News

The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts

Bills in Olympia That Actually Have Traction This Year

The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts

Robert Ullman

The Good

Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"

Critics ridiculed Seattle's recent gun buyback event, pointing to the open-air gun bazaar that spontaneously sprang up on the sidewalks surrounding it as evidence of the program's futility. But the more appropriate target of ridicule is the gaping hole in state law that allows such unregulated private firearm sales in the first place. House Bill 1588 would close this so-called gun show loophole, finally requiring universal background checks on the sale of all firearms, not just those from licensed dealers. An estimated 40 percent of firearms are currently sold without a background check. That's just crazy.

Keeping Lady Parts Free

Another year, another round of bills fighting to keep crosses out of our clams. Here's the first no-brainer, ladies: Knocked-up women should have the freedom to decide whether they want to have a baby or have an abortion, and if their insurance carrier covers one option, it should goddamn well cover the other. That's been the rule in Washington State for years—despite persistent Republican opposition to "reproductive parity" laws—and under Representative Eileen Cody's (D-Seattle) bill, HB 1044, it would remain the law of the land.

Still, accessing abortion care is harder now that almost half of the hospitals in Washington are Catholic-affiliated, which is why Senator Kevin Ranker (D-San Juan Island) has introduced a bill that would require hospitals and clinics that receive public money to provide for, or refer for, all legal services, including women's reproductive rights and end-of-life care. "In rural areas, there aren't many options," Ranker says. "We shouldn't allow the sole health-care provider to limit the legal medical choices you have available."

Saving Bus Service

This bill isn't just "good," it's essential for bus service as we know it. Metro is facing a 17 percent service cut next year, simply because King County lacks the authority to tax itself sufficiently to fund its own transit system. This bill would allow the county—if it so chooses—to charge $40 for car tabs and slap a 1.5 percent excise tax on vehicles. If Olympia fails to pass this bill, "You'll be waiting for a bus, it will be full, and it will go by because there won't be enough buses to serve the demand," says bill sponsor Representative Jessyn Farrell, a Democrat from Northeast Seattle. But HB 1959 is facing opposition from outside the county. Fourteen Republicans, who mostly live in tiny towns, unsuccessfully tried to stop it from passing out of committee. Why the fuck should they care if city folk choose to tax ourselves to pay for our own bus service? Lawmakers "bring their ideologies to the table and there is definitely an anti-tax, anti-transit sentiment," Farrell laments.

Ending the Dance Tax

Bars with dance floors shouldn't be taxed more than big venues, like the Paramount and the Moore, simply for having dance nights. But they are. In fact, an obscure 9.5 percent tax on tickets and cover charges (in addition to the business taxes the clubs already pay) has hurt at least three popular music venues in the past few years: Century Ballroom, Neighbours, and Tractor Tavern. Senator Ed Murray (D-Seattle) is sponsoring SB 5613 to repeal this duplicative, unevenly applied tax.

Taxing the Rich to Pay for Schools

There are lawmakers in both parties (yes, we're looking at you, Governor Jay Inslee) who tell us that they can close the $900 million budget gap, while funding K–12 schools enough to meet the state's constitutional obligations, without raising taxes. But, of course, they're lying. That's why we need SB 5738, which would raise more than $600 million a year for education, mostly by imposing a 5 percent tax on capital gains over $10,000 a year. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but we'd be assholes not to pimp it.

Keeping Voting Accessible

Even though Washington State doesn't face the racial voting obstacles of, say, Florida or Mississippi, people of color here don't always see their votes make a difference. For example, only 4 percent of elected officials in Eastern Washington are Latino, even though Latinos represent more than 50 percent of the population in counties like Adams and Franklin. That's because almost all local elections are conducted at-large, or citywide, rather than by district, which can mean minorities are consistently outvoted by thin margins. House Bill 1413 would help fix that by letting cities and towns switch to district-based elections that finally give racial minorities a fair shot at winning office.

Other bills would make it easier for young people to vote. Representative Joe Fitzgibbon's HB 1267 would allow people to register to vote on Election Day, while HB 1279 would allow teens to preregister to vote (then they could vote after turning 18).

Saving Cyclists

Here's a popular bill that has died in past years for stupid procedural reasons. Representative Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) is once again sponsoring a safe-streets bill, HB 1045, that would allow cities to lower speed limits on side streets to a safe 20 miles per hour (from the usual 25) without requiring a traffic study, which can be prohibitively expensive. It has bipartisan support, and its backing outside Olympia is broad: the AARP (the olds!), AAA (the cars!), public-health organizations (the humans!). Just pass it, already.

The Bad

Gutting Rights for Workers

Republicans hate working people. They just do. How else to explain these latest legislative assaults on working people? Senate Bill 5275 would establish a "training wage," by which employers could pay workers 75 percent of the state minimum wage for the first 680 hours of work. That's $1,562 out of the pockets of a minimum- wage worker. Another bill, SB 5728, would invalidate local sick-leave ordinances entirely (including in Seattle). Thanks, Republicans!

Punishing Kids Who Don't Read Good

Republicans religiously oppose taxes to pay for schools, but they yammer about the need for innovative education reforms. So what's their innovation this year? A bill to hold back kids who flunk third-grade reading. "Students of color will be disproportionately retained," argue opponents cited in a legislative report, and SB 5237 provides zero new money to actually help failing students. This isn't reform; it's putting a scarlet letter—an "F" grade—on disadvantaged kids by holding them back.

Grading Schools

This bill is designed to punish teachers for the students who fall through the cracks of our criminally underfunded, overcrowded schools. Senate Bill 5328, birthed from the tax-raising-averse loins of Senator Steve Litzow (R-Mercer Island), would grade schools based on student achievement. Good schools would get an "A"; bad schools would get an "F." That's it. A stupid letter grade devoid of rewards or ramifications.

The Fucking Nuts

Making Shooting Easier

Senate Bill 5831 would make clay pigeons bought by nonprofit gun clubs exempt from sales taxes. Even if they're making money selling the opportunity to shoot at them. YUP! This is a real bill. Sponsored by the senate Republican whip, Ann Rivers, it's a marriage of hating taxes and loving guns that makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

Keeping the State Poor Forever

A two-thirds requirement for tax increases, which was struck down last week, made raising taxes pretty much impossible. Fortunately, the same holds true for passing constitutional amendments like SJR 8205, Senator Pam Roach's (R-Glock) resolution to impose the two-thirds requirement by constitutional amendment. Democrats would have to be fucking nuts to vote for this.

Honoring Reagan

Here's what you pay Senators Don Benton (R-Vancouver), Pam Roach (R-Auburn), and Nathan Schlicher (D-Gig Harbor) 40 grand a year to do: adopt Senate Resolution 8614. It resolved that the state senate "honor and cherish the life and work" of Ronald Reagan, citing reasons such as "Ronald Reagan determined that one key to a prosperous economy was a low tax rate." There's no public record of how much we're paying them to clean Reagan's ghost-spooge off their mouths every day. recommended

 

Comments (43) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
your an idiot...
Posted by sensible human on March 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM · Report
gtk 2
"Metro is facing a 17 percent service cut next year, simply because King County lacks the authority to tax itself sufficiently to fund its own transit system." Here is an idea, pay what it costs to ride metro.That's right, just like the rest of us who drive and have to pay an increase in gas prices you metro riderners need to pay for your services.
Posted by gtk on March 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM · Report
infodriveway 3
@1: It’s you’re. Example: You’re an idiot…
Posted by infodriveway http://jonathan.infodriveway.net on March 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM · Report
4
gtk: You're wrong.

http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…

"The Seattle Department of Transportation's 2009 annual report breaks down the agency's $340.8 million budget by funding source. The gas tax accounts for $13.4 million, or 4 percent of that total. The full budget breakdown (in millions):

Grants & Other: $96.9 (29 percent)
Debt: $77.4 (23 percent)
Bridging the Gap (a property-tax levy passed by voters in 2007): $60.9 (18 percent)
General Fund: $42.3 (12 percent)
Reimbursables: $42 (12 percent)
Gas Tax: $13.4 (4 percent)
Cumulative Reserve Fund: $7.6 (2 percent)

and...

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/act…

"U.S. PIRG cites the Pew Charitable Trusts’ SubsidyScope project, which found that “user fees paid for only 51 percent of highway costs, down 10 percent over the course of a single decade.”

Even if gas taxes were the direct user payment they’re made out to be, no one seems to have much appetite for making sure they actually pay for the infrastructure needs in this country. Gas taxes haven’t risen to accommodate more fuel efficient cars or even for plain old inflation. Nor have they compensated for the fact that driving is declining, meaning less gas consumption (but, puzzlingly, not less road-building)."
Posted by IslandGuy on March 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM · Report
TheMisanthrope 5
Yay regressive taxation to save the buses! No mention of how regressive it is, but let's shill for it anyways!

The Capital Gains taxes are at least aiming to START to fix our tax structure. But, it sure doesn't go all that far.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on March 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM · Report
6
Why not tax dancing to finance the busses? Only the rich go dancing, anyway.
Posted by WestSeven on March 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM · Report
tim koch 7
cienna, is that dance tax ed murray thing still being backed by the washington restaurant association?

you know how i feel about them. they are anti-tax, anti-worker, right-wing extremists. keep ed murray and capitol hill away from that shit ok.
Posted by tim koch on March 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM · Report
8
1. The "obscure" dance tax is actually the State Sales Tax. Not obscure at all. Why would the newspaper that rails against tax exemptions be supporting this one? Is it easier for you guys to forget about the poor when you are dancing?

2. If the legislature increases car tab fees, Eyman will run an initiative to reduce them again. I've got great confidence in Eyman's ability to pass initiatives. In other words - why should the legislature waste their time?

3. The training wage is a great idea. Kids need summer jobs to gain experience in the working world. Employers are hesitant to hire kids with no experience if they have to pay them nearly $10 per hour. A training wage will help kids get into the workforce and learn some skills.

4. I'm super excited to have the chance to vote for the Constitutional Amendment requiring a 2/3 majority to vote for tax increases. Considering how popular the initiative has been (with increasing support every time) I believe the amendment could pass. It's time to permanently enshrine this taxpayer protection into the State Constitution.
Posted by David in Shoreline on March 6, 2013 at 12:04 PM · Report
Dominic Holden 9
@8) Yes it's a sales tax for dancing, but the beef is that it's unfairly applied. Most tickets and cover charges are exempt from that sales tax (such as tickets at the Gorge). In a bizarre double standard, the tax is applied to events where there's an "opportunity to dance" because there is a dance floor (even though people dance at the Gorge). But people are already paying taxes once for tickets on dance events because businesses are paying B&O taxes on their receipts.
Posted by Dominic Holden on March 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM · Report
10
@8, the training wage won't apply only to kids. The next time you visit a fast-food place or a 7-11 or just about any franchised business, notice that there are actual adults working there -- sometimes older adults. This legislation is just a strategy to get around minimum wage.
Posted by sarah70 on March 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM · Report
11
Poor people don't dance?
Posted by drawn on March 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM · Report
12
You have it exactly wrong on SB 5831.

Department of Revenue has ruled that trap shooting clubs that purchase inventories of clay targets wholesale must pay retail sales tax upon that acquisition. THEN, when they sell the targets at the range to members they must charge retail sales tax AGAIN on the same clay targets! No business that charges a tax on its retail sales must pay sales tax a second time on the wholesale purchase of inventory. Nadda. This DoR interpretation needed correcting and wreaked of bias against non profit gun clubs.

I'd appreciate if you would do your homework, such as reading SB 5831, maybe asking a question or two, rather than just shooting from the hip with such utter and backward nonsense.
Posted by H G on March 6, 2013 at 1:23 PM · Report
13
I always knew Pam Roach and Jason Overpreach were fucking nuts.
Thanks for the proof, Goldy. Dominic, Cienna, and Anna!
Posted by auntie grizelda on March 6, 2013 at 1:52 PM · Report
14
Gun show loophole?

This state's largest gun show is staged by the Washington Arms Collectors organization.

At its shows, anybody who purchases a firearm whether from a dealer or private party must be prequalified as a member. That membership application includes verification of background, substantiating whether a person can legally possess or purchase a firearm.

The loophole argument is a strictly an effort for browbeating people who like guns and appreciate their 2nd Amendment rights. It's resisted by people who do NOT want a government paper trail to their door for someday confiscation by government. Private sales are private matters and don't need party poopers to spoil freedom of law-abiding people.

What is the evidence that acquisition of firearms by these law-abiding members at gun shows contributes one iota to crime? Zilch. Washington Arms Collectors has done its diligence at preventing firearms going into hands that should not have them. Get off their backs.

How about we enforce the laws we already have for people who would commit a crime with a firearm?
Posted by H G on March 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM · Report
15
H G, it's just called the "gun show loophole". It should more accurately be called the "private sale loophole".

Do you feel better now?
Posted by Charlie Mas on March 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM · Report
16
"But people are already paying taxes once for tickets on dance events because businesses are paying B&O taxes on their receipts."

This same argument can be made for any business currently subject to sales tax.
Posted by Reader01 on March 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM · Report
17
HG, it's for universal background checks and should have little to no impact on gun shows.

Now that we know it's perfectly legal to walk up to someone on the street and buy a gun from them with no background check, it's become screamingly obvious that the so-called "gun show loophole" should actually be called "buy-a-gun-from-anyone". A background check takes less than a minute and won't prevent a law-abiding gun owner from getting a gun - so why would anyone be against that?
Posted by jt on March 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM · Report
18
If kids can't meet the requirements of passing a grade, they shouldn't be moved on to a progressively harder grade. Why does that need to be a law? It's basic education.
Posted by ishf on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM · Report
19
Yo HG,

Do you feel the same way about cars, boats and houses? That these are "private matters" and shouldn't be registered? Are you worried that the government will come and take those too?

Because the argument that you don't want to register a handgun because you're afraid that the government....who BTW could blow you and everyone else away with the push of a button, you stupid jackass, so the only protection you think your guns provides you is worthless anyway...is going to do something that they've never done in the existence of our government before?

I'm just trying to see how much reception that tin-foil hat of yours gets.
Posted by not a dumbshit like HG on March 6, 2013 at 5:27 PM · Report
20
@17: It adds substantial inconvenience (find FFL where buyer and seller can meet, fill out paperwork, etc) and cost ($25-50 for an FFL to do the transfer, plus paying use tax if the seller cannot demonstrate that the firearm was bought in state or that enough sales tax was paid in another state already). The background check system isn't available to everyone who wants to use it, and if it were, that could lead to improper usage.

It creates a form of forced registration, which may cause a chilling effect on the right of people to keep and bear arms (be it those of an unpopular political beliefs, religious beliefs, sexuality, etc). Not to mention that there is historical precedent for such registration to be used as a means of confiscation.

It only can add additional penalties for a person who is caught after the fact, bringing up search and seizure implications (need to verify a firearm wasn't purchased or transferred after that date without the FFL involvement, problems for owners of privately purchased firearms purchased prior to the enactment of required background checks for transfers in "proving" they acquired legally, etc). As a result, it doesn't do anything to stop the illegal transfer of firearms.

Basically, it's a feel-good measure that doesn't address the problem of the "wrong people" getting firearms, could lead to significant imposition on the right of normal people to keep and bear arms, and brings with it significant other policy implications that affects other rights. You can say you don't care about the right to keep and bear arms and argue to repeal it, but playing it off like adding universal background checks doesn't add a burden on firearm owners is either uninformed or intentionally dishonest.
Posted by Tawnos on March 6, 2013 at 6:26 PM · Report
21
@20,

Maybe we should get rid of driver's licenses while we're at it, eh?

Such a burden for an owner of something to prove ownership? So why bother the "owners" with having them follow the law, since "it doesn't do anything to stop the illegal transfer of firearms"? I'm sorry bu that line of thinking isn't logical, it's purely emotional.

Anyway, I'm much more interested in the "historical precedent for such registration to be used as a means of confiscation."

please enlighten!
Posted by Pawnos on March 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM · Report
GeneStoner 22
Stop subsidizing bus riders on the backs of people who don't want to ride in a stinking, overcrowded, slow-ass bus.

Tax bus riders and bikers!
Posted by GeneStoner on March 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM · Report
23
@21

I normally don't respond to trolls (anon/trolls, same difference on the stranger), but your post is well enough written that I might as well try.

I'd say that, empirically yes, we should get rid of driver's licenses. They don't stop somebody who has theirs revoked from driving, and at their heart they are an attack on the freedom to travel (US v. Wheeler - one of the many reasons I'm against limitations on immigration). This immediately raises the question of insurance - should it be required for firearms as it is for vehicles? My honest answer: I don't know, as of now I've not yet had the time to run the numbers and do the research.

As for "why bother the 'owners' with having them follow the law" - which law are you talking about? I originally started a response trying to guess which law or laws you were talking about, but wasn't able to ascertain any that seemed relevant to the point in discussion. Please clarify, and if you're still writing coherently (even with the usual anon name trolling), I'll do my best to respond.

Even unable to discern your intent with your middle paragraph, I can address what I perceive as the heart of the issue. Personally, I live with a "try to do no undue harm" doctrine. A law that penalizes harming (or trying to harm, or even having a significant singular risk of harming) another person without due cause is likely fine by me. On the other hand, punishing or limiting those who have no history, evidence, nor inclination towards such misdeeds, while potentially punishing and definitely limiting those who have not shown any propensity to those problems raises red flags in my head. Ultimately, I favor an approach that comprehensively addresses the cause of negative harms in our society while reducing the limitations on otherwise legal tools used to implement those harms. That means I support such things as funding education, public transit, healthcare, jobs programs, reformation over punishment for the convicted, etc; but I oppose restrictions on travel (including anti-immigrant policies), the right to keep and bear arms, terrorist watch lists, and similar.

I'm a liberaltarian, it's true, and maybe that makes me a dirty outcast in a community such as SLOG. However, I still maintain hope that the focus on tools will be redirected (insert obvious joke about me being a tool) towards focus on cause among some of the anti-firearm folks here. In the meantime, I just get to enjoy Dan's sex column, Goldy's garden posts (okay, and his usually-correct legal analysis of pending state supreme court cases), Paul's political meanderings, Cienna's anti-rape awesomeness, Brendan's theatrical outgoings, the others I forgot to mention, and Charles's hackery as the only SLOG writer worse than the typical anon-trolls. I mean, sure the guy can write prettily, but the content is as daft as people who think homosexuality is a choice and can't get anal sex out of their minds.
More...
Posted by Tawnos on March 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM · Report
24
@22 - just as soon as car drivers (note: I drive more often than I bike or bus) pay equal to their costs. This includes building roads of size and thickness meant to hold cars, plus the environmental externalities cars produce.
Posted by Tawnos on March 6, 2013 at 9:52 PM · Report
zivilisierter Wurm 25
@23: "I'd say that, empirically yes, we should get rid of driver's licenses. They don't stop somebody who has theirs revoked from driving." Is this some sort of medical condition, or are you simply a moron? The point of licensing is precisely so that those who are unable to demonstrate the capability of driving safely (thus endangering the lives and property of others) may be prosecuted for such violation. By your logic alcohol limits for driving are "empirically" pointless. I mean shit son - the statute doesn't leap out of the bushes to snatch the keys away from a drunk person, AMIRITE ITS JUST PAPER!!?! Quit huffing Ron Paul's senile-ass diatribes and read some Thoreau if you're such a libertarian.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm http://peregrinari.tumblr.com/ on March 6, 2013 at 11:52 PM · Report
MK1 26
@18 Retention is highly controversial, mainly because it's expensive and only works in the short term. It's really only appropriate in pre-K, K and 1st grade and even then the research contradicts itself. Usually when a student is far behind their peers there are other factors at work that aren't addressed by simply repeating the material.
Posted by MK1 on March 7, 2013 at 6:47 AM · Report
GeneStoner 27
@22 Tawnos, WTF are you talking about?

Cars have been getting smaller and lighter since the '70's and vehicles get taxed DIS-proportionately compared to bikes and busses...
Posted by GeneStoner on March 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM · Report
T 28
@8 "The training wage is a great idea."

Bullshit. This isn't aimed at kids. Kids (16-17) can only work a maximum of 20 hours a week during the school year. To get 680 hours of "training" would take almost an entire schoolyear.

No, this is aimed at punishing working adults, who will be paid less for their first 17 weeks of work (assuming they can get 40 hours a week) for "training." I ask you, what minimum wage job could possibly require 680 hours of training? My first job was working retail part-time, and I learned probably 95% of what I needed to know after my second shift.

If this bill capped the training hours at 20, you could maybe argue that it's not anti-worker. As it stands, it's just another in a long line of Republican assaults on the working class.
Posted by T on March 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM · Report
29
Save the earth, ride a bus!
Posted by CJ Wold on March 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM · Report
30
Yes, Metro should raise bus fares. Why should car drivers subsidize buses?
Posted by billwald on March 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM · Report
GeneStoner 31
#30 Exactly right
Posted by GeneStoner on March 7, 2013 at 9:47 PM · Report
32
@30: If you've got GeneStoner agreeing with you, you might want to rethink your position.

Unless you were being ironic. In which case, carry on.
Posted by clashfan on March 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM · Report
33
Charlie Mas and JT. Even if it was called the "private transfer loophole," what the heck is wrong with a private tranfer that the government does not have on its books?

Our 2nd Amendment was born from an era that had just passed where the government (then King George) wanted to confiscate privately-held firearms used to resist the government's oppression. The king's men would have well been served in confiscation if they had a roadmap to the home of each privately-owned firearm.

HB 1588 sets up such a record, and people don't like being tracked for what is theirs, privately owned, and in private transactions or transfers. That is not about preventing ownership by criminals who will work around the law. It's about the government not needing a roadmap to your door as owner of a firearm.

While Department of Homeland Security is procuring 2,700 armored assault vehicles, 2 b-b-billion rounds that cannot be used in foreign conflicts and are not ideal for target shooting, and while our President entertains a Small Arms Treaty that would fully disable the 2nd Amendment permitting the outlawing of private ownership of firearms, do you even get a clue as to why private individuals just might like their ownership of firearms to be privately-held information. Check out the DHS armament buildup and ask yourself why.

Look, the right exists today, it's part of our Constitution, the same document that we value for affording the rights to say what we're saying here. The importance of the 2nd Amendment was not based on our Forefathers' love for venison or desire to go duck hunting. That right for private firearms ownership was drawn in recognition that our government will attempt to oppress our rights and the need to be able to defend against tyrants and a tyrannical government.

And now our government wants a record of ALL firearm transfers. Sorry, plenty of folks oppose that notion and know exactly why.
More...
Posted by H G on March 8, 2013 at 10:00 AM · Report
OutInBumF 34
Yeah, yeah HG, we've heard this argument since 1789, King George III, bad governments, gonna take our guns. If the government has run that far off the rails, we've got far worse problems than the military rounding up all the weapons in America.
I'd just like to see one Amendment 2 fanatic suggest ONE USEFUL WAY TO STOP 6yo's FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED IN SCHOOL, besides 'arm all the kids, their teachers and every last god-damned US Citizen, or else'. I don't want to live in the NRA's vision of America, and I'm not alone.
So please come up with something constructive besides "the government is takin' our guns". Please.
Posted by OutInBumF on March 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM · Report
35
By the way, Robert Ullman's chillingly appropriate illustration of Pam Roach is sheer artistic brilliance!
Posted by auntie grizelda on March 8, 2013 at 11:22 PM · Report
nettiemich 36

HERE IT IS FOLKS YOUR CHANCE TO EMAIL YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS THE ONES YOU PAY TO ACT LIKE KINGS AND QUEENS NOT REPRESENTATIVES WHO WORK FOR YOU. All Members E-mail List
Please select a chamber:
House

Senate

All

Members of the 63rd Legislature 2013-2014

https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Defau…

AND IF YOU DECIDE TO EMAIL THEM (THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO OF COURSE AND MOST PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT EMAILING THEM PUTS THEM ON THE SPOT!) there is a box to check that will send all 3 of your representatives you message!

So if you really WANT TO BE EFFECTIVE (not just rant) then go go there and tell them " I AM WATCHING YOU AND I WILL REMEMBER WHAT YOU DID NEXT TIME YOU ARE UP FOR ELECTION AND YOU WILL BE THE ONE WHO WILL BE LOOKING FOR 3 MINIMUM WAGE JOBS!"
Posted by nettiemich on March 9, 2013 at 10:22 AM · Report
37
WePubWeCan'ts bad, DemoCunts good! Yeah, that's it - just close your eyes and vote for the big (D) and all will be well.

Lapping the smegma off the cunts who play editors and regurgitating it back onto digital paper doesn't constitute an original thought.
If the writers ever get out of their padded playpens covered in baby shit and medical grade weed they may actually find out that the so-called democrats are every bit as fucking worthless as the festering ass pustules that make up the republican party.

Posted by LeftGoodRightBad on March 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM · Report
Ballard Pimp 38
Senator Roach insists that she no longer keeps a firearm in her desk on the Senate floor. However, she refuses to answer whether she still keeps a supply of liquor in the desk. Since she hasn't been completely sober since the late 1990s, it hardly matters. A late-stage alcoholic like Roach tends to display psychotic symptoms anyway.

A more pertinent question is why the voters o her district insist on sending a "representative" who is totally without any influence whatever.
Posted by Ballard Pimp on March 11, 2013 at 6:47 PM · Report
Texas10R 39
@32
Sorry, clashfan; ironic – sarcastic
these terms are not equivalent and are not interchangeable, although in the context of some sarcastic social criticisms found in lyrics of the Clash, the irony is not lost, which makes it not ironic, but apropos.

Posted by Texas10R on March 11, 2013 at 7:39 PM · Report
40
I said it before here and I'll say it again;if we can't have a state income tax,then end run the bitches with a state-wide WEALTH tax.(And if there's not enough sane/good voters state-wide,then at least pass it in King County) ------ http://www.ballotpedia.org , and -- http://www.citizensincharge.org ,and --- http://www.inequality.org
Posted by 5th Columnist on March 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM · Report
41
@2;Why should we who do not drive pay for your polluting ways?We non-drivers pay far more so you can try to run us over with your planetary overheater than conversely,you n00b!
Posted by 5th Columnist on March 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM · Report
The Invisible Dr. X 42
As someone who drives every day and has always owned a car, I think car drivers ought to pay for less environmentally-harmful means of transportation. If more people rode buses and less people drove, traffic congestion would decrease, emissions would decrease, and, frankly, people would perhaps be more sociable (following the line of thought that people in their own individual cars typically treat other drivers like shit, and being forced into a bus with strangers increases the likelihood of interpersonal contact. I have no evidence to back this up, but it makes sense - and it can't be denied that people are less sociable today than they ever have been). I used to live in Indianapolis, where the public transportation system was terminally underfunded, and I used to take the bus in spite of my car ownership because I was living on my own at the time and couldn't afford to buy gas with my minimum wage job, and frequently missed exams and other social obligations because buses would simply not show up. It was a huge issue, and if it can be corrected, it ought to be.
Posted by The Invisible Dr. X on March 12, 2013 at 7:54 PM · Report
43
it's putting a scarlet lette. LM311
Posted by nannasin28 on March 12, 2013 at 11:52 PM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in News