Archives for September 2007

While we’re somewhat on the subject, and in the interest of full disclosure, I thought I’d let it be known that I made a public records request this morning regarding the handful of performance audits that Ted Van Dyk seems so jazzed about:

Later this month, state Auditor Brian Sonntag will release such audits of the Washington State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit and, shortly thereafter, of the Port of Seattle. All three audits will precede fall elections and could have important impacts on voter decisions about the Sound Transit-RTID regional transportation package and Port of Seattle Commission races.

The more I re-read that paragraph the more suspicious I got, especially in light of recent rumors and hints that the anti-transit crowd has been leaked information regarding the upcoming reports. Van Dyk seems to think it a great thing that performance audits be timed for release just weeks before crucial votes regarding these agencies, but I can’t help suspect it an overtly political maneuver. It is also potentially the death knell for performance audits as a useful tool in Washington state.

Performance audits are not comparable to financial audits in either scope or purpose. You don’t just bring in a third party to examine the books in search of waste, fraud or abuse, but rather, you observe and analyze the performance of an agency and its procedures for the purpose of recommending changes that could lead to greater efficiencies. While in a worst case scenario a performance audit could conclude that an agency does not fulfill its mission at all, it is mostly meant as a productivity tool, and as such requires the full cooperation of the management and staff being audited if it is to be effective. If instead, performance audits are used as a means to politically punish and embarrass an agency — including, say, influencing elections — then future audits on other agencies will never gain the inside trust and cooperation necessary to conduct them.

Yes, voters deserve to know how well Sound Transit and WSDOT are spending our money before we vote them more of it, but if these audits are perceived to be politically motivated hatchet jobs, their reports won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. And if officials within the auditor’s office or the outside contractors have been improperly communicating with opponents of the Roads & Transit measure, soliciting their input and leaking results, then I can’t see how these so-called “performance audits” can be understood to be genuine performance audits at all, let alone impartial and unbiased.

My hope is that Brian Sonntag’s office has been scrupulous in overseeing these audits and in hiring contractors who are equally scrupulous and unbiased, but the timing of these audits and their reports does give me pause. I’m generally loathe to investigate my sneaking suspicions at taxpayer expense, but I didn’t really see any other choice. My fingers are crossed that my public records request turns up nothing of interest.

I don’t know what’s gonna be worse for WA Republicans… Dino Rossi running, or not running?

According to today’s Seattle Times, the FBI finally has a plan to combat WA’s epidemic of bank robberies:

Special Agent Larry Carr plans to work with Washington state lawmakers on legislation that would forbid banks from doing business with customers who wear hats and sunglasses while inside the bank.

Carr, who heads the FBI’s bank-robbery division in Seattle, said that most bank robbers cover their heads “with a hat, sunglasses or a hoodie [hooded sweat shirt]” to avoid being identified by surveillance photos. With most bank security cameras positioned in front of and above customers, the disguises are often successful because the cameras capture the bill of a cap or brim of a hat, he said.

Yeah, sure… or, they could just, you know… move the cameras. I mean, cameras can be incredibly tiny these days. You could unobtrusively install one at every teller window — from an angle looking up at the customer — and a would be robber would never know it’s there. And I’m not exactly sure how this new dress code would effectively avoid scenarios like this:

Teller:	Excuse me sir, but bank policy and state law require that you remove your sunglasses and hoodie.
Bank Robber:	Put all your fucking money in this bag, or I’ll blow your head off, bitch!

Personally, I wear sunglasses all the time, summer and winter, rain or shine, and as I get older (and balder) I’m more frequently wearing hats to protect my naked scalp from sun and cold. It’s only polite to remove one’s sunglasses when engaged in conversation, and I try to remember to de-accessorize indoors, but I sometimes forget they’re even on. I doubt my personal eyewear habits would eventually lead me to a brush with the law, but one can easily imagine such uncomfortable situations, like when a devout Muslim woman refuses to remove her head scarf.

Hmm. I wonder if the vehemently anti-gun control folks have any problems with law abiding citizens like me being told we can’t wear hats and tinted glasses in banks? I know my sunglasses aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it strikes me that eroding our civil liberties, even minor ones, should be law enforcement’s last resort.

Maybe some day, when I’m old and curmudgeonly and stuck in the past enough to get a job writing a column for a major daily newspaper, I can be just like the P-I’s Ted Van Dyk…

One of the most difficult things to do, in any part of life, is to make judgments on the basis of facts and principles rather than on our feelings about personalities.

Yeah, and when you’re talking about facts and stuff, it might be a good idea to actually research them, rather than just kinda-sorta drawing from your personal recollection. Take for example Van Dyk’s defense of Tim Eyman, whose initiatives he both criticizes as “arbitrary” and “disruptive”, and lauds as resonating with an angry electorate.

But wait a minute. Why do Eyman’s proposals gain broad public support, even when losing?

Um… in a democracy, isn’t “losing” an election kinda the opposite of “broad public support”…?

It is because they resonate in an electorate just plain fed up with undisciplined and even mischievous state and local spending and taxing decisions. Eyman’s ballot measures become send-a-message blunt instruments for ordinary citizens.

Eyman’s initiatives resonate with voters? Really? Let’s take a look at Eyman’s electoral performance over the past few years and see how Van Dyk’s assumptions hold up:

	2006:	I-917 — YATDCTB ("Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative") Eyman spent nearly $738,000 — most of it Michael Dunmire’s money — yet failed to collect enough signatures to qualify this dog for the ballot.
	2005:	I-900 — Performance Audits Passed with 56% of the vote.  By comparison, the other two winning initiatives that year, the "Indoor Clean Air Act" and the totally unsexy "Commission on Judicial Conduct," pulled in 63 and 68 percent of the vote respectively.
	2004:	I-892 — "Slots for Tots" Failed with only 38% of the vote, the worst of that year’s five statewide measures.  Eyman’s I-864, which would have cut local property tax levies by 25% across the board, failed to qualify for the ballot after five months of canvassing.
	2003:	I-807 — "Super Majority for Tax & Fee Increases" Sounds familiar?  Well without Michael Dunmire’s money, this first incarnation of I-960 failed to qualify for the ballot.

So… um… how exactly do you “gain broad public support, even when losing,” initiatives that never even get far enough to lose? Van Dyk imagines he has his finger on the pulse of Washington voters, but if he did, you’d think he might have noticed that Eyman politically flat-lined years ago. Eyman didn’t even manage to qualify a single anti-tax initiative over the previous four years, let alone pass one, and since 2002 has relied almost exclusively on sugar daddy Michael Dunmire and the gambling industry to finance his paid signature drives. In the interim, voters have overwhelmingly rejected both gas tax and estate tax repeal, while local levies routinely passed throughout the state. Yeah… voters are clearly “just plain fed up.”

Van Dyk goes on to berate the rail portion of the coming Roads & Transit measure, warning it will “snarl traffic and harm the economy,” and yet polls consistently show that light rail is exactly the portion of the measure most popular with voters. What exactly is Van Dyk’s definition of an “ordinary citizen”…? Kemper Freeman Jr.?

With logic like that Van Dyke almost makes Eyman seem sensible. Almost.

UPDATE:
Andrew’s got a more comprehensive Eyman Failure Chart up at Permanent Defense.

Courtesy of SeattleJew.

Is Dino Rossi running for governor? He says not. In fact he looks a reporter straight in the eyes and tells him that his actions as a non-candidate now — traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda — “are very different” from his actions as a declared candidate in 2004… traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda. Yet it’s the exact same policy agenda, and indeed, the exact same stump speech that he delivered as a declared candidate. The only difference is that back in 2004 his campaign was held to all the contribution limits and public disclosure requirements of any other candidate, whereas now he claims his bullshit foundation can launder unlimited contributions in secret, and with impunity.

This is more than just an issue of whether Rossi has found some technical loophole that allows him to skirt our campaign finance and public disclosure laws simply by not officially declaring his candidacy. This about Rossi lying… to the public and to the press. He looks the reporter straight in the eyes and lies. And I hope my friends in the media remember this as the campaign progresses.

Last time around Rossi got a free pass from many in the media, who repeatedly failed to press him when he refused to give direct answers on questions about abortion, stem cell research and other defining issues. Rossi, holding one of the most conservative voting records in the Legislature, was allowed to pass himself off as a moderate. Rossi, a man with a history of running such mean-spirited campaigns that several of his primary opponents refused to endorse him, was allowed to pass himself off as a nice guy. Rossi, a man who lies to reporters, was allowed to pass himself off as honest and credible.

The public has a right to know who is funding Rossi’s non-campaign. And the media has an obligation to relentlessly press Rossi to disclose his contributions.

The Stranger announced its Political Genius awards today, and apparently, I’m not one. That’s okay. I don’t like cake. Besides, how could I possibly hope to compete with such tough competition? Hell, just look at one of the runners-up:

Political consultant Sandeep Kaushik, 60, displayed his first signs of genius in 2005 when he quit The Stranger, where he’d been a political reporter for three years.

King County Executive Ron Sims recognized Kaushik’s smarts and stole him away from us, hiring the dazzling Jim Beam drinker as an election strategist.

Jim Beam? Hah! Sandeep’s moved on to Makers Mark. Shows you what Josh knows.

Kaushik is poised to cap his rise as a political whiz with two major campaigns: He’s advocating for the biggest tax increase in state history, the $17.8 billion Roads and Transit initiative (hoping to expand light rail with 50 new miles of track) and, in a prime-time spot, he’s heading up spin for Darcy Burner, the Democrat who’s trying to knock off GOP Eastside incumbent Congressman Dave Reichert. Kaushik already chased Burner’s Democratic primary rival out of the race.

In 2000, little-known consultant Christian Sinderman emerged as a star by helping get Maria Cantwell elected. Sinderman is now the hottest political guru in the state. If Kaushik sends Burner to Congress, he’ll be the new Sinderman.

No doubt Sandeep’s political instincts and media connections are fast making him a political powerhouse — as Postman well knows, Josh pretty much writes whatever Sandeep tells him to write. So why did Sandeep have Josh write him a measly runner-up citation instead of the big award?

Well really, who deserves to take home the cake more than Cary Moon, the woman who somehow took the idea of a surface alternative to the Alaska Way Viaduct from lunatic fringe to political consensus?

Moon’s political genius is her ability to see the long-term picture; when others laughed at her for supporting what many called a ridiculous, long-shot option (“But where will all the cars go?”), Moon ignored them. While leaders bickered over whether to replace the viaduct with a larger viaduct or expensive tunnel, Moon quietly bided her time, consciously threading the needle between the two opposing positions. Over time, she gained the confidence of opinion leaders such as Council Member Peter Steinbrueck, an environmental advocate who saw the surface/transit option as a way to save billions and improve the climate in the bargain.

Then came last March’s vote against both waterfront freeway options. That “no/no” vote wasn’t just a defeat for the mayor’s tunnel and the governor’s bigger, uglier new viaduct. It was also a major victory for Moon and others who supported the surface/transit option, which emerged as the most affordable, environmentally sustainable option, and the officially “preferred” option of both the mayor and the city council and all the current council candidates.

Of course, there could be one more reason for Cary’s triumph over Sandeep:

April 19, 2001, Washington DC – Wanted terrorist Timothy McVeigh released another video today from his hideout in the wilderness of northern Canada. The video promised more attacks from Christian Identity terror cells throughout the United States. In the six years since 4/19, there have been no attacks like the original bombing in Oklahoma City, but Clinton Administration officials warned Americans once again to be vigilant. But people have grown increasingly skeptical of the once popular president, ever since the threats that postponed the 2000 Election are believed by many to have been just a political stunt to maintain power.

Clinton’s approval ratings reached another record low recently as he continues to defend his record. He’s touted success in fighting the militias in Montana and Michigan, and claims that his landmark Secular Conformity Act, enacted in 1996 to give him more powers to spy on Americans without oversight, is working. “These tools were necessary in order to prevent another 4/19. Next time it could be a mushroom cloud in downtown Chicago,” the President said in recent remarks to a convention of atheists.

The stress on the President has been enormous as he feels the nation simply doesn’t understand the kind of unique threat the United States faces from domestic terrorism. In the wake of 4/19, President Clinton declared the threat from Christian Identity followers to be a “unique threat, one that America has never had to deal with before.” During the 1996 election, he derided those who disagreed with his “war on terror” as irresponsible apologists for the militias. Since his re-election, the National Guard has rounded up thousands of “enemy combatants” in 12 different states, most of whom are held indefinitely without access to an attorney, one of the powers given to the President at the beginning of his second term. Hundreds of church groups have had their assets frozen for having links to Christian Identity members.

In eastern Montana, however, Christian Identity militias have taken over many towns and the violence in Billings has reached record levels as the National Guard struggles to keep the peace. President Clinton sees all of this as success in the overall war. His main Homeland Security official will be testifying in Congress this week about how former anti-government militia members in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are now starting to turn against the more radical fundamentalists.

The opposition in Congress has been too weak and ineffective for most Republican voters. The main voices speaking out, Congressmen Bob Barr (R-GA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), feel that America has been fooled by the President into believing the threat from McVeigh and his Christian Identity followers is worse than it really was, and that his decision to send in the National Guard to forcibly disarm them is just expanding their ranks. The President’s strongest supporters, such as California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, dismiss that as the rantings of unhinged and unpatriotic lunatics. Anchors on Hound News have been referring to Barr as “Billings Bob,” and plan to have another interview with the head General in charge of defeating the Christian extremists right after his Congressional testimony. The General has come under intense fire from conservative groups for his methodology in concluding that the violence is down from last year.

The main question being asked today is how it’s been 6 years since the bombing and yet McVeigh still remains free to make videos to send to his followers. Blaming his accidental release after a traffic stop in 1996 on “bad communication with the FBI”, Clinton later seemed disinterested about whether McVeigh would ever be caught. He claims to be working with Canadian authorities to locate McVeigh, but no one seems to know where he’s at. The new ‘4/19 Truth’ movement, led by transsexual author Ann Coulter, now has millions of followers nationwide who believe that Clinton himself planned and carried out the attacks.

Democrats seemed eager to use the latest tape as proof that the nation was still facing an existential threat from terrorism and once again accused groups like the ACLU and the NRA of helping the terrorists. The President’s supporters on talk radio also sought to defend the President. Host James Carville noted how similar McVeigh’s message was to those of Clinton’s main critics, especially his strong defense of the right to bear arms and his opposition to abortion.

Meanwhile, a number of retired CIA and State Department officials warned that this focus on homegrown militias was distracting us from even more dangerous threats from overseas. Former Clinton Administration official Richard Clarke, who was pushed out after strong disagreements with the White House in early 1996, said, “How are we ever going to defeat international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda if we can’t even defeat these kinds of groups here? We’ve continually expressed to Clinton’s folks that defeating terrorism is a matter of law enforcement and not a war. They just don’t listen. God help us if we try to do this in the Middle East.”

As I wrote earlier, opponents of the “Roads and Transit” package have been lying like crazy about light rail. What’s more, they’ve been doing it illegally.

You see, they’ve been campaigning against the measure without filing as a campaign. From the complaint:

Since May 2007, individuals and organizations have made expenditures in opposition to the Regional Transportation Improvement District/Sound Transit 2 ballot measure, commonly referred to as the “Roads and Transit measure.” These individuals and organizations have not formed a ballot/political committee and have failed to file a C1 form with the Public Disclosure Commission as well as other required regular reports required under Washington State law (RCW 42.17.040).

I’m a rookie at this stuff, so I may get some things wrong, but no one in the traditional media has focused in on this stuff. Not only are these guys lying, but they’re doing it in a way that is a flagrant abuse of our campaign laws.

Monday night I went to the Sierra Club’s No on Prop. 1 kickoff. It was less like most campaign events. It was held in Mike O’Brien’s back yard. (Read this interview with Mike)

I took part in a breakout session with several Sierra Club activists. Our facilitator gave us some copy to read, and we took turns reciting the language. One of the gals, who wasn’t as die-hard against the package, asked the facilitator:

“This paper talks about RTID, which is bad. But the title of the ballot measure is Roads and Transit. Shouldn’t we refer to it as “Roads and Transit” instead?”

The Sierra Club official quickly corrected her.

“No. Don’t mention the transit. Mention global warming. Talk about RTID.”

I respect the Sierra Club guys. I don’t disagree with them on most of the facts, it’s their political judgment I question. Most of the people I talked to are convinced that if the Roads and Transit package fails, our elected officials will learn their lesson and give us a transit-only package in ’08.

In an election year.

With Gov. Gregoire on the ballot.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

I find it much more likely that if this package fails, Gov. Gregoire will take care of business. Her business. And that’s SR-520, not Sound Transit. Olympia politicians don’t care about rail, only roads. They’re waiting for an excuse to enact “governance reform,” which will “reform” Sound Transit, alright.

Right out of existence, come next year, if this package goes down.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Our host Nick Beaudreot asks that you bring a pin or bumper sticker to help “redecorate” the Republican Street sign kindly donated by Mayor Greg Nickels. If so, Nick might just buy you a pint. If your sticker is pre-1992, it might be worth an entire pitcher.

Other than that, the hot topic for tonight might be about some ad that some organization took out making predictions about some guy. Or it might be about whether the deadly, costly, and colossal fuck-up the Iraq invasion has been so far, will suddenly get all better now that many neighborhoods have undergone ethnic “tidying up.”

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Yesterday Joel Connelly gave The Stranger a little heat for their coverage of the Seattle City Council race between incumbent David Della and challenger Tim Burgess. I didn’t really understand Joel’s First Amendment argument, but I suppose I kinda-sorta got his outrage at political purity, even if I disagree with it.

Should Burgess’ less than firmly pro-choice history, and past record of working for vehemently anti-choice groups disqualify him from serving on the city council? Joel says no. The Stranger apparently says yes. Well now WA’s leading advocate for reproductive rights comes in on the side of The Stranger, endorsing Della over Burgess.

“Typically we don’t make endorsements in Seattle City Council races because, in the past, all candidates were clearly pro-choice,” explained Karen Cooper, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “But questions and concerns arose over this specific race after we learned of Tim Burgess’s longtime association with Concerned Women for America, a virulently anti-choice, anti-woman organization,” Cooper added.

I talked with Cooper this afternoon, and she went even further than the press release, describing Concerned Women for America as “a hate group.”

The couple of times I’ve met Burgess I liked him. He seems like a reasonable, competent guy. But in the end we tend to vote for people who reflect our values, and when we don’t we’re bound to be disappointed.

Should Burgess’ years of working for Concerned Women for America absolutely disqualify him from office in this very blue city? I suppose not… at least not absolutely. But voters have a right to know the candidate’s entire biography, and our local media has a responsibility to report it. My guess is that if voters understood about Burgess what The Stranger and NARAL Pro-Choice WA understand about Burgess, he wouldn’t stand a chance in November. Perhaps that’s unfair to Burgess. But to keep that information from the public would be unfair to voters, and counter to the Democratic process.

So Geov has a weekly thing on HorsesAss.org that’s better than this one. I could step up and write a better Bullshit post. Or I could just stick to the same old, same old. I chose number two, but that’s probably why he has a long running radio show on KEXP (and even before it was KEXP), and I’m just a guy who swears on the Internet. Anyway, here’s your bullshit:

* President Bush said that he might reduce troop levels in Iraq. And when he says something you know it’s true.

* And as long as I’m stepping on Geov’s toes and talking about Iraq, Riverbend has left. It’s senseless and tragic, and I would hope the people who made stupid accusations against her would re-consider what they’ve been doing. But perhaps a tiny bit of human decency would be asking too much.

* Just in case you were wondering who’s to blame for the Larry Craig mess, it’s the state of Minnesota. And Michael Medved thinks the real tragedy in all this is that Michael Medved hasn’t thought enough about burly men in uniform.

* And finally for national bullshit, it may be safe to say that supply side economics are bullshit.

Locally:

* Seriously, what was the Trib thinking?

* Gary Randal sees a clear line between hate crimes legislation and forcing the Church not to mention Jesus.

* Lou Guzzo wants more booing the National Anthem.

* “Doc” Hastings is upset that MoveOn was able to read things that General Peteraeus has written in the past. And that they were willing to make some obvious predictions.

This is an open thread

There are actually ten different versions of this ad, each targeted to specific geographic communities. This is the kind of smart campaign that helped defeat I-912, by informing voters what the money raised specifically does for them. Makes it a lot harder to defeat the measure with broad generalities. And you know… lies.

There are pretty much two sides to the growth/density argument in Seattle. On one side is Knute Berger mentality, which says that “density will murder your children in their beds.” Then their’s my side, which says that growth isn’t a bad thing, and that it can be good for the city. I live near downtown. I like growth. When new buildings go up, it usually means more urban goodness. (“Grocery store! Indian food! Basketball court!”)

Of course, whenever a building goes up, that means some greedy developer stomped on a basketful of kittens made money off the whole thing. This is not always an evil thing.

I agree with Geov that the mayor is pouring it on a bit thick. His new plan isn’t going to save us. (But Al Gore can!) Perhaps the mayor’s enviromental record isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But a rule change to allow for some cheaper housing to be built in what is already a heavily urbanized area can’t be that bad.

Here’s what Erica C. Barnett thought about the mayor’s previous plan, mentioned by Geov:

Subsidizing middle-income housing makes sense, particularly for families. The larger the apartment, the larger the differential between “affordable” and market rate. For example, in one project being built in the University District under the current program, full-price one-bedrooms go for $1096, and apartments for those making 70 percent of median income go for $954—a $142 break. The break on two-bedrooms is much larger: $1,112 for a subsidized unit, versus $1,386 for an unsubsidized unit—a cut of $274.

I’m not disagreeing with Josh that the mayor’s plan doesn’t solve the problem of affordable housing for very low-income people. But it never has been aimed at low-income people (unlike other city programs, such as the housing levy), and Nickels isn’t making any pretense that it is. In fact, the mayor sent out a press release saying as much, stating that the program is aimed at “middle-income wage earners … priced out of the market with few places to turn.” The city should do more to fund low-income housing, but we have a middle-class housing crisis, too; my rent, for example, costs me almost half my monthly income, substantially more than the 30 percent that housing folks agree is “affordable.”