More lies from the Columbian: County can't deny services to illegal aliens.

So I get a call from a friend of mine yesterday about a bizarre article in the Columbian that wrongly claims that "County can't deny services to immigrants."

First of all, the issue isn't ABOUT denying services to IMMIGRANTS.

The issue is about denying services to ILLEGAL ALIENS.

IMMIGRANTS are those who came here legally from another country. I've yet to read anything about denying services to anyone here legally.

Providing services to those here in violation of the laws of this country here illegally... that is, ILLEGAL ALIENS, is another thing entirely.

So, why didn't the newspaper make that distinction? Because they've allowed their bias to dictate their stories.

THIS paper doesn't want illegal aliens to be held accountable. THIS newspaper doesn't care that we have to reduce services due to expenditures to illegals. THIS paper doesn't care that we've had to lay off county employees because of budget cuts.

Nope... spending tens of millions of our increasingly scarce tax dollars on people violating the law of this land as an incentive for them to stay here is just peachy for the Columbian.

And I get that.

The problem is when their biases interfere with the increasingly tattered remnants of what passes for journalism at this paper, then the public is misinformed.

Now, I haven't decided if that's a result of poor reporting, incompetence, or bias... or a happy (for the paper) confluence of all three.

But the fact of that matter is this:

This county CAN deny "services" to our illegal alien population. The paper is either wrong... or lying.

CA Counties Cut Illegal Aliens Healthcare

From a deeply outraged Los Angeles Times:

California counties cut healthcare to illegal immigrants

With budget problems afflicting counties across the state, some have begun eliminating healthcare to illegal immigrants. Critics say this will only shift the burden to hospital emergency rooms.

By Anna Gorman
April 27, 2009

Forced to slash their budgets, some California counties are eliminating nonemergency health services for illegal immigrants — a move that officials acknowledge could backfire by shifting the financial burden to emergency rooms.

Sacramento County voted in February to bar illegal immigrants from county clinics at an estimated savings of $2.4 million. Contra Costa County followed last month by cutting off undocumented adults, to save approximately $6 million. And Yolo County is voting on a similar change next month, which would reduce costs by $1.2 million.

"This is a way for us to get through what I think is a horrible year for healthcare in California," said William Walker, director of Contra Costa Health Services.

More:

Odd, isn't it? California counties that seem to have to work under the same rules as Clark County now seem to be doing the very thing that OUR paper reports WE cannot do.

Maybe they'll do another article, where first, they'll mention that counties around this country actually ARE doing that which they wrongly allege we cannot; and second, how it is that they could write something... anything, without due diligence and fact checking.

I mean, after all, it took me all of about 10 seconds to discover that, once again, the paper has been dead wrong... as they've been dead wrong on so many other issues.

Yesterday, our moron of a Congressman voted for yet ANOTHER bill he hadn't read: Columbian provides cover.

Unfortunately, the American people have saddled this nation with an unabashed leftist liar.

We are already well aware that Mr. Obama lied during his campaign about every other sentence or so so who's managed to break many of his campaign promises, turn our foreign policy into a complete joke, and bury us in trillions of debt in the first few months of his painful tenure.

One of his fav scams is to force Congress to vote on bills that haven't even been read by those doing the voting.

Now, rest assured: had a GOP president pulled the several stunts this moron has nailed us with over their tenure, the Columbian and every other media organ in this country would be screaming like cut cats.

Yesterday, our erstwhile congressman for the past 11 years, backbencher Brian Baird, AGAIN voted for ANOTHER bill THAT HE HAD NOT READ.

This is PARTICULARLY hypocritical, given that ol' Brian has championed a time requirement between dropping a bill and then voting on it.

How can Brian Baird vote for this, or any other bill, after demanding 72 hours to review bills (Hey.... HERE'S a radical concept: MAYBE he can READ a bill BEFORE he votes for it?) and then vote for this crapfest in violation of his own rule?

For the past five years, Baird has been pushing for a change in House rules to require the waiting period — to no avail.

So, yesterday, when he had the opportunity to live up to his own standard... and perhaps persuade others to do the same.... what did he do?

He caved like a cheap, cardboard suit.

Now, this go beyond the major damage this bill will do to us and our country. The substance of this bill is as harmful as every other Obama initiative.

That is, it will waste hundreds of billions of dollars and have nothing to show for it but a mountain of debt.

Yes, all of that is aside from Mr. Baird's decision to sell us out... and sell out one of his own cherished principles because he, quite apparently, lacks the testicular capacity to stand up to the Belle of Botox or Rahm Emmanuel, who's skinny little ass can be booted out a door as fast as he breaks it down.

Now, these facts aren't secret. And so what does our local fishwrapper, bankrupt in both integrity and money, print?

Another in the series of their info-mercials for their boy, Brian Baird (D-Columbian).

Baird has completely ignored the needs of this community where it matters most. His cowardly non-stand on the organized crime development known as the Branett/Paskenta/Mohegan/Cowlitz casino, his "I am a wholly owned lackey of downtown Vancouver" earmarks, his complete stupidity on failing to demand a vote on the I-5 Bridge/loot rail scam; his vote, to implement NINE THOUSAND earmarks by voting for the Budget, and then again, when he voted for the Porkulous Bill, AGAIN WITHOUT READING IT.

And what does our local rag do?

Immediately write about his malfeasance as if they were on the payroll.

The problem wit this is that when handed a turd sandwich, no amount of fancy bread changes the meat of the matter.

The rag KNOWS that the people HATE the Cap and Trade bill. They know it so much that the phrase "Cap and Trade" wasn't anywhere in this article.

Talk about cover.

Mr. Baird, you screwed us. Again. Mr. Baird, you sold us out. Again.

And the despicable paper that is The Columbian is aiding and abetting you with their lies and cover. There job here is to point out Baird's hypocrisy as if he were a Republican... not to cover it up and to help it. But then, being a scummy leftist rag keeps that from happening, right?

Despicable.


Energy bill gives boost to biomass
Once-unusable forest slash could be turned into power

Friday, June 26 11:13 p.m.

BY ERIK ROBINSON
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Loggers have long contended that trees are a renewable resource.

Now, the byproduct of logging — the unmerchantable tree tops and limbs that are normally left on the forest floor or burned as slash — could be classified as a renewable source of fuel to generate electricity. The news bolsters a surging interest in biomass energy plants, including one proposal under consideration in north Clark County.

Turning wood scraps into energy got a major boost Thursday with a new provision added to the House version of a major federal energy bill. The bill narrowly passed Friday.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, said the provision should provide a new incentive for federal forest managers to thin overcrowded forest threatened by wildfire, disease or insect infestation.

"We have in the Gifford Pinchot thousands of acres of forest that are in need of treatment," he said in a telephone interview Thursday evening. "Much of that material would be used for renewable biomass (energy)."

Baird worked with Oregon Reps. Greg Walden, a Republican, and Kurt Schrader, a first-term Democrat from the Portland area, to define logging slash and wood debris from national forests as a renewable energy source. The provision will need to be adopted by the Senate version of the energy bill before it becomes law.

More, if you can stomach it.

The scum of censorship at The Columbian.

Our local newspaper is VERY big on freedom.

Freedom of the press... freedom of THEIR opinions... (even to the point of lies) and, of course, freedom to censor those they disagree with.

As mentioned below, Brancaccio's request for people to "start talkin!" because he's "listening." is limited only to those he wants to hear from. Those he doesn't want to hear? Well, he squelches their voice to silence.

I've noticed an intreped poster over there, one of many daring to stand up to the fringe-left propaganda of our local fish wrapper. And that person's posts were almost completely obliterated this morning, regardless of content.

It's kind of like a local version of BDS. Hatred for dissenting viewpoints can be a terrible thing.

This paper expresses that hatred in a variety of ways. Fringe leftist nut job John Laird, editorial page editor and a propagandist in ways that would make Minister Goebbels blush is a case in point.

And now, Brancaccio has again joined the cast of those who would silence opposition to his paper's positions and agenda.

Gee. I bet he's proud of himself this morning. His actions and those of the Iranian secret police have a lot in common.

The utter absurdity of Brancaccio's latest because of his censorship: Press Talk: What our RAC does for us

It's fairly clear that Lou Brancaccio, the editor of the Columbian, wants us to THINK the paper is flexible and responsive.

He babbled on about their Reader's Advisory Council, a collection of bobble-headed, Amen Choir types that, to hear him tell it, seem to think, among other lies, that "Members felt our bridge coverage continues to be good. "

That any group could possibly believe that substituting opinion for news; lies for genuine polls, and failing to demand a vote for the entirety of this debacle simply confirms how utterly worthless this group is.

They are, in fact, a reflection of a student government, in, say, middle school. They have no real power; they go through the motions but rarely make any real change, and ultimately, they pretty much wind up becoming a reflection of the school administration.

Whoever these people are, their apparent discussions about paint jobs on this Titanic while they continue to support the nonsensical and indefensible positions of this paper... positions that have shoved them towards bankruptcy, serves to confirm who much they serve the role of window dressing... and how little impact or effect they could have, even if they wanted to have any impact, because it's clear that as change agents, they fail.

If this group has not roundly condemned John Laird's divisive and damaging columns; if this group has not repeatedly demanded fairness and accuracy in your coverage of the I-5 Bridge/Loot Rail propaganda or that this paper demand a vote on the entirety of that debacle then they are worthless; not representative of this community and serve no real purpose.

When the Columbian ran those fake polls suggesting that everything is hunky dory about loot rail, did they protest, or did they just sit there and nod like idiots?

The failure of this paper to implement any substantive changes... to go out and scam a B&O tax break when the rest of small business in this state is suffering FAR worse than they are... the failure to actually LISTEN and CHANGE shows that, essentially, you've put together a group that amounts to just another Amen Chorus... or that the paper ignores their positions, much like they ignore most of the positions stated under Brancaccio's columns.

You see, where this idea makes any money is where it's resulted in any changes. And as carefully as I read Brancaccio's column, I failed to note a single instance where this group or any other source of criticism has EVER made any real impact or difference to this paper. Brancaccio says they "WILL" see changes, but that infers that this group, which has been here for years, HASN'T YET MADE ANY DIFFERENCE.

Having the group? Swell. Ignoring them or any other opposition to what you're doing, particularly while you're in the midst of Chapter 11?

Moronic idiocy.

Kinda reminds me of the Supreme Soviet or the former Iraqi Congress under Saddam.

A lot of voting. But not a lot of opposing.

And then, as it turns out, if Lou doesn't "like" you, he censors your ability to comment on his columns.

The irony of his latest scam is the end of his latest bogosity:

If someone wants to comment, let them have their say. I try to keep my pie hole shut as much as I can.

I learn more when I'm listening than when I'm talking.

So start talkin'! I'm listening.

The absurdity of this is that as I write this, a grand total of FOUR posters have been allowed to comment.

FOUR. (There are 5 posters, but Lou is two.) Lou will probably point to the few comments as some sort of sign that everyone believes this paper is hunky dory, and all's well. Other columns Lou have written have resulted in 50, 60 or even more posters telling him how idiotic his positions are.

This column, magically... mysteriously.... not one.

Now, for several months (since the website was redone) many posters have commented on the incompetence of the system because posting there is a hit or miss business.

There have been a number of complaints; posters post, but the post doesn't show up; posters post and the post disappears without comment (censored) and the like.

Brancaccio is fully aware of the idiocy of this system, but merely says his webmaster, Jeff Bunch, should be emailed about this stuff.

That's odd, but yet another sign of Brancaccio's incompetence: Bunch should be called in. He should be told to fix the problem, a problem that has gone on for 9 months now; and if HE can't fix it, Brancaccio should get someone who can.

The incompetent aspect of this is very telling: If this moron won't even fix an obvious SYSTEM problem with his web page, then how is it that anyone could possibly expect him to make any of the many, massive, substantive changes needed to make this paper even remotely competitive and fiscally viable.

Or, we have the second, likely, possibility: censorship.

When Brancaccio says "So start talkin'! I'm listening," what he REALLY means is "If you AGREE with me, I want to hear it. If you DON'T agree with me, then don't bother."

Either way, the RAC is a joke, a farce, and another in the series of offenses to this community.

______________________________________

Local News

Press Talk: What our RAC does for us

Friday, June 19 11:38 p.m.

BY LOU BRANCACCIO,
COLUMBIAN EDITOR

Lou Brancaccio

Summer's here!

And if you're lucky enough to have the summer off, have fun.

We typically give the summer off to our Readers Advisory Council. Of course, they have lives other than just hanging out on our council. But we do hope they have fun, as well.

Our council helps to guide us. In essence, they are another set of eyes on what we do. So throughout the year, we meet every other month to have them tell us how they think we're doing.

We don't turn down positive feedback from them, but we let them know that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for what we can do better so we can get better.

The group is made up of community members, and it's a pretty diverse group. They come from many walks of life.

The only requirement is that they read The Columbian and/or regularly look at our Web site.

We often take their advice, and they'll see changes in The Columbian. Still, a few members feel their views aren't executed. And that's because we can't execute every idea given to us. But certainly, we listen.

We listen to others as well, including those who comment on our Web site. I get quite the group, for example, that comments on this column online.

More, if you can stomach it.

More hypocrisy from our local newspaper: The Columbian - In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades

So, those who don't want to vote on this referendum don't have to. But to insult and silence those who might not agree? The frequent bigotry of gay marriage supporters cannot be denied.

"What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage."

What a bizarre perspective.

One of the major problems (of the many) with editorialists on this paper is an inability to be forthright.

This paper wants a "truce" because gay-marriage proponents have gained 99 percent of what they want, and this paper does not want the Prop 8 scenario to play out here, since they rabidly support gay marriage as much as they rabidly support the I-5 bridge replacement/loot rail debacle.

For those who demand gay marriage, just like for those who oppose it, there can be no such thing as a "truce..." Advocating that those opposed to this development remains silent, particularly when this "truce" would represent a victory for the side this paper represents and a crushing defeat for the side this paper loathes, is an underhanded way to demand that the anti-side just accept it.

Gay marriage has NEVER been voted into place by the people. As a result, this sorry effort just serves as yet another in the series of Columbian hypocrisies, where in they're all ABOUT the "will of the people" when it suits them or they want it, but are violently opposed to that same will if there is a risk where, as is typically the case, the people ignore the collective "wisdom" of this newspaper and go in another direction.

Once again, they PICK the issues where they fear our will... and make every effort to tell us that what WE want doesn't matter... when they don't happen to like what that might be.

Instead of saying "truce," this paper should have just come out and said something to the effect of "OK, we've got most of what we want, now... so it's time for those opposing this to shut the hell up, and end any effort to find out if the PEOPLE want this."

This is the rank hypocrisy of this publication that keeps me from buying it. This is the double-standard that is editorial policy by social engineers who think we're too stupid to think for ourselves.

Yup. These morons are ALL about getting our "will" when and WHERE they want it. But when we MIGHT oppose them?

They don't want to hear it where it counts... at the ballot box.

No "truce" (which this despicable waste of pulp uses as a euphemism for demanding acceptance of what THEY want) is in the offing. And one can bet that had this bill died in the legislature, you can damned well bet that these morons wouldn't be asking for a "truce" THEN, would they?


In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades
Governor signs bill that expands rights of domestic partnerships; it’s time for a truce
Thursday, May 21 1:00 a.m.

When discrimination dies, it doesn't always go quickly or quietly. Sometimes, prejudice passes incrementally. Although a judicial ruling might serve the same purpose of kicking down a door, the legislative process often unfolds in stages.

One of those seemingly small but profound steps occurred Monday when Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill that grants domestic partners all of the rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples. The measure often has been called the "everything but marriage" bill. We'll get to the semantics debate a little later.

First, though, we'll point out that the bill is significant because it accords long-overdue equal rights to more than 5,300 domestic partnerships that have been registered in two years. Domestic partnerships of gay or lesbian couples were recognized by the Legislature in 2007. The law also allows unmarried, senior heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners. That's more than 10,000 people, representing all 39 counties, who have gained virtually all of the rights of married spouses. As Gregoire said at the bill signing, those rights "will make for stronger families, and when we have stronger families, we have a stronger Washington state."

Among the latest rights granted to domestic partnerships are those related to sick leave to care for a domestic partner, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, business succession rights, adoption and child custody. In recent years, rights were accorded relative to hospital visitation rights, beneficiaries, the right to refuse to testify against each other in court and public assistance provisions.

What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage." The day might come when that word applies to gays and lesbians. But it's not here yet, and for now, the best strategy is for everyone to calm down, recognize marriages and domestic partnerships as they are recognized by law, and save the semantics war for another day.

More, if you can stomach this rank hypocrisy.

The Columbian proves we do not need a bridge replacement!

I've got to admit I was stunned and amazed. The Columbian has provided, literally, millions of dollars worth of in-kind advertising in the form of fake polls and "articles" in support of ramming this despicable project down our collective throats.

Yet, yesterday's article (with the obvious title, answered "yes") "$4 billion: Too much for this?" provided any sane, unbiased individual with all of the facts needed to condemn the idea of replacing the I-5 Bridge for the purpose of getting light rail into Vancouver.

What the article proved to me is that we don't need to replace the bridge. Period. And for that, I do have to thank Brancaccio for providing all the reasons needed to trash this project, even though it means we will have already wasted in excess of $140,000,000 in taxpayer money for the nonsensical stack of paper that failed to address what really needs to happen here... the development of a new bridge elsewhere.

Wagner on the current bridge:

Wagner said he has no doubts the existing crossings are safe, so much so that he drives and cycles across the spans without hesitation.

"If we don't have an earthquake of any magnitude, those two bridges are going to stay there until something hits them," he said.

First and foremost: Wagner tells us that the current bridge is SAFE. Get that? SAFE. That is a lack of SAFETY has no place in the replacement discussion.

He expresses concern about earthquakes... but then says nothing about the easiest, simplest, fastest, cheapest solution: retrofit.

And, of course, the type of earthquake he envisions could well flatten a new bridge as well, since the new bridge provides no guarantees, meaning that all our $4 billion... or $5 billion or $6 billion (These projects ALWAYS cost MUCH more than they say, and the cost overruns are ALWAYS huge...) only gets us a CHANCE at a better earthquake response. I'm not willing to spend BILLIONS on a chance... especially when the real reason is to bring light rail into Vancouver.

Second: Wagner tells us, “The existing spans, opened in 1917 and 1958, are structurally sound.”

That is, the bridge isn't falling down any time real soon. Further, there was nothing here about retro-fitting the current bridge to make it more able to withstand the earthquakes light rail fans use to hide the real reason for this bridge.

Third: Wagner tells us that even when constructed,

“…during a 3 hour stretch of southbound morning commute, traffic would crawl along at 10mph or slower across the replacement bridge through Hayden Island and portions of north Portland.”

So... we're going to spend an unknown number of BILLIONS of dollars for this?

Fourth: "We have a bridge that's functioning, maybe not as good as we would like, but it's there, it's safe, it's open, the freeway's moving,"

These are ALL reasons NOT to build this horrific waste of money.

What they are, are reasons to build an ADDITIONAL bridge SOME WHERE ELSE.

I am not concerned with the excuses or legalities of finding ways and reasons not to ask us if we want this proven-to-be-unneeded bridge.

Morally and ethically, if not any other way, the reason to get our permission FIRST is clear: this thing will suck as much as $100,000,000 per year out of our local economy and away from many families that simply will not be able to afford this massively unneeded project.

I get why this interview didn't take place with, say, a Pollard. No politician shilling this thing wants to eat their own words in the next election... and they will.

NOTHING provided in this interview even BEGINS to justify this massive expense. When Wagner says: "The two sides of the river have to come together on what's going to happen," he's lying. What he SHOULD say is that the 35 or 40 self-appointed people who want to ram this thing down our throats without a vote are agreeing on the execution... kind of like saying "we'll go with a hanging, instead of a firing squad."

When Wagner says: "And on the Clark County side, while there is growing support for light rail," he's lying AGAIN.

With each of the many stabbings, shootings, robberies and massive expenses of Max, if anything, support for light rail is completely down the toilet. And he offers nothing to back this assertion.
Unfortunately, reading these obvious falsities shows that Mr. Wagner is delusional. He's spun this as positively as he could because he personally stands to benefit from this project.

What he thinks about voting on this is completely irrelevant. As a bureaucrat, Wagner can feel free to ignore us as he marches forward doing everything he can to make this happen. But interviewing THIS guy?

Besides shooting this project in the foot... what more did that accomplish?

So, I do appreciate Mr. Brancaccio's article, although I'm mystified as to why he would print something that confirms the position of many bridge opponents while weakening the position of the loot rail scammers, including himself, that have, while simultaneously providing literally millions in in-kind coverage, including using fake polls, to support this massive, colossal, utter waste of taxpayer resources.


$4 billion: Too much for this?

Bridge official says discussions now under way to pare massive project

Saturday, May 16 3:03 p.m.

BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Columbia River Crossing Sketch shows what a replacement Interstate 5 bridge, with light-rail tracks under the southbound span, could look like from downtown Vancouver south toward Oregon.

Donald R. Wagner, P.E., Regional Administrator for the Washington State Department of Transportation during an interview at The Columbian newspaper regarding the Columbia Crossing project Wednesday May 13, 2009. (The Columbian, Troy Wayrynen)

There may not be enough money to build a bridge, freeway and transit project costing $4 billion or more, the top state transportation official in Southwest Washington told The Columbian.

Planners and engineers already are looking to slash costs on the multibillion-dollar Columbia River Crossing project, even while the community continues to haggle over bridge design and other sticking points, said Don Wagner, the Washington State Department of Transportation's regional administrator.

Possible cuts include delaying one or more of the interchange projects and slicing off a bridge lane in each direction, he said.

"Just like most of us in the real world, we dream about the car we want," Wagner said in a wide-ranging interview last week. "And at some point, stark reality says, 'Huh. I dream about it, but I don't have quite enough money to get it all today. Maybe I need to take off a few of the options off of this car.' And we are starting those conversations right now."

Wagner said he doesn't believe it's politically possible to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge without extending light rail into Vancouver and predicted the crossing project would be on "life support" if voters shoot down a light-rail measure.

Despite those looming obstacles, there are benefits to replacing the I-5 Bridge, namely a 70 percent to 90 percent easing of congestion at one of the region's most notorious bottlenecks, Wagner said.

Money remains a constant consideration. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski has suggested the region might be looking to build too much. Last month, Kulongoski used a similar car analogy, saying that "some of us like to go into the Maserati dealership" but "there is always the day of reckoning."

Wagner, however, declined to call the crossing project a Maserati or even a Cadillac.

"What we have out there is a good solid Chevy, with a few extra options on it right now," he said.

Removing a bridge lane — a significant revision given the heated battle that occurred earlier this year to get both sides of the river to back a bridge with six lanes in each direction — would save roughly $150 million, Wagner said.

Between $200 million to $300 million could be trimmed from the budget if overhauling the state Highway 500 interchange was delayed, and another $400 million to $500 million could be saved if the Marine Drive interchange in Oregon wasn't rebuilt, he said.

"There would be a lot of unhappy campers, people saying, 'But I thought I would get this?'" Wagner said. "But it would be a safe structure; it would be a functional approach. It would include proper tie-ins of all the interchanges. They just wouldn't have as many lanes on them. You might have to wait in line to get onto the freeway."

Saving another $750 million by killing light rail isn't going to happen, Wagner said.

"The two sides of the river have to come together on what's going to happen," he said. "And on the Clark County side, while there is growing support for light rail, I am going to stop way short of saying that everybody likes light rail because I've certainly had enough people tell me that they don't like light rail.

"But our side of the river seems to be one that says, 'Look, we have to have highway improvements out there or we don't have a project.' On the Oregon side of the river, it's really pretty close to just the opposite. If they don't have light rail, they have no reason to be at the table. And this project can't be built without money coming from both states."

Public vote

Although there is no requirement for a public vote on either building a replacement bridge or imposing tolls that could cost commuters more than $1,000 a year, a vote will be needed on one or more aspects of light rail.

More:

Is this article the Columbian's dirty little secret?

My entry below was written early this morning as it was one of the stories on the Columbian web page.

And while this article hasn't been deleted... as I write this, there is no reference to it on the Columbian's web site that doesn't require a search.

Why?

It's an article from today (13 May) at 1:15 a.m. Why is it gone so that most people will not know it was ever there?

If I hadn't just happened on it early this morning, there';s a good chance I never would have known about this tax break passing.

Is this newspaper ashamed of themselves?

I doubt it. They just don't want the hassle.