Jim

But if Americans would simply tune into all those alternative information sources flooding the airway they would easily see through this madness.

Yea. Nothing to look at here move on. The internet revolution and open information is saving us. That ruling, known as Citizens United, isn't prompting many corporations to do direct advertising, said Erika Franklin Fowler, another co-director of the project. Instead, more money is flowing into issue advocacy groups that don't have to report contributors to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), she said. "We are seeing evidence of changing tactics as groups seek shelter in the rules for nonprofits that allow such organizations to withhold their donor names," said Fowler, a Wesleyan University political-science professor in Middletown, Conn. Crossroads GPS is one of the groups taking advantage of the new money flow. The group had spent $5.9 million on 6,868 ads as of Sept. 15, according to the study. Ads have targeted Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Michael Bennet of Colorado, as well as Democratic Senate candidates Jack Conway of Kentucky and Robin Carnahan of Missouri, FEC records show. The group in August also announced plans to spend $1 million on ads against Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and $500,000 to oppose Senate Democratic candidate Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. While the ads don't specifically advocate voting against the Democrats, they criticize the candidates for supporting Obama's health-care plan. Leaders of Crossroads GPS say they have raised $32 million for it and a sister group, American Crossroads, and plan to spend $52 million on the elections. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013013203_campspend28.html

And you're living in LaLa land if you don't recognize the media transformation and how people are using it. No, the same sources are not there. Traditional news sources, ones that actually conduct research, send out reporters, work on stories for months - which are newspapers, have been folding, cutting back, and consolidataing. And the transition of what used to be news on TV and cable has turned into a pablem mix of infotainment and talking heads for the Fox News empire. While folks insist that the "money for speech" issue is not important and that the internet is filling the needed exchange of information - well, dude, it doesn't matter much if all that is being slung around is a dead cat. Seriously.

Oh, you mean he didn't just put a check in the mail and wait for November? This is generally the extent that people want to get involved in politics - particularly from the progressive side. What? Actually do something that might interfere with my yoga class? The amount of money being spent on mid-terms is going to set a record. With the flood gates open and the Republicans refusing to go along with any disclosure law corporations and PACs will have the upper hand. Unions? Pale in comparison. Yea, people are generally lazy and stupid - but there should be at least some semblance of a balanced information flow in the news. There is not and it's going south. Why the hell is a twitter from Sarah Palin even news worthy - the woman is an idiot. Somehow this void is going to get filled by the public soapbox that is the internet? Right. The only organizations that are doing investigative journalism are some print media - NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Newsweek to mention a few. The internet is just full of talking heads and rehashing of news items from the Old Media. How is a democracy supposed to function when it is not informed? The balance of money, and power has shifted drastically in the past 20 years. The recent Supreme Court decision on speech/money is but one indicator.

Ice or no ice - beats cutting the lawn! Nice.

Thanks Scott. Likely headed that way.

Finally something everyone can agree upon.

If you could supply a coherent argument, I'll listen. When the dialog slips into the typical vocabulary of demagogurey, jack-booted thugs, knuckle-draggers, and facists, well then that's not an argument.

Good luck convincing the voters then.

It's not the only hope but one step in the right direction. I think this generally comes down to you having more faith in the current system and are ok with giving it more money without any change in fiscal management. Others are not.

That pronouncement sounds a bit over the top. My friend's dad had two hips replaced and ran marathons for 5 years afterwards and only recently cut back to 10ks - but he's a genetic freak. Closer to home another friend (65) had a recent hip replaced and came back climbing and is schedule for the second. Another guide I know had a hip resurfacig and came back strong as ever.

I'd agree to some extent. It's not some lack of enthusiasm for a progressive agenda, but concern with the lack of good management of fiscal resources to date. Not dealing with the issue and then asking for more money isn't cutting it. When the liberal end of the spectrum starts asking for more fiscal responsibility the pols better start paying attention. I've voted for every tax increase and levy ever put on a ballot. That is changing until some progress is made.

And that answer - that, "yea, we realize we have some financial mismanagement issues, but don't mind that, just give us more revenue"; that makes me uncomfortable. If they proposed an equitable income tax, dealt with the sales and BO tax issues, and made some headway on responsible fiscal reform then I'd take a serious look at it. But not this way.

Thanks and no, it would not solve the overall larger budget issues related to reduced tax revenue. I think the point is that these fat contracts are making a bad situation worse and rather than even put a temporary hold on what I would consider very good raises in a down economy, the unions would rather layoff staff and thereby reduce services. In the long-run I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, or other vital places.

Do you get 2% plus a raise each year you are there? And that's outside the 5% contract example. Just seems in tough times things should be scaled accordingly.

You have no choice but to make him do it. Whining about others making their employers do it is surely not the way to get there. Damn, do you have a vagina? Who's whining about anybody else? I just wish MY employer kept up with inflation. Actually it's much better than keeping up with inflation. If you worked for the county you would get the 2% COLA, then you get step increases each year for years in service, THEN you could get a raise if you are being bumped up a grade level - esentially a promotion. So raises are automatic - COLA and year in service - for everyone. Then there are the CONTRACT raises - 5% a year for the sheriff department for instance. Just saying.

I'm curious the metrics you want to use to evaluate performance for a policeman or bus driver. I'm curious of the metrics, or likely lack there of, for the same.

Given the complexity of the issues and the recent track record of our bonehead legislators, I'm not optimistic.

Yea - in these times I do think it's excessive. Why do you get a pay raise, on top of a COLA, for just hanging around.

Thanks, but I've always been on the fiscal conservative end of things - I just like to see our money used efficiently so that services, including progressive adgendas, can be met without gouging taxpayers.

Not falling for anything thanks. ALL King County employees got a 2% raise this year, on top of annual step increases, which is basically a pay increase for hanging around another year. No, I don't think that is a good use of taxpayer money. I'm more of a pay for performance person.

Spoken like an elitist if you don't recognize a) the tough economic times many are facing, and 2) how that effects their perception of how their tax dollars are spent.

So - you're contending that the raises that Metro and the King Co. sheriff's office has in place in no way is contributing to their projected cut in services? That's a stretch. In the present economy folks are looking losing their jobs, receiving cuts in pay and benefits, and shortened hours. Why would they think it is fair that (some) public employees are guaranteed these lucrative pay increases - with taxpayer money, while the public is asked to get less services out of the same agecies. I'll admit that when things are flush that a less critical eye is turned to these items, but when times are tough these deals are a bit askew.

I'm socially progressive but fiscally conservative. I'm seeing more waste in public funds and have to admit I'm less inclined to vote for taxes given the rat hole I see it going down lately. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

I'm not confused at all. It seems simple - we're being asked to carry cuts in services - less King Co. sheriffs, less Metro bus service, and other King County services because there are ridiclious contracts in place. Why would folks vote for higher taxes when the sheriff staff are gettign 5% increases per year, on top of step increases because of years in service. In this economy? Similarly - King County has 17,894 employess all who received a 2% raise this year - in addition to annual step increases. WTF? 10%of the staff make in excess of $100k per year. OK, some of that includes overtime. Buy why are we paying overtime and then at the same time saying layoffs are needed or service cutbacks are necessry. I think you're not admitting that there is, at least, some management issues here. The sheriff's contract was negoiated AFTER the financial meltdown. It's the public's money and needs to be spent more wisely. If you can't admit that you are not at the plate, you're on the sidewalk outside the ballpark.