>Columbian starts their democrat endorsement slate.

>.
In the 2008 election, The Columbian endorsed democrats, and nothing but democrats, for every open seat on the ballot from president on down to state representative.

As mentioned, president? Obama (And man, THAT’S worked out well, hasn’t it?)

State Treasurer? McIntire (Never mind that 33 of this state’s county treasurers and the Republican’s democrat boss had endorsed him, or that he had worked in the office for several years… he wasn’t a democrat.)

State Representative 17th? Probst

State Representative 49th? Jacks

County Commissioner? Brokaw

These were the only open seats available for the local democrat newsletter to endorse.

Now, ideally, endorsements would be based on mundane issues such as experience, education, vision, ideas, a record of success. And the same standard would be applied to everyone, equally.

Ideally.

The problem here is that our local rag only plays the “experience” card when it suits them.

When they want a democrat to win (always, as far as that goes) and the democrat has no experience that qualifies them for election, then their lack of experience is ignored.

For example, McIntire had precisely zero experience in the state treasurers office, so his complete lack of experience had no impact on the rag’s decision to endorse him. In endorsing McIntire, they ignored the 33 county endorsements of his Republican opponent, as well as his opponent’s democrat boss… and they certainly ignored the fact that the Republican was the Deputy State Treasurer.

But what McIntire DID have going for him was this:

1. Open seat.
2. Democrat.
3. Very big on a state income tax.

The first two, of course, were the clincher for the rag. The third was just icing on the cake.

So, the rag plays the “experience” card whenever it suits them, and fails to play it whenever it suits them.

Their endorsement of Pam Brokaw, for example.

Brokaw had zero elective experience. Brokaw was the direct recipient of David Barnett’s corruptive largess in the form of thousands and thousands of dollars. She cowardly “failed” to take positions on the bridger/looter situation OR the Barnett casino.

Her opponent, Commissioner Mielke, had been elected to state representative for 4 terms, had served on a variety of committees covering a variety of areas of concern to a commissioner at the county level…. and none of that meant anything.

They carried Brokaw’s water like Gunga Din. She lost, of course: cowardice in positions is rarely an attractive characteristic to the voter.

That, of course, brings us to the pre-endorsement endorsement of Golik for county prosecutor.

The selective application of facts is one of the more despicable aspects of the Columbian’s editorial decisions.

For example, this little tidbit:

Indeed, it’s difficult to overstate the value of Golik’s endorsements. Not only have his fellow deputy prosecutors tabbed him as their top choice, he’s been endorsed by Vancouver police officers, Clark County sheriff’s officers and police officers in five other cities in Clark County.

I missed any mention in this tripe of an endorsement of the fact that Golik is the president of the prosecutor’s union.

Naturally, all of the other unions involved will endorse both a fellow unionist AND a union president.

That’s obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that the local stain on our community neglected to mention that minor little detail.

Because, of course, if they HAD mentioned that little fact, then the lack of value…. the worthlessness of these endorsements would have been obvious.

But because it’s an open seat, and because this paper’s agenda is to only elect democrats whenever possible, and because including the facts behind these endorsements would guarantee the Republican’s elections, these low lifes left that out.

I’m stunned.

Are you stunned?

It’s this selective applications of facts that make the local rag dangerous. They have a duty to present ALL of the facts… not just the ones they like.

Did they do that here?

Of course not.

It’s not like they didn’t know (from the Columbian article “Prosecutor’s Union backs Tony Golik“):

Golik is the president of the prosecutors union but was excluded from participating in the vetting process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not like these scum DIDN’T know. It’s just that they didn’t believe YOU should know.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about the rag’s selective self-censorship.
.

>Both the Columbian and Thomas Edison verify it: Russell’s claim of a college degree is fake.

>.
Keep in mind the fact that my interview with the Columbian, DONE IN WRITING, did NOT say some of what is printed here.

But here is the entire entry, unfortunately limited to the not-well-read political blog on the website as opposed to being printed in the newspaper… like it should have been.

Jon Russell’s degree

Blog: Political Beat

Subscribe

By Columbian Politics (Columbian Staff)

July 6, 2010

Did Jon Russell, the Washougal city councilor who’s running for an open seat in the 18th Legislative District, misrepresent his academic credentials to precinct committee officers?

Yes, says Kelly Hinton, who leveled the accusation at Russell last week on his Clark County Politics blog.

No, insists Russell. So we checked it out.

Russell allegedly told 18th District precinct committee officers that he had a two-year associate degree from Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey. The college offers degrees through correspondence courses as well as at its bricks-and-mortar campus.

The college confirms that Russell enrolled in courses there, but says it has not granted him a degree.

Russell says he has earned more than the 60 credit hours required for an AA degree. He told The Columbian he has sent for his transcript to prove it.

But he concedes that he never got around to doing the paperwork required to get the actual degree.

When he looked into it last week, he said, he learned he would have to reenroll as a fulltime student in order to apply.

Joe Guzzardo, spokesman for Thomas Edison, confirmed the policy. Not only that, he said, it would cost Russell $630 to apply for the AA degree under the college’s “reenrollment to graduate” policy. Until last March, he said, the cost would have been $2,332 for former students living out of state.

“In order for someone like Mr. Russell to finish, they would have to take advantage of the ‘reenrollment to graduate’ policy,” Guzzardo said.

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Nevertheless, he said Tuesday, “I have submitted a ‘request for graduation’ form with Thomas Edison to have my diploma sent to me.”

Russell says Hinton’s blog “is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Both Hinton and Rivers confirmed that they are business associates in a political consulting firm. Rivers called Hinton “a friend.”

But she said she’s not behind Hinton’s blog attacks. “I don’t need to tear down someone else’s building to make myself look taller,” she said.

Hinton confirmed in an e-mail that he supports Rivers’ candidacy, but he said he began criticizing Russell when he was still a candidate for the 3rd Congressional District seat. Russell dropped out of that race in February and joined a crowded field for the open 18th District position.

Kathie Durbin

Unfortunately for the reader not in the know, this article is factually incorrect in ways that just mystify me.

In my blog or in my email to Durbin, I never alleged that Russell had told the PCO’s of the 18th District that he had a degree. I made no note of that whatsoever.

What I told Durbin was this:

The evidence I have provided; that Russell has indicated his wife is a “physician” to the 18^th District PCO’s, that he called her a ”doctor” in the Vancouver Business Journal and then changed the story to “family nurse practitioner” after I blogged about it and that Sarah Russell has advertised herself as a doctor at the Columbia River Gorge Medical Clinic in a newspaper owned by the Columbian, if I’m not mistaken, is not something I fabricated.

For whatever the reason, there was no mention of these allegations, which are as much a lie as Russell’s fake degree.

And let’s review the verbiage Russell was using on his website:

Jon’s experience in politics started as he was working on his degree in political science first at Vincennes University and finished his degree at Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, NJ.

CLEARLY this was meant to deliberately infer that he had completed a BACHELOR’S DEGREE, and NOT an AA.

How Durbin could confuse Russell lying to the PCO’s about his degree and lying to the PCO’s about his wife is just beyond me.

For those of us actually possessed of 4 year degrees, we recognize the major difference, parsed by Russell, between having more then the number of credits required for an AA degree and actually completing… and receiving… a bachelor’s degree.

Russell knows that. Thus his Clintonesque, “it all depends on what the definition of “is,” is response:

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Really?

So, this is the kind of representation Russell has to offer? One where we have to parse everything he says to figure it out?

Russell whines that my blog: “… is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Well, the thing about credibility is this: If you don’t lie, fabricate or exaggerate, then I’ve got nothing to write about… do I?

Unfortunately, the paper deliberately left out the FACT that I began nailing Russell’s “credibility” as soon as he announced for Congress; instead of verifying that truth, relying alternately on the “I said I began criticizing Russell” when he announced for Congress, thereby deliberately failing to destroy Russell’s position that my primary motivation for Jon Russell Watch wasn’t my support of Ann Rivers, but instead, my opposition to Russell.

Typical.

And by the way, Jon…. I’m given to understand that you brought your own lies to the attention of the paper (Not that, since they read my blogs several times a day, they didn’t know about them anyway) so I wanted to give you a hearty “Well done!”

So, while whoever wrote this has a fact check problem with a narrow-focused view with blinders, leaving out much of the other allegations which directly impact on Russell’s increasingly non-existent credibility, this is, I suppose, better than nothing.

Barely. But this is, I suppose, what passes for “journalism” at the lazy C.

Cross posted at Jon Russell Watch.
.

>Brandon Vick and the truth.

>.
On May 22, I was an onlooker at the 18th District PCO meeting at the GOP headquarters in Hazel Dell.

It was a meeting that initially was planned to be part of the “winnowing process.” Best known for the place where Jon Russell lied about his wife’s job (He told us all she was a “physician.” She is, in fact, a “physician’s assistant.”) an allegation I had been hearing about Russell as far back as his abortive congressional campaign, but had never heard myself… until that meeting.

But one of the questions asked of all the candidates present (Ann Rivers, Jon Russell and Brandon Vick) was this: how much money has your campaign put together?

Rivers, now showing over $37,000, indicated that she’d put together $33,000 or so at the time.

Vick indicated $8,100. Russell, “about $10,000.”

The problem is this:

Vick lied.

At the time he was standing in front of us, according to his just filed PDC report, he had raised $6,055. He overstated the amount he’d raised by 25%. (As of this writing, he shows a total from all sources of $6,730.)

Now, I can see fudging the figure a little. But 25%? Why would he lie to all of the PCO’s about how much money he had raised?

In fact, after the meeting was over, I even asked him: Brandon, you raised $8,100? After you only raised $300 in all of April?

He told me that things were looking up, or had picked up… or some such. Well, given that at the moment in question, he had only raised $440 to the 22nd of May, that was something of an increase over all of April.

But it wasn’t $8,100.

I recently took him to task for some of his campaign language. He hasn’t responded.

I like Brandon. Always have. But in reality, he has only raised $3,865 in cash. And you have to do better than that. If you can’t do better than that, then you really ought to get out, because anything else is a delusion… especially when you have to lie about it.
.

>Pridemore and the lie.

>.
Look, I get that the fringe left have put their faith in the neo-communist nutter representing the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver in the senate.

I get that they overlook his history of corruption, his selling out the “poor and the powerless” to vote for a budget he seems to have hated. I get that they don’t care that he sold out the 3rd District by crapping on us when he tossed our votes into the garbage by eliminating I-960. I get that they support his gerrymandering to screw us with a loot rail tax. I get all of that.

But to come right out and lie on your website?

The working men and women of Washingon[sic] decided – by a huge nearly 70% vote – that my vision of principled, progressive leadership in Congress is the one to support. I’m honored by their endorsement, and thankful for their recognition that I’ve always fought for hard-working families and I’m committed to genuine, straightforward leadership in Congress.

How sad is it that you can’t even spell “Washington?”

It WASN’T “The working men and women of Washingon[sic].” The vast majority of the “working men and women of Washington” HAVE never heard of you, and WILL never hear of you, as your abortive congressional aspiration dies here directly, either after you report another horrifically abysmal fund raising quarter or after you get destroyed in the primary.

Now, if you’re referring to the UNIONS.. well, that’s a different matter.

But unions make up such a tiny percentage (thank God) of the people actually working here, that the union endorsements are particularly worthless.

Don’t exaggerate, Craig. Your neo-communist political view won’t get you elected to dog catcher outside the USSV.

You’re a democrat, Craig. Your failure to take a principled stand and vote AGAINST a budget you opposed is the exact kind of thing we DON’T need representing us in Congress.

This isn’t Pravda. Stop acting like it is.
.

>Craig Pridemore: Senator Slime.

>.
Look, I admit it. I’ve got problems with Pridemore.

I’ve got problems with someone who would condemn a budget as being “balanced on the backs of the poor and the powerless,” right before voting “yes” for that same budget.

I’ve got problems with someone who would pass a bill to gerrymander the CTrans district lines to exclude 10’s of thousands of “no” votes on his loot rail tax increase.

I’ve got problems with someone ethically challenged enough to amend his own campaign finance bill to allow Steve “Easy Money” Stuart to keep 10’s of thousands in campaign donations for his commissioner election.

I’ve got problems wit someone so out of touch that he told the people of the 3rd Congressional District, who voted in favor of I-960 to get stuffed when he voted to get rid of it.

Those things trouble me.

Pridemore has as much trouble raising money as he does being ethical. But this kind of crap is close to the top of the list of reasons why he’s unfit for elective office:

Underdog Democrat Pridemore Says Polling Has Him Ahead of Party Rival Heck

But Pridemore, a liberal who supports a carbon fee to fight global warming, a constitutional amendment that says corporations do not have First Amendment rights, a single-payer health care system—and who marched against the Iraq War—says he has polling that shows he’s ahead of Heck.

“We have done one poll,” Pridemore says, “and we’re encouraged by the results. We are definitely ahead in name recognition, in votes, in favorability.”

Asked if we could see the poll, Pridemore was sheepish, saying he was going to get in trouble with his campaign for talking about it. He did say that it was a robopoll.

Now, you’ve got to be delusional to be a fringe leftist like Pridemore under any circumstances. He has absolutely zero chance of getting elected to Congress from this district: moronic positions on global warming like cap and swindle; pro socialist Obama care… No chance. None.

But to put out this crap?

Desperation. There is no such poll, save for that ruminating around Pridemore’s head. The cutesy way he shilled it tells anyone that.

Senator Slime strikes again. Well done, CP.
.

>Can someone help with this? When is it OK to lie in a campaign?

>.
Seriously.

I’m watching coverage of labor throwing a fit over the taxing of health care benefits that Obama complained McCain wanted to tax during the campaign, and I’ve got to ask: how come Obama gets to lie?

Was it that long ago that the left was flipping out over Bush’s alleged “lies” that were used to justify our invasion of Iraq?

Why is it that Bush’s “lies” were to be condemned so loudly and long…. but Obama’s lies are, essentially, given a complete pass.

Did that man and his lackeys not stand there in front of all of us and tell us that if you earned less than $250,000, you wouldn’t pay “one dime more” in taxes if we elected him?

So…. what’s the deal? Were we to take that literally, as in, “I ain’t paying ONE dime more in taxes… I’m paying THOUSANDS of more dimes in taxes?”

I mean, if we’re supposed to take it literally, then the man isn’t lying.

But if we have to take what he said about THAT literally, then weren’t we supposed to take his claim that if we’d only allow him to bury us in debt, why, well, unemployment wouldn’t climb over 8%.

And if we take that literally, don’t we have to take the promise to not hire lobbyists literally? How about the promise to end earmarks or other pork in budgets?

At precisely what point is this man supposed to be held accountable for what he promised during his election?

We are told to “give him a chance.”

Well, he’s had a chance, and things continue to be worse now than ever under Bush.

But why is it OK for him to lie? And when, if ever, are we SUPPOSED to believe him?

Doesn’t our failure to hold HIM accountable mean that NO politician should be held accountable?

And if we’re willing to hold, say, a state representative or commissioner accountable…

…then why don’t we hold Obama accountable?

Can someone help me with that?

I wanna know.
.

>Redux:The trouble with "Restoring Trust In Government" when you’re not honest about who you are: Russell continues to blow off his tax and spend past.

>.
A reminder about fake “trust in government.”

It’s all well and good for Jon Russell (R-Chicago) to come out and take shots at our local Cowardman, Brian Baird.

In fact, I’ve taken a few (as in dozens) of shots at the slimy worm representing us in Congress that seems to have gone so far as to make up death threats as an excuse for lacking the testicles required to face his constituency over his upcoming sell out on the empty suits socialized health care plan… in keeping with his cowardly, hypocritical votes on the porkulus and cap and swindle bills that he voted for… without ever reading.

That, however, does NOT “Restore Trust In Government.”

It does not restore trust in government (“Trust” being the entire underpinning of one’s campaign) when you, yourself, made money in an incompetent effort to ram the largest single property tax increase in our local history down our throats when you, Mr. Russell, ran the Port of Vancouver’s abortive campaign to do that very thing.

YOU were in charge of the Port getting massacred at the polls. YOU made thousands of dollars off that effort. YOU have attacked others wrongfully an in the most underhanded ways when they’re wise enough to oppose your positions.

YOU are the one fired from the House Republican Caucus in Olympia; YOU are the one who portrays yourself as some sort of expert on health care… and YOU are the one who keeps telling us “actions speak louder than words.”

YOUR actions are right out of the Axlerod playbook. And we really don’t need that kind of representation around here.
.

>My reaction to today’s Lou Brancaccio’s media flatulence.

>.
We are cursed with an utterly clueless daily paper for our region of the woods; the Columbian.

From time to time, their managing editor makes ragged and frequent attempts to justify that cluelessness, including today’s effort. There is, perhaps, no one more critical of our local paper then I. I can, without doubt, claim that this paper wherein he writes about yet another in the long series of so-called advisory boards where, as he puts it, “We’d regularly gather readers to ask them how we’re doing,” either, as in this case, hand picks the participants or ignores the results if those results might tend to derail this rag from it’s agenda.

I can modestly claim that there is, perhaps, no one more critical of this paper than I. I can also claim that no amount of criticism; no amount of fact-based correction; no appeal to something unheard of in our local despicable rag (aka “ethics”) will make any difference of any kind to those in charge.

In short, the dog and pony show Brancaccio writes about today will change absolutely nothing. It will make no difference in their bias. It will not get them to write ALL of the facts, not just the ones they like. It will not stop Brancaccio in particular, and others within the Columbian from writing about Brian Baird as if the check was in the mail. It will not get them off their moronic I-5 Bridge/loot rail kick, or cause them to do what common decency demands: require that we, as a community, get to vote this crap pile up or down. It will, in no way, end the editorial double standard of wanting the will of the people to be heard on some things, but not heard on others when that will is likely to conflict with their agenda. It will in no way result in a course correction (just check out today’s idiocy from John Laird, where’s he’s all about how great the passage of R-71 is statewide, while forgetting (or, per usual, not caring) that it failed here by a substantial margin) and it will NEVER result in the one thing vital to this, or any other paper’s survival:

That the paper in question reflect and speak to the politics and philosophies of the vast majority of its possible readership, and not just the tiny, far left fringe it emulates.

How is the Columbian “doing?” Well, gee…. I don’t know.

One would think that facing bankruptcy could be a clue. One might even ponder the meaning of occupying and then abandoning a brand new, state of the art temple of leftist journalism within the same few month time frame as a result of economic necessity might send a message. One would point out the utter stupidity of reducing features and amounts of news and then increasing the price for even less of a paper might be an indicator.

But one would be wrong, for to admit that this paper’s course is so completely to the fringe left that no one to the political right of Mao would ever want to spend money on it would be to require some introspection that those running this disgrace to journalism appear to be genetically incapable of engaging in.

Brancaccio’s idiocy is best summed up in his own words:

I have not said that. I simply stated a fact that you have the opportunity to see more fringe — however it is defined — on the Internet.

When your paper ONLY endorsed democrats for open seats in the last election… when your paper took positions closely mirrored by the fringe left concerning R 71 and I-1033, including quoting a moron in a story who lied when he said that PEOPLE WOULD DIE if 1033 was voted in (as it was here in Clark County) when your paper lies, exaggerates, prints pap garbage like these articles and then demands that billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on an unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement with loot rail, it’s fairly clear that the biggest fringe element around here isn’t on the internet, except where you post your articles.

By almost any measure; from horrific subscription numbers to abysmal ad revenue, this community has sent you message after message. And as long as you refuse to listen?

Well, expect CONTINUED horrific subscriptions and ad revenue.

Because your pathetic effort deserves no less.
.

>So, what’s it all mean now at the national level?

>.
First, I appreciate the victories of both (and especially) Gov. (Elect) Bill Christie (R-NJ) and Gov. (Elect) Bob McDonnell (R-VA).

We are met with a White House, once again engaging in self-delusion mode, wherein they try and tell us that “they” didn’t have anything to do with those elections since they were “local.”

Visions of then White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers standing outside the White House that freezing November morning back in 1994 until at least 4 a.m. local time, giving the following answer to EVERY question asked of her:

“The president does not view the results of this election as a referendum on his leadership.”

… dance in my head.

Both New Jersey and Virginia went with the Empty Suit in 2008, New Jersey by 14.7 % and Virginia by 6.3%. Obama invested in both states; heavily in New Jersey; less so in Virginia where Deeds knew that the VA voters were in a mood to reject the messiah’s programs.

So, we’re confronted with a White House that is “Bart Simpsoning” this result.

And what would the White House be babbling if the left had ran the table?

The exact opposite.

This represents an almost diametric scenario from that typically reserved for the GOP: I’ve frequently posited that the GOP knows how to achieve power, but has no real clue as to how to keep it.

A tin-eared White House, seeing the same polls we do, plus their own internals, knows that their policies and vision sucks in the eyes of the American people. They also know that somehow, magically, the empty suit’s personal popularity remains above 50%, even though his policies don’t.

They made the calculation that we’re still not paying close enough attention… that we’re still awed by the man of “Hope and Change,” but it seems they forgot to ask: “How’s that ‘Hopey–Changy‘ thingy working out for you?”

While the president has undeniable, but increasingly smaller personal popularity, that doesn’t translate to stiffs like Deeds or crooks like Corzine.

There’s been a certain “Nero-esque” quality to the president: More golf in 10 months than Mr. Bush in 3 years; weekly Wednesday parties at the White House that have rung up a bill in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars while homeless people are, literally, just down the street.

The bizarre lies put out there for the President, for example, that “he wouldn’t be watching the election results” show an inability to grasp reality and a knee-jerk position that lies are the order of the day no matter how short the term, since we have a limited memory and after all, one lie can be replaced by another as needed. (Doesn’t this “saved or created jobs” thing just make you want to blow chunks?)

Yesterday’s result represents a message. The bleeding for the democrats is arterial. Do they become responsive and actually begin to listen? Or, as I have repeatedly prophesied, undergo 1994 all over again?

The choice is up to them. And if they make the wrong one, then the choice will be up to us.
.

>More of Laird’s moroic idiocy on 1033.

>.
We get that John Laird, who claims that he “hate(s) to sound like a cranky old coot here” while still managing to pull it off so frequently and painfully for the rest of this community, came out with more of his fringe-left quvatch on I-1033.

He blathers:

Westneat’s conclusion: “Forget all the caterwauling about spending cuts. At its heart (I-1033) is a massive giveaway to the rich that does little to nothing for the poor” except, of course, deprive them of vital programs and services. According to six-year projections of the state Office of Fiscal Management, I-1033, if passed, would slash state revenue by $5.9 billion, revenue to cities by $2.1 billion and revenue to counties by $694 million.

Westneat added: “To their credit, both Gates and Allen appear to know this. They are trying to defeat Eyman’s initiative … even though it would mean huge tax windfalls to them if it passes. I have a feeling it’s because they actually believe that quote Gates repeats so much: ‘To whom much is given, much is expected.’ “

As I have frequently pointed out before, leftist tards are incapable of viewing these things in terms of what the people will save; they can only see it in terms of what it will “cost government,” as if OUR government is not supposed to be “by, of and for the people.”

The rank absurdity of his observation about Gates and Allen fighting 1033 is just that: rank and absurd.

Westnet tells us, according to this moron, that Gates would see a tax break of $571,000 while Allen would see a mere pittance in comparison: a break of $150,000.

Gates is worth a paltry $50 BILLION (That’s BILLION, with a “b”)

Allen is worth much less, and has to settle for scrambling to get by on $10 BILLION (also with a “b”)

Allen goes through that much money in a week just to fuel his basketball team’s jet.

In short, while clowns like Laird want us to be impressed with how much these stalwarts of altruism (Allen has made tens of millions off the taxpayers of this state and controls the Seahawks Stadium that we got suckered into sinking $400 million taxpayer dollars into) stand to lose if their fight is successful, because the two numbers sound SO BIG… the fact is that to these guys, it’s the equivalent of pennies.

It’s easy for them to give up what they would gain because relative to all of their massive wealth, the numbers are essentially meaningless.

Gate’s wealth exceeds my own by a factor of, say, 100,000. That is, he is worth something on the order of 100,000 times more money than I am.

With my worth at, say, around $500,000, I have to provide roughly 1 percent of that worth in property taxes every year to a grateful state of Washington.

Were Gates required to do that… that is, were gates required to fork that kind of cash over, the equivalent percentage of his wealth would be…. $500,000,000 per year (1 percent of $50 billion) as opposed to my 1 percent of $500,000 or so.

In short, Gate’s PROPERTY TAX BILL for ONE YEAR is roughly twice my net worth.

Taking it a step further, that HUGE, $571,000 tax break he’s working to get rid of represents, well, let’s see:

If he’s worth $50 billion…. then $571,000 would represent .0001 or so of his wealth per year; or, as a percentage of all the money he’s worth, something on the order of 10,000 times LESS than I will have to pay.

Relatively speaking, Gates is giving up the equivalent, perhaps, of the cost of a latte’ every year by fighting this… if that.

So, I am not impressed by either Laird’s Lies OR Westnet’s Words. Compared to the rest of us… compared to those of us actually paying the lion’s share of our state’s budget… and particularly when viewed through the prism of the rank hypocrisy Laird exhibits with each of his whines and snivels about tax breaks given the massive tax break HIS employer got from a grateful leftist legislature, these lies are meaningless.

Why Laird insists on repeating them as if they made some difference… much like the “sky is falling” left sniveled about I-601, 695 and 747… is beyond me.

Frankly, that Laird opposes 1033 is reason enough for everyone else to vote for it…. because our courageous legislature would NEVER let these big cuts go through…. would they?

Because it’s not like they can’t throw it out as fast as we put it in.