There is a hearing in Olympia this morning before the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs on HB 1087, which would prohibit paying initiative petition signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.
Word is that the hearing room is packed with opponents of the bill, a crowd organized by Tim Eyman and his signature gathering contractors at Citzens Solutions. Of course they’re crowding the hearing room. This isn’t democracy or free speech that’s at stake for them, it’s their livelihood.
I’d thought about heading down to the hearing myself, but it’s hard to make an 8:00 AM hearing in Olympia when my daughter doesn’t walk out the door to school until 9:00 AM. Besides, I already know what the Eyman folks are going to say, so why not just refute them here?
There are really only two arguments against HB 1087. 1.) There is no evidence of signature fraud in WA state, and thus this bill is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech; and 2.) this bill is intended to destroy the initiative process.
Both arguments are complete and utter loads of shit.
As to the first argument, a similar Oregon law was recently upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, precisely because the state of Oregon presented gobs of evidence of signature fraud conducted by signature gatherers, incentivized by their pay-per-signature compensation.
That’s Oregon. Just across the border. Does anybody really believe that Washington state is somehow immune to the same sort of shenanigans, especially when you consider that most paid signature gatherers are mercenary migrant workers traveling from state to state during the signature gathering season? Gimme a break.
Some have argued that our Secretary of State has reported no fraud of this sort here in WA, but just because the SOS hasn’t found this fraud (or even looked for it) doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And it is more than a touch ironic that these people who would vociferously argue against simple safeguards protecting the integrity of the initiative process, are the same people who vociferously argue for requiring photo ID at the polls… when they can provide absolutely no evidence of polling place voter fraud! What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Signature fraud was rampant in Oregon, and they just got away with it until watchdog organizations did their own investigations and presented their evidence to the government and the press. No doubt similar fraud occurs annually in WA state and across the nation… which, um, could explain the extraordinarily high signature rejection rates here and elsewhere. Eyman himself, the grand defender of the initiative process that has so lavishly supported him and his family, has filed petitions with a rejection rate pushing 20 percent, and I’m told that at least one petition in another state last season was thrown out after the signature rejection rate exceeded 50 percent!
As for the second argument, that this bill is intended to kill the initiative process, well that is simply refuted by reality. A similar bill is law in Oregon, and the same folks who fought it in court there are still managing to qualify initiatives for the ballot. Perhaps it’s a touch more expensive, I don’t really know. But nobody ever said that qualifying an initiative for the ballot should be easy.
Hell, if it was up to me, I’d lower the signature threshold in exchange for banning paid signature gathering altogether. This would make it harder for self-interested professionals like Eyman to qualify an initiative simply on the merits of a big check from Michael Dunmire, while at the same time making it easier for initiatives with real grassroots support to come before voters.
But, well, anything that takes the profit motive out of the initiative process is sure to draw opposition from initiative “champions” like Eyman.
Eyman doesn’t want additional restrictions on his business. Duh. But let’s be real – it isn’t just initiatives that have constitutional “issues” – legislators aren’t immune from whipping up improper bills.
Speaking of which, the new crop of bills seeing the light of day in Olympia seems damn near berift of quality thinking when it comes to transportation.
Look, we’ve got nothing but Democrats in Olympia. Hell, they run the state, and all the big local governments in the state. They can do what they want on transportation. So why are they such idiots about it?
Now they want to combine the RTID and the ST2 ballot measures into one. Two bills would do that: HB 1396 and SB 5282. Here’s how the Democrats explain why this (supposedly) would be a good thing:
——————-cut—————-
For the sake of this explanation let us assume that both RTID and ST2 have 100 project units. If Sound Transit 2 is put forward it will pass and transit gets 100 units fot transit. If RTID is voted on seperatly the polling shows that it must have at least 40% for transit before the three counties will support 60% for roads.
Now assume both pass. You get 140 units for transit.
But, if you combine ST2 and RTID then ST2 meets the need for the transit component and you only net 100 units for transit. In short, ST2 is exploited for more roads funding.
Posted by Particle Man at 10:27 AM, Jan 25, 2007
————-end cut——————-
That’s from Postman’s blog. I presume the author is bitter because some money would go to road and bridge repairs. What is written borders on incomprehensible. The legislative effort the poster describes – the fruit of Democrat supermajorities – shows what amounts to a dismissive attitude toward our region’s long-term infrastructure planning. Merely cramming the nascent RTID and ST “proposals” into a single ballot measure is nothing short of an abdication by the legislature of any leadership role. It rates a .06 on a scale of one through ten for political vision.
I’m at a loss. Can you Democrats explain why you turn brain dead on transportation issues? You are in complete power – what is keeping you from using it wisely?
I believe the initiative process is important becuase it’s a vehicle by which the citizens can take direct action when elected representatives fail in their duty. I have said it here before, Tim Eyman is abusing the process. Paid signature gatherers? Please. Not what the process intended.
On the other side of this however…..Democrats ought to be thanking Tim for being such a distraction and divider of the Republican party. His intiatives get way to much debate and play by the base, which could be better spent promoting candidates for office… He is a distraction for R’s, a thorn in the side of D’s and will soon be obsolete because he is marginalizing himself on all sides of the political aisle.
BTW, I hope your pledge drive is wildly successful, DG.
Goldy — how do you feel about these two proposals for democratizing the initiative process? Both of these would eliminate the reliance on paid signature gatherers and big money in getting initiatives on the ballot, increase grass roots participation, and enable voters to know more before signing a petition.
(1) Allow a registered voter with a state driver’s license or ID card to sign an initiative petition online. That would both reduce the reliance on paid signature gatherers and also allow citizens to learn more about an initiative online before deciding whether to sign the petition.
(2) Permit initiative petitions to be printed on 8-1/2 x 11″ sheets of paper, so they can be printed on ordinary retail computer printers. This would enable more citizens to print their own petitions and circulate them among their families, friends and neighbors, again lowering the cost of signature campaigns and reducing the reliance on paid gatherers.
Printing initiatives on 8 1/2 X 11 can not be done for most initiatves. So that voters know what they’re signing, the full text of the initiative must be printed on one continuous sheet of paper that they sign. An initiative petition can not be a series of letter size papers stapled together. The ballot tile, summary and warnings about being a voter to sign and such also have to be on the petition as well as the reqired signing information.
We could use the same argument and let people print up their own ballot also. That would be a lot easier than waiting to get an absentee in the mail.
Initiative petitions are legal documents and there is a reason to provide for uniformity. Using the larger size paper helps voters recognize them and sets these measures apart as a legal petition when people sign them.
If people could vote over the internet, then they could sign petitions over the internet. So far there is no accepted protocol for voting for candidates over the internet.
Haven’t we heard all these attacks against Eyman before?
Steve @5 That most initiatives can’t be printed on 8.5 x 11 isn’t actually true. I was able to format I-872 onto a printer sized piece of paper.
Also by reducing the minimum size, you allow intiatives to be printed on any size between the current size (11 by 14) and the low size. So, petitions could be legal size (8.5 by 14 for example).
Right now, Washington has the largest minimum size of any state. Florida’s minimum size is actually 3.5 by 5.
I have a blog on just this isssue, by the way:
http://printerdemocracy.wordpress.com/
From above “1.) There is no evidence of signature fraud in WA state, and thus this bill is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech”
In the 1990 there was a ref. on the ballot dealing land use. A
large number of the signature collected in Stevens County
where signed in the our the names appear on the voter rolls.
With the same color and type of pen. The SOS (Ralph Munro)
would not investigate. That is why there is no cases of fraud
in this state, nobody will investigate.
And Richard at @4,
(1) Allow a registered voter with a state driver’s license or ID card to sign an initiative petition online.
@5….
I find it Ironic that the same people who complain about potential fraud in collecting signatures find it completely unreasonable for voters to provide Picture ID at the Polls.
Let’s face it, any fight against teh initiative process is about reducing the rights of the people and increasing the rights of the legislature.
Sorry, I got got cut off.
And Richard at @4,
(1) Allow a registered voter with a state driver’s license or ID card to sign an initiative petition online.
Your a Lawyer, you know that there is no requirement that
a vote have a state driver’s license or ID card. This would
pass the first laugh test in front of a Judge. You must have
equal access to all voters.
Last time when I was approached by a paid gatherer, I told same that my parole officer told me I couldn’t sign those things.
“So”, the petition person said?
Richard;
I’ve got some concerns about using a WSDL or ID card to sign on-line. Most people have the WSDL number printed on their checks now, to reduce the time they have to wait in line at the checkstand. So if someone had access to those checks (say, a clerk, bookeeper, or store owner), they could collect a list of names and WSDL owners over a period of time which would be pretty impressive.
Since the WSDL is thus not a confidential unique identifier, there is no way you could rely upon it to verify that the person actually signed the petition.
There may be other ways, technically, involving the issuance of unique user names/passwords by the Dept. of State, but that’s a proposal which is in the distant future.
*******************************
By the way, why are we having to spend so much effort to protect our Social Security number and other info from identity thieves? Because credit card companies want to issue easy credit, with minimal effort by the applicant or the lender, and then pass the risk of fraud onto the public. If the credit card companies had to take reasonable measures to ensure that the person applying for a loan was in fact the person they purported to be, then identity theft would dissapear.
But in the six years the Republicans have been in charge of the Presidency and Congress, years during which identity theft has “exploded”, no one has suggested the credit card companies take any steps themselves to stop this.
Instead, the onus is placed even more on the victims, arguing that they should have done more to protect their own information from theft. This is stated even though most victims’s identities are stolen from information gained from third party sources (employers, banks, insurers, etc.), and through no fault of the victim.
Private Message to Puddybud from Roger Rabbit
To: Puddybud
From: Roger Rabbit
Dear PUDDING BRAINS:
In the “Put Your Money Where Your Mouse Is” thread @8 you posted:
“Furball Moonbat Pelletizer: When your charitable contriibutions ($99, what a joke) reach my level and are sustained yearly, you may criticize me.”
Unfortunately, I don’t have your snail or e-mail addresses, so the only way I can reply to you is by posting my response here.
Due to my modest means (I’m a pensioner on a fixed income struggling to make ends meet under the Bush Inflation), I’m not in a position to make large charitable contributions, but mine are targeted for maximum effectiveness.
For example, the $99 I donated to http://www.operation-helmet.org/ bought a battle helmet upgrade kit for one (1) U.S. soldier or Marine deployed in Iraq or Afganistan.
These kits provide our troops with enhanced protection from possible head injuries, especially from IEDs (i.e., roadside bombs). There’s obviously a demand and need for these kits, as they are distributed only to troops who request them, and http://www.operation-helmet.org/ so far has fulfilled 33,100 requests, and has a backlog of 912 unfilled requests (as of right now) awaiting funding from donors like me.
If my $99 donation saves one (1) — count ’em, ONE — U.S. soldier from death or serious injury, and allows this individual to return home in one piece to his wife and kids, to live out the rest of his life as a functioning human being — working, going to church, contributing to society, etc. — then that is the best $99 I’ve ever spent. Spending it to support our troops entailed personal sacrifice for me, but is well worth it.
But, puddy, I’ve made an even more important investment than purchasing battle gear for our soldiers: I’ve used my precious vote to put people in public offices who CARE about our troops and will SUPPORT them by spending public funds for the equipment they need, so there is no need for our soldiers’s safety to depend on private donations in the first place.
What have you done for our troops? You brag about your own charitable contributions (which I don’t believe absent verification, given your reputation as a proven liar) but WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR OUR TROOPS? You’ve not only not supported them with either your wallet or your fat mouth, but you’ve squandered YOUR vote by perpetuating the incompetent regime that sent our troops into harm’s way without proper equipment in the first place — and then continuously refused to upgrade their equipment. We’ve been at war for FOUR YEARS and http://www.operation-helmet.org/ is still in business because there’s still a need for private donations to supply our troops with proper battle gear. Why? Because of voters like you.
You are one loud-mouthed, screwed-up, unpatriotic fuckwad. Shame on you. You should be put in stocks in the public square so citizens can throw rotten cabbages at you. So, before you criticize my charitable activities, I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, son, and square away your own act.
Very truly not yours,
Mr. R. Rabbit, Esq., M.O.R.E.*
* Member, Order of the Rabbit Empire
“Hell, if it was up to me, I’d lower the signature threshold in exchange for banning paid signature gathering altogether. This would make it harder for self-interested professionals like Eyman to qualify an initiative simply on the merits of a big check from Michael Dunmire, while at the same time making it easier for initiatives with real grassroots support to come before voters.”
Glad to see you’re finally beginning to understand our populist western ways, Goldy! After living here 12 years, it’s about time! Our clean western air must be clearing your head.
Well, relatively clean. If you get far away from the city. Out in cow country.
4(1) Unconstitutional because it creates unequal signing requirements for those with/without a non-mandatory photo ID.
Roger Rabbit @ 16
They can still sign the initiative on paper. They could even be allowed to scan the signed form and e-mail it to the Secretary of State, saving postage.
You could also use the social security number for on-line signing, instead of the license/state ID. Practically every U.S. citizen has a social security number.
You would probably object to this one as well. Since a U.S. citizen can be born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents. And thus never be issued a U.S. social security number.
On a similar note;
What is the big deal about proof of citizenship for voting?
Why is this so contested? Don’t we all want legal, registered voters casting ballots?
Steve @ 5
You can print anything on the back on 8.5 x 11 paper, just like you can print it on 11 x 14 or 11 x 17 paper. A 8.5 x 11 sheet has 60.7% as much area as a 11 x 14 sheet. If you can print it in 12 point type on 11 x 14, you can print it on 9 point type on 8.5 x 11.
Some initiatives or referenda are so wordy, that the text wouldn’t be legible to most people without a magnifying glass even on 11 x 14 or 11 x 17. For example, when I was trying to promote Referendum 56 back in 2004 (regarding the party ballot primary election), it would have required 3 point text to print the entire measure on the back of a 11 x 14 sheet.
As for internet signatures, etc., perfection is not required in initiative and referendum signing. There is always at least 10% — usually 15% or more — of invalid signatures, even with paper forms.
We don’t need to be as accurate with qualifying measures fpr the ballot. There has never been an initiative that failed to qualify by only 129 signatures.
Testimony submitted to the committee this morning:
Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Tim Eyman, I live in Mukilteo, and I appreciate this opportunity to testify against House Bill 1087 which would put citizens in jail for 90 days and find them guilty of a misdemeanor crime for compensating another person on a per-signature basis.
This is like making driving a crime because some people drive drunk. People shouldn’t be thrown in jail for driving and neither should they be thrown in jail for being compensated for exercising their First Amendment rights.
No candidate in 2006 ran on eliminating the initiative process. The people were never told it would be a top legislative priority to add substantial burdens to the initiative process.
HERE’S MY TOP 7 REASONS WHY THIS BILL IS BAD
Number 7 – In 1993, the Legislature passed an anti-initiative law just like 1087 and the court found it “violated citizens’ fundamental freedom of political speech protected by the First Amendment.” Why should the 2007 Legislature pass a law the court has already rejected?
Number 6 – In 2004, we hired hourly workers to supplement our pay-per-signature folks. These hourly workers were dramatically more expensive, less productive, and had much higher invalid rates. 1087 will radically increase the costs of qualifying initiatives for the ballot, adding a substantial burden to campaigns, especially small grassroots efforts.
Number 5 – Oregon has a law like 1087 and since it was enacted in 2002, invalid rates for signatures have gotten WORSE, not better. In fact, because of this law, Oregon’s invalid rates are now nearly DOUBLE what they are in Washington. Why would we want to copy Oregon’s law that has resulted in MORE invalid signatures? Oregon’s HB 1087 has radically increased the costs and reduced by two-thirds the number of initiatives qualifying for the ballot – 18 initiatives qualified for Oregon’s 2000 ballot, prior to Oregon’s 1087 being imposed, and only 6 qualified in 2004. More invalid signatures, higher costs, a substantial burden put on citizens, and less initiatives for voters to vote on. Again, why copy such an abysmal failure?
Number 4 – The people who pay per signature check signatures each week from each person and they don’t pay for bad ones. People who gather signatures know they won’t be compensated for bad signatures. This screening process is very effective and it’s why signature validity rates for people who are compensated are much, much higher than those from volunteers.
Number 3 – The most common complaint we get from supporters each year is “I wanted to sign your petition but I never saw it.” 1087 will only make that problem worse. It will result in less people carrying petitions that voters want to sign. Because of the added burden, many people who gather signatures do not work in states that have laws like 1087. HB 1087 will result in less people carrying petitions that voters want to sign, limiting voters’ opportunity to support liberal, conservative, and non-partisan issues.
Number 2 – The Secretary of State thoroughly checks signatures on petitions. Since 1999, there’s been over 8 million signatures submitted and the Secretary of State makes sure only valid signatures count and only initiatives with enough valid signatures qualify. It’s clear the Secretary of State DID NOT request HB 1087 because there is no problem.
And the Number 1 reason why 1087 is bad – Washington’s aggressive laws against forgery and fraud are working. Last week, we put in a public records request with the Secretary of State’s office and they responded that they “have no records of any instances of verified forgeries or fraud in the signature gathering process for statewide measures in those years (1999 through 2006).” 8 million signatures – zero verified forgeries or fraud. There is no problem that 1087 solves, it would only add a substantial burden onto initiative campaigns and greatly reduce opportunities for voters to sign petitions they support.
The Constitution guarantees the right to initiative and only laws that facilitate the process are permitted. HB 1087 doesn’t facilitate – it inhibits the process. Olympia shouldn’t make it a top legislative priority to take away citizens’ First Amendment rights. Olympia shouldn’t criminalize free speech. Olympia should respect the Constitution and leave the citizens’ initiative process alone.
I’m happy to answer any questions you have.
Before I go, I have documentation on the various initiative campaigns from 1999 through 2006 with data supplied by the Secretary of State’s office showing zero instances of verified forgeries or fraud in the signature gathering process.
And despite the short notice of this hearing, we have a big stack of letters (31 total) from voters throughout the state who all strongly oppose 1087 but were unable to attend this hearing. They all asked that their reasons for opposing 1087 be made part of the public record. If possible, I’d like to read their names and what city they’re from. Mr. Chairman, would that be OK?
Tim at 20:
If you so carefully check signatures each week, how come your last initiative had a failure rate in excess of 15% last time aground? Relying upon the Secty of State to find out when signatures are fraudulent or not just passes the burden of ACCURATE signature gathering to the taxpayers, does it not? This does not seem to be a problem to you, but it certainly is to me.
How about the signature gatherer outside QFC in Bellevue last spring who asked my boss, a Japanese national, to sign the anti-estate tax petition? When he demured as he was not a citizen, he was told it was okay – he could sign now, and get his citizenship later. He asked me what to do, and I advised him not to sign, of course.
Also, you say nothing about signature gatherers who misrepresent their initiatives to prospective signers. In the same instance, I saw the same signature gatherer mis-represent the status of current law and the initative, claiming that under current law ALL estates are subject to the estate tax, and every widowed spouse would have to sell their house to pay it, and that it hit farms and small businesses particularly hard (all blatantly false).
Removing paid signature gatherers from the process would at least remove a financial incentive for these people to engage in such conduct.
Besides, if these are truly a “citizen’s initiative”, in the context understood by the founders of Washington’s Constitution, wouldn’t the groundswell of public support render paid signature gatherers unnecessary? It doesn’t seem to me that the number of signatures required is that oppressive, and a true volunteer effort would be sufficient for initiatives which were truly worthy of voter consideration.
Interesting how the righties change their tune whenever it suits them….
Letting the people vote on the Viaduct is a bad ideas (because a Democrat thought of it no doubt) but letting Timmy Lieman go to the government to ask people for the right to vote on everything else is okay?
You do have to admire the lengths the right wing whackjobs will go to prove they are hypocrites with no intelectual honesty.
@18 What’s YOUR proof of citizenship, Rightstuff? Do you have a passport? (Many people don’t.) Can you lay your hands on a certified copy of your birth certificate? (Most people can’t.) The only times in my life when I had to prove my citizenship was when I enlisted in the Army, and when I registered to vote. It was a pain in the ass both times. The last time I needed a birth certificate, I went to the web site of the vital statistics registrar in the state where I was born, and sent them the fee listed on the web site. Well, guess what, their web site hadn’t been updated for a couple years, the fee was $1 more than the fee listed on their own fucking web site, so the bureaucrats in that state sent my check back to me without the birth certificate — after sitting on it for three months. Like I said, getting proof of citizenship is a pain in the ass. It involves expense, delay, and not infrequently, aggravation? Why should anyone have to go through that to exercise their right to vote, when they already proved their citizenship to register in the first place? Fuck you, rightstuff.
“Proving citizenship” is nothing but a rightwing tactic to keep poor people and old people from voting for Democrats. Fuck you, rightstuff. Why should we give the time of day to assholes who are working overtime to keep SOLDIERS IN IRAQ from voting? http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
@20
How many signature gatherers did you employ for your last initiative? At what rate per sig.?
If the initiative doesn’t have enough appeal to move people to volunteer in sufficient numbers/$$$ why should those with money (or those with sugardaddies) have the advantage?
No. 3 above – Huh? You’re a damn publicity whore whenever you have an initiative running..use that time more effectively.
Tim Eyman has filed three initiative proposals so far in 2007 (which is significantly behind the 10 initiative proposals that he had filed as of this same time last year):
Assigned Number: 953
Filed: 01/08/2007
Sponsor
Mr. Tim Eyman
Mr. M. J. Fagan
Mr. Leo J. Fagan
PO Box 18250
Spokane, WA 99228
425- 493-8707
425-493-1027
jakatak@comcast.net
Ballot Title
Initiative Measure No. 953 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would require either a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature or voter approval for all tax increases. New or increased fees would require prior legislative approval. An advisory vote would be required on any new or increased taxes enacted by the legislature without voter approval. The office of financial management would be required to publish cost information and information regarding legislators’ voting records on bills imposing or increasing taxes or fees.
Assigned Number: 954
Filed: 01/08/2007
Sponsor
Mr. Tim Eyman
Mr. M. J. Fagan
Mr. Leo J. Fagan
PO Box 18250
Spokane, WA 99228
425- 493-8707
425-493-1027
jakatak@comcast.net
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 954 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
Concise Description: This measure would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval.
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would require either a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature or voter approval for all tax increases. New or increased fees would require prior legislative approval. An advisory vote would be required on any new or increased taxes enacted by the legislature without voter approval. The office of financial management would be required to publish cost information and information regarding legislators’ voting records on bills imposing or increasing taxes or fees.
Pursuant to RCW 29A.72.060, we supply herewith the ballot title and ballot measure summary for Initiative No. 954 to the People (an act relating to tax and fee increases).
Assigned Number: 960
Filed: 01/08/2007
Sponsor
Mr. Tim Eyman
Mr. M. J. Fagan
Mr. Leo J. Fagan
PO Box 18250
Spokane, WA 99228
425- 493-8707
425-493-1027
jakatak@comcast.net
Initiative Subject
**Relating to tax and fee increases
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ele.....spx?y=2007
Oh, hi, Uncle Timmy! Daddy REALLY loves you! Just this morning he asked me “what my favorite ass-kisser, Ol’ Timmy Eye-Man was doing”. Of course, Daddy had a raging Xanax hangover.
Seems hypocritical of the democrats m in this case Rep Sherry Appelton that because a opportunist like Tim Eyeman was able to make a living at putting ideas in front of the people to vote on that makes the process les important . Because Nixon was elected President , we did not change the format of the Electorial College .
This will come back and bite the democrats in the horses ass.
.26 It seems “hypocritical” to blame Dems for a bill that has the support of republicans like the Secretary of State. Heck, a full third of the bill is sponsored. That means it will pass – and with plenty of GOP support. Must be rough when the time-honored tactic of blaming the Democrats for everything no longer makes any sense? Looks like the righties will have to write a new playbook.
Roger@13: And your point is?
Didn’t you flaunt your impressive investment prowess against MTR all last year? Brag brag brag! Oil goes up I make a killing – Roger Rabbit. You claimed to have made $$$$ in your investments. Now you claim poor me, I’m retired. Are you the impressive liar? I think so. Why just one $99 helmet order?
I bet if anyone from the right displays their 1040 returns and their charitable receipts for you in front of a notary public an H&R Block tax preparer and a Federal IRS agent, you would call them a liar! It’s your nature Roger. Too often, facts elude you in many of your postings.
Tolerance?
Speaking of oil, the pump price dropped even more. But the futures market portends an ominous track with HR 6 passage and liberals taxing oil companies. Because it feels good?
Why just tax oil companies?
Why not tax milk companies?
Why not tax meat companies?
Why not tax water companies?
Why not tax fruit companies?
Why not tax juice companies?
Why not tax cereal companies?
Why not tax lettuce companies?
Why not tax vegetable companies?
Their prices always went up and never seem to come down
E I-man E I-man Ooooo!
So, how is this bill going to look to the average voter?
The “Democrats” in power are going to show that Democracy is not something they favor. Truth to power: this will limit the little guys from gathering signatures, and the “Democrats” once again will shoot themselves in the feet, allowing more pathetic Republican rule.
This is another example of why the only way to America will start to solve their problems is through a Third major political party.
“Some have argued that our Secretary of State has reported no fraud of this sort here in WA, but just because the SOS hasn’t found this fraud (or even looked for it) doesn’t mean it’s not happening.”
Yeh Some have argued that our Queen Christine election had no fraud of this sort here in WA, but just because Ron Sims hasn’t found this fraud (or even looked for it) doesn’t mean it is not happening.”
Please make me laugh.
I love it when Goldy points to “No Fraud being found in this state” as such a mandate emergency for his bag of demoncrap goons in the state.
Try going after Car Theft, Drug use, Transportation, Education, and a few more IMPORTANT damn issues for a change.
I sure didn’t see any of these Klowns running on killing the Initiative process as their number one goal.