Last week, Jay Inslee made an appearance on KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson Show to discuss the meaning of the 2014 election results and his future fuel mandate. Monson began the interview by asking Inslee whether or not he believed election night was a “stunning rebuke” of his vision for Washington State and Barack Obama’s vision for the nation.
Inslee answered by denying the election in Washington State was any kind of repudiation of Democrat policies. Rather, he insisted that the election was “basically a status quo election by in large compared to the national.” After downplaying the fact that Republicans won an outright majority in the state Senate and picked up four seats in the state House, Inslee went onto claim that Republicans won big nationally because “Democrats did not vote” and “everybody stayed home.
Of course, Inslee fails to explain what kind of message voters who decided to stay at home were sending to Democrats in power.
Monson then points out that there “really wasn’t that much on the ballot in our state that what was driving people other than your climate change agenda. Your climate change agenda became the focal point of almost every one of these legislative races.” Inslee responded,
“I wish that was true but unfortunately it was not. You did not see a position advocated in these legislative races. If you look at the mailers going back and forth by the billions of dollars’ worth you will not see people who advocated a for any particular position because we have not announced one yet…”
As SHIFT reported, perhaps more than any other issue, Inslee’s extreme environmental agenda dictated the 2014 midterm elections in Washington State. In fact, leading up to the election, Inslee placed his fuel mandate on the ballot. And, voters rejected it. Unfortunately, Inslee refuses to hear voters’ clear message.
Monson goes on to challenge Inslee on his future plans for a fuel mandate, plans he promised to continue pursuing. Monson,
“You and I have talked about the climate change thing, that Washington is a tiny fraction of 1% of global emissions and rolling us back to 1995 levels or whatever you’d like to do it… reduces that tiny fraction to an even tinier fraction of change globally… you said yesterday that you were still interested in pursuing… something that would add a substantial amount to a gallon of gas for all of us to fight climate change. I just think for what is statistically zero global benefits, statistically no benefit, I still don’t understand why you’re pursuing this.”
In typical Inslee fashion, our green governor responded by denying that his fuel mandate would add a $1 plus gas tax—a claim SHIFT has already debunked. Inslee doesn’t do his false claim any favors by then repeatedly refusing to answer Monson’s simple request for a limit he would place on a future gas tax. Rather, Inslee suggests everyone “wait to look at the facts after we make the proposal.”
That’s when thing started getting weird. Addressing Monson’s earlier confusion as to why he is pursuing his extreme green agenda even though it would statistically result in “zero global benefits,” Inslee offered a rather strange analogy comparing the fight against global warming to WWII. Inslee said,
“It’s a really important question about why our state should move forward even though you are entirely correct that we cannot solve it on this problem on our own. That is actually accurate statement…so the question is if we can’t solve this problem on our own why should we act. This is the best answer that I have. I believe I have to do this because it’s what I believe. I lost my dad a couple weeks ago and I was talking to him about his life…toward the end…I was thinking one of the things that I was always proudest of…my grandma talking about my dad walking down to go serve in the navy in 1944 and she just wondered if this is the last time I will see him. And I was talking to my dad about that and I reflected that when my dad joined the Navy to help defeat fascism he did not say oh gosh I can’t solve this alone so I am not going. He did not say I am not going to join the Navy until the last guy does. He realized that there is a communal interest in defeating an enemy and none of us could beat Hitler alone.
While his father’s memory is to be honored and service commemorated, Inslee’s explanation missed the mark and Monson explains why. Monson,
“Can I tell you why that analogy does not work for me. Because in World War II we got 100% victory over Adolf Hitler. You are talking about rolling back to 1995 emission levels which is I believe it was less than 1/10 of 1% change if I would’ve wanted your dad to risk his life if he could’ve defeated 1/10 of 1% of the Nazi army but that was an all or nothing thing this isn’t here and you’re not going to… You have to do a cost versus benefit analysis for the people of this state and the cost is going to be substantial and the benefits are going to be negligible and that’s where I just can’t wrap my brain around this.”
Realizing his WWII comparison failed, Inslee decided to play the children’s future card. Inslee said that he must follow through with his extreme agenda because he “cannot accept that I have to tell my grandkid that you won’t have oysters in Puget Sound and you are just going to have to live with it.” But, that isn’t true either. As SHIFT recently reported, scientists at the Department of Ecology (DOE) have admitted that no science exists to back-up Inslee’s claims that wild oysters are being harmed due to acidification.
Inslee would better serve the children of Washington State by not spending state revenue to give his biggest campaign donors raises and, instead, prioritize the funding of K-12 education as required by the McCleary Decision. Or, he might have publically declared his opposition to the Washington Education Association’s budget busting initiative I-1351 before it was too late to make a difference. Of course, he has done neither of those two things.