THE TACOMIC


One sloppy THANK YOU for passing I-1107 say candy maker Brown & Haley, Sugar Water Soda Pop Special Interest Groups and "FRIENDS"

Because you just gotta have your garbage junk foods for 10 cents cheaper
posted Nov 9, 2010
tacoma, tacomic, candy tax, brown & haley, i1107, taxes
Sizes:   web  |  email  |  print

<< >>
Bloated sacks of protoplasm we also sometimes refer to as Washington state voters went to the polls in droves (or possibly even walked which is unlikely considering the love affair with automobiles, and newly revealed love affair with candied sugar snacks) and sent a clear message to what ignorant people call 'those idiots in Olympia' some variation of the following:


Great. Binge on that foul refuse. Maybe your sugar high will help with the sucker punch reality is about to lay on us all.  How much can we shave off this THIN SANE LINE?  Your trite "USE COMMON SENSE" T.E.A. mantra is not going to patch the potholes in our horrendously under-funded mental health social safety nets.   As Friar Tuck so aptly said as he defenestrated the corrupt bishop in the 1991 Kevin Costner star vehicle film: "Here is 13.3 oz of candy cane roca, you can pay the devil on your way to Hell!"

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 6:41am
The only insanity I'm witnessing is the liberal belief that we can tax our way into prosperity.

I guess one might argue that I-1107 was the voter's attempt to refudiate insanity.

Since you take such delight in Robin Hood analogies try this one on. One of your liberal heroes, Mr. Bill Gates Sr. recently caused a hit and run accident in Seattle. He didn't remember anything when he returned to the scene of the crime hours later. Must have been out drinking Candy Cane Schnapps with his Merry Men.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 6:58am
When Max went trick-r-treating the other night I wonder if his daddy made him throw all the candy in the garbage when he returned home. Or maybe you traded him some yummy turnips.

by KevinFreitas on 11/9/2010 @ 7:26am
Wow, so tired about hearing how taxes won't solve anything. They won't solve everything but vital social services don't pay for themselves.

As taxes go, I'm totally with RR on this one. You want to eat crap? You should pay more for it. Any kind of disincentive we can levy again things like sugar-loaded drinks is a helpful step toward healthier people.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 7:34am
"vital social services don't pay for themselves."

We pay for vital social services just as we always have through a combination of sales taxes, property taxes, excise and b&o taxes. This funding mechanism remains unchanged. The small minority of people who wanted a sales tax on candy are mostly just a bunch of buzz-killing scrooges.


by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 8:04am
Bill Gates Senior, like most seniors, should not be behind the wheel of a car. They are a danger to themselves and others.

Maximilian enjoyed the festivities of Halloween yes. Did we allow him to binge on candy? NO.

I hope the children in the libertarian paradise of Fredo city are proficient with tooth brushes.

by ixia on 11/9/2010 @ 8:04am
Long tired too of the droning whine about all things tax and government. Thinking fredo might be an electronic right wing propaganda tool. Subliminal advertising so to speak. Good thing I have the switch off button.

by jenyum on 11/9/2010 @ 8:08am
Yes, liberals like Reagan's former budget director do go on and on about the need for a revenue stream.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.


blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2010...

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 8:10am
"I hope the children in the libertarian paradise of Fredo city are proficient with tooth brushes."

they are. we would like to change toothbrushes more often but that's a taxable item in Washington State. interesting that the liberals say they are in favor of tax law which encourages healthy lifestyles, yet they continually charge sales tax on toothbrushes. i would call this an inconsistant postion on health.


by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 8:18am
Common ground sir!

Join me Fredo as we call upon the people of Washington to discontinue the irrational sales tax system and instead option for a more progressive, social-justice oriented, fair income tax which will render greater benefit to our citizens during these times of economic distress.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/9/2010 @ 8:20am
We could be like Oregon and have no sales tax at all. Of course they have an income tax but I think that is a fair trade off. Candy, however, should be taxed at the manufacturer along with sugary sodas. Bottled water should have a deposit on the bottles so they have to be returned to collect the deposit. Tax problem fixed and I didn't have to put up one yard sign.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/9/2010 @ 8:27am
I can justify all kinds of special taxes that will benefit the general health and welfare of our citizenry, taxes that directly target those engaged in "high-risk" behaviors, and won't effect me. Here are some simple samples:

You really like your Japanese cars? Teenage tuners prefer these automobiles to domestic models, souping them up, and driving maniacally on our roads. Guess what- your new Subaru Imprezza just cost an extra 21%. That's not much, it shouldn't bother anybody. I don't drive new cars, so no problems there.

How about mountain bikes? Studies show (I'm not giving any links- find them yourselves) that arrogant bicyclists who ignore traffic laws increase the cost of policing and emergency medical services. Therefore, I propose an additional tax of 42% on every new bicycle with more than three speeds. Doesn't effect me if I choose to ride an old Raleigh. Too bad about you.

How about rap music? It is said that rap music, especially the sub-genre known colloquially as "gansta rap" encourages violence and illegal drug use. Therefore, like bicycles, society experiences increased costs of policing, emergency medical services, and we'll add "corrections" on to the list- for a tax of 63%. That should help defray some of the cost of social services use to combat the after effects of such music. I don't listen to it, so it certainly won't effect me.

Oh- this was about related health care costs of sugar? How about being Black? African-Americans statistically have a higher incidence of cardiac disease- this is unfair to those who are of Norwegian descent and have healthy hearts due to high levels of fish oils absorbed during their life-long consumption of Lutefisk. Tax African Americans extra for the additional health care resources required to treat them over the course of their lifetime, this would be fair, right? Doesn't effect me.

Do we see a problem with where this is going yet?

If you don't see the problem with this progression of thought, I can't help you. Good luck.

by jenyum on 11/9/2010 @ 8:40am
Wow, a long list of things which are not candy (or soda). What does this have to do with anything?

You know who wanted to tax soda? Hitler.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 9:09am
jinx i followed your posting and the reasoning behind it. brilliant.

there are still a few liberals prancing around on their unicorns who haven't gotten the message, people don't want sales taxes on water and grocery items. this elite group always wants more funding for government workers but when given the chance to send their own money in to the state treasurers office fails to avail themselves of the opportunity. Why do liberals hate the government?

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 9:23am
Great. Here comes TO'T's dead nazi kangaroo farting drawing in just 13 moves.
That's like some kind of Tacomic record!

So a tax on GUM is greater or equal to discriminating against blackpeople/invading poland/extermination of the gypsies+gays+mentally ill+Jewish people.

Can you help me If I DO see a problem with that reasoning?

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 9:33am
surprisingly, it wasn't some wild, ranting teabagger who mentioned Hitler...it was jen

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 9:34am
T.E.A. Libertarian New Wave GOP Mental Health plan:

1. Don't go insane.

2. If you do go insane, get shot by a policeman quickly.

3. DO NOT TAX MY SUGAR HOSTESS DING DONG SNACKS!

THE END.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/9/2010 @ 9:38am
Fredo gets it.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 9:56am
The message to elected officials delivered on November 2nd was this:

A. Maintain public service levels and reduce pay and benefits to government workers

OR

B. Cut public service levels and maintain high pay and benefits to government workers.

It's like a chinese restaurant menu, you can choose A or B, but you can't have both. I select A.

by jenyum on 11/9/2010 @ 10:10am
I completely understand your logic, Jinxmedic, which is why I have compiled a list of 10 Other things the candy and soda tax is *just like*

Taxing old people more because they are old and cost more
A 50% tax on puppies because they will just grow up to cost us animal control dollars
An extra income tax on soldiers because we will have to pay for their medical costs later
An extra 80% tax on apple pie because pie crust contains trans fats
An extra 70% mark up on baseball tickets to offset the unacceptable risk associated with fly balls.
An extra 20% sales tax on knitting needles because knitting leads to carpal tunnel syndrome.
An extra payroll tax for fire fighters to offset their medical costs
A 1 million dollar fee for 4th of July celebrations because they are very messy and occasionally result in fireworks-related injury.
A 40% sales tax on books containing the United States Constitution, just because liberals hate the Constitution. (Accompanied by special rebate on copies of the Quran.
A 100% sales tax on American flags, to pay for the cost of union workers raising and lowering them all the time on government buildings.

So, while you did provide part of the equation I think it works more like this:


Candy/Soda/Bottled Water = Japanese Cars, bicycles, African Americans, musical expression, (knitting) grandmas, puppies, American soldiers, apple pie, baseball, fire fighters, the 4th of July, the US Constitution, and the American Flag.

Please let me know if I left anything out.

(Kevin, why does FeedTacoma hate list tags?)

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 10:28am
TacomaMama is forgetting Monster Truck Show tax

by The Jinxmedic on 11/9/2010 @ 10:48am
Jenyum is also right on the target, even though (he/she?) probably doesn't realize it.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 10:55am
yes jens contribution was nice. good job tacomamama

Here's a thought. Liberals say regressive taxes are a hardship on poor people. Yet they still rammed this sales tax increase through, apparently without any concern for how it would affect poor people.

The liberals concern for poor people is like the mississippi river, a mile wide and an inch deep.

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 11:04am
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQsOOfU59SM

quit bitching and pay your fair share like a man.


by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 11:36am
that's funny

defeating Hitler was an effort all americans believed in
larding up union workers pension accounts...not so much.

by cisserosmiley on 11/9/2010 @ 12:13pm
I do have a concern about the future liabilities of public pension annuity payments...but mostly i am blown away that Donald would appear in such liberal propaganda!!!

by Jesse on 11/9/2010 @ 7:25pm
The poorer folks in our society have to grocery shop where each dollar they spend gets them the most calories per that dollar. So they eat McDonalds $1 menu instead of a deli sandwich --- as a simple example.

They usually weigh more because of this.

Weight issues are directly related to morbid and co-morbid health issues where a doctor is needed... not to mention a dentist.

No money equals visits to the E.R. instead af a Family Doctor as they have to see everyone.

Who pays for this? The taxpayer.

So can you conclude that there needs to be a tax on candy and junk food to A) Force to poor to buy more non-junkfood B) Pay for said E.R. visits C) Avoid taking tax money from other revenue streams to pay for these health problems.

Perhaps the candy tax would save Fredo more tax money than it actually would cost him.

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 7:36pm
Thank you Jesse. You 'get it'

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 8:00pm
"The poorer folks in our society have to grocery shop where each dollar they spend gets them the most calories per that dollar. So they eat McDonalds"

That's liberal baloney. I doubt if most poor people even know what a calorie is, let alone have the ability to determine how many there are in their food. If they were this smart they wouldn't be poor people.

They have food stamps sufficient to eat plenty of healthy food. Their preference for junk food probably stems from poor body image or laziness.

And for the record, McDonalds already collects a 10 cent sales tax on every $1 item sold.

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 9:03pm
Fredo where is your compassionate conservatism ? Wasn't it Regan who said that ketchup was a vegetable? probably just a senior moment.

by fredo on 11/9/2010 @ 9:41pm
We provide poor people with food stamps, WIC vouchers, food banks, school lunch and breakfast subsidies, lunch in the park, basic nutritional information, government mandated labeling on every bit of food and every menu item. They taxpayers do everything for the poor people except actually chew the food for them.

by NineInchNachos on 11/9/2010 @ 9:47pm
don't forget libraries! but you're not supposed to have food in there.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/9/2010 @ 10:19pm
I would hope that I never get as bitter as fredo.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 7:13am
well, since you never attempt to advance or defend an unpopular position there's little chance. if I could express conservative philosophy in terms of moonbeams and unicorns, you can be assured, I would.

Just for the record, I would like someone to tell me in plain English why society makes poor people eat junk food.

Furthermore, I would like an explanation for why a morbidly obese person who never sees a doctor until the day he slips into a diabetic coma costs society more than a healthy person who constantly goes to the doctor and draws social security payments for an twenty extra years.

by Jesse on 11/10/2010 @ 7:41am
The poorer folks do indeed try to buy more calories per dollar. Shall we play a game of "which is cheaper to get a full stomach on?"

A) McDonalds $1 menu OR Subway sandwich
B) A large bag of Doritos OR A large bag of oranges
C) Kraft Mac and Cheese dinner OR Chicken breast, rice, and brocoli.
D) I could go on forever.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 7:49am
Are you saying that poor people evaluate the calorie count of all these options before stuffing their faces?

I think its more likely that foods prepared with generous doses of salt, sugar and fat taste better than bland food. People who eat this stuff everyday know their diet is crap but just don't care.

Also most poor people get a generous allowance of food stamps. What difference does it make what foods are cheaper when you're not paying?

I could go on forever but crenshaw would get his panties in a bunch.

by cisserosmiley on 11/10/2010 @ 8:36am
I'm usually for free enterprise, but food production should be monitored more closely by public health agencies. here's why:

Flavor is cheaper to produce than nutrition in prepared foods...
Food companies consider flavor and profits more than nutrients...
It is nealy illegal to produce enough on your own food to survive...

Unless we can re-wind the clock 100 years and re-grow America without mass food production being centralized and thus freeing the rest of us to pursue everything but food gathering (being pissed that no one has taken your order yet doesn't count), then we must demand the government force nutrition and costs to line up. We have basically socialized food production through mass farming-the few large food producers are in fact TOO BIG TO FAIL!!! But pricing is market driven? It makes no sense to make poor people bid on the open market for food with wealthy people when we would all pay the bill in a food type AIG mess.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 10:53am
cissero you make some good points but I'm wondering if you are aware that there is a huge movement to produce organic and natural foods? These items are available not only at farmers markets but also Safeway, Albertsons, Wal-Mart, and so on.
Prepared foods are meticulously labeled and new producers are entering the market everyday, some of which are very health oriented. The question is, should consumers be allowed to eat unhealthy food if that is what they prefer?

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 10:58am
"Food companies consider flavor and profits more than nutrients..."

as a courtesy to crenshaw would you be careful with comments which reflect bitterness?

Is there some barrier to market entry for companies which want to provide nutritious foods? Is there something which would prevent even a private person like yourself from offering healthful foods, perhaps even turning a profit?

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 11:10am
interesting that the people who voted yes on I-1107 and sent Patty Murray back to the Senate are described as "bloated sacks of protoplasm" RR. I might be inclined to agree with you on that one sir.

by cisserosmiley on 11/10/2010 @ 12:09pm
I am aware of organic food, thank you. The questions is not is the free market occuring in the food industry? It certainly is, and I will re-state I am usually a fan of free enterprise. However, every human needs water, oxygen, and food...whats wrong with having the same sense we have with water? Sure buy a $3 bottle of water or get it for almost 0 from the municipal water system. Food will never be Federalized now, but some conversation about standards should happen without too much bitterness...on that topic...pointing out that profits are driven by flavor and corporate America by profits isn't bitter. It's lovely. It's why it's great here. Americans have time and time again been hurt by profiteering inc's, That's OK as long as oxygen, water, or food isn't involved. Ironically, if all of DC was made up of TEA PARTIERS the only thing left of government would be protecting oxygen, water, and food. We could use that library money for some nutritional standards testing NOT done by the corp. making the food.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/10/2010 @ 1:16pm
This topic is a mess because we're trying to address two separate issues at once and are making a horrible concoction of invoking the Kangaroo.

WTF?

Look, we have two issues here. Government spending & revenue and food. These are BIG messes in themselves.
Honestly, taxing candy will NOT solve Olympia spending like a drunken Microsoft exec. Taxing junk food WILL NOT stop, solve or slowdown the rampant malnutrition in this country. What we're doing is trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

I won't go into a long-winded tirade but here's what the issue is in a nutshell:
Olympia (and DC, and every other gov't with taxing authority) do not spend money well. They are wasteful and greedy. Social services programs are not free. Taxes are very high in this state, and we do have more programs than a lot of poorer states do. What is the solution? Well, raising taxes is out, since by a HUGE margin, the People of WA are taxed out. The talking heads in Olympia are going to have to learn to do some basic math and make cuts. That's all there is to it.
One may think they know better, but that point is meaningless now. Crying about not having an income tax isn't going to change the minds of the other 70% of the voting public. Given the economy and the bad stuff that's still coming down the pipe, it's best to sit down and determine the best way to shave programs. It's the only option.

As for food, this is WAAAAY bigger than I can tackle here and in a succinct manner. What it all comes down to is that HFCS, corn and sugar are far more heavily subsidized than healthy foods. It's hard to get ahead when the deck is stacked against you from the start.
Saying that foodstamps will buy healthy food or that poor people don't know a calorie from a twinkie is remarkably ignorant, and that kind of thinking is what keeps the same old biases alive and healthy. Shame, shame, shame.
Try talking to someone who is on food stamps. You might find it's your neighbor with a BS who lost their job when WAMU went T/U. You might find it's a single mom who works AND goes to TCC. You might find that it's you if your job evaporates.
One can buy healthy food with food stamps. Absolutely. However, ever try to shop on a $400/month budget for a family? The most amount of food for the dollar is not always the best. It is expensive to eat well. I spent the better part of my childhood and adolescence on food stamps. It is NOT as easy as one thinks to eat well.
And not surprisingly, the same people who complain about people on stamps eating poorly are the exact same ones who throw a fit if they see a $10 steak and organic broccoli on that same person's plate. "How dare MY tax dollars pay for expensive food! I don't eat ten dollar steaks! Why are people on food stamps allowed to eat better than me????

You see? We're dealing with two enormous social issues here, both of which have enormous consequences.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 1:30pm
OK let's simplify the issue.

l. Do people have a right to eat unhealthful food if that is their choice?

2. Does the government have an obligation to prevent people from eating anything which is not 100% nutritious? (I'm not sure how we would determine this, but the sake of argument let's assume we can).

Each issue requires only a yes or no answer.

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 1:32pm
So it wont solve it, but will help.

furthermore reducing complex systems to simple yes or no answers is an exercise in hubris

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 1:47pm
"reducing complex systems to simple yes or no answers is an exercise in hubris" nachos

Well that's interesting. You recently posted an elaborate Robin Hood drawing which reduced all the complex ballot initiatives to simple yes or no recommendations. I guess this problem with hubris only occurs when other people post, not you yourself.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/10/2010 @ 1:48pm
There isn't a yes or no answer. Real life is 10 billion shades of gray, not black and white.

But you know, I have an idea. I propose the Food stamp Challenge. The State of WA says that the average SNAP benefit is $200 per month in our state.

I challenge everyone who has never been on stamps to get by on the WA State average. Put your money where your mouth is and try to eat well with fresh fruits and veggies, wholesome dairy and lean meats for one calendar month on the WA State average.

That is $50 per week or $6.67 per day or $2.22 per meal.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 1:55pm
Wow, starting a discussion with some of you people is like pulling teeth.

Let's make this really simple. Max wants to eat a jelly doughnut. Assume it has no nutritional value and might take one minute off his 80 year life expectancy. Should he have the right to eat that jelly doughnut?

Why is this so perplexing?


by L.S.Erhardt on 11/10/2010 @ 2:03pm
Don't ask me. I didn't start this hoolagabby. Someone just hit my hot button of poverty.

If you want to eat a jelly donut, help yourself.
If you wish to eat a whole dozen, go ahead. It is a "free" country, after all.

Now, are you going to take the food stamp challenge?

by cisserosmiley on 11/10/2010 @ 2:12pm
My lovely wife and I did a $4 a day challenge in the recent past and it was difficult. Meat is pretty cheap, but she's a vegetarian. It was not a routine 30 days and I invite all to try $6.66 a day.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 2:18pm
I think you've answered my question thorax. YES people have the right to eat unhealthful food, absolutely.

If you want to eat a sow belly deep fat fried in lard and coated with pancake syrup and baked inside a sugar coated pizza you have the absolute right. There is no shade of gray.

Here's my supporting proof so that you can see that no hubris was involved:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." The Declaration of Independence



by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 2:26pm
Ah...the food stamp challenge.

Let's get a few ground rules straight. Is that $200 per month for each person in the household or $200 for all the people in the household combined?

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 2:48pm
does eating junk food make you happy?

are we talking long term or short term happiness?

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 2:50pm
this comment thread is getting AWESOME!

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 2:55pm
junk food does make people happy

maybe you've heard the expression "happy meal"

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/10/2010 @ 3:14pm
The state simply says that $200 is average.

I would highly recommend that you work with your life partner and have them take care of feeding the children, as it isn't right to malnourish your kids. If one is going to take up the Challenge, it should only be done by adult people. Not cool to drag innocent kids into this.

But then again, this is a good lesson. Remember the old cliche of taking the spoiled kids down to the orphanage on Christmas? Maybe this would be an excellent lesson in understanding and empathy. Explain to the kids that 40% of people in the USofA have to live like this. Maybe afterwards they'll be better for the experience.

I don't know the formula the state uses to calculate benefits, but $50 extra for a spouse and $60 extra per kid under 18 seems to be in-line.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/10/2010 @ 3:19pm
Been there, done that. Ate lots of dried beans, tortillas, and free cheese (which apparently, you can't get anymore).

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 3:41pm
Does crack make people happy? or does it just fool the brain into pretending to be happy? Because people I see on TV doing crack don't look/act very happy.

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 3:42pm
Has the free government cheese been privatized? This is a victory for the TEA party!

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 3:48pm
I would argue that FAT and SUGAR products fool our mammalian reptile brains into a phony happiness which is highly exploitable to corporate advertisers. Clearly the CONSTITUTION says nothing about phony happiness. But one can argue that phony happiness in indeed a brand of happiness.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of DENIAL ?

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 3:51pm
"Explain to the kids that 40% of people in the USofA have to live like this."

Why lie to your kids? People don't "have" to live this. Some have fallen on hard times because of health issues and need the assistance, many others just prefer not working and like sponging off the government. Please be honest with your children. Remember the old saying "honesty is the best policy."


by cisserosmiley on 11/10/2010 @ 4:20pm
im hungry

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 4:28pm
Here's the information on food stamps AKA SNAP (the S stands for supplemental, food stamps are not intended to be your sole source of food)

Average household gets 227 per month or 101 per person. The information provided was pretty vague. It looks like you need to apply to the program for benefits to get all the details. I assume that a mother, her boyfriend, and their 6 kids would get $808 worth of stamps per month. Someone check my math. I'm pretty sure that people who are careful shoppers, use as many coupons as possible, shop 2 or 3 different stores for specials and hit up the food banks once in awhile will do OK. They won't be eating prime rib or lobster but they aren't going to starve.

Also, you don't have to be destitute or unemployed to get these SNAP benefits, they are also available to low income workers.

by Jesse on 11/10/2010 @ 4:49pm
To Thorax: The food stamp challenge is something I'd love to hear feedback on after Fredo does it. Eat for $101 a month? Hard to do. No question.

To Fredo: This isn't about if someone has the right or doesn't have the right to eat as they wish. Remember, this is about if they CAN eat healthy or not on food stamps. Junk food is cheaper than good healthy food. You've obviously never been poor and are oblivious to all this.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 5:01pm
to jesse@ food stamps is a SUPPLEMENTAL nutrition program. It isn't intended to provide the family with all its food. I thought I pointed this out.

My own family is 2 adults and 2 children. I doubt if we spend even $400 per month but we eat a lot of rice. A 25# bag of jasmine rice is about $15.00 and this makes an incredible amount. My wife adds some vegatables and some meat and that's about it. I make all of our bread and the ingrediants cost about 25cents per loaf (estimated).

I'm not oblivious to poverty and I've lived in my car before but I do have this observation. People don't have a right to free food. This is a gift from the taxpayers and not an entitlement.

Your claim that junk food is cheaper than healthy food still hasn't been substantiated. I would call this an urban myth which liberal people use to incite class warfare.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/10/2010 @ 5:40pm
Can of Nalley's chili: $1.25. Enough to feed the kids? 3 cans, let's say. Nalley isn't useful, and they don't have the nutrition info on their site. But suffice it to say, there are 2 servings per can, and a high amount of fat, sodium and calories.

Cauliflower: $1.79/lb. Chicken breasts: $6.99/lb. Let's run with 1 lb chicken and 1.5 lb cauliflower to feed the family tonight. Fresh chicken and cauliflower are tasty and a lot more nutritious than the chili.

Cost: Nalley's - $3.75
Home cooked chicken & cauliflower - $9.68

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 5:45pm
those prices are whack.

Saars has chicken breasts for 99c per pound this week. and cauliflower is 99c each.

tonights healthy dinner didn't cost 9.68 but rather 1.98. looks like the healthy food was cheaper than the junk food.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/10/2010 @ 6:23pm
Those chicken breasts at Saars for 99 cents a pound are they from chickens that died of natural causes? Seriously how can some one raise chickens, kill them, ship them, wholesale them, stock them, refrigerate them, cut them up, wrap them up, and still make a profit?

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 6:40pm
crenshaw the post is about how a struggling family can put some nutrition on their table at an affordable price. I suppose if a hungry family with no money would rather pay 6.99 for chicken than .99 nobody's going to stop them.

The reason some retailers can sell things cheaper than their competitors is because some stores pay their staff less, spend less on advertising and work on smaller margins. That doesn't mean their goods are inferior.

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 6:49pm
Top Ramen + Ketchup = Poor Richard's Spaghetti Dinner

by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 6:53pm
Tweeting about this article guilted PSP into sponsoring the Frost Park Chalk Challenge... Think I said something about cost of one PSP = one week of food budget for a poor person.

www.tacomaweekly.com/news/city/living_on...

by jenyum on 11/10/2010 @ 7:24pm
I stopped buying chicken breasts ages ago out of poverty, and never really started again because honestly, the rest of the chicken has a lot more flavor, can be made into many more things, and doesn't dry out. Nutritionally there's not enough difference between a breast and a thigh to justify eschewing 3/4s of a chicken.

A whole roaster chicken costs about $5 ($5.99 for washington-grown chicken from Stadium Thriftway!) and can last you through 2 or 3 meals if you use it all down to the bones in soup. Add home made tortillas and whatever greens or veggies are in season and you've got a really good meal.

Not really arguing about food stamps (I know a lot of people, mostly extremely hardworking moms, who are on food stamps. They definitely know what calories are, what fat is, and how to cook more for less.) Just recommending more efficient uses for chicken.

Also, buying chili (and beans in general) in a can is very extravagant if we're talking about a family on food stamps. Homemade chili's very affordable and easy to stretch. We had some tonight.

by fredo on 11/10/2010 @ 7:53pm
Jen your comments are spot on. Shoppers should see what's on sale each week. One week it might be thighs, the next week wings, etc. Whole chickens are frequently the best value but not always. Canned chili is a waste of money. You can make a couple of crock pots full of delicious homemade chili for less than thoraxs cans of Nalley. Chicken soup is also very inexpensive. My kids love picking blackberrys so we have bags of yummy berries in our freezer that we picked right in our driveway.

I don't wish to discredit struggling families but I really think a lot of these people don't have good basic math skills which would enable them to stretch their food stamps.


by NineInchNachos on 11/10/2010 @ 10:29pm
reposting an interesting facebook comment:

++++

Alison Whiteman commented on your post.

Alison wrote:
"The Empowerment Center on 45th and Pacific in Tacoma offers a box of food in exchange for three hours of service. I am a sorter on Fridays. I love that I give and get back. It's a great program! Fresh fruit and veggies- the stuff most cannot afford on 21 dollars a week."

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/10/2010 @ 10:55pm
I'm assuming there are courses on stretching your food dollar at fredo village to help out the lumpen proletariat.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/11/2010 @ 2:02am
Also most poor people get a generous allowance of food stamps. What difference does it make what foods are cheaper when you're not paying? - Fredo

I would be fairly surprised if the state of Washington actually allowed hard earned tax payer dollars to be spent frivolously on Big Macs by welfare recipients. In Oregon this is easily precluded by legislation that makes the purchasing of some prepared and all hot foods illegal. But who knows, with a sales tax in place I'm sure there is a long list of other things your state legislators are doing wrong.

It doesn't require a K-12 education to calculate the calorie content of a Big Mac fredo, but the homeless have bigger problems to worry about than the nutrition facts of two beefy patties w/ special sauce on a sesame seed bun. Homeless doesn't mean stupid, but many do suffer psychological problems, problems that can be treated by psychiatric care. Too bad there will now be less state government funds to address psychiatric care now that Brown and Haley and the rest of the axis of sugar coated evil are no longer required to pay this refined sugar sin tax. And it IS a sin tax, candy is a luxury that can cause health problems much like cigarettes and booze. I wonder how many more police officers will be shot execution style in coffee shops so that Brown & Haley can save money selling toffee?

Fredo, I'm not sure the homeless make enough in benefits to afford your fancy fragrant imported Thai Jasmine rice, and as for your homemade bread, how are the homeless supposed to bake their own bread? And yes, government subsidized food benefits for the poor are a RIGHT for those who are approved for those benefits. If they were simply a priviledge like you suggest than I suppose that makes taxes just a gift or perhaps voluntary charitable donation to the government. Try using that excuse with the IRS next time you don't want to pay your taxes and let me know how that goes over.

Yeah, $200/mo. isn't much to live on, but living on welfare isn't supposed to be a picnic, if it were, none of us would need jobs. Stick to Poor Richard's PB&J washed down with moo juice diet and you may be well on your to running a food stamp surplus. Throw in the occasional can of $1.00 sardines for those omega-3's and carrots and OJ for beta carotene and vitamin C and you're well on your way to a healthy poverty stricken lifestyle.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/11/2010 @ 6:15am
There we are again, Brown and Haley = Crazy Cop Killers from Arkansas.

Sigh. Why do I bother?

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 7:01am
A few corrections maru:

I never said people could use food stamps to purchase prepared foods like big macs.

The discussion isn't about the problem of overpaid state psychiatrists.

The $200 food stamp allowance was an error. Average is $227.

Food stamps are supplemental. Not intended to supply all a families needs.

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 7:17am
Problems commenting on this thread.

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 7:48am
Since the subject of low income people has been introduced on this thread I thought it would be worth mentioning that a lot of people who are out of work today, even possibly homeless, are there because voters made the mistake in 1998 of implementing the nations highest minimum wage law. This law is an entry level job killer. Liberals have blood on their hands and no amount of washing will remove it.

by NineInchNachos on 11/11/2010 @ 8:07am
Thank you marumaruyopparai. You have articulated the intent of this Tacomic wonderfully.

Also a couple of NPR news stories that seem to resonate with the sin tax vs. assault on liberty sub plot of the comment thread...

www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/11/1312...

"COMMON SENSE" thinking puts young peoples lives at risk. Even republican douchebag Rob McKenna supports the ban on these luxury products.

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 8:17am
I was thinking of your thread when the news on the fourloko ban was presented yesterday.

"The regulator still hasn't made a decision about whether it's OK for the drink makers to mix loads of alcohol and caffeine in a single can." from the NPR story in the link

No proof the products are unsafe yet the government steps in to "protect" the citizens.

It's not clear that the fourloko causes any problems that the overconsumption of any inebriating beverage wouldn't also cause.

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 8:21am
If coffee and alcohol can no longer be mixed i guess that will prevent people from ordering kahlua and coffee at the local watering hole.

by NineInchNachos on 11/11/2010 @ 8:53am
Rob McKenna.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/11/2010 @ 10:39am
Gee, 17 year-olds were sickened by drinking alcoholic sports beverages at a party? Isn't that ALREADY ILLEGAL because they were under age?

Wait- I saw a story a week ago about a six-year old that took his mother's car on a joy ride, eventually crashing it into a parked car. By the above Fourloko logic we should BAN CARS!

Wait- perhaps I saw a dug dealer stuff a bag of what appeared to be crack cocaine into the hip pocket of his jeans- BAN PANTS!

by marumaruyopparai on 11/11/2010 @ 10:46am
Jinxmedic, why must you defend the abject greed of the evil Brown and Haley industrial sugar machine? Don't you see that Brown&Haley=murder=the terrorists win?

by fredo on 11/11/2010 @ 10:58am
No funds for law enforcement, criminal justice, or incarceration. plenty however to make sure people don't chase their coffee down with a shot of alcohol. I could have told the authorities that anyone who is 17 and drinks a pot of coffee and a 12 pack of malt liquor is probably going to be in pretty bad shape. maybe we could solve this problem by outlawing caffeine. bub bye starbucks.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/11/2010 @ 11:04am
Really Jinx I thought the idea here was that Brown & Haley and other sugary snack and beverage companies should pay their due luxury/sin tax so the state can afford vital social services like psychatric care and boarding for the homeless mentally ill and so the prisons can keep the dangerously violent locked up in prison.

The equation Brown & Haley = murder is not so simple. It's more like Brown&Haley+no sin tax = deranged and criminally insane roam streets + fall of western society.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/11/2010 @ 12:01pm
Maybe we need a nice plague.


by NineInchNachos on 11/11/2010 @ 12:13pm
T.E.A. Libertarian/GOP Poverty Reduction Plan:

1. Bubonic Plague


(OR could just pay the sin tax on candy... you big babies)

by NineInchNachos on 11/19/2010 @ 11:22am
will these prisoners be getting candy cane roca ?

blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2010/11/19...

by The Jinxmedic on 11/19/2010 @ 11:30am
I certainly hope they get their candy cane roca.

My personal feeling is that rather than closing the MICC facilities on McNeil island, is that all 16,000 state prison beds (other than the intake and classification facilities at Shelton's WCC and Purdy's WCCW) should be moved there instead. Such a move would simplify logistics, increase security, and keep jobs in Pierce County.

by The Jinxmedic on 11/19/2010 @ 11:31am
I still think we need a plague, though.

by NineInchNachos on 12/15/2010 @ 12:54pm
[insert imperial march theme here]

www.exit133.com/6101/gregoire-releases-g...

by The Jinxmedic on 12/15/2010 @ 1:20pm
Yup. It's all Brown and Haley's fault. Certainly not the fault of a state government that never saw a dollar it couldn't spend.

As this is the hometown of Brown and Haley, this appears to me to be AN ANTI-TACOMA RETALIAITION CONSPIRACY IN ACTION!!1!

Oh, I have an idea- let's boycott Arizona. That will make everyone feel better.


(I still stand by my earlier plague comment.)

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 1:21pm
Since the Washington State History Museum is on the chopping block, perhaps Brown & Haley would like to take it over, "The Almond Roca History Museum?" Think of the gift shop possibilities.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 1:56pm
good point jen,

ironic to me that the state can't afford to keep the museum open but had no trouble recently finding $700,000 to give to the city with no strings attached for any purpose whatsoever.

i would call this government run by insane chickens.

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 2:03pm
No argument from me on the 700k, Fredo. How much business does the History Museum bring to town in the form of feet on the street? How does that compare to Davita and their parking needs? The total budget savings for eliminating the history museums and associated programs is $5.1 million. Seems incredibly petty, in light of the economic multiplier effect that a large museum like that has on a community.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 2:30pm
I would guess that the History Museum draws about the same number of people every day as appear for work at DaVita.

I'm not sure the taxpayers have any obligation to assist the DaVita company, OTOH I'm not sure the Museum represents a core function of government.

by tacoma1 on 12/15/2010 @ 3:27pm
The $700K was promised and made available when we had a candy/soda pop tax.

Now that we have defunded State Govt, we won't have the WSHM to kick around anymore, but we will have saved 2 cents on our candy bars.

I’m really curious as to how many downtown business owners voted to repeal the candy/soda pop tax, and in the end will unwittingly deprived themselves of potential customers.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 3:41pm
"The $700K was promised and made available when we had a candy/soda pop tax."

Pretty sure that's not true. I'll look it up later and get back to you. The 700K was given to Tacoma back when the Russell company was thinking about moving out of town. That was before October 2009 when they finally announced they were leaving. The candy tax took effect in June of 2010.

by NineInchNachos on 12/15/2010 @ 3:48pm
I would have put WSHM patronage at maybe 5 people a day.

by The Jinxmedic on 12/15/2010 @ 3:52pm
It's time to revisit one of Thorax's comments. Exceprt follows:

"Look, we have two issues here. Government spending & revenue and food. These are BIG messes in themselves.
Honestly, taxing candy will NOT solve Olympia spending like a drunken Microsoft exec. Taxing junk food WILL NOT stop, solve or slowdown the rampant malnutrition in this country. What we're doing is trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

I won't go into a long-winded tirade but here's what the issue is in a nutshell:
Olympia (and DC, and every other gov't with taxing authority) do not spend money well. They are wasteful and greedy. Social services programs are not free. Taxes are very high in this state, and we do have more programs than a lot of poorer states do. What is the solution? Well, raising taxes is out, since by a HUGE margin, the People of WA are taxed out. The talking heads in Olympia are going to have to learn to do some basic math and make cuts. That's all there is to it.
One may think they know better, but that point is meaningless now. Crying about not having an income tax isn't going to change the minds of the other 70% of the voting public. Given the economy and the bad stuff that's still coming down the pipe, it's best to sit down and determine the best way to shave programs. It's the only option."

My take: If we are going to force punitive taxes on people to make up budget shortfalls, I want to create a few of these special taxes on my own. You know, the kind that won't affect me, personally.

by tacoma1 on 12/15/2010 @ 3:53pm
When we voted down the candy/soda pop tax, we collectively and on purpose voted to further defund State Government. Cutbacks are what the voters wanted. Cutbacks are what the voters will get. The WSHM happens to be a State funded facility. I don't know if it will be shut down or not, but if it is, thats what we voted for.

by NineInchNachos on 12/15/2010 @ 3:57pm
DO YOU WANT CHEAP(ER) CANDY OR A WASHINGTON STATE HISTORY MUSEUM? THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 3:59pm
The lot will be built through a grant Gov. Chris Gregoire originally promised to entice Russell Investments to stay put. After Russell announced last year it was moving, Gregoire reaffirmed committing the grant to Tacoma by agreeing to find a different project that would meet the money’s legislative intent.



Read more: www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/27/144111...

tacoma1 this happened long before the legislature passed the candy/soda tax, so it couldn't possibly have happened "when we had a candy/soda tax."

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 4:08pm
The History Museum is important to downtown (NIN's attendance estimate notwithstanding) but is just a drop in the bucket for these cuts. We're also losing all-day kindergarten funding, highly capable programs, preschool for at-risk 3 year olds, a whole host of scholarship programs and many other programs and services which would be very difficult to replace once cut.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 4:11pm
"When we voted down the candy/soda pop tax, we collectively and on purpose voted to further defund State Government." tacoma1

Because people didn't want to pay an extra nickel on their candy bars that means they wanted to defund State Government? I think people were just saying they wanted those items to remain untaxed as they always were.

by tacoma1 on 12/15/2010 @ 4:14pm
The voters want low taxes, cheap candy, and lots of free parking. Seems to me that we are getting the Tacoma that we voted for. It won't be a very livable Tacoma, but it will be the one that we voted for.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 4:20pm
"We're also losing all-day kindergarten funding, highly capable programs, preschool for at-risk 3 year olds, a whole host of scholarship programs and many other programs and services which would be very difficult to replace once cut."

These are all great programs, where would you suggest we cut?

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 4:24pm
Because people didn't want to pay an extra nickel on their candy bars that means they wanted to defund State Government? I think people were just saying they wanted those items to remain untaxed as they always were.


Because they didn't understand that taxes are what actually pays for government services. (Crazy stuff like schools and roads) And that by voting yes on 1107 and no on 1098 they were actually (whether they knew it or not) saying they wanted to defund state government.

I'd love to have a special election in which the voters were asked in so many words: would you like these specific budget cuts: scholarship programs, all day kindergarten, basic health, 4% of the higher education budget, or would you like to pay a very small tax on soda and candy?

Had a discussion with someone today who said she just doesn't think taxpayers should "bear the whole burden" of government. Well, then we have a problem because how exactly is government funded other than through individual or corporate taxes?

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 4:41pm
my question was....where would YOU suggest we cut?

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 4:45pm
I would suggest we pay a damn tax on our damn candy which we damn well don't need, and which people will continue to buy anyway because sugar is addictive. And then grow up and establish an income tax on the top 2%.

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 5:06pm
those 2 options are off the table.

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 5:14pm
"I cut 27,000 children off health care. We don't actually think they're not going to get health care. They're just going to get it the most expensive way. They're going to get it by going through the doors of the emergency room. And that isn't free. Those hospitals pass it along to those of us who have insurance by raising our premiums."

Read more: blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2010/12...

by jenyum on 12/15/2010 @ 5:17pm
"Tacoma is struggling in retail and has been because we haven't been able to attract retail. It continues to struggle," Brown said. "If (the governor is) talking about closing the history museum, she's talking about removing an entity in one of the only areas in downtown Tacoma that has the synergy and can generate more synergy" for retail.

"It would be a big impact on downtown Tacoma and on retailers."



Read more: blog.thenewstribune.com/business/2010/12...

by NineInchNachos on 12/15/2010 @ 5:26pm

by fredo on 12/15/2010 @ 5:31pm
Nobody is questioning the value of the museum.

If you can suggest a better place for the Democratic Governor and Democratic legislature to cut, by all means, let's hear it.

by tacoma1 on 12/15/2010 @ 5:54pm
Another item on the chopping block is our right to vote in the presidential primary. But, we will still have cheap candy and plenty of free parking. Ain't 'murica great!

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsn...

Personally, I'm thinking that all that cheap candy and soda pop is coming at an awfully high price in the end.

by NineInchNachos on 12/15/2010 @ 7:13pm
I'm OK with no WSHM

by cisserosmiley on 12/16/2010 @ 1:56am
oh no! we should keep WSHM, but park old cars in it and call it a...museum

by The Jinxmedic on 12/16/2010 @ 6:27am
Hmmm... ...are you telling me that a candy tax that was estimated to bring in approximately $20 million annually, would by itself magically fill a 4.6 BILLION dollar budgetary shortfall? Are you serious?

What we are seeing is culmination of decades of financial mismanagement by the state that no "candy tax" would have fixed. It is no surprise that some people are just fed up with our governance. You think ranked choice or top-two voting is fair? Elimination of write-in candidates? We have been being dienfranchised for some time, so none of the current budgetary situation should be a surprise to anyone.

Similarly, WSHS/WSHM has born the brunt of state budget cuts ever since I was on staff there in the late 1980's. 10% this year, 7% that year, another 10% another year- until no money is left for programs, travelling exhibits, or even basic maintenance. And you wonder why the museum is dull? They have had no money for for years. This is why I am no longer a museum professional- at several nstitutions over the years I took voluntary pay cuts and hours reductions in order to keep a position. Not doing that anymore.

Last point, this is only the governor's proposed budget- not the actual budget. You know darn well that after it goes through committee, many of these cuts will be restored through more "emergency" defecit spending.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/16/2010 @ 7:43am
Maybe that candy tax wouldn't fill the budget short fall but it could have saved some essential service. I love the commercial they had with this apple farmer in Eastern WA telling us that we have to repeal this tax on food. If you don't want a tax on candy say so. Don't pretend it is food. At best it is food-like in the sense it can be ingested and does provide calories.

by ixia on 12/16/2010 @ 8:46am
"culmination of decades of financial mismanagement by the state" jinx
The situation is a little bit more complex than that. Otherwise the fed would be in fine shape, having had a republican regime running things for 8 years after inheriting a budget surplus.
Companies are reaping major profits, just look at oil, pharmaceutical and medical giants, and the military industrial complex. The stock market is doing just fine. If we as the richest nation don’t have the moral fortitude to even out the playfield and look after the weak, we are well on our way down. The American century might not last a hundred years. A greater and greater rift in income equality and the undoing of campaign finance reform by the right leaning Supreme Court are the perfect situation for the rich to write the rules on taxes and buy enough ads to fool tea people. Many might dream to be rich soon and don’t want to pay taxes on that dream, but the likelihood of getting ahead is dimming.

by The Jinxmedic on 12/16/2010 @ 9:11am
@ixia: There's plenty of blame to go around for a broken nonrepresentative two-party system. That's why I use the phrase "decades", not "administration" or "regime". (regime? really? I believe you could say that about ANY administration.)

Governance as a whole is out of control, and good people who could make a difference are unable to - this is true even on a local level in many cases. Untold millions of dollars wasted on political campaigns contributes nothing to providing essential services. (By the way- you want a useful tax? Tax political campaigns at 50% of expenditures.)

In any case, laying blame on any single party is pointless- there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the major parties when it comes to actual governance, or more correctly, lack of actual governance in this country.

Perhaps when the the next great plague hits and the population is "corrected" somewhat, we might have another chance to do it right.

by ixia on 12/16/2010 @ 9:37am
regime simply means government or administration. It's true! You can read it in wikileaks!

by The Jinxmedic on 12/16/2010 @ 10:16am
Heh. :-)

by jenyum on 12/16/2010 @ 10:46am
Where did you get your $20 million figure?

The fiscal impact statement in the Seattle voter guide:

Fiscal Impact Statement: Over 5 years, the General Fund revenue is reduced by $352 million and state performance audit revenue by $359,000. Revenue for local jurisdictions is reduced by $83 million over 5 years.

Taxpayer noncompliance and confusion could result in additional state and local government revenue decreases up to $8.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively, in 2011. State costs to administer the tax revisions are an estimated $98,200 over 5 years.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/16/2010 @ 11:04am
When the candy and soda makers want to raise the price of their products they don't seem to have any problems. If they were so worried about the public being able to afford their products they wouldn't be so ready to raise the price of these products as they do on a regular basis. A couple of months ago I could buy a six pack of safeway soda for $1.25. Now it is closer to $2.00. Think of the children, will someone think of the children!!

by The Jinxmedic on 12/16/2010 @ 11:12am
Jenyum, the figure is based on processing the voter's guide information through an quantititive observable measurement analysis, very similar to the von Neuman description regarding non-observable data correlation in quantum physics. This is, of course, completely supported through use of Everett's "relative state" interpretation regarding the measurement problem so prevelent in the execution of basic quantative analysis.

I find that theoretical physics models serve as a much more reliable model of governmental budgetary analysis, as the physics models allow for quantification of unknown variables so present in a purely political system.


Unfortunately, the comments block does not permit posting of the formulary. I do apologize for that. Crenshaw, if the children study their higher math, they will be in much better shape to plan for THE FUTURE!!1! They can even create PANDIMENSIONAL MOBIUS CANDY if they wish.

by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 11:29am
Those people who think that passage of I-1107 caused the closure of the museum really have it wrong. The museum has operated for years in the complete absence of a candy/soda tax so there's no reason to believe that ending a tax which was only in existence for 6 months had any bearing on the issue.

As is frequently pointed out, correlation is not the same as causation.

Those people who feel that taxes are too low in Washington State are free to start an initiative to increase taxes in any way you deem advantageous. What's stopping you?

by cisserosmiley on 12/16/2010 @ 11:45am
fact alert-1) WA states problems have been most singularily caused by FRANK CHOPP Speaker of the House.
2) Caused by a "one time payment" of 700 million being treated as "year over year income" in early-mid 2000's. (ironically a unemployment premium rebate from feds)
many warned him not to, but he did anyway and said he would cross that bankrupt bridge when he gets there. governor and lisa brown went along with it. all should lose next election.

by NineInchNachos on 12/16/2010 @ 12:35pm
I am convinced that a tax on gum and sugar products would have "saved the day" so to speak. But I suppose we will never know.

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/16/2010 @ 12:35pm
I want some pandimensional mobius candy. I bet it has over 188,000 flavors of two dimensional tastes stacked into a 3-dimensional structure of multiversal flavor!

by The Jinxmedic on 12/16/2010 @ 12:54pm
Thorax, I think that we shall make said candy. Perhaps we can utilize the joint resources of Brown and Haley's copper kettles and Fermilab's Tevitron to produce it.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/16/2010 @ 12:58pm
That candy sounds like the Republican's logic that the tax breaks to the rich that have been in place during this entire recession and well before will be responsible for creating jobs in the future. Magic Tax Breaks for the Rich. They can create jobs and they can cause unemployment.

by ixia on 12/16/2010 @ 1:09pm
I don't buy bottled water or pop, and most candy seems trash. So I wonder, have the prices gone down? My guess is not. The candy tax money turns into a sweet deal for the industry. While the hungry loose food stamps. Beyond ironic.

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/16/2010 @ 1:53pm
Would the shape of said candy be a roughly six-sided snowflake?


by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 1:56pm
"Beyond ironic."ixia

A commenter with an appreciation for irony would enjoy this.

The sales tax on candy/soda was regressive in nature. That means that poor people were paying a disproportionate amount of their income compared to rich people to comply with this tax. Wow, I never thought that liberals would do something to hurt poor people. I guess it's OK to hurt poor people as long as you pretend to be helping them.

by daubermaus on 12/16/2010 @ 2:05pm
The $20 million a years figure came from me - from a Rueters news - tax break-down calculator for journalists. It referred to the greater Tacoma area impact - not the State - sorry for the confusion.

Even using the Voter's guide estimate the candy tax would have at most $12 million into Tacoma, $1.8 million from fines on local businesses.

State wise it would have brought in an estimated $54 million a year to the general fund with $8.7 million coming from anticipated fines.

It's a drop in the bucket.

Personally - I think a 50% tax on drive-thru food and beverages would be awesome. Not going to happen.

Heck let's just make that a 50% tax on all out-of-state owned restaurants.

You want a good rant against the "Rich"? Why is Pierce transit offering 1 year bus passes for $128 to businesses that buy 5 or more for employees?

The regular passes cost $70 a Month!

by NineInchNachos on 12/16/2010 @ 2:14pm
www.radioopensource.org/chris-hedges-wer...

by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 2:19pm
Why is Pierce transit offering 1 year bus passes for $128 to businesses that buy 5 or more for employees?

can you get your money back if PT cuts it's service levels after you make the commitment?

by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 6:34pm
"When we voted down the candy/soda pop tax, we collectively and on purpose voted to further defund State Government. Cutbacks are what the voters wanted. Cutbacks are what the voters will get." tacoma1

Here's a fact check for you:

2008 Wa State Budget $30.5B
2009 Wa State Budget 32.8B (est)
2010 Wa State Budget 35.2B (est)

If the voters were voting to defund State Government, it doesn't look like they were successful. That looks like a 6% annual spending increase to me.

Figures above courtesy of USgovernmentspending.com

by jenyum on 12/16/2010 @ 7:33pm
Which 2010 budget, proposed or enacted? That number could be from as far back as 2008, as these things are usually done in bienniums. The actual current proposed budget for 2011-13 (which is the actual time period we are talking about, numbers released yesterday) is 32.1 billion.

I looked at your source, and this is what they have to say about 2010 spending:

"State expenditure after 2008 and local expenditure after 2008 are “guesstimated” by projecting the latest change in reported expenditure forward to future years"

In other words, state figures haven't been updated since 2008 and those numbers were "guesstimated." I also see they are projecting a 2012 budget of 40.5 billion. Not a chance in hell. Honestly, you can easily tell from the layout of the site and its ownership by this dude that it's hardly a great source.

Many of the projects included in the 35 billion dollar budget were items that were planned back in rosier times. (For example, the @##% viaduct deep bore tunnel.) Many of these projects are remaining because they represent voter commitments and jobs, while social services to the ever-expanding numbers of people in need are being cut to the bone.

If you'd like to read the real numbers for the real proposed budget, they are available here:

www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/pr...

Read the budget packet from the last biennium here:
www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/Docu...

There's a particularly useful section entitled "Why does the budget go up every year?" You should read it.

But again, this is the last biennium, not the budget we're actually talking about now. It's also for a 2 year period and I don't know the individual breakdown for 2009 and 2010. The current budget proposal released yesterday represents deep cuts.









by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 7:45pm
I was just trying to illustrate that the budget was going UP and not DOWN. If the budget goes up, then by definition, it isn't being CUT. A previous commenter even said that the voters were defunding the state. Little evidence of that.


by jenyum on 12/16/2010 @ 8:28pm
The budget is going down. It went up in 2008 and 2009 and now it is going down. Please actually read the budget proposal.

Here it is again:
www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/pr...

by NineInchNachos on 12/16/2010 @ 8:41pm
hello sales tax in a recession.. remember me?

by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 9:15pm
governors proposal $32.1B
2008 actual $30.5B

sorry, i don't have the time to wade through 30 pages of gibberish fashioned by our governor, the insane chicken. i did read far enough to realize she won't take one bit of the blame for the mess we're in. a little humility would serve her well.

by NineInchNachos on 12/16/2010 @ 9:17pm
Dino Rossi in 2012? 2014?

by jenyum on 12/16/2010 @ 9:39pm
And what was the budget in 2009 and 2010?
If you don't have time to read a press packet written in large font and plain English then perhaps you should stop talking about this issue.


by fredo on 12/16/2010 @ 11:24pm
You sound like an expert in matters of the budget. If you know the answer to your own questions, why don't you enlighten everyone? I said the budget was going up every year and you were unable to refute this. If you can't refute it, just say so. I'm pretty sure the 2010 budget is still in discussion because the governor and her economic advisor did such a poor job of economic forcasting.

by NineInchNachos on 12/20/2010 @ 12:42pm
blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/archives/...

by NineInchNachos on 12/20/2010 @ 1:00pm
www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/19/147112...

by NineInchNachos on 4/14/2011 @ 9:39am
but hey, candy and soda pop is still cheap(er)!

The Senate budget calls for closing another ward at the state psychiatric hospital in Lakewood, on the heels of a closure last fall.

Read more: blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/04...

by fredo on 4/14/2011 @ 10:29am
If the state really wanted to keep the ward open they could sell off the state liquor business. Apparently is more important for the state to continue medicating alcoholics than to continue medicating psychotics.

by NineInchNachos on 4/14/2011 @ 10:47am
self medication

by fredo on 4/14/2011 @ 10:59am
if the medication of alcoholics doesn't involve the state then why are the taxpayers required to spend all this money keeping the state liquor stores open and staffed?

by NineInchNachos on 9/26/2011 @ 9:08pm
you see... YOU SEE!   ALL IS PROCEEDING EXACTLY AS i HAVE FORESEEN  
blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/09...