.
Google, who owns blogger, has screwed up big time and done yeoman's work in driving business to Wordpress.
Posts have disappeared, although we're assured they will reappear, and they've been down for 18 hours or so.
I'll be waiting until the dust settles, but posts are coming on the following:
Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's promotion to scumbag.
More political gamesmanship by Ridgefield Barbie.
Blasting The Liar for his baseball stadium scam.
Holding the little weasel accountable for bailing on an interview over his cowardice in defending his efforts to keep us from voting on the horrific, unnecessary and unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail scam.
These and others will be going up, but only after full functionality is restored by google.
I will also be setting up a wordpress account and gradually moving my stuff over there.
Expect the posting to resume later today.
.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Well, at least we're not Oregon: Perfectly Legal - How one lawmaker uses campaign money to subsidize his mortgage, pay his bar tabs and explore Canada.
.
All three states on the left coast have some commonalities: first, we share a coast. Second, we're fringe-left dominated by democrats. And third, we're all fiscal train wrecks of states.
These facts are depressing. For me, that we're all suffering from leftist legislatures and veering toward the inevitable Detroit-like outcome can do that since concepts like accountability and self-reliance are as foreign as Sanskrit to most of those who vote leftists in.
That is not necessarily to say that voting for the right can be any better. The GOP has had their chance and blown it big time, once again falling prey to the truism that "out-democrating democrats" is not a formula for political success.
Of the three states on the West Coast, I do take some small measure of comfort from the fact that, well, at least we're not Oregon.
We don't have a prison convict football team (yet) at any of our universities.
And we don't have legislative scum like this criminal:
All three states on the left coast have some commonalities: first, we share a coast. Second, we're fringe-left dominated by democrats. And third, we're all fiscal train wrecks of states.
These facts are depressing. For me, that we're all suffering from leftist legislatures and veering toward the inevitable Detroit-like outcome can do that since concepts like accountability and self-reliance are as foreign as Sanskrit to most of those who vote leftists in.
That is not necessarily to say that voting for the right can be any better. The GOP has had their chance and blown it big time, once again falling prey to the truism that "out-democrating democrats" is not a formula for political success.
Of the three states on the West Coast, I do take some small measure of comfort from the fact that, well, at least we're not Oregon.
We don't have a prison convict football team (yet) at any of our universities.
And we don't have legislative scum like this criminal:
Perfectly Legal
How one lawmaker uses campaign money to subsidize his mortgage, pay his bar tabs and explore Canada.
REP. MIKE SCHAUFLER: “I’ve never had a contributor complain about my expenditures.”
When elected officials provided their statements of economic interest to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission last month, the filing for Rep. Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) included one unusual disclosure—a trip to northern Alberta paid for in part by Shell Oil.Records show Shell Oil picked up the tab for Schaufler to inspect the Canadian tar sands, a prolific source of crude oil.A separate record, Schaufler’s campaign expenditure report, reveals he charged another $2,859 for travel and lodging to his campaign account for the trip. And that’s just one of hundreds of expenditures Schaufler has made in recent years that have no direct connection to campaigning.Schlaufler’s profligate use of campaign funds for a wide variety of expenses—all of them seemingly legal—suggests that Oregon’s highly touted 2007 ethics law, which aimed at curbing lobbyists’ spending on lawmakers, was at best a half measure. Although the 2007 reform made it harder to give pricey gifts to lawmakers, it didn’t bar gifts disguised as campaign contributions.And after an examination of numerous other lawmakers’ filings, it is clear that nobody spends campaign dollars in Oregon like Schaufler.“These kind of expenditures shows that all the commotion about Oregon’s ethics laws is irrelevant,” says Dan Meek, a public interest lawyer who authored two 2006 campaign finance reforms. “Any gifts the ethics law prohibits can be given in the form of campaign contributions.”The Calgary trip marked Schaufler’s third foray to Canada in the past three years on his campaign’s dime. (Schaufler explains he is first vice-president of an economic development group that comprises five Canadian provinces and five Western states. He does not draw a salary for that work.)Unlike most lawmakers below retirement age, Schaufler, 51, does not have a job. In fact, he has not worked outside the Legislature since 2004.That could explain why he leans more heavily on campaign contributions than others.“This [legislating] is all I do,” Schaufler says. “I have a passion for public service.”The former union laborer and contractor says he is frugal, not wealthy (his wife is a dentist).But Oregon’s lax campaign-finance law allows him to use campaign contributions to fund his daily expenses to an extraordinary degree (see box below).State elections director Steve Trout says those and other expenditures appear to fall within statute, which says funds may be used for “any lawful purpose.”Meek says the law’s breadth opens up legislators to “corruption,” but Schaufler is unapologetic. “Everything I do is legal, reported and ethical,” he says.“If you pay me and my colleagues a living wage, not a fraction of these [campaign] expenditures would show up,” he says. “But I’m not going to pay out of my pocket to do this job.”Lawmakers get paid $21,612 a year in salary and a $123 “per diem” payment every day (including weekends) the Legislature is in session. That adds up to $19,680 a year for the long session every odd-numbered year. Schaufler is not the first to point out that lawmakers’ pay is low. But since the passage of a 2007 ethics law, Schaufler has elevated the creative use of campaign funds to umatched levels.“Schaufler’s level of spending, especially on items that could be covered by his per diem, is atypical,” says Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon.State filings show, for instance, that since Jan. 1, 2009, Schaufler has charged his campaign nearly $6,000 for 91 separate visits to Magoo’s, a Salem bar. Over the same period, he’s charged his campaign $2,434 for 68 visits to another Salem bar called the Brick Bar Broiler.
More:
Yeah, well... I guess it's not "criminal." But then, in Nazi Germany, concentration camps were legally swell, right?
Wouldn't it be nice if WE had a local newspaper that would dig down to this level instead of the local arm of the democrat party who helps to cover up legislator misconduct when the party is democrat?
So, when I see the incompetence of the leadership of government at every level to the local government... the corruption... the arrogance... those in both parties that we fail to hold accountable... I just think to myself and sigh: Well... at least we're not Oregon.
(Thanks to Willamette Week for the article)
.
Yeah, well... I guess it's not "criminal." But then, in Nazi Germany, concentration camps were legally swell, right?
Wouldn't it be nice if WE had a local newspaper that would dig down to this level instead of the local arm of the democrat party who helps to cover up legislator misconduct when the party is democrat?
So, when I see the incompetence of the leadership of government at every level to the local government... the corruption... the arrogance... those in both parties that we fail to hold accountable... I just think to myself and sigh: Well... at least we're not Oregon.
(Thanks to Willamette Week for the article)
.
Do they always do drugs before they spew an editorial? The wheels come off the democratian bus with a moronic suggestion that children pay fares for school buses.
.
Odd, isn't it? That despicable rag that begged, pleaded and sniveled to get it's own B&O tax cut while everyone else's was raised 20% or so never seems to have any problem with government jacking up OUR costs... across the spectrum.
Jack up the gas tax for a promised list of road improvements cut in half seconds after the vote? The rag banged the drum on that like the fringe left were paying them.
Replacing a perfectly safe and serviceable bridge and ramming loot rail down our throats that they won't have to pay for? Good God, how much would they have charged for their efforts that couldn't ever be called "journalism" with a straight face.
Downtown redevelopment on the taxpayer dole? These scumbags actually SUPPORTED Vancouver's lawsuit against the voters... TWICE.
The list is endless. So, when I saw the set up yesterday, I knew these scum were going to come out with some moronic call to make us pay even more then the thousands we already pay each year... an amount increased, at least in some part by the fact that we have to pay MORE because the stain on journalism get's to pay LESS.
As is their pattern, they leave out the fact, published in the story set up, that yes, the "paramount duty" does, in fact, include free to-the-rider bus service.
Good God. These clowns are apparently unfamiliar with issues such as "recessions," unemployment, and "drop outs." The only question these morons should have asked before the spewed this tripe was this: "If our idiotic editorial were ever to become policy... would such a policy make it LESS likely, or MORE likely that the education of our children will be improved?"
Will it do anything to address a problem far worse then this red herring, the horrific drop out rate of around 30%? Will it fix the fact that many so-called high school graduates have to take remedial math classes in community college before they can even take 100 level courses? Will it make it MORE likely, or LESS likely to improve the truancy rate?
This editorial made as much sense as the Moron-in-Chief lying about illegal aliens yesterday while he was spiking the bin Laden football instead of addressing the more mundane issues of a collapsing dollar, an economy he's helped to slaughter, a foreign policy that looks like the Marx brothers put it together on an off day and all of the many, far more important issues confronting us every day.
My kids no longer use school buses. Nor, obviously, do the kids (assuming whoever wrote this tripe could have sex with someone enough to HAVE kids) of the moron who wrote this.
But unlike the scull who wrote this, MY concern is limited to how we can actually get our children educated... not how do we squeeze blood from the rocks in the foundation of those who actually would have to PAY the fees these clowns are shilling.
But then, this appears to be the modus operandi of these idiots: No matter the cost, no matter the harm, no matter the burden they want OTHERS to pay... these slime will support it.
Because I STILL haven't seen these clowns do any in-depth reporting on the horrific impacts of blowing a $100,000,000 per year hole in our local economy as a result of their support of vacuuming that amount of money out of the pockets of the people and the businesses who depend on it.
But the rag, who, as I've said, begged and pleaded for their OWN tax break to reduce THEIR costs, has absolutely no right or moral authority to do what they can to increase the costs of anyone else.
That they do make such demands shows and arrogance and hypocrisy that serves to confirm the cancerous impact they have on our community, and we will be well rid of them.
.
Odd, isn't it? That despicable rag that begged, pleaded and sniveled to get it's own B&O tax cut while everyone else's was raised 20% or so never seems to have any problem with government jacking up OUR costs... across the spectrum.
Jack up the gas tax for a promised list of road improvements cut in half seconds after the vote? The rag banged the drum on that like the fringe left were paying them.
Replacing a perfectly safe and serviceable bridge and ramming loot rail down our throats that they won't have to pay for? Good God, how much would they have charged for their efforts that couldn't ever be called "journalism" with a straight face.
Downtown redevelopment on the taxpayer dole? These scumbags actually SUPPORTED Vancouver's lawsuit against the voters... TWICE.
The list is endless. So, when I saw the set up yesterday, I knew these scum were going to come out with some moronic call to make us pay even more then the thousands we already pay each year... an amount increased, at least in some part by the fact that we have to pay MORE because the stain on journalism get's to pay LESS.
As is their pattern, they leave out the fact, published in the story set up, that yes, the "paramount duty" does, in fact, include free to-the-rider bus service.
Good God. These clowns are apparently unfamiliar with issues such as "recessions," unemployment, and "drop outs." The only question these morons should have asked before the spewed this tripe was this: "If our idiotic editorial were ever to become policy... would such a policy make it LESS likely, or MORE likely that the education of our children will be improved?"
Will it do anything to address a problem far worse then this red herring, the horrific drop out rate of around 30%? Will it fix the fact that many so-called high school graduates have to take remedial math classes in community college before they can even take 100 level courses? Will it make it MORE likely, or LESS likely to improve the truancy rate?
This editorial made as much sense as the Moron-in-Chief lying about illegal aliens yesterday while he was spiking the bin Laden football instead of addressing the more mundane issues of a collapsing dollar, an economy he's helped to slaughter, a foreign policy that looks like the Marx brothers put it together on an off day and all of the many, far more important issues confronting us every day.
My kids no longer use school buses. Nor, obviously, do the kids (assuming whoever wrote this tripe could have sex with someone enough to HAVE kids) of the moron who wrote this.
But unlike the scull who wrote this, MY concern is limited to how we can actually get our children educated... not how do we squeeze blood from the rocks in the foundation of those who actually would have to PAY the fees these clowns are shilling.
But then, this appears to be the modus operandi of these idiots: No matter the cost, no matter the harm, no matter the burden they want OTHERS to pay... these slime will support it.
Because I STILL haven't seen these clowns do any in-depth reporting on the horrific impacts of blowing a $100,000,000 per year hole in our local economy as a result of their support of vacuuming that amount of money out of the pockets of the people and the businesses who depend on it.
But the rag, who, as I've said, begged and pleaded for their OWN tax break to reduce THEIR costs, has absolutely no right or moral authority to do what they can to increase the costs of anyone else.
That they do make such demands shows and arrogance and hypocrisy that serves to confirm the cancerous impact they have on our community, and we will be well rid of them.
.
More from the cheerleading scum of the CRC and Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.
.
We know that the bridger/looters don't want us to have any say. We know that because they are well aware that if this community were asked, we would yell a resounding "NO."
We know that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who has been a huge proponent of tolls and an equally huge proponent of shutting us out of the decision as to whether to build this thing or not, while he has been working his ass off to get this thing through... even though he knows we don't want it... as do all the slimeballs shilling this.
We know that Steve "The Liar" Stuart who's as much a scumbag as Leavitt, lying his ass off as a part of his campaign to get re-elected by promising us all a vote on this crap THIS November.
It was a lie when he said it, and it remains a lie now. And is this where I remind you that Stuart was a major player in The Liar Leavitt's mayoral campaign?
Do you notice a similarity there, or is it just me?
We all know that Leavitt and the other bridger/looters are going to be stampeding this thing through without asking us. We know that little worm lied to thousands of people who supported him over his position on tolling the bridge. And now that whore has blackmailed the CRC into delaying... again... nailing down the vote (County or district) so Leavitt can continue to work to use the proven C-Tran dodge of putting the loot rail vote borders around every store in the county while cutting out tens of thousands of guaranteed no votes.
Stuart, on the other hand, says that he "wasn't comfortable using a subdistrict for the vote."
Right.
And Leavitt opposes tolls.
Does that mean that Stuart will threaten to use the COUNTY veto on anything EXCEPT a county wide vote?
Gee. Was that possibility even mentioned in the article?
Like Leavitt, Stuart will change his position on the issue of a countywide vote. He will make excuses that will sound strangely like the manure Leavitt trowels out in his complete failure of a justification for his dispicable flip and fraud on tolls and he will do absolutely nothing to stand in Leavitt's way because he'll finally admit that which we all already know: that this piece of crap has NO chance in a countywide vote.
None.
So, we won't get one. We'll get a replay of that despicable crap C-Trans pulled where something on the order of 68,000 voters were exccluded ONLY from having a say... but NOT on paying the tax.
Because that's what scum do. And who better to know that then the two Liars, joined at the hip by their hypocrisy?
I, of course, will never vote for any tax increase involving CTrans, Clark County, or Vancouver as long as I live.
On the other hand, with scum like these, I seriously doubt we'll ever be asked.
And let me leave you all with this: If The Liar Leavitt and the scum swiming around in his sewage pool are successful on this garbage heap, then this is just the first of many projects where they will engage in extortion and strong arm tactics more reminiscent of the 3rd Reich then of the United States to always get what they want.
.
We know that the bridger/looters don't want us to have any say. We know that because they are well aware that if this community were asked, we would yell a resounding "NO."
We know that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who has been a huge proponent of tolls and an equally huge proponent of shutting us out of the decision as to whether to build this thing or not, while he has been working his ass off to get this thing through... even though he knows we don't want it... as do all the slimeballs shilling this.
We know that Steve "The Liar" Stuart who's as much a scumbag as Leavitt, lying his ass off as a part of his campaign to get re-elected by promising us all a vote on this crap THIS November.
It was a lie when he said it, and it remains a lie now. And is this where I remind you that Stuart was a major player in The Liar Leavitt's mayoral campaign?
Do you notice a similarity there, or is it just me?
We all know that Leavitt and the other bridger/looters are going to be stampeding this thing through without asking us. We know that little worm lied to thousands of people who supported him over his position on tolling the bridge. And now that whore has blackmailed the CRC into delaying... again... nailing down the vote (County or district) so Leavitt can continue to work to use the proven C-Tran dodge of putting the loot rail vote borders around every store in the county while cutting out tens of thousands of guaranteed no votes.
Stuart, on the other hand, says that he "wasn't comfortable using a subdistrict for the vote."
Right.
And Leavitt opposes tolls.
Does that mean that Stuart will threaten to use the COUNTY veto on anything EXCEPT a county wide vote?
Gee. Was that possibility even mentioned in the article?
Like Leavitt, Stuart will change his position on the issue of a countywide vote. He will make excuses that will sound strangely like the manure Leavitt trowels out in his complete failure of a justification for his dispicable flip and fraud on tolls and he will do absolutely nothing to stand in Leavitt's way because he'll finally admit that which we all already know: that this piece of crap has NO chance in a countywide vote.
None.
So, we won't get one. We'll get a replay of that despicable crap C-Trans pulled where something on the order of 68,000 voters were exccluded ONLY from having a say... but NOT on paying the tax.
Because that's what scum do. And who better to know that then the two Liars, joined at the hip by their hypocrisy?
I, of course, will never vote for any tax increase involving CTrans, Clark County, or Vancouver as long as I live.
On the other hand, with scum like these, I seriously doubt we'll ever be asked.
And let me leave you all with this: If The Liar Leavitt and the scum swiming around in his sewage pool are successful on this garbage heap, then this is just the first of many projects where they will engage in extortion and strong arm tactics more reminiscent of the 3rd Reich then of the United States to always get what they want.
.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Points to ponder - Look around you: When's the last time government solved a problem? Any problem?
.
So, as I look at the horrific bridge/loot rail project that will bury us in debt and provide a direct transportation line of Portland's substantial criminal population to victimize us here... all for a paltry $10 billion or so... while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the realm of freight mobility or congestion reduction... and I see the idiocy and arrogance of our political leaders at every level... Those who positively ooze slime like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, Steve "The Liar" Stuart and the rest of the bridgers/looters who continue to do all they can to silence us, I have to ask:
If these scum and those like them know so much... then how come we've still got the same problems we had when these slimeballs were elected?
Tell me... what issues confronting us now... didn't confront us 10 years ago? Aren't they the same... but only worse?
What's better?
What's been fixed?
Locally, county and city government have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade. How have we benefited?
Out state government has spent billions on almost everything you can imagine... and it's never, ever enough.
Are our schools better? Our roads? Our infrastructure?
Unions are at our throats like insatiable vampires. They're a driving force behind the horrific and unneeded bridge/loot rail project... because, along with the companies that are going to rape us to build this and the other projects (Did you know the St. John's intersection, a wholly unneeded project that will gain next to nothing in comparison to it's cost, will, in fact, cost more to build then the Kingdome?) THEY are the ones who'll benefit by stealing our money.
And for what?
Once completed, the only two things we're going to have to show for it are a $10 billion minimum debt and an increased crime rate.
Yeah. We sure should believe in government, right? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
BILLIONS spent. And nothing solved.
.
So, as I look at the horrific bridge/loot rail project that will bury us in debt and provide a direct transportation line of Portland's substantial criminal population to victimize us here... all for a paltry $10 billion or so... while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the realm of freight mobility or congestion reduction... and I see the idiocy and arrogance of our political leaders at every level... Those who positively ooze slime like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, Steve "The Liar" Stuart and the rest of the bridgers/looters who continue to do all they can to silence us, I have to ask:
If these scum and those like them know so much... then how come we've still got the same problems we had when these slimeballs were elected?
Tell me... what issues confronting us now... didn't confront us 10 years ago? Aren't they the same... but only worse?
What's better?
What's been fixed?
Locally, county and city government have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade. How have we benefited?
Out state government has spent billions on almost everything you can imagine... and it's never, ever enough.
Are our schools better? Our roads? Our infrastructure?
Unions are at our throats like insatiable vampires. They're a driving force behind the horrific and unneeded bridge/loot rail project... because, along with the companies that are going to rape us to build this and the other projects (Did you know the St. John's intersection, a wholly unneeded project that will gain next to nothing in comparison to it's cost, will, in fact, cost more to build then the Kingdome?) THEY are the ones who'll benefit by stealing our money.
And for what?
Once completed, the only two things we're going to have to show for it are a $10 billion minimum debt and an increased crime rate.
Yeah. We sure should believe in government, right? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
BILLIONS spent. And nothing solved.
.
Monday, May 9, 2011
More idiocy by the democratian: "Let's jack up ANOTHER tax in the midst of this horrific recession and double digit unemployment."
.
It's rare indeed when the local excuse for a paper doesn't babble SOME justification for most ALL tax increases.
But then, in the past, they've presented the "milk comes from Safeway instead of cows" proposition more than once.
The rag finds itself unable to grasp the concept of shared sacrifice and make do. You know, like the rest of us?
Requiring county employees to pay 15% of their health care premiums would more then make up for this shortfall.
I know it: the rag knows it, and the commissioners, who allowed many county employees to scam us... again... on that issue (since most pay NOTHING for their health care benefits, unlike the rest of the planet) making this peculiar list of excuses to screw us... again... is just another set of smoke and mirrors.
We have an ever-shrinking number of people to pay for an ever-increasing number of people, both in and out of government. As long as the employees of the county continue to get absolutely free health care and continue to avoid their across-the-board pay cuts, I don't want to hear anything from anyone about yet another commissioner-imposed tax increase.
Man... it's a damned good thing Republicans run the commission. Can you imagine the tax increases we'd have if they didn't?
What's that? They're jacking up our taxes anyway?
Oh.
Never mind.
.
It's rare indeed when the local excuse for a paper doesn't babble SOME justification for most ALL tax increases.
But then, in the past, they've presented the "milk comes from Safeway instead of cows" proposition more than once.
The rag finds itself unable to grasp the concept of shared sacrifice and make do. You know, like the rest of us?
Requiring county employees to pay 15% of their health care premiums would more then make up for this shortfall.
I know it: the rag knows it, and the commissioners, who allowed many county employees to scam us... again... on that issue (since most pay NOTHING for their health care benefits, unlike the rest of the planet) making this peculiar list of excuses to screw us... again... is just another set of smoke and mirrors.
We have an ever-shrinking number of people to pay for an ever-increasing number of people, both in and out of government. As long as the employees of the county continue to get absolutely free health care and continue to avoid their across-the-board pay cuts, I don't want to hear anything from anyone about yet another commissioner-imposed tax increase.
Man... it's a damned good thing Republicans run the commission. Can you imagine the tax increases we'd have if they didn't?
What's that? They're jacking up our taxes anyway?
Oh.
Never mind.
.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Tim Eyman and the liars who oppose him, and the democratian's continuing failure to acknowledge local opposition.
.
So, the democratian finally gets around to telling us about Eyman's latest, I-1125, (On a Saturday, no less, the least read day of the week.) an initiative that would jam a stick in the spokes of the fringe-leftist whack jobs who want to ram multi-generational tolls down our collective throats for multi-billion dollar projects that the people... and the clowns shilling this do remember the people... don't you? that is, that we do not want or need.
Tolls for these projects only work when the projects are needed, and only for the projects in question. That is, communists like Moeller who want to extort permanent tolls like the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge, both of which have been paid for multiple times, and both of which provide revenue for other projects, are lying when they tell us that:
Don't build it.
Yeah, yeah, I know union bootlicks like Moeller will respond that without tolls, we can't build it.
And? So what's his point?
In leaping over the obvious to oppose Eyman, Moeller forgets the fundamental basis to support him: We do not need, want, or can afford this project.
Moeller goes on to lie:
They also have alternative routes. And is the single Mom, already hammered by reduced economic means, going to pay this $7 a day by being forced to go over this bridge that doesn't need to be replaced without being "priced out of SOMETHING?"
How easy it is for the slimier politicians among us, those so far out of touch with reality that it can't even be piped into them under pressure, to lie this way.
Kind of like Seattle's stadium taxes, right? Those were supposed to go away after the stadiums were paid for... and how's that working out for us?
"Maintenance?"
Take it out of the gas tax and the dozens of other fees you already hose us over.
Moeller, slimy as he is, moronically ends by telling us this:
"It's really just so he pays less."
Eyman, of course, lives in Mukulteo. He won't have to pay for the massive waste of money that is SR 520 any more than Moeller will have to pay for the massive waste of money that is the CRC. But that doesn't stop Moeller from lying and demonizing the opposition.
And then, of course, we can look at the complete lack of comment from anyone opposed to this horrific project, because, hey... we can't ever give anyone opposed to the rag's agenda have any say... can we?
.
So, the democratian finally gets around to telling us about Eyman's latest, I-1125, (On a Saturday, no less, the least read day of the week.) an initiative that would jam a stick in the spokes of the fringe-leftist whack jobs who want to ram multi-generational tolls down our collective throats for multi-billion dollar projects that the people... and the clowns shilling this do remember the people... don't you? that is, that we do not want or need.
Tolls for these projects only work when the projects are needed, and only for the projects in question. That is, communists like Moeller who want to extort permanent tolls like the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge, both of which have been paid for multiple times, and both of which provide revenue for other projects, are lying when they tell us that:
“I don’t really see how Eyman’s initiative really benefits anybody. It seems like it’s actually anti-consumer,” Moeller said. “If you’re interested in people paying less for using the bridge in off-peak hours, why wouldn’t you be in favor of congestion pricing?”
Moeller said that instead, legislators would have to set tolls at a higher price around the clock to make sure that the state collects enough to make bond payments.There's a far simpler way to deal with this issue, and save everyone the angst over the toll question here locally:
Don't build it.
Yeah, yeah, I know union bootlicks like Moeller will respond that without tolls, we can't build it.
And? So what's his point?
In leaping over the obvious to oppose Eyman, Moeller forgets the fundamental basis to support him: We do not need, want, or can afford this project.
Moeller goes on to lie:
Moeller said that won’t be the case, and pointed to studies done on State Route 167, where drivers can pay an average toll of 75 cents to $1 per trip to use “hot lanes” that move faster than regular traffic.
“The studies that they’ve done on the hot lanes, considered once to be ‘Lexus lanes’ that only the rich can pay for, (show that they) are being used by people who need to get to their job as soon as possible, or to pick up their kids,” he said. “Working families are using the lanes more often and more frequently because they have things they have to get to. It doesn’t sound like they’re being priced out of them at all.”Says yet another bridger/looter who won't have to pay the toll to go to work. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, eh, Candy Man?
They also have alternative routes. And is the single Mom, already hammered by reduced economic means, going to pay this $7 a day by being forced to go over this bridge that doesn't need to be replaced without being "priced out of SOMETHING?"
How easy it is for the slimier politicians among us, those so far out of touch with reality that it can't even be piped into them under pressure, to lie this way.
“I agree with that — I don’t think tolling funds should be moved to the general fund,” Rorabaugh said. “Funding or revenue needs for the bridge remain after it is built: You have to maintain it. Tolls are a user fee for maintenance. (Eyman’s initiative) makes no sense whatsoever to me.”More lies from Thayer Rorabaugh, Vancouver's "Transportation Policy Director " (Whatever that is, except another 6 figure waste of money) who was interviewed as a reliable Sherpa for the project, even though Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has repeatedly assured us that Vancouver has no say in the issue of tolls, theoretically making Rorabaugh's babble as relevant and pertinent as my Cocker Spaniel's. who seems to think that the bridge will be so poorly built and have such horrifically high maintenance requirements that tolls have to continue just to keep it painted.
Kind of like Seattle's stadium taxes, right? Those were supposed to go away after the stadiums were paid for... and how's that working out for us?
"Maintenance?"
Take it out of the gas tax and the dozens of other fees you already hose us over.
Moeller, slimy as he is, moronically ends by telling us this:
“Mr. Eyman isn’t going to stop this bridge; he isn’t going to stop the 520 bridge,” he said. “He would claim it’s not his goal to stop the bridge. … It’s really just so he pays less.”The idiocy of this kind of thought process cannot be overstated: Moeller babbles this way because he really just wants us to pay more. And like Eyman, Moeller will not be using either bridge to commute to work, therefore having been required to pay tens of thousands a year over their working lives to pay for projects we have no say over.
"It's really just so he pays less."
Eyman, of course, lives in Mukulteo. He won't have to pay for the massive waste of money that is SR 520 any more than Moeller will have to pay for the massive waste of money that is the CRC. But that doesn't stop Moeller from lying and demonizing the opposition.
And then, of course, we can look at the complete lack of comment from anyone opposed to this horrific project, because, hey... we can't ever give anyone opposed to the rag's agenda have any say... can we?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)