blogs.kxly.com

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state has been named to lead an effort by House Republicans to reform congressional earmarks. The Fifth District Republican will chair a 10-member panel that will look at what her party calls Washington’s “broken spending practices,” focusing on pet projects known as earmarks. Curbing earmarks is not popular among members of the house or the senate. elected representatives condemn the earmark practice, but of course, they all play the game. So did McMorris, though she says she will refrain from now on.

I’m not surprised that Republicans are forming this committee. obviously the Democratic majority doesn’t want to lead this effort. They don’t want their signature on the recommendations the committee might come up with. That way the majority can criticize the recommendations, taking cover behind the notion that these recommendations are politically driven by minority Republicans, and not in the best interest of the American people…(translate that to mean not in the best interest of democrats who want to bring home the pork).

Still I applaud House Republicans and representative McMorris for their willingness to take on this assignment. If the culture of the beltway is ever going to change, earmarks and the pork barrel thinking that drives them must become a thing of the past. I wish I had more faith that the work of this committee will bring about such a needed change, but I’m not buying the majority’s promises that they are the party of change.

My advice: Do’t hold your breath.

Governor Christine Gregoire will release her balanced budget this week. It does not recommend new taxes to offset the expected $5.8 billion deficit. That sounds like the Governor plans to cut state spending, but before you signal approval, consider that there’s a game being played here. Odds are there will be a tax increase. The legislature is fixing to
raise your taxes without breaking Gregoire’s promise.

The majority Democrats in the state House and Senate must find a way to pass a balanced 2009-2011 budget are not about to slash the very programs and services that got them elected. That means that the legislature is going to look for ways top pay for things to keep the special interest groups they cater to happy, and that means turning to you. That means
raising your taxes. Of course we’ll hear them say that they tried everything possible to avoid tax increases, but trust me, they are already crafting their excuses. Republicans of course believe that the state’s budget problems are the result of previous overspending by Democrats and not lack of tax revenue. Democrats will tell you it’s all George Bush’s fault.

The good news is that the majority party in Olympia isn’t known for its courage. In this fragile economy, extracting more money from struggling taxpayers will not be politically popular. Therefore, you’ll see no boldness in the way these political weasels go about getting you to part with your limited resources. They plan to persuade voters to approve some forms of revenue increases by playing on past conceptual support for certain items voters seem to like, such as smaller class sizes and higher teacher salaries. Whatever they come up with, you’d better hold onto your wallets because they’re coming after you.

Gov. Chris Gregoire plans to release a balanced budget proposal in a couple of weeks. The budget will address the state’s largest deficit in history, and the Governor’s office says it will deal with the record shortfall without raising taxes. During her campaign for re-election, Governor Gregoire was allowed to get away with explaining dismal state finances by claiming that it was all the result of the national economy, stressed by the economic policies of George W. Bush. Now she will have to tell the truth. Her party spent us into oblivion over the last four years, and can no longer continue that practice.

The Washington State Legislature will take up the matter of the 2009-11 biennium budget when it convenes in January, and lawmakers will be forced to take a more conservative fiscal approach than they ever have before. It comes down to a simple question of what line items to keep and which get cut. Every decision will carry a political consequence that may cost Democrats the next time voters go to the polls. It was so much easier tossing a few shekels to every special interest group with their hand out in the last few years. Now the piggy bank is empty.

Even before next biennium, there is a more immediate problem: getting through the remainder of the current fiscal budget. Latest revenue forecasts show that the state must deal with a shortfall between now and next June of nearly 500-million dollars. Democrats will not appreciate hearing “I told you so” from minority Republicans, but the record shows the majority was constantly warned. So, let the cutting begin, and good luck managing the expectations of those programs and folks who think you’ll spare them.

President Elect Barack Obama promised change. He was elected, apparently because voters had had enough of the Bush administration, and looked forward to a new direction that Obama said would come, if he were to occupy the White House.

So far, that new direction is hard to identify, since most of the president elect’s appointees to key positions in his new administration are just recycled Bill Clinton personnel.

Look at all the Democrats who worked for President Clinton. Note too, that many of these selections did not endorse Barack Obama in the primaries.

Obama’s Transition Chief is John Podesta, the former Clinton Chief of Staff. Representative Rahm Emanuel will be Obama’s White House chief of staff. He was a high level Clinton advisor and operative. Ron Klain, soon to be Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff, held the same post under Al Gore. Hillary Rodham Clinton looks like the next Secretary of State. Word is she has accepted the appointment. Eric Holder was the number two lawyer in the Clinton Justice Department. Now he is going to be Attorney General. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is slated to become the next Commerce Secretary. He was U.N. Ambassador in Bill Clinton’s administration.

What is supposed to be a new and bold departure from politics as usual inside the beltway, looks an awful lot like politics as usual. Barack Obama’s new appointee acorns haven’t fallen far, it appears, from the Bill Clinton oak tree. So far, Barack Obama’s first term, filled will all these familiar faces, looks an awful lot like a third Bill Clinton term. So much for “change.”

What is that old saying about expecting a different outcome from doing the same old thing?

Governor Christine Gregoire accompanied by a healthy entourage of Democrats in the Washington State legislature assured us that they would not raise taxes. The Governor claimed during the campaign that “now is not the time to raise taxes”.

What she meant was that as long as she was in jeopardy of being defeated in the election, she wasn’t going to talk about raising taxes. Well, now that jeopardy has passed, so guess what’s coming.

Our state is staring down a deficit of up to $3.2 Billion. Revenue projections from existing tax sources will not meet our needs. Moreover, promises made to special interests by majority Democrats and the Governor must be met to avoid political backlash. Therefore the only way those folks can think of to balance a budget is to raise taxes.

The votes from last Tuesday’s haven’t even been fully counted, but already House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown have signaled they intend to raise taxes. The restrictive provisions of Initiative 960 stand in the way, and the State Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that suit brought by Senator Brown last year. If she gets what she wants, the pathway is clear to ratchet up your taxes.

Lisa Brown told the Seattle Times a couple of days ago that the legislature will have to “look” at tax increases and to allow current tax exemptions to expire. That kind of talk means that state government will be confiscating more of your money just as soon as those politicians can work out the details.

Never mind what they told you during the campaign. The Governor and the state’s Democrats in the legislature have had their sites set on tax increases all along. Of course they’ll claim that post election circumstances have led them to the unfortunate decision to have to raise your taxes, but the foundation was being laid even as these politicians swore they’d never take your money.

Hold on to your wallets, Gregoire, Brown and Chopp are planning to make them lighter.

Conservative talk radio hosts are wringing their hands with worry that under newly elected President Barack Obama, the liberal leaders in Congress may get frisky and seek to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. I think these talk radio folks are feeling a paranoia that isn’t worth the energy.

The former Federal Communications Commission regulation was introduced back in 1949 to ensure that radio listeners and television viewers would not be prevented from hearing an unrestricted array of viewpoints from broadcasters It was retracted in 1987.

Let’s be realistic here … the broadcast world has changed dramatically since 1949, and substantially since 1989. A proliferation of informational resources, an explosion of technology, a vast number of broadcast outlets including over-the-air radio and television, satellite radio and television, cable TV and the Internet are available to the public now. Few of these options were around in 1949, and many were not a part of our lives 20 years ago. In the present media environment the federal government has little reason to police the airwaves to ensure that differing viewpoints are heard.

Reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine is not proposed to meet a need to force broadcasters to offer more viewpoints. If majority Democrats in Congress bring it back, it will be for a narrow and much less noble purpose. They want to silence conservative talk radio. This proposal is about limiting, not expanding diversity of opinions on the air. It wouldn’t be the first time. The Kennedy administration used the Fairness Doctrine to intimidate broadcast licensees they considered enemies. Richard Nixon used it similarly. They both enjoyed cover from a broadcast spectrum that was puny compared to what exists today.

I would welcome a debate over whether government needs to muzzle conservative talk radio to protect them against conservative talkers on the air. Exhibit A against the Fairness Doctrine would be the federal election just completed. The few cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Fairness Doctrine demonstrate that the Court has trended away from the theory that broadcasters need to be restricted. I’m confident the Court would find reimposition of this obsolete concept a de facto restriction on free speech.

If Democrats want to use the Fairness Doctrine to silence the opposition, I say bring it on.

Barack Obama ran a nearly flawless campaign. The same cannot be said of John McCain’s. Barack Obama had over three quarters of a billion dollars work with. McCain had only a third of that. Barack Obama had the unprecedented, and appalling support of the mainstream U.S. media. They fawned over him, protected him, and carried the water for him. If these advantages were not enough, Barack Obama also enjoyed an unprecedented economic crisis one month before the election … the perfect campaign issue, handed to him on a silver platter. Such is the stuff of American politics.

It was an historic victory. Barack Obama becomes the first person of color ever to be elected president. There is no doubt that his victory opens a new paradigm in American politics. For Democrats there could hardly have been better news. What must also be understood is that close to half of the American people did not vote for the winner. For the third presidential election in a row, half the nation did not support the victor.

So what has changed? Democrats will now hold the White House, and they will have a majority of 56 to 40 in the U.S. Senate, and a 246-172 majority in the U.S. House. To put it another way the ball is most definitely in their court. Democrats are solely in control.

Will they govern in a way that will benefit all Americans, or will they advance a very liberal agenda? President Elect Barack Obama hails from the far left of the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed are also far left politicians. That combination threatens and frightens half the country who are significantly more moderate or conservative. Will they ignore that, or will they offer a place at the table for the vanquished?

Politically Republicans have been rendered virtually powerless. The American people will no longer be able to lay blame on the G.O.P. Their expectations rest completely with Democrats now. Can they, will they, deliver?

Only time will tell.

King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas has allowed his courtroom to be manipulated by blatant partisans trying to influence the outcome of a razor close election for Governor of Washington State.

It is an unprecedented intrusion into the electoral process. Worse, the judge made a preposterous statement that a deposition in a lawsuit brought against the Building Industry of Washington will allow Rossi to “confirm - or dispel” allegations brought by two former Supreme Court justices, both Democrats supporting incumbent Christine Gregoire.

This case isn’t about justice. It is all about political imagery, and calculated to damage Dino Rossi. Fundamental fairness has been abandoned. This action is outrageous. Since when does a deposition, especially one taken by a hostile attorney arrive at the truth about anything? Depositions are just testimony. They are not by themselves proof of any fact in dispute. Surely a couple of former supreme court judges know this and so should Judge Kallas. Why must Rossi testify in this case right now? He isn’t even a party to the lawsuit. Why can’t it wait? Did you know that, in most cases, courts are willing to work with witnesses? They will typically accommodate the busy schedules of witnesses whenever reasonable. Why not in this instance?

Former Senator Slade Gorton, who is also a former Washington State Attorney General, and former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington John McKay have issued a statement criticizing the extraordinary demand by Judge to force candidate Dino Rossi to interrupt his campaign in the final week, to testify in connection with this highly suspicious politically-charged farce. That statement reads in part:

“This isn’t law - this is partisan politics and it stinks. Requiring Dino Rossi to leave the campaign trail and be subjected to a partisan deposition in the last week of the campaign is wrong. Governor Gregoire should call off this unfair attack against Dino Rossi.”

You can be certain that the governor will not call off this witch hunt. This isn’t the first time she has permitted partisans to use the courts for a frivolous lawsuit aimed at hurting Rossi. Remember the failed effort to get a judge to strike Rossi’s ballot title where he lawfully preferred “G.O.P.” instead of Republican after his name? Gregoire is perfectly comfortable with these kinds of tactics, and she is also desperate. There is no merit to this case, and everyone involved knows it. They don’t expect to win in court. They only want to create a negative sentiment of Rossi in the electorate, by abusing the court system in this eleventh hour. This is the very politics that should enrage fair-minded voters.

Shame on Judge Kallas for being such a pathetic patsy.

As we hear of the fraudulent shenanigans of the organization called ACORN, presently under investigation in fifteen states as we head into the general election of 2008 one has to wonder if there is any threat to a clean election in Washington State.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, who is the state’s chief election officer, says the only problem may come from an unknown number of felons who may cast ballots unlawfully. State Republican Party Chairman, Luke Esser says that number could be in the thousands. Secretary Reed doesn’t know how many there are, but he admits that incomplete data from the Department of Corrections makes it impossible to determine the number, even though his office removed 11,000 felons from voter role since 2004.

Still, Reed says the 2008 election will be the cleanest in Washington State history, and both major party chairs - Esser for the Republicans and Kelly Steele for the Democrats - agree.

What happens, however, if there are a few razor-thin races on November 4th? It looks as though the governor’s race might be just as close as it was in 2004. If it is, several thousand illegal voters could make the difference and taint the outcome. How can anyone be comfortable with that prospect?

We all know what a mess the last contest between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi was. Can we tolerate another one of those episodes? Despite the remarkable progress made by the Secretary of State under new authority from the legislature to rid voter roles of criminals and schemers, there still is a significant threat to the integrity of our election.

Perhaps it is a comfort that our problems are not as acute as in other states. There is a distinct possibility that the ugly mess we witnessed in Florida in 2000 could be replicated in as many as five states this time around. One can scarcely imagine the trouble we may face if significant fraud surfaces in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.

This could be all the more troubling if the presidential race is close, and recent polls suggest it will be. Suffice it to say that odds are that it won’t be over on November 4th. Well over 60% of Americans believe we’re in for a very rough election. Let’s hope it won’t be exacerbated by election trouble in Washington.

Election Day this year may unleash a chaos the likes of which you have never seen in U.S. politics. If you thought the fiasco in Florida in 2000 was tedious and insulting just wait until November 4th. We may look back on the 2002 election longingly.

An army of trial lawyers, some 7,000 representing the Republicans and their candidates, and nearly 11,000 representing Democrats, as well as the justice Department and the Attorneys General of the several states, and the American Civil Liberties Union are already lined up to start litigation, or defend against actions in the event that they don’t like the looks of things in any precinct in America.

Given the unprecedented fraud activity already uncovered or suspected in many states, odds are they will be busy lawyers in a couple of weeks.

Voter fraud knows no political persuasion. It would be a mistake to suggest that only Democrats engage in voter fraud. Disenfranchising voters has been elevated to a high art by criminals favoring all political ideologies. It isn’t just ACORN that threatens our elections. There are many organizations and individuals seeking to sabotage our election process.

Some of them are ordinary people you might know. Experience has shown that many times a surviving spouse thinks there’s nothing is with casting a ballot on behalf of a deceased spouse, if one comes in the mail. This is the same thing as ACORN signing up some unscrupulous person to cast a vote using the name of somebody whose remains currently reside in a county cemetery.

It undermines the integrity of elections, and its a crime.

What baffles me is that while four in ten Americans have serious reservations about voter fraud, where is the outrage? Where is the pressure on Congress and on state legislators to pass air-tight election security laws? Where is the pressure on secretaries of state in the several states to vigorously and tirelessly investigate and eliminate fraud?

How is it that for the most part, perpetrators of voter fraud are never prosecuted? We will never eradicate voter fraud until we demand that it be stopped. Right now, who’s demanding, and how loudly?

Consistently throughout the presidential campaign of 2008, there has been strong denial of any significant racial component that might affect how Americans vote three weeks from now.

Recent polls show that 78-percent of blacks and 88 percent of whites say that Barack Obama’s race is not a factor in whether they will vote for him, but pollsters aren’t sure of their figures. There has been a consistent concern by pollsters that many opinion poll respondents are not telling the truth when they answer surveys. They suspect that race may be involved.

A recent Gallup polling shows that nine of out 10 blacks prefer Barack Obama. In the race against Republican John McCain, Obama draws the support of 93 percent of the black voters surveyed. Is that a statement of racial preference, or something else? Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport reports that Obama’s popularity among black voters in not unusual. Newport points out that John Kerry received 93 percent of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95 percent in 2000. That suggests its party, not race that attracts black voters.

But what of white voters…especially those Democrats and independents who say they support Obama, as they did in New Hampshire last February, but actually did not? Is that going to happen again?

As much as they want us to believe their poll numbers, in greater numbers, pollsters are expressing concern that a significant number of voters may harbor intentions that none are admitting. As in New Hampshire, they may be telling pollsters one thing, but planning to do another at the ballot box on November 4th.

Right now, Senator Obama holds a slim lead in the polls. If he loses, how will the pollsters explain that? Is it possible that racism may yet rear its ugly head?

You’ve been hearing stories about the Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now. The group is called “ACORN” for short, and its national leaders say they have signed up 1.3-million new young people, minorities and poor and working-class voters this year.

Those same leaders are downplaying reports that ACORN is under investigation for election fraud in 14 states. They defend their voter recruiting practices. These practices led an Ohio man to register 73 times last week. In Detroit, another man confessed to signing 72 different voter registration cards at the request of an ACORN community organizer.

Fraud investigations are underway in Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri and Washington State. Election officials in Ohio, North Carolina and elsewhere are also questioning the group’s voter forms. ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan says the organization’s workers did something remarkable in bringing out all these new voters.

The question is, how many of them are legitimate, and unfortunately many states are not adequately prepared to answer that question.

Whelan says incidents of people voting under false names or trying to register multiple times is minimal, verging on nonexistent. That doesn’t jibe with what election authorities are finding.

In Chicago, there is a million dollar embezzlement case against ACORN executives. Michelle Obama’s former law firm is defending them. 37,000 registered South Carolina voters listed vacant lots as home. There are more voters registered in one Pennsylvania county than there are people eligible to vote. In Allegheney County, Pennsylvania, an ACORN employee was charged with submitting more than 100 bogus registrations. A vote fraud probed in Texas and Wisconsin found many dead people registered to vote. In several states tens of thousands of fellons have been discovered on the voter roles. ACORN has been involved in all of these scenarios.

By the way … for the record none of these bogus voters sign up to vote Republican. In the last nine months the Obama campaign has contributed over $800,000 to ACORN through its subsidiaries. Had House and Senate Democrats had their way two weeks ago, the financial markets bailout bill would have funded ACORN to the tune of $20 Billion.

Think about it.

Alaska’s ousted public safety commissioner claims that a state legislative report damages Gov. Sarah Palin’s image of being an upfront and open political figure. Hardly anyone is listening to him. Walter Monegan says he was relieved that a legislative report concluded last Friday that Palin abused her powers as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. Monegan thinks he was fired because he refused to let the trooper go.

What he doesn’t discuss is why he really was fired. He wasn’t a team player, and on several financial matters, he did not carry out the budgetary procedures that the governor ordered. That was insubordination, and that’s why he lost his job. The legislative report recognizes that and agrees that the governor had every legal right to can him for defying her order.

What happened in Anchorage last Friday was exactly what Democratic State Senator Hollis French promised six weeks ago, shortly after Sarah Palin was named as John McCain’s running mate. Hollis vowed to carry this trite investigation forward with a committee that he hand-picked from among Democrats and dissident Republicans, who he knew would be willing to embarrass Governor Palin if they could.

He even went so far as to promise an “October Surprise”.

The committee hired investigator Stephen Branchflower, who turned in evidence to the effect that Todd Palin had overstepped his authorioty as “First Dude” in pressing Monegan to fire the abusive state trooper who court records show, had injured and threatened Palin’s sister and her children. There was no recommendation in the report for any action, civil or criminal against Governor Palin, and the committee took none. In other words, this was political theater. It afforded a chance to score a negative headlines and get a little negative national media attention, despite its lightweight news value.

Why would anyone be surprised that a legislative committee, headed by a flunky from the opposition party, would find fault with Sarah Palin?

In these troubled times when everyone on Capitol Hill is blaming everyone else, and we taxpayers are left holding the bag a month before the general election,I am reminded of the words of journalist Charlie Reese, in an recent article he called “545 People”.

Reese wrote the following:

“Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. Yu and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.”

Reese reminds us that there are one hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices. That means a mere “545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.”…and that includes the latest crisis in the securities markets As we have seen, all but nine of those 545 human beings have spentmuch of their time and energy lately, trying to convince us that what has happened is not their fault. As Reese puts it: “They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.”

What separates politicians from we normal folks is an excessive amount of gall. We must not let these people con the rest of us into believing that there are what Reese calls “disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. The Congress and the President alone, are responsible.
They alone, have the power. They alone, must be held accountable by the people. They are supposed to be working for us.
The question in the next thirty days is this: Do we voters have the gumption to manage our employees.

We must clean up this mess they made. We can no longer afford to trust that they will clean it up. We must have the courage to vote them all out of office on November 4th. If ever there was a time to throw the rascals out…this is it!

Washington State Democrats acting clearly on behalf of Governor Christine Gregoire, are trying to disenfranchise many voters with a lawsuit that is totally without merit, claiming that Dino Rossi’s name on the ballot with “prefers GOP” after it, is a deliberate attempt to hide his Republican party affiliation.

The English Oxford Dictionary published in 1876 referred the Republican Party as the Grand Old Party (GOP). Indeed the Republican has been known as the GOP since 1854. History books in the United States have described the Republican Party as the “G.O.P” since shortly after Abraham Lincoln became its most favorite son. The term has been taught to history students in the nation’s elementary schools, high schools and colleges for close to 140 years.

The alleged “confusion” that the state’s Democrats claim, arises from a follow-up question in an Elway Poll taken between June 18 - 20, 2008, in which 405 registered Washington voters were surveyed about their preference in the race for governor. The Seattle-based polling firm says 25-percent of the respondents didn’t know what G.O.P. stands for. Some thought it meant Democrat, others just didn’t know. My guess is that Elway either happened upon perhaps the dumbest 405 people in the Evergreen State, or most were putting him on.

In any event, this flimsy polling data constitutes nowhere near sufficient evidence for a court to base a decision upon that could disenfranchise thousands of Washington voters in November. This data is not clear. It is hardly cogent, and it is certainly not convincing…..not in the face of 14 decades of history education wherein “G.O.P” and Republican have always been understood as interchangeable.

This politically-motivated move will invite a frivolous and expensive legal battle over this bogus claim. Assuming Democrats can shop around and locate a judge political enough, and stupid enough to buy their phony claim, by the time the state is able to reprint new ballots and mail them to voters, many registered voters, especially those serving in the armed forces abroad, might not get them in time to cast a vote in the election. In such a close election, where recent polling trends show the incumbent Democrat Chiristine Gregoire slipping, I think that’s exactly what cynical Democrats are hoping for.