I attended the Tea Party rally in Everett yesterday. I was pleased to be able to speak. I was disappointed that my comments were cut short; the other speakers didn’t appear to be restrained by the timer to complete their remarks. On the whole, I think Kelly and her volunteers did a great job organizing the event. I know it took a lot of effort and there couldn’t be a more worthy cause. I suspect I will survive.
The event appeared to have 500 to 600 attendees. Even though Tea Partiers are not organized around a specific structure, they are united in the sentiment that they are fed up.
Most will tell you that they aren’t card carrying members of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party; but as a Republican, their message is more than just a little bit similar to my own; smaller government, lower taxes, accountability and transparency were consistent themes.
We both believe that private sector job growth is a great goal and more likely benchmark for measuring economic recovery. We cannot spend our way to recovery with tax dollars or buy recovery with more federal debt. We will have to work our way out by creating those jobs in the ranks of our small businesses.
Congressional candidates James Watkins running against Jay Inslee in the 1st District and John Koster running against Rick Larsen in the 2nd District rallied the crowd with their comments. Both candidates convey the feeling that there is blood in the water and their opposition knows it. Winning those two seats would be great wins for the R’s.
Pollsters say Republicans are still likely short of regaining the majority by a few seats, but momentum is gathering for our team. Time will tell. In spite of the polls, the crowd was excited by the prospects for the House candidates.
Every candidate speaking yesterday suggested that they were different Republicans than those of years gone by that ended up being “free spenders”. Traditional Republicans were known first and foremost as fiscal conservatives. Getting the Republican candidates back on that track was a consistent theme.
For a Tax Day event, the mood of the crowd was strangely quiet about taxation. My gut tells me that in spite of our feelings about taxes, we are also very concerned about the national debt. The dilemma we all face is deciding which is more important. Spending is the lightening rod issue. Every level of government is spending beyond their means and Tea Partiers are peeved. I suspect that many Democrats are concerned as well.
For the legislative candidates in attendance, the 44th District had the most candidates. There are two Republicans filed for the Steve Hobbs Senate seat; Dave Schmidt and new comer Ryan Ferrie. There are also two Republicans filed to run against Hans Dunshee in the House; Shahram Hadian and myself. Both of these races will be tough battles. In spite of the fact that Dunshee is arguably the most liberal member of the House, he is a tough campaigner.
Mike Hope reported to the crowd about how the just completed session unfolded at the end. He gave the crowd highlights to cheer about and some low lights to moan about. There is no doubt that Mike is the “darling” of the House. He was able to be involved in two law enforcement related bills that made it through to see the light of day in his two sessions. Veteran lawmakers are envious. And Mike is a member of the minority party. That fact makes his accomplishments even more remarkable.
Voters will get a chance to amend the state constitution in the fall in large part because of the efforts of Mike Hope. Good Job Mike.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations to Mike and his wife Sarai on the birth of their new baby boy Noah.
No Loss for Words 
Quality of OPPORTUNITY or Quality of OUTCOME, what is our mandate?
by Steve DanaI spent all day Monday being a guest speaker at Snohomish High School. My friend Tuck Gionet teaches Economics and Government to high school seniors in all of his five classes. He was gracious enough to allow me to interact with his students as they discussed whether government’s role should be to insure to citizens quality of “opportunity” or “outcome.”
This was the fifth or sixth time for me in Mr. Gionet’s class. It was the first time I spent the day talking about their subject matter rather than focusing on my candidacy for office. My assignment was to work into the discussion my political perspective without actually campaigning. Mr. Gionet and I did not tell the kids in advance too much about my political persuasion, he wanted them to figure out my political point of view based upon my responses to the questions during the discussion. That idea went out the window right away since I couldn’t come up with any applications where government had a role in guaranteeing the outcome of anything.
The students are required to write a paper this week comparing and contrasting the two, declaring a preference for one and then defending the choice. It was clear from the interaction that some had given the assignment some thought already because they asked me good questions. It became clear to the students in every class that I had strong feelings about both sides of the argument.
The most challenging aspect of the day was remembering what part of the subject matter I had discussed with which class. All five classes were doing the same assignment and I wanted to standardize at least a part of my presentation for all of them then launch into the actual discussion with the kids. After you have done your spiel two or three times, you forget whether you shared a particular anecdote that demonstrated a point or not. By the end of the day, my feet were sore, my voice was hoarse and I was really parched. That teaching thing is a tough job!
It’s hard convincing some kids that education is an opportunity rather than a given. We talked about how our state constitution calls for education to be the paramount responsibility of state government. We weren’t so clear about whether it meant the opportunity to get an education or the guarantee that all students would get one. We talked about how some kids put more effort into school work than others and as a result got more out of the experience.
I tried to demonstrate to them that as they get older and encounter choices in their lives the quality of their opportunities will ultimately determine how far they get in life. Most of the kids have so few life experiences they fail to grasp the importance of quality opportunities until they are lost. Many of the kids have been so sheltered from the realities of the world that they already have a sense of entitlement. That distresses me!
In the course of the day, discussions in each class went in a different direction. As a champion for “opportunity” I tried to steer the discussion to the importance of “personal choices” and taking responsibility for them. In a free society, people need the opportunity to choose how hard they are willing to work to achieve a level of success. Government does not have a role in guaranteeing a successful outcome for any segment of society except those individuals with demonstrable handicaps that would prevent them from taking advantage of available opportunities.
The other argument that came up on more than one occasion was the role of government in curtailing opportunity for some when it substantially damaged others. “Ethics” in life and business might be a topic for discussion another day, but Monday the regulatory role of government did not fit with arguments supporting the “opportunities” of capitalism and personal initiative.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »