Goldy

I’m in a Machiavellian mood today, so as long as I’m giving free advice to Democrats and Democratic constituency groups, I thought I’d offer my own prescription for countering the BIAW and the millions of dollars of workers compensation money they spend each year on right-wing candidates and causes. (You know, like the big bucks they’re investing in Susan Hutchison’s campaign.)

Put Retro reform on the ballot.

Understand, I’m not saying you need to actually pass Retro reform, just put it on the ballot — year after year after year after year — thus forcing BIAW to spend their kitty defending their cash cow.

Preferably, the Democrats in the legislature would have the balls to muster enough votes to put a Retro reform measure before voters, because that essentially costs our side nothing. But for about half a million dollars or so, and a little bit of union organizing, it could easily be done by initiative.

The money it skims from Retro comprises the bulk of the money BIAW spends on political campaigns, thus any year in which BIAW is forced to defend its livelihood is another year in which it is taken out of the game. And following the Eyman model, our side doesn’t have to spend anything pushing the measure. If it fails, we just run it again. If it passes, bye-bye BIAW.

Or, of course, Democrats and their progressive constituency groups can continue doing what we’ve been doing for years, spending millions of dollars annually on the defensive, exhausting our resources fighting right-wing measures in lieu of pushing forward our own agenda.

Doesn’t seem like a very tough choice to me.

Apparently, negotiations have been hot and heavy over a Boeing demand that the Machinists union agree to a no-strike clause, or risk the company moving 787 assembly to South Carolina. But…

… less than a week ahead of a Boeing board meeting to discuss the choice, the labor talks are deadlocked and hindered by distrust on each side, according to a high-level person close to the negotiations.

Really? The Machinists distrust Boeing? Could it have anything to do with the company’s demand that the union give up the only real collective bargaining lever it has?

Anyway, given the tone and tension of the negotiations, here’s my carefully considered recommendation for how to settle this seemingly intractable dispute. The Machinists union should agree to Boeing’s ridiculous demand for a no-strike clause. And then, if as feared, Boeing refuses to negotiate the subsequent contract in good faith, they should strike anyway.

Some might argue that such an approach would be dishonest and disrespectful, but, well, Boeing set the tone for these negotiations, so why should the Machinists treat the company with any more sincerity than the company has treated them?

And besides, this way everybody wins. Boeing executives get to save face and claim victory in beating down the unions, all the while keeping production where economically it makes most sense… the Machinists get to keep their jobs while giving up nothing substantive in return… and in the end, nothing really changes but the bragging rights.

I’d make a helluva diplomat, wouldn’t I?

Susan Hutchison says she supports light rail… but not the one we’re building out to the Eastside, and certainly not the light rail approved by 62 percent of King County voters last November.

In supporting Kemper Freeman’s lawsuit to block Sound Transit’s access to I-90, and in arguing against crossing I-90 but for choosing a 520 route instead, Hutchison is clearly stating her intent to obstruct ST’s efforts to build the line approved by voters. And with the county Executive appointing 10 of the 17 seats on ST’s board, don’t think she can’t do it.

Now I know there are many folks who would prefer a 520 alignment (for example, Darryl commutes from Redmond to the UW, so it would work out great for him), but if wishes were horses beggars would ride and all that… and they certainly wouldn’t be riding the train. I myself would have preferred a South Seattle alignment that went down Rainier AVE, and included a stop at S. Graham ST, but, well, you know, screw me.

The point is, as the transit wonks at Seattle Transit Blog explain in their usual wonky detail, the cross-lake issue has already been studied, debated and deliberated ad infinitum, and no amount of wanting or wishing would make the 520 alignment any more feasible. It would be more expensive, would take longer to build, and would generate less ridership and revenue than the I-90 route. And, the University Link tunnel simply wouldn’t have the capacity to handle all the extra north-south traffic.

But most importantly, moving light rail to a new 520 bridge span would put off construction by years, dramatically raising costs, and potentially killing the project altogether. A project, by the way, that voters overwhelmingly approved, knowing it would cross I-90.

After Sound Transit’s initial birth pains, its early mismanagement and poor projections, the Central Link line nearly died on the drawing board too. And it would have, if not for the willingness of elected officials like Ron Sims, Greg Nickels, Larry Phillips and yes, Dow Constantine to stick their necks out and spend political capital in defense of what many others at the time had already written off as a doomed vision.

Leadership matters, and in speaking out against the I-90 alignment while endorsing the Washington Policy Center’s anti-transit prescriptions and embracing the patronage of racist, anti-light-rail xenophobe Kemper Freeman, Hutchison has clearly signaled her intent to lead the effort in undermining ST’s voter-approved Eastside expansion.

So if you supported last year’s transit measure, and support building rail to the Eastside, vote for Constantine. Otherwise, a vote for Hutchison is clearly a vote to kill East Link, whether she’s willing to come out and say it or not.

Susan Hutchison is on the record as saying light rail to the airport was unnecessary because it’s faster and easier to take a cab, but she isn’t getting much love from the Seattle Taxi Owners Association after falsely claiming during yesterday’s KING-5 debate that she enjoyed the endorsement of taxicab drivers. In fact, they’re downright pissed off.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Susan Hutchison is a liar.

Ouch. If I were Suzie, I might want to take the train next time I was headed to the airport.

As reported on Open Left, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has tallied at least 210 firm votes in support of a robust public option, just a handful shy of the 218 needed for passage. And in an effort to whip up the votes in anticipation of a caucus meeting tonight, the House leadership has produced a target list of the undecideds.

Surprisingly, two Washington Democrats have found themselves on the undecided list, Rep. Brian Baird (WA-03) and Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02). Surprising, because polls consistently show a public option enjoying strong support in Washington state and nationwide.

So, assuming Baird and Larsen really are having trouble making up their minds, they sure could use some help from their constituents. Call the Congressional Switchboard at 1-866-220-0044, and ask to speak to your representative, then urge them to support a robust public option if they want your robust support next November.

Again, isn’t it ironic that Darcy Burner is having a greater impact in the health care debate than Dave Reichert.

I guess somebody forgot to tell Apple there’s a recession going on.

Defying the struggling economy and crushing Wall Street’s expectations, Apple delivered its best quarter ever, setting record unit sales of both iPhones and Macs, and producing its largest profit in history: at $1.67 billion, a 46-percent increase over the year ago quarter.

Now to be honest, I’ve long been a bit of an Apple fanboy, and an admirer of CEO Steve Jobs obvious genius. While I’ve developed, published and supported software for both Mac and Windows PCs, and am quite comfortable working in a Windows environment, the Mac has been my platform of choice at home for over two decades, and when given the option, at work as well. And with Apple’s share price now hovering near an all time high, the couple hundred or so shares I own in my IRA comprise my single largest asset outside the equity in my home, and by far my best investment ever. (I bought in October of 2001. You do the math.)

But this post isn’t meant to be one of those partisan Apple vs. Microsoft things, for while I love Apple’s products, and have personally profited from its stunning revival, I fully understand that it is just another amoral corporation, whose primary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Rather, I thought I’d use Apple’s earnings report as a springboard for making a brief comment on the likely future of Boeing here in Washington state.

On the back of my beloved iPhone, and I suppose on every other piece of Apple hardware these days, is stamped the pronouncement: “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” Apple used to proudly tout its state of the art US manufacturing facilities, but shuttered its last major domestic plant in 2004. Nowadays it appears that all of the company’s manufacturing is contracted out to third parties, mostly in Taiwan and China. (Apple is infamously secretive to the point of paranoia, so it’s hard to say for sure.)

Apple sold 3.05 million Macs, 7.4 million iPhones and 10.2 million iPods in the last quarter, and I’m not sure they own and operate a single factory. Yet they still manage to maintain some of the highest margins in the industry.

From a shareholder’s perspective, it’s hard to argue with that kinda success.

Now apply that same sort of logic to Boeing, and you get a pretty good idea of where its local manufacturing jobs may be headed.

Of course, jetliners aren’t mass produced, so it would be wrong to make too direct a comparison, but anybody who thinks a sense of corporate citizenship is going to push Boeing executives to keep manufacturing jobs here in Washington state is smoking crack. Nor should we expect the recent meltdown in Boeing’s outsourcing strategy to dramatically alter the company’s long term manufacturing plans.

Boeing is intent on moving production to where labor is cheapest, be it South Carolina, or ultimately, China. That’s what Boeing executives believe it takes to compete in today’s global market, and that’s what they believe they need to do to maximize shareholder value. And there’s nothing we can do to stop them.

So the question is… are Boeing executives right?

Apple excels at innovation, engineering, industrial design and marketing — some of which Boeing itself hasn’t been too shabby at over recent decades — but apart from a few custom chips and case moldings, Apple’s products are largely assembled from commodity components using standard, if generally cutting edge manufacturing techniques. But when Boeing designs a new airplane, it also designs many of its basic components, sometimes right down to the individual rivet. Meanwhile building an airplane is much more labor intensive, and requires many more specialized skills than, say, assembling an iPhone.

But of course the biggest difference between Apple and Boeing is the acceptable level of quality control. When a Mac crashes, the worst case scenario is you lose a little data. But when an airplane crashes… well, I don’t need to draw you picture.

That said, the possibility of outsourcing components, and possibly even final assembly to low cost contractors, wherever they may be, must be awfully compelling to Boeing, especially considering that this option is not nearly as available to its primary competitor, Airbus.

Think about it. Airbus was conceived and subsidized primarily as a jobs program for its European partners, so with the tens of billions of taxpayer euros invested in the venture, it’s hard to imagine the political will necessary to export these high wage manufacturing jobs to China or anywhere else. Boeing on the other hand is unburdened by such demands, putting it at a distinct competitive advantage should it successfully execute its outsourcing strategy.

That it is, assuming, Boeing’s primary competitor really is Airbus.

Like I said, Apple excels at innovation, engineering, industrial design and marketing, skills its Chinese manufacturing partners have yet to master, but which are absolutely critical to successfully selling consumer products with short product life cycles in a crowded global market. Transferring the technology necessary to enable a contractor to assemble an iPod doesn’t give this manufacturer the skills and know-how necessary to create a product that can compete with the iPod and the iTunes ecosystem Apple has built around it.

But the same may not be true of the Chinese aviation industry Boeing will increasingly be forced to partner with as it pursues a business strategy contingent on substantially lowering its cost of production. Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China has already announced ambitious plans to launch a 737 competitor by 2016, and any technology Boeing transfers to mutual suppliers and partners will only make this goal more achievable. Furthermore, with much of the anticipated growth in commercial aviation expected to take place in China itself, the Chinese government backed Comac already has a captive customer in the Chinese government backed airlines that dominate the market.

So, can Boeing successfully transition itself to an outsourced manufacturing model without losing market share to its low-wage partners? Will we eventually see a Boeing airplane stamped “Designed by Boeing in Washington. Assembled in China”…? And if Boeing does manage to leverage its innovation, engineering and design prowess to retain its position as a market leader, even while jettisoning the bulk of its manufacturing infrastructure, what will this mean for Washington state?

I don’t know. But given Boeing’s apparent eagerness to move production out of state, it sure does look like we’re eventually gonna find out.

Yesterday, in admitting my decision to vote for Mike McGinn (I don’t like to do “endorsements” per se), I questioned some of his political judgement, specifically: “I still think his unwavering opposition to the tunnel loses him more votes than it wins him.”

And lo and behold, a few hours later, McGinn backtracks his previously intractable stance against the tunnel, explaining to Publicola:

“I still oppose the tunnel. I think it’s a terrible decision for the city of Seattle. My statement is a simple acknowledgment of how the Democratic process works. The mayor is obligated to follow a 9-0 vote of the council. It’s not an option for the mayor to just ignore legislation.

I’ve consistently been against the tunnel. I remain opposed. Yesterday, I acknowledged that it’s not the mayor’s job to ignore legislation passed by the council.”

Huh. Maybe there’s a political advisor job waiting for me in the McGinn administration?

Don’t get me wrong, I too opposed the tunnel, convinced that a surface/transit option was the best alternative given current financial constraints, but I’m not so opposed to it that I’d be willing to indefinitely block the Viaduct replacement until the crumbling freeway fell down on its own. Yeah, the Big Bore is overly expensive, possibly unnecessary, and as the least engineered and studied of all the proposals, by far the most financially risky option that could have been adopted, but there’s no debating that it enjoys overwhelming support within our political establishment, and, well, sometimes, you just can’t fight City Hall… even from City Hall.

I’ve never doubted McGinn’s ability to throw a hefty monkey wrench into the works, but blocking Seattle from moving on something is a helluva lot easier than pushing it to move in another direction, and I just didn’t see how McGinn was going to get us from here to there. McGinn’s admission that a 9-0 council vote (not to mention the pro-tunnel stance of the governor and the legislature) is not something a mayor is likely to overcome shows a pragmatic side that I wasn’t sure he had coming into this campaign, and should help assuage the concerns of some who feared a vote for McGinn would be a vote for gridlock, both figuratively and literally. Though considering the establishment support Joe Mallahan has garnered, it may be too late.

We’re going to build the tunnel, regardless of who’s in the mayor’s office, but with the question of cost overruns still on the table, I’m a lot more comfortable having McGinn defending the interests of Seattle taxpayers than Mallahan.

In the last SurveyUSA poll, Susan Hutchison was still receiving support from 33% of Democrats, a clear indication that many, many voters still don’t know who she is and what she stands for. I hope this ad has enough money behind it to help change that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgj0FbPxSiY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Anybody who has followed my coverage of the Seattle mayor’s race may be surprised to learn that I’m voting for Mike McGinn.

I haven’t been particularly kind to McGinn over the past six months or so, and apart from what I admit to be a surprisingly successful grassroots campaign, he hasn’t done much to change my opinion of him as a politician. But then, neither has Joe Mallahan, and given the choice between grassroots and no roots, I’m going with the former.

While it is far from a perfect test, how one runs a political campaign is somewhat of an indicator of how one might run the office being sought. It’s not supposed to be easy, and how one gets through the daily grind of fundraising and organizing and debates and interviews and all that, both says a lot about the candidate, and helps prepare him or her for the daily grind of office.

In that sense, the quarter of a million dollars or so that Mallahan has pumped into his own campaign has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because without it, he never would have been taken a seriously as a candidate. A curse, because his lazy reliance on his own money appears to have short-circuited his development as a politician.

There are few politicians who truly enjoy “call time” or relish the thought of knocking on thousands upon thousands of doors, but nearly all will tell you that these activities make you a better candidate, because when you spend hours a day talking to voters and/or (gasp) asking for money, you also spend hours a day listening to voters’ concerns. Read all the position papers you want, hire the best consultants to draft your talking points, but nobody can educate you better about the issues than the voters themselves.

But with his own money to backstop his campaign, Mallahan never had to do the kind of call time typical of a citywide race, and it shows. He didn’t appear well-informed about city issues back when he declared, and he doesn’t appear much better informed now. He simply hasn’t grown as a candidate, and that doesn’t bode well for a novice politician seeking the mayor’s office.

As for McGinn, well, I don’t take back anything I haven’t already taken back about what I’ve previously written, and I still sincerely question his ability to work and play well with others. But as impolitic as he’s sometimes been (I still think his unwavering opposition to the tunnel loses him more votes than it wins him), he’s also proven to be thoughtful and at times even flexible. But mostly, like I said, you’ve just got to give him credit for running such a successful, largely grassroots campaign.

That shows political skill, and an enormous amount of hard work, something Mallahan has failed to demonstrate. And while McGinn remains a risky choice, he shows a much greater degree of political upside. No, he hasn’t come anywhere close to throwing a knockout punch, but if this race were a boxing match, McGinn would clearly be winning on points.

So for what it’s worth I’m voting for Mike McGinn, which considering my level of skepticism entering the race, says as much about his opponent as it does of him.