:
1) Bush never apologized for his country;
2) Bush identified and confronted evil;
3) Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda; (
4) Bush defended national sovereignty;
5) Bush believed in the Special Relationship (with Britain);
6) Bush cultivated key allies;
7) Bush understood the importance of missile defense;
8) Bush believed in fighting a global war;
9) Bush did not compromise U.S. security: and
10) Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy.
But all of these critical assessments of Obama are balanced out by the reserve of fondness held for him by the Germans. Perhaps it was because they still tend to think of Obama as a rock star that Frankfurt, Germany, was chosen as the location to debut "Hope — The Obama Musical Story." Featuring a cast of 30 singers and actors, "Obama, the Musical" tries to capture the magic of Obama in song. Written by an American, Randall Hitchins, the story begins with the President's early days as community organizer in Chicago and takes the audience with him to relive his chart topping rise in the Democrat Party. Many of the songs include actual quotes from his campaign speeches. There are love ballads sung to Michelle and a duet with Hillary. Even McCain and Palin get to sing out about being losers in "a big brassy number." One is tempted to predict the grand finale features a nimble Obama seen tap dancing his way into the Oval Office, with Joe Biden doing a soft shoe in the background. And could you have guessed this one? The actor who portrays the President is another American, Jimmie Wilson, who once played Michael Jackson in the musical "Sisterella."
Yes, this is it. Truth is stranger than fiction and we still have three more years to go. Let's hope we can keep the musical from becoming a horror movie.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Interesting Video
Monday, January 18, 2010
In White House Vs. Fox News War Of Words, Who Gets Your Vote?
(Editor's Note: The poll works, but for some reason won't format correctly — it either appears twice — or not at all. Sorry!)
By Mark Memmott
The stories about what the Obama White House has to say about Fox News Channel keep coming.
There was White House communications director saying telling Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN "let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Also last week it was NPR's Davis Folkenflik reporting that "the White House is taking direct aim at Fox News, the news organization that is the home to the most potent collection of its conservative critics."
This week it's ABC News' Jake Tapper asking why the Obama team was treating one of the "sister organizations" so badly — and the news that the White House had tried to block a Fox News reporter from interviewing the so-called pay czar. (After all the networks objected, the White House relented.)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Why Is Gregoire Opposed to Privatizing Liquor Sales?
According to a report by released last month by State Auditor Brian Sonntag, the state could increase revenue from liquor sales and distribution by $350 million if it sold the state's single distribution center and auctioned off licenses to private enterprise. In many states, like California and Arizona for example, liquor is sold in grocery stores. In Florida, it's sold in drug stores like Walgreen's and Rite Aid, along with numerous Mom & Pop operations.
Sheldon was particularly critical of the state's distribution system at a recent Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce legislative forum, bluntly asking if Costco or Walmart for example, could operate with the inefficiency of only one distribution warehouse for the entire state. There are 315 state-operated and contracted liquor outlets — at least three times more than Costco and Walmart combined.
The report stated that the $350 million savings wouldn't be realized until the beginning of the 2012 fiscal year — which won't help reduce the current $2.6 billion budget deficit. Gregoire has seized on that as her excuse for continuing to maintain the current inefficient system, which would net state and local governments about $2.36 billion between 2012 and 2016. Approximately 60 percent of liquor revenues go into the state's General Fund, with 19 percent allocated to cities and counties.
Privatizing liquor sales is certainly not the single answer to solving the state's long or short-term budget woes. And yes, there would be hassles transitioning from a state-run monopoly on liquor to a competitive private sector business model. But it's the legislature's refusal to make the systemic changes necessary in good times, that have contributed mightily to the current bad times. Why not let this be a test model for private sector operation of other state-run services?
It's the re-opening of collective bargaining agreements with the state employee unions that I suspect is the true reason for Gregoire's opposition. They own her, and they have the Democratic-controlled legislature quaking in their boots, after making no bones about the fact there will be no campaign dollars for legislators voting against their dictates. And don't forget, the entire legislature is up for re-election this year.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Despite Claims to the Contrary, State Employee Contracts can be Changed
(Editor's Note: This was originally posted on the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Web site. It is a good follow on to the previous two articles and goes into detail of the mechanics of renegotiating state employee contracts, which represent about $83 million of the $2.6 billion budget deficit.)
To close the state’s $2.6 billion budget deficit, Governor Gregoire would rather propose tax increases than modify one of the state’s largest expenses—state worker salaries and benefits. In a December press conference, the governor said unions will sue if she tinkers with contract recommendations, but our state’s collective bargaining laws allow labor agreements to be modified in the event of a significant revenue shortfall.
RCW 41.80.010(6) states: “If, after the compensation and fringe benefit provisions of an agreement are approved by the legislature, a significant revenue shortfall occurs resulting in reduced appropriations, as declared by proclamation of the governor or by resolution of the legislature, both parties shall immediately enter into collective bargaining for a mutually agreed upon modification of the agreement.”
Because the governor has refused to reopen contracts with state workers, the ball is now in the legislature’s court.
“Many legislators have been unwilling to seriously consider renegotiating state employee contracts, since unions are generally their largest campaign contributors. But that shouldn’t preclude them from doing what is best for Washington citizens,” says Amber Gunn, Economic Policy Director for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
“Public employees are a significant budget driver. If legislators refuse to pare down benefits and salaries, then it is likely that private employers and employees will bear the brunt of closing the budget deficit, and they are already facing significant hardship.”
The average state employee salary is approximately $19,500 higher than its private-sector counterpart, and since most state employees will receive STEP pay increases of approximately 5 percent and will only pay 12 percent of their health premiums, modifying their contracts would be far less economically harmful than tax increases.
While some raise concerns that renegotiating state contracts will lead to higher public-sector unemployment, modifying contract salaries and benefits may actually prevent lay-offs. Alternatively, increasing tax burdens on the private sector will guarantee job losses due to unsustainable expenses for small businesses and employers. Action must be taken now to bring spending in line with new levels of reduced revenue.
Amber Gunn is available for comment at 360-956-3482 or Agunn@effwa.org.