There are numerous reasons why many incumbents at the
October 28, 2008 · Updated 5:38 PM
It’s time for a change
There are numerous reasons why many incumbents at the state level should not be reelected. Let’s name a few.
The governor circumvented the freedom of information act when an attempt was made to disclose the terms of the Boeing Company agreement to retain airplane assembly in the state. The agreement was negotiated by the state district attorney, now governor. Why was there a cover-up? How do we know if the agreement was negotiated by the state district attorney, now governor. Why was there a cover-up? How do we know if the agreement was within the constitutional law?
Last year the United States Supreme Court deliberated on a decision to prohibit the WEA (the teacher’s labor union) from confiscating teachers’ salaries for political action (PAC) purposes. These dues were imposed by the union, when 90 percent of teachers declined to make voluntary donations to the PAC. During these deliberations, the state legislature passed and the governor signed HB 2079, ostensibly drafted with WEA attorneys, which prevented political free speech by the teachers. Does this provision fly in the face of the First Amendment right to free speech? This bill also allows the WEA to spend non-union teacher’s bargaining fees without their consent. How arrogant are these politicians who abrogate the constitution and then have the audacity to attach their version of the emergency clause to the bill. Everyone should know that WEA PAC funds support the election of democrats. As such, HB 2079 represents a conflict of interest and an unethical symbiotic relationship.
This political majority also passed legislation into law dispensing secret balloting during union elections, leaving the door open for unions to coerce its membership. How could they have such blatant disregard for an institution that is fundamental to the democratic process? Is this legislation a payback for PAC support by the labor unions?
The state recently released study results declaring septic systems and alder trees as the cause for low oxygen levels in the Hood Canal.
This lays the blame on homeowners who have septic systems and also the riparian setbacks they are required to maintain at their own expense. Why is it that homeowners are usually cited?
Is it because they are not organized and have no concentration of power. A recent letter to the Herald asked why the fecal matter from 200,000 seals and sea lions, an amount equivalent to that of a city, was not cited.
Also, why wasn’t damage to the sea floor caused by hydraulic mining for clams, or damage to eel grass by the net fishery mentioned? Did the study disclose the very low oxygen levels in the South End of the canal caused by the three-foot deep decaying, gelatinous mass of more than 250,000 chum salmon dumped there following roe harvests? Was it political correctness or the money the Department of Natural Resources takes in from contracts that shifted the blame to homeowners?
The emergency clause especially attached (and more specifically) to new tax legislation in an affront to the electorate, as it deprives the people of their right to the initiative and referendum process, and countermands previous initiatives and elections. The initiative and referendum insure that the citizenry have a say in how they will be governed. To lose this privilege is tragic. So are the results of recent legislation, which unduly raised taxes, increased the cost of state government 33 percent and caused a budget deficit of $3.2 billion.
The appearance is that these politicians place raising funds and getting reelected as their primary function in state government.
Some say we deserve the governance we get. Are we, the electorate, really that unethical?
Let’s consider carefully who we elect to public office.
Richard W. Mare