Anyone Know Representative Haler - RINO?/Appears he's not - Updated

[whacker1]

tag - look forward to seeing what sort of response you receive.

I don't think I'll receive one because I'm not in his district. That's why I hope someone in District 8 will step up to the plate and reach out to him so we can get his slant. This is Richland. Thanks guys,
PMan

I usually find that I don't get a response from the rep. for at least a week unless i know him or her on a first name basis.  Then the longer ones won't respond unless the bill dies or the session ends.  Anywhere in between those time frames.  There are a few that won't respond at all.

My representatives always respond to me, even the ones for whom I didn't vote. If yours don't respond to you, you should be banging down their doors.

Mine always respond.  I was referencing when I contact those from outside my district.

[pianoman9701]

A woman I know got a response from Nancy Pelosi when she wrote to thank her for supporting something she believed in.  Nancy Pelosi replied:  "I can't answer you because you are not one of my constituents." 

I got the same response from Nancy when I wrote about something she was trying to take away from us. I can understand on the federal level. I would imagine a bag like here gets millions of emails. Haler, not so many, really.

[buckfvr]

I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on.     

[Heredoggydoggy]

A politician is a politician is a politician.  I still maintain that the worst thing this country ever did was allow "Career Politicians" 

[Heredoggydoggy]

I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on.     

Keep on letting this crap slip through.  Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!

[buckfvr]

I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on.     

Keep on letting this crap slip through.  Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!

I know its another significant chink in the armor for something like this to go through,  but for those who dont share our passions, what is the compelling argument. ? 

Unfortunately, you'll be like the guy you used to hunt with also, as you live here too. The over 90% of folks who dont share similarities of our lifestyles will decide  the who and what of it any way...........always have.

[pianoman9701]

I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on.     

Keep on letting this crap slip through.  Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!

Finger prints and mugshots can't be used down the road to classify your health situation because you have a certain genetic makeup.

[pianoman9701]

I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've  limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.

We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.

We also talked briefly about the gun control/registration bills up and he'll be voting against those, as well as supporting gun rights legislation.

My overall impression was very favorable, once we finally talked. He's very busy with the open session going on and was giving of his time to one who's not a constituent. I felt a lot better having spoken with him this afternoon. Thank you Rep. Haler for taking your time with me on the phone!

[buckfvr]

I dont support this idea either, but my wife says its no more invasive than finger prints and mug shots........give me a better argument to pass on.     

Keep on letting this crap slip through.  Pretty soon you'll be like the guy I used to hunt with who was complaining that he couldn't even buy a pack of pellets for his pellet gun because he didn't have a Massachusetts Firearms Identification Card!

Finger prints and mugshots can't be used down the road to classify your health situation because you have a certain genetic makeup.

So in regards to health care, this would be like dna profiling..........really.........

I cant abide by a politician writing laws for every family with kids who are constituents......many of us have to deal with dirt bags and either do now or have had to protect our families from dirt bags.  I dont feel as though this part of being a diligent parent should be replaced by seeking special priviledges from legislators.

I am strongly for way less government at every level, and fewer more meaningful laws.

[magnanimous_j]

I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've  limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.

We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.

So in both cases, the bills are irresponsibly written and overreaching. And in both cases, the bills would be amended later to reflect their true intent, and the second one just because you, a guy who isn't even in his district, today mentioned that the second bill was basically the plot to F'ing Gattaca. This guy is a little too casual for my taste.

I've written a bill that outlaws dogs
What?
Don't worry about it, I'm going to change it later to outlaw pet bears. That's what I really meant.
Well change it now!
Meh. I'll get to it.

 

[Heredoggydoggy]

That's right--pass more unenforceable laws.  It's already illegal to talk on a cellphone while you are driving a car, yet you see people all the time driving a car with a cellphone glued to their ears.   

[whacker1]

I just got a call from Rep Haler and we discussed both bills. The first, 2342, which would've  limited or prohibited access to public waterways across smaller parcels of land was indeed aimed at helping select constituents. However, it was because there has been a problem with two families with children, and people coming onto their land and approaching the children with possible criminal intent. After exhausting his efforts with the county commissioners, his next recourse was with a House bill. This bill will be amended so that either the specific property is the only place addressed, or so that other areas are not closed off to fishing/access. If it even comes up to discussion, which at this point is up in the air, he's going to request it be tabled until proper wording can be added to protect public access.

We also talked about 2469, the DNA testing for people arrested for crimes. This bill was sponsored by a "seat-mate" (another legislator who works closely with him on bills on which they agree), Rep. Brad Klippert. I told him we're concerned about DNA being collected from those arrested for any crime, as opposed to those convicted of felonies. I talked to him about our concerns that such information would be used with regards to our public health system, not just the criminal justice system, and he understood and agreed with those concerns. He told me he would go to Mr. Klippert and request the bill be amended to read "convicted of", instead of arrested. He also assured me that his office would notify me in advance if these bills went up for a vote as written.

So in both cases, the bills are irresponsibly written and overreaching. And in both cases, the bills would be amended later to reflect their true intent, and the second one just because you, a guy who isn't even in his district, today mentioned that the second bill was basically the plot to F'ing Gattaca. This guy is a little too casual for my taste.

I've written a bill that outlaws dogs
What?
Don't worry about it, I'm going to change it later to outlaw pet bears. That's what I really meant.
Well change it now!
Meh. I'll get to it.

Really Mag: Do you not understand the political process?

Here is how it works:

Haler has heard from many people on both bills.  This is how bad bills either get killed or become good bills.  All bills are written from predominantly one perspective.  When they reach the committee or public and other legislators the unintended consequences are addressed or if they can not be addressed they are killed in committee. 

Many bills are brought forward, some for intent and to get a department's attention, while others with legitimate intent need to be worked over.  Haler admitted the faults in the bills and agreed that they needed to be worked or needed to die.  What part of the political process makes that sub par? 

this is exactly what is not going on in Washington D.C.  In Washington D.C. there are only bad bills from the perspective of opposite side of the Aisle.  They kill every bill in one house or the other. There is no attempt to make a reasonable bill into a good bill, either it gets passed on party lines or not at all.

The legislature only passes good bills when there is some measures of checks and balances.  When one party controls both houses and the Governors office, then all we get is crap, because nothing gets modified and we get the crap: one-side bills.

[WSU]

What is his background?  A big problem in the leg is that many of the people making the laws don't have a background that helps them really think the consequences of their legislation through.

[pianoman9701]

What is his background?  A big problem in the leg is that many of the people making the laws don't have a background that helps them really think the consequences of their legislation through.

Some of the problem with people in office today is too much background. He listened to reason and is taking appropriate steps to serve his constituency. I'm good with this guy.

[WSU]

What is his background?  A big problem in the leg is that many of the people making the laws don't have a background that helps them really think the consequences of their legislation through.

Some of the problem with people in office today is too much background. He listened to reason and is taking appropriate steps to serve his constituency. I'm good with this guy.

I can agree with that.  I can see both sides of the coin.  When I worked at the state senate (intern during college), I observed that many of the people there really just react to whatever the pressing issue is without thinking it through.  That seemed true with everything from drunk driving to it not being illegal to have anal sex with horse (literally that was a big issue when I worked there).  Most were not qualified to be making our state's laws beyond being elected.