The Good, the Bad, and the Fucking Nuts

Bills in Olympia That Actually Have Traction This Year

Comments

1
your an idiot...
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.
3
@1: It’s you’re. Example: You’re an idiot…
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)."
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.
6
Why not tax dancing to finance the busses? Only the rich go dancing, anyway.
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.
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.
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.
11
Poor people don't dance?
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.
13
I always knew Pam Roach and Jason Overpreach were fucking nuts.
Thanks for the proof, Goldy. Dominic, Cienna, and Anna!
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
29
Save the earth, ride a bus!
30
Yes, Metro should raise bus fares. Why should car drivers subsidize buses?
31
#30 Exactly right
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.
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.
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.
35
By the way, Robert Ullman's chillingly appropriate illustration of Pam Roach is sheer artistic brilliance!
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!"
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.

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.
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.

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
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!
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.