Daniel Ellsberg, the most famous leaker since the Titanic will appear on the David Goldstein Show (KIRO Saturdays, Sundays, 7-10p) on Saturday night at 8p. The Vietnam hero will discuss the patriot, Lt. Ehren Watada, civil disobedience and the Iraq War with Goldy and callers.
He's here to speak at the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq, Saturday and Sunday in Tacoma.
At 7p, the unfortunately named Al Runte, political activist and 2005 Seattle mayoral candidate will come into the studio to talk about the eastside rail-to-trail proposal.
State Sen. Rosa Franklin (D-Tacoma) will join David on Sunday night to talk about her proposed income tax bill in the 2007 Legislature.
As I read Franklin's bill (and I did skim the thing), she patterns it after the federal income tax leaving deductions and loopholes. Now, I'm not the bright bult in the bunch when it comes to reading bills 'cause they are god-awful boring, but that's my take on it.
Also, single people and people who work two jobs get shafted again. She's taxing labor over wealth.
I read on Horsesass that Tennessee has an income tax that taxes interest and dividends rather than labor. What do you think of that?
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 04:59 PM
do they mean to start up an income tax without abolishing the sales tax?
Posted by: lukobe | January 19, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Make that "brightest bulb" in the bunch . . . I'm embarrassed!
The bill does not even address sales taxes or any other tax. Simply a proposal for an income tax.
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 05:41 PM
I strongly support an income tax, and I'll tell ya why.
Income taxes are up close and personal. We see EXACTLY how much we're spending on government, every payday.
Sales taxes, B&O taxes, and property taxes, are all less visible taxes. They tend to creep up 1/10 of a cent at a time, or "just" 1% per year.
If I were king for a day, I'd abolish sales and B&O taxes in this state, and implement an income tax. I'd exempt individuals earning less than $18,000 per year, 2-person families earning less than $25,000, and 3+ person families earning $30,000.
The rest of us pay, and we'd see EXACTLY what our government is costing us.
Posted by: adc | January 19, 2007 at 06:23 PM
ADC, I'd exempt anybody earning under $40,000 a year.
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 06:26 PM
I take it you earn $39,999.99 per year?
Just kidding. I know, your idea is compelling and compassionate.
I just feel like as many as possible need to see the true cost of government.
It would be a graduated tax, but with the exception of the most needy, as many as possible need to help carry the load.
Just my thoughts.
Ooops, gotta run. GF is starving and we can't wait to pay the restaurant sales tax.
:)
Posted by: adc | January 19, 2007 at 06:31 PM
What's wrong with a flat rate income tax with ZERO exemptions or loopholes?
At least that way when the tax is increased, EVERYONE gets hit by it and will hold government accountable to how they are spending the revenue. Otherwise, you're going to have a class of people who won't give a rat's patootie whether taxes go up or down since the revenue is coming from someone else.
Posted by: Proregressive | January 19, 2007 at 06:36 PM
You can see the results of the overturning of a big progressive tax revenue stream like the car tabs fees as you ride the now ridiculously overcrowded Metro buses that used to be fairly spacious nearly all the time. I understand there were some problems with lower end cars being overly valued, but the thing should have been fixed not thrown out. I see no reason why someone who owns a $100,000 Mercedes can's pay another grand or more for car tabs, to help out with the costs of running the overall society. Progressive taxes like the car tabs as opposed to regressive sales taxes, are what's needed for a well-oiled, smooth running, reasonably serviced and comfortable scoiety. I really don't think it's even in the greedy Mercedes Boy's best interest to have the bus rider class inconvenienced, delayed, stranded, angered and humiliated on a daily basis, although people like dope Dori shrug their shoulders and talk smugly about "poor choices". This is just shortsighted selfishness, pure and simple.
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 19, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Income Tax, all for it as along as take away the Sales Tax. It shouldn't matter how much you make though, the State should treat everyone as an equal, if you make $10k or $1,000K the rate should be the same. Shouldn't matter how many kids they have either, as a matter of fact, the more kids the more they should pay in taxes. What with all the services the government provides. Why should we give some people special treatment cause they make less or have kids. Why can't Tax Payers have equal rights across the board. Why should the State discriminate because of the wealth of someone.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2007 at 07:40 PM
a definition:
"a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion".
I don't see where it says "some of it's interests".
Now here's another:
"a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust."
Lt. Watada can easily fit into this category with the "betrayal and trust" he had with the men who served under him and the War in Iraq being the "cause". Now read closely, it dosen't say anything about an "unjust cause".
A Patriot he is not.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2007 at 07:52 PM
Another thing, today as I was listening to Hannity, he was talking about Hillary spying on Obama and going to some Madras Muslim school in Indonesian when it finally hit me why I kept getting Obama and Osama mixed up. They both had the same Ma. Now I think I'll be able to distinguish the two apart. I think.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2007 at 07:56 PM
" Had to wait for another bus because the other one was full this morning? Better you than me Buster Brown. hehe. oh well. poor choices. pal.what do i tell ya everyday on my show ? should have planned ahead, buster- then you'd be driving a Beamer like me and going to Vegas four times a year. You stand on that bus, all the way home, and smell the other guys armpit, and learn to like it pally. no one to blame but yourself, my man. Do you think Star and the girls should have to go without a candy bar treat each every day of the year just so you can sit on the bus? Get real, pilgrim. I come from the mean streets of Ballard. Got what I got the hard way, Johnson. Pull your bootstraps up, Buster! Poor choices, Chief. And don't get any ideas about boosting my Beamer, buddy boy. No sirree, mister. I got a nine millimeter bullet or two with your name on it, Holmes. Sorry. No more time to listen to your sob sister story,pal . Star and the girls and I are going to services over at the Eastside megachurch."
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 19, 2007 at 08:06 PM
I could support a flat tax, but I would still exempt the most needy. The definition of "most needy", however, is the devil in the details.
If this state were to go to a flat tax, I'd join Joanie's $40,000 club in a heartbeat.
There are sound and very reasoned arguments for a flat tax. Fairness to the privileged and highly successful being front and center.
I would just have a difficult time making a single mom earning $25,000, and trying to raise a kid, the same 10% income tax that I'm asking Bill Gates to pay.
The $2,500 the mother would pay, would have a significant impact on her life, and the life of her child.
The corresponding 10% tax on Bill Gates' income, would be a minor accounting entry. Bill would not drop his car insurance, not fund his 401k, not be able to save for his child's education, nor would he or his family forego a meal.
Now having said that, I still believe that almost all of us, should pay something.
I would ask the single mother mentioned above, to pay, say, $500 per year. That would be 2%.
I guess I'm a New Testament Taxer.
Posted by: adc | January 19, 2007 at 08:41 PM
ADC, compelling and compassionate Thanks. I was a dual income earner for a long, long time. When I started teaching, I kept a previous weekend job. At that time, yes, I made about $40,000. That's a lot of labor to tax. Many people are now dual earners - they have to be.
Why do people want other people to hurt? Why is wealth so protected? Why is labor so disrespected? Why does one wish to deny any sort of luxury to even the lower middle class - which could be the possibility of a home?
I just feel like as many as possible need to see the true cost of government.
Why do you think people don't? Everything costs money. You have the luxury of concentrating on "the cost of government." Many people are concentrating on the cost of food, clothing, a place to live, keeping kids in school and daycare, and basically surviving.
$40,000 is not much anymore. You remind me of my mother now long dead. She kept saying that things couldn't get any higher - houses, taxes, whatever. By the time she was pretty old, she kept regretting everything. Only young people seem to realize just how hard it is and how much they will need to have anything in this life.
Even Ron and Don a week ago seemed to understand more than most older people: they asked the question why is money so important to young people? Because everything costs so much! I have mine. You sound like you have yours. Well, I guess no one wants anybody else to have theirs.
I drop a thousand dollars and it is equivalent to the $100 my mother used to think nothing of . . . (not really true, though. A child of the depression and terribly poor, every $20 bill had to be pried loose right up until the end!)
I can forgive people who make less than $40,000 a year. God Bless Margery, an older friend who was quite well off. We had this conversation once and when I mentioned what I made working two jobs - which by that time was well over $40,000, she said "well, I would think we'd exempt at least $75,000!" (Not what I made, BTW!)
Wasn't she a wonderfully unselfish person?
I usually agree with a lot of what you say. I like your comments. Please don't be offended. I'm not trying to disrespect you as I do some people who seem to post from their asses. I just wish I could understand why we are so distrustful and denying of a decent life for people.
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Also, Tommy, I agree that sales taxes and car tabs taxes are fine . . . but they should be concentrated on luxury items rather than necessities.
One problem with the last tabs tax was that pretty ordinary cars were taxed quite heavily. They always seem to overdo a good thing!
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 08:47 PM
I recognize I tell too much about myself sometimes. But, it is always to make a point. I sure wish we could all try to make life better for everybody.
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 08:48 PM
This last post, Tommie, is my favorite of all! Thanks! You hit mark dead on!
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 08:51 PM
If this state were to go to a flat tax, I'd join Joanie's $40,000 club in a heartbeat.
I might join that club too. :)
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Joanie, it's impossible to offend me, so not to worry.
Taxation is a hot button issue that most approach from a selfish point of view. I like to believe that I approach the issue from a more "fair and balanced" perspective.
It's easy to vote yes for monorails, for instance, or new fire stations, or a tunnel to replace a viaduct, when it's someone else's taxes that are paying for these buildings, tracks, and tunnels.
Very few would argue that the projects or issues mentioned above, are not worthy.
All I'm suggesting is that we all, or as many as possible, put our money where our mouths are.
It's certainly not to impose "hurt" on anyone, or to deny luxuries to lower and middle income earners! That wasn't even on my radar screen.
I would argue that a flat tax, or the existing tax structure in this state, imposes a helluva lot more hurt on low and middle income earners, than a graduated income tax would. By far.
I wholeheartedly agree that wealth is protected, and labor is treated like a necessary evil.
But let's look at who writes policy. There aren't too many working folks in Congress that I know of.
The playing won't be leveled until the way we finance campaigns is changed.
As it stands now, only the rich can afford to run for office, and whose interests are they looking out for?
The current generation of "representatives" is decimating the middle-class which rose out of the ashes of WWII.
Our forefathers and mothers would be ashamed to see what we have allowed to happen to this country, and that is not hyperbole.
And I can't possibly agree with you more that $40,000 is not much anymore. I was just talking about this with a young nephew last weekend.
It takes almost $3,000 per month, take home, to subsist in Seattle, in my opinion.
That will cover a decent apartment, a modest car payment, car insurance, fuel, groceries, utilities, savings, 401k contribution, and a modest entertainment budget.
This means that to have just a modest quality of life in Seattle, $50,000 gross is the bottom line.
Amazing.
Could high taxes be contributing to the high cost of living? I believe so. The more people we have saying "knock it off", the lower the taxes will be for everyone.
Posted by: adc | January 19, 2007 at 09:35 PM
Vinnie made a cryptic remark tonight about Tom Clendenning, their "new" program director, being over at the Azteca with Frank. Apparently Tom has kept his job, but could he have been giving Frank his complimentary kissoff dinner, courtesy of Bonneville Broadcasting? Dreams do come true in America!
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 19, 2007 at 09:57 PM
If that is so, just who would be calling the shots on these changes. I mean, is there someone over Tom that could actually identify new hosts and make changes this soon?
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 10:04 PM
It wouldn't have to be a boss of Tom's. Tom could have been waiting for the takeover to drop the F-bomb on Franklin.
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Are you hearing the story on KIRO news every hour about the poor old man who was disoriented and was robbed of cash and a new truck by the West Seattle car dealership employees who found out he kept his retirement stash in his house? Kind of makes you wish the old guy was Italian and West Seattle had a local Tony Soprano who would "adjust" the situation, the same way he ordered "Vido and Guido" to take care of the two punks who stole his daughter's science teacher's car, and see to it that "teach" got a ."similar" car returned to him. If there were ever perfect candidates for mafia justice , it's these scumbags.
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 19, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Don't know where to post so will post here:
Today the Republicans gave a press conference which is being repeated right now on CSpan . . . they are disputing the 100 hours . . . saying that it is "Pelosi time." That's the best they've got. The Republican congress that worked the least number of days (and probably hours) in modern history is whining that the accomplishments of the first hundred hours really took fourteen hours mocking the Democrats claim of "hard work."
Also, according to these geniuses, the Democrats did not honor their promise of openness and bipartisonship.
These people should hang their heads. I keep waiting for the reporters in the audience to start laughing. If I were there, I'd be laughing my head off.
These guys sound like old maids gossiping about the outlandish behavior of two young lovers on the porch swing across the street. These people are ridiculous imitations of themselves.
Unbelievable.
Posted by: joanie | January 19, 2007 at 11:25 PM
It doesn't matter how much time it took, but what they put together and whether it will get the approval of the only one that matters. The Seanate will chop it up first and we know the President has the power of the veto and neither the Democratic House or Senate has enough votes to overide a veto. 100 hours, what a crock.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Steve shares this cud:
a definition:
"a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion". I don't see where it says "some of it's interests".
Now here's another:
"a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust."
Lt. Watada can easily fit into this category with the "betrayal and trust" he had with the men who served under him and the War in Iraq being the "cause". Now read closely, it dosen't say anything about an "unjust cause".
A Patriot he is not.
VERY insightful, Steve. Thank-you for sharing these important definitions. I do believe the definition: "a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust" fits the situation well... It fits George W Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld like a long-lost conjoined twins.
Bush is not "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion", but only "SOME of it's interests" (Halliburton, Big oil, the top fraction percent of the wealthy).
It might seem to you that he's being sincere, but much like his TX days, Bush will end up with a free stadium, and we'll get stuck with the bill.
Sure he tries to create the impression that he "loves supports and defends his country" - what with all the landing on aircrafts, standing on rubble, & meeting with the troops w/ fake turkey - but we all know that these gestures are about as real as the turkey.
George W Bush - A patriot he is not
Posted by: mercifurious | January 20, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Exactly. It doesn't matter how much time it took.
So, why look so foolish as to try to argue that the time it took is even important. . . what a bunch of empty heads.
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:19 AM
And Another thing, I think we need to get Obama up here to protest that drug raid in Everett. C'mon, 1500 plants is only a 60 day supply. It would show all of the US how in touch with the average American Citizen he is on the subject of leagalized Marijuana and bolster his popularity by at least a few more points. At least among the Potheads.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Gee, Steve, you like the war so much. Why don't you check this out to see what your fellow combatants think. . . where it says "video Back to the Front" click on it - if you dare.
But I'll bet you'd rather stay in your little bubble of ignorance.
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:24 AM
What is your problem with Obama? That constant bigoted remark is reflective of someone out of "Deliverance" more than a supposedly stable Washingtonian. Or are you joining us from the Ozark Mountains or somewhere similar . . .
God, every time you post Obama/Osama I hear duelling banjos playing in the background. Scary. . .
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Well Merci, at least we agree about Lt. Watada.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Never a good reader, were you Steve?
Posted by: mercifurious | January 20, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Did you ever see Deliverance, merci? You'd understand his 'reading problem" if you had . . .
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Very Insightful merci
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 01:02 AM
So Joanie, what was I supposed to be watching for in that video. Your not going to tell me your parents didn't cry when you went away to college or finally left home, afraid of what may happen to you, did they bring you up right to recognize danger, will you be alright.
I saw alot of brave men Joanie, shipping out to protect our way of life as we know it, whether you believe it or not, let them believe it atleast. Let them know their country stands beside them.
I also saw a few sad and nervous family members, and they need support Joanie, not a bunch of wacko's going into the streets, on the Air, on the internet, telling them the country is fighting a non-winnable war. How do you think it makes them feel while their husbands/wives are overseas.
What else, the General saying the ARMY can't take the strain. Divisions going on their 2nd and 3rd tours. What kind of pussy shit is this. During WWII the troops shipped out and didn't come home till the war was over.
The drawdown of the 90's after the wall came down has finally caught up with the Generals of that time saying the US could fight two of these wars simutanously. We went from a 600 ship NAVY under Reagan to little over 300 at the end of Clinton. The ARMY, AIRFORCE, and MARINES went through the same kind of drawdown.
What else, a college student dropping out to serve his country in a time a need. He even asked his girlfriend to marry him.
The training, they met all their requirements, they even were able to stay close to home for most of the training which is also good, especially for morale.
And Obama, you better get use to hearing and seeing his name if he continues to seek the White House. I can't help if his name rhymes with Osama though, maybe you can start a online petition to have him change his name. Wait, I see now what you were so disturbed about in the video, I should have guessed it right up front, how stupid of me, now tell me the truth, your not against interacial marriage are you.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 01:43 AM
Well Steve, at least we agree about your poor reading skills.
Posted by: mercifurious | January 20, 2007 at 04:45 AM
hahahahaha
Posted by: sparky | January 20, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Merci, 4 hours to come up with that. Must have been a troubled sleep.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Uh, steve, this isn't WW2...put away the action hero dolls.
Posted by: chris | January 20, 2007 at 10:04 AM
"Racism--Better Get Used To It!"
Posted by: sparky | January 20, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Steve that is such a good German argument! Don't dissent because it will hurt the feelings of the families of the troops??? We're not a bunch of wackos- we're 70% of the adult population, the military officers on the ground, majority of enlisted in Iraq, and the congress, including many influential Republicans. As always, the troops are the dupes, meat for the meat grinder ground up by the stunningly bad civilian and miltary decisions getting us into and prosecuting the war. Only shut-my-ears-la-la-la- neocons like you and the Dunce Prince still believe different. The patriotically correct "support-the troops" crap has been exposed for the dodge it is. Support the troops- get'em away from Badgdad!
Posted by: blathering michael | January 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Well said, Michael.
Steve, you seem so uninformed and devoid of any connection with what's really going on with soldiers, it is enough for me to know you actually listened to them.
Of course, I notice you didn't comment on the young soldier who said the United States Army is at war; the United States is at the mall."
What did you think of that? You're at the mall, aren't you? I don't see you over in Iraq . . . Your Resident Idiot told everybody to go shopping . . .
And you are back to blaming Clinton? Your Resident Idiot and his crew have been in charge for six years. Did they do anything to buck up the military?
Why do I ask these questions? You'll never answer them. You have no answers - for anything.
You are a Dudley-Doright for your Decider. No thinking required.
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Obama? It's not me that has a problem with his name . . .
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Micheal your comments only prove your one of the wacko's with no sympathy for the troops or their families.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 01:21 PM
No Joanie, the reason I didn't comment on the ARMY Officer's saying that "The ARMY is fighting the war in Iraq while the rest of the Nation if fighting the war in the Malls" is that I didn't want to embarass you and your freinds here on how the Military feels about you wacko's.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 01:30 PM
My gift to Steve . . . a few lines from one of my favorite movies sure to cheer him up a bit:
And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."
Doesn't that just make you wanna go out and rejoin, Steve? Please, please, your military needs you.
And Sparky (and me too) will throw you a kiss as you leave. Michael will wave good-bye. Tommie will toot the horn on his yacht. Why, I bet even adc will give you a '"well done.' Your fantasy comes to life . . .
Oh, and I bet you'd even know the difference between Osama and Obama when you returned . . . couldn't ask for better than that, now could you.
Well, that is, if you returned. . . stuff happens. :(
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Just waiting for the call Joanie.
If and when my country needs me, whether it's George, Hillary, or even Obama who's President, I'll go. How about you, too afraid in your youth to serve, how about now, would you go if your country called on you or would just let the phone ring. Would you sacrifice anything for your country, or just let others do the sacraficing while you sit on your ass in your cushy job.
Maybe a phone call telling you your school has just been blown up by terrorist is the wake up you need. Oh wait, you don't believe in terrorist. What do you call them, "Freedom Fighters". If you like them freedom fighters so much how come your not over in Iraq helping out the insurgents, oh, again to afraid are you, better to sit on your ass and trash talk the troops, the government, and propagandize the war to aid the enemy. Some Patriot you are.
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 02:51 PM
People like Steve wrote the scripts for the Frank Burns charecter on MASH
Posted by: coiler | January 20, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Yeah, Steve, I'm really afraid of those non-existent WMD's . . .
Just waiting for the call Joanie.
Steve, they're calling . . . you aren't listening.
Give Michael the date and time of your departure to Iraq orders in hand, and, baby, I'll be there with a tear in my eye and a kiss for the soldier. I bet Michael would be there, too. Sparky? ADC? Fremont, you in? Polish that horn, Tommie.
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 04:06 PM
BTW, Steve, if you are so afraid of terrorists, why are you supporting our negligence in Afghanistan and our making of more terrorists in Iraq? Your logic escapes me.
Posted by: joanie | January 20, 2007 at 04:19 PM