Ever since Sen. Cantwell’s election to the U.S. Senate, I have been super-critical of the rubberstamp behavior of both our senators concerning liberal legislation. Every bill increasing government spending or government interference in our lives has been supported by the votes of both Cantwell and Murray (re: Seattle Times “How your lawmaker voted”). Does this voting record represent all their constituents? I think not.

However, maybe there’s a change blowing in the wind. Recently, the Senate voted against a House bill (HR 8) to permanently repeal the estate tax. (Democrats believe that I can work and invest for a lifetime to amass a million dollars and then you’re entitled to half of it.) Since that vote, an amendment to HR 8 was introduced in the Senate. Instead of repealing the tax, only estates exceeding $4 million would be taxed beginning next year. Since Murray has disclosed her assets are short of this amount, she logically voted to defeat the amendment. But, for the first time, Cantwell voted against Murray by supporting passage of the amendment.

Could it be that when your money is at stake Cantwell spends freely, but when her money is involved she becomes instantly protective and frugal?

Dick Rose

Oak Harbor