They explained that they based their conclusion, “not on Smith’s voting record but on his ability to moderate legislation before it comes to a vote.”  I would like to see them produce the evidence for that claim.

The following is Scott’s editorial:

Adam Smith had spent 6 years in Congress sabotaging a Republican president until Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, when his true beliefs were allowed to shine. Within a month, Adam Smith voted for a $787 billion “stimulus package” that had virtually no Republican support, to keep unemployment under eight percent. Pork abounded, and projects like streets and highways in no need of repair would be broken up and repaved. Government agencies would spend millions on signs advertising the supposed benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It funded studies like “Malt Liquor and Marijuana: Factors in their Concurrent Versus Separate Use.” that paid pot-smoking malt-liquor drinkers to participate. This was the Democrats stimulus. 

And the Democrats proudly touted all those saved and created jobs! The estimated cost of the stimulus was later increased from $787 billion to $862 billion. That’s a cost underestimate of nearly ten percent, but did it keep unemployment under 8%? No, soon unemployment was over 10%, and as time passed, hundreds of thousands of Americans stopped looking for work.  Many experts believe the real unemployment numbers are now 15% or higher. 

How could Democrats like Smith make it worse? Federal spending is growing at an unprecedented pace. We are adding $4.8 billion to the national debt every day, dwarfing the amounts of every previous Congress. With the long-term funding of Medicare and Social Security in peril, they decided to rob $500 million from them to help fund a health care bill 60% of Americans did not want.  The Democratic congress insisted on exempting themselves from its coverage, but ‘it would be good for the rest of us’.  They never read the bill, but informed us that we would ‘learn the details’ when it was passed.  The details included the not so fun facts that this new bureaucracy would create thousands of new IRS agents to enforce it.   

And when Congressman Smith held his townhall meetings with constituents before the vote, he insisted he had no idea if he would vote for it, when every count in political circles said he was a certain yes vote.  When one voter asked if he would take a poll of the people at the townhall meeting, he said that we ‘did not reflect his district’, and he would take no poll.  He must have known that was pretty unpopular when the audience murmured its discontent. 

Smith and his liberal colleagues in congress became dismissive of the American public. Congressional leadership said the American public was irrational and stupid, ‘clinging to their guns and their religion’. And those that opposed the president were racist, and not just people fed up with government bailouts, debt, and the feeling that our grandchildren would have to pay the ultimate price.  Smith never said a word to contradict them. 

The ‘moderate independents’ I know are united on the issues of federal debt, the unchecked growth of government, and health care reform. The American people understood the rather obvious point that it wouldn’t be possible to cover 30 million additional people, improve the care of those with insurance, and save taxpayers money, all at the same time. The ‘moderate independents’ I know want the borders enforced before any talk of the next batch of amnesties, and want foreign enemies of America tried in military courts, not given constitutional rights and tried in federal courtrooms. The ‘moderate independents’ I know are tired of the President devoting much of his time criticizing our country, blaming the past, and never trying to compromise for the good of the people.  When have you seen Adam Smith vote for these values? 

His words of ‘independence’ are just talk. He doesn’t vote for moderate values, and until he does, we should not be deceived by his campaign description of his ‘independent’ nature.  He is a Nancy Pelosi clone, and that, by definition, is not independent.

I am a member of a labor union. I recognize the good that they do and I also recognize that unions frequently are moved to excess. The same is true for management. In industry, labor and management have different goals, goals that almost always place them in opposition to each other. They have a shared destiny in that if the company fails, they both go down in flames. They share on the upside as well. If a company is exceedingly prosperous, both the stockholders and employees can prosper as well; however, many times if labor prospers it is at the expense of the stockholders and vice-versa.

Management has an obligation to the stockholders. If management were in bed with the labor unions they would be guilty of both malfeasance and misfeasance. Just imagine what would happen if the labor unions at Boeing had the ability to force the company officers out, that is, fire their management. It would not take long before union demands had a very serious impact on company performance. First the unions would deprive them of the cash required to develop new products. Boeing would have to increase their prices resulting in a loss of market share and could result in lower profits (law of diminishing returns).

This is exactly what is happening in Greece. Public employees labor unions have learned that they can fire their boss; that is, elected officials. Any elected official who will not support the agenda of these unions finds themselves the target of these labor unions. If they raise tax rates, actual tax receipts go down. They are in a no-win situation. They need more money, but if they raise or lower tax rates, they lose money. Businessmen face the same issue. They can only increase prices so much before they price themselves out of the market; alternatively, they cannot stay in business if they lower prices below their actual costs.

The same thing is happening in California. One state representative, with a sterling record for being tough on crime, found himself the target of police and firefighters labor unions because he did not support a bill that would have allowed them to retire at age 50 at 100 percent of their salary. These unions went door to door. Police officers told people that this representative was soft on crime.

Who are you going to believe, the politician or the police officer? The people believed the officer and replaced him with someone who would vote for the pension package the unions wanted. Now California is unable to meet its financial obligations. Every time they increase taxes, more businesses leave the state or go out of business and they get less money, not more.

Washington is on the same path. Our public employees’ labor unions are out of control. They have financed the campaigns of many candidates for the state House and Senate. They expect a return on their investment. If they don’t give the unions what they want, they will not only lose their support, but become their target. State Sen. Tracey Eide (D-District 30) and State Rep. Mark Miloscia (D-District 30) cannot win re-election to office if they do not give the unions what they want. They also cannot balance the budget if they do give in to their demands. The state Legislature is the Board of Directors for the state. They have an obligation to the voter. Taking money from public employees’ labor unions is a conflict of interest and constitutes both malfeasance and misfeasance.

The state budget has exploded over the last six years, increasing by 17 percent in 2005 and 2006 alone. The budget is unsustainable. All this has been driven by the demands of state employees and their labor unions. Like Will Rodgers said: “We have the best politicians money can buy.” And they are bought and paid for.

If you want the state of Washington to follow the same path as Greece and California, vote Democrat. However, if you want to see a return to fiscal sanity, choose some other course. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I am voting for Tony Moore and Shawn Sullivan. Tracey Eide and Mark Miloscia do not deserve to be returned to office. They are a big part of the problem. Tracey is the floor leader for the Senate Democrats and as such owns the current fiscal disaster.