State Rep Working To Elect More Republicans To House

Washington 15th District State Representative David Taylor has been tapped by fellow Republicans in the State House, to assist up to 22 campaigns during the 2010 election cycle.  He is now a member of the leadership of the House Republican Organizational Committee, and recently sent a fundraising appeals letter to his supporters to ask for their help in raising up to $20,000 to partially fund these other candidates' campaigns.

15th District State Representative David Taylor

Mr. Taylor, in a phone interview with this blog, explained that each political party caucus has its own campaign arm, and the House Republican Organizational Committee (HROC) works to recruit candidates, and raise funds, with the goal of getting more Republicans elected in the legislature.  Earlier this year, Taylor transferred $10,000 to HROC, and has the goal of transferring an additional $20,000 following the primary election.
Cary Condotta, a 12th District Representative, invited Mr. Taylor to be on the Leadership Team for HROC this year.  The Leadership Team is made up of caucus elected leadership, and three additional representatives that have been invited to participate.  Taylor said it is an honor to be part of the effort and work of HROC.
Taylor said the top races that he is personally following are:

• 6th District: Spokane area; this is a possible Republican pickup.  There are two Republicans running there, and Mr. Taylor said HROC is not endorsing anyone until after the primary is over.  The Republicans running are John E. Ahern and Shelly O'quinn.  The Democrat incumbent is John F. Driscoll.
• 17th District: Vancouver area; this is another possible Republican pickup.  In position 1, Republican candidate Brian Peck is looking to unseat Democrat incumbent Tim Probst.  In position 2, an open seat this year, Republican candidate Paul Harris is in a primary battle with Democrats Martin (MD) Hash and Monica Stonier.
• 18th District: this district is in Clark and Cowlitz counties; Position 1 is being vacated by Republican Jaime Herrera, who is running for U.S. Congress.  HROC is looking to hold this seat in the Republican column.  Several Republicans are running to take her place: Jon Russell, Brandon Vick, Anthony Bittner, and Ann Rivers have filed as preferring the Republican or GOP Party.  There is a Democrat and an independent on the primary ballot there as well.
• 49th District: Vancouver area; this is another possible Republican pickup.  Both seats in this district are currently held by Democrats.  Position 1 features Republican Bill Cismar running against the Democrat incumbent Jim Jacks.  Position 2 has Republican Craig Riley looking to unseat Democrat Jim Moeller.

Another district race that Taylor is watching closely is the 14th District, in the Yakima area.  Republican incumbent Norm Johnson is in a hotly contested primary following his vote for the domestic partnership bill approved during the most recent legislative session.  Michele Strobel is running a conservative Republican campaign to unseat Johnson.  Strobel has made Johnson's support of the domestic partnership bill a central part of her campaign.  In addition, former Republican PCO Scott Brumback, who filed as a Democrat, is running against Johnson as well.

Some political observers think that the two Republicans may advance to the general election, which would create an uncomfortable situation for local party leaders, who will be reluctant to endorse a candidate, should this situation arise.

Looking statewide, Taylor says it is almost 100% certain that Republicans will gain seats in the House this year, and it is a real possibility that the GOP will gain a majority as well.  This is the goal that HROC is working towards.

Given the unpopularity of recently announced budget cuts coming from the governor's office, it is certainly possible.  Democrats failed to balance the budget when they had a chance, and Republicans have a plan to prioritize spending to prevent the kind of mess that the state budget is currently in.

The Moral Imperative of Blowing a Billion Bucks

Back in 2005, the Queen stated that repealing the 9 1/2 cent tax increase would have been the rejection of a moral imperative. $2 billion of the new gas tax was slated to fix or replace the ageing Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle. Lives and the state's economic vitality were at stake. The Queen and the Democrats asked us to remember the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland and Hurricane Katrina.

So what about that "moral imperative?"

The Seattle Times reported today:

The state Legislature budgeted $2.8 billion last year to replace Seattle's deteriorating Alaskan Way Viaduct with another elevated roadway.

But a large chunk of that money already has been spent. About $1.1 billion has been either spent on or committed to several viaduct projects, with still no decision about how to replace the viaduct in downtown Seattle. And it's not clear that the remaining $1.7 billion will be enough to finish the viaduct replacement.

Yes, that's a one followed by nine zeros. $18 million alone was spent on an environmental impact study which is "on ice." Just think of what else that $18 million could have been spent on: affordable housing projects, fixing unsafe roads in Eastern Washington, etc.. And it was just pissed away. And we thought the Seattle monorail project was a giant money hole.

How stupid are the people in this state to keep voting for Democrats? They cannot lead. They certainly cannot address pressing transportation, crime, health care, housing, and education issues. They can only follow what labor and environmental interests tell them to do. One thing they can do, however, and well, is spend money like drunken sailors and stick taxpayers with the bill.

The new broom of Dino Rossi is going to have sweep Olympia clean.

Quote of the Day

"Do you think the governor knows someone in business? The governor can't walk a few blocks from the Capitol to the Association of Washington Business?

- State Senator Mark Schoesler (R-Ritzville)

Senator Schoesler has been on roll lately with good quotes. Then again, all the Democratic hijinks in Olympia this session have provided him with a target-rich environment.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Schoesler not pleased with Senate budget; 9th District senator says more money going out than coming in

Washington 9th District Sen. Mark Schoesler sees some serious problems with the way money is being spent by state lawmakers.

The Ritzville Republican was a dissenting vote against a recent Senate proposal to increase the 2008 supplemental operating budget.

Schoesler said the budget does not reflect the deficit or aim to increase reserves, but instead funds a slew of new programs and policies - a tactic for politicians as they gear up for the election season.

"Election-year spending is interfering with good fiscal responsibility," he said. "This isn't a forward-thinking budget. This budget is only looking forward to the November election."

The plan, passed by the Senate with a 31-17 vote, increases the 2007-2009 operating budget to $33.7 billion despite projected state revenues of only $32 billion. The Senate Ways and Means Committee recently reported that the budget is expected to face a $2.4 billion deficit next year, which could increase to $5.1 billion by 2011.

Schoesler said supplementary budgets are "generally nonconfrontational," as they are meant to make small funding corrections to the biennial budget. He added that he's long been concerned that state spending isn't sustainable and this session the issue is of "grave concern" as the budget proposes to spend $1.7 billion more than the state plans to rake in.

It also proposes to kick-start good-intentioned programs Schoesler said are likely to fizzle.

"It's really a cruel joke on the people, because they're not going to be able to sustain those programs," he said.

"When you find yourself in a hole, normally you quit digging, but they keep digging," Schoesler added. "When your spending is already exceeding your revenue, you see yourself in a really bad spot. That's what the governor and the other party has done."

Schoesler said some unnecessary funding includes the $1.5 donation to the WNBA Seattle Storm and $5,000 for a National Guard bass fishing tournament. He also points to a $1.3 million allocation for a "road show on health care" to promote organized government-run health care, and $175,000 for a liaison between the governor's office and state businesses.

"Do you think the governor knows someone in business? The governor can't walk a few blocks from the Capitol to the Association of Washington Business? She's going to hire a liaison? That should offend people's sensibilities," he said. "They're adding page after page of new spending ... If the economy actually gets worse, we're going to be in for a very difficult session."

Schoesler also voted against the Senate's version of the Washington 2008 transportation supplemental budget because he said it misappropriates funds that were earmarked for repairs on the Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad.

The transportation budget threatens to take away $1.6 million that remained after the purchase of the CW branch of the 372-mile short-line railroad. The Senate voted 39-10 to drop the money in the multimodal account, which funds transportation-related projects statewide. He pointed to a proposal by Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, for money to go to a Amtrak station in her district.

"You don't keep the confidence of legislators when you rob dedicated funds and use them somewhere else," he said, adding that the railroad is necessary to alleviate the wear and tear on state highways and to avoid high diesel prices while transporting lumber and goods.

"We need to upgrade the track so the trains can run at commercial speeds," Schoesler said. "That was part of the deal ... We've got a long-term tool for economic development in our counties and to steal from it is unacceptable."

The House of Representatives also recently passed a draft of its operating and transportation budgets. Senate and House budget writers are expected to meet during the next several weeks to compromise on the state's spending. The 2008 legislative session is slated to wrap up March 13.

The Perils Of Ammunition Serialization

If they can't take your guns, they'll take your ammo. Ammunition serialization in Washington?



Leave it to the Left to probe the Constitution for vulnerabilities. Both the United States Constitution and the Washington state constitution quite clearly respect that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. Individual gun ownership is a real bone in the throat for many on the left, and they chafe at impediments to the imposition of power known as constitutions. So, leftist Democrats in the Washington State Legislature have decided to go after ammunition.
The late U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once introduced a Second Amendment work-around by proposing what he called, “arsenal” regulation. His law would have allowed citizens to own a few guns without any great inconvenience, but would have made ammunition difficult to acquire or own. That idea failed, but it certainly inspired a fresh line of thinking in gun controllers. People may have the right to keep and bear arms, but the Constitution does not explicitly permit ammunition ownership. Outlawing ammunition would have been a bit like allowing us to own cars but making gasoline inaccessible.
A recent fad among gun controllers is to propose sensible sounding “ammunition serialization” laws. State Representatives Al O’Brien , Brendan Williams , Dennis Flannigan , and Jamie Pedersen, all Democrats, introduced a bill requiring that all handgun ammunition manufactured or sold within the state of Washington be marked with a serial number. The publicly pronounced, touchy-feely goal of ammunition serialization is to imprint every handgun bullet with a unique serial number that could be matched to the purchaser of that ammunition and that information would be stored in a state maintained database. In theory, bullet serialization would permit law enforcement to match bullets used in violent crime to the original purchaser.
That certainly sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Who could be against that?
Well that’s not the true intention of the law. Requiring ammunition manufacturers to print every bullet with a unique serial number would force ammunition makers to purchase tens of millions of dollars worth of new equipment. Serialization would force manufacturers to produce ammunition in lots of 20, 50 or 100, instead of millions. Ultimately, this would force the price of ammunition so high that very few would be able to afford it. They may as well just mandate that every bullet be made of a precious metal.
Oops! I hope that the Brady Center for gun control doesn’t read this column. I don’t want to give them any new ideas.
The United States Constitution does not confer the right to keep and bear arms upon Americans. It recognizes that the right exists and forbids government from infringing upon that right. For all the debate about what that dangling participle, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” means, the author of that amendment, James Madison made it quite clear in subsequent writings that he intended to protect the rights of the individual. By his definition, a militia as every able bodied man.
The Washington State Constitution is even more clear: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Gun controllers believe that they can subvert this right by restricting ammunition purchases. But I’m reminded of a law meant to limit abortions a couple of decades ago. If my memory serves me well, the state of Ohio enacted a law that would have required women who were seeking to abort their pregnancies to first view a sonogram of the doomed child. The courts found that this represented too great an imposition upon the exercise of a constitutional right.
I’ve read the constitution and the word abortion appears nowhere in the document. The Supreme Court declared that they could discern this right in the "penumbras, formed by emanations" from the Constitution. So one might predict that a right enumerated in clear text would be more worthy of defense than an ethereal right floating around in an emanation. On the other hand, while the courts have upheld the right of free speech for pornographers, they’ve shown less interest in protecting political speech.
As such, we should not rely upon the courts. This bill needs to be aborted early in its gestation.