National health plan is not the answer
If the federal government passes the $1 trillion health care plan, we are essentially asking our children to pay for our medical bills. This gigantic plan is only a couple months after the $787 billion stimulus plan. The fed can continue to print more money to foot these unfunded promises, and run deficits so large that no one really knows what a trillion means anymore!
Continual growth of deficits will further devalue our dollar and trigger inflation.
For the sake of our kids, does anyone understand how irresponsible a national health care plan really is? The beauty of state government is the flexibility built in to make changes so if plan A does not work, adjustment to a plan B can be made easier than a national plan.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Besides the welfare reform in the ’90s, no other entitlement program has successfully downsized itself.
A federal plan will eventually drive out all market driven plans because it is subsidized by tax dollars or the deficit. A state size health care plan has many advantages. It can respond to changes efficiently. It is funded with current budget and not deficits. It will still maintain options for consumers. State plans cannot be subsidized by deficits like a national plan.
If you think tax dollars will fund the national plan, keep dreaming as the politicians love to buy your vote by offering sweet deals that are funded by indebting your kids further.
City Council’s efforts not appreciated
Olympia plans a $35 million City Hall and start construction. Oops, no parking?
What? Voices told them, “If you build it they will come?” They sell a main parking lot to a developer for $270,000 and give the sales price back for environmental cleanup along with an IOU from the taxpayers for another quarter million for probable cleanup. Then rally around the idea of a $13 million parking garage to mitigate the loss of parking.
They easily find additional millions for unexpected environmental cleanup of the City Hall site but discuss cutting after-school programs because money is tight in these hard times.
Yet not for number 5 in the city’s 2009 top 10 priorities: dog park!
I sleep better knowing my dog can unleash its feral inner-beast and run wild and free at taxpayer expense while developers receive tax abatements.
They unveil $75,000 public art for a roundabout. Yes, art to look at while driving within a traffic circle on one of Olympia’s busiest roads — tall, Stonehenge monoliths with pretty patterns. It’s great for contemplating in a park setting. As a drive-by — not so much.
Spot rezones, developer subsidies, conflicts of interest, the list is too long for the word limit here.
This is the current City Council’s planning and priorities. And now they are going to save a few bucks and do in-house planning on the cheap for the comprehensive plan? Holy ineptitude, Batman!
It’s a live action cartoon! Maybe those brass thought bubbles weren’t that far off base.
Parents must act responsibly
I’d like to propose a suggestion for the upcoming July 4th celebrations.
It seems that year after year yet another child dies in a tragic event at the hands of relatives. In the name of fun, we hear of something horrific happening — either it’s grandpa’s antique cannon or dad’s fireworks display and a child’s life ends.
The family quickly blames emergency responders or manufacturers for their own irresponsibility and negligence.
What if just for this year, parents, grandparents and friends act in a caring and responsible manner so that no child’s life is sacrificed for tradition?
Tri Vo’s reputation should be a factor
I have a question. When someone presents a development proposal to a city council is there some rule or policy which requires the council to consider only the nature of the proposal, and not the reputation of the person making the proposal?
Tri Vo has three separate ambitious development plans presented to the city of Lacey, the city of Olympia, and the city of Tumwater. And yet, according to The Olympian there are extreme complaints from residents of his small housing development, Cooper Crest.
Olympia is entitled to collect a $1 million bond because of failures to meet standards for drainage and other workmanship issues.
The Olympian has also reported a separate claim from an investment partner who has not received a promised payment from Tri Vo.
Maybe all of Tri Vo’s development ideas would be great if they were completed. But does Tri Vo have the investment capital to build them? And so far as I know, the only project he has ever completed is substandard.
This is not a rhetorical question. Can someone answer this question? Why does it appear that the councils are not taking Tri Vo’s reputation into consideration as they examine his three visionary proposals?