WhackyNation

Remember that old Broadway show tune, “Promises, Promises”? Well, it has come to mind with reference to the current session of Congress and the fact that early in the session the controlling Democrats in both houses promised rapturously and often that they supported an end to pork, which they began calling “earmarks,” as if to take the curse off the “pork” label.

It didn’t take long for the Demos to forget their political “Promises, Promises.” In the worst display of forgetfulness, the lawmakers poured pork items into the new $290 billion comprehensive farm bill, despite the fact that President Bush had pledged to veto the legislation if it came to him with all the millions of dollars’ worth of pork in it.

True to his word, the President vetoed the bill. But that didn’t faze the Demos, who knew they had the support of all the lawmakers who had laced the farm bill with home-grown pork. Sad to relate, many Republican congressmen, who had invested the bill with their own brand of pork, joined the Demos in both houses to override the veto.

Without the help of the Republicans, it is probable that the President’s veto would have been sustained and the bill would have died the death it deserved. It was another indication that the G.O.P. lawmakers have failed to support their President when he needed their help most.

Fully two-thirds of the enormous farm bill will go to the much abused nutrition program, such as food stamps. The rest will go to equally unnecessary farm subsidies and the program designed as a “charity” allotment to farmers to keep them from planting crops deemed unneeded.

Is it any wonder that the national budget and the nation’s economic reins are out of control and food prices, gasoline prices, the housing crisis, and virtually everything else are leading us to a severe recession — or worse? Unfortunately, the Demos’ love affair with political pork has blinded them to the serious issues that need the lawmakers’ attention.

For example, if the Demos would end their blind love affair with the environmental extremists, they could join the Republicans in approving measures that would put the nation back on a prosperous economic path. One of those actions should be to end the extremists’ campaign to block the creation of new oil refineries.

Thanks to the extremists’ negative action, the U.S. has not built a new oil refinery for more than 30 years. It’s one of the reasons prices at the gasoline pumps have skyrocketed and are now at the $4-a-gallon level. The lack of refineries has placed us at the mercy of the foreign oil-producing nations.

Another equally significant issue related to the gasoline shortage is the failure of the U.S. to build nuclear-power plants, so vital in furnishing the people with inexpensive electric power. We have not built a nuclear plant for more than three decades, while other nations in Europe and Asia are surpassing us in power supplies.

There are many other areas in which the Demos should “divorce” their extremist bedfellows and start taking care of the day-to-day needs of the American people. If American voters are aware of the serious needs, they will vote the Demos out of office at the federal, state, and local levels in November.

Here’s a politically incorrect thought tonight:  Is there a connection between the subprime crisis and the Democrat’s zeal to end red lining this last generation?

I think there might be … just as there is a connection between the Democrat zeal in the 70’s to curtail the power of our intelligence services and their failure this decade to provide us with accurate foreign intelligence.

Red lining was the practice of banks to mark off whole neighborhoods or commercial disticts with which they would not do loans.  In the 70’s it was seen as racist and it was outlawed.  In the 90’s (read that Clinton Democrats) anti-red lining laws were strictly enforced and the mortage companies loosened their lending standards.

I wonder what sort of overlap you would have if you mapped the addresses of today’s defaulting mortgages with the old red line districts?

I saw this post over at Horsesass.org and I thought how pathetic.

It hasn’t been 24 hours since Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic challengers introduced their Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, and we’re already seeing a surge of new challengers signing on.

When you watch your political opposition lock onto zealotry and lock out the political reality of the moment you have to have pity.  In this case, not only for the candidate, but also for her sycophant supporters in the blogosphere.

Here’s a tip: 2008 is not 2006.

In Washington State 2006 was all about anti-Bush, anti-war.

Right now, 2008 is about the economy, and maybe the issue du jour will change by November.

It’s pathetic that the moveon.org contingent behind Burner’s campaign is still focused on the war, as if anybody cared anymore.

With the fluctuations of the market, the subprime crisis, and the falling dollar the affluent 8th Congressional District doesn’t give a rat’s ass what’s going on in Iraq.  Oh, maybe some of the righteous and some of the have-nots do, but most of the constituents are worried about their pocketbook.

Darcy Burner is living the glory days of her last campaign and reliving the playbook of her 2006 campaign.

Maybe I’m giving the opposition too much help here, but, geez, out of pity, I have to say “Get with the times.”

If Burner can’t talk about any issue but the war, she’s going to go down as a big one-issue loser this November.  Then, maybe, we’ll be done with her once and for all.

Pray tell, what is a person worth for an honest day’s work? Not too long ago, the C.E.O. of Boeing left the aircraft firm to take over as the new C.E.O. at the Ford Motor Company, and it was announced a few days later that his annual pay would begin at about $25 million or so, with stock and other goodies added on. Presumably, he will stand to draw close to $40 or $50 million each year.

Something new? Hardly. Way back in the late 1980s, I remember doing a commentary asking the same question (what’s a person worth?) when it was announced that Lee Iacocca was receiving $23 million annually as his base salary and a few million more in bonuses as the new boss at Chrysler. At the time, I said: “Wow! Twenty-three million big ones!”

In subsequent years, that has become “peanuts” for a variety of moguls in American industry or even some of the professions. For example, Bill Gates, the wealthiest of all bosses in the world, was reportedly drawing an annual salary of just a few million bucks, but his accumulated wealth is over the $50 billion mark. I can’t even gather enough breath to say, “Wow! Fifty billion big ones!”

Returning to the Lee Iacocca era, Iacocca at the time was drawing more than 11,000 bucks an hour for a 40-hour week — and he wasn’t then, and certainly wouldn’t be now, the highest paid executive in the U.S. or in the world. In that context, it’s almost a joke to get excited over proposals to increase the minimum wage in the U.S. to $9 or $10 an hour.

Fortune magazine’s list of the biggest companies each year indicates many salaries ranging from $3 million a year and up — without counting the multimillion-dollar salaries in pro sports. Now, that’s another topic that I will be taking up at another time. But I have to ask once more: Is anybody really worth that much money, particularly in view of the fact that the most important man in the world, the President of the United States, gets a salary of less than half a million bucks a year?

Is Lee Iacocca, Bill Gates, or any other director of a large corporation worth that much more than you or I can collect each year? Do they contribute that much more to the community in which they live or in our society than the rest of us do? Is Iacocca, Gates, or any other executive worth millions or even billions more than the President?

I’m as strong a believer in the capitalist, free-enterprise system as anyone. But I think there is a great danger brewing in a free society when the gap between the very rich and the very poor or even the middle-income citizen gets as wide as it is today. And the gap is growing even wider by the year.

Just a few years ago, Congress passed what it called a “tax-reform act.” But the result was that it actually worked to the advantage of the ultra-rich — while socking it to middle-income America, the largest group of citizens in the U.S. and the hope and lifeblood of this unbelievably generous nation.

It goes without saying that there ought to be a law to correct all this, but I must be honest and say I’m not sure what that law should be, nor how it can correct the lopsided nature of American incomes. We must find a fair way to close the gap between the wealthy few and the many middle-income wage earners in the U.S. — before revolutionaries scrap the best democratic republic ever conceived.

Bill Clinton may have tripped up on himself yesterday in Denver.  Appealing to Democrats, who think themselves more pro-children than Republicans, Clinton said:

“We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

What?  When many in this country (and I’m not one of them) think this country is heading into recession, would the former president advocate making the recession worse?  And say that during an election cycle when his maxim in 1992 was: “It’s the economy, stupid”?

Does he think he can have more appeal to people by pandering to the global warming hysteria than causing them to fear being hurt in a depressed economy?

Maybe he understands Democrats better than I do.  Perhaps Democrats can’t intellectualize the consequences of a slowing economy so a slowing economy in the future has no relevance to them compared to imagining drowning polar bears.  Perhaps Democrats can only understand economics in the here and now so they can’t understand what it would mean to live in a worse or better economy in the future so they can’t place a value on the future.

So did Clinton make a mistake or does he better understand the subtleties of dim-witted Democrats?

The Democrats can smell the pork.  Now they want to give more money away to Social Security recipients and income earners.  The bill is up to $156 billion.

Frankly, I am surprised by President Bush.  His stimulus package appears knee-jerk and ineffective.  The IRS, which will be in charge of the rebates of up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples, says it can’t get the checks out much before June … when they will be too late to stimulate anything but the votes for incumbants in the Fall elections.

If lawmakers really want to stimulate the economy, why don’t they make the Bush tax cuts permanent and forget the rebate scheme?

This is not the first time Bush has disappointed fiscal conservatives.

With a menacing, serious recession already under way, the heat is on in the nation’s capital to find a remedy. The President, Congress, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have actually joined in an effort to revive the economy by pumping federal money into it.

However, from what I have already seen and heard, I’m inclined to believe that President Ronald Reagan hit the nail right on the head when he said something like “government was not the solution; it was the problem.” Frankly, I believe that is the problem and that it has been the problem for some time.

The accent on both political sides at the moment seems to be on finding ways to deliver federal dollars into the hands of the public, with special emphasis on the people at the bottom rung of the income ladder. Bush wants to reduce taxes and the Democrats want to make outright grants.

Both strategies may bring temporary relief and give the economy a slight boost for a time. But what’s needed is a positive, long-term program to insure a healthy economy for years to come. As Reagan so astutely observed, in essence, the culprit is Big Government and the remedy is full-scale privatization of the federal government and a return to the private sector of all or most of the operations the feds have seized for more than half a century

To simplify the idea, we must put the money back into the hands of private industry, at which point it will flow more readily into the hands of the people and, thereby, into the nation’s economy. It’s so simple and natural a philosophy that one wonders where we got off track and abandoned it.

It’s long past time for America to put an end to “Big Brother” and regain control of our earning power. An economy run by government handouts was bound to falter and run into the present recession. If we don’t privatize Big Government, we can be sure that the present downturn will work its way into a damaging depression.

In this crucial election year, both major political parties should throw away their election platforms and go back in history to rediscover the merits of the capitalist system that relied on private industry and private-sector control of all phases of American life, from education and the professions to industry and agriculture.

If we don’t do that and effect a permanent cure for what ails the American economy, we will be destined to continue on the road to a welfare state and national socialism. This may very well be the last warning we will receive before it is too late. I must repeat the profound words of Britain’s Lord MacAulay back in the 19^th Century:

“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years….”

Note that the democratic republic of the United States is barely past the 200-year mark.

In an effort to ease the housing-and-mortgage crisis that has threatened to bring on a national recession, the Federal Reserve has proposed a new mortgage-lending program that it says would combat the many cases of fraud and corruption that have been reported across the country.

Some observers have praised the plan as being the right one to end the crisis. But many others, including this writer, say it won’t work and could actually exacerbate the crisis. The main problem is that millions of home owners have found their mortgages to be more than they could handle and have fallen far behind in their payments.<.

The Federal Reserve’s proposal puts the spotlight on the nation’s lenders and suggests a method whereby home owners could take action against loan agencies that “broke the rules.” But what it all amounts to is another involved bureaucratic exercise that will be a hindrance, rather than a solution to the problem.

To help get defaulting home owners out of their predicament and solve the housing crisis for all time, I strongly urge consideration of a plan I have been urging for some time but for which I haven’t been able to win attention. It would require something of a revolution within the banking and lending industries, but it would do the trick.

My proposal has been for the President and Congress to bring about a major revision in our home-loan practices and laws to make it much easier for persons, particularly newlyweds just starting out, to make the monthly payments necessary in buying a home for the first time — and for others to do so later in life.

Instead of relying on the usual 20-year or 30-year loan period for purchasing a home, I have urged an extension of the loan period to match a “lifetime” — or, to be exact, loans for periods of 40, 50, 60, or even more years. Banks could easily revise their practices to permit such longer loans.

The immediate effect of the longer loan periods would be to cut down the monthly loan payments by half or even more what they are now under the 20-year and 30-year plans. As newlyweds and other young couples progressed and increased their income, they could decide to pay off their homes in just a few years — or they could continue to live in their homes the rest of their lives.

Banks and loan agencies should be happy to approve the longer loan periods. And the young home owners would be able to make ends meet as they enjoy living in their homes as if they were simply paying rent. I am positive such an arrangement could eventually mean the percentage of home owners could rise close to the 100 percent mark!

In the meantime, I believe the extension of home loans could put an end to the thousands upon thousands of cases of fraud and deception the Federal Reserve says have been foisted upon home owners in recent years. Thus, my loan-extension proposal could achieve two important goals — making young home owners solvent and cleaning up the fraud and deception in the lending field.

The public will have at least three months to make its wishes known. Then the Federal Reserve will adopt a new plan. I can only hope the people will demand a plan something like the one I have proposed.

I am amazed that my liberal, socialistic friends think they are so “progressive” while Republicans are so “conservative,” when, in fact, it’s been the Republicans who advocate change in public policy while the Democrats adhere to the failed policies of FDR and Lyndon Johnson.

I am inspired by an insight that my colleague Matt Manweller has in his new book, The Right Opinion: a Heritic’s Voice from the Ivory Tower. Matt’s idea is worth expanding.

For instance, public education.  Democrats stick with a failed system that supports corrupt teacher unions and “old fashioned” tenure.  Republicans say change: try vouchers and create market competition.  Actually Republicans are “Pro Choice” in education, aren’t they?

Transportation.  Democrats want 19th century trains and bicycles.  Republicans want modern cars and highways and are open to futuristic transportation systems.

Taxation.  Democrats adhere to old theories of high taxation rates.  Republicans embrace newer theories that lower taxes actually raise more revenue for government through increased velocity of money in the economy.

Trade.  Democrats stay protectionist and traiff-loving.  Republicans espouse the newer theories of open markets and lower tariffs.

Social Security.  Democrats conservatively stick with an old FDR game plan that everyone agrees will end up in bankruptcy some years out.  Republicans want to try something new, and privatize some of the investing.

Welfare.  Democrats cling to the FDR Nanny State.  Republicans reform welfare encouraging people to work for a living.

Foreign Policy.  Democrats cling to 20th Century isolationism.  Republicans see America’s leadership roll in the 21st Century, especially in the area of fighting global terrorism and Islamofascism.

Ending world hunger, disease and poverty.  Democrats advocate slowing the world’s economies in the name of an old “Mother Earth” religion called environmentalism, while Republicans advocate improving productivity which will finance the solutions to rid the world of hunger, disease and poverty.

I can go on.  But you see the point.  Republicans advocate change and new approaches.  Democrats stick with tired, broken principles of the New Deal and Great Society.  Historically, Democrats are the party of slavery, lynchings and female oppression.  Republicans have been the party of reform, racial equality and women’s suffrage.

Just what party is conservative and what party is progressive?  Maybe it’s time we stopping looking at the world through mirrors and rethink the labels of our political parties.

I suspect that most of our readers have not been following what has been happening in Eastern Washington, particularly Kittitas County, for the last few months. We are experiencing one of the biggest power grabs in a long time. In the past few months, local land use decisions have been overruled at an alarming rate by unelected state bureacrats. It looks like the Governor has choosen Kittitas County to be a “test case” to see what she can get away with in other counties. I offer the experience of Kittitas County as a warning to all the other counties that think “it won’t happen here.”

I recently published a guest editorial in the Yakima Business Times. I re-post that essay below.

**************

The Loss of Local Control

“Greetings” my neighbors to the south. I come bearing tidings from Kittitas County that should be of concern to all the people of Yakima County. I know it’s easy to ignore us in our under-populated county north of you, but that is exactly what the State of Washington and her governor hope you will do. There is nothing less than a complete loss of local control at stake and the opening battle is being fought in your backyard. The bad news: the state is winning.

For reasons that are not quite clear, the clumsy and indifferent bureaucracy we call the state of Washington has targeted Kittitas County in an opening assault to seize all land use decisions from local county governments. If they are successful, we will be living in a state where west-side environmentalists will have their boots on the throats of eastern Washington residents. They want our land. They want our water. If we are not careful, they are going to get both.

Kittitas County is currently serving as their proverbial “canary in the coal mine” to see how much they can take before the people push back. My fear is that if Kittitas County capitulates today, the state will be coming for Yakima County tomorrow.

In the last few months, Kittitas County has received a host a World Wrestling Federation slap-downs from our governor and her appointed boards. Our land use laws have been tossed. Our comprehensive plan has been invalidated. Now there is an attempt to shut down our wells. All of these things have been done in direct conflict with our locally elected officials and their democratically arrived at decisions.

In June of this year, the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB), a group of unelected Gregoire appointees, issued an “order of invalidity” striking down large portions of the Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan. The urban growth nodes were eliminated. Our ability to create three-acre zoning was thrown into question.

Following closely on the heels of that decision, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), a group of Gregoire appointees, overruled a local decision to reject a wind farm along the Yakima River. Our County Commissioners had earlier approved the largest wind farm in the state, but felt the location of this farm overly burdened local land owners and environmental concerns. Didn’t matter what our elected officials felt. EFSEC and the Governor told us that our local land use ordinances had no effect and the wind farm will be approved regardless of local input and rule of law. Interestingly there are five “interests” represented on the EFSEC board: Department of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Community Trade and Economic Development, and Utilities and Transportation. Not a single private representative in the group. No one to speak for land owners, private property, or local control.

Just last week, we got hit again. A new group, Aqua Permanente, which is closely aligned with west-side funded radical and fringe environmental groups such as Futurewise and The Ridge, have petitioned the Department of Ecology to prohibit the drilling of any new exempt wells in Kittitas County. We are all holding our breath up here. If we lose this one, most of our land will become worthless and economic development will halt immediately.

Right now, it is only Kittitas County that is suffering the arrogance of unelected Gregoire appointees. But let’s be clear. Although they are only coming for us today, they will be coming for you tomorrow. We are confronting the very real possibility that an indifferent majority of west-side voters will be colonizing eastern Washington. To many of them, we are nothing more than people who happen to live on resources they want. From their perspective, it is acceptable to build homes, factories, and businesses where they, and their children, live. We, however, are supposed to leave our land undeveloped… just in case they want to come fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, or camping in “their” backyard.

It’s been a while since my last post, but we professors tend to dial it back in the summer. I was jolted out of my slumber by this artilce in the NY Times announcing Bush will step in to “stabilize” the home mortgage market. Bad idea. Markets work because when companies make good decisions, they are rewarded, but when they make BAD decisions, they are “punished.” If the US taxpayer is required to step in and fund some $60 billion of bad loans, what message does that send to Countrywide, Liberty Financial, and all the other companies that chose to make risky loans in the hopes of higher profits? It tells them to go ahead and engage in very risky behavior–if they win, they keep their money–if they lose, the taxpayer will cover their losses. That is a sure-fire way to distort the market system.

Imagine if Las Vegas casinos told gamblers the same thing. If you win at the blackjack table, you keep your winnings. If you lose at the blackjack table, the house will cover your losses. Would you still gamble the same? No way. Everyone would take many more risks knowing their would be no consequences if their risky behavior caused them to lose.

The media and Democrats have been spinning this story as a bailout for the homeowner. That is only partly the truth. By bailing out the homeowner, the US taxpayer would also be bailing out the mortgage companies that these homeowners owe money to. It’s kind of like the old saying, “If you owe the bank a million dollars and you can’t pay…you’re in trouble. But, if you owe the bank a billion dollars and can’t pay…the BANK is in trouble.”

When it comes to markets, politicians should not always do what is popular. They need to adopt policy that does not distort market incentives. Countywide and other companies made some very bad, very risky decisions to offer lots of no-down, interest-only loans to people with shaky credit. For a while the gamble paid off and they made lots of money. Now the gamble is not paying off and they deserve to LOSE lots of money. They do not deserve to have me, you, and all the other taxpayers of America bail them out for their bad decisions.

It’s no secret that mortgage rates are continuing their phenomenal rise in America, making it increasingly difficult for prospective home owners to find and pay for housing. It’s obvious that the spiraling cost of buying a home is specially vexing for most newlyweds seeking their “dream home” or for older persons of limited means.

Can anything be done about it? I say yes, definitely yes, but I believe making it happen will not be easy, because of the opposition that can be expected from banking and savings institutions. I have detailed my proposal in my latest book, F! D! F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas. I have suggested that home buyers be permitted to purchase homes with proceeds from a loan that goes beyond the usual 20-year or 30-year period. Why not extend buyers home loans for, say, 50, 60, or even 70 years to match lifetime expectancy? Why should loans be limited to repayments in just 20 or 30 years?<

The shorter-term loans are extremely hard to manage for first-time buyers, primarily in the newlywed classification. Those buyers are hard-pressed to make ends meet, and a short-term loan with a high interest rate makes it difficult for them to meet the payments without sacrificing other needs.

With a 50-year, 60-year, or even 70-year home loan, buyers would have the privilege of retiring their mortgage much earlier, if they are able financially. In the meantime, the longer term would be much like “paying the rent” while they live in the new home, thanks to a much lower interest payment for the longer-term mortgage.

What the plan amounts to is a “lifetime mortgage” that would match the couple’s or individual’s average life expectancy. At present, it has been estimated that a woman’s life expectancy is about 78 years on the average and a man’s about 74. However, it is important to note that people are living longer and that the averages will most certainly climb to the 80s and even 90s in just a few years.

From the banking industry’s viewpoint, the longer mortgage periods should be an advantage, not the detriment some financial advisers fear. Easier home ownership and longer, but much lower, interest periods would actually turn out to be a substantial benefit to banking and housing agencies.

In the meantime, the economy in general would experience a sizable boost from increased home buying, because the money saved by home owners in lower interest rates would be applied to purchasing products and services in the marketplace. Freeing up dollars to spend would be a bonanza for everyone.

It could be expected that the owners of rental properties might offer strong opposition to any plan that would increase home sales and, thus, reduce the appeal of home and apartment rentals. But their opposition wouldn’t come close to matching the delight new home owners would register as they are able to own homes they can finally afford.

Since creating the longer-term mortgages represents a major step in our society, I believe demonstration units or communities should be considered as “pilot projects” in a dozen or so cities in America. Maybe the banking industry itself should foster the establishment of such pilot projects.

I saw the following press release from the Tax Foundation, and I am reminded how we need to cut tax rates on corporations and businesses.  It’s no wonder the economy in the EU is more robust than ours.  Our socialist Democrats are hurting US business and their employees with their class warfare tax politics.

The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD and is one of only two countries that have not reduced their rates since 1994, according to a new review of  international tax rates by the Tax Foundation. 
  
Five countries cut their corporate income tax rates in 2006, seven more will have cut their rates by the end of this year, and Germany recently  announced a planned cut on January 1, 2008. 
  
“Despite its high corporate tax rate, the U.S. collects less revenue as a percentage of GDP than most other OECD countries, even those with much lower  statutory tax rates,” said Chris Atkins, senior tax counsel and author of the new study.  “The United States is one of only two OECD countries that has not cut corporate tax rates in the past 12 years.  That has pushed us further and further behind in a highly competitive international marketplace.” 
 
U.S. lawmakers should consider enacting a substantially lower federal corporate income tax rate, according to Atkins.  Taking into account state-level corporate income tax rates (which don’t exist in most other nations), the cut would have to be at least 10 percentage points to get the U.S. rate down to the OECD average. 
  
In the Foundation’s Fiscal Fact series, No. 96, “U.S. Still Lagging Behind OECD Corporate Tax Trends,” Atkins cites four benefits of doing so: 
  
        – A lower effective tax rate on new investment in the U.S. would steer international investment our way.
        — U.S. multinationals would feel less pressure to engage in corporate inversions and other forms of profit-shifting.
        — U.S. companies would be more likely to reinvest foreign earnings in U.S. companies.
        — State governments would feel less pressure to offer special tax preferences and credits in their efforts to attract new international business investment.

The under reported story of the day:

The Bush tax cuts have been a brilliant move to revitalize the economy.

Our economy is continuing to expand.  The Dow is busting 14,000.  Jobs are so plentiful we need 20,000,000 illegals to take jobs.

Democrats are so pathetic that they don’t get the Laffer curve: lower taxes encourage the economy and actually raise more revenues than higher tax rates.  But then again, the simpleton brains of the Democrats only understand class warfare and not complex reasoning.

Gregoire even thinks she’s responsible for Washington State’s economy.  What a simp.

Congratulations are due to Pres