Bad news..budget cuts..closing hatcheries..close Steelhead fishing in PS?

[natetreat]

First off Nate. They is you. The State is faced with choices. Your "they", the people we have elected and hired to run the state have been resounding told that we don't approve of the way they/we (yes we, we elected and hired them.) are spending our money. We did this by taking away a large part of the states operating budget. So faced with the what now? They, the people we have decided to put in charge of spending our money are doing what they can to spread the money between services. What would you have them do? Reduce the accepted level of basic services we enjoy? Those services include, police support, fire support, medical attention and help for those that can't help themselves and not to mention all the other things that makeup the infrastructure of our society. So I guess the next leap is, what kind of decisions do you think someone who has pledged their life to supporting society is going to make? Save a hatchery or save the State Patrol? Save your choice of recreation or house some our elderly. Pay for an emergency room visit for the guy that doesn't have insurance or put some fish in a stream? Keep our criminals locked up and away from us or provide entertainment for you.

I'll leave you with those questions to answer and some challenges. First challenge is to always vote. Next is understand what and who you are voting for, not just on the surface as in your wallet but all the way through society. Third, if you want to change societies priorities stay in close contact with your elected officials or better yet be one. Lastly always remember "They" is you.

PS I hate to see any hatcheries closed too. I too think it's an important part of what makes our State what it is. I've really just had a rear full of the me, me, me's lately. Thanks for the soap box.

I'm a firm solid small government republican, and the way that the state spends money in washington is disgusting to me. I think that they could halve the size of state government and we'd be fine. I believe that more money needs to go to teachers, cops, firemen, road repair and hatcheries. I pay a good chunk of change for my insurance, I don't think that people that don't work should live off the sweat of those that do. I always vote, always have and it's not something that I take lightly. I just vote republican.

I don't think that it's fair for the state to mismanage the infrastructure so poorly and then expect us to bail it out in a recession. DSHS of Washington had an audit a couple years back and it found millions of dollars in wasteful spending and disability fraud.

The whole point of bringing up this in terms of the hatcheries is that when the funds of WDFW come in from the general fund of course they're going to cut it first when they need to cut corners. They cut that, then next schools, because that makes the two really important things that voters care about getting us to agree to tax hikes. Money that the economy simply just doesn't have to give and stay afloat.

If I had to pay 500 for a license and have the funds stay with wdfw I'd do it, because that would allow the sport fisheries to exist in rivers that really need the help. I believe the state has a responsibility to maintain these rivers or let us as fishermen do it for them.

[Bodofish]

Yes I can see now. You've shot yourself in the foot by taking the funds away from our state government. Now you're looking to big business and or China to bail you out. Sad state of affairs.

If you have 45% of your pay check taken out for taxes you've made a mistake on your W4. Except for some Workers Comp., that’s all Federal. If you do have 45% taken out, it's not my fault you've put your cash in a no interest federal savings account. Your Social Security is the only retirement fund you have that is almost safe from the Republicans. Yes those are the wonderful folks that made it so Corporations could drain the employee’s retirement funds if they need the money to float the company. Does Enron ring a bell?

To quote the Seattle Times. King County is like the 1,000# gorilla, it carries the state in most elections. When you take King County out of the election picture, rural Washington votes very much like Idaho. If Washington didn't have King County it would be just like Idaho.". I don't know about you but I like having nice roads to drive on and other amenities. I enjoy a comfortable feeling, knowing that when I go to work I'm covered by our state run insurance. I feel even better knowing that my employer has to help me with a group health insurance plan. I've even got a number of friends in Idaho that were very successful contractors and builders but after the Bush regime ruined our economy they no longer have a pot to pea in and are thinking that National Health might not be such a bad idea. They used to vote Republican, when they were on the top. Now their republican pals won't give them the time of day.

Aint idealism great? Now I'm going to cut you some slack and give you a few years to see the folly of your ways. You seem like a pretty smart kid. When you look at the big picture you will see that it's not our lowly democratic state that has got the state in trouble, It was Republicans at the federal level. 16 years of Regan and Bush selling the country to their cronies, only to be lifted by Clinton for a brief stint before being plunged into the second Bush depression. The states depend on their share of the federal pie. BTW, I'm darn glad to have Ms. Murray in the senate bringing jobs and federal money to the state, it’s a small light in a dark time.

So now for the hard part. Think real hard and let us all know what a republican has done for you? I don't know about you but I can't afford to be a republican. Last time I checked you needed to be making close to half a mil per year before they really let you in the club.

So how does that help us with fish hatcheries? It doesn’t. Have you written your duly elected officials to let them know how you feel? How about and email or a phone call? It’s not enough to just vote. Let them know how you really feel. That’s how to make government work and you don’t even have to be a member of a party.

[natetreat]

Yes I can see now. You've shot yourself in the foot by taking the funds away from our state government. Now you're looking to big business and or China to bail you out. Sad state of affairs.

If you have 45% of your pay check taken out for taxes you've made a mistake on your W4. Except for some Workers Comp., that’s all Federal. If you do have 45% taken out, it's not my fault you've put your cash in a no interest federal savings account. Your Social Security is the only retirement fund you have that is almost safe from the Republicans. Yes those are the wonderful folks that made it so Corporations could drain the employee’s retirement funds if they need the money to float the company. Does Enron ring a bell?

To quote the Seattle Times. King County is like the 1,000# gorilla, it carries the state in most elections. When you take King County out of the election picture, rural Washington votes very much like Idaho. If Washington didn't have King County it would be just like Idaho.". I don't know about you but I like having nice roads to drive on and other amenities. I enjoy a comfortable feeling, knowing that when I go to work I'm covered by our state run insurance. I feel even better knowing that my employer has to help me with a group health insurance plan. I've even got a number of friends in Idaho that were very successful contractors and builders but after the Bush regime ruined our economy they no longer have a pot to pea in and are thinking that National Health might not be such a bad idea. They used to vote Republican, when they were on the top. Now their republican pals won't give them the time of day.

Aint idealism great? Now I'm going to cut you some slack and give you a few years to see the folly of your ways. You seem like a pretty smart kid. When you look at the big picture you will see that it's not our lowly democratic state that has got the state in trouble, It was Republicans at the federal level. 16 years of Regan and Bush selling the country to their cronies, only to be lifted by Clinton for a brief stint before being plunged into the second Bush depression. The states depend on their share of the federal pie. BTW, I'm darn glad to have Ms. Murray in the senate bringing jobs and federal money to the state, it’s a small light in a dark time.

So now for the hard part. Think real hard and let us all know what a republican has done for you? I don't know about you but I can't afford to be a republican. Last time I checked you needed to be making close to half a mil per year before they really let you in the club.

So how does that help us with fish hatcheries? It doesn’t. Have you written your duly elected officials to let them know how you feel? How about and email or a phone call? It’s not enough to just vote. Let them know how you really feel. That’s how to make government work and you don’t even have to be a member of a party.

I realize I have turned this conversation in the wrong direction. I'm sorry that it came to partisan politics. No government works without accountability to the people it represents, and corporations are no different. I have my opinions from eight years of higher educations in political science and history, but this aint the place to do anything but talk fish. I'm sorry.

[Marc Martyn]

Do you remember when the state had a surplus? It was 3 years before the bottom fell out. It is interesting to look back on this 2005 article.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/250796_budget05.html

http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-vi ... newsType=1

[dicinu]

what happened to all the money wasted on the bridge they did not design properly in tacoma where is that money right down the drain, millions just lost forsimple not paying attention to details

[Marc Martyn]

Are you talking about Galloping Girtie? That was 60 years ago.

[Bodofish]

Nate, I agree completely! What i don't argee with is the "They". If we are to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people there can be no we or they, just us. The government is us, we elect them and hire them. To that end it's up to us to tell them what we want them to do.

My challenge to everyone that thinks we should have hatcheries is to get out your pens and start writing.

[Bodofish]

Are you talking about Galloping Girtie? That was 60 years ago.

No, the new one had some design flaws that became apparent before construction. Granted it was pretty big but it goes on with lots of projects.

[8theB8]

[spokey9]

you make a good point bodofish, while i cant say i'm much for the elected officials we have (i'm more of a conservative if i were to actually pick a party), a good percentage of the population thinks that the people we elect will take care of the problems we have. the truth is they have the same faults we do, and i think the biggest problem is that idea of democrat and republican partisan politcs has gone a little too far. in order for us to keep this state fishing, whether commercial or sport, a hard look at the wasted money needs to happen. i know there's better ways to raise money than higher taxation, that wont turn things around. we as their employers need to let them know whats important to us and that they have a budget that they truly need to stick to, just like any other person in this state. it's not free money they can use, it's our money and they need to understand that. the bottom line is come election day fire anybody that doesnt hold to that fact. thats my lil rant on the subject:batman:

[Marc Martyn]

Clinton sold LARGE portions of our National Parks to magically balance the budget during his time in office (fact) and should still be in prison for TREASON! Now "One Big Ass Mistake America" aka O.B.A.M.A. is selling the rest to the Chinese to pay back the TRILLIONS he stole from the American taxpayer to give to banks so they could meet their bonus requirements!

Well, that is quite a claim. What is the "fact" on that? Do you have references to confirm these?

I was aware that Bush wanted to sell off public lands. Are you sure you have the right president?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11257181/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0210-04.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006 ... 15-04.html
http://www.ourpubliclands.org/about/wyo ... ndsselloff

[Bodofish]

Clinton sold LARGE portions of our National Parks to magically balance the budget during his time in office (fact) and should still be in prison for TREASON! Now "One Big Ass Mistake America" aka O.B.A.M.A. is selling the rest to the Chinese to pay back the TRILLIONS he stole from the American taxpayer to give to banks so they could meet their bonus requirements!

Well, that is quite a claim. What is the "fact" on that? Do you have references to confirm these?

I was aware that Bush wanted to sell off public lands. Are you sure you have the right president?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11257181/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0210-04.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006 ... 15-04.html
http://www.ourpubliclands.org/about/wyo ... ndsselloff

Marc, I'm going with subterfuge and finger pointing. Just like Fox news. Yes Obama did approve the bank bailout and the GM bailout (which btw worked like a charm). If one is to take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture, you would understand that Obama would not have had to take such drastic measures if Bush and his cronies had not run the country into the ground. So far this recession has eclipsed the Great Depression's financial picture easily doubling it, making this the worst depression in the history of our country. However our recession cannot compare to the Great Depression's appetite for shear human suffering. That is in thanks, due to the many social programs that have been enacted over the years. One more similarity I'd like to point out is that both have been created by big business and a laissez-faire attitude pushed by our elected officials filling their pockets.

I know you’ve heard this from me before but, those that refuse to study history are condemned to repeat it.

[8theB8]

[Marc Martyn]

First of all, you do have the wrong president. The following is a quote from an article from the same website you posted on the matter:
NATIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS-
In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.
Protection of our treasured places is a sound undertaking, but doing so by ceding control of our sovereign territory to a foreign power is wrong and threatens our rights and freedoms.

What the author fails to add is that this treaty was signed by Richard M. Nixon, a republican president. He also fails to say that the U.N. World Heritage Organization has no legal rights or claims to this sites anywhere in the world.

The controversy over this is the Crown Butte Mines, inc. wanting to develop a mining operation on private land near Yellowstone Park. The following is a report submitted to Congress on the matter.

http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/mining/mine-9.cfm

No national parks were ever sold. Your information is skewed to sway views in a political direction and are not fact.

Here is the mission statement for World Heritage Organization:

UNESCO's World Heritage mission is to:

* encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;
* encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List;
* encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;
* help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;
* provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;
* support States Parties' public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;
* encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;
* encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world's cultural and natural heritage.


Treason? Hardly. President Clinton's actions were to protect the waters flowing into Yellowstone National Park.

And as the the derogatory comments about the current president, that has nothing to do with the current topic.



People who attempt to cross an intersection and only look in one direction, fail to see the true activity on the street.

Now, can we return to the current situation with the state budget?

[Bodofish]

Yeah Marc!!!!!!!!!!! You Go!!!!!!!

[MikeFishes]

Here's my take on the situation:

1. The economy is down. There's a record number of people out of work which means less people with disposable income. That means less revenue for the state.
2. There's LOTS of people who are hurting. For most of the people who are lucky enough to be working they probably haven't seen a rase or a bonus for the past 2 or 3 years. Tough decisions have to be made by individuals and families.
3. The State Government has done all that they think they can for the situation. Huge cuts were made, more will be likely.
4. The money isn't there. Cuts HAVE to be made. If that means I can't go fishing for Steelhead, so be it.
5. I WILL look at the bright side. Closing down the steelhead fisheries means less pressure on a species with a limited fishery already. My assumption is that the fishery will be healthier after a few years.
6. The Hatcheries are for US. What are WE going to do to help keep them open?

Maybe we need to stop the bickering, put our differences aside, and work out a solution for #6.

[BARCHASER10]

The bank bailout got a bad rep mostly because the initial loss estimates were way too high, upwards of 500 billion. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the final loss to the federal government is 66 billion. The bank bailout was a success actually, it saved the US banking industry. Since the bank bailout, the large banks have been extremely profitable. Mostly because the Fed used lots of monetary tricks, Quantitative Easing was main one, to arrive at interest rates so low that the difference between a bank's cost of funds and the yield on their loan portfolio (called the Net Interest Margin) is huge!

But the main threat remains that our banks are so enormous, Bank of America has 1.6 trillion in assets, and they are so interelated, largly due to counter party risk on dervitives, that if one fails it brings down the whole bunch. Thats the dirty little secret that they dont want you to know. The six largest banks in the US have combined assets of 7 trillion.

I worked in banking for 36 years, retired six years ago. I used to work in lot in large banks and my personal opinion is that are not that well managed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/busin ... .html?_r=1
Bailout Loss Estimated at $29 Billion
By LOUISE STORY
Published: October 5, 2010
Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

In a report released on Tuesday, the administration said it expected a $17 billion loss from its investments in General Motors, Chrysler and the auto finance companies, as well as a $46 billion loss from housing programs like the mortgage modification program known as the Home Affordable Modification Program.

The new figures, which include profits that offset some of the losses, come just as the Obama administration tries to wind down the bailout program known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Last week, the government announced a plan to exit its investment in the insurer the American International Group.

Treasury officials have declared the bailout a success, emphasizing that much of the program’s money has been returned and that losses are now likely to be less than once expected. The cost, the report says, is far below the $350 billion the Congressional Budget Office once estimated.

“Because of the success of the program, TARP will likely cost a fraction of this amount,” the report said.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office put the cost at $66 billion. And, after the bailout, the government will still be left with its investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed housing finance companies. The report said Fannie and Freddie were expected to cause “substantial losses,” but it noted that they were financed using other funds, not the troubled asset funds.

The Treasury arrived at its figure by adding in profits that it expects to receive on shares of A.I.G. stock. Those shares were given to the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Treasury expects they will yield a $22 billion profit. Without those shares, the Treasury would have reported a $51 billion loss, rather than a $29 billion loss, the report said.

In total, the Treasury has received back about $204 billion of the bailout funds, or just over half of the money it doled out. The report segregated the money given out under the Bush administration — $294 billion — from the $94 billion awarded under the current administration. All of the large bank bailouts were made under the prior administration, and since then, the money was invested in small banks, automakers, housing programs and A.I.G., the report said.

The bright spot, according to the report, were the bank paybacks. Nearly 80 percent of the money given to banks has been paid back. The Treasury also received $26.8 billion from banks through interest payments on the investments as well as sales of warrants the government received in the banks.

The report did not break down the sources of the automobile losses. The government gave the most money to General Motors and is seeking to recoup some through an initial public offering. The government also gave funds to Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and Ally Bank, formerly GMAC, the auto financing arm of G.M.

The housing programs, the report said, are not expected to return money to the government. Though $45.6 billion has been committed to programs, just $500 million has been paid out, because the Treasury plans to pay out the funds over time if, for instance, modified loans become permanent. The programs include mortgage modifications as well as funds for unemployed homeowners and those whose homes are underwater, or worth less than their mortgage debt.

The last bailout awards were announced last week, as part of the A.I.G. exit plan. The Treasury plans to give A.I.G. $22 billion more. That money will help A.I.G. pay down its debt to the Federal Reserve of New York. In exchange, the Treasury is also receiving the rights to proceeds from two special purpose vehicles from the Fed. The vehicles will pay out based on profits A.I.G. receives on sales of two of its units. The Treasury is predicting no losses on those.

The Government Accountability Office also released a report on Monday about the bailout, which said that the Treasury gave funds to 66 banks that were known to be weak. The bailout program was supposedly intended for banks that were healthy enough to survive without the funds.

In response to that report, a Treasury spokesman said that small banks that received bailout funds lent more money than banks that did not.

A version of this article appeared in print on October 6, 2010, on page B6 of the New York edition.
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Reprints

[Marc Martyn]

Thank you for the informative insight into this complicated financial mess. It has concerned me for many years how the banks have gotten so big. How did this come about and when? It shocked me when it was announced that they are "too big to fail". Are we going back to the days of the days of big monopolies and are we going to need another Teddy Roosevelt?

[bionic_one]

Thank you for the informative insight into this complicated financial mess. It has concerned me for many years how the banks have gotten so big. How did this come about and when? It shocked me when it was announced that they are "too big to fail". Are we going back to the days of the days of big monopolies and are we going to need another Teddy Roosevelt?

I think it's more of a case of the nation being dependent on loans and credit. There are lots of big banks out there, and I don't think the current situation qualifies as a monopoly problem. I'm pretty sure there has to be approval before they can merge as well.


Question though: Previous post said that the banks that got the bailouts are turning huge profits now. How much tax revenue are we getting out of that, or is all that money going to the bank executives?

[BARCHASER10]

They got enormous through acquisitions that were routinely approved by the Fed etc. What went on in the northwest is typical. Bank of America bought Seafirst, Security Pacific bought Rainer and then was itself bought by by BAC, Puget Sound Natl Bank was bought by Keybanks, Peoples Natl Bank and the Old NB were bought by US Bank, in 1997 US Bank was itself bought by First Banks of Minneapolis although they kept the US name since their market research indicate US Bank was a better marketing name. And then the big one when the corpse of WAMU got bought by JP Morgan Chase which was itself a product of the merger between JPM and Chase..., etc etc etc all over the country.

The real barn burner is what is now called Bank of America headquartered in Charlotte NC. In the 1980s there was a bank called North Carolina National Bank, NCNB, in Charlotte, CEO was Hugh McColl, an ex Marine and close friend of Fred Smith who started FedEx. Old Hugh wanted to be bigger than FedEx and proceeded to buy everything in sight.

When all the big banks in Texas failed in 1986-87, Republic Bank, Midland, First Bank, M Bank, etc NCNB bought em all up (with FDIC assistance) and then proceeded to buy other failed or weak large banks, Shawmut, Bank of Boston, Bank of New England, First Chicago, Continental, Citizens and Southern etc. etc. And then in 1997 crowned it all off by buying Bank of America which itself had recently puchased Sec Pacific. So NCNB, a middling regional Bank with 20 billion in assets in the 1980s, is now BAC with 1.7 trillion in assets.

Sorry... I dont think the guys running the present BAC are any smarter than the guys that ran little NCNB 25 years ago.

To show how dumb the boys are at BAC they bought Countrywide Mortgage in 2006, paid a big price two years before the residential RE market blew up. Countrywide was the biggest mortgage company in the US and a major subprime lender. And then for the next cartoon they also bought Merrill Lynch in 2007 just before Wall Street blew up.

Go figure, buy gold!

Thank you for the informative insight into this complicated financial mess. It has concerned me for many years how the banks have gotten so big. How did this come about and when? It shocked me when it was announced that they are "too big to fail". Are we going back to the days of the days of big monopolies and are we going to need another Teddy Roosevelt?