pudge's Journal: Rep. Kristiansen Proposes U.S. 2 Safety Bills

As reported in the Herald, Rep. Dan Kristiansen has proposed three bills to raise revenue to fix "safety corridors," including U.S. 2. A key passage in the article -- damning to Democrats, if only people will wake up and pay attention to what's going on -- is this: "... Kristiansen is a Republican operating in a Democrat-controlled Legislature whose leaders know that he's opposed the last two increases in gas taxes for road projects around the state. Neither one contained funds for U.S. 2 partly because of his opposition."

Again, the simple fact of the matter is that the state has been able to fix U.S. 2, but has failed to do so, and people have been dying because of it. That's indisputable, and bad enough. But that Democrats are failing to fix U.S. 2, and therefore allowing people to die, over partisanship -- not just in the opinion of Republicans, but stated as fact by reporters at the left-leaning Herald -- is simply unconscionable.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Confusing

[Smackheid]

The article you linked to is very poorly written. There's this paragraph (the one you cite):

For one reason, Kristiansen is a Republican operating in a Democrat-controlled Legislature whose leaders know that he's opposed the last two increases in gas taxes for road projects around the state. Neither one contained funds for U.S. 2 partly because of his opposition.

And that's pretty much how far they explore that. I'm left to understand he wants to pay for the road, but not with an increase in taxes.

Re:

[pudge]

The article you linked to is very poorly written. There's this paragraph (the one you cite):

For one reason, Kristiansen is a Republican operating in a Democrat-controlled Legislature whose leaders know that he's opposed the last two increases in gas taxes for road projects around the state. Neither one contained funds for U.S. 2 partly because of his opposition.

And that's pretty much how far they explore that. I'm left to understand he wants to pay for the road, but not with an increase in taxes. If that is the case, then it's not as clear cut as it you make it sound, but with that level of reporting, who the hell knows?

Like a lot of news articles, this one assumes (for right or wrong) that you understand some of the context. The gas tax was a HUGE deal here in WA in recent years. And it's well-known (by most voters) that Kristiansen opposed the bill not because he opposed increased taxes per se, but because the bill was very poorly written. It didn't contain guarantees or even realistic goals, it didn't contain any measures to streamline the transportation processes that waste tens of millions a year ... it is not the

Re:

[Smackheid]

Fair enough. But supporting something with caveats doesn't equal total support. Getting "hammered" on it may be extreme and pointless (typical political rhetoric), but Kristiansen still shares any culpability that might be thrown around. You mention the Democrat's failing as partisan, which it is, but his is ideological. I'll leave it up to you which is the worst sin, but it sounds like they're all idiots in your neck of the woods.

Nice to see local politics following the national trend ;)

Re:

[pudge]

Fair enough. But supporting something with caveats doesn't equal total support.

Of course. Very seldom does someone totally support a large bill. And his support was far from total. He supported the goals of the legislation, but opposed the methods. It was a bad bill.

If you had a bill before you that tripled the income tax for everyone, to pay off the national debt -- with no guarantees about how the money would actually be spent -- would you vote for it? I'd hope not, because that would be terribly irresponsible. That was similar to the story here, amplified exponentially to ma