West Sound Politics

Why Apple Makes iPhones In China And Why The US Is Screwed

2012-01-29T11:40:00.000-08:00

(Editor's Note: A friend sent me this and I thought it was something others should see and understand. It says a lot about globalization, and why America can't compete anymore. One of the things it stresses is the nimbleness and adaptability of Chinese business, and how they can build plants quickly. Read this and the companion article that has a link at the end, and then think about what it would take just to permit a plant — especially here in Washington — like the Chinese can build seemingly almost overnight.)

From LinkedIn Insider

By Henry Blodget
The manufacturing processes of Apple and other electronics companies have come into sharp focus of late, with the revelation of more details about what life is like for the Chinese workers who make the world’s gadgets.

When one reads about these working conditions — 12-16 hour shifts, pay of ~$1 per hour or less, dormitories with 15 beds in 12x12 rooms — the obvious assumption is that it’s all about money:

Greedy manufacturers want to make bigger profits, so they make their products in places with labor practices that would be illegal in America.
And money is certainly part of it.

But an amazing new article by Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher of the New York Times reveals that there’s a lot more to it than that.

The article illustrates just how big a challenge the U.S. faces in trying stop the “hollowing out” process that has sent middle-class jobs overseas — and, with it, the extreme inequality that has developed in recent years.

The reason Apple makes iPhones and iPads in China, the article shows, is not just about money.

Manufacturing an iPhone in the United States would cost about $65 more than manufacturing it in China, where it costs an estimated $8. This additional $65 would dent the profit Apple makes on each iPhone, but it wouldn’t eliminate it. (The iPhone average selling price is about $600, and Apple’s average gross margin is about 40%. So Apple’s gross profit on each iPhone is probably in the neighborhood of $250.)

The real reasons Apple makes iPhones in China, therefore, are as follows:

Most of the components of iPhones and iPads — the supply chain — are now manufactured in China, so assembling the phones half-a-world away would create huge logistical challenges. It would also reduce flexibility — the ability to switch easily from one component supplier or manufacturer to another.

China’s factories are now far bigger and more nimble than those in the United States. They can hire (and fire) tens of thousands of workers practically overnight. Because so many of the workers live on-site, they can also press them into service at a moment’s notice. And they can change production practices and speeds extremely rapidly.

China now has a far bigger supply of appropriately-qualified engineers than the U.S. does — folks with the technical skills necessary to build complex gadgets but not so credentialed that they cost too much. And, lastly, China’s workforce is much hungrier and more frugal than many of their counterparts in the United States.

On this last point, Duhigg and Bradsher tell the story of Eric Saragoza, an engineer who began working in an Apple factory near Sacramento in 1995. The plant made Macs, and for a few years, Saragoza did well, earning $50,000 a year, getting married and having kids, and buying a house with a pool.

Soon, however, Apple started shipping jobs overseas, because the costs of manufacturing in Asia were so much lower. Importantly, these reduced costs weren’t just about wages — they were about being closer to the supply chain and the willingness of the workforce to put in over-time.

Saragoza was soon asked to work 12-hour days and come in on Saturdays. But, understandably, he wanted to watch his kids play soccer on the weekends.

Saragoza’s salary was too high for him to take an unskilled job. And he didn’t have the experience and credentials necessary to move into senior management. In 2002, his job was eliminated. Apple, meanwhile, turned the Elk Grove plant into an AppleCare facility, with call-center employees making $12 an hour.

Recently, desperate for work, Saragoza took a job at an electronics temp firm. Assigned to the AppleCare plant, he was paid $10 an hour to test repaired iPads before they were sent back to customers. That job paid so little (and was presumably so depressing) that the now 48-year-old Saragoza quit and is looking for work again.

Meanwhile, in Shenzhen, a young project manager named Lina Lin coordinates the manufacture of Apple accessories for a company in the Apple ecosystem. She makes a bit less than Saragoza made a decade ago as an Apple engineer. She lives in an 1,100-square foot apartment with her husband, their in-laws, and their son. They save a quarter of their salaries every month.

There are lots of jobs in Shenzhen, Lin says.

So, yes, money is part of why all of our gadgets are built in China. But what started a couple of decades ago as a reach for efficiency has now resulted in the entire electronics-manufacturing ecosystem being lifted up and transferred to China.

Apple doesn’t build iPhones in the United States, in other words, because there is no longer an ecosystem here to support that manufacturing. There’s no supply chain, there aren’t enough super-low-cost workers, and there are not enough mid-level engineers. And many Americans looking for work are still hoping for a return to jobs, salaries, and lifestyles that have simply disappeared.

This is a complex problem, and there’s no easy solution. But it’s a problem this country is going to have to fix. Or the massive middle class that once drove America’s prosperity will just cease to exist.

Now go read Duhigg and Bradsher...

Majority of State's Business Leaders Say Washington Is Heading in the Wrong Direction

2012-01-29T08:26:00.000-08:00

More than 75 percent of the respondents to an Association of Washington Business (AWB) membership survey believe the state is generally heading in the wrong direction — and more than half don’t see things improving anytime during the next 12 months.

Employers surveyed said the biggest issue facing their businesses is complying with government regulations (25 percent), a lack of customers or clients (24 percent) and the cost of health care (21 percent).

According to AWB, the survey results illustrate the fragile state of Washington’s economy, and underscore the need for lawmakers to be mindful of their decisions on the state’s private employers as they attempt to close a $1.5 billion budget shortfall during the 2012 legislative session.

“Although we have seen some positive economic signs in recent months, it is clear based on this feedback from our members that Washington state has a long way to go before its economy is truly thriving again,” said AWB President Don Brunell. “Many businesses are still hunkered down, doing whatever they can to survive the combined impacts of a terrible recession, a growing thicket of government regulation and spiraling health care costs.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers appear to be more engaged in the gay marriage issue than the budget problems, along with numerous other less important bills such as whether or not drivers should be required to turn on their headlights when their windshield wipers are engaged (HB 2182).

Looking ahead, Washington business leaders don’t see things improving soon. More than half of respondents said they expect business conditions to be about the same a year from now. Only one-third believe conditions will improve over the next year, and 14 percent say they will be worse in a year.

Urine Testing For Cheeseburgers?

2012-01-21T06:27:00.000-08:00

If you're worried about what Obamacare will mean for you, this should scare you. In Japan — already the slimmest industrialized nation on the planet — people are being forced to comply with a government-imposed waistline standard.

Japanese lawmakers have set a maximum waistline size for anyone over age 40 - 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women.

In the United States, the Senate and House health care reform bills have included the so-called “Safeway Amendment,” which would offer reductions in insurance premiums to people who lead fitter lives. The experience in Japan offers lessons in how complicated it is to legislate good health.

Though Japan’s “metabo law” aims to save money by heading off health risks related to obesity, there is no proof that it actually will.

Under Japan’s health care coverage, companies administer check-ups to employees once a year. Those who fail to meet the waistline requirement must undergo counseling. If companies do not reduce the number of overweight employees by 10 percent in 2012 and 25 percent by 2015, they could be required to pay more money into a health care program for the elderly. An estimated 56 million Japanese will have their waists measured this year.

Never mind that Japan has some of the world’s lowest rates of obesity — less than 5 percent, compared to nearly 35 percent for the United States.

Meanwhile, a number of US companies — especially hospitals and medical businesses — are adopting strict policies making smoking a reason to turn away job applicants. The rationale is increasing worker productivity, and reducing health care costs by encouraging healthier living. Federal estimates say employees who smoke, cost on average, $3,391 more a year each for health care and lost productivity. About 1 in 5 Americans still smoke, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable deaths.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the confrontational Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents 1.2 million health care workers, said the issue isn’t on its radar — yet.

The new rules essentially treat cigarettes as an illegal narcotic, and job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine, as well as other drugs.

This shift — from smoke-free to smoker-free workplaces — brings up an interesting question about whether the policies establish a troubling precedent of employers intruding into employees’ private lives to ban a legal habit. What’s next — urine testing for cheeseburgers?

The Answer That Would Have Won the Nomination

2012-01-13T19:29:00.000-08:00

An interesting commentary...

By Peter Heck
To say the moment was ripe for any earnest conservative who wanted to capture the Republican nomination for president would be an understatement. As Diane Sawyer sniffled out a question that makes even the most fanatical bleeding heart look cold, she dangled a low-hanging fruit for any of the candidates to pluck with ease. To my great disappointment, none of them did.

After spending nearly a quarter of an hour at the recent Republican presidential debate discussing a hypothetical scenario where a state might want to ban contraception, Sawyer put on her trademark pained countenance and, continuing the transparently obvious moderator pledge to direct all issues away from Barack Obama, challenged, “If I could come back to the living room question...what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say...we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? In human terms, what would you say to them?”

Anticipating the trap being laid for them, the Republican candidates gave carefully articulated responses that struck a balance between personal freedom and traditional morality.

But none of the candidates answered the question as they should have. I don’t think I was alone in hoping that one of them would lean into the microphone and, after starting off by incredulously asking, “Are you kidding me?,” unleash the following:

Diane, we are living in a country with 9% unemployment, and let’s cut the bull — everyone knows that number doesn’t include the enormous number of people who every week throw up their hands and leave the job market. If those were added, we’ve got closer to 1 in 5 Americans desperately looking for good, steady work.

We’ve got a record number of American families subsisting on food stamps. We’ve wasted a trillion taxpayer dollars on a government stimulus that brought no substantive job growth, but added more crushing debt to the backs of our children.

We have small businesses being threatened by the specter of an ill-advised health care entitlement that was crammed down Americans’ throats despite their vehement objection. And to add to their frustration, all the folks who were clamoring and lobbying for the legislation are mysteriously all receiving waivers exempting them from its dire consequences.
For the first time in our history we have a majority of American parents who believe that their children will have things worse than they did.

We have a housing market that’s depressed, an energy crisis brewing, and a border that is unprotected to the point where American families living near it are being terrorized by invading drug lords.
We have gas prices that are two times what they were when this president took office, and those increased fuel prices are driving up the cost of living, placing an unprecedented strain upon the American family’s budget.

We have an administration that is engaged in outright corruption — from gun-running schemes that result in the deaths of border officers to crony capitalism that sees taxpayer dollars flushed down green energy toilets like Solyndra.

Internationally, we have upwards of nine countries now under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood. We have a rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq due to our politically motivated rushed withdrawal. Next door to that, the caliphate-obsessed, apocalyptic madmen running Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons with the promise to use them indiscriminately in their efforts to bring glory to Allah. They are at this very moment positioned to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and thus hijack 40% of the world’s oil — bringing on an industrial crisis around the world.

We face an increasingly hostile Chinese regime that is stealing our patents and intellectual property, hacking our computers, deploying advanced weapons systems and buying our debt so as to hold a position of economic blackmail over us.

Meanwhile, our allies in Israel have never seen us as weaker or less reliable, and our allies in Europe are mired in an economic crisis from which they may not be able to avert total collapse.

And at precisely such a dangerous moment in world affairs, our president — who has been conducting social sexual experiments with our armed forces for 3 years — decides it is the best time to dramatically slash our defense budget and usher in a vast reduction in the size and strength of the United States military.

With all that on the table, Diane, you take valuable time in this debate to ask me what I’d say to a gay couple in my living room?

What a great question. Let me make sure I state my position on this critical issue unequivocally so that there can be no mistake, because I can’t imagine any American finding anything else more significant than this: we’d first pop in a copy of the Bette Midler classic Beaches, then we’d take time to independently journal about our reaction to its message. Then, after a good cry, we’d grab the acoustic guitar and sing a round of “We are the World” before calling it an evening.

That’s the answer that question deserved. And it’s one I think would have brought with it the White House in 2012

Conservativism vs. Liberalism in America Today

2012-01-13T11:12:00.000-08:00

Gallup Poll tells the story...

According to a recent Gallup poll reported by Politico, Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering Liberals nearly two-to-one.

Of the 20,393 people polled from January through December of last year, Gallup found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves to be Conservatives; 35 percent consider themselves Moderates; with 21 percent defining themselves as Liberals. These are the same figures Gallup found in 2010. More telling however, is that for the third straight year, Conservatives outnumbered both Moderates and Liberals.

According to previous polls by Gallup, it appears Moderates seemingly began turning into Conservatives in significant numbers in 2008 — just as they began losing their jobs in the Obama economy — while the percentage of Moderates has also declined steadily over the past two decades, from 43 percent 1992, to 35 percent in 2011.

Although the Republican Party is dominated by self-identified Conservatives who make up 71 percent, the Democratic Party is more evenly split — with 39 percent of viewing themselves as Liberals, and 38 percent as Moderates.

The wild card in all this is the Independents who are mostly moderate (41 percent), but lean more toward conservatism (35 percent) than liberalism (20 percent).

Meanwhile, both self-identified Conservatives and Liberals have risen in number since the early 1990s, which accounts for the growing political polarization America continues to suffer from.

However, the trend is clear, and correlates directly to the state of the economy. Ironically, it appears that Bill Clinton long ago understood something very basic that President Obama still fails to grasp — to quote Clinton… “It’s the economy stupid.”

Post-Election Commentary

2011-12-28T19:00:00.000-08:00

I’ve had lots of questions about my five-vote loss in the Port Orchard Mayoral election, and why I thought it happened. A lot of folks have waited for me to say something.

So here it is...

First and foremost, I’d like to express a heartfelt “Thank You” to the voters who supported me, as well as the outstanding staff at City Hall. I’m truly grateful for your belief in me, and my vision for our City.

The Port Orchard Independent documented in depth what was a sleazy, highly dishonest, but well-orchestrated smear campaign against me. Editor Tim Kelly publicly chastised the group responsible — People for a Better Port Orchard — but by then, most of the damage was already done. However, I sincerely appreciate Tim setting the record straight about the actual facts.

The people who financed the smear campaign are Port Orchard City Councilman Fred Chang, Cedar Cove Inn owner Gil Michael, Port Orchard Chamber Executive Coreen Johnson’s boyfriend, Steve Sego, as well as her daughter Rebeka — the sleaze campaign’s treasurer — and her son Joshua. Also donating were Military Air Cargo owner John Yamamura, along with County Assessor Jim Avery’s wife Sue, South Kitsap School Board member Patty Henderson, Cappricio Catering owner Desiree Steffens, Pam Piper, and Morningside Bakery. CPA Dawn Jake paid for mailing one of those sleazy hit pieces, and her husband, who owns Bethel Towing, also contributed to the group. All the materials were printed by Fine Arts Litho.

Of all those people, only 3 of them actually live in the City.

I’ve decided to keep my personal opinions on the outcome, the new Mayor, the people who financed the smear campaign — as well as the City’s future — to myself. Publicizing them serves no useful purpose.

That said, this was perhaps the most venomous, divisive election in the City’s history, and I still receive phone calls and emails from angry supporters demanding revenge for the loss. While, five votes is certainly no mandate for change, it’s time to close the book on this election so Port Orchard can begin the healing process, and move forward once again.

Although the majority of the City’s business community supported me, there are continuing efforts to discredit particular downtown businesses that were highly visible champions of my re-election. It’s time for the new Mayor to rein in his supporters responsible for that, actively reach out to a business community that didn’t support him, and find common ground. It’s also up to the business community to act with integrity by honestly seeking common ground with the new administration as well. Whether they like it or not, they need each other.

Port Orchard is well positioned for the future in terms of economic stability, low crime, and a great staff with a can-do attitude. With effective, pro-active leadership, healing the wounds inflicted by this election will allow Port Orchard become the great City it has all the potential to be. But it’s up to both sides to allow that healing to begin, and for the new Mayor to lead the effort. I strongly support and encourage that. I hope everyone else — on both sides — will as well. Port Orchard deserves nothing less.

Ben Stein's Thoughts on Christmas

2011-12-14T20:58:00.000-08:00

Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this piece which I would like to share with you. I think it applies just as much to many countries as it does to America...

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God ? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her ‘How could God let something like this happen?’ (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, ‘I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?’

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said okay.

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

New Blog Posting Policy For Sound Publishing Papers

2011-11-13T20:59:00.000-08:00

The Port Orchard Independent, as well as all the Sound Publishing weekly newspapers are instituting a new policy for blog posters on Nov.17 that want to comment on its stories. They can no longer post anonymously, but have to sign in using their Facebook account.

One anonymous (naturally) moron using the handle YouMustBeMistaken disagreed with the change, saying, "I guess that there are some that have their feelings hurt by any criticism and therefore to protect those feelings the criticizers must be silenced." He went on to say in a later post that he isn't afraid to identify himself — but fails to do so.

In my view, this common sense change isn't about anyone's "hurt feelings," but about having the simple courage to sign your name to what you write, to publicly acknowledge your criticisms of government, government officials, public policy, or whom and/or whatever else a particular story may be about, and publicly demonstrate that the author has the courage of his or her convictions.

Letters to the Editor require a verifiable name and contact information. Blog posts aren't anything other than more immediate, electronic Letters to the Editor by virtue of their ability to be posted as soon as they're written.

I'm a firm believer that making posters identify themselves will not only upgrade the level of debate, but greatly increase the civility of it as well. It will also eliminate the cheap shot posts, from people blatantly posting under numerous screen names on the same subject in an attempt to influence the direction of the debate — such as we have witnessed in the Independent's recent stories on the Mayor's election and about the smear campaign orchestrated by People for a Better Port Orchard — as well as on a daily basis in the Kitsap Sun.

I'm a grownup. I can handle disagreement. It's what makes a horse race profitable. So if you want to critiize me, something I've done — or not done — at least have enough personal integrity to sign your name to it instead of hiding behind some moronic screen name. As someone who has been the target of scathing attacks by a couple of very specific anonymous posters for a number of years anytime my name is even mentioned on the Kitsap Sun site — no matter in what context or why — and more recently in the Independent, I fail to see why upgrading the honesty and quality of any given debate is an issue to anyone other than cowardly cheap shot artists.

Personally, I applaud this change in policy. I instituted a similar policy on this blog and on the Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal site as well about 2 years ago. The First Amendment gives you the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere. So if you have something to say, at least have the courage to stand up for your opinion by signing your name to it.

The Mudslinging has begun...

2011-10-20T11:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, a "Hit" piece on my campaign for re-election as Mayor arrived in mailboxes. I've received a number of phone calls from people who are positively outraged at the mean-spiritedness they've seen my opponent demonstrate throughout this campaign — but said this was over the top.

So let's get the facts correct...

In the hit piece it claims I'm one of the highest paid Mayors in the state. That is incorrect. I'm the 23rd highest paid full-time Mayor. It also claims I gave myself a raise that tripled my salary. I guess my opponent still doesn't understand how the City Council process works. The Council made the job full time. It had previously been part time (15 hours a week). The rate of pay has stayed the same as it was part time — in spite of all other City employees receiving contract raises twice since I've been in office.

It also states I make twice as much per capita as the Mayor of Bremerton. The Mayor of Bremerton makes around $119,000 plus benefits. I make slightly more (less than $1,000) than the Mayor of Poulsbo, a smaller city with 25 percent fewer people than Port Orchard. The salary is a little over $62,000 plus benefits — modest by government standards. EVERY single department head that reports to the Mayor makes significantly more.

Is my opponent, a 27-year government retiree, intending on reducing the salary, or going back to part time? No...

He stated in that piece that I'm responsible for the proposed increase in water rates. He KNOWS that's a blatant lie. The Council is considering raising the rates because by law, Water and Sewer are enterprise funds and must be self-sustaining, which because of the age of the infrastructure and needed repairs, they are not. The Mayor doesn't get to vote on this — which he also knows, or at least he should.

The Mayor is the chief administrative official of the city — and basically what amounts to the CEO of a $30 million municipal corporation, of which the voters, are the stockholders, and the City Council is the Board of Directors. The job is actually much more about business management experience, and strong leadership skills, than it is about politics. My opponent has not one single day of business management experience. Is this guy qualified to manage $30 million of our tax dollars?

Finally, he claims I "maneuvered" the sale of my business property to the City and sold it at an inflated price. This too, is a blatant lie — and he KNOWS it is.

The City filed an Eminant Domain claim to buy my property for the Tremont Street widening project. I did NOT want to sell it — much less sell it in such a depressed market — and will be forced to move my business when the project gets underway. The City paid the appraised value, and not one dollar more. The City Council approved the sale price. I recused myself from every discussion involved in the sale and was never allowed to see documents on comparison sales — in spite of the fact we had a full-blown commercial appraisal done (which is our right) that showed the value significantly ($150,000+) higher.

My opponent has NOT articulated a vision for the future of our City, because he doesn't have one. He, and the puppetmaster pulling his strings, want absolutely NO changes, and for our City to either stand still or go backwards. He has absolutely NO platform other than he isn't me.

He has not attacked my accomplishments because there is nothing to attack, and even admits the City is pretty well-run. So he has resorted to attacks on my character and my integrity.

Is this his idea of leadership? Is this what he considers integrity? If he will lie this blatantly to the voters just trying to get elected, how badly will he lie if he gets in office?

This has been the nastiest political campaign the City has ever seen. I would strongly encourage you to watch the Kitsap Sun video of our interview with the editorial board. You will quickly find out how much he doesn't know about Port Orchard, how it works, or what the job entails. The prospect of his election is downright scary.

The death of a personal hero...

2011-10-05T21:13:00.000-07:00

I've only had a few heroes in my life... My Dad, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, Lee Iaccoca, Tony Robbins, and Steve Jobs.

I'll miss you Steve...

Photo: Tim Gallagher

www.apple.com

http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/1011/65274.html

Washington Tourism Efforts bennefitting Oregon Workers

2011-10-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

In what I'd consider a boneheaded budget cutting move, the state eliminated its tourism office, saving $2 million a year to support an industry which generated $15.2 billion statewide in 2010 revenues. That looks like a pretty good ROI to me. But hey, I’m just a business guy with 32 years of experience, so what do I know?

In response, the state’s tourism industry stepped up to try and keep those tourism dollars flowing, and formed a new association called the Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA). And what was one of the very first things it did? It announced, “a strategic partnership with the Washington Lodging Association (WLA) and Saga City Media Inc. to publish the official Washington State Visitors’ Guide beginning in 2012.”

What's wrong with this picture, it that Saga City Media is an Oregon company. No Washington publishing company was even alerted to the possibility of competing for this contract, much less given the opportunity.

In an email when I questioned why not, David Blandford, who is with the Seattle Convention and Visitors Bureau, responded, “Out-of-state companies were not given an opportunity to bid either. WTA is partnering with the Washington Lodging Association which had an existing publishing partnership with Saga City Media Inc. Saga City is based in Portland but is very active in support of the tourism industry in Washington and the Pacific Northwest.”

I’ve seen a lot of Saga City’s work, and they're a quality company that puts out good work. However, the quality of their work is not the issue. Washington jobs is. Besides our own company, I personally know of at least five other in-state publishers who could do this job just as well. And the fact that an association that supposedly is in the business of promoting in-state jobs is intentionally funding Oregon jobs, without giving in-state companies the opportunity to even compete for the work, is in my view, beyond hypocritical.

In a WTA press release, Todd Thoreson, WLA Chairman of the Board and Regional Vice President of Hotel Operations for Red Lion Hotels Corporation, stated, “With the recent loss of state government funding for tourism marketing within the State of Washington, we are at a critical juncture that requires all hospitality industry stakeholders to work together and pursue solutions that can ensure our success in the future. We believe this partnership is a step in the right direction that helps us achieve this goal.”

You know what Todd, I’ve been a Red Lion customer, stockholder, and have belonged to your R and R Club for many years. But I will personally boycott Red Lion Hotels until this situation changes. I strongly believe that dollars generated in Washington State should stay here to create Washington jobs, and the WTA has a moral obligation to put this contract out to bid to Washington State publishers only — as it should have to begin with.

Grinding America Down

2011-09-23T20:52:00.000-07:00

This came to me in an email. And while I personally don't particularly agree with everything stated in this video, there is certainly some food for thought — especially if you came of age in the 60's and 70's.

Unfortunately, some glitch in Google's software doesn't allow this video to be posted here, but the link below does work. It's only about 4 minutes, but worth the time.

http://www.therightscoop.com/open-thread-grinding-america-down/

The Lowdown On Port Orchard's Code City Fiasco

2011-08-31T06:45:00.000-07:00

There has been quite a bit of news coverage recently about the proposed change in the form of Port Orchard's City government from a Second Class City to a Code City, which the City Council had approved in May. Out of the 281 Cities in the state, only 11 second class cities remain.

There is no difference in the way we would do business with our citizens, or in the transparency of our City government. The main difference is in how we do business with the state. Being a Code City allows us to choose our own destiny, and not be under the state’s thumb as second class cities are. That’s all there really is to it.

However, a small group of citizens supporting my election opponent began a petition to call for a vote on this issue. Neither myself, nor the council had any problem with that. In fact, I would have signed the petition myself if someone had just asked me.

The problem comes in the fact the originators of the petition didn’t submit the required number of signatures to the City in time for them to be validated by the county Auditor, so the question could be placed on the November ballot. If they had, it would have cost about $5000 — normal for a ballot measure during a general election — and something we budget for.

Since they didn’t, it would have been placed on the February election ballot — at a cost possibly as high as $45,000. To avoid this, the City Council rescinded the resolution to change to a Code City.

However, what is most disturbing to me is that once originators of the petition missed the deadline, they then publicly accused the city of intentionally withholding critical information from them about when the signatures were due.

That is patently false.

And because of that accusation, I feel compelled to respond to the misstatements and half-truths set forth by the originators of the petition in a blog posting in the Port Orchard Independent on August 17.

They publicly blamed “new administrative procedures” set forth by the City for their failure to submit the petition in time for the November ballot.

That too is a lie.

There were no “new” procedures of any kind, nor have they identified any such “procedures.” The petition process is governed by state law and those requirements have been unchanged for years. The truth is, the originators of the petition never even talked to the City Clerk about deadlines — or anything at all to do with the petition — until after August 16.

The petition originators wrote, “...we still have no documentable information” concerning the August 1 deadline — which is when the signatures were actually due. This is a red herring. The night before they posted this comment in the Independent, the City Attorney explained to the petition originators at great length how the August 1 deadline was determined.

The bottom line is, for the referendum question to have made the November ballot, state law required the Council to adopt a resolution no later then August 16. The Council’s regular meeting was August 9. The next meeting was August 23 — after the deadline. Signatures needed to be submitted to the City Clerk a week before the meeting date so they could be sent to the County Auditor for verification.

This is not a new procedure. As a long-time planning commission member, one of the petition originators should have been well aware of this requirement — some form of which is shared by every city in the state.

The petitioners claim, “Twice the City was asked, prior to the passage of the resolution, to place this matter on the ballot.” This is only partially true.

A total of four people testified at the two public hearings we held. The same petition originator asked this at both hearings — although no one else did. Is it any wonder that the Council concluded the public saw this issue as a matter to be left for Council action?

Finally, what should be the very first question anyone undertaking such a petition effort would normally ask? Wouldn’t it be, “When are the signatures due, and to who?” This makes me wonder if all the accusations aren’t little more than a smokescreen to hide the fact that on August 1, the petition originators had only 93 unverified signatures. They needed approximately 250 verified signatures by August 9, to place this question on the November ballot.

It is not the City’s fault that the organizers of the petition did not perform the proper due diligence. Frankly, I believe they need to take responsibility for their failure to do their homework about the due date. I also believe they owe the City Clerk a public apology for falsely accusing her of hiding information, in what appears to me to be a blatant attempt to cover up their mistakes.

I’m certain the Council will reconsider the change to a Code City at a later date, as they feel very strongly that the change is needed. However, when that will be, is still in question.

Geography Of The Recession

2011-08-21T08:24:00.000-07:00

The old adage is that a picture is worth a thousand words.

This map shows how the unemployment rate has changed since January of 2007 when it was 4.6 percent, to what it is today. Viewing it only takes a few seconds. Right click to pause. The darker the color, the higher the rate of unemployment.

When you get to the map, click the arrow in the middle and watch how things have changed. Take note of the areas of the country hit hardest and in what order that occurred. It’s incredible to see what “The Great Recession” has done to our Republic.

President Obama took office in 2008. The change, beginning in 2009 was brutal, and has continued during his administration. And for those who want to blame it all on Bush, while he did increase spending in a manner I personally view as irresponsible, it doesn't hold a candle to what has happened since. And remember, beginning in January of 2006, for the entire last two years of the Bush administration, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Bush and the Republicans were basically powerless to oppose them and the policies they put in place.

When you've finished, stop for a minute and ask yourself what is it going to take for the American people to get their heads out of their ass to start becoming aware of the trouble we are in? When are we going to say collectively “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” If this doesn’t bother you, then you need to stop drinking the kool-aid.

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html

Food For Thought...

2011-08-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

I couldn't have said it better myself. Here's a guy who articulates a lot of what I think America thinks...

Just saying...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGyVNippvA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Government Employees... Who Knew?

2011-08-10T23:31:00.000-07:00

Just a short video you really should watch as it’s a real eye opener...

If you are like me, and seldom watch a forwarded video, I urge you to watch this one. I didn't realize that the numbers were this large, and quite frankly, it was very shocking to find this out. It’s short — only a couple of minutes — so doesn’t take long to watch, but you'll find it well worth your time...

If this doesn’t open you eyes nothing will...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded

The Problem With Public Housing

2011-08-10T22:57:00.000-07:00

The problem with public housing is that the residents are not the owners. The people that live in the house did not earn the house, but were loaned the property from the true owners, the taxpayers.

Because of this, the residents do not have the “pride of ownership” that comes with the hard work necessary. In fact, the opposite happens and the residents resent their benefactors because the very house is a constant reminder that they themselves did not earn the right to live in the house. They do not appreciate the value of the property and see no need to maintain or respect it in any way.

The result is the same whether you are talking about a studio apartment or a magnificent mansion full of priceless antiques. If the people who live there do not feel they earned the privilege, they will make this known through their actions.

The pictures below illustrate the point:

The Resolute Desk was built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute and was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes. It is considered a national treasure and icon of the presidency.

Mr. Obama, you are not in a hut in Kenya, or public housing in Chicago. With all due respect, get your damn feet off our desk!

The World's Largest Army

2011-08-10T22:15:00.000-07:00

Here’s an interesting bit of information someone passed on to me. I can't vouch for its validity, but it does raise an interesting point and provide some food for thought about how well-armed Americans are compared to other countries.

Supposedly, after the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million-man army and war ships — all fighting the Germans. So, why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer — they knew that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.

The world’s largest army — America’s hunters! Think about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

• There were over 600,000 hunters this past season in the state of Wisconsin alone. Allow me to restate that number...

• Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

• More armed men than in Iran..

• More than in France and Germany combined.

• These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms — and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters. Toss in a 250,000 hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting — it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

The above numbers are just the hunters that purchased deer hunting licenses. I guarantee you there are at least 4 times as many guys that have guns, know how to use them, and don’t have a deer hunting license.

We absolutely will always have the World’s largest army — as long as we do not let the government take our guns away.

Debt Ceiling Deal A Bad One — Real Bad

2011-08-04T22:48:00.000-07:00

The deal to raise the country’s debt ceiling that President Barack Obama has signed into law will lead to massive job loss in the short term and threatens economic growth in the long run, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute/The Century Foundation.

According to the analysis, the spending cuts in the agreement, along with the failure to extend the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment insurance, will cost the economy 1.8 million jobs through 2012. The deal disproportionately cuts the non-security discretionary part of the federal budget to the lowest level in more than 50 years, potentially halving investments in education, transportation infrastructure, housing, health and infant nutrition over the next decade.

The report, by policy analysts Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack finds that the spending cuts in the deal will reduce GDP by $43 billion in 2012, lowering employment by about 323,000 jobs. The failure to extend the payroll tax cut will reduce GDP by $128 billion, resulting in about 972,000 fewer jobs, and the failure to continue emergency unemployment benefits will reduce GDP by $70 billion, resulting in roughly 528,000 fewer jobs.

In other words, the debt ceiling deal will result in more jobs lost in 2012, relative to current budget policy, than have been created since employment troughed in early 2010.

Over half of the deal’s spending cuts will come from the NSD portion of the budget, which represents only 15 percent of the total federal budget. The deal’s initial spending cuts reduce NSD from 3.5 percent to 2 percent of GDP in 2021, the lowest level in more than 50 years.

If the committee tasked with producing additional cuts cannot agree to a plan, or if Congress does not pass it, the sequestration mechanism would reduce NSD further, to 1.7 percent of GDP. At the 1.7 percent level, NSD spending would be about half of what it is now.

A Total Insult To Washington State Businesses

2011-08-01T15:39:00.000-07:00

Can someone explain to me in terms that make sense why the WASHINGTON Tourism Alliance is doing business with an OREGON company for the publication of the WASHINGTON State Visitor’s Guide? Have these people lost their mind, or do they just not care that there are more than a few WASHINGTON publishing companies that have the capabilities to publish this, and keep and/or create, JOBS right here in WASHINGTON?

The organizations that make up the Washington Tourism Alliance expect City and County governments — as well as the private sector — to support their efforts, yet they obviously have absolutely NO regard for the fact that businesses here in our own state — those in our own Cities and Counties who all give them money — could do this work. All they ask is the opportunity to bid on it. If they can’t compete, that’s one thing, but as the owner of a publishing firm myself for the past 32 years that has the capabilities to produce this, I am highly incensed that in-state companies were not even notified about such an opportunity.

And just for the record, if they have the common sense to rethink such a bone-headedly stupid move, our company will not bid on it so no one can accuse me of protesting for self-serving reasons.

As the Mayor of Port Orchard, it is my intention to attend the upcoming regional meetings of the Association of Washington Cities, and ask every City in this state to withhold all tourism funding no matter who it goes to — until this group rescinds this agreement and allows in-state companies the opportunity to bid on this project. I am also asking a number of County Commissioners around the state I know to encourage Washington State Association of Counties members to do the same.

What the Washington Tourism Alliance has done is more than just an insult to in-state publishers — it’s flat out wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Local Regulators Attack Business — Again

2011-07-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

The insensitivity and caviler attitude of Kitsap County toward local business never ceases to amaze me. The latest examples of this are how the County Department of Community Development (DCD) and the Health District have essentially put Juel Lange of Lange’s Ranch out of business, and how the Prosecutor’s Office continues to pursue what has all the earmarks of a personal vendetta against Marcus Carter of the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club.

Lange and Carter have both been particularly annoying thorns in the side of County bureaucrats for more than a decade. Lange for seemingly understanding that it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission when it comes to dealing with the county’s arbitrary and overzealous enforcement of regulations, and Carter for beating county prosecutors in court three times on a alleged gun violation — and doing it without a lawyer, by representing himself.

Lange has run a popular summertime swimming pool and recreational facility for kids near Keyport for 35 years. It’s also available for private functions like weddings, family reunions, business retreats, and such. The money he makes supports veteran’s organizations.

Lange won’t be able to open this season after being a victim of what can only be called a classic flim-flam by county regulators.

He was forced to close in 2004, citing a wave of new regulations he didn’t believe he could comply with. He’s worked since then to comply with the ever-increasing regulatory burden, and believed after spending $30,000 on a new septic system he’d made it over the hump.

But of course he didn’t — and this is where the flim-flam comes in. Lange operated the facility before much of the current land-use law was written, so he was grandfathered and didn’t have to comply with what had been written after he was operating. However, when he closed due to the new regulations, and then wanted to reopen, his grandfather protection went away.

Lange now has to get a conditional-use permit to operate in an area now zoned for rural residential use. Hell will most likely freeze over before that’s approved. He’ll also have to get permits for portions of buildings he’s modified over the years — including a bathhouse expansion and a small theater he built — and bring them up to current code standards.

Meanwhile the Kitsap County Health District is requiring Lange to have a lifeguard at the pool, something he claims has never worked because parents would dump off their kids for long periods, with a lifeguard, while they always stayed and watched without one — and according to Lange, the kids behave better.

The Health District also required Lange to install a second pool drain to supposedly prevent sucking swimmers down the drain, or some such nonsense, while an alternative solution he proposed was not acceptable.

For generations, Lange’s Ranch, with its red geraniums everywhere, Bavarian-style snack shack, merry-go-round, chimes tower, giant chess set, and bubble machine, has been a huge summertime draw for children from all areas of the county. Part of the fun was llamas for kids to feed.

After all he’s invested in trying to comply with the myriad of regulations, county bureaucrats have finally cornered Lange so he has no alternative except sell the property. I guess it could have been worse, he could have tried to build a tree house for those kids.

Meanwhile, after wasting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars losing in court three times over a dozen years on the gun charge, the County has decided to turn the persecution of Marcus Carter over to King County. It will be interesting to learn how much Kitsap County taxpayers will be billed to finance this witchhunt.

The County is also attacking Carter on another front, proposing new regulations requiring all shooting ranges in the county’s unincorporated areas to have a permit to operate. This is a change from the current code, which requires only new shooting ranges apply for a permit.

County Commissioners reportedly requested the code change due to “...ongoing tensions surrounding shooting ranges in the community,” County Commissioner Charlotte Garrido was quoted as saying.

In my view, the proposed changes are little more than another way for the County to attack Carter, who owns and operates the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club. The similarities between complaints by surrounding residents — who moved in long after the club was established — and the proposed changes, were not lost on Carter, who was quoted as saying, “Obviously, it’s a political move.” Ya think?

Chalk up yet more victories for over-regulation — and more losses for small business — and personal freedom.

New Law, ‘No Politician Left Behind,’ Would Pay Congressmen Based on Performance

2011-07-14T07:08:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: This was reprinted from the Borowitz Report — pure political satire...)

Controversial Law Draws Howls of Protest from Lawmakers

A government think-tank today proposed a controversial new law, “No Politician Left Behind,” which would pay congressmen solely on the basis of performance.

The law, which was proposed by the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Government, “would make a serious dent in the Federal deficit because few if any congressmen would ever have to be paid,” said the Institute’s director, Davis Logsdon.

“Right now, congressmen get paid even when they storm out of budget negotiations in a hissy fit,” Mr. Logsdon said. “Under this new law, the rule would be, no budget, no paycheck.”

The idea of being paid per accomplishment drew howls of protest from lawmakers, many claiming that if the law were enacted it would result in their financial ruin.

“If passed, this law would be tantamount to the establishment of ‘Work Panels,’ which would determine whether individual congressmen are accomplishing anything,” said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). “I, for one, would be in deep, deep trouble.”

“I’m fairly sure that this law is unconstitutional,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “Now, I have never actually read the Constitution, but if this law were passed I would probably be forced to read it or live in a cardboard box.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that creating performance standards for lawmakers was “an insult to the institution of Congress.”

“We have spent millions of dollars, some of it out of our own pockets, to get to Washington,” he said. “We did not come here to be treated like teachers.”

Get a free subscription to Borowitz Report here.

Why Business People Don't Run For Public Office

2011-06-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

In the weeks before the election filing deadline, I’d been approached by two different ad hoc groups asking me to help them convince local businesspeople to seek elective office.

They both believed that if successful businesspeople were elected, we’d have a legitimate shot at cleaning up a lot of the ongoing financial turmoil government is experiencing at every level, and either eliminate, or at least slow, the inevitable regulatory and tax increases. They seemingly viewed me as someone who has successfully made that transition from the private sector to government.

In my experience it’s possible to run government like a business if you actually mean to — and know how. However, in my view, there is also a myriad of reasons why successful businesspeople don’t answer the call to public service.

My personal motivation stemmed from anger at a highly dysfunctional City government where phone calls weren’t returned, emails were ignored, and some very simple questions were not responded to for more than two years — unanswered questions that cost myself, my wife, and our business, an inexcusable amount of money. I’ve always believed that if you want something fixed right, fix it yourself — so that’s what I set out to do.

That said, the level of invasion of your personal privacy is perhaps the most chilling aspect of running for — much less being elected to — public office. Your personal and business finances become public. The most personal aspects of your private life become everyone’s business. You can become the victim of vicious rumors — and outright lies — about your personal life and/or financial affairs, intentionally circulated by political opponents.

The political spin machine operated by our local media allows for the routine distribution of massive disinformation — as we witnessed with the NASCAR debate a few years ago. It also encourages ongoing character assassination by small-minded people with personal agendas writing in the local blogs — people who are not required to even sign their names to their vitriolic commentary.

In my view, these are equal to Letters to the Editor, only in a more immediate form. You’re required to submit verifiable identification to get a Letter published. I've yet to receive a non-lame answer from the Kitsap Sun or the Kitsap News Group as to why the blogs are any different.

Being in the news business I can tell you it's because they don't want to publicly admit the answer is that online advertising rates are usually set by the number of page views a given Web site generates. If an article can sufficiently stir up the cadre of regular posters, and the more moronic segment of these folks begin arguing with each other online (sound familiar?), it helps drive ad rates higher. It’s just that simple.

I firmly believe if the local media only allowed these folks to post using real, verifiable names, the level of discourse would become much more civil — and more intelligent folks would become engaged at every level.

While voters have a right to know who they’re voting for, I also believe that invasion of privacy is why businesspeople generally decline to needlessly subject themselves, the future of their businesses, and their families, to the vitriol of anonymous people who steadfastly refuse to allow actual facts to ever influence their opinions. That disservice by the media often leaves us choosing between the lowest common denominator of candidates for public office. And it’s the decisions those sometimes unqualified folks make after being elected that impact our businesses, the state budget, the business and regulatory climate locally and statewide, and of course, taxation.

Over the past three and half years, I’ve worked closely with a large number of elected officials from the federal and state levels on down to small taxing districts. While we do have a lot of dedicated, qualified people serving in public office, we also have quite a number who I seriously doubt could survive in the private sector. I let you speculate upon who they might be.

The bottom line is, unless businesspeople like you are willing to step up, none of the things you hate about government are going to change — but they are likely to get worse.

When the Washington Post Calls Obama a Liar, He's Got Troubles...

2011-06-07T06:37:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency.” — President Obama, June 4, 2011

By Glenn Kessler
The Washinton Post
With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency, and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands."

Wow, every dime and more sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?

Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words, “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action, "a necessary step to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”

Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.

Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended.

This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested. In fact, that is how the Treasury and other administration officials frequently portray it; it is just when Obama speaks that the numbers get so squishy.

The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent, “in private hands,” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company.

“All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s.”

The White House says the data to back this claim concerning the Big Three automakers is not public information. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data refers to the entire auto industry — including foreign auto manufacturers, auto parts manufacturers, auto parts dealers and auto dealers. If you look at the data, the 113,200 jobs added between June 2009 and May 2011 amounts to about a 5 percent increase from a rather low base.

“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”

This is another impressive-sounding, but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines.

Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.

“In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options. We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do — nothing.”

This is quite a straw man — that many people wanted to do nothing. It was never so black and white. The debate was over the right course to take in the bankruptcy process.

The Wall Street Journal published Monday an interesting conservative critique of the government’s intervention by David Skeel, a law professor at University of Pennsylvania. Skeel says that the revival of the auto industry, “is a very encouraging development, but to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn’t intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history."

To support the claim that, “a lot of folks wanted to do nothing,” the White House referred us to statements by the House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

We do not read Boehner’s quote that way; in this 2009 comment, he is questioning the administration’s approach while saying, “The success of our automotive industry is critical.” Shelby and Kyl in 2008 were protesting the use of taxpayer funds by Bush to delay a bankruptcy filing; they preferred immediately putting the companies through the bankruptcy process.

It will be up to historians to decide what the best solution would have been for taxpayers and the auto industry. We can understand why the president wants to portray himself as making a lonely and tough decision. But the debate was not either/or, bur rather what was the best policy to bring the automakers back to financial health.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=main-twitter

Washington Business Climate Claims Another Victim

2011-06-07T05:57:00.000-07:00

International Tennis Tour Operator Relocates to Phoenix

Tennis Ventures, an official tour operator of the Australian Open, recently relocated its corporate headquarters to Phoenix. The international tour operator previously was based in Spokane. Under Governor Jan Brewer, Arizona has earned a reputation for being business-friendly and aggressively recruiting businesses — and the jobs they create.

“Tennis Ventures is the only all-inclusive tour operator in the U.S. sanctioned by the Australian Open,” according to CEO Chadwick Byrd. Tennis Ventures is also the only Grand Slam tour operator that offers organized professional tennis clinics and play nearly every day during their trips. Travelers not only see Grand Slam tournament action, they get tennis instruction from international and US tennis pros. On most programs participants get the chance to rub elbows with past tennis greats.

According to Byrd, the company plans to develop domestic tennis camps in the Valley. “Our camps will bring tennis players from across the northern states and Canada to the warm weather of the Valley during the winter and early spring. These programs will not only bring business to local hotels, restaurants, and shops, but will also utilize local tennis professionals and tennis facilities.” Byrd says the company is working with a Former Wimbledon Champion to headline as Tennis Director for these camps.

Additional information about Tennis Ventures and all of their programs can be found at www.tennisventures.net

To Woo Business From Washington, Other States Add Special Touch

2011-06-01T09:26:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: While our legislature wasted it's special session time debating how to hurt business the most, other states are actively courting the companies our legislators hate — and the jobs they provide. A very telling piece from Jerry Cornfield that appeared in the Everett Herald.)

Just before the Legislature rejected a tax break extension for John Sabey’s high-tech firm, an iPod arrived from Virginia.

By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Writer
OLYMPIA — Add an iPod Touch to the tools other states are using to recruit Washington businesses.

Virginia’s governor used one to reach out and tap high-tech businessman John Sabey last week just as Washington leaders pulled their hand away from the Seattle entrepreneur.

The iPod Touch arrived at Sabey Corp. offices hours before Washington lawmakers, on the final day of the special session, balked at extending a tax break the company sought for expanding its business of building data centers.

“We thought it was very ironic,” said Sabey, president of Sabey Data Center Properties. “On the day we got spiked by the Legislature, the state of Virginia is sending us goodies telling us, basically, they’d like us to do business in their state.”

Carrie Cantrell, Virginia’s deputy secretary of commerce and trade, confirmed the state sent the recruitment package as part of an ongoing campaign to attract data center firms. She wouldn’t say if the timing of this particular delivery was planned or a coincidence.

David Sabey, John’s father and renowned commercial real estate guru, received the package on the outside of which is written, “The governor of Virginia requests five minutes of your time.”

Inside was the iPod Touch preloaded with a video message from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell extolling the virtues of operating in his state.

“That’s pretty aggressive,” said state Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, a supporter of the tax break and one of several state lawmakers who heard about the package.

Gov. Chris Gregoire on Tuesday veered away from commenting on McDonnell’s tactic, focusing instead on her disappointment the bill didn’t pass.

“I’ve been a proponent of data centers from the beginning,” she said, adding that she knew of other companies in addition to Sabey that were ready to break ground had the tax break been approved.

Data centers are essentially where gobs of servers are used to process, store and transfer information online. With surging volumes of information and online transacting, the demand for these centers is growing and states are actively competing for them.

Last year, Washington’s Legislature passed a bill to lure construction of centers in rural counties. It allowed firms to forgo paying sales tax on the electrical equipment and servers used in the buildings.

Seven projects were undertaken as a result; Sabey’s firm launched work in East Wenatchee and Quincy.

But the law had a limited life span, with the tax break available only until July 1, 2011. This year’s bill sought to keep the tax break going another three years.

As a result, the flurry of activity will be muted and the state will be at a bit of a competitive disadvantage, according to John Sabey.

He said his firm had been exploring opportunities in Virginia well before the package arrived. If they make a deal, he might drop by McDonnell’s office to say hello.

At the same time, he’s hoping Washington lawmakers revive the tax break bill in 2012.

Hobbs and Gregoire hope so too.

“I certainly hope we do something,” Hobbs said.

“If we’re not aggressive enough we could lose out on these high-tech businesses.”

McDonnell is not the first governor to attempt to lure a Washington-based company.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter sent a “love letter” to Washington businesses in March 2010 extolling his state’s economic climate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry wrote a handful of corporate executives in October as Washington voters considered an income tax measure. Perry’s missive noted Texas had no income tax and no interest in getting one.

Each of those overtures evoked a bring-it-on response from Gregoire, who expressed confidence Washington firms wouldn’t bite. In replying to Otter, she hinted at trying to lure companies from his state but apparently didn’t try anything as brash as a letter.

Earlier this year, she went out of her way to not publicly trash such tactics.

“I’m not going to criticize any of my colleagues,” she said in February at the National Governor’s Association meeting. “Anybody who wants to come to Washington state is welcome. I’m not out trying to steal companies from my colleagues.”

Gregoire, this year’s NGA chairwoman, went on to say each state’s future economic development hinges on them competing globally not “stealing from someplace else” in this country.

Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@heraldnet.com.

The Art Of Political Spin

2011-05-21T21:54:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: I had no way to actually verify this when I originally posted it, but thought it was just too good not to share. I later came to learn that this is fact not true, and was actually circulated on the Internet several years ago with Hillary Clinton instead of Harry Reid as the relative in question. No matter what, you have to truly admire someone's exceptional ability at political spin.)

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid’s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

This is the only known photograph of Remus — standing on the gallows in Montana territory:

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: "Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.’

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.

Believe it or not, Harry Reid’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

“Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

Now THAT’s how it’s done folks! That’s REAL political spin at its finest. It just doesn't get much better than that!.

CEO Magazine Says Washington Slid Five More Spots In Business Friendliness

2011-05-09T07:33:00.000-07:00

By Carl Gipson

Washington Policy Center

CEO Magazine, which issued its annual “Best/Worst States for Business” this week, ranked Washington state below average at 34th. The more telling statistic from this survey of over 500 CEOs is that our state has fallen 18 spots over the last five years. In 2006 Washington ranked an above average 16th.

The survey takes into account “Taxes and Regulation,” “Workforce Quality,” and “Living Environment.”

The best states: Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia.

The worst states: California (50th), New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan.

From the survey results,

“’Do not overtax business,’ offered one CEO. ‘Make sure your tax scheme does not drive business to another state. Have regulatory environment and regulators that encourage good business — not one that punishes businesses for minor infractions. Good employment laws help too. Let companies decide what benefits and terms will attract and keep the quality of employee they need. Rules that make it hard, if not impossible, to separate from a non-productive employee make companies fearful to hire or locate in a state.”

Seems like pretty good advice. It’s unfortunate that enough CEOs nationwide think Washington is doing a fair-to-poor job at implementing such policies. But at least we’re not Illinois, which has fallen 40 spots in five years. Ouch.

Is Cantwell Vulnerable?

2011-05-05T07:43:00.000-07:00

A new Elway Poll says Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, who is facing re-election next year, could very well be vulnerable — IF, and it's a BIG IF — the Republicans can actually field a credible candidate. But then that's their usual problem with getting anyone elected. The R's can't seem to find moderates — folks whose message resonates with the majority of Washington voters — usually opting instead for right-wing extremists.

A new Elway poll finds Cantwell's “Job Performance” rating at 52 percent “negative” to 42 percent “positive" — nearly the exact opposite of her 2005 numbers a year out from re-election. Back then, her numbers were 52 positive vs. 38 negative.)

The Elway Poll supposed an imaginary open primary against a group of Republicans that included former KIRO TV anchor Susan Hutchison; Tea Party activist Clint Didier; U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert; and Seattle Port Commissioner Bill Bryant. Cantwell won big over all of them with 47 percent of the vote.

You may recall that in 2006 Cantwell beat former Safeco Insurance CEO Mike McGavick, 56.9 percent to 39.9 percent. Obviously, she could do a lot worse in 2012 and still win since the Republicans don't have anyone waiting in the wings that according to Elway would be a credible challenger. On the other hand, I've heard it said more than once that Elway couldn't poll himself accurately.

Cantwell's approval numbers in the most recent poll aren't higher now because there are fewer undecided voters. Clearly, between a May 2005 poll, until the Summer of 2009 Cantwell’s approval numbers have been more volatile, with six of the last 20 polls showing her with higher disapproval, ratings but with an overall trend of a higher approval. So given the absence of any strong Republican opponent on the horizon, it doesn't appear to me at least that she has too much to worry about.

The One Opinion Piece the New York Times Didn’t Want You to Read

2011-03-30T09:23:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: In the weeks since Governor Walker introduced his reforms to balance the state budget and protect middle-class taxpayers the New York Times has repeatedly used its editorial pages to opine on the reforms. All told there have been at least seven editorials, op-eds or columns in the paper about the Wisconsin reforms. Below is the Op-Ed that Governor Walker wrote that the New York Times chose not to run. Makes me question their journalistic integrity.)

In nearly every state across America, Governors are facing major budget deficits. Many, Democrat and Republican alike, are cutting state aid to schools and other local governments - which will force massive layoffs, massive property tax increases or both.

In Wisconsin, we are doing something progressive in the best sense of the word. We are implementing reforms to protect middle class jobs and middle class taxpayers. While our idea may be a bold political move it is a very modest request of our employees.

We are reforming the bargaining system so our state and local governments can ask employees to contribute 5.8% for pension and 12.6% for health insurance premiums. These reforms will help them balance their budgets. In total, our reforms save local governments more than $700 million each year.

Most workers outside of government would love our proposal. Over the past several months, I have visited numerous factories and small businesses across Wisconsin. On these tours, workers tell me that they pay anywhere from 15% to 50% of their health insurance premium costs. The average middle class worker is paying more than 20% of his or her premium.

Even federal employees pay more than twice what we are asking state and local government workers to pay and most of them don’t have collective bargaining for wages or benefits. These facts beg the question as to why the protesters are in Wisconsin and not in Washington, D.C. By nearly any measure, our requests are quite reasonable.

Beyond helping to balance current and future budgets, our reforms will improve the quality of our governments. No longer will hiring and firing be done solely based on seniority and union contracts. Instead, schools - as well as state and local governments - will be able to make decisions based on merit and performance.

This concept works well in Indiana. In 2005, Governor Mitch Daniels reformed collective bargaining. In turn, the government got more efficient, more effective and more accountable to the public. Governor Daniels even encouraged employees to come forward with ways to save taxpayer dollars and they responded. Eventually, the state was able to reward top performing employees. This is true reform – making government work for the people.

A recent columnist on these pages opined that “common problems deserve common solutions” suggesting that Republicans and Democrats work together. In principle, that is a good idea.

Since January 3rd, we passed some of the most aggressive economic development legislation in the country. And on nearly every measure, many Democrats joined with all of the Republicans and an Independent to vote in favor of the various pieces of legislation. The Wisconsin legislature recognized that we are growing, not Republican or Democratic jobs, but Wisconsin jobs. Together, we worked to show that Wisconsin is open for business.

But sometimes, bi-partisanship is not so good. During several of the past budgets, members of both political parties raided segregated funds, used questionable accounting principles and deferred tough decisions. This, along with the use of billions of dollars worth of one-time federal stimulus money for the budget two years ago, left Wisconsin with the current $3.6 billion deficit.

Our reforms allow us to take a new and better approach. Instead of avoiding the hard decisions and searching for short-term solutions, we make a commitment to the future. The choices we are making now in Wisconsin will make sure our children are not left picking up the pieces of the broken state budget left behind. Our reforms create the lowest structural deficit in recent history ensuring our budget is stable for decades to come. These changes will give businesses the confidence they need to grow and invest in our state.

We live in the greatest nation on earth because for more than 200 years we’ve had leaders who cared more about their children and grandchildren than themselves. Having the courage to make decisions in the best interest of the next generation – despite external pressures – is a concept that America has always admired, but is forgetting today. My hope is that Wisconsin will remind the nation what makes our country great.

Michigan Dems charged in fake tea party scandal

2011-03-25T09:08:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: Don't you just get tired of this kind of crap? Why can't the both political parties field candidates who stand up for what they truly believe in and let the voters decide if they're in sync with their needs and beliefs, rather than resort to this kind of unethical behavior?)

From Yahoo News

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Two Michigan Democrats were arraigned Wednesday on election corruption charges for allegedly propping up of fake tea party candidates in 2010, the Detroit News reports.

Former county Democratic Party Chairman Michael McGuinness and ex-operations director Jason Bauer have been charged with forgery, putting people up for office without their knowledge and other charges. The two party leaders allegedly conspired to field phony tea party candidates in an apparent bid to siphon off GOP votes and boost Democrats in two Michigan County Commission races and a state Senate race last year, according to the newspaper. Several of the charges are felonies, some of which carry penalties of up to 14 years in prison.

McGuinnes and Bauer resigned their positions in August. News reports indicate they have not commented on this week's charges.

Last year, as tea party power grew across the country, tea partiers began accusing Democrats and others of using their party label to run fake candidates and skew elections. A lawsuit was filed in Florida last year where Democrats, including then-Rep. Alan Grayson, were accused of creating a Florida Tea Party.

Could a Wisconsin-esque impasse happen here?

2011-03-17T22:11:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: Paul Guppy is vice president for Research at Washington Policy Center, and is a regular contributor to the Business Journal. )

By Paul Guppy
The weeks of angry protest and heated controversy in Wisconsin have sparked a national debate over the role of public sector unions and whether mandatory collective bargaining contributes to massive increases in spending, rising taxes and chronic budget deficits.

With our state facing its own $4.5 billion deficit, the question naturally arises, could Wisconsin-style collective bargaining protests happen here?

It’s entirely possible — because Washington already has the same kind of collective bargaining system in place.

In 2002, majority Democrats in Olympia passed a sweeping collective bargaining bill and sent it to Gov. Locke for his signature. It was treated like a routine civil service law, but it actually represented a radical shift of power from the legislature to the governor’s office. With the stroke of a pen, lawmakers lost control of more than $2 billion in wages per year, and a further $608 million annually in healthcare, step increases, cost-of-living raises and other employee benefit costs.

In the four years after collective bargaining went into effect, state spending increased 33 percent.

In Olympia, state operating costs are now decided in a series of closed-door meetings between union executives and governor appointees. The negotiations are secret. The public is not allowed to know the starting and ending positions of each side, what is discussed, the amount of public money involved, or what concessions each side makes. No legislative oversight or public comments are permitted.

The meetings are not covered by TVW, and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Lawmakers cannot attend negotiating sessions, offer proposals or participate in the discussions. They may only vote up or down, with no amendments, on the final binding agreement.

A dramatic example of how collective bargaining restricts lawmakers’ control over the budget occurred last November when, to help solve the budget deficit, Gov. Gregoire asked state employees to contribute 26 percent of the cost of their health coverage, a level typical in the private sector.

Union executives refused, even though the governor had been elected with strong union support. Instead the union agreed to a small increase of just 3 percent in how much state workers contribute. Taxpayers pay about $850 per month for each employee’s health coverage, while state workers pay a fraction of that.

The union’s rejection of the governor’s request will mean bigger cuts in public services. In addition to collective bargaining, public sector unions are heavily involved in politics. In 2010, public unions spent $2.7 million dollars to help elect or defeat candidates for state legislative office.

Major campaign contributors included Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), labor organizations that also conduct collective bargaining negotiations.

Nationally, unions gave $171 million to political candidates in 2010. “We’re spending big — and we’re damn happy it’s big,” said AFSCME’s national president Gerald McEntee during last fall’s campaign.

In 2010, one political consulting firm, Moxie Media, used union funds to create up to 40 political action committees to obscure the source of contributions it made to state legislative candidates. The firm’s executives were accused of using contributions from public-sector unions and other sources to create a fake Republican campaign against a Democrat incumbent. The political strategy led to a campaign finance investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission and the state Attorney General.

Unions represent the interests of their members, but the outcome of elections determines who represents the public interest at the negotiating table.

By supporting or opposing candidates for public office, unions influence who sits on both sides of the table. This conflict of interest was best summarized by an AFSCME district president; “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

Collective bargaining severely hampers the legislature’s ability to carry out its normal constitutional functions. In addition, experience indicates collective bargaining contributes to higher labor costs to the state, especially healthcare costs, without necessarily improving the quality of services delivered to the public.

As some critics put it, under collective bargaining the governor bargains and the unions collect. Ending Washington’s 10-year experiment with mandatory collective bargaining would serve the public interest because it would return control of state operating costs to the Legislature, restore constitutional balance with the executive, and reduce the political influence of union campaign spending on public policy.

Atlas Twitches: Is America Becoming A Welfare Nation?

2011-03-14T21:18:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: Considering the previous post, and the liberal knee-jerk reaction of most of the commenters, I thought the two editorials below — one from the well-respected business news media, Investors Business Daily, and other, from the business publication, Fast Money, were very telling. Read and decide for yourself.)

Investor's Business Daily Editorial
Posted March 9, 2011

Entitled: More than one-third of all wages and salaries in this country are actually government handouts. We should be alarmed that we've become a nation of dependents.

Using data mined from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, TrimTabs Investment Research has found that 35% of wages and salaries this year will be in the form of a government payment.

That's up sharply from 2000, when it was 21%, which is more than double the rate — 10% — of 1960.
The payouts are primarily Social Security and Medicare benefits, and unemployment checks. But they are not limited to those programs.

In any case, we're seeing before us a disturbing trend. A society can't survive moving in this direction.
The ratio of producers — those whose wages and salaries aren't drawn from the public trough — to non-producers, who consume wealth, needs to be much higher.

One way to do this: spread the tax burden more equitably across incomes.

Today, more than 97% of federal income tax receipts are paid by the top 50% of income earners.
The bottom 50%? They pay less than 3% of the taxes, making it a truly privileged class because many of its members get to live at the expense of others.

The bottom half of earners pay less of the federal income tax burden each year while the top half pays more. How long can such a ruinous set of affairs continue? When will the truly productive grow weary of the burden of holding up others and go on strike, as they did in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged?"

We know, thanks to TrimTabs, that in Britain 44% of wages and salaries are from the public fisc. So, yes, it can get worse. But that'll be of little consolation if America follows Britain over the cliff.

To avoid the inevitable decline, Washington has to change the policies that have gotten us where we are — and soon. Tax rates need to be lower and flatter.

Punishing the rich with higher rates and rewarding the bottom half with lower or no rates violates the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

It also creates unnecessary tensions between classes, which itself goes against the American grain; establishes a set of perverse incentives that hurt wealth creation; and offends the streak of independence from government that helps define our exceptionalism.

Policymakers will have to fix the entitlement problem, too. Americans have paid into Social Security and Medicare and deserve to get a return on their "investments." But entitlements will break the federal government and the private economy if they continue as is.

Let the private sector solve this problem. It can do it.

Decades of daft policies can't be turned around in a single session of Congress, of course. But the repair has to start soon. The longer lawmakers wait, the closer we get to the edge.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565496/201103091841/Atlas-Twitches.htm

Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages
By: John Melloy Executive Producer, Fast Money
Published: March 8, 2011

Government payouts — including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance — make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.

Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data..

"The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus," said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. "Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits."

The economist gives the country two stark choices. In order to get welfare back to its pre-recession ratio of 26 percent of pay, "either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion," she said.

Last month, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $61 billion federal spending cut, but Senate Democratic leaders and the White House made it clear that had no chance of becoming law. Short-term resolutions passed have averted a government shutdown that could have occurred this month, as Vice President Biden leads negotiations with Republican leaders on some sort of long-term compromise.

"You've got to cut back government spending and the Republicans will run on this platform leading up to next year's election," said Joe Terranova, Chief Market Strategist for Virtus Investment Partners and a "Fast Money" trader.

Terranova noted some sort of opt out for social security or even raising the retirement age.
But the country may not be ready for these tough choices, even though economists like Schnapp say something will have to be done to avoid a significant economic crisis.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week showed that less than a quarter of Americans supported making cuts to Social Security or Medicare in order to reign in the mounting budget deficit.

Those poll numbers may be skewed by a demographic shift the likes of which the nation has never seen. Only this year has the first round of baby boomers begun collecting Medicare benefits —a nd here comes 78 million more.

Social welfare benefits have increased by $514 billion over the last two years, according to TrimTabs figures, in part because of measures implemented to fight the financial crisis. Government spending normally takes on a larger part of the spending pie during economic calamities but how can the country change this make-up with the root of the crisis (housing) still on shaky ground, benchmark interest rates already cut to zero, and a demographic shift that calls for an increase in subsidies?

At the very least, we can take solace in the fact that we're not quite at the state welfare levels of Europe. In the U.K., social welfare benefits make up 44 percent of wages and salaries, according to TrimTabs' Schnapp.

"No matter how bad the situation is in the US, we stand far better on these issues (debt, demographics, entrepreneurship) than other countries," said Steve Cortes of Veracruz Research. "On a relative basis, America remains the world leader and, as such, will also remain the world's reserve currency."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508

The Truth About The Federal deficit

2011-03-08T10:34:00.000-08:00

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January, 2007, is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (See below)

In other words, if the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since taking office on January 20th, 2008.”

Olympia Parking Nazis

2011-03-02T09:23:00.000-08:00

I have found from first hand experience that the City of Olympia has an even more lucrative financial scam working than the City of Bremerton’s much-hated red-light cameras.

I’ve had to spend an inordinate amount of time in Olympia lately lobbying legislators on behalf of Port Orchard, working with other local elected officials trying to preserve funding for the Ferry System, while imploring lawmakers to stand up to the ferry unions and fix the underlying financial and mismanagement problems, as well as testifying about various bills that impact the City.

Parking around the Capital is a crapshoot at best. There is metered parking on the Capital campus, but unless you’re there in the wee hours to secure a spot, it’s usually spoken for. There is one hour parking on the streets around the Capital, but here’s where the scam comes in. It’s all zoned parking, so you can only park in the entire zone — which encompasses about a square half mile — for one hour. Moving your car doesn’t help. The City Parking Nazis are equipped with hand-held computers that record your license number and the time your vehicle is marked. If you park anywhere in the zone — even if it’s not in the same space — for more than an hour, you’re ticketed — $15 bucks.

I found this out the hard way when I parked, met with a legislator, and left for an appointment with the City’s lobbyist about 45 minutes later, which took place miles away. I was gone for about 90 minutes, before coming back for another appointment. Although I was parked the second time for less than 30 minutes, I returned to find a ticket on my windshield.

So I called the City, believing an error had been made because I parked the second time in the same block, but in a different space, and thought perhaps since my license plate had been recorded, the Parking Nazi didn’t realize I’d moved. After leaving two messages, upon my third call, I finally connected with someone named Debra (or maybe Deborah), who I was informed was in charge of the Parking Nazis. It was she who triumphantly informed me about the parking zone scam.

When I asked her what the alternatives to parking within the zone are, with that totally uncaring, unreasonable, typically unrealistic, and heavily blasé, from another planet governmental attitude, she suggested I park several miles away in a lot offering a shuttle to the Capital. She told me they run every 15 minutes.

Knowing exactly where that lot is, I replied that it takes 15 minutes to get there from the Capital freeway exit, another 15 to wait for the shuttle, 15 more to ride to the Capital, about five minutes to walk to where my appointment would be, typically 15 to 30 minutes for the appointment, five more to walk back to the shuttle stop, 15 to wait for the shuttle, another 15 to get back to the lot, and 15 more to return to the Capital exit to get on the freeway to go home — total of more than two hours if you count the appointment time, for a 15 to 30 minute appointment. I told Debra (or is it Deborah?) I didn’t believe that was the best use of the City of Port Orchard’s taxpayer dollars, and asked if there wasn’t a more time and cost-efficient solution.

She very pointedly told me none of that was her problem, and perhaps I should either consider some other form of transportation, or just factor in the cost of a ticket every time I came down there. And bureaucrats wonder why ordinary folks despise them…

I’ll tell you this: If someone like that — with what I’d view as a piss-poor attitude — worked for the City of Port Orchard, I’d fire them in a New York minute. But then again, we don’t rip off people who park in our City that way either. And unlike Olympia, we sincerely appreciate them — and the money they spend when they come and visit.

Clunker Math

2011-03-02T08:53:00.000-08:00

The person who calculated this bit of information went to high school in Pittsburgh, Pa. He reportedly is now, and has been, a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown, West Virginia for the last forty some years. I'll bet most people never bothered look at the clunker program in such depth.

Clunker Math

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. The government claims the program took 700,000 vehicles off the road, so that's 224 million gallons of fuel saved per year. That equates to a bit over five million barrels of oil. Five million barrels is about five hours worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, five million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars So, our government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they'll do a great job with our health care, though.

Senator Tim Sheldon Speaks Out On the State's Liquor Monopoly

2011-02-22T14:19:00.000-08:00

The subject of the state’s ongoing monopoly of the distribution, licensure and sale of hard liquor is back again, with a surprising twist.

After voters narrowly defeated Initiative 1100 to privatize liquor sales in the state, the governor apparently has interpreted that vote as a call to expand on the monopoly, complete with a bit of retail sizzle.

The Liquor Control Board hired a pollster for $31,000 to measure how people feel about state liquor stores. The pollster made a few hundred phone calls between Christmas and New Years and discovered some less than surprising things.

They found that people thought the stores were clean, staff was courteous and the parking lots safe. Much the same could be said about most private businesses in our community.

They said that people found the stores were not very attractive and the non-competitive pricing made shopping a poor experience. I believe the same thing could have been said about stores of all types in the countries of the old Eastern Bloc. They might have been clean and efficient, but they were monopolies with little variety and set prices run by the state.

It’s chilling to consider that in both instances we are dealing with “state” stores.

The Liquor Control Board has a few suggestions for making the local liquor store a cheerier place to shop and make a few more dollars at the same time. The stores would upgrade and compete with large discounters and corner mom-and-pop stores by selling ice, chips, bottle openers, soda pop and any number of other items.

They found that current customers are supportive of on-line ordering, sale of non-alcoholic products, gift cards, extended hours, sample tastings and opening liquor outlets inside other commercial establishments.

They would also set up competitive disadvantages in a town by installing a mini-liquor store actually located inside one supermarket but not at another. Why not just let the stores sell liquor rather than the state renting space and paying state employees to operate a store within a store?

The Liquor control Board is suggesting opening 15 more outlets and livening up the whole system with enhancements that seem better suited to the privately owned and operated businesses in our communities.

Gift cards? If the state is going to issue gift cards for hard liquor, how about for ferry tolls, state park campgrounds or traffic tickets? Government should not be about gimmicks and gift cards are just that.

The projected net revenue from these “commercial enhancements” to a state run monopoly is an estimated additional $2.25 million a year.

I have proposed that when it comes to liquor sales, the state do what it does best; license, regulate, enforce and collect taxes. We need to leave the retailing of products to those that do that best, the private businesses that operate on the open market in our communities.

The bill I am sponsoring would do just that. My proposal would close the state stores and sell off the warehouse and distribution operations. Liquor sales would be regulated by the state, working with communities to make sure that commercial outlets are appropriately located and monitored to be sure that our kids are not getting access to it and that it isn’t sold in inappropriate locations.

The real bottom line is that government, in good times and bad, should be about essential core services. Taxpayers want to see their hard earned dollars spent to educate their children, maintain roads and assure other essential services. Retailing liquor in a monopoly and dressing up the stores just doesn’t meet the criteria of “essential services”.

Senator Tim Sheldon (D-Potlatch)

Senator Sheldon has served in the Washington State Legislature for 20 years

Climbing Out Of America's Financial Mess

2011-02-20T21:38:00.000-08:00

We recently marked the two-year anniversary of the day President Barak Obama signed the great “stimulus package” into law. Democrats nationwide claimed the stimulus was needed to keep employment under eight percent, and would jump-start our economy. With 21 months of unemployment nationwide above nine percent, I’d like to know, “Where are the jobs?”

This past November, voters elected more Republicans nationwide than had ever been elected in the history of our country. Clearly, a majority of Americans have rejected the liberal economic policies put in place by Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Our national debt is higher than it’s ever been, the economy hasn’t improved, which it won’t as long as we keep adding to the debt, as the President’s budget calls for. And Obamacare hasn’t even kicked in yet…

Isn’t the first rule of getting yourself out of a hole to stop digging?

Global Warming a Real Threat

2011-01-29T08:26:00.000-08:00

From The Washington Post via the Washington Times

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

By the way, I neglected to mention that this report was from a November 2, 1922 Washington Post article as reported by the AP and Washington Times. That's right: 89 years ago! No wonder Al Gore is so worried.

Will GOP Reverse 2010 Gains Under Wilber?

2011-01-23T19:41:00.000-08:00

I’ve often written that there isn’t a way for Republicans around here to shoot themselves in the foot they haven’t thought of, but I that have great confidence in their ability to invent new ones. And once again, it appears they’ve done it. At their recent state meeting, the party ousted moderate former state legislator Luke Esser in favor of longtime conservative talk show host Kirby Wilber.

The Democrats immediately began gleefully proclaiming the R’s had elected Washington’s version of Rush Limbaugh as their new leader. Based on 16 years of his radio rhetoric, they could be right. Meanwhile, look for the Democrats to make Wilber’s radio tirades the focal point of their election rhetoric rather than individual candidates. In races where Republicans have good, solid candidates, or in closes races, look for the Democrats to use the "guilt by association" strategy — tying those potential winning candidates to Wilber's radio rhetoric — which has potential to undo many of the strides R’s made in 2010.

Esser was an even-handed, pragmatist who was very successful in recruiting better quality candidates than at any time in recent memory. Wilber says he wants to take the party in a “new direction” (Read: hard right). Voters want action and civility — not confrontational rhetoric. And while some Republicans were unhappy with the gains the party made under Esser in light of what happened nationally, I suspect under Wilber, the Republicans will have a hard time recruiting the quality of candidates the party desperately needs to sustain and strengthen the gains it made in 2010.

Radio Host Wilbur Ousts Esser as State GOP chairman

2011-01-22T15:40:00.000-08:00

State GOP chairman and former legislator Luke Esser was ousted as chair of the party by longtime conservative radio host Kirby Wilbur. Delegates at the state Republican Party meeting held in Tukwila voted 69 for Wilbur, 36 for Esser and 7 for Bill Rennie.

Esser made the claim that the state GOP was in much better shape than it was four years ago when he was handed the reins, but Wilbur emphasized how Republicans in our state didn't do as well as they should have in the 2010 elections given the tidal wave for the right nationally.

Dershowitz, Others Defend Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Line

2011-01-15T10:01:00.001-08:00

By Rick Pedraza

Liberals are up in arms over Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel” to describe left-wing media attacks on conservatives in the wake of Saturday’s shootings that severely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killed six, and wounded more than a dozen others outside a Tucson, Ariz., store.

But famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the term’s use has evolved over the years from one fraught with pain in Jewish history, and that Palin used the term correctly.

"The term 'blood libel" has taken on a broad metephorical meaning in public discourse," Dershowitz told BigGovernment.com. He said that, although the historical origins of the term were "in theologically based false accusations against Jews and the Jewish people," its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.

“I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the state of Israel by the Goldstone Report,” Dershowitz said. “There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”

Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin also defended Palin's use of the term in warning that journalists and pundits “should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

"Sarah Palin got it right," a spokesman for the organization told the Daily Caller. "Falsely accusing someone of shedding shedding blood is the definition of blood liber."

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement Wednesday agreeing that it is inappropriate to blame Palin and others for the tragic shootings in Tucson.

“Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks,” Foxman wrote. “We agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

“It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol,” the statement read.

“In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Bauer Announces Resignation As County Commissioner

2011-01-10T19:23:00.000-08:00

Saying, “My wife Ann and I are at a point in our lives where we must choose between the all-consuming demands of public service and the equally consuming demands and opportunities of our private lives and our family,” County Commissioner Steve Bauer announced his resignation, effective at the either the end of February or early in March.

The resignation was announced in a late-afternoon e-mail sent in advance to elected officials, and then officially at the Jan. 10, County Commissioner’s meeting, where he read a 4-page letter detailing his reasons for resigning, as well as highlighting some of the accomplishments he is most proud of.

Bauer was appointed the North End commissioner in July of 2007 after Chris Endresen resigned to accept a position as State Director for Senator Maria Cantwell. He was elected to a full term of his own in 2008. A former Lt. Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, Bauer previously served as Bellevue’s city manager and as director of finance and administration for Portland, Oregon.

In 2006, he was hired as a consultant to complete a comprehensive evaluation of Kitsap County’s Department of Community Development. He was also and active in his home community of Hansville, serving as president of the Hansville Community Center Board.

Bauer holds a Masters of Public Administration from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.A. in government from Columbia University in New York City.

In his letter of resignation, Bauer stated that since taking office in 2007, two members of his family have contracted cancer, and the experiences have taught he and his wife Ann that, “…we can’t take a single day for granted. The opportunities we pass up — and there have been many these last few years — may never come again. Our parents are aging, our five grandchildren are growing like weeds and we need to be in their lives.”

He added that, “There are many folks capable of being County Commissioner. But no one else can fill my roles as Son, Brother, Husband, Dad, Uncle and Grandfather. After almost four years’ in office, it is clear I can’t fill those personal roles and be County Commissioner at the same time. During my career in local government, I often placed the interests of my family and myself behind the demands of public service. The time has come to put family and friends first.”

He was especially complimentary of his wife, saying, “Ann and I have taken on the challenge of being Commissioner as a team. She has been a terrific confidant and supporter. I want to thank her and our Family for their support and sacrifices while I have been in office.”

Bauer said if he thought the huge challenges ahead could be overcome in the two years remaining in his term, he would gladly stay, but believes the truly significant challenges of the County budget, the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership, reshaping the future of Kitsap Transit, and more will take several years to accomplish.

“Actions in the next two years will lay the groundwork for later successes, Bauer stated. “I think the public will be best served if the same person works on these issues for the next several years.”

Bauer also said that his proudest accomplishments include serving as Chair of the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority in 2009 to help save it from bankruptcy after years of bad Board and management decisions threatened more than 1,000 low income housing units, as well as elderly and dependent residents. While the agency finished 2010 in the black, and is on track to a bright future, he devoted two to three days per week on Housing Authority business — on top of normal County business — to help guide the agency’s recovery.

He also said he is especially proud of the County’s “Water as a Resource” Policy that he believes will change how water is treated in the future, as well as his work on the North Kitsap Legacy Partnership, which will preserve more than 6,000 acres of open space forever.

He also cited helping Kingston get a new park and helping the community and the new Metropolitan Park District move forward with a new community center, library, Boys and Girls Club and senior housing. He also noted that Kingston will soon have a new downtown Master Plan that will help that community become one of the most vibrant and attractive areas in the County, and how the purchase of Norwegian Point Park in Hansville virtually assures that the Coast Guard will turn over the Point No Point lighthouse and grounds to the County.

“I am proud of the things that we have accomplished during my tenure,” he said. “And by “We” I mean County staff, the other Commissioners and me. No County Commissioner achieves the big things by themselves.”

He thanked County employees, “…for their intelligence, their skills, their commitment to public service and their love for living in this special place. I’ve been privileged to work with public employees all my career and I can truthfully say that I’ve never worked with a better group.”

Bauer also specifically singled out two people for special thanks and recognition — Deanna Erstad and Rebecca Pirtle, who he said have been hugely helpful to him and to the constituents and communities of his District. He also lauded volunteers Walter Briggs (the Navy’s forester) and Arno Bergstom (the County Extension forester), for drafting a Forest Stewardship Program for all County forestlands, including most of its larger parks, noting the program could also be used to manage future North Kitsap Legacy forests.

As it did when Bauer was appointed, the Democratic Party will select his replacement. He has timed his departure to give the process enough time to play out and not have a vacant seat on the commission, as was the case when he was appointed.

He ended his resignation letter by saying, “There is never a good time to leave. There will always be incomplete projects. There will always be people and causes to protect. But I am clear that this is the right time for Ann and me to chart a new course in our lives. I hope you will understand.”

“People often bemoan the loss of civility in our public conversations. Indeed, I’ve encountered my share of folks who can’t resist the temptation to demonize elected officials and staff rather than dealing with the issues at hand. Folks say to me, “It must be tough having people criticize you all the time.” The constant surprise for me has been the number of folks who just come up and say ‘Thank you for your service. Thanks for all that you do and the sacrifices you make to do this job.’ All I can say in return is ‘Thanks for giving me this opportunity to serve Kitsap County.’”

What The 2010 Census Tell Us

2010-12-26T11:20:00.001-08:00

The new census numbers not only tell us a lot about the direction of our country over the last decade, but say much more about America’s hopes and dreams over the long term. The thing that jumped out at me in analyzing the constitutionally mandated head count is that while it isn’t an election, the 2010 census shows Americans have no trouble voting with their feet.

For many, it reflects rising support of limited government, but more interestingly, determines what states gained and lost seats in Congress.

While our state gained a tenth congressional seat because of an increase in population between 10 and 15 percent, a group called Americans for Tax Reform found states gaining the most population — and seats in Congress — had several common threads, including significantly lower taxes, fewer government regulations, less government spending, and were more likely to be Right to Work states.

What that says is that for the past decade Americans have been fleeing the heavy hand of intrusive government in favor of places where the market encourages entrepreneurialism and has the ability to create jobs. And not coincidentally, all are states that tend to lean Republican.

States with more than 20 percent population growth include our immediate neighbor to the east, Idaho, which has been aggressively marketing itself to Washington State companies as an alternative to our high taxes, over-regulation, and out of control spending. A drive along I-90 between Spokane and Post Falls is a testament to their success. Many of the shuttered buildings in Spokane still have company names on them, but you’ll see many of those same names on new buildings just across the state line.

Other states in the 20 percent club include Texas, which will gain four seats, as well as Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. In the 15 to 20 percent range are populous Florida, which will pick up two more seats, Georgia, Colorado, and South Carolina (can you say Boeing?). North Carolina, which also falls into that 15 to 20 percent range, fell just short of picking up another House seat by only 15,000 residents.

Meanwhile, traditional liberal strongholds like New York and Ohio will both lose two seats, while industrialized, and heavily unionized New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, will each lose one, as will Louisiana. In my view, Louisiana is an anomaly due to the twin knock out punches of Hurricane Katrina, which forced thousands to flee the state who never returned — many, ironically to Texas — and the Gulf Coast oil spill which has all but shut down its bread and butter industries — oil and fishing.

However, what is most telling, is that our nation's most populous state — California — in spite of massive immigration, will fail to gain any seats for the first time since statehood. That means even more people are fleeing the Golden State then immigrating there — legally or otherwise.

Joining Washington in the 10 to 15 percent bracket are Oregon, Alaska, Tennessee, New Mexico and Wyoming. The increases in our state, Oregon, and to some degree Alaska and Arizona, are a result of California’s out-migration. Tennessee, Wyoming and Arizona are all Right-To-Work states.

Another telling statistic is that state and local taxes, coupled with per capita government spending, in states gaining enough population to pick up seats are nearly a third lower than in those states losing seats.

The bottom line is Republican-leaning states will increase their power as population shifts from the liberal Northeast Rust Belt to the conservative South and West — where the jobs are.

In spite of President Obama’s overwhelming victory a scant two years ago, this significant realignment is viewed by many as an undeniable indictment of liberalism. I don’t know that I’d agree completely, but there will be an unmistakable impact.

With the Census results comes redistricting. What I’d like to see is common sense political boundaries — such as county lines, as opposed to absurdly shaped, politically gerrymandered districts, such as the 35^th here in our state.

But don't expect anything that sensible. While this year's elections have increased Republicans' power in many states, look for the Obama administration not to hesitate trotting out the Democrat's battle-proven, but disgusting class warfare strategy, coupled with playing the race card against Republican state leaders as they re-shuffle Democrats' long-gerrymandered constituencies in a pathetic attempt to neutralize the bad news the Census has delivered.

Taking exception to the Kitsap Sun's reporting of the Port Orchard Boat Ramp Issue

2010-12-16T23:08:00.000-08:00

There are many more facts surrounding the issue of the repair of the Port Orchard Boat Ramp than meet the eye. However, the bottom line is that the City of Port Orchard and the Port of Bremerton are equally committed to solving this problem in a win-win manner.

That was made abundantly clear to all concerned in the joint meeting we had on Tuesday. For the Kitsap Sun to report this story in the irresponsible way it did, and then editorialize so biasedly against the City, was an uninformed, and undeserved cheap shot at the City for no apparent reason.

If I hadn't seen her there myself, I'd have to question if the reporter who wrote the story was actually at the same meeting as the rest of us. It's also very obvious that whoever wrote that editorial used that story as their sole source of information, and couldn't be bothered to check one single fact.

NO ONE from the Sun called anyone at the City for comment, or could be bothered to ask us one single question about this issue before publishing such an unfair and blistering attack.

A lengthy email to Sun Editor David Nelson explaining the actual FACTS of this matter has yet to elicit a response.

As someone who has spent most of my entire adult life in the news business, the reporting and editorializing of this story is simply unconscionable, and one of the worst examples of biased, and irresponsible journalism I've ever witnessed. In my view, the Sun owes the both City — and all of its readers and online commenters — an apology for abdicating its responsibility to fair, unbiased, quality journalism.

Tom McCabe leaving BIAW at end of the year

2010-12-13T09:34:00.000-08:00

After 21 years, Tom McCabe will be leaving his post as Executive Director of the politically powerful Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) at the end of the year. His resignation came as a surprise to many, but not to most BIAW insiders.

Under his leadership, BIAW became a major player in statewide politics, and synonymous with pro-business, conservative causes, as well as being perhaps the state’s staunchest supporter of the Republican Party. It also became a lightening rod for continual condescending, elitist criticism by liberals — something the group accepts as a compliment for its efforts on behalf of small business.

However, it would be impossible not to acknowledge McCabe’s contribution in transforming the group from an ineffectual trade association into the state’s most aggressive advocate for small business and free enterprise, attracting national recognition from such prestigious publications as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Forbes Magazine.

During McCabe’s tenure, BIAW membership grew from roughly 2,000 member businesses in 1990 — the same year the Growth Management Act was passed — to more than 11,000 currently. In fact, BIAW is one of, if not the largest, affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in the nation.

McCabe built a highly effective lobbying team that in spite of liberal Democratic majorities in the both houses of the legislature managed to prevent the passage of legislation that unfairly targeted the construction industry — most notably onerously mandated homeowner warranty legislation, as well as that requiring costly fire sprinklers in new, single family homes, elimination of exempt wells, and an expansion of impact fees, among other victories.

McCabe also founded BIAW’s retrospective rating program, turning it into the largest in the state. The program provides worker’s compensation insurance to BIAW members, and over the past 20 years has returned $360 million from state government back to its membership. The program retains a small portion of each refund as an administration fee, and the millions that fee generates has been the funding source for BIAW’s political activities that support conservative, pro-business candidates and causes.

BIAW also used our state’s initiative process skillfully, and was able to reject restrictive, ergonomics regulations unilaterally imposed by the state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I), as well as getting Initiative 602 on the ballot, which would have restricted the growth of state government. It most recently sponsored I-1082, which would have opened Workman’s Compensation insurance to the private sector.

“We didn’t win every battle — nobody does. In my 20 years at BIAW, we never had a Republican governor and most of the time the legislature was controlled by liberal Democrats,” said McCabe. “So in every battle, we were the perpetual underdogs and I am so proud of the courage and determination of my staff and the small businesses that fought along side us.”

Over the years, liberal political opponents have tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation to eliminate the retro program and de-fund BIAW’s political machine, as well as filed numerous bogus lawsuits, but have been defeated at every turn.

However, a very nasty, internal battle between BIAW and it’s largest and most powerful affiliate member, the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBA), may have been McCabe’s undoing. The clash, which has gone on for more than three years, has caused an ever-widening fissure within the organization, pitting individual members and member associations against each other — much to glee of its political opponents.

The MBA began offering its own version of the retro program to both its own members as well as other BIAW affiliates earlier this year, and in what has been described as an orchestrated coup, elected one of their own as president of the association at the last general meeting.

McCabe is leaving BIAW with a severance package reportedly valued at $1.25 million, with his senior staff also being offered a generous severance package.

Who will replace McCabe is still up in the air, but it’s possible an interim director will be appointed while a search for a successor is conducted. McCabe will leave BIAW at the end of this year, but will provide future assistance to BIAW.

Finally... Gregoire Calls For Special Session

2010-12-07T07:07:00.000-08:00

After jerking around for most of the past month, according to a report in the Everett Herald, Governor Christine Gregoire has finally said she will call the legislature into special session to deal with the budget crisis. Gregoire stated that if the legislature doesn't schedule a session by Friday, she'll do it for them, and it will happen before Christmas.

It seems it has taken her months to gather the courage to face down the state employee unions and force legislators to do what they were elected to. Obviously, the citizens of our state are getting the kind of stellar leadership they voted for.

Why Won't Gregoire Force The Legislature To Deal With The Budget?

2010-12-02T06:56:00.000-08:00

In spite of dire budget warnings for almost a year now from the Governor — and a crystal clear message from the voters — the State Legislature has adamantly refused to deal with what has become a major crisis, the looming $5.7 billion revenue shortfall. And while lawmakers will be in Olympia next week, the Democratic leadership remains uncommitted to a special session to solve the problem because the ultimate sustainable solution is going to anger their biggest supporters — state employee unions.

More than a year of warnings from business, think tanks, pundits, Republicans, political candidates from both parties, and average citizens, that the budget is unsustainable, have fallen on deaf donkey ears. The bottom line is that it appears the Democrats don't have the cojones necessary to make the hard decisions required to fix this problem.

The Senate Republican leadership responded to the Governor's call for budget recommendations and has been willing to help lay the groundwork for a special session, but the Democrats are unwilling to step up and deal with reality. However, since reality isn't enough to prompt the Legislature to take the action they were elected to, the Governor should take the bull by the horns — or in this case the ass by the ears — and force lawmakers to do their jobs.

The Governor should call a special session effective Wednesday, Dec. 8. that would be in effect for 30 days. If lawmakers refuse to quickly balance the budget, she should order large, across-the-board cuts that factor in chief budget forecaster Dr. Aram Raha's dismal take on the future of tax collections, and have them take effect on Saturday, Dec. 11. If that doesn't get the Democrats off their butts, nothing is likely to.

If legislators don't want to get their hands dirty (and piss off the unions) by doing the job they were elected to, and still refuse to balance the budget, the least they should do in the special session is pass legislation that provides the Governor with the flexibility to make discretionary cuts (instead of across-the-board) to eliminate the projected deficit and leave a reserve.

All I can say is it's a good thing I'm not Governor. They would already be there and they would stay there as long as it took. Can you imagine a legislative session on Christmas day?

Some Post-Election Commentery

2010-11-23T21:12:00.000-08:00

I have to say, I wasn’t too surprised by the outcome of the recent election. In a previous posting, I predicted the outcome of every race correctly except for one. I believed Kathy Haigh would go down in defeat — and she almost did — winning by a very slim margin.

However, it was the vitriolic nature of comments by some of the right-wing conservatives that I found to be the most disturbing — especially after an observation I made about 26th District Senate challenger Marty McClendon. The bottom line was, the predictions were my observations on the probable outcome, and the forces that would drive those outcomes — NOT endorsements. Even after making this point several times, some of these pinheads simply couldn't figure that out, vilifying me for daring to make predictions that disagreed with their ideology.

That said, the biggest disappointment was the defeat of I-1082. This should have been a no-brainer for any thinking voter with a single shred of common sense. All anyone needed to do was look at the money funding the “No” effort — state employee unions and trail lawyers. Opponents of I-1082 outspent the “Yes” campaign by over $2 million, circulating blatant lies designed to confuse and frighten voters. In fact, KING 5’s Ad Watch series specifically called out the “No” campaign’s ads as false.

And who stood to benefit from its defeat? How coincidental — elitist state employees who’ll get to keep their overpaid jobs, and trial lawyers who make their living suing the state — which for the morons out there who voted against I-1082 and never connected the dots — that’s you and me.

The positive outcome was the unprecedented team effort on the part of the business community, which along with its sponsor, the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), built a unique coalition of thousands of individual businesses, business and trade associations like the National Federal of Independent Business and the Association of Washington Business, and institutional giants like Boeing, which contributed $100,000 to the campaign. It was heartening to see them join with small businesses to publicly support an initiative.

I-1082 was endorsed by 11 newspapers, including liberal titans like the Seattle Times, and Tacoma News Tribune, along with the Spokesman Review, Wenatchee World, Yakima Herald, and the Everett Herald. The Wall Street Journal editorialized in support of I-1082, lionizing BIAW for getting the measure on the ballot. Even the usually liberal Kitsap Sun, supported it.

However, its defeat underlines the raw power of blatant lies used in negative advertising paid for by big union money with an agenda.

The same held true of I-1100. While opponents — again the state employee unions — knew they would most likely lose this populist issue, they backed a competing initiative, I-1105. They knew when voters are confused, they generally vote "No" on both. And that was the simple intention here.

I also find it highly offensive that state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler blatantly used the power of his office to help defeat I-1082, regularly issuing press releases trashing the initiative that coincided with other intentional disinformation being distributed to the media. I also think its patently wrong for him to be issuing official statements from his office to the press, like one recently praising the decision of four governors, including our own Christine Gregoire, to file a brief in federal court supporting Obamacare.

If Mike Kriedler private citizen wants to do these things, that’s certainly his right. He can do them on his own time, and not use taxpayer resources to advance his personal political agenda. However, Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler doing so, is nothing more than a violation of the public trust.

I strongly believe the PDC should fine Kriedler heavily and make him compensate the state treasury for the entire cost of his arrogant political transgressions.

Speaking of blatant political lies… the fact our state Supreme Court ruled about a decade or so ago that prohibiting outright lying in a political campaign would violate the First Amendment, has done a major disservice to the voters of this state.

Imagine the outcome if Christine Gregoire and/or Patty Murray had to actually tell the truth about Dino Rossi and his business dealings, or if the I-1082 and I-1100 opponents couldn’t lie about what those issues were actually about.

As it stands now, isn't it only a matter of time before some crackpot candidate publicly accuses a political opponent of infidelity, being a drug user, child molester, or something worse, and such a story grows legs because the morons posting anonymously in the local blogs with impunity, run with it?

Concerned About The Quality Of Education?

2010-11-12T13:33:00.000-08:00

If you're not, you should be, and here's why...

This video was produced by filmmaker Davis Guggenheim — who is far from some wild-eyed, whacko, right-wing, anti-government crusader. In fact, he’s best known for his work with Al Gore in producing An Inconvenient Truth.

The inspiration for Guggenheim's latest film, which is described as "following a handful of promising kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic growth,” stems from his personal experience driving past three public schools as he transported his kids from his home in Venice Beach, Calif. to their private school every day.

Guggenheim takes viewers on a highly disturbing tour of “academic sinkholes” and “drop-out factories" — painful, albeit accurate — descriptions that fit all too many public schools in Washington State. Those terms are a direct reflection of our state’s 30+ percent drop-out rate, where in some districts, half are minority students. This film explores the purely political limitations placed on the number of charter schools allowed in states like ours, where parents are forced to place their kid’s names in a lottery, so random drawings can determine their educational future. The most touching moments in the film are those depicting the heartfelt disappointment on the faces of the lottery losers.

And this should really scare you... While well over half of our entire state budget is devoted to education, Governor Gregoire’s education commission found for the first time our high-priced education system is producing a generation of students less educated than their parents.

The film acknowledges that high-quality teachers are essential to student learning — a conclusion firmly supported not only by educational research, but common sense. And while educational advocates continually push for increased funding — usually in the form of higher taxes — no amount of dollars will matter if teachers aren't held accountable for our kids actually learning.

Waiting for Superman is a very strong and clearly stated indictment of the role unions play in keeping our kids shackled to substandard schools. Given the power of the teachers’ union in this state, making that point takes some extraordinary courage.

It goes without saying teachers' union officials didn't take this harsh criticism too well. Mary Lindquist, head of the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state’s most powerful teachers union, was quick with a venomous response, issuing a dictate to parents, teachers and school board members on exactly how to view this film. She notes that Washington already allows innovation schools — but she fails to point out the "inconvenient truth" that out of 2,250 schools, there are only five statewide. According to Lindquist, those five schools prove there’s no need to end our state’s ban on charter schools.

Meanwhile, Washington’s more than 100,000 private and home-schooled children generally receive a higher quality education, yet receive no public money. Charter public schools, if or when they are allowed in Washington, would offer the rest of our kids the same opportunities.

Waiting For Superman is showing at the Historic Orchard Theater in downtown Port Orchard beginning on Friday, Nov. 12. If you have kids, you owe it to them to see it.

A Very Thought-Provoking Video

2010-11-01T09:39:00.000-07:00

This clip has been sent to me by several people, and I thought it was worth sharing. It's quite thought provoking, about what it means to be an American and why.

It's about 9 minutes long, and well worth your time.

Public records show L&I lied to legislators

2010-10-27T11:27:00.000-07:00

L&I officials told lawmakers they did not know what 2011 workers' comp rate should be, documents prove otherwise

A public records request by Senator Janéa Holmquist (R-Moses Lake) and Representative Cary Condotta (R-Wenatchee) has revealed officials with the state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) lied to lawmakers about the workers’ compensation rates employers will pay for 2011.

Senator Holmquist and Representative Condotta asked L&I Director Judy Schurke at a Joint House and Senate Commerce & Labor Committee Work Session what the “indicated rate” is for 2011 after L&I announced they would not release the indicated and proposed workers’ compensation tax increases until after the November 2 election. The indicated rate is the rate necessary to cause annual revenues to equal the annual expenses. The proposed rate is the rate L&I will actually charge employers. The two usually differ because L&I uses reserve funds to “buy down” the often astronomical indicated rate to one more acceptable to businesses.

The business community supporting Initiative 1082 cried foul, arguing L&I is playing politics on the public’s dime by breaking with the agency’s long-standing tradition of providing employers with the workers’ comp rates they will pay the upcoming year on the eve of an election in which voters will have the opportunity to end L&I’s monopoly on workers’ comp. Business owners rely on the information to plan their company’s budget.

Senator Holmquist and Representative Condotta agreed with frustrated businesses and demanded L&I tell them the rates businesses would pay in 2011. Representative Condotta said, “you [L&I] have the numbers. You’ve done the work. You know what the rates are…I’d like those numbers.” Testifying before the legislative Committee, L&I Director Schurke responded, “we don’t have those numbers.”

Yet documents obtained via the public records request prove otherwise. The documents L&I handed over include a chart with the 2011 indicated rate clearly redacted. Also, I attended a meeting of the state's Mayors early this year where the Governor's Chief of Staff Jay Manning told us L&I would need a minimum of a 30 percent increase to remain solvent in 2011.

“Obviously Labor & Industries has known for months what the indicated rate is for 2011,” said Patrick Connor, NFIB/Washington State Director. “These new documents prove it,” he added. “L&I has been caught red-handed lying to the Legislature, and the only explanation is they are desperate to hide the indicated rate because it shows what we’ve said all along — a massive tax hike is coming.”

The lack of transparency and corrupt actions of L&I officials — lying during legislative testimony — is precisely why the business community overwhelmingly supports I-1082. The agency is clearly run amok and considers itself accountable to no one; not elected legislators, and certainly not taxpayers.

For more information on I-1082, visit www.SaveOurJobsWA.com and www.JobsNotLies.com.

A Constitutional Convention? A BAD Idea

2010-10-18T21:50:00.000-07:00

Today, I received the following in an email from several different people...

The Time Has Indeed Come!
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

An idea whose time has come!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform .. in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me.

Think about this...

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States "
You are one of my 20+. Keep it going.

MY OPINION...
While I understand the frustration which has spawned such passion, I believe this is a monumentally BAD idea — at least now...

The reason is simple — the socialists are in power. But more importantly, THEY are in control of the bureaucracy, NOT the politicians. And just in case you didn't know it, control of the bureaucracy is where the REAL power lies. To paraphrase Joseph Stalin, it isn't the people who vote that count, but the people who count the votes — as Dino Rossi found out firsthand in 2004. These unelected "public servants" are the day-to-day rulemakers, and its their decisions by which ALL our laws, from the most mundane things like traffic tickets, to land use — and everything in between — are interpreted and implemented.

A Constitutional Convention would open up the ENTIRE Constitution to being re-written, and would be the perfect opportunity for the socialists to DICTATE a new, ideologically-driven agenda for America. If you think Obama is bad, and disagree with what Congress has done, the opportunity for socialists to rewrite the constitution would be our worst nightmare. One election — even if the Republicans take power of both houses of Congress in November, isn't enough. They need to take control of the bureaucracy as well — and that isn't an election year change, but a total cultural shift, that will take YEARS — if not a generation or more — to accomplish. It won't happen in one election cycle, because politicians come and go with regularity. Look at the "Reagan Revolution," and look at where we are today

So while I wholeheartedly agree that Congress has vastly exceeded the boundaries our founding fathers intended, I think a more prudent course of action would be to continue to elect people who will change the system from within, because a Constitutional Convention anytime in the near future is a battle that America as we know it, will lose. It's one that will bring down the America we know, the America we want, and the America we want to become. It will change our nation beyond repair to where the entitlement mentality becomes embedded in our culture (much like France) even more so then it already has, and do away with all the things that have made this the greatest nation on earth.

New Policy on Comments

2010-10-16T17:27:00.000-07:00

I want all our readers to know that we now a new policy when it comes to commenting on posts here. You have the ability to register, or post anonymously. However, anonymous posters will have to sign their name to their comments — the same as you do to have a Letter to the Editor published. If you're going to comment, you're going to have to have the intestinal fortitude to sign your name to your opinions. It's just that simple.

What has made this necessary is the uncivilized, and purely vitriolic nature of some recent comments from people posting anonymously disagreeing with some the opinions expressed here. I believe that level of discourse is totally uncalled for, and the nature of any debate will be much more civilized if people have to actually sign their names to what they write.

I have a pretty thick skin — something necessary in the line of work I've spent most of my adult life doing — and it's grown even thicker since entering politics. So I can handle disagreement, and I can certainly hold my own in a debate. What I have no patience with is people who result to name calling, personal insults and threats when they can't make a rational argument to defend their dissenting opinion.

The catalyst for this change was the post about 26th District Senate candidate Marty McClendon's references to his son in his campaign. A number of posters felt I was wrong to express the opinion that I didn't mind him mentioning his son's leukemia, as I believe it gives people a sense of who and what Mr. McClendon is, and the challenges his family has faced, but felt he overplays it during Q&A interludes.

Disagreement is fine within the bounds of civility. And it wasn't even the vitriolic name calling, but threats against my family and our personal safety that got completely out of hand. Some of it was obviously driven by the fact I expressed the opinion that I believe McClendon isn't going to beat Senator Derek Kilmer. It seems most of the rudest name callers took more offense to that, then what I actually said about McClendon mentioning his son.

These same posters seemed to have completely ignored the statement in the second sentence of that post that those were my personal OBSERVATIONS about the PROBABLE outcomes — and they were NOT endorsements for any candidates. The truth is, some of the folks I'd personally like to see win, and think we'd all be better off if they did, probably won't, while I don't believe some incumbents I'd like to see defeated, will be.

So the bottom line is, from this point forward, if you want to disagree with me, that's fine, and debate is still openly welcomed. But you're going to have to demonstrate you have the the courage of your convictions, by simply signing your name. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

Political Sign Wars vs. Southern Women

2010-10-14T14:06:00.000-07:00

We just had an interesting new experience with a Democratic sign volunteer.

Those of you who know my wife Dee, know she is the model of decorum — the stereotypical Southern Belle. Besides being genteel and charming, she also possesses the same traits many Southern women are brought up with — the steel magnolia qualities of kindness, and good manners, coupled with confidence, and strength of character and spirit.

So a typical smug, self-righteous, Northwest liberal doesn't stand a chance against people like Dee — as one found out the hard way today.

For those of you unfamiliar with the location of the Wet Apple office, it's on one of the busiest corners in South Kitsap. Because of its visibility on a main thoroughfare and four corners with a stoplight, it's also a prime location for political signs. We have traditionally allowed candidates whom we support — and even some, but not all, we don't particularly like — to put up signs there, as long as they ASK. Ones who put them up without asking, quickly find out they are dispatched to our dumpster with some immediacy.

As Dee returned to the office from an appointment, she saw a volunteer for Sumner Schoenike — the Democratic candidate running for the 26th District House against Jan Angel — pounding a sign in on the corner. To be fair, Schoenike has asked a couple of times if he could put up a sign, and we have told him no.

Dee politely told this guy that he needed to remove it, which he initially refused to do. Dee told him again, in stronger terms, that he needed to not only remove the sign, but he needed to remove himself from our property as well. He started yelling at her, waving his hammer in a threatening way, and demanding to know why.

Dee stood firm, telling him we don't support Schoenike because he has made it very plain he strongly supports a state income tax, and like most small businesspeople, we don't. At that point, the guy started yelling even louder at her, saying he was a health care worker, and that if we didn't vote in an income tax, thousands of people were going to die. By now, people at the stoplight, were rolling down their windows to see why this guy was waving a hammer, and screaming at a woman who refused to be intimidated.

Long story short, by the time Dee finished with this guy — never raising her voice, and standing her ground — he had packed up his sign, his hammer, his attitude, and a Larry Seaquist sign, and was muttering to himself as he slinked away fuming, but with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. When Dee told me what happened, after I stopped laughing, I made it a point to call Larry and let him know who took his sign.

But I have to wonder if such an impolite moron actually learned a lesson about messing with Southern women, or if he was just glad to get away with his testicles still intact. And I hope Sumner Schoenike learns he needs to have more polite people volunteering for him, because this guy is doing him more harm than good.

Handicapping The Election

2010-10-04T23:19:00.000-07:00

With the general election only days away, I'm going to gaze into my admittedly cloudy crystal ball and make a few predictions on the outcome. Please understand these are NOT endorsements — either by me personally, or the Business Journal — but rather unscientific assessments of the candidate's chances, their campaigns, and how they will fare based on pragmatic observations of the economic climate, established voting patterns, and a whole lot of other factors — including gut feeling.

I have also updated some of the comments as new information has come to light, and will continue to do so as we get closer to election day if it's necessary.

U.S. Senate: This is one that could go either way. However, poll numbers show that Republican Dino Rossi is aggressively on the rise, and if he can raise enough money to get his message across on enough TV stations statewide, he could pull it off. Murray's blatantly dishonest TV ads, as noted in both S eattle Times and Tacoma New Tribune editorials, have worked against her as well. If Democratic incumbent Patty Murray does win, it will be by a slim margin.

U.S. Congress — 1st District: Democratic incumbent Jay Inslee will win in a district dominated by liberals. His challenger, James Watkins, is a fiscal conservative, but the bottom line is this is a heavily Democratic district, and unless there is a major philosophical revolt, the numbers are against him.

U.S. Congress — 6th District: Norm Dicks of course. Due to the state of the economy and the mood of the country, coupled with the president's policies and rapid shift to the left, perennial Republican candidate Doug Cloud probably has his best shot ever at Norm, but Dicks is still going to win , and win comfortably — although not by the usual huge margin he's used to. I'm sure Norm is paying attention to the message his constituents are sending him.

State House — 23rd District: Democratic incumbent Sherry Appleton has been AWOL from the campaign trail, but will still prevail. She has the benefit of incumbency, name familiarity, tons of state employee and other union and special interest money at her disposal, as well as her usual strong tribal support. Republican Pete DeBoer would make a terrific legislator — he's pragmatic, a successful businessman, and has government experience based on his years with the Port of Kingston. However, based on the sheer number of Democrats in that district, coupled with the traditional Democratic funding sources supporting Appleton, his chances of actually winning don't bode well for him. Too bad for Kitsap.

State House — 23rd District: Christine Rolfes will go back to Olympia for another term. If she had an actually credible opponent, she might have a fight on her hands. However her opponent, James Olson — AKA BainbridgeClearCut in the local blogs — has probably pissed off more people he hasn't even met then he actually knows personally.

State Senate — 26th District: Incumbent Senator Derek Kilmer will easily win. For the most part, he has voted the wishes of his constituents, including opposing the repeal of I-960 and the state budget. From a personal standpoint, let me say that Kilmer has been a terrific friend to the City of Port Orchard. His opponent, Republican Marty McClendon, has not shown a great grasp of the issues facing the 26th, the state, or much else. He speaks in non-specific sound bite platitudes, because when pressed for facts, he usually gets them wrong, and does it with an arrogant attitude besides. On another personal note, I've also found his blatant use of his young son's leukemia as a campaign sympathy grabber to be offensive. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, much less a child, and my heart goes out to the McClendon family for their strength of character in dealing with it. But this should remain a personal family issue.

State House — 26th District: Incumbent Jan Angel should return to Olympia in an easy victory. Based on what I've seen of her opponent, Democrat Sumner Schoenike, he appears to be an avid supporter of bigger state government and a state income tax to pay for it. That kind of thinking doesn't resonate too well in the 26th. Also, Schoenike hasn't shown a very good grasp of the issues facing the district because he hasn't lived there long enough to actually understand them.

State House — 26th District: This could go either way. Democratic incumbent Larry Seaquist has done a good job for the 26th, and like Kilmer, has voted the wishes of his district for the most part, opposing the budget and the repeal of I-960. And as a Democrat, he's also been a breath of fresh air about the ferry system and all that's wrong with it — including the stranglehold the unions have on it — a bold position for a Democrat. His opponent, Republican Doug Richards, is an engaging, likable, thoughtful, pragmatic challenger whose primary numbers are a rightful concern for Democrats. This race will be won or lost on the doorstep, depending on how many doors each candidate can knock on between now and election day.

State Senate — 35th District: Incumbent Tim Sheldon will win handily. Nothing more to say about it.

State House — 35th District: Democratic incumbent Fred Finn should win. He's done a good job, voting pragmatically and thoughtfully, usually doing what's right, as opposed to what the traditional Democratic constituencies that bankroll the party in a highly liberal district demand. His opponent, Linda Simpson, can work a crowd, and has lots of enthusiasm, but smacks of being way too close to the radical right for the voters in that district.

State House — 35th District: Republican challenger Dan Griffey will upset longtime incumbent Kathy Haigh in a fairly close matchup. Haigh has always voted with the liberal majority in the legislature and makes no apologies for it. She touts her support for education, and was bought and paid for by the teacher's union long ago. However, Griffey's message about fiscal responsibility and less regulation in a district decimated by environmental regulatory overkill relating to its main employer — the timber industry — and suffering some of the highest unemployment levels in the state, is resonating deeply.

Kitsap County Commissioner: Another one that could go either way. I personally work with incumbent Democrat Josh Brown on a number of local boards, and it's no secret that when he was elected, at 24 years old I didn't support him, and was in fact, very vocal in my non-support. That said, in working with him, while we don't always agree on things, I have found Josh to be a quick study, smart, pragmatic, and usually prepared for whatever is coming his way. His challenger, Abby Burlingame, who spent time on the staff of the Washington Policy Center, is also very smart, personable, quick on her feet, and not afraid to reach out when she needs help and/or information. At 31, she has both business experience and what seems like an extraordinary amount of common sense. Bottom line: Kitsap isn't going to get hurt no matter who wins this one.

Kitsap County Prosecutor: Democratic incumbent Russ Hague will win re-election over challenger Bruce Danielson in a squeaker. The legal establishment has closed ranks behind Hague — in spite of his self-inflicted shotgun blast to the foot over the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club lawsuit. To many voters, that suit has all the appearances of a personal vendetta against a constitutionally-savvy non-lawyer who has kicked Hague's ass in court three times in the past decade. But in spite of the thousands of local gun owners who view this as nothing more than a personal vendetta, the shear number of local Democrats will pull it out for the incumbent.

Kitsap County Coroner: Republican Greg Sandstrom should win easily. There's no reason to make a change, and most voters are pretty apathetic about this anyway.

I will handicap the ballot initiatives in a separate post in the next couple of days

Ed cetera | Patty on Dino on Boeing | Seattle Times Newspaper

2010-09-28T12:56:00.000-07:00

Ed cetera | Patty on Dino on Boeing | Seattle Times Newspaper

I think this is well worth reading. It is this kind of negative and disingenuous campaigning that has people rightfully turned off and pissed off at our election process.

Obama At The Bat

2010-09-27T20:33:00.000-07:00

No matter what your political persuasion, if you're a baseball fan — or a fan of literature — you have to appreciate this.

Getting The Story Straight About The Housing Authority Mess

2010-09-26T13:08:00.000-07:00

It's no big secret the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority — now known as HousingKitsap — was in a huge financial mess due to gross mismanagement, and its ill-advised foray into urban redevelopment with the Harborside condos in downtown Bremerton.

While the Kitsap Sun has followed this story for several years now, it seemingly intentionally leaves out one HUGE piece of information from each and every negative story it runs about the agency — feeding all the negative comments left on its blogs as a result of that abdication of journalistic responsibility. That is, that NO ONE on the current board — or even the previous board members who took office since the 2006 election — were involved in creating the problem the agency faced. Nor were any of the current management or staff. This was an inherited problem, newly elected officials had to solve.

The current board, made up of the County Commissioners, the Mayors of Port Orchard and Poulsbo, a representative of the Bainbridge Island City Council, and a tenant from one of the Housing Authority's properties, have all worked tirelessly, in concert with a new financial director (who came from the private sector) and the new executive director, to figure out exactly where the agency was at financially, and do the necessary work to turn it around.

The County Commissioners stepped up and guaranteed a loan (they didn't make one with taxpayer's money) to the agency to keep the doors open. The agency has steadily been retiring that debt through the sale of the Harborside condos, other properties, and actual return on investment. None of this mess has yet to cost the taxpayers one thin dime. The turnaround has been done through prudent financial management on the part of the board and staff, and wlll be complete with the sale of the agency's Norm Dicks Government Center holdings.

There are still future challenges to deal with, and more debt coming due. But there is a plan in place to retire that debt.

Meanwhile, uninformed commenters who don't have the intestinal fortitude to even sign their names to their vitriol, are allowed to repeatedly take cheap shots at people who have spent almost 2 years working hard to rescue an agency that is often the stopgap between a roof over their head or homelessness for many families. Yet the Sun refuses to tell THAT story and give credit where it is due. But if they did, it might reduce the amount of blog posters who feed off of each others negativity, which would reduce the paper's ability to generate website revenue.

Our community deserves better from our daily paper.

Steve Wynn On The Status Of America

2010-09-12T21:49:00.000-07:00

Multi-billionaire Casino Owner, Hotelier and Real Estate Investor in Las Vegas, Asia, and Macau, Steve Wynn, explains in the most simplistic terms, the state of America. This originally aired on CNBC, and within two hours of its airing, Wynn received a invitation from the tenants at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, wanting him to explain in person why he said what he did.

Wynn has been a guest from time to time on all the network financial news shows. If you watch this short and to the point interview, and nothing else today, you will still be better informed than your neighbor about the state of our union. BTW, there is a short commercial at the beginning

Who REALLY represents Small Business?

2010-09-06T10:01:00.000-07:00

Campaign finance reports on I-1082 tell the TRUE story

The No on I-1082 campaign has aggressively taken its intentionally deceitful “we represent small business” dog and pony show on the road with press conferences showcasing a local business owner opposing I-1082. It also has a systematic email disinformation campaign underway as well, using what I call the "Industry a Day" strategy. They have developed email lists of businesses in each industry and email them their propaganda, trotting out a supposed business owner who opposes ending the state’s monopoly on workers’ comp insurance.

We first became aware of this when we received a email from someone identified as Alex Fryer from the Vote No on 1082 campaign, telling me why the measure was bad for newspapers. Then, because we're a news media outlet, we continued receiving the same email, only where it previously said, "newspapers," it now said "nursing homes," and the next day, "restaurants and taverns," and then "retailers," and on and on.

Then we began receiving more deliberate disinformation from the No campaign from someone identified as Kelly Evans, bashing the insurance industry, saying how, "I-1082 would allow workers' comp insurers to gain exorbitant profits at the expense of Washington state workers, small businesses, and taxpayers — by jacking up premiums and delaying or denying legitimate claims, with little or no public oversight."

It doesn't cite any specific proof of that — nor can it. It's little more than a scare tactic, and another version of the Democratic Party's tried and true, yet pathetic, old, "Us Against Them" class warfare strategy. They also fail to mention that insurance companies providing Worker's Comp insurance would be subject to direct oversight by the notoriously anti-business Mike Kriedler, the state's Insurance Commissioner.

It went on to say, "We've launched a grassroots campaign to stand up to the insurance industry and defeat I-1082 — alongside Washington teachers, firefighters, and nurses — but we need your support to prevail."

What a huge load of crap.

We are one of only four states that don't allow private sector insurance companies to compete for Worker's Comp business — and also have the dubious distinction of having nearly the highest Worker's Comp costs in the nation. A coincidence? I think not.

Meanwhile, the dozens of business groups that actually represent small business, have endorsed the measure that will allow private insurers to compete with the state to offer workers’ compensation. The fact of the matter is that not one business owner has contributed to the No on I-1082 campaign. In contrast, hundreds of business owners have sent checks supporting I-1082.

This is a simple case of following the money. The trail of dollars supporting the No on I-1082 campaign leads directly to labor unions — and especially those representing state employees — and trial lawyers. And who stands to benefit the most by preserving the status quo? You guessed it — state employees who will continue to keep their high-paying, taxpayer funded, jobs, and trail lawyers who make their living suing the state.

“The No on I-1082 campaign’s attempt to paint itself as representing small businesses is laughable,” said Patrick Connor, the Washington State Director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), a key supporter of I-1082. “The campaign finance reports tell the real story — hundreds of small businesses have opened their wallets and contributed to the YES on I-1082 campaign, and not one has contributed to the opposition effort,” said Connor. “The only support for the No campaign is from labor and lawyers.”

The fact is I-1082 has been endorsed by virtually every business group in the state — the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Association of Washington Business, (AWB), Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Roundtable, numerous Chambers of Commerce and many, many more. But misrepresenting itself as the voice of the state’s small businesses isn’t the No campaign’s only strategy to mislead voters.

The No campaign’s propaganda machine has generated a steady stream of lies to convince voters to reject I-1082. The Yes on I-1082 campaign’s Truth Squad has created a rapid response website devoted solely to debunking the opposition’s campaign of mistruths. Want the truth on I-1082? Visit www.JobsNotLies.com and get the true facts.

A Washington State Smear Campaign

2010-09-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: This story originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal)

A trial lawyer's familiar attempt to bring down Republican Senate candidate Dino Rossi.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Desperate political environments tend to inspire desperate political tactics. In Washington state, liberal activists are desperate.

Republican Dino Rossi is seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. It's a high-stakes race. If this fall shapes up as a wave election, Mr. Rossi could find himself the 51st vote Republicans would need to take back the Senate. And now that he's leading in some polls, the left is unleashing the dirty tricks.

Meet activist trial lawyer Knoll Lowney The attorney is at the center of Washington's liberal circle—tight with green activists, labor outfits and Democrats. The self-acclaimed promoter of "social justice issues" can often be found filing environmental suits, and is one of the actors behind Washington's initiative 1098, which this fall will seek to impose an income tax on the state's most productive earners. But Mr. Lowney's real love is costing Mr. Rossi elections.

Republican senatorial candidate Dino Rossi shakes hands with a supporter during an evening gathering to await election returns from Washington state's primary election day, Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2010, in Bellevue, Wash.

His main vehicle for attack is the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), a trade group. In a state largely characterized by a progressive (i.e., self-loathing) business community, BIAW has proved the main counterweight to Washington's labor and environmental groups. The trade group proudly supports free-market candidates for office, acts of free-speech that Washington's liberal community find highly offensive.

Most offensive was when, with BIAW support, Mr. Rossi, a successful businessman, nearly won the 2004 gubernatorial election against Christine Gregoire (losing only after a recount found he'd come up short by 129 votes). When a 2008 rematch became likely, Democrats set to work attacking Mr. Rossi's character. When even this didn't dim Mr. Rossi's prospects, Mr. Lowney sharpened his pencils.

He filed a lawsuit in 2007, arguing that BIAW was inappropriately using workers-comp money to fund political campaigns. Mr. Lowney's convenient demand? That the judge immediately bar the BIAW from accessing money it might use for Mr. Rossi's campaign. When the judge denied that request, in September 2008, Mr. Lowney immediately filed another suit against BIAW claiming Mr. Rossi and the trade group had improperly colluded on campaign activity.

On this basis, Mr. Lowney convinced a judge to allow him to depose Mr. Rossi—eight days before the 2008 election. Mr. Rossi arrived at the Lowney deposition to a swarm of cameras, and the spectacle was enough to sow doubt in voters' minds. True, 2008 was a bad year for Republicans—but the deposition certainly played a role in Mr. Rossi's defeat. The Lowney team, at the time, claimed it needed the deposition immediately so it could file for "emergency" injunctive relief. The lawyers never did, of course, and after Mr. Rossi lost, the lawsuit disappeared. Even the Seattle Times was moved to editorialize that the Lowney deposition was a "farce" and "baldly political."

Now, some 21 months later, and only after Mr. Rossi declared for the Senate, Mr. Lowney has rediscovered his case. The lawyer recently sent a process server with a subpoena, not to the proper representative of Mr. Rossi's former gubernatorial campaign but to Mr. Rossi's personal home—twice—the week before the August Senate primary. This subpoena, demanding yet more documents—from 2008 and 2004—comes despite the fact that the state campaign agency, the Public Disclosure Commission, conducted an exhaustive investigation into the Rossi allegations, and in March of this year fully exonerated the Senate candidate.

We're now about to discover whether Washington's judicial system will again be abused for politics. Washingtonians should watch this one. The judge overseeing Mr. Lowney's resurrected suit is Mike Heavey, a former Democratic state senator who was appointed to the court by former Gov. Gary Locke (now President Obama's secretary of commerce). Judge Heavey's brother-in-law was once the president of the state's largest labor organization.

In a telephone conversation yesterday, Mr. Lowney took issue with headlines declaring Mr. Rossi "exonerated" by the state commission, saying the body instead "didn't have the information to prosecute." As for the timing, he says he was waiting for the government to conclude its investigation. (The commission cleared Mr. Rossi in March.) Mr. Lowney said this is "not a campaign issue, it's a prosecution," and moreover that he didn't think it was "appropriate" to be "litigating it in the press."

BIAW Executive Vice President Tom McCabe says, "This is all about using the legal process as a means to attack a political opponent." The Rossi campaign referred me to Mr. Rossi's lawyer's recent response to the court, which objects to the subpoena as an "improper, politically-motivated effort to employ the Court system for political purposes."

To his credit, Judge Heavey has pushed the court date — which had originally been set for the first day of November — to after the election. There is no telling what Mr. Lowney will ask for in the meantime. But no one should be surprised when he asks for it.

Republicans have biggest lead ever on question of which party voters would support for Congress, poll shows

2010-08-31T07:12:00.000-07:00

By Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Pollsters offered some more glum news for Democrats on Monday night: Republicans have their biggest lead ever on the question of which party voters would support for Congress. Gallup's "generic ballot" - a staple of election prognostication - shows Republicans with a double-digit advantage.

In the latest Gallup polling, 51 percent of registered voters say they would vote for the GOP candidate in their district if the election were held today; 41 percent say they would support the Democrat. That represents the biggest such lead for the Republicans in Gallup polls back to 1942, and it marks the fourth straight week they have had the edge on the Democrats, who are seeking to retain control of the House and Senate.

Before this year, the largest-ever GOP lead in Gallup polls was five points. That occurred in 1994 and 2002, both years in which Republicans picked up significant numbers of congressional seats.

If history holds, this Republican advantage will increase once Gallup and other pollsters switch to measuring likely voters from registered to vote. Election analysts typically narrow their focus as Election Day nears to those most likely to vote, and registered Republicans are often more likely to vote than those who are signed up as Democrats.

Democrats have led on the Gallup generic ballot this year, and might again as voters start to pay closer attention to the campaigns after Labor Day - the traditional start of the election homestretch.

Today You Finally Start Working For Yourself

2010-08-29T21:25:00.003-07:00

The typical worker in Washington State must put in more than two-thirds of the year — 241 days — to pay his or her share of the expenses of all levels — local, state and federal — government. Those 241 work days include funding all the various regulatory burdens as well.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, August 29, is the day this year the average Washingtonian stopped working to fund the enormous cost government. Because of Washington’s excessive amount of taxation and regulation, Cost of Government Day (COGD) is actually 10 days later than the national date of August 19. That has also given the state the dubious distinction of dropping one spot from last year— to 46th place — the fifth latest in the country.

Olympia has abandoned the Priorities of Government approach to budgeting in favor of the tax-and-spend method, so our state’s poor showing shouldn’t come as a surprise. However, being in perpetual crisis mode means taxpayers always end up paying the price, as we saw last year when the Legislature approved $552 million in new taxes and fees. The cost of state government has been far outpacing inflation and population growth, with the reason for the increase resting firmly on the shoulders of the Democratically-controlled state legislature, which even in this floundering economy, thought it was a great idea to increase total state spending again this year. Total state spending this biennium increased $4.2 billion, to is $72.7 billion — compared to $68.5 billion in the 2007-09 biennium.

Has the tax and spend approach, coupled with the onerous explosion in taxes, fees, spending, and regulations worked for Washington? Not exactly. Next year’s state budget deficit is estimated at $3 billion — and growing —and is estimated to end up being closer to $4 or $5 billion.

So when will next year’s Cost of Government Day fall? It’s probably too soon to tell, but November’s vote on Initiative 1098 — the proposed state income tax on “high earners” — could be an interesting indicator. According to the Governor’s budget office, the proposed income tax would bring in more than $11 billion over five years, starting in 2012. However, not only would I-1098 raise taxes on “the rich,” but estimates by the Office of Financial Management indicate implementing an income tax would cost $50 million a year or more, and create a costly new bureaucracy — meaning more than 500 new state employees in addition to the 8,000+ new ones already hired under Governor Christine Gregoire.

Online Ranters Increasingly Pay a Price

2010-08-28T09:08:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: I found this story in the Seattle Times, but I thought it was a good follow on piece to our poll on whether or not online posters on local newspaper sites should have to identify themselves. For awhile now, I’ve wondered why our local daily newspaper allows people to comment on online stories and blog posts using pseudonyms — nicknames and false identities (and I suspect some use more than one) — while absolutely requiring a verifiable name, address and phone number to have a Letter to the Editor published. Is there a difference between these, except for the immediacy of the media, that I’m missing? Many of those posters usually don’t allow actual facts to get in the way of their “informed” opinions, with conversation often quickly degenerating into vitriolic cheap shot insults between posters. In my view, if these gutless wonders had to actually identify themselves, the discourse would quickly be elevated to a much more civil and respectful level.)

The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers, but has also led to a surge in lawsuits

By David G. Savage

Tribune Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

"It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet," said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

While bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found they are not protected from lawsuits, even if comments are anonymous. Some postings have led to criminal charges.

Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges "deserve to be killed" for having rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the city's handgun ban in 2009.

Turner, who also ran a Web-based radio show, believed it "was political trash talk," his lawyer said. But a jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., this month convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In western Pennsylvania, a judge recently ruled a community website must identify the Internet address of individuals who posted comments calling a township official a "jerk" who put money from the taxpayers in "his pocket." The official also owned a used-car dealership, and one commenter called his cars "junk." The official sued for defamation, saying the comments were false and damaged his reputation.

In April, a North Carolina county official won a similar ruling after anonymous bloggers on a local website called him a slumlord.

"Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online," said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University in California. "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks.' "

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for outsiders' comments. However, they can be forced to reveal the poster's identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

Calling someone a "jerk" and a "buffoon" may be safe from a lawsuit because it states an opinion. Saying he wrongly "pocketed" public money could lead to a defamation claim because it asserts something as a fact.

Seattletimes.com, like many news websites, promises to safeguard the privacy of users — including those submitting comments — by not releasing personally identifiable information to third parties. But The Seattle Times makes exceptions when public safety is at stake or when compelled to disclose user identities by law-enforcement authorities.

The Supreme Court has said the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech includes the right to publish "anonymous" pamphlets. But judges have been saying that online speakers do not always have a right to remain anonymous.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld a Nevada judge's order requiring disclosure of the identities of three people accused of conducting an "Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings" against Quixtar, successor to the well-known Amway.

"The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote.

Quixtar had sued, contending the postings were damaging to its business. The judge who first ordered the disclosure said the Internet had "great potential for irresponsible, malicious and harmful communication." Moreover, the "speed and power of Internet technology makes it difficult for the truth to 'catch up to the lie,' " he wrote.

Media-law experts say such lawsuits are hard to track because many arise from local disputes and rarely result in large verdicts or lengthy appeals.

Goldman, the Santa Clara professor, describes these cases as the "thin-skinned plaintiff versus the griper." They begin with someone who goes online to complain, perhaps about a restaurant, a contractor, a store, a former boss or a public official. One person's complaint sometimes prompts others to vent with even sharper, harsher complaints.

"There's a false sense of safety on the Internet," said Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. "If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment" before posting a comment, she said.

Not surprisingly, the target of online complaints may believe he or she has no choice but to take legal action.

"These can be life-changing lawsuits," Goldman said. "They can go on for years and cost enormous amounts in legal fees."

He is particularly concerned about teenagers and what they post online. "Teenagers do what you might expect: They say things they shouldn't say. They do stupid things," he said. "We don't have a legal standard for defamation that excuses kids."

Media-law experts repeat the advice that bloggers and e-mailers need to think twice before sending a message. "Before you speak ill of anyone online," Baron said, "you should think hard before pressing the 'send' button."

Publish Post

Seattle Times staff contributed to this report

A Shining Example Of Why Republicans Can't Win An Election

2010-08-23T21:47:00.000-07:00

While I didn’t vote for him, I admired Clint Didier’s election night comment when asked if after losing, he’d support Dino Rossi.

He answered, that when he played football for the Washington Redskins, fans had a saying, “I’m rooting for the Redskins, and whoever is playing the Dallas Cowboys.” Didier said he felt the same way about the Republicans and Patty Murray.

I lost all respect for Didier when he hypocritically tried to blackmail Rossi into agreeing to certain conditions to secure his endorsement — and supposedly the votes of his supporters. Does that mean Didier’s supporters will vote for Patty Murray — or not vote at all — if Rossi doesn’t agree?

The bottom line — in football terms — is that you don't get to call the plays after you lose the Super Bowl.

In my view that kind of crap is exactly why the Republicans can’t win an election. Enough of them believe it's more important to win an argument that's relatively unimportant in the overall, "big picture" scheme of things, than it is to win an election.

Should Blog Posters Have To Use Their Real Names?

2010-08-23T05:51:00.000-07:00

I've been wondering why our local daily newspaper allows people to comment on online stories and blog posts using pseudonyms - nicknames and false identities (and I suspect some use more than one), while absolutely requiring a verifiable name, address and phone number to have a Letter to the Editor published. Is there a difference between these, except for the immediacy of the media, that I'm missing?

Many of those posters usually don't allow actual facts to get in the way of their “informed” opinions. The vitriolic comments from the story about the twin towers beams arriving in Silverdale are typical, with conversation quickly degenerating into cheap shot insults between posters. In my view, if these gutless wonders had to actually identify themselves, the level of discourse would be elevated to a much more civil level.

10 Key Reasons The Obama Presdency is a Meltdown

2010-08-13T21:56:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: I have often posted things here from the foreign press, noting how they view our nation, our foreign policy, our politics, and our leadership. When it comes to the foreign press being critical of President Barack Obama, liberal Democrats are quick to come to his defense and publicly vilify me for calling attention to how we are viewed by the press in other countries. It seems that exposing our readers to anything but the party line is patently offensive to them, and as prescribed in the Saul Alinsky manual, they immediately go the attack. I apologize for offending their sensibilities, but it is what it is. I don't write this stuff, I just share points of view these folks aren't likely to find on MSNBC or CNN. — or even Fox News. Perhaps if they were actually willing to open their minds enough to allow diverse opinions to penetrate, they would become somewhat more pragmatic. This particular piece is from the London Telegraph — not particularly renown worldwide as a bastion of conservative thinking. Judge for yourself.)

By Nile Gardener
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire

On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

Interesting Observation...

2010-08-08T12:08:00.000-07:00

This was originally published in Australian Shooter Magazine

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 percent more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US than you are in Iraq.

CONCLUSION: The US should pull out of Washington.

How did Thomas Jefferson Know?

2010-08-04T21:13:00.000-07:00

(Editor's Note: The link of Jefferson's name will take you to the source of the quote)

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

A Couple of Powerful Videos...

2010-08-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

This is a video I saw posted on Facebook. It's by the Republican Governor's Association, but no matter what your political preference, it's definitely food for thought...

You can watch it here.

Also, I've never been a fan of the band KISS, but this is a great tribute to our troops. It was filmed on a Marine base in Iraq during a USO tour.

You can watch it here.

If The Shoe Fits...

2010-08-01T00:19:00.000-07:00

Taxpayers File Suit To Invalidate Gregoire's Climate Change Order

2010-07-21T11:14:00.001-07:00

A group of six taxpayers has filed a lawsuit to invalidate an executive order issued by Gov. Chris Gregoire last year.

“We believe Gov. Gregoire’s climate change executive order is an unconstitutional order,” said Michael Reitz, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center, who represents the taxpayers in this case. “Gov. Gregoire violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. If the governor wants to pass laws, she’s in the wrong branch of government.”

During the 2009 legislative session, the Washington State Legislature considered a bill from Gov. Gregoire that addressed climate change issues. Despite vocal support from the governor, SB 5735 did not pass out of the Legislature.

Undeterred, on May 21, 2009, Gov. Gregoire issued Executive Order 09-05, entitled “Washington’s Leadership on Climate Change,” ordering the Departments of Ecology and Transportation to take action to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions and increase transportation and fuel-conservation options. In a press release the governor claimed the executive order would produce environmental and economic benefits: “It will protect our natural resources, while creating thousands of green-collar jobs and strengthening our state’s competitiveness in the global race for a clean energy economy.

Gov. Gregoire stressed that Executive Order 09-05 was intended to replace her failed legislation. At her press conference, Gregoire said, “What we’ve done in the executive order is everything that was in that final bill — plus. Plus. There’s more in the executive order than what was in the final bill that did not pass the Legislature.”

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation and its clients argue Gov. Gregoire lacks authority to take the actions described in the order. “Governors are free to issue executive orders, but the order is enforceable only if the governor is expressly empowered by the constitution or by statute,” Reitz said. “For example, state law permits the governor to declare a state of emergency after a natural disaster. All other executive orders are mere policy statements or voluntary directives to state agencies and are considered unenforceable.”

Reitz continued: “We have democratic process for a reason. The people of this state expect their lawmakers and elected officials to follow the law just like anyone else. The governor shouldn’t bypass the Legislature, regardless of her objectives.”

The individual taxpayers suing the governor are Dr. Sterling A. Hill of Kent, Pat and Sandy Tarzwell of Shelton, Cindy Marshall of Otis Orchards, Matt Erickson of Wenatchee and Jim Wolfe of Pasco.

The complaint was filed in Thurston County Superior Court.

Brilliant Man Gives Obama Rant

2010-07-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

It's takes a minute to get into his speech pattern, but this guy is right on the money — especially about the Democrat's and their pathetic class warfare strategy that has worked so well for so long.

Watch it here.

The Plan To Build a Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-07-10T16:38:00.000-07:00

Plans have been announced to build an Islamic Mosque on the site of Ground Zero in New York City. This should anger every American with any sense, and with any pride.

Pat Condell is a British stand-up comedian, who puts it into perspective. This Video isn't comic, but pure truth, and utterly brilliant. It's well worth 6 minutes of your time.

The Commander in Chief and the General

2010-07-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

Obama: "Listen Stan, just because you graduated from West Point, have 33 years of military experience, and real leadership abilities, became a 4-Star General making life and death decisions daily, doesn't mean you know anything about how to fight a war and defeat an enemy. So just do what I say, Ok?"

The General and the Community Organizer

2010-07-05T08:52:00.001-07:00

(Editor's Note: This was sent to me by a friend, and I thought it was provocative enough to share. While it mirrors my belief that General Stanley McChrystal knew exactly what he was doing when he gave that fateful interview to Rolling Stone, my reasons for thinking so differ from the author's. The author is a fairly well-known conservative writer, a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He may be reached at PaulHollrah@aol.com. The original article was published here.)

By Paul R. Hollrah

June 24, 2010

Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal's top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong — dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.

The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days.

In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was "very aware" that his comments would find their way into print. He said, "McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record." Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.

As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked "Uncomfortable and Intimidated" by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was "A 10-minute Photo-op." He went on to say, "Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are.

General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots — graduates of West Point and other fine universities — who are dedicated to 'Duty, Honor, and Country.' To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic — at the very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension.

I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing.

From the day that he became the handpicked "Spear carrier" for Obama's unique brand of warfare — playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency — McChrystal's life had been one of constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

The Obama team insisted on new "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening.

Under Obama's politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.

But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the Officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the ''Courageous Restraint Medal'' and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.

I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he'd had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back — to make the most of a bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him.

They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully.

They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.

During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices — both bad. He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.

In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual — a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options.

But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services — from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star Generals and Admirals.

That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted.

From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a — community organizer. Well done, General!

Liberals 12-Step Recovery Program

2010-07-01T20:49:00.001-07:00

(Editor's Note: A friend sent me this, and I thought it was funny enough to post. So no matter what political persuasion you are — liberal or conservative — hopefully it will bring a smile to your face. I know the conservatives are smugly grinning, but hopefully, the liberals have enough of a sense of humor to laugh at themselves a little as well.)

Are you troubled by liberalism? Not sure why your brain works the way it does? Fear not!

Join Liberals Anonymous and recover your brain with this quick and easy 12-step program:

Step 1: Admit that you're a liberal.

This is the first step for every liberal on the way to recovery. It is important to understand that you're not "moderate" or "enlightened."

You're a liberal, and you need to be honest with yourself about that fact.

Step 2: Pledge to support your beliefs with facts.

Realize that truth is more important than moral superiority and is the only way to come over to reality. You must research beyond propaganda from the Sierra Club, Hillary Clinton, Obama, MSNBC and CNN to understand things as they really exist in the world. You can no longer argue based on "feelings" or emotions. You will actually need to back up your arguments with real, accurate, and true facts. This is a difficult step because it means you can't be lazy with the truth and actutal accuracy any more.

Step 3: Love America.

This may be the most difficult step for those of you who are terrified of being envied by those who hate America for its freedom and prosperity. Admitting that America actually stands as a beacon to defend freedom throughout the world, rather than deserving of hate may make some of you physically ill. You might want to make a visit to a military cemetery to better understand that these men and women gave their lives so that you could apologize for your country's existence. Stop apologizing to every one envious of America, and start loving America and our Constitution.

Step 4: Take a college level economics class.

A Socialist is defined as someone who's never taken an economics class. Most Socialists have a hard time balancing their checkbooks, let alone explaining the simple concept of supply-and-demand. It's time to flush your complete ignorance of basic economics down the toilet and understand how the world actually functions. This concept will be very important for the next steps that involve communism, facts about corporations, and the inefficiencies of government.

Step 5: Just say "NO" to Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism and Stateism.

While this concept is obvious to most of the free world, it is an important step in your recovery process. If you have difficulty with this step, spend a month living and working in Cuba.

Step 6: Corporations are not evil.

If you're reading this article on-line or in an email, it's thanks to a corporation. If you get some kind of paycheck, you can thank corporations. If you work for a nonprofit or the government, you still have to thank corporations, because the nonprofit sector and the government wouldn't have any money to pay you without them. It is also very important that you understand that making a profit doesn't equate to "greed" or exploitation. Capitalism has created the greatest society in our world's history. Even communist countries need corporations to survive... so enjoy a nice, hot cup of corporate reality.

Step 7: The government is inefficient.

If you are one of those liberals who believe the government should tax us more in order to take care of society, you need to pay special attention to this step. You need to realize that government bureaucracy will waste most of your tax dollars, while the private sector will put your money to much better, more efficent use. Even most Democratic politicians understand this to some degree, and come to them for campaign donations and which is why Hillary's socialist healthcare proposal was voted down by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Go to your local post office, or call the IRS to ask a tax question if you need a reminder about government inefficiency.

Step 8: The earth is not your "Mother," and she's not dying.

The time has now come to stop your donations to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, Futurewise, and every other EnviroNazi organization to which you belong. Face the reality that the earth, society and our environment are better off today than ever in recorded history and that they are continuing to improve. Many of you tree huggers will have a very difficult time letting go of the Douglas Fir on this one. Reading The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg will help. Mr. Lomborg is a former member of Greenpeace and is currently a statistics professor at a university in Denmark. He set out to prove the world was in bad shape and ended up surprising himself by proving the exact opposite.

Step 9: Stop smoking weed.

Okay, some of you might need to enter another 12-step program to complete this step. Marijuana is distorting your sense of reality, and you need to stop using it. Besides, you'll save a fortune on munchies, and lose some weight too.

Step 10: Eat a hamburger.

If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. You can put your sprouts and tofu on the hamburger, but get some meat into you. You'll look and feel better than you ever imagined. Remember that "vegetarian" is a Sioux Indian word meaning "bad hunter."

Step 11: Stop re-writing political history... (revisionist history is evil. Be honest and accurate, especially about history... American and world history)

It's now time to admit that Bill Clinton is a lying-cheating-sexist-racist-rapist jackass, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst role models for women in this country, Al Gore is full of crap about global warming and really did lose the 2000 election by every vote tabulation you attempt, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War and didn't create the homeless problem, John McCain is not a typical Republican, and Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite with one of the worst presidential records of any President in history.

Step 12: Be a missionary.

Once you have completed the previous steps to overcoming liberalism, it's time for you to share this awakening with others who are not as fortunate. Go out amongst the liberal sheep and spread the good word of your freedom from the chains of ignorance and the fear of being envied that once bound you.

Congratulations, and Welcome to Reality!

The Issue Is Blatant Waste Governor...

2010-06-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

KING 5 News has been running an investigative series on waste in the Ferry System almost daily for the past several months. It’s carefully documented numerous outrageous abuses, including employees being paid to travel to and from work, being paid triple time, and taxpayers providing double housing for employees who work in the San Juans. It also exposed the fact Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond replaced one of management's sharpest negotiators because the ferry unions demanded it.

Recently, reporter Susannah Frame sat down with Governor Christine Gregoire to discuss the situation. The Governor stated flat out that she was aware of the series, but hadn’t taken the time to actually watch any of it.

So when presented with the facts, did Gregoire acknowledge any of the problems? Of course not. Instead, she attempted to misdirect the conversation by asking if Frame had found anything illegal. She then arrogantly postured that Ferries Director David Moseley and Hammond have saved the state $33 million in the past few years — to which Frame, to her credit, reminded Gregoire that the issue is blatant waste and abuse.

If this is what passes for “leadership” in Olympia, is it any wonder our state is broke?