Goldy

With Sarah Palin arguing that a handful of 13-year-old emails are enough to discredit and refute the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) hits back with perhaps the best quote of the day:

“Before Sarah Palin writes a book, she should try reading a few,” said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who followed up with a series of peer-reviewed reports on rising sea levels, air temperatures and ocean acidity.

Ouch.

Just shows how desperate the climate change deniers are when Palin has become their most visible champion.

Here’s a free tip to those Seattle-haters in the rest of the state who just love to screw us big city folks:  pass a high-earners income tax.

Really. Pass it. I mean, honestly, let’s say we levy an income tax on household earnings in excess of $500,000 a year… who do think’s gonna pay most of it? You guessed it: folks right here in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs. This is the part of the state where most of the wealth is, and where most of the high paying jobs are, so the reluctance of voters elsewhere to tax us to pay for the things they need (you know, like levy-equalization) is, well, just plain stupid.

And you’re not stupid, are you?

I hate to make it “Dump on Joel Week,” and I’ve got no big quibbles with the rest of his column, but this is the sort of conventional wisdom that really ticks me off:

A tireless practitioner of town meetings, Baird had a grip on his southwest Washington district, which twice voted for President Bush. The political turf began to move beneath him last summer as tea baggers showed up at once-cordial sessions with voters.

Joel could easily have written that the political turf began to move beneath Baird in 2008 when he angered Democrats by providing political cover for President Bush’s policies in Iraq… but Joel didn’t. Why? Because protests and discontent from the left are generally dismissed by the legacy press, whereas the breadth and impact of right-wing hissy-fits like those from the tea baggers are generally exaggerated.

The implication is that a handful of angry tea baggers played a major role in driving a congressman out of office, while the growing disaffection for Baird from within the base of his own party had absolutely no impact on his decision.

It’s a double standard that distorts the public debate, and… well… just really sticks in my craw.

There is one cut in Gov. Gregoire’s preliminary all-cuts budget proposal that the Seattle Times opposes:

The proposed cut the governor would buy back, and that we would, too, is in levy-equalization money for public schools. This is money that keeps a minimum level of schooling in property-poor districts. This page has long believed that the first and best social program is education.

Hmm. I agree that levy-equalization is good public policy. Unfortunately, I wonder if it’s bad politics?

The problem is, many of those “property-poor” districts who benefit most from levy-equalization are also those whose voters most reliably oppose giving state government the necessary taxing authority to pay for things like, you know, levy-equalization.

Understand, this is money that comes out of the pockets of taxpayers in property-rich (?) districts like Seattle and the Eastside suburbs. And for the most part, we don’t mind, because we’re good progressives who support progressive policies like levy-equalization. But when the rest of the state won’t allow us to tax ourselves to pay for the level of education our children want and need, well, that kinda throws a kink in the whole social contract thing.

So perhaps, if the state cuts off levy-equalization, maybe folks in these property-poor districts will think twice before voting against the tax hikes necessary to pay for it? Perhaps the loss of crucial levy-equalization money might create a broader statewide consensus supporting adequate K-12 education funding? Perhaps subsidies like levy-equalization undermine support for tax structure reform the same way Medicare undermines support for health care reform amongst the elderly?

Perhaps.

The Seattle Times editorial board likes Gov. Gregoire’s initial all-cuts budget so much, they wish many of the cuts would go even further.

THOUGH Gov. Chris Gregoire does not like her no-new-taxes state budget, and would buy back some of the cuts with taxes, the budget has a good deal of merit in it. Perhaps we like it more than she does. […] There are other cuts we would buy back, but many will have to be accepted. State government as constituted today is more than the people can afford.

Of course, I’m guessing, if subjected to a popular vote of the people, the Times’ editors couldn’t even win election to their own editorial board, let alone the Legislature, so it’s hard to imagine why anybody would take their relentlessly anti-tax opinions seriously.

(Oh, and a style tip to the Times editorial writers… unselfconscious use of the royal ‘we’ makes us sound like an asshole. And we wonder why young people don’t read newspapers anymore?)

U.S. Congressman Brian Baird (WA-03), who has recently become a favorite punching bag of local progressives (you know who I’m talking about, Jon), just announced that he will not seek reelection in 2010.

The time has now come to pursue other options, other ways of serving.   Hence, I am announcing today that I do not intend to seek reelection to Congress in 2010.  This is not an easy decision to be sure, but I believe it is the right decision at the right time.

One can only assume that those “other options” include becoming the Government Relations Director for some industry association or another, a much less demanding and much, much better paying gig than the U.S. House of Representatives.

WA-03 isn’t close to being a safe Democratic district (hell, I’m not even sure it is a Democratic district) so we’re likely to see an awfully competitive race in both parties to succeed Baird. I couldn’t begin to pick favorites on the Democratic side, but I’m rooting for State Rep. “Angry Ed” Orcutt to grab the Republican nomination, if only because he’d likely be the most fun to abuse.

As legislators struggle to close a 2.6 billion hole in this year’s budget, perhaps part of the solution might be to close loopholes like the billion dollar tax dodge Microsoft has been exploiting.  More information at MicrosoftTaxDodge.com.

A few years back, in covering the school closure controversy, I once quipped to a local elected official that the real problem with the city’s middle schools was all those damn middle school aged kids. If we could only get rid of all the students, I joked, the schools themselves wouldn’t be half bad, and there would certainly be a helluva lot more equity between them.

But I was joking.

The Seattle Times editorial board apparently is not, when they once again suggest that Boeing would be better off if they could only get rid of all those damn workers. Or something like that.

“Past strikes continue to influence Boeing decisions,” the Times headline reads, as the editors, as usual, blame organized labor for all of Boeings’ woes, including its misguided low-wage strategy.

A curious outsider might question the logic of Times editors who relentlessly berate the Machinists Union for costing the region jobs, while showing zero empathy for the workers whose jobs were lost, but it’s not cognitive dissonance that’s reflected in this morning’s headline as much as it is projection. For those of us familiar with the editorial page know full well that it’s Times publisher Frank Blethen’s own PTSD (Post Traumatic Strike Disorder) that has colored his paper’s negative coverage of labor issues ever since 2000’s contentious Newspaper Guild strike.

If Blethen and his editors really cared more about the economic welfare of our region than licking their own bitter wounds, they might have used their waning influence to urge Boeing executives to keep 787 assembly in the hands of the skilled workers who have built the company. Instead, they chose to provide cover to Boeing and it’s South Carolina strategy every step of the way, if not actively cheer them on.

Yesterday, I once again made the argument for legalizing marijuana and taxing the hell out of it. Today, Publicola reports that Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson is collecting co-sponsors on a bill that would do exactly that.

How’s this for a magical pot of revenue to help fix the state’s $2.6 billion shortfall? Seattle state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) is collecting co-sponsors for a bill that would legalize marijuana. And tax it.

This is not a fringe proposal folks, and it’s past time to seriously debate it.

UPDATE [Lee]: The bill can be read here. I’ll be posting more about it later this week.

I’m in a meeting all day (and I mean all day… I hope my dog’s bladder is big enough), so it’s unlikely I’ll be doing much if any posting today.

Talk amongst yourselves.

The Washington State Bar Association has endorsed a bill that would decriminalize simple marijuana possession, reducing the maximum punishment from the current $1000 fine and 90 days in jail, to a $100 ticket.

Well… um… yawn.

It’s not that I don’t support the WSBA’s resolution, it’s just that it’s hard to get excited about a half-measure that’s at least twenty years behind the times, and fails to take full advantage of a budget crisis that could force legislators to take a new and creative look at our state’s antiquated drug policies. For as I’ve previously argued, it’s time to fully legalize marijuana, and sell it through our state stores.

Other states may be further along the political path toward de facto legalization, but no other state, with the exception of my native Pennsylvania, has a more robust system already in place for effectively executing it. Washington already heavily regulates the in-state manufacture of wine, beer and distilled spirits, and maintains an extensive statewide network of retail stores and distribution centers for the sole purpose of operating its exclusive monopoly on the retail sale of liquor. A similar monopoly on the legal sale of marijuana would not only be easily implemented, but highly profitable for taxpayers and state farmers alike.

At an estimated street value of over $1 billion a year, marijuana is already Washington’s number two cash crop, second only to apples, and consistently ranking us among the top five pot-producing states.  By legalizing and regulating a crop that is already being grown, the state could impose standards of consistency and quality on the product, and by setting prices as the only legal buyer for the crop, farmers could be assured a stable, legal income for their efforts.

And considering the existing federal ban on marijuana, and the federal government’s constitutional authority over interstate commerce, Washington’s State Stores, by necessity, would initially only be able to buy and sell state-grown product, thus nurturing a nascent hemp industry that would eventually produce a valuable export commodity once the ban is lifted nationally, perhaps even dominating the market.

According to the Office of Financial Management, decriminalizing marijuana could save state and local authorities as much as $16 million a year in law enforcement resources. But regulated growing, and a State Store monopoly, could contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local coffers, with plenty left over to dramatically expand our treatment and prevention programs.

As Lee has extensively documented here on HA, our nation’s war on pot is an abject failure. It’s time for our nation to accept the reality that tens of millions of Americans choose to enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. And what better place to start than here in Washington state?

I guess as a Republican member of our “nonpartisan” King County Council, Jane Hague has an obligation to help out the King County Republican Party. But considering her own DUI problems, you gotta wonder if she was drunk at the time she contributed the following item to the KCGOP’s recent 2009 Liberty Dinner Auction:

“You can enjoy these tonight!”…? I mean, come on… I know Republicans tend to lack any sense of irony, but that’s just a setup in search of a punch line.

The estate tax is in the news again, and (surprise!) the Seattle Times is editorializing against it:

The supporters of this tax, which we call the death tax, like to talk about rich bankers, entertainers and other upper crustaceans who die with a moraine of stocks, bonds, cash and title deeds to ten-bathroom palaces. If these were the only payers of this tax, we might heartily support it.

The opponents of this tax, who we call the Blethen family, apparently would have no problem applying this tax to the estates of bankers and entertainers — you know, folks who supposedly earned their fortunes rather than inheriting it through multiple generations — they just don’t want to pay it themselves. So much for ideological consistency let alone the moral high ground. (Oh, and the next time an editorialist accuses somebody like me of advocating class warfare, I’ll be sure to remember that quote.)

The death-tax bill now goes to the Senate. We implore our senators to lighten the load of it, or to pass a one-year extension and save this issue until after the 2010 elections.

Yes, the issue should be put aside until after Republicans have a chance to gain some seats in 2010, and unless Sen. Patty Murray supports this self-serving proposal, the Times will no doubt endorse her opponent, no matter how unqualified.

Personally, if I were Frank, I’d be wary of any delays. Under current law the estate tax temporarily falls to zero in 2010, before rising to 55% in 2011. Assuming the family business is actually worth something (and 49.5% stakeholder McClatchy seems to think it isn’t,) the fifth generation heirs might just off the family patriarch in order to save a bundle on their tax bills.

And if they did, they’d have come by their mercenary ways honestly.

Over at Publicola, Erica documents Rep. Dave Reichert’s many public statements in opposition to President Obama’s economic stimulus package, which, drawing upon his vast expertise as an economist sheriff, Reichert has repeatedly predicted would fail at its primary goal: creating jobs.

Oops.

This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that the stimulus package had created between 600,000 and 1.6 million new jobs, and raised the US gross domestic product by 1.2 to 3.2 percentage points above what would have been without the program.

Moreover, in the New York Times last month, several prominent economists argued that the stimulus had helped the economy, by creating jobs and hastening the end of the recession.

If only Sheriff Dave had the brains to match his brawn.

Amanda Knox found guilty; sentenced to 26 years. Talk amongst yourselves.