Weekly InDIGESTion: Rodney Tom’s Crusade against Crisis Pregnancy Centers

State Sen. Rodney Tom (D-Bellevue), known affectionately by some as “Turncoat Tom” for his party switch a few years ago, is frustrated because some crisis pregnancy centers don’t offer women the opportunity to kill their unborn children.  He’s offered a bill (SB 6452) to remedy the “problem.”

The bill encourages people to sue crisis pregnancy centers under the Consumer Protection Act if, for example, a center commits such atrocities as not immediately disclosing that they don’t provide or refer abortion services.  It allows an “aggrieved party” to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an “aggrieved party”.  Someone can make a claim against a center and be awarded damages without even proving any damages.   The kicker–the bill only applies to pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortion.  Basically, Washington law would require a person to prove damages if they sue an abortion clinic but not if they sue a crisis pregnancy center.

Like many Democrats in the legislature, Tom is in a pickle.  His largest funders (i.e., public employee unions) are mad at the Ds because even with large majorities in both the House and Senate they’ve been unable to muster the gumption to raise taxes rather than cut spending (those pesky voters just keep getting in the way of labor’s agenda).  The largest unions have been threatening to run hard-left candidates against the more “moderate” Democrat legislators, and have even re-routed their usual campaign contributions to a new PAC rather than the caucus campaign funds.  The Democrats need to energize part of their base heading into the 2010 elections.

Voters aren’t in the mood for the sort of tax increases labor is advocating (funny how recessions and a 10% unemployment rate can do that).  Tom needs something to appeal to his liberal base, and this is the magic bullet.  When all else fails, bowing to the Sacrament of Abortion is a sure-fire winner (after all, it’s just a safe, routine medical procedure).

Tom is one of those eastside Democrats who claims the “socially liberal (or moderate), fiscally conservative” mantle.  Yet while the Democrats are grappling with how to fill a $2.6 billion deficit, Tom’s bill actually increases state spending.  Moreover, his voting record on spending only reaffirms what columnist Mark Steyn astutely observed about such folk:

“The reality is that almost every ’socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ politician turns out to be fiscally liberal — in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, it’s not hard to figure which taste will predominate.”

At best, Tom is short-sighted.  He’s emblematic of the left’s penchant for creating lavish government programs while giving people the “right” to kill off the very generations the county will need to pay for all of it.   The declining birthrates in the West (tempered only by the influx of immigrants) are building a fiscal tsunami on the horizon as the baby boomers begin retiring.

It’s a sad irony for the left–they would be wise to actually encourage breeding so tomorrow there are enough workers/taxpayers to pay for the welfare state they’re building today.  Alas, political expediency triumphs.

Ultimately, Tom’s bill is an effort by the abortion industry and liberal Democrats to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of operation.  How’s that for choice?

The Oregon Trail

Democrats and the interest groups feeding at the public trough were quick to look south with a smile today, and a glimmer of hope undoubtedly twinkled in their eyes as Oregon voters approved Measures 66 and 67.  KIRO’s Dave Ross thinks this may send a message, but I think the details may tell another story.  At the very least, Washingtonians should give serious thought to what the Oregon vote portends here.

Measure 66 raises the state income tax on households earning more than $250,000.  Washington lawmakers have no such option, in all practicality.  Given national trends, majority Democrats in Olympia are unlikely to pass a high-earners income tax this year and income taxes in general have major electoral hurdles to overcome in Washington.  Recent political events compound that problem for Democrats.

The left does, however, however, realize that this idea has the best prospects in the long run.  Why?  Because it’s easy to convince people to increase taxes they don’t have to pay.  That’s the problem with a progressive tax structure–you’re giving people all sorts of free goodies while promising most voters that some other person will pay for it.  The “rich” are a convenient target for the left, which loves to use “values” as a pretense for plundering from the profitable (try talking about “values” in any other context, however, and you’re promptly scolded for trying to impose your views on other people).

Measure 67 raises minimum corporate taxes and increases taxes on “upper level” profits.  Again, this is much more difficult in Washington.  Washington’s Business and Occupation Tax is a tax on gross receipts, so even if your company doesn’t earn a profit the state still gets its cut (how’s that for values?).  Small businesses suffer under this the most, which is why lawmakers are reluctant to raise it because the impact is broadly felt and not just targeted to faceless wealthy corporations that are easily demonized.  Targeted B&O increases could be an option, but the larger companies in Washington would likely put up a strong fight.

Based on conversations I’ve had with some Democratic legislators in Olympia, I think some of them realize that you don’t encourage private sector growth by raising taxes on the very businesses you want to create more jobs.  Oregon’s unemployment rate has been running higher than Washington’s, and the passage of Measure 67 isn’t going to help.  Taking a cue from Tony Soprano, Oregon voters just sent a message to Oregon businesses:  “Grow, and we’ll take a bigger cut.”  There are enough moderate Democrats in Olympia and enough commonsense voters in Washington who know better.

Another factor to consider is Oregon’s odd political landscape.  As Floyd McKay pointed out in a recent Crosscut article,

Oregon is weirdly counter-cyclical in terms of its politics. When I first began covering Oregon politics, Barry Goldwater had just driven the Republican wagon into the ditch in his 1964 presidential campaign and Democrats were resurgent everywhere. Except in Oregon, where Republicans overturned Democratic control of the Legislature and began nearly a decade running the Oregon House. … As Republicans surged in the Reagan years, Oregon became a solidly Democratic state, controlling both houses of the legislature and beginning in 1986 a line of Democratic governors that continues to this day. Republicans recaptured the Oregon House during the Clinton years, and during the administration of George W. Bush Oregon’s Democrats were firmly in control. Oregon seems to swim against the tide.

The Oregon Trail is uniquely Oregonian.  Politicos thinking they can replicate the Measure 66 and 67 vote here in Washington this year should think long and hard before trying.  This is not to say such efforts would surely fail (the internet is clogged with political predictions that didn’t come true), only that what happened south of the Columbia River yesterday doesn’t necessarily mean Washington voters would take the same route.

Local Terrorism Didn’t Amount to “Twisted Logic”

Alleged cop-killer and suspected fire-bomber Christopher Monfort was described by Seattle Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel as a “lone domestic terrorist.” And, from everything that it is alleged he did in the early morning hours of October 22 and on Halloween night – as well as the evidence found in his Tukwila apartment – it appears the label Pugel placed on Monfort is very accurate. At the very least, if the allegations against Monfort are true, he is a homegrown assassin who hoped to do more to hurt police officers and the communities they protect; or, in other words, terrorize. Less than two weeks after the senseless and horrific murder of Officer Tim Brenton and the attempted murder of officer trainee Britt Sweeney, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood killing 13 and injuring many others. In response, President Barack Obama described Hasan’s rampage as a result of “twisted logic,” refusing to put the tag on Hasan that Pugel so aptly – and swiftly – placed on Monfort.

I suppose the only real difference between Christopher Monfort and Nidal Malik Hasan at first glance is that Monfort, allegedly, was in possession of bombs and bomb making materials after he was shot and apprehended by police. He could only have those materials for one reason: to murder and terrorize. On the other hand, Hasan simply walked into a holding facility at Fort Hood and opened fire with two handguns before being shot himself. But Hasan’s actions before his rampage tell a deeper story.

He holds significant ties to a pro-al Qaeda imam who, in 2002, went to Yemen (where he now describes Hasan as “a man of conscience”) and still lectures against Western ideals and the United States to this day. Reports out of Fort Hood say Hasan yelled out “Allahu Akbar!” (Arabic for God is great!) before and during his murderous rampage. The man was a ticking time bomb and, somehow, people with knowledge of his alarming actions and words leading up to the rampage helped in shielding his true motivations in life. It looks like President Obama felt it necessary to do the same.

President Obama had time to reflect on his words before delivering his “twisted logic” address. Apparently, his reflections didn’t work. Any reasonable, clear-minded individual can see what Hasan did amounts to terrorism, domestic or otherwise. Assistant Police Chief Pugel didn’t hesitate at all putting the “T” label on Monfort’s actions; why did President Obama hesitate on Hasan? Obama is renowned for his deep rhetorical eloquence and his penchant for reciting Shakespeare (if you don’t believe me, read the latest issue of GQ). I suspect his vast linguistic skills could help him pull out the right word to describe Hasan’s actions. Instead he uttered “twisted logic.” It appears President Obama is the one inflicted with “twisted logic.”

Rep. Durst: Budget Cuts to the Bone

Recently, as I listened to Gov. Butch Otter once again announce that he would be cutting state government, I wondered what was next. I remember a similarly eerie feeling from the announcement from the year before. At that time, Gov. Otter assured us all that he was acting in the best interest of Idahoans and was doing the “fiscally responsible” thing. At that time, as now, I wasn’t sure which Idahoans he was talking about.

During the previous legislative session, Democratic legislators advocated against cutting vital programs including state police, Medicaid and higher education. At that time, we pointed out, in both the committee process and in floor debate, that doing so would lead to bigger problems and end up costing us more. The strain on these services is proof that we all, especially someone who has been around state government as long as Gov. Otter, should have seen it coming.

Continue reading at The Idaho Stateman.

The Noble Prize for Stupidity

The award for Barack Obama may be the most stunningly undeserved use of the Nobel Peace Prize. When you add it up, the Nobel Prize Committee is giving Obama an “A” for effort, and even that’s not deserved when the President of France is calling you naive and making fun of you.

Continue Reading