Probst Comes Out Slinging, Peck Fires Back

by lewwaters

If we learned nothing else from Tim Probst, incumbent Democrat state legislator for the 17th district, it is that there is no mud he isn’t willing to sling. As we saw in his run against Joseph James in 2008, Probst has no problem when it comes to slinging a little mud, even though it is was he who was calling on others for a “clean campaign” then.

I’m not really all that surprised to see him once again resorting to slamming his opponent instead of just standing on his actual record.

In the 2008 primary, Probst received 48.85% of the votes with the remainder split between two Republicans, Joseph James receiving the majority against Jim Dunn, elevating him to the general election. In the general election, Probst received a somewhat impressive 55.76% against James’ 44.1%.

His mud stuck plus 2008 was a heavy Democratic year, Democrats having successfully demonized spineless Republicans who just rolled over.

Probst is facing a much stronger opponent in 2010 in businessman, Brian Peck, a relative unknown who received 52.93% against Probst’s 46.91%. For an incumbent, that is not very impressive, especially one who hopes to convince voters he isn’t in lock-step with the rest of the Democrats in Olympia who have brought us the largest tax increase in state history earlier this year.

Peck has released his first Television ad, calling Probst out on his voting record that he brags about saying how he never voted for any tax or spending increases.

Probst, ever the slick politician we saw running in 2008, along with the help of our Democratic Party mouthpiece of record, the Columbian says of Peck, “Brian is lying directly to the voters. He knows he’s lying directly to the voters and it’s insulting to the voters.”

The problem for Probst is Brian Peck is not lying. Probst did indeed vote yes for the largest budget in our history. Even more deceptive is how they continue to refer to that state budget as an “all-cuts budget,” ignoring that although no tax increases were included in the outset, state spending did increase quite a bit.

I continue to be amused at how Democrats claim they “cut” taxes or the budget when in reality; they only slightly reduced their projected amount of increase. Spending still increased, just not as much as originally planned and now, they claim they “cut the budget” and all too many voters fall for it, never looking at any actual numbers.

The Columbian, with Probst’s help I’m sure, craftily states, “He was one of a handful of Democrats to vote against the 2010-11 supplemental budget, which imposed new taxes on soda, bottled water, candy and other items.”

What is crafty there and misleading is in the TV ad, Peck is explicitly referring to “his vote on the state budget last year, and not the Supplemental Budget this year.”

Peck, in pointing out Probst not accepting responsibility for his vote on ESHB1216 Capital Budget & ESHB1244 Operating Budget says, “This is why people are so frustrated with politicians. Rather than accept responsibility for increasing overall state spending to the highest levels in state history, Representative Probst tries to distract voters with his solitary no vote on the Supplemental Budget this year.”

Probst has been claiming he opposes tax and spending increases since being elected to office and he stands on his NO vote this year for the Supplemental Budget as evidence. All the time I have continued asking if he really is “fiscally conservative and has really been looking out for the pocketbooks of the people of Clark County,” as former Democrat state representative Deb Wallace is quoted as saying, what alternative bills or amendments calling on tax cuts proposed by Republicans has he voted for?

I assume in an effort to defend Probst, one commenter on the Columbian article by the screen name of “Quigley” posted,

“Probst voted AGAINST SHB 2339, which is the bill that set up the $5 state parks donation on your vehicle tab registration.

Probst sponsored HB 1650 – The Senate version of this bill, SB 5042, became law. This bill created a waiver of monetary penalties for first-time paperwork violations by small businesses.
He also co-sponsored HB 2603, which was sponsored by Republican Norma Smith and became law this year. It acheived similar goals as HB 1650 (above).

HB 2603 (Smith) – Same idea as HB 1650 above and passed in 2010.

Probst co-sponsored Herrera’s bill, HB 1368, which if passed, would have eliminated the requirement to replace your license plates every 7 years, which costs a $10 fee.

Probst also sponsored and passed HB 2962, which gives county treasurers the option to implement a monthly online payment system for their property taxes rather than paying in a lump sum twice per year.”

Nice list, but not one bill listed was an actual tax cut or alternative spending bill, as I have been asking for. Not one actually offers any significant relief to the already over burdened taxpayer in Washington State.

It is true that Probst voted NO on the Supplemental budget as well as on the repeal of I-960, which allowed so many tax increases without a super majority to pass this year.

However, this is an age old political ploy politicians who are facing a reelection pull, with the permission of their party leaders who know the measure will still pass without that politicians vote. It helps keep an incumbent elected and allows them to tell voters who “responsible” with our money they are.

Just as was brought out during the campaign for the 3rd Congressional District, I don’t see it as fiscally conservative to vote for a bill that would have forced childcare centers into public unions, had the senate not successfully transformed it into a voluntary bill. With the state being who would pay increased fees, much of which would have gone to union dues, how fiscally responsible is that?

Equally disturbing in Probst’s claim of being a “fiscal conservative” was his quote taken from legislative discussion over the suspension of I-960 provided on the Evergreen Freedom Foundation Blog of, “tax policy and the budget don’t have that big of an impact on the state’s economy.”

In a December 11, 2009 Op-Ed submitted to and published by the Vancouver Business Journal, Why Recovery Will Be Slow, and What Good May Come of It, Probst calls for “changing from a consumption-driven economy to a production-driven economy.”

How does he propose to do that? He says,

“Skill up our workers. Modernize our ports, rail, and highways to enable commerce. Lead in high-tech manufacturing, science, and innovation. Encourage business start-ups and help shops stay open. Teach the work ethic to the next generation.”

Again, all well and good — sounding. But, isn’t much of that exactly what the Democrats are calling for increased taxation and spending to do? How can he say he opposes increasing taxes and increasing spending when he too advocates the very same policies they say they need to increase spending and taxes to accomplish?

Probst sponsored E2SHB 2227, better known as “the evergreen jobs act.” I can’t fault him for doing something he THINKS will create good paying jobs. I do fault him for not doing his homework on such jobs first. Had he actually researched it, he would have seen that such “Green Jobs” measures have actually cost jobs, not saved them, as stated in the articles Report: Green Jobs will actually cost jobs! and Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study.

Can we really afford losing two jobs to every one created and still believe Probst to be a “fiscal conservative?”

And, I’m sure his being CEO of the “Washington Workforce Association” has no bearing, right?

Once you peel back Probst’s muddy façade, it becomes clear that he is nothing more than another mudslinging liberal hell bent on remaining in office at any price. Maybe too, that is why he spent some $86,000.00 to Peck’s $25,000.00 in the “top two” primary, when there was only the two of them running, and he still came in second.

Clean it up, Tim. Start being honest.

2 Comments to “Probst Comes Out Slinging, Peck Fires Back”

  1. Lew,

    Just to be correct, yes he did fire off some zingers at Joseph James but Joseph also shot himself in his own foot for a campaign issue that he stupidly did and basically just quietly went away.

    Really, this *is* the first, real candidate that Tim has had to face. Jim Dunn and Joseph James were never real contenders. Tim was a real shoe in. I should know, I was in the 17th legislative district where Larry and Co. resides. I believe in that election, the electorate was going to vote any OTHER than Dunn.

    Like

  2. You’re right, Jeremy. This wasn’t meant in defense of either James or Dunn, but to show how Probst has a history of this conduct, even when not needed.

    Dunn was toast going into the election. The sad part was he offered to step aside earlier, allow an appointment to replace him to give them the advantage of running as an incumbent. The State GOP refused and instead, decided to punish Dunn.

    James was a poor candidate to begin with and even with that, one of the main issues Probst ran with was actually what someone else advised him on.

    But now, Probst is engaging in misleading words in labeling Peck “a liar” by mentioning the supplemental budget, instead of the general budget Peck is talking about.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: