Archives for July 2010

Source: USDA (via TPM)

Why are Coke, Pepsi and the rest of the beverage industry spending millions of dollars to repeal Washington’s temporary tw0-cent per 12-ounce serving excise tax on carbonated beverages? Because, as this new USDA study confirms, raising taxes on sugary beverages does indeed decrease consumption.

Soda taxes are being pushed in states and cities nationwide, partially as revenue generators, and partially as public health measures, for as this USDA study also demonstrates, decreasing consumption of sugary beverages also decreases overall caloric consumption, leading to a substantial drop in obesity rates and its associated costs.

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

It’s basic economics really. Raise the cost of something nonessential, and consumers will purchase less of it.

Of course our two-cent per 12-ounce tax was mostly sold as a revenue measure, and only comes to more like an average 7 percent price increase, so we won’t see the same degree of public health benefit as that shown in the USDA study, but the I-1107 sponsors can’t have it both ways. They can’t oppose the initiative because it would decrease consumption of their product while at the same time dismissing the public health benefits of reduced consumption.

Make the nanny state argument if you like, but we regularly use our tax code to influence behavior (you know, like cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur investment). And with both our state and our nation is in the midst of an obesity epidemic, I can think of worse ways to fill our gaping budget hole than a tax on soda-pop.

For those brave souls who like to wade through the muck of HA’s comment threads, Effin Unsound is launching a contest to find the stupidest comment left every month either here or at any other northwest blog.

Please join us tonight for another Tuesday evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by earlier and join some of us for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 328 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

The Washington Farm Bureau came out with their primary election endorsements today, and they’re almost entirely Republican of course. For example, at the Federal level they endorsed Republicans John Koster (R), Jaime Herrera (R), Rep. Doc Hastings (R) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Congressional Districts respectively.

But what I found most interesting was this little comment on the U.S. Senate race:

No candidate for U.S. Senate received sufficient recommendations to allow for an endorsement.

And of course by “no candidate” what they really mean is Republican “Dino Rossi.”

So why did Rossi, who the Farm Bureau previously endorsed for governor, get snubbed when a do-nothing seat-warmer like Hastings easily gets the nod? Was there a large contingent of Clint Didier supporters? Or perhaps incumbent Sen. Patty Murray, who won the Friend of the Farm Bureau Award in 2009, has a few, um, friends on the Farm Bureau who appreciate her work on behalf of Washington’s agriculture industry?

Huh.

I had a nice relaxing Fourth of July weekend celebrating my freedom… the freedom from reading the Seattle Times. But now that the holiday is over I’m back to my usual grind, and oy is it particularly grinding today.

Take for example the front page, above-the-fold article on Sen. Patty Murray’s fundraising: “Lobbyists are Sen. Murray’s biggest donors.” Uh-huh. And your point is…?

The headline makes it sound nefarious, but the article, not so much. For example, we learn that back when she was first elected, Murray didn’t attract much money from lobbyists, but now that she’s a three-term incumbent, a top member of the Senate leadership, “one of only four people to sit on both the Senate budget and appropriations committees,” and a chair of two powerful Appropriations subcommittees, the tables have turned.

Well… duh-uh. It’d be professional malpractice for lobbyists not to give to Murray. Dog bites man, and all that.

And then there’s the Times expose of Murray’s big corporate donors, which includes following inexcusable muddle:

Microsoft is Murray’s top donor by contributor; its executives, employees and its PAC have given $131,000 since 2005 to Murray’s campaign and to M-PAC. The company just edged out the No. 2 contributor, ActBlue, a political-action committee that bundles individual donations to Democratic candidates.

Let’s be perfectly clear: ActBlue is no more a contributor to Murray than VISA or MasterCard, and to suggest otherwise is downright misleading. ActBlue is nothing more than tool — an “online clearinghouse for Democratic action” as its motto explains — used by campaigns, bloggers, activists and individuals to facilitate contributions, and you’d think Times reporter Kyung M. Song might want to explain that before implying otherwise.

As for Murray’s top contributors who really are top contributors, it’s kinda amazing that a newspaper so prone to licking the feet of Washington state corporate giants like Microsoft, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser would attempt to make an issue out of Murray receiving donations from Washington state corporate giants like Microsoft, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, especially while illustrating Murray’s reputation for fierce independence.

One donor was Tim Keating, Boeing’s senior vice president of government operations. Keating donated $2,400 to Murray in April 2009, shortly after the company privately briefed her that it likely would locate a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in Charleston, S.C., instead of in Everett.

Two months later, Keating gave Murray another $2,400. In October, Boeing announced Charleston as its pick. A furious Murray threatened to withhold her support for any Boeing projects beyond Washington’s borders.

Yup, that certainly sounds like Murray is in Boeing’s pockets.  Not.

Of course the big checks are gonna stand out, but Murray has received over 65,000 individual contributions so far this cycle, 85 percent of them from within Washington state, in an average amount of only $39.00. To put that in perspective, Murray will likely have more individual contributors this cycle than the allegedly grassrooty Clint Didier will receive votes.

Still, as long as the Times is focusing on this kinda stuff I’m assuming they’ll take an equally hard look at where Rossi has raised his money over the years, and where he’s raising it from now. You know, like the millions of dollars the BIAW has spent trying to elect him to the governor’s mansion, and whether Rossi’s refusal to state a position on Wall Street reform has anything to do with his recent fundraiser with hedge fund manager Paul Singer?

I mean if the the Times is as fair and balanced and objective as they claim to be, we’ll be seeing all that above the fold too, right?

Right?

I agree with the Seattle Times editorial board: “It’s time to end the pingpong match over the viaduct tunnel project.”

It’s much too dangerous to play a pingpong match over or under the earthquake damaged Alaska Way Viaduct. And who the hell schedules a sporting event in the middle of a freeway? What were the organizers thinking?

But once I got past that headline, the Times editors lost me:

To outsiders looking in, Seattle leaders have nothing better to do than play political pingpong on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Oh. Political pingpong.  I get it now. It was a metaphor.

But perhaps I was just distracted by the ed board’s mysterious claim of psychic powers:

State lawmakers approved the project, the governor favors it and the region — save for one activist mayor — considers the matter settled.

Hear that? Except for Mayor Mike McGinn, the entire region favors the Big Bore tunnel, even me! Wow. The Times must know me better than I do. Amazing.

Okay, all snark aside, there is a germ of an idea in the Times editorial that could be promoted to help settle this dispute — assuming the Times is at least as interested in ending this pingpong match as it is in flinging the paddles at the Mayor — and it has to do with the controversial cost overrun provision:

At issue for the mayor is language in state legislation that attempts to lay potential cost overruns on an ill-defined group of Seattle area property owners who benefit from the project. McGinn seeks language in contracts with the state that delay the project until the Legislature changes the legislation.

The Legislature will not reconvene for certain until January and is not inclined to eliminate that verbiage because the governor, city attorney and most of the City Council consider it unenforceable.

[…] It is interesting to note the state legislation attempting to take the unprecedented move of dumping overruns on a city through which one of its roadway passes never mentions the city of Seattle as a corporate entity. That more than suggests it would be difficult to sue the city.

The Times goes on to suggest that if Mayor McGinn won’t sign the contracts, then Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin should sign them instead, despite the fact that it’s not at all clear he has that authority. But as long as the Times is demanding that the Council take the initiative in the ed board’s campaign to embarrass and diminish the Mayor, why not instead use the cost overrun issue to promote unity?

Why not suggest that the Council pass a motion rejecting the cost overrun provision, declaring that it will not authorize city funds to be used for that purpose, and will not authorize any taxes or taxing districts to collect such funds? If the provision is really as illegal and unenforceable as the Times suggests, then why not have the Council back up the Mayor on this issue, and allow our city government to speak with one voice in defense of city taxpayers? I mean, if the provision is as meaningless as the Times suggests, why not move this thing forward by allowing the Mayor to save a little face?

Of course, if Mayor McGinn still refuses to sign the contracts, then he’ll have backed himself into a corner. But he’s not there yet, so the smart political thing to do would be to create a scenario in which everybody can be a winner.

Unfortunately, I’m guessing the Times’ politics are about as smart as its headlines.

(From Clusterstock and CBPP, via Daily Kos)

Republicans in Congress are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits because, they claim, it would add too much to the current budget deficit. So, in the same interest, will they also let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year?

I just drove back from Oregon (FYI, stop and go traffic for much of the way from Chehalis through Tacoma), and if elections were decided by giant signs along the freeway, Clint Didier would have this U.S. Senate race pretty much wrapped up, at least in Southwest Washington.

The Wall Street Journal has a really good piece of reporting on a way that the federal government actively encourages local police departments to waste money:

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, his budget under pressure in a weak economy, has laid off staff, reduced patrols and even released jail inmates. But there’s one mission on which he’s spending more than in recent years: pot busts.

The reason is simple: If he steps up his pursuit of marijuana growers, his department is eligible for roughly half a million dollars a year in federal anti-drug funding, helping save some jobs. The majority of the funding would have to be used to fight pot. Marijuana may not be the county’s most pressing crime problem, the sheriff says, but “it’s where the money is.”

Washington has long allocated funds to help localities fight crime, influencing their priorities in the process. Today’s local budget squeezes are enhancing this effect, and the result is particularly striking in California, where many residents take a benign view of pot but federal dollars help keep law-enforcement focused on it.

Read the whole article here.

Last week’s contest was won by Trip – who guessed the correct location of Australia’s Parliament House in Canberra – and wes.in.wa who provided the link here. Last week, Australia welcomed its first female Prime Minister.

Have a happy and safe Independence Day everyone! Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.

Discuss.

Washingtonians won’t be voting on marijuana legalization this year, but Californians still will. Proposition 19 will be on the November ballot and it picked up a big endorsement this week (via Pete Guither):

Saying that prohibition takes a heavy toll on minorities, leaders of the NAACP’s California chapter announced Monday that they are backing passage of a marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot.

The war on drugs is a failure and disproportionately targets young men and women of color, particularly African-American males, said Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP’s state conference.

This caused a Sacramento minister by the name of Ron Allen to put out a press release attacking the NAACP [emphasis mine]:

Bishop Ron Allen says, “It is time to take a closer look at how decisions are made at the California NAACP and what the contributing factors were that caused Alice Huffman to side with Proposition 19. California NAACP President Alice Huffman is selling out the very people that the NAACP has a history of protecting. She has been bought and paid for by the highest bidder, in this case it is George Soros, his Open Society Institute and the Soros Foundation Network. We know Soros is a major contributor to the NAACP and he is a primary funding source for the legalization of marijuana worldwide. With Huffman’s position on legalization, she is destroying the good work the NAACP has done for the African American people, and she is discrediting the good name of the NAACP. She has sold us out for her personal financial gain and I call for her immediate resignation. Alice Huffman, step down as the President of the California NAACP now and restore its good name.”

Allen continues, “As a NAACP member, I call for an internal investigation as to the NAACP’s ties to the marijuana lobby.”

I think Allen might be able to find his answer right here:

A look at booking stats for California’s 25 most-populated areas finds that in Los Angeles County African-Americans have a marijuana-possession arrest rate that’s 332 percent higher than that for whites.

The report, “Targeting Blacks For Marijuana,” was released this week and found that across those 25 largest counties the pot-holding arrest rate for blacks was often at least double that of whites despite evidence that indicates African-Americans use cannabis at a lower rate. In L.A. County the percentage was more than quadruple.

Anyone who’s been involved in drug law reform for some time is well familiar with the odd contradiction that occurs in many African-American neighborhoods. Despite being the most negatively impacted by the downstream effects of marijuana prohibition – from the violence of drug gangs to the disproportionate numbers of people within those neighborhoods who end up in jail – many of the leading voices within these communities cling to the belief that the drug war is both moral and necessary. But the impact of these racial disparities and the increased divide between African-American neighborhoods and the rest of America has made the truth of prohibition’s impact too hard to ignore.

During our failed American experiment with alcohol prohibition, a major milestone in its eventual repeal was when New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia began pointing out how devastating it was to New York’s large immigrant communities. The NAACP’s endorsement of Proposition 19 is an important milestone in this fight.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer entered a new level of WTF this week:

Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer suggested earlier this week that law enforcement agencies in her home state have discovered “bodies in the desert” either “buried or beheaded” in addressing crime related to illegal immigration; however, local agencies say they have never come across the cases she described.

Brewer made the claim in during an interview with local NBC affiliate 12 News. “Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded,” she said.

Brewer’s claims are pure fiction, as the Arizona Guardian points out that none of the state’s county coroners have ever heard of such a case.

That didn’t stop Brewer’s spokesman from doubling down on the bullshit:

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman didn’t waste any time in firing back at the factual challenge to the Arizona Governor’s remarks. “Even a cursory check of news stories on the internet suggests otherwise,” he said.

Senseman is likely referring to incidents like this or this or this, none of which occurred in Arizona and none of which have anything at all to do with illegal immigration. This is just another attempt by Brewer to blur the lines between illegal immigration and the drug war, two very separate problems that have two very separate solutions.

What’s profoundly sad about what’s happening in Arizona is that Brewer’s opponent this year in the gubernatorial election is Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General who has acknowledged that we need to have a debate about marijuana legalization as a potential way to deal with the violence of drug cartels – but is trailing in the polls. Arizonans are rightfully fed up with the illegal immigration problem, but lumping together the failures of our drug war with the problem of illegal immigration in order to defend draconian laws and anti-Mexican sentiment does little to get the rest of the country to sympathize.

(And there are 45 more clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

In a blow to Attorney General Rob McKenna’s broad claim of discretionary authority, the Washington State Supreme Court today granted review to City of Seattle v. Robert M. McKenna, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes petition to compel McKenna to withdraw from the federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of key health care reform provisions.

In granting review, Supreme Court Commissioner Steven Goff not only rejects McKenna’s multiple proposed grounds for dismissing the petition (that there’s no original jurisdiction, that there’s no justiciable controversy, that Holmes lacks standing and that there’s no claim upon which relief can be granted), he also affirms a major premise behind Holmes argument that the Attorney General lacks authority to participate as plaintiff in a lawsuit independent of state officer client:

The Washington Constitution provides that the attorney general “shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.” CONST. art. 3, § 21. When language of this sort is used in a constitution to describe the powers or authority of a state official, the official does not have the common law powers that might be associated with such an office, but only the powers expressly given by the legislature. … Thus, this court has stated that “[t]he powers of the Attorney General are created and limited not by the common law but by the law enacted by the people, either in their constitutional declarations or through legislative declarations in pursuance of constitutional provisions.”

Sound familiar? Of course, that’s exactly what I’ve been arguing (for example, here and here) in my comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding Goldmark v. McKenna, Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark’s petition to compel McKenna to provide statutorily mandated legal representation.

McKenna has repeatedly cited a broader duty to defend both the public interest and the interests of the state as a whole, as the basis for claiming discretionary authority to refuse an otherwise lawful request for legal representation from a state officer client, but such discretion would appear to contradict the plain language of the statutes. Thus if the Court affirms the relatively narrow interpretation of the Attorney General’s powers, as stated above by Commissioner Goff, it is hard to see how McKenna can prevail against Goldmark.

A hearing on Seattle v. McKenna is not scheduled until Nov. 18, with briefs due  beginning in August, but with Goldmark v. McKenna likely to be expedited to accommodate the tighter schedule of the appeal that sparked it, some of the main issues in the former case may be settled by the latter, far in advance of oral arguments. And while it would be a mistake to draw too many parallels between the cases, there is no question that the two overlap, in that they both challenge McKenna’s shaky claim to broad extra-statutory powers.