Monday, April 25, 2011

So, the two state morons came down here to pick the bridge to shove down our throats: but the CPA's know better.

The clown of the state of Washington and the clown of the state of Oregon decided what bridge design they're going to use to ram down our throats... but of course, neither one of those two idiots will ever have to pay the toll they're foisting on us to get this thing built.

There are others... even in Oregon, who see how screwed up the numbers are for this unneeded, unwanted and unneccesary waste of billions of dollars to entend loot rail about 5 feet into Vancouver,  Steve Duin breaks it down with a reality check that our local kitty litter box liner wouldn't be caught dead publishing... because as the Jacks debacle shows, facts have no place in their universe when they get in the way of the agenda.

The CPAs see the crock in the Columbia River Crossing

Published: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 10:00 AM
At the 2011 Legislature, there's no doubt where labor and the public employee unions stand on the Columbia River Crossing.

Twenty-thousand jobs, baby. Bring it on.

Big business and the transportation departments of Oregon and Washington? They're competing for head cheerleader.

Gov. John Kitzhaber? He dropped the project in the lap of Patricia McCaig, his campaign manager, whose company has already reaped $130,000 in consulting fees. Full speed ahead.

But the Legislature's two certified public accountants?

They're waving red flags and setting off flares.

"I'm a freshman legislator," says Rep. Katie Brewer, R-Hillsboro, "but I'm not a freshman CPA." And to sign on to House Joint Memorial 22, which begs the feds to throw another $1.25 billion at the project, Brewer said, "would be practicing legislative malpractice. I'm not willing to do that."

Neither is Sen. Chris Telfer, R-Bend. "There's no one in the world who should lend money (based) on the information we have," said Telfer, who has a 26-year career as a CPA.

"We don't have a bill. We don't have a project. We don't have a way to pay it back."
Then slime just pours off the pair of them as it does any "local community leader" that will not fight to the last breath to allow a county-wide vote on this abortion.

And, of course, you know damned well you'll never read this in the democratian.

1 comment:

  1. The arguments against large transportation projects have been the same throughout history.
    (1) Cost too much.
    (2) Don't need it.
    (3) Another solution.

    I'm a CPA, and I support CRC. That's not to say that the old arguments don't apply, they do, but the past dictates the future and transportation is the number one ingredient of a robust economy. Since we can't get what we want then I want what we can afford, and the bridge design chosen is workable and not extravagant in any way.

    The other $2 billion in "improvements" are still open to debate but the ~$1 billion bridge passes muster. Light rail will live or die at the 2012 maintenance vote, assuming Jim Moeller lives up to his promise.

    Fighting this project one piece at a time (bridge, improvements, light rail) could be very beneficial - maybe not ideal but a workable compromise.