I'm just happy to see you go by Poodle Smolt! I thought it was funny at the time;)

I agree Dogfish, she is delusional. It's not the tax, but the state is facing a major revenue problem and clearly the state has to re-think it's priorities and design goverment around the revenue reality. To be talking about big road projects now is crazy. Fix the revenue issue first; which has to be a combination of re-thinking state services and finding a revenue system that is going to support it well into the future.

I don't know her personally, but have been involved with bills and conferences with the Governor. She is a sharp lady; but as Salmo mentioned she is first a politician and a politician and thinking right doesn't always go together.

I think what you meant to say was the demand curves for fuel and food are inelastic, meaning that even if their prices go way up, there is little change in demand. It's the same demand/supply curves, the demand curve is just very steep.

Contrary to what you might think, "semantics" can be very important in discussions about economics.

Fuel is typically left out of the price index because the inflation in oil is already reflected in the inflation of the goods that ARE used in the calculation. What their justification is for leaving food out of the cpi calculation, I can't tell you.

I don't disagree.

Alot of politicians claim that taxes on goods will be absorbed by the manufacturers--- make less profit. Gregoire has always worked in the public sector since college graduation, meaning her paychecks have always been paid with tax receipts.

Clueless, or telling the sheep what they want to hear?

We have the government that we have chosen. If we didn't like what they were doing, we would vote them out.

She is not delusional. She knows exactly how the fee will get pushed along to the consumer. This type of thing is done by almost all bureaucrats at one time or another. Since CG has been a bureaulifer, this practice of letting someone else deliver the bad news has become NOP, and completely natural.

I see this all the time where a gov't employee tells Joe Landowner that "All you need to do is have your consultant fill out these forms, and submit this report and this project will be a go." They leave it up to me to tell them that the forms and report cost $30k, and the process is about 3 years long. Even though they (gov't employee) know that the news they are giving is bad, they make it sound good so that they do not get the immediate backlash.

Like I said, NOP.

What I can't understand is that Portland can have Max that goes from town to town and into Portland, and we get light rail that is 50' in air for about 10 miles.. All for about the same cost. Seattle is so far behind transportation issuses. Or should I say Washington..

The most important question will likely be answered by Lt. Gov. Brad Owen: Is the charge a fee or a tax?
There’s a legal difference. Fees typically are supposed to benefit whoever is paying them, while taxes can have a more general purpose. State lawmakers can raise fees with majority votes, but under voter-imposed handcuffs, they need to find supermajorities for taxes or ask voters for their endorsement.
Democrats argue it’s a fee. Gregoire’s office said oil companies benefit from a transportation system that keeps drivers on the roads and ferries in the water, all using gas and oil. They also contribute to pollution, and some of the money would go to clean up stormwater.
“Our oil companies are getting all the profit and leaving us with the bill,” Gregoire said.
The oil industry said it’s a tax. There’s no tie between a barrel of oil and how much the state’s highway system is being used, they say, especially when about half of the oil they refine is headed out of state.
“We expect that there will be a coalition of folks that see this as in essence a hidden gas tax, and that we’ll continue to oppose it as such,” said Dave Fisher, a consultant for the Western States Petroleum Association.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/01/...l#storylink=cpy

From a E mail this morning.

Just went on with John Carlson on KOMO radio and trashed Gregoire and her proposal for a $1.50 per barrel oil tax on refiners to fund transportation projects. I explained how the tax may be collected from the oil cos but will be paid by the consumer at the pump. Explained how the taxes are line-itemed on delivery invoices to dealers and to claim the refiners would pay it is like claiming Walmart is the one who pays the sales tax rather than the consumer even though its passed down clearly on the cash register receipt. Also said that if a salesman tried this scam to sell a used car he'd be prosecuted for false advertising. Raised the issue of the payments to the tribes when asked where all the money was going.

John Carlson...bats about zero and should have been tarred, feathered and run out of town eight years ago. Amazing anyone listens to that idiot.

Its a tax. No really, it is a tax.

Got pics of the daughter? I shook her hand last year at a bill signing. She would qualify as a spinner, in her day.

lol

More & a link to watch the arguements if you wanted.

January 12, 2012

To: All AUTO Members

Re: AUTO v- Gregoire (tribal motor fuel tax compact suit)

At 1:30 this afternoon the state's highest court heard AUTO's appeal of a lower court's ruling dismissing our suit challenging the fuel tax compacts negotiated behind closed doors between Governor Gregoire and 14 Indian Tribes in WA state. The primary issue heard today was whether or not AUTO or any other citizen has the legal right to object to any deal of any kind that a Governor may cut with a tribe.

Representing AUTO was former Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge who led off the proceeding. Nearly immediately one could tell this issue had the court attention. The Justices fired question after question on the technicalities of the law at Talmadge who responded calmly and quickly to each question. Regardless of the outcome, it seemed obvious that this isn't going to be an easy decision for the court.

When it was the state's turn, the Assistant Attorney General was again swamped with questions. The Justices repeatedly stated their concern that the state's position was one wherein the Governor could start handing out gifts from the treasury to the tribes (which is exactly what AUTO believes happened) and no citizen could even object or have a legal remedy even if the Governor violated the state constitution. Several times, seemingly grasping for a way to explain the state's position, the AAG took a moment to compose his thoughts. It seemed to some observers that he appeared reluctant to admit that the state was actually making such a claim.

The most encouraging part of the hearing came when several justices commented on how disturbing it was to them that a Governor could not be held accountable for any illegal or unconstitutional action taken long as it was connected to a treaty tribe. Clearly, AUTO's key point had came across to the justices and Talmadge finished the hearing by sharing how he personally was also extremely alarmed by a rule of law where no citizen could object even if the Governor took "a bribe" to enter into illegal or unconstitutional compacts with a tribe.

A decision is expected to be published sometime this summer. Those that want to view the hour long hearing can do so by simply clicking on this link:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012010008C

I was looking in the papers and on their websites to see if anyone had an article on the hearing. There wasn't; thanks for posting it.

Watched it. The part that disturbs me is that the State actually says that even in the case of a bribe from the Tribe received by the governor, or any other eggregous action on her part, to enter into a compact, that the citizens of the State effectively have no recourse against the compact because of the issue of sovereign immunity.

I have an idea. How about a constitutional amendment that the State not be allowed to bargain away income streams of the State, or income sources, in favor of the Tribes, without a simple majority of the voters approving the compact? Also, any compact with the state would be negotiated with a limited waiver of soveriegn immunity applied to each compact, AND, that each compact signed between the Tribes and the state have a mandatory review/renewal period of 10 years. In place of those wishes (which would never happen), any compact signed between the State and the Tribes would be subject to review by the Washington State Supreme Court prior to going into effect. I believe this last option is entirely possible and legally enforceable. It would provide a review of the end result prior to any possible harm to the residents of the State.

In every single contract that I enter into with a Tribe, we don't ever sign any paperwork until they have signed the limited waiver of soveriegn immunity. The State certainly has the ability to put this into place if I have the ability to put this in place.

For those who might think that I fall all over myself for Tribes and their rights, you are wrong.

Some more links

KOMO television out of Seattle did another "Problem Solver" that was again outstanding. If you want to see the approximately 3 minute video of the broadcast last night simply click on: http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolv...b=video&c=y

Mike Lindblom of the Seattle Times attended the hearing and published: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017225993_fueltax13m.html

The Seattle P.I. posted a story from Vedder on its web site: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Supreme-Court-hears-challenge-over-gas-tax-2503376.php
I am also doing numerous spots on talk radio today.

Got the court's attention! And yes to what Dogfish wrote.

Sg