The No on I-920 campaign just started airing their first TV ad in Seattle and Spokane.
What’s great about this ad is that it simply presents the facts. There is absolutely nothing to dispute here. And if voters understand the facts, a majority will vote against I-920.
Average taxpayer:
“Gee. I feel soooooo sorry for the 215 or so Washington families subject to the estate tax. I think I’ll vote against my own blue collar self-interest and delete their tax. Then in utter confusion I won’t understand why my own tax bite increased.”
Jane Bryant Quinn wrote on this subject a few years back. “Family farms” was a buzzword/phrase of the folks trying to delete the federal estate tax, so it made sense to go to the family farm state. Iowa. How many famrs had been sold to pay the tax? Zero. Nil. Nada. Cero. Bupkus. None. A whole number <1.
KING 5 NEWS CALLS MCGAVICK AD “FALSE”
“… McGavick charges, ‘Sen. Cantwell voted to allow Social Security benefits to illegals. I’d have said no way.’ This claim is false.”
For complete story, see http://tinyurl.com/y9cv92
Sorry, Goldy- a LOT to dispute there. The failure to mention the impact of the estate tax on many more than those who end up paying it, as they spend hard-earned small business dollars to cope with its possible impact- or sell the business to avoid the impact. The lie that it is about education- it was never tied to education before, and if repealed the Legislature has a $1.8 billion surplus to cover the loss.
But then, simple thoughts for the simple minds…
The recent Survey USA poll shows the initiative is behind with a lot of undecideds.
Jim King @3,
You can spin all you want, but this ad presents irrefutable facts.
What’s great about the ad is the dough-eyed kid. That should make anyone who supports the initiative seem cold hearted.
Dough-eyed? The dough-eyed people are the ones in favor of I-920. The little kid is doe-eyed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15326453/
Just another shining example of Christians and moral majority types showing their true colors.
The right certainly has some interesting leadership examples!
Jimmy Queen please state with specificity what facts you dispute in the ad, and the source for your information and the basis of your dispute.
(Now here comes the deflection, attempt to change subject, personal attack, move to blame President Clinton for SOMETHING and the cherry on top? Some bullshit lie that has no relationship to the topic whatsoever.)
The legislature tied the law to education for one purpose and one purpose only: To defend the law from being repealed by initiative. It is emotional blackmail.
The doe-eyed kids and Gregoire’s scream: It’s for the kids!
I am surprised anyone would dare to undermine one of her Legacy programs………….
Bin Laden also thank you folks for the great support on the war effort, just like John Kerry and Jane Fonda supporting the NVA during the Viet Nam War.
“Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page.”
– MARK CAMPBELL, a Republican strategist representing several Congressional
Candidates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10.....038;emc=th
re 10: And an ad featuring some aging, Carhardt clad “farmer” saying(with a glistening glycerin tear in his eye):”I guess when I’m gone, the kids’ll have to sell the farm to pay the taxes…. Sigh….”
I won’t even editorialize,SMEGMAC. I think you get my drift.
When private greed impinges on public good , I say the public good should win put every time.
But then, simple thoughts for the simple minds…
Comment by Jim King— 10/19/06@ 12:22 am
Jim this time I have to agree with you and not supporting your friend Goldy. My plan is to move everything into a more Tax friendly state, and live in Seattle part time and promote the moving of the schools to the suburbs. The many hidden taxes in this state to support programs that should have been removed from the books in LBJ area. Unless the City, County, and State gets some leadership with a vision and a backbone the end product will be like East Saint Louis, Illinois. Yes Goldy when do you plan to send your daughter to the Eastside to get a real education?
Commentby Jim King— 10/19/06@ 12:22 am
“Sorry, Goldy- a LOT to dispute there. The failure to mention the impact of the estate tax on many more than those who end up paying it, as they spend hard-earned small business dollars to cope with its possible impact- or sell the business to avoid the impact.”
Ok, I’ll grant that some folks hire an estate planner to cut down or eliminate the cost of the estate tax. Is that the cost you’re talking about? (Estate tax or no, anyone with a large enough estate to trigger that tax should probably get a professional to help them.)
Since selling the business would have no effect on the estate tax ($10 million in cash or a $10 million business would be equivalent for tax purposes) I’m not sure where you got the “sell the business to avoid the impact” bit. (Actually, it might be a bad move for tax purposes, as selling a major asset could trigger some other taxes. There’s that estate planner expense again.)
Of course, since charitable contributions come off the top before the tax is figured, you could be talking about those that choose to give money to tax-exempt charities rather than have it taxed. Perhaps a good point, but hardly a reason that would make me want to vote for 920.
Whether the money is “tied to schools” or not, since education is the state’s single largest expense, it is the place where most of the impact will be felt.
Since, in many (most?) cases, much of the estate consists of capital gains that have not yet been taxed, and the heirs benefit from a stepped-up basis for considering their gain, the estate tax does not seem entirely unreasonable. (No, not perfect, but what is?)
Like most folks, I would like it if the state didn’t need to collect any taxes. Somehow schools, police, fire protection, roads, libraries, parks and all the rest of the services we take for granted would just magically appear without a need to pay for them.
But unless we can figure out how to get the tooth fairy and Santa Claus to chip in the $$$ needed for those services, I’ll just have to bite the bullet and pay taxes, and this tax is certainly no less fair than the sales tax.
(Argue for a complete, revenue-neutral reworking of our entire tax system, and we might find ourselves on the same side.)
When private greed impinges on public good, I say the public good should win put every time.
Comment by headless Lucy— 10/19/06@ 8:06 am
For public good Lucy you should have moved to Canada when Bush won the election. Little Lucy what defines public good? Sweetie it depends on what pair of shoes you are standing in at the time the request is made. Now if you are a Socialist Democrat anything that someone owns now belongs to the tribes of dead beats, but to a Democrat that would have been decided by those who acquired the wealth. Thanks to the present Governor and her friends they believe they are the only ones who can make that decision. Thanks to Queen Gregoire and her supporters this state will see large volumes of wealth leave this state to avoid this death Tax.
It’s just a question of fairness. I’ll probably never “qualify” to pay a death tax, but I still don’t like it. How much more do we need to hit the rich to pay for everyone else? When can we actually have a fair tax system that treats everyone the same? Don’t the kids have to pay tax on the inheritance already? Why do we tax even more?
Time for a flat tax that treats everyone equally.
1. Like most folks, I would like it if the state didn’t need to collect any taxes. Somehow schools, police, fire protection, roads, libraries, parks and all the rest of the services we take for granted would just magically appear without a need to pay for them.
But unless we can figure out how to get the tooth fairy and Santa Claus to chip in the $$$ needed for those services, I’ll just have to bite the bullet and pay taxes, and this tax is certainly no less fair than the sales tax.
(Argue for a complete, revenue-neutral reworking of our entire tax system, and we might find ourselves on the same side.)
Comment by John Bareli— 10/19/06@ 8:13 am
John nice play on words! They have been collecting taxes for years and never spent the resources on what programs they were collected for, like the lottery for schools. The present government of Socialist will not be trusted by the Taxpayer to replace the present tax system. When that trust is restored then that can happen. Now we can save the Taxpayer a lot of money by out sourcing the prisons population to Mexico where the land and labor is real cheap. You could find some relief on our freeways by turning the HOV lanes into truck and bus lanes only. You could relive the congestion in Seattle by closing the exits and on ramps in downtown and forcing the traffic off at Martin Luther King and the University District. Now that is a few items that would be great starters but many more can be added and the impact would be great.
Commentby eric— 10/19/06@ 8:24 am
“Don’t the kids have to pay tax on the inheritance already? “
No. That’s one of the arguments for the estate tax. That money is not considered income, and if there have been capital gains on the asset being inheirited, the heirs get a “stepped-up” basis for figuring capital gains when the asset is finally sold.
“When can we actually have a fair tax system that treats everyone the same?”
Ah, but the devil is in the details. What do you consider “the same”? Should we just figure up how much it costs to run the state and provide the services, then divide by the number of people? How about everyone paying the same percentage of income? Or, we could look at assets, and have everyone pay the same percentage of them (I really don’t think this is a good plan, but I’ve thrown it out as an example that could be argued.)
No matter what plan is used, someone will consider it to be “unfair”. Our current system is a mess, full of loopholes and special taxes. The only good thing that can be said about it is that it does seem to work, in a rather half-assed fashion, and that we’ll probably never get everyone to agree on an alternative.
GOP CAMPAIGN THREATENED HISPANIC VOTERS
The Associated Press reported today,
“SANTA ANA, Calif. (Oct. 19) – State investigators have linked a Republican campaign to letters sent to thousands of Southern California Hispanics warning them they could go to jail or be deported if they vote next month, a spokesman for the attorney general said. …
“The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register both reported Thursday that the investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of … a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez.
“The letter, written in Spanish, tells recipients: ‘You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.’
“In fact, immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens can vote.
“Complaints about the letters this week prompted state and federal investigations …. The two newspapers reported state investigators had found the location where the letters were printed and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. …”
For complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/y8aluq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwPIJmXwr7k
Can you all find Roger Rabbit in this Video? He is the one next to John Kerry’s friend in the clowns suit.
This type of voter-suppression skulduggery is actually common — and almost always the people behind it are Republicans. The California candidate didn’t dream this up; it’s straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.
Even worse than the threats and bullying of legal Hispanic voters in California is the bullshit that GOP operatives pulled off in Ohio, which illustrates who Republicans are talking about when they refer to “ineligible voters” on registration rolls.
Using a favorite GOP tactic, they sent registered letters to hundreds of registered voters whose home addresses are in precincts that are heavily minority and vote heavily Democratic. If the voter isn’t home and doesn’t sign for the registered letter, the post office returns it to the sender, and the GOP operatives then challenge the voter on the alleged basis he doesn’t live at the address.
In the Ohio case, the GOP targeted black soldiers they knew were serving with units deployed to Iraq.
That’s how Republicans “support the troops” — by interfering with their most fundamental right as citizens while they’re overseas fighting a war for our country … for no better reason than partisan advantage.
Republicans are scum.
Can you find klake in this picture? He’s somewhere in the crowd. http://tinyurl.com/wopgv
JK @ 3: “….and if repealed the Legislature has a $1.8 billion surplus to cover the loss.”
Well, I guess that statement will scotch all that GOP propaganda about a huge and looming state budget deficit due to the actions taken by the last legislative session.
Thanks, jim.
can you find roger rabbit in this picture? It’s quite difficult because he looks like every other mind-numb liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;search=
Roger Rabbit on vacation around the country looking for attention and sharing his wealth of knowledge on his may subject matters.
10
“The legislature tied the law to education for one purpose and one purpose only: To defend the law from being repealed by initiative. It is emotional blackmail.” Commentby sgmmac— 10/19/06@ 7:13 am
This is actually false. Washington has had an inheritance tax since 1901, or something like that. In its most recent wording, it was tied to a federal law that Congress recently repealed. (This is a common state practice; for example, state income taxes usually are based on the taxpayer’s taxable income on federal IRS 1040 forms.) Last year, our state supreme court concluded that, due to repeal of the federal provision, the state tax was no longer valid. This case was decided on a technicality of the state law’s wording. The legislature then re-enacted the state inheritance tax.
In re-enacting it, the legislature did two things. First, they gave heirs a huge tax cut — as re-enacted, the tax will collect only half as much revenue as it did before. Second, the legislature directed the inheritance tax revenue be used for two education initiatives passed by the voters of our state several years ago that hadn’t been implemented because funding was lacking (due to the tightfisted Republicans who controlled the state senate until Jan. 2005): Improved teacher pay, and reduced class sizes.
These initiatives were approved by the people. Gregoire and the Democratic legislature needed a way to fund them. The inheritance tax revenue, which had been coming into the state treasury for over a century, had just been cut in half. But due to the state’s economic recovery and improved sales tax receipts, it had become possible to use the re-enacted inheritance tax to finally fund the education initiatives, instead of that money going into the general fund and being eaten up by core state spending for things like prisons and governmental operations.
In other words, the governor and legislature needed to find a way to fund the education initiatives voted into law by popular vote, and in the process of re-enacted a tax that has existed for over 100 years and was off the books for only a few months because of a wording technicality in the statute, they diverted that revenue stream away from the general fund for this purpose because the state’s economic recovery made it possble to do so.
It certainly wasn’t done for partisan reasons. There’s ample precedent in this state for using dedicated revenue to fund education. For example, timber sales from state lands go into a school construction fund, and lottery profits are earmarked for education. So there was nothing unusual or unprecedented about the legislature dedicating the inheritance tax revenue stream to education, as well.
State government is constitutionally obligated to fully fund basic K-12 education. It has consistently failed to do so because our state’s antiquated Rube Goldberg tax structure often fails to provide enough revenue for full education funding. Unlike the other 49 states, Washington runs education funds through the state budget, and accounts for it as state spending. Nearly half the total state budget is K-12 education money. That’s an enormous chunk of money, and given the vulnerability of the sales tax to economic fluctuations, it’s a difficult challenge to find that much money in the revenue stream.
When you examine the revenue streams that the legislature has earmarked for education, you discover their common characteristic is they are more predictable and more reliable than the sales tax — and less vulnerable to economic ups and downs. Timber sales, lottery sales, and inheritances tend not to fluctuate with the economy. That — not a desire to defeat an initiative that hadn’t been been talked about, much less filed, when the legislature re-enacted the inheritance tax — is the reason it was earmarked for funding the education initiatives.
In nearly all of the other 49 states, education is paid for with property taxes collected by local jurisdictions (counties or school districts) that never show up in state budgets.
The revenue from Washington’s property tax is split into two revenue streams. One goes into state coffers, the other to local jurisdictions. Our state government receives much less property tax money than goes to schools in other states, and therefore has to rely partly on the volatile sales tax for education funding. Part of the local property tax goes to schools too, of course – but that revenue stream also is used to fund county and city governments.
Not only is Washington’s property tax revenue stream split between state and local governments, and education and other purposes, but it’s smaller to begin with. Many other states have higher property taxes than Washington. For example, although I’m not going to take the time to research the exact figures, I’ll bet a given house in New York not only costs much more to buy than the same house in Washington, but the property taxes are much higher there, too.
As another example, I know of a midwestern state (Wisconsin) where housing prices are significantly lower than here, but their property taxes on a house of the same value are twice as much. In other words, you might be able to buy a house worth $500,000 in Seattle for $300,000 in Madison, but the annual property tax on the Seattle house is $4,000 and the property tax on the Madison house may be $7,000.
So, yes, we do pay lower property taxes than homeowners in many (or at least some) other states — even when our property values are higher. So we have to rely more on other taxes for education funding than those other states. And, unlike them, we account for it as state spending, which makes our state budget look twice as big as it actually is.
Washington does not splurge on education. To the contrary, we rank about in the middle for state spending, and we rank 49th in class size. Our per-pupil education spending is lagging behind the national average, and our higher education system is one of the most underfunded in the country.
So, my question to you Mac is — if we eliminate a tax that affects only a couple hundred millionaire families a year, what tax do you want to raise to make up the revenue loss for education? Or would you cut education funding?
Anyone who thinks there’s no relationship between education spending and student performance or the ability of local businesses to hire people with the skills they need has his/her head up his/her ass! There’s a reason why so many people are moving into our state from other areas right now — it’s because our economy has to import skills because our education system is not producing the trained people that companies need.
We need to invest more, not less, in Washington’s education system.
3, 24
Actually, that “surplus” is merely an estimate that fluctuates wildly with the quarterly economic estimates. It could disappear overnight. And if it doesn’t, it surely will be needed to maintain current spending when the economy slows down, as nearly all economists are predicting will happen, perhaps as early as next year.
Washington’s heavy reliance on a volatile sales tax closely tied to the economic cycle means our state has a “peaks and valleys” revenue stream. The “surplus” generated during economic ups is needed to fill in the “valleys” during economic downs to avoid spending cuts in basic services.
Consequently, that “surplus” doesn’t really exist in the sense that it’s extra money that can be used for new programs or tax cuts. It isn’t extra money, and can’t be used for those purposes without imperiling essential services (e.g., prisons).
Speaking of the slowing economy, NBC and UPS announced layoffs today.
10 sgmmac
Yeah, what is it with these people who want to pay for education? Crazy, huh?
36 RR
There have nbeen major layoffs announced more ot less constantly since 200. That’s an aspect of our economy that I have not seen get better. There’s alawys some dewy-eyed CEO who wants to show a quick balance sheet “turnaround” by cutting the labor force and making fewer people do the same work.
Then the laid-off get underemployed somewhere else and MWS shows us his rosy unemployment stats.
Household income is rising slightly while real wages fall. Why? People are working two jobs and more people in each household are working to keep up with energy costs, healthcare costs, and housing costs.
Well, we’re back to “vote for Democrats and the terrorists will win!” I think people have had about enough Republican bullshit. And they’ve seen Republican performance, and it totally does not match their line of bullshit.
Aw, too bad.
I guess Republicans are squawking but no one’s listening. I feel bad for them sometimes. A little.
Re: 40…doesn’t that add up to 70%? Wow, too bad.
I’d like it if Darcy Burner wins. It’s certainly far from over: she’s at 47% to Reichert’s 50% (God knows how he gets 50%) in the latest (10/18) Survey USA poll. But if she doesn’t win, I’ll still be pretty happy to watch Dave lose the last subcommittee chair he’ll ever have and just be a not-particularly-bright back-bencher who votes how he’s told. He’ll be well-toasted for ’08.
The righties don’t want taxes? Then right wingers like Pope shouldn’t run for public office and expect to live off the government tit. Then right wingers shouldn’t spend taxpayer money on bullshit victimless crime legislation. Then right wingers shouldn’t be building prisons faster than schools. Take away all the right wingers pet projects and we could cut taxes by 60%!
On CNN this morning they had a primary pulic affairs offcial for th miltaryin Baghdad saying, essentially, “things are getting really bad here and we are looking at chanigng what we’re doing adn how we’re doing it.”
In teh last two weeks, attacks in Baghdad have increased by 20%. Dozens of newly-executed bodies, compliments of the Interior Ministry death squads, are being found in the city daily.
The 70,000 Iraqis we sent in there a few months ago to keep order kinda aren’t getting it done. The thousands of American troops we followed up with (because the Iraqis were not getting it done) are not getting it done.
Residents of Baghdad are receiving just 2.4 hours of electricity this month, compared to an average of 16-24 hours of electricity before the U.S. invasion. The lowest level prior to this month was 3.9 hours/day.
It’s fundamentally fucked up there and it’s getting worse, not better. It’s been getting worse and not better ever since we got there, despite Idiot Boy’s rosy promises. And Dave Reichert just can’t get enough of our failures; he says we should stay the course right along with President No Plan until hell freezes over or we elect someone who WILL get us out.
That’s what your Reichert vote buys you. More of the same inept, corrupt, incompetent, and ineffective government.
I think that should be “…just 2.4 hours of electricity per day this month…”
So, Iraq. Things are totally fucked up. What does that mean for the right? Well, to start, don’t you think that those who think we should stay need to suggest a way in which we can win? I do.
Let’s hear it. The civil war in Iraq is getting worse, our current strategy plainly isn’t working, there are no more troops to send over, the political situation in Baghdad is untenable, and the U.S. Army is still culturally allergic to counterinsurgency and security training (“Everyone in the U.S. armed forces knows that the way to the top is to command American units, not to advise foreign units,” says Max Boot, and he’s right).
So what’s the plan? Hmmmm?
@42
I agree! We should all carry concealed weapons, when a thug attacks, shoot em dead. Works in Seattle! Think of the saved court space and prison space!
46
It’s already true that if your life is endangered, or possibly (though I don’t know the case law intimately) if you sincerely BELEIVE your life is in danger, then killing an attacker is justifiable homicide (as in teh recent case in Seattle). So what are you adding? A law that would require carrying?
It’s just a little Republican voter suppression, so what’s the big deal?
Roger, I wouldn’t cut education spending for K-12. I pay more in taxes here than my father in Las Vegas and his house is worth about 100 grand more.
My tax rate per $1,000 is 11.5708212
My property taxes go to:
33.6% to North Thurston School District
22.3% to City of Lacey
22.1% to State of Washington
12.1% to Thurston County
3.7% to Timberland Library
3.2% to Medic One
1.8% to Port of Olympia
1.1% to Fire District #003
0.1% to PUD #1
They will go up this year because we approved a school bond measure to build and renovate schools…… yes, I voted for it!
Bush in 2005:
Are we really, sir?
Sorry, that was to have been:
“Are we really, sir? Are we?”
Really, how the hell can Dave Reichert tell us that he only votes against his party when the leaders tell him to do it for political cover, and then lie to our faces about how independent he is? Who the fuck does he think he is? And how stupid does he think WE are?
Good one from “Effin’ Unsound:”
daddy,
Cantwell doesn’t vote the party line? She votes exactly how good old corrupt Harry TELLS her to vote!
54
No, you think that, but you don’t really know shit about it, and maybe it’s true and maybe it ain’t. Unless you have some proof.
Heck sgmmac, the issue isn’t whether Dave Reichert votes with his party a lot, because what else would you expect a Republican or Democrat to do? I’m not sure thwy I have to explain this to you. The issue is that Reichert is running in part on a claim of “independence” that he publicly admits is based on a carefully selected series of votes, some meaningful and some less so, dictated to him by the party leadership and not based on his own “independent streak,” which I don’t believe he has anyway.
Dave Reichert came out and TOLD us that when he votes against the party it’s because he was told to, to make his seat easier to defend. Do ya get it yet?
And Harry Reid’s so-called “corruption” is just more of the same GOP smoke screen as the notion that Cantwell’s petty and scrupulously reported years-old loan to an old friend influences her actions. Reid had some land and he sold it. There is no suggestion that any action he took increased its value, or that the transactions in any way influenced his legislative actions.
Do you even know what “corruption” is? Here are some examples.
Best line I’ve seen today:
“Congress’ approval ratings are lingering around the mid-teens longer than Mark Foley on a Saturday night.”
Roger- go back to eating lettuce, because you have no clue about much anything else. To begin with the refutation- the education lobby purposely ran two initiatives with out providing funding for them. From the time those initiatives were first passed until now, the Republicans controlled the Senate for only two years- and they never controlled the House or the Governorship. The DEMOCRATS left those initiatives unfunded until recently.
Of course, they may have noticed that when the people were offered the same policy WITH THE TAXES TO FUND THEM ATTACHED, they said HELL, NO!
Now, to shore up support for multiple policy goals, the Democrats reinstituted the estate tax and tied it and the lottery to education. Note, racist rodent, that until last year the lottery proceeds did NOT go to education. Nor did estate tax proceeds.
The people repealed the state estate tax in 1981, with the sole exception that as long as the feds allowed the states to take a portion of the federal estate tax, Washington could do so. When the feds chose to get rid of the estate tax, that little exception disappeared, too. Hardly a tchnicality, the State Supreme Court slapped the state’s hand very hard for taking money it was not entitled to, and ordered it refunded.
It is another of you bald-faced lies to claim that the Leg Democrats gave the heirs a break. The base was zero, not double what would be collected now. But then, truth has never mattered much to you, has it? And we could go with the rest of the sophistry you put forward- you so badly screw up the explanation of the property tax that it is best to just ignore your uninformed ramblings; and your comments about the volatility of the sales tax are belied by the experiences of states such as Oregon (no sales tax, heavier property tax, and income tax) who had revenues drop so mch more significantly than ours during the last recession- dropped to the point that one saw school years cut dramatically as Oregon state government tried to stay solvent.
The reality is that the Leg Democrats wanted more revenues to spend, and so brought back a tax that was gone- and it remains the only tax where the primary beneficiaries are the third parties- the insurance industry and its vulture partners- not the public treasury. Spin away, rodent, just like Goldy- you can repeat the lies all you want, but repetition does not make them true.
58
Wow, Jim. You say a lot, but support nothing at all. Um, why should I take your assertions as fact? Or, to put it another way, why should I (or any of us) have to look up what you claim to be true to check and see if it is? It’s easier not to believe you. Convince us.
Daddy,
Harry was corrupt long before he bought that land….. Haven’t you heard of his name and boxing tickets? How about all of that Indian money? Harry has 4 sons and all of them are paid to lobby their Daddy!!! Now, that’s a hard job. The real question is how much is Daddy Harry bringing home for the sons?
As for the land, Harry sold it to his best friend, who got the zoning changed for a strip mall, and then they sold the land. Harry and friend made a huge profit. City and County councilmen have been going to jail for years in Las Vegas due to corrupt zoning changes………….
There is something about my home town (Las Vegas) that brings out the gangsters, crooks, theives and good old fashioned thugs!
So in other words, Jimmy Queen can’t point to one single shred of evidence to back his attempted spin. He can’t refute the facts so he does what all GOP morons do. He lies, he spins, he deflects, he attacks.
President Clinton was right about these assholes. They have an ideology. They don’t care about facts or truth. They care about their ideology and their not going to listen to reason because that would be inconvenient.
But hey, if you like living in a dream world like the GOP does vote that way. You deserve the pain you get in return.
Uh, Daddy Child fucker- did you read any of the news out of Oregon this last recession? I’m not going to footnote what was well-covered even in the Washington press, if you are too lazy to keep up on current events. And if a tax is removed, one starts from a zero base if it is later brought back- simple math- but that, too, is probably beyond you.
You could check the statutes and see when the lottery was tied to education- or you could even call the Lottery and ask- but that would take work, too. Same with the estate tax. It is real simple to check legislative histories- if you have even half a brain. You don’t have to take my word for anything- it is all out there, easy to find.
But then you might take the risk of getting something other than the echoes from the leftyblogosphere. I doubt you can handle anything other than lefty group think, so don’t bother with the research.
That’s a great graphic—Don’t pay Estate tax. Love it. The 95 kinda gets lost.
If family farms are worth saving, why aren’t any other family businesses worth protecting? Think, people. Vote yes on this measure.