Archives for April 2009

Earlier this week, Josh Marshall at TPM posted up some thoughts on Mexico:

Clearly, there’s a lot of violence in Mexico tied to the Mexican government’s attempted crackdown on its drug cartels. And the Mexicans are quite legitimately pressuring us to limit the number of guns being smuggled from the US into Mexico, which are fueling the fire. And if Mexico degenerates to the level of Colombia where for many years the key cartels have operated as rivals to the government — clearly beyond the legitimate government’s ability to bring them to heel — then that’s a big problem for us, given our proximity and long border, etc. But I keep hearing these stories about violence spilling over into the US, questions from whether we may need to deploy the US army to our own border, vague stories about death squads in the US. I’m not saying there’s nothing to it. But a lot of this has the feel to me of one of those stories ginned up by politicians and restless news outlets where there ends up being much much less there than meets the eye. Part of me wonders whether it’s a recrudescence of the illegal immigration hysteria of last two years.

There are three separate points being addressed here: (1) The issue of guns being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. (2) The issue of Mexico’s inability to defeat the drug traffickers and (3) The issue of violence spilling over into the U.S.

Josh looks at these three issues and concludes that the third issue is being “ginned up by politicians and restless news outlets.” He’s right about that, and he later posts a link to a good piece in the Texas Observer about how the media is over-hyping the level of violence on the American side of the border. But the reality is that it’s both the first and third points that are being “ginned up by politicians and restless news outlets.”

Recently, a number of politicians and news outlets have been claiming that 90 percent of the guns that get used by Mexican drug traffickers come from the U.S. In actuality, that figure is wildly inaccurate. And Obama repeated the mythical percentage this week when meeting with Mexican President Calderon.

A certain amount of guns do cross the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and it’s possible that the amount of high-powered weapons bought on the illegal black market from the U.S. is higher than we can accurately measure, but to say that the flow of guns is “fueling the fire” in Mexico’s drug war is buying into a large amount of spin. What’s fueling the fire in Mexico is not the weaponry itself, but the money that the drug traffickers are making that allows them to spend so much money on weapons.

Radley Balko, in a column this week in The Daily Beast, gets to the heart of what’s going wrong in Mexico:

When Barack Obama visits Mexico today, the drug war, and the violence it has spawned south of the border, is expected to dominate the agenda. Since 2006, more than 10,000 people have been murdered in Mexico as a direct consequence of the drug trade. This bloody outbreak began when, with the blessing of and funding from the U.S. government, Mexican President Felipe Calderon ordered the Mexican military to aggressively crack down on the drug cartels. Such crackdowns often ratchet up the level of violence, as the elimination of one major drug distributor provokes those who remain to war over his territory. That’s a pattern as old and predictable as Prohibition itself, yet politicians never seem to learn.

Last month, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico, she expressed gave concern over the escalating violence… and then heaped praise on Calderon’s crackdown, promising to support it with more funding and more military hardware. Obama appears poised to say much the same thing. According to a recent preview of his trip in The Washington Post, the president is expected to promise swifter delivery of drug-war aid and increased efforts by the U.S. to stop the flow of American weapons to Mexico. But the best solution to what’s plaguing Mexico right now is the one topic that will almost assuredly be off the table: legalizing marijuana. Marijuana makes up 60 to 70 percent of the Mexican drug trade. Lifting prohibitions on it in the United States would eradicate a major source of funds for the cartels.

I’m not saying that the first and third issues mentioned above – guns traveling across south of the border and increased violence north of the border – aren’t happening at all. What’s happening is that politicians and media outlets are using both of these issues as distractions in order to avoid dealing with the central issue that Balko is discussing right there. This is a problem of organized crime, and the fuel for that fire is the billions of dollars (I’ve seen various estimates of between $10 billion to $100 billion per year) that Americans spend on drugs. It’s not going to be solved by stricter gun control measures. And sending law enforcement to secure the border would only escalate the amount of violence in our border communities. The only way to solve this problem is to cut off the drug trafficker’s income. But that’s something that Obama and a large part of the news media still can’t bring themselves to regard as a serious issue.

Word out of Olympia is that momentum toward putting a high-earners income tax measure on the fall ballot is stalling, despite polling whose fundamentals show that an income tax probably has a better chance of passing than the third of a cent sales tax increase the conventional thinkers prefer.  There just doesn’t seem to be the stomach for it amongst the House leadership, nor enough clamor from well-healed constituency groups to steel their nerves.

“Next year,” income tax advocates are being told.  “Maybe next year.”

Yeah.  Right.

Next year would be the worst time for House Speaker Frank Chopp to see an income tax measure on the ballot, helping to turn out Republican votes in the many suburban swing districts on which much of his majority is built.  2011 doesn’t look much better, and then we’re into a gubernatorial election year in 2012, so you can rule that out as well.  By “next year,” of course, the powers that be mean “some other year,” which really means “never.”

It’s not the mere prospect of losing this battle that so disappoints me—I didn’t go into it reasonably expecting a win—it’s the manner in which the proposal has been summarily rejected by so many in our Democratic establishment.  While the vast majority of folks I’ve approached just seem befuddled at the issue even being raised, I’ve occasionally found myself the target of laughter and eye-rolling and even a little anger.  And I’m not talking about the vile trolls in my comment threads or the Seattle Times ed board; some of the worst of it has come from Democratic elected officials and their closest advisers.

There’s a good chance a high-earners income tax ballot measure would fail, and either way, it would certainly be an uphill fight.  I know that.  I’m not stupid and I’m not naive.  But this year, with this economy and this budget crisis, and with Barack Obama newly elected to the White House, was the perfect year to at least start the conversation about progressive tax reform… the polling proves at least that.  Yet apart from Senate Majority Lisa Brown, a handful of other legislators, and a couple of constituency groups, the Democratic establishment has largely refused to even enter the debate.

With such an unprecedented revenue shortfall to fill, this was never going to be a satisfying legislative session.  But I didn’t expect the process to be just as disappointing as the result.

There’s definitely change in the air around Washington state regarding the prosecutions of medical marijuana patients. Three more cases being tracked by the Cannabis Defense Coalition were dropped this week, one in Kitsap County, one in Pierce County, and one in King County.

In Kitsap County, charges against Monte Levine and Marc Derenzy, who have been fighting Kitsap County authorities for nearly a decade, were dropped. According to Levine:

Yesterday my partner Marc and I went into Kitsap Superior Court. I had been scheduled for an Omnibus Hearing on the charge of Manufacturing Marijuana. Instead we picked up the Order of Dismissal. We stood in front of newly elected judge Olson, who smiled broadly as she signed our orders.

The prosecution stated that it was not in the best interest of justice to pursue this case. We were told that the Kitsap Prosecutors will meet and confer before moving forward with any manufacturing case that involves marijuana.

In Pierce County, charges against Michael Byers have been dropped. Byers has been raided three times in the past five years by Pierce County authorities despite being an authorized medical marijuana patient.

The case in King County that was dropped this week was a little different, as the defendant, Gaura Kish, did not have a medical marijuana authorization at the time of his arrest for being in possession of a small amount of marijuana. However, when the prosecutor noticed that there were over a dozen observers in the courtroom, he reviewed the defendant’s medical records and decided that the case was not in line with King County’s policies for trying medical marijuana patients.

A fourth case in Mason County, that I mentioned here, had a hearing yesterday in front of a group of courtroom observers. According to one person via email, the prosecutor seemed very agitated during the entire proceeding. The next court date for that case is on May 4th in Shelton. If you’d like to be an observer, please contact the folks at the CDC.

I’m not sure what to make of this trend other than to see these dismissals as a recognition from our public officials that the general public is fed up with our marijuana laws and that there’s now a real price to pay politically from continuing to waste taxpayer money like this. In the recent online question and answer forum set up by the state’s Senate Democrats, the top question was about arresting non-violent drug offenders. And the short infomercial on our marijuana laws filmed by Rick Steves (that KOMO TV refused to air) has just been nominated for a Northwest Emmy. Times are changing quickly, folks. Let’s see if the clown car in Olympia can keep up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VISVcPsDJi4[/youtube]

(A collection of some 60 other media clips from the past week in politics is can be found at Hominid Views.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKyqtSOYucs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

As I’ve written before, I’m rather agnostic about the specifics of HB 2261, the education reform bill that supposedly expands the definition of basic education, but includes no funding mechanism to actually pay for it.  In fact, at the same time legislators are patting themselves on the backs for bucking the teachers union to pass this bill, they’re also preparing to cut $2 billion from K-12 education.  And that’s an odd definition of reform.

I know there’s a lot of mumbling in Olympia about how this reform bill will serve as a necessary roadmap for setting funding priorities once the economy, and thus the budget, recovers, but I’m not so sure I buy the thesis that the budget will ever fully recover.  Rather, without some sort of structural revenue reform, I think we’ll more than likely look back on this crisis as marking a permanent ratcheting down of state spending power, and thus a permanent ratcheting down of state services and infrastructure investments. Even under a run of the mill economic recovery (and few economists expect even that) it’s hard to imagine state coffers recovering to pre-recession levels as either a percentage of personal income, or inflation-adjusted per capita revenue, let alone increasing to the level necessary to support the type of new spending promised.

So where will the extra money come from?

As the Washington Education Association angrily points out, the backers of this education reform bill can’t tell you, because to be honest, they don’t really have a plan to pay for these reforms.  But rather than just putting together angry YouTubes (however righteous), perhaps the WEA might want to accept their legislative defeat, and then fill the void by proposing a funding plan themselves.

I think you all know where I’m going with this.

As the Seattle Times’ Andrew Garber reports today, yet another poll shows a high-earners income tax, while far from a sure thing with voters, is anything but DOA:

A recent survey by Seattle pollster Stuart Elway found that 53 percent of voters questioned were “inclined to favor” an income tax on individuals making $250,000 or households earning $500,000.

The poll also found that 51 percent of voters questions favored small increase in the sales tax increase to help fund the Basic Health Plan.

Writing about the poll results, Elway said, “Although Washington voters are open to the discussion of tax increases to help close the $9 billion state government budget gap, they remain to be convinced. It will not be an easy sell, but most will not slam the door in your face if you bring up the subject.”

By my count that’s the third poll to show a high-earners income tax polling in the low to mid 50’s, and while one generally wants ballot measures to start off at least 10 points higher, it’s a damn sight better than anybody had expected going into this debate.  And to the “experts” who insist that’s not good enough, I say tell me… when do you ever expect conditions to get any better?

Remember, an income tax was approved at the polls in 1932 by a 70% margin, yet a similar constitutional amendment was handedly rejected by voters just two years later.  Sometimes, the time is just right.

So, yeah, that’s my advice to the WEA… the time is right.  If the Legislature won’t show you the money, then be proactive and show it to them:  a high-earners income tax.  It’ll never happen without your support… and without some sort of substantive revenue reform, these education reforms will never be fully funded.

In the overall scheme of things I know it’s not a big deal, but the piece of legislation that irritates me most this session is the one that allows car dealers to increase their “document fee” from $50 to $150.  What a totally bogus scam.

See, this is the way it works.  You do all your homework, educating yourself on the real dealer invoice, and all the various incentives and rebates out there, and then you go to the dealer and attempt to negotiate the best deal you can… you know, one in which you get a fair value and the dealer makes a fair profit, sometimes as little as a few hundred bucks, depending on the car.  And then when you go to sign the paperwork you find this extra $150 tacked on.

“What’s that?” you ask.  “Oh, that’s the state document fee,” the salesman responds, and you curse under your breath at yet another state tax you weren’t aware of, before coughing up an additional $150.

But it’s not a tax, and it’s not mandatory, and you just gave the dealer an additional $150 in profit above what you thought you had just negotiated.

That’s just downright deceptive, and the state’s got no business helping car dealers trick customers into padding their profit, regardless of the current sorry state of the industry.  If a 150 bucks is the difference between making a big enough profit or not, charge 150 bucks more, or don’t make the deal.  Nobody’s holding a gun to your head.  But it’s just plain dishonest to go into negotiations knowing the customer is already standing $150 in a hole.

Of course, everybody already expects car dealers to be deceptive.  I just don’t see why the state government has to enable them in that endeavor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H32_DWjTkx8[/youtube]

These are just some of the tasteful, thoughtful signs from teabagging parties around the nation.

Let’s say I’m hiring you to build me some cabinets, but rather than paying you I will insist that you build the cabinets using precision laser cutters instead of saws, because precision laser cutters work so well.

Even though nobody has any laser cutters yet, and nobody could afford them anyhow, I will only pay you if you use laser cutters. Never mind the foundation that’s cracking beneath your feet, that’s not your concern. We have foundation experts for that, and they assure us that it can be fixed for a third of a penny or so.

The timing of my payment to you will depend on how some crazy people who hate cabinet makers feel about you getting paid. If they yell too loud I just might decide not to pay you at all, or I might decide to take the money and use it for a new garage door opener or garbage disposal instead.

In any event, you must build my cabinets, because you are a cabinet maker.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cr89xbl26g[/youtube]

President Barack Obama unveiled today his strategic plan for building a network of high-speed rail corridors across America, and yes, the Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver B.C. corridor is on it.  (Noticeably missing is the fantasy Las Vegas to Disneyland line that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned voters about in the same breath he ridiculed the notion of volcano monitoring.)

Obama calls the $8 billion allocated thus far a mere “down payment,” and the 90-mph definition of “high speed” is a far cry from the 120-mph designation in Europe, but both the plan and the money mark a dramatic turnaround from our nation’s recent rail strategy… or lack thereof.

As for the Pacific Northwest corridor, don’t expect a big pot of cash anytime soon.  The bulk of the money will initially go to shovel ready projects so as to create jobs as quickly as possible (the $8 billion is part of the $787 billion stimulus package,) but some money will be available for planning and engineering.  I’ll leave it to the geeks at Seattle Transit Blog to tell us what we might expect on our corridor, and when we might expect it.

The Washington Education Association, the union that represents the state’s K-12 teachers, was an enthusiastic backer of Gov. Chris Gregoire during the last election, as well as the Democratic majority in the state Legislature.  Hey… how’s that working out for you?

Not that the Republican alternative would have treated teachers any better, but like every other labor group this session, the WEA has pretty much gotten the short end of the stick on nearly every substantive legislative issue.  Writing in response to the education reform bill that just passed the House, WEA spokesman Rich Wood writes:

Teachers, the professional educators who work with students, are focused on the impact the Legislature’s huge budget cuts will have on our state’s students and the education they receive. HB 2261 may allow adults outside the classroom to think they’re doing something good for kids, but they’re ignoring the immediate and real problem. There’s no money.

$1.5 billion in K-12 education cuts are going to have a devastating impact on our students and classrooms. Trying to change teacher certification and evaluation or implementing a new school accountability system totally misses the mark. It suggests that TEACHERS are the problem, rather than the huge budget cuts. That’s an insult.

We’re losing thousands of teaching positions and students will be in overcrowded classrooms this fall. Meanwhile, the Legislature is poised to spend $3 million on work groups to study teacher certification? And teachers are supposed to accept promises that someday down the road the state might actually fulfill its constitutional obligation to fully fund education? We’ve heard enough promises.

That’s why teachers and other education staffers oppose these bills. Today, the Legislature introduced bills that wipe out the voter-approved initiatives for smaller class sizes and school employee compensation. If we care what the voters think, then the Legislature should be finding ways to protect those investments instead of spending money on work groups.

Wood closes by urging the Senate to reject the bill.  Yeah… good luck with that.

Personally, I’m rather agnostic about the education reform bill.  It does some good things and some bad things and more than a few pointless things, but as long as it remains unfunded, it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.  The WEA is absolutely right that the immediate issue facing K-12 education is the dramatic cut in funding under the proposed budget… but banging their heads against this reform bill isn’t gonna do anything to open up the taps.

Instead, the WEA could be a helluva lot more effective getting behind efforts to put a substantive high-earners income tax on the ballot, all or part of which could be dedicated to funding K-12 education.  The internal polling on such a measure looks surprisingly good—at least as good as the third of a cent sales tax increase Rep. Pettigrew introduced yesterday—yet would generate more money, and wouldn’t require a sunset provision.  From what I hear, SEIU is willing to play ball, and the votes are likely there in the Senate.  If WEA and the public employee unions would just get behind the effort, they might actually be able to push the House along with them.

Seriously.  Without a substantial revenue increase, K-12 is getting less than squat this session.  But with WEA’s promise to aggressively back a ballot measure, a high-earners income tax is not out of the question.

Press releases are nice and all that, but it’s time to let legislators know that you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, and commit to backing a high-earners income tax to fund K-12 education.

Last night the Washington House passed a bill to join the national popular vote Compact. The bill, previously passed by the Senate, will be sent to Gov. Christine Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law.

The new law does absolutely nothing…for now. But once enough states have signed up—so that their combined electoral votes total at least 270—all the compact states will change the way their electoral votes are allocated. Right now, all states except Nebraska and Maine use a “winner take all” system that awards a state’s electors to the winner of the state popular vote. Once the compact “kicks-in” however, the member states will allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

In other words, the Compact enables a national popular vote without the need to amend the U.S. Constitution. This is because the Constitution gives each state discretion on how electors are allocated (my emphasis):

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

The Compact simply provides for a state-level change away from the common, but not universal, “winner-take-all” system adopted by most states through the early 1800s. The Electoral College remains completely unchanged.

A huge benefit of a national popular vote is that it greatly diminishes the influence of so-called swing states like Ohio and Florida. It is no secret that presidential candidates pander to these states and visit them more frequently during the campaign (and even after taking office). The effect is that an individual’s vote in a swing state has far more influence on the election outcome than an individual’s vote in a non-swing state. A national popular vote levels the field—everyone’s vote contributes equally to the election outcome.

The prognosis looks good for a national popular vote by 2012. So far four states (HI, IL, MD, NJ) are in the Compact. Once Washington is on board, the member states will have 61 electors behind them. Five other states (CA, CO, MA, RI, and VT) have passed similar legislation and await a Governor’s signature. All but two states (ID and DE) have at least introduced the legislation, but even these two states have bills drafted. All this comes after about three years of effort.

More information on the state Compact and the national popular vote effort can be found here.

At yesterday’s pathetic Teabagging event at Westlake Center, anti-tax entrepreneur Tim Eyman told the small crowd of angry, confused white people:

“We can’t trust the politicians to decide how big the tax burden should be. People should decide because we are the ones paying the bill.”

And really, that’s all we’re talking about, isn’t it?  I’m not asking legislators to impose an income tax, I’m merely asking them to put the option on the ballot so that voters can decide for themselves.  Give voters a choice between accepting devastating cuts in crucial social services, paying for them with a sales tax increase, or paying for them with a high-earners income tax.

Just give voters a choice.  How could Tim, or anybody else, argue with that?